Karate Kata and Grappling/Grabbing

[TommyK]

Greetings,

I do the entire series of the Pyan (Pinan/Heian) kata, and I need to learn more about the original intent of these kata and where the grappling/grabbing portions are.

I find many of the moves 'interesting' to say the least, and cannot explain why someone would make that movement/block/strike in response to xxxx.

Can someone direct me to books, articles, etc. where these portions are explained and where and when did some of the leading 'fathers' of karate say these grappling/grabbing moves are either part of the kata or used to be.

I recently read somewhere where the Founder of Shotokan downplayed the grappling when the art was intorduced to Japan, so that it would not conflict with native samurai grappling systems. If this thread has appeared before, forgive me.

All serious replies are sincerely appreciated.

Thank you and regards,
TommyK

[kusanku]

Unfortunately, Anko Itosu, creator of the Pinan Kata, left no notes on the applications of his kata.Funakoshi in Karate Do Kyohan and its predecesors, however, did mention some grappling technieus, and throws, and said to find more, refer to basic kata.

Since the Pinan Kata are arguably derived from such more ancient forms as the Chatan Yara Kusanku, Daddy of all Kusanku.kanku kata, and since that form, too, has no notes left by its creator whoever that actually was,applications are pretty much up in the air, up for grabs so to speak.:-)

Now, despite the fact, hotly contested by some, that applications have been handed down for many moves in many kata including Pinan,by some Okinawan and Japanese sensei, including direct students of Itosu , like Kenwa Mabuni, Founder of Shito Ryu, and despite the fact that some Okinawan teachers also teach these same and other apps, it cannot be actually proven that these were Itosu's actual intent as to the meanings of the forms he created.

What does appear to be true, is that the kata moves have mutliple applications in most not all cases, and multiple levels and variants(henka) with , as well, multiple possibillities of followup(oyo).This would be consisten with karate's purpose as a martial art designed to deal with numerous possibillities of attack and defense.

Things depend as Funakoshi said, on what the opponent is doing to you, ie, grabbing your wrist, which wrist with which hand, how, grabbing lapel, trying to hit you, choke you, hold with opne hand and hit with other, lock you, throw you, etc.

In many cases., there is no one clear answer as to what you are doing in a kata, with a particular move, in others, you could only be doing about one thing, but many would not agree on what that was.:-)

In Yang style Tai Chi Ch'uan, and Shaolin Long Fist, the creators of the style left us photographic and text records of the movements and their applications at various levels.In Judo and JuJuitsu and Aikido, the two person nature of the practice leaves no doubt as to the nature of the waza, and in many Kungfu systems the existence of two person versions of the forms, does the same. We may compare these to the same moves in karate and assume the same applications, but really, we do not know.

The book, the Bubishi, shows many applications but not the one man forms they come from, though where the moves are the same, we may assume , again, the same kata.

Like a jigsaw puzzle, karate at some point became mostly disassembled , the kata and their applications, once taught verbally and hands on, teacher to student, often became separate parts of instruction, and some taught the two man self defense waza, and no kata, and some taught kata and no waza, and some taught both as though they were unrelated.

But a few teachers did continue to teach the art in more complete form, among them Mabuni of Shito Ryu taught at least basic apps and folowups for many parts of many kata.Some Shorin and Kenpo teachers taught very secretly and until recently, to only selected students, the applications and the principles of bunkai, or analysis, of the kata.Most never learned them, or never seemed to.

This may seem a long answer to your question, finally to tell you, there is no manual that can be relied on short of some necessary faith, to the pinan applications.

That having been said, you might wish to go to www.ryushu.com, and see Mike Minor there, about getting some tapes of Taika Seiyu Oyata, who actually has tapes of applications for each Pinan Kata.

I make only this comment about his applications: they work, and are the best I ever saw or felt, and that from one of his students.

But are they the original applciations intended by the creator of those kata?I cannot say, I wasn't there when they were created, but Oyata's teacher may have been, as Nakamura studied with Itosu or at least Yabu, his senior student, among others.Other than that, I cannot with certainty say or prove.I don't think he claims they are the original applications, either, maybe doesn't say, either way.

Maybe the way to think about kata, isn't, what were the original applications, maybe it is rather, what were the lessons the kata is intended to teach, and from these, what can we learn or come up with?

I would say, instead of trying to reverse engineer applications, which can be somewhat risky until you understand good locking and throwing technique and principles for self defense(Ie, you may have a real fine throw there, but if the throwee can hook you in the ear before you get it sdone, it is not a good application), its best to first concentrate on basics and learn the moves of the kata, then derive applications only when you learn the do's and don'ts of locking, throwing and combining all those with striking and kicking safely.

Otherwise, one falls prey, as many karateka have, to not knowing what openings are in your basic techniques you may use as applications.For instance high-kicking a jujitsu man,or woman, is suicidal.While we may do kicks high in kata for training purposes, one needs to know these are not really meant as high kicks.OPunches should not be left hanging out, for similar reasons.

So when we see high level practitioners do kata, the way they do kata may seem strange, sloppy, or confusing.Thats because they aren't interested in looking good, but in leaving no openings for various attacks which many karateka never even know can happen because they don't practice them, and don'tr realize the kata have defenses and counters to them.

Enough.In this post there is sufficient information to enable you to find your own answers, if you care to, as well as to see what some others have come up with in this line.Remember, reality is changing and so are applications, of necessity.Principles however, remain the same.

[TommyK]

Hi John,

A most intensive and knowledgeable answer to the question I posited. I hope there are more of this calibre of response before the thread dies.

As you may know, I study Korean Karate and Self Defense (Ji Do Kwan Korean Karate wih techniques from Kodokan Judo and elements of 'Aiki' borrowed from both Tomiki and Yoshinkan Aikido).

The Ji Do Kwan Korean Karate we study can be traced back through the Koreans to Toyama sensei in WWII Japan. I understand he studied under Mabuni sensei, so I would expect to find some grappling/grabbing techniques in the Pyan (Pinan/Heian)kata. However, there are none in our school. Somewhere, these were lost or discarded, hence my original thread question.

In my 17 years of study in this school, I have gotten familiar with various wrist/grappling/grabbing techniques from our eclectic curriculum and I cannot fathom some of the suggested holds I have heard mentioned. On the other hand, some of the moves I am told are blocks, I cannot see in this series of kata.

I hope this explains better, my quest for data.

Thank you.

Regards,
TommyK

[Machimura]

Tuite/gyakute/tegumi/ti/Okinawan Sumo, whatever you want to call it, is an integral portion of Okinawan Karate. No doubt Itosu, Azato, Yabu and Kyan as well as others understood this. Also Jigen ryu Kenjutsu, the fighting art of the Satsuma Clan which Matsumura Sokon and Asato were Shihans in, had many "JiuJitsu" techs. This is also evident in the kata, if you understand or have trained in any Judo or JJ.

Now did the modern schoolboy versions of karate include this in their teachings? Yes, sometimes. Did/do most styles understand this? Yes, but only to the level that they were willing to explore or divulge it. Do they always relay this info, to every student? No. If karate was going to be changed from a fighting science (speaking of "Karate-Do Kyohan" peep Funakoshi's first work, "KarateJutsu", notice the difference in intent) to an organized vehicle fpr physical and mental improvement then a lot of these things would have to be omitted or "forgotten".

Remember that even Funakoshi wasn't taught everything that he could have learned. Funakoshi, who is revered for his introduction of karate to the world, was thought by many Okinawans as a satisfactory, not excellent, karateka. Many Okinawans saw him as a cultural icon, but many despised him "selling out" Okinawa's contribution to the MAs. Itosu, Kyan, Asato, Miyagi and Chibana should get the majority of the credit for formalizing karate, and separating them into distinct disciplines.

The redundant history lesson over, the reality is that many "pure" Okinawan Karate styles teach grappling and the ti aspects of karate. Also, being a child of Chinese MAs, karate integrated many Chuan Fa grappling concepts. John gives an explanantion as to the origin of Pinan. I have also been told it came from (at least Pinan Shodan and Nidan) a Chinese form called , Chan'nan. There are throws, catch kicks, locks and other grappling moves ingrained in the Pinan. The first lesson in fighting for real is to stay on your feet if at all possible. That's why strikes are concentrated on. Still many of the movements in kata are there to enhance gross motor training, so specificity or complexity in application is not necessarily the aim.

The fact is the Okinawans love to grapple and at one time, bullfight. Okinawan Sumo and Tegumi competitions use to abound. Many of these principles helped to comprise the complete fighting styles that we call Okinawan "Karate". Mu Duk Kwan, Tang Soo Do, Chi Do Kwan and TKD are all of "Shuri Te" lineage. That is a fact. Therefore their renderings of the "classical" kata are probably very similar. Remember it isn't necessarily how you do it, but that you do it. Looking at balance, relevance and plausibility many "bunkai" can be gained from good kata practice. Ask the officers who go to the shooting range, or the football players that "run" through their plays in half-pads if a general "form" of the real thing can prepare you.

Mabuni Kenwa was a virtual living library of kata. Funakoshi gets a lot of the credit for "Japanese" karate, when the focus could be on Mabuni. The late Grandmaster of the style I now train in, Hohan Soken, trained alongside Mabuni. They learned the principles of Gokenki's White Crane and exchanged ideas about their respective styles (Shito Ryu and Matsumura Shuri Te). The truth is they were both Shuri Te, but Mabuni also understood the slightly different "perspective" of Goju Ryu, too. Mabuni is a great master who is often overlooked.

Oh yeah, there is a myriad of grappling techs in all kata, Shuri Te, Naha Te or Tomari Te derived. Practice them and see if your body-mind recognizes these options...

Bryan Cyr

[kusanku]

Originally posted by TommyK
Hi John,

A most intensive and knowledgeable answer to the question I posited. I hope there are more of this calibre of response before the thread dies.

As you may know, I study Korean Karate and Self Defense (Ji Do Kwan Korean Karate wih techniques from Kodokan Judo and elements of 'Aiki' borrowed from both Tomiki and Yoshinkan Aikido).

The Ji Do Kwan Korean Karate we study can be traced back through the Koreans to Toyama sensei in WWII Japan. I understand he studied under Mabuni sensei, so I would expect to find some grappling/grabbing techniques in the Pyan (Pinan/Heian)kata. However, there are none in our school. Somewhere, these were lost or discarded, hence my original thread question.

In my 17 years of study in this school, I have gotten familiar with various wrist/grappling/grabbing techniques from our eclectic curriculum and I cannot fathom some of the suggested holds I have heard mentioned. On the other hand, some of the moves I am told are blocks, I cannot see in this series of kata.

I hope this explains better, my quest for data.

Thank you.

Regards,
TommyK

Ah, Ji Do Kwan.I am told this is Korean for Shotokan.S. Henry Cho I believe, said as much.

Well, the Okinawans held stuff back from the Japanese and the Japanese held more stuff back from the Koreans, leaving the outward form intact Japanese style karate but not teaching, whatever they may have known of the grappling.

'Tis said that Nakayama told a high ranking JKA instructor that the highest level in karate was to find the grappling techniques in the kata, but then did not show any.:-)

Okay, now I see what you need.Think of Heian/Pinans as beginning from an attacker's grab to one of your wrists, for a start.The arcing upward movement then becomes a wrist reversal and the other hand a strike.Think of the subsequent movements as followup locking, striking and throwing maneuvers.

the down block becomes an ikkyo type arm takedown, with the followup puinch hitting behind the ear or at the elbow like hitting elbow breath throw in yoshinkan.Vary the possible attacks and responses as in Aikido, and you get a pretty accurate idea of the potential.Also, remember that in every lock or throwing technique, there are three potential strikes, at the beginning, in the middle, and the end of the waza.

Karate thus is seen as a type of counter-jujitsu, with a tendency to use aiki type footwork at the higher levels, jujitsu type at the lower, and primary reliance on atemi or striking technique.

Maybe thats more what you were looking for, hope so.

Regards,

[kusanku]

Also, Bryan, good stuff as usual.

I forgot to add, up block in Heian/Pinan can be an up elbow lock, figure four, for instance, and the middle block can be a backfist, oir a wrap of the arm over into a hammerlock formation.The followup punches become self explanatory. For the wedge block in Heian Four, try a two handed intercept to outer wrist and elbow, locking the arm, then kick the back of inside leg and double punch represents the finishing technique.

Lots of things like this, are taught by many styles of Shorin ryu, quite openly.To beginners, even.That it is sometimes not seen in many styles deriving from Shorin ryu, is sad but true.Still, once you get on to the stuff, it starts to unfold as Bryan mentions.

As for what all is in kata, Okinawan saying:'All is in kata."

Thats the whole shootin' match, way I see it.

[Rob Alvelais]

Originally posted by TommyK
[B]
As you may know, I study Korean Karate and Self Defense (Ji Do Kwan Korean Karate wih techniques from Kodokan Judo and elements of 'Aiki' borrowed from both Tomiki and Yoshinkan Aikido).

The Ji Do Kwan Korean Karate we study can be traced back through the Koreans to Toyama sensei in WWII Japan. I understand he studied under Mabuni sensei, so I would expect to find some grappling/grabbing techniques in the Pyan (Pinan/Heian)kata. However, there are none in our school. Somewhere, these were lost or discarded, hence my original thread question.

Tommy,

Could you point me to a source for historical info on JiDo Kwan and their older, traditional forms (Pre ITF)? I'm very curious about Ji Do Kwan, since my brother started out in it, but by the time that he started, his instr. had completely switched to the WTF methodology and syllabus and abandoned the old traditional forms.

The info I've acquired from inquiring. (Hey John, how was that for alliteration? ) is the the founder of Ji do kwan was a student of Funakoshi, rather than either Toyama or Mabuni (Although, George Anderson mentioned that the Ji Do Kwan founder was a student of Mabuni. Anyway, some of the traditional forms that I did see in Ji Do Kwan (sources other than my brother's teacher) looked more like Tang Soo Do or Oh Do Kwan forms, iow, Shotokan forms and Not Shito Ryu forms. Never have I seen anything even close to resembling a Higaonna Kei form in a TKD school. BTW, Toyama was more of a contemporary of Mabuni. BTW the Shudokan/Soryu schools all say that their founder (Toyama) was, like Mabuni, a student of Itosu and Higaonna and not Mabuni.


Rob

[Rob Alvelais]

Originally posted by Machimura
The late Grandmaster of the style I now train in, Hohan Soken, trained alongside Mabuni. They learned the principles of Gokenki's White Crane and exchanged ideas about their respective styles (Shito Ryu and Matsumura Shuri Te). The truth is they were both Shuri Te, but Mabuni also understood the slightly different "perspective" of Goju Ryu, too. Mabuni is a great master who is often overlooked.

Oh yeah, there is a myriad of grappling techs in all kata, Shuri Te, Naha Te or Tomari Te derived. Practice them and see if your body-mind recognizes these options...

Bryan Cyr

Bryan,

I gather that your Kushanku form is of the Matsumura lineage? John made a statement that the Pinans came from Chatan Yara Kushanku;

Since the Pinan Kata are arguably derived from such more ancient forms as the Chatan Yara Kusanku, Daddy of all Kusanku.kanku kata, and since that form, too, has no notes left by its creator whoever that actually was,applications are pretty much up in the air, up for grabs so to speak.:-)

, I'm not sure that we can make such a definitive statment. (It may well be true, for all we know, but then maybe not.)

I was wondering how different the the Matsumura Seito Kushanku kata is as compared to the Kushanku of the Chibana line (i.e., Shorinkan). We all can see that Chatanyara Kushanku (Kyan Lineage), while clearly a Kushanku kata, has some significant differences from the Kushanku Dai of either Shorinkan or Shito Ryu. Is the Matsumura Seito Kushanku online anywhere? My suspicion is that Itosu would have made the Pinans from his Kushanku Dai, rather than Chatan Yara Kushanku.

Rob

[TommyK]

Hi Rob,

The attitudes of people on the subject of Korean Karate varies from the idea that it is either "Shoto-kan lite" at best, or at worst,to being the reason that modern TKD left its original roots and became a sport.

I have been studying this style (in part, as our school is based in Ji Do Kwan, and supplemented as I stated above, by techniques from Judo and variants of Aikido)for 17 years and have been trying to understand it origins for about 15 of those years. Recently, within the last 3 years or so, terrific research has been done on the history and origins of the Korean Kwans by Dr. Dakin Burdick, Dr. Robert Dohrenwrend, and Eric Maddis.

In their separate efforts I have come to understand a general history of the Kwans and in particular Ji Do Kwan. In fact it is only in recent months that I have used the term Ji Do Kwan, as oppossed to the original term used in our school: Chi Do Kwan. (In private correspondence Mr. Maddis has convinced me that Chi and Ji are just the English transliterations for the same Korean symbol.)

You are correct in asserting that Mabuni and Toyama are contempories, as both left Okinawa for the greening grasses of educating students on the mainland islands of Japan.

Briefly, I understand that the Founder of Ji (Chi) Do Kwan : Yun Kwei-byung (1922-2000) studied under Mabuni Kenwa sensei (1889-1952)while in high school in Japan. Later when Yun was at Nihon University in Tokyo he studied under Toyama Kanken sensei (1888-1966). Yun was only 1 of 2 who received Master's certificates from Toyama sensei and who was elevated to 7th dan by Toyama sensei.

In the scrolls of the time his Korean name was transliterated as either In Gihei, or Yun Gekka. According to Mr. Maddis, when the Founder of the Yunmookwan, Chang Sang-sup disappeared in 1950, Yun took over as the Director of the Yunmookwan and renamed it the Ji Do Kwan.

The details of this chaotic time are still open to debate, but the brief details I outlined above are my understanding of the origins of Ji Do Kwan. Of course, S. Henry Cho is of this line and the Founder of our school was a leading student of Mr. Cho.

IN NYC, the few Korean Kwan schools that survive are known as the'old style' TKD schools, as what they do are far removed from modern TKD.

As for sources, Dr. Burdick published several articles in the Journal of Asian Martial Arts (a highly reknown and scholarly MA journal)and Dr. Dohrenwrend just finished a terrific 3 part article in "Dragon Times" (soon to be known as Classic Fighting Arts)a publication known to many Japanese stylists. Mr. Maddis's work has just completed final editing and is, I believe, soon to be published.

I hope this response was of some value toward answering your questions.

Regards,
TommyK

[TommyK]

Hi Rob,

Yes, while Toyama and Mabuni were contempories I had meant to write that both had studied under some of the same teachers in Okinawa and I expected to see the grappling/grabs from that angle. Also Yun did study under both, although the Manbuni study was only as a high school student and not as a advanced student.

Regards,
TommyK

[Mitch Saret]

Several excellent sources have been cited and I won't take up space repeating those.

In doing the Pinan/Heian series you must take into consideration which version you are doing. Funakoshi too the angles out of the forms for introduction into the Japanese school system, to make it easier for children. Those versions are what Shotokan uses to this day, in most cases. The Okninawan versions retain the angles and that is what is needed for effective in-fighting, in my opinion, for the distancing problems.

That being said, anytime you turn more than 180 degrees consider that you are doing a throw of some type. Would you really turn all the way around to the left to face an attacker coming from the right? I think not. Also not many techniques come in threes. Would you consider moving straight ahead into an attacker with three steps, executing three upward blocks, as in the first half of pinan 2/heian 1, or three punches as in the second half? Probably not. Perhaps the first motion is a stun, the second, an initial grab, the third, a second grab and off balance leading into a throw, as suggested by the next movement, turning past 180 degrees.

Another source of bunkai is the books by George Dillman. I may not agree with a lot of what he says, and think his books are overpriced, and several other things....but the information is interesting and may help you with what you are looking for.

[Gene Williams]

It is best to break the bunkai down in sections as if done against one opponent. You cannot always assume turns are throws; sometimes they are merely a transitions to the next sequence. They teach balance, focus, and fundamental movement, but I think we sometimes "reach" for applications. A senior can always make a throw out of a turn and a strike out of a block, etc. Some kata do have sequences for multiple attackers, and some are merely a method of putting together techniques against individual attackers in a sequence that can be easily remembered (the influence of Okinawan dance). Many fundamental moves are taught in kata; the longer you are in the arts, the more you will discover. There are many takedowns and chokes in kata, but karate often assumed multiple opponents, so taking someone to the ground and going down with them would not be wise in that situation. As to the Pinan (and I think the Heian are different enough to be spoken of completely separately, thank you), I have never been told that they came from Chatan Yara Kusanku. I believe they came from the Shuri kata we call Kosokun Dai (Kusanku). If you do them along with Kosokun Dai you can see it. There was another kata called Channan, which I am told has been lost, which also contributed to the Pinan. To students of the various ryu reading this forum: pick one style and way of doing kata and stay with it. That is the only way all the things that are supposed to happen in your development will happen. Trying to do two or three versions of the same kata is a mistake...you gain nothing but a novelty and you lose time. Gene

[Juppe1972]

Originally posted by TommyK
[B]

Recently, within the last 3 years or so, terrific research has been done on the history and origins of the Korean Kwans by Dr. Dakin Burdick, Dr. Robert Dohrenwrend, and Eric Maddis.

There is also quite interesting book written about early years of tkd, and founders of different kwans, who studied in Japan.

Partial translation of the text can be found in following adress:

http://www.martialartsresource.com/a...s/history.html

Briefly, I understand that the Founder of Ji (Chi) Do Kwan : Yun Kwei-byung (1922-2000) studiedunder Mabuni Kenwa sensei (1889-1952)while in high school in Japan. Later when Yun was at Nihon University in Tokyo he studied under Toyama Kanken sensei (1888-1966). Yun was only 1 of 2 who received Master's certificates from Toyama sensei and who was elevated to 7th dan by
Toyama sensei.

Actually, according to book I referred earlier, it was Yoon Byung In (The founder of Chang Moo Kwan), who trained and studied karate under Toyama.

There is also a list about Hanshi titles given out by Toyama: http://www.wkf.org/shudokan.list.html

On the other hand, he had very close relationship to Chun Sang Sup. and they trained often together. So, it is more than possible, that Jidokwan is influenced also by Toyamas tteachings.

[Rob Alvelais]

Originally posted by Juppe1972
[B]

Actually, according to book I referred earlier, it was Yoon Byung In (The founder of Chang Moo Kwan), who trained and studied karate under Toyama.

Yes! That's what I thought as well. Yoon Byung In, was given a Shihan title from Toyma, as I recall.

Rob

[Mitch Saret]

Two things, Gene,

First, I never said Pinan and Heian were the same, I said it must be considered which version you are doing. While I agree that they are different, it's impossible to disagree that they came from the same source.

Second, I didn't say it was always a throw when you turn past 180 degrees. I said consider that you are doing a throw. I am not the be all/end all of kata by any means. The question asked was specifically about the grabbing and grappling portions of the forms and sources for that aspect.

We cannot know the original intent of the forms because we didn't create them. We are not even sure who created them and when. One school I occasionally train with claims Itosu created them out of 2 of the Channan forms from China. Another gentleman I know completely disagrees with that assumption. We use the forms as taught by Shigeru Nakamura to Seiyu Oyata, and from Oyata to my instructor.

The point is, everyone will find different things in the forms. Are they right or wrong? We may never know! (said in an eery voice)