Bunkai/Hidden techniques - Split from "How Do I Quit"

[seasoned]

I happen to be on Facebook and a friend of mind posted this video that I feel is pertinent to the discussion of bunkai. It covers some basic techniques that are in fact used as building blocks, "so to speak", to ingrain the muscle memory that Bill was eluding to earlier.
The faster pace of self defense is something that can be addressed down the road once the basic patterns are practiced and certain principles of structure, breath and movement are owned by the student.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=iToelaMy2WQ

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Couple of things, though, Bill. Firstly, I agree that everything is in the kata... but not in the way that most seem to think (that that refers to techniques).

OK, I can buy that, in the sense that most don't seem to actually have a lot of use for kata, which I think is a shame.

Next, kata doesn't have bunkai (inherently), nor is bunkai actually the application of the movements found in kata...

Hmm. I don't know if I can agree with that. When we work on kata, we also work on the 'back side' of the kata; that is, we have one person play attacker and one person perform the kata. The attacker provokes the kata movements. It answers the most basic question as to 'why' we are doing what we are doing. It's the narrative, if you will. That's the most basic bunkai of all. In many cases, people will question it. "Who is going to attack me with a double-overhead chop?" Valid question; but it explains the double-overhead block, and the founder gave it as the basic reason for the movement. It's bunkai, I think, no matter how basic, and it's built-in to the kata as-is, no experimentation needed.

what bunkai actually is is exploration. In other words, it's an exploration of potential interpretations and applications of the actions, not necessarily the actual applications themselves.

I can buy that. I know at least one student of one of the first-generation students of Shimabuku Soke who has basically devoted himself to exploring the kata and extracting more and more applications from it. He continues what his Sensei taught him. So in that sense, yes.

In my own little way, I am 'discovering' bunkai in the kata as well; but in my case, I'm not discovering anything new. I'm finding things out that are known by many, just not by me. Some would have been shown to me in time, some have probably been shown to me and I didn't 'get it' but later on the light bulb came on.

This is mainly as the actual applications have been essentially lost as karate has been tranmitted down... but, it might be noted, that not all systems even use bunkai as a training concept. A notable exception is Wado Ryu, who teach specific applications, based on the teachings of Funakoshi and others, and the methods of Shindo Yoshin Ryu Jujutsu that Otsuka learnt, so there is no need for any speculative exploration.

I can't speak for any other system but the one I train in, and I'm far from an expert in that one. But in our case, I think I can say that a great deal of the bunkai came from our Soke, and that wasn't so long ago that any of it is lost.

Of course, the question then becomes that, if you're not aware of the actual applications, whether it's not something discussed, or taught, then what exactly are you instilling in your muscle memory? What's the reason for training over and over again movements that might or might not be what you think they are?

Because the movements in the kata form the core of the bunkai. The movements, when modified, still rely upon the same base. The block-sweep of the arm in Kusanku while reaching for the obi with the other hand is the same as the elbow strike in Sunsu, just described differently. Same base movement, and it shows you can apply that movement in both ways. Master the kata and you should be able to apply either technique as a natural movement of your body. Not that I have mastered any of it, but I see now in ways that I once did not.

Speaking only for myself, I enjoy doing kata, it makes sense for me to want to do it, and I keep on practicing it. I feel it is key to becoming proficient in Isshin-Ryu.

 

[punisher73]

I can't speak for any other system but the one I train in, and I'm far from an expert in that one. But in our case, I think I can say that a great deal of the bunkai came from our Soke, and that wasn't so long ago that any of it is lost.

Bill beat me to it. That may be true of many arts, but there are some okinawan karate systems that are not that far removed from the founder of the system who did teach what the movements were for. Isshin-Ryu is one of them, and I would say that Uechi-Ryu is another one of those.

There was an article I posted in another thread, that I think is of use here as well. To sum it up, the author is a Goju-Ryu instructor and talks about why the traditional blocks work and talks about the parry/chambering movement first before the "block" and one of the reasons it is trained that way.
http://dandjurdjevic.blogspot.com/2008/06/why-blocks-do-work.html

I know that Mr. Lawson has done alot more research into the older boxing manuals. But, one of the things I have noticed to in regards to older western boxing and the older Muay Boran. It looks alot more like "traditional karate" than the modern sports versions of these combat sports. Lots of ideas are lost as more rules are added and contests are crafted around a specific ruleset. For example, why would you need the "low block" in boxing when most of those guys wear their boxing trunks so high that you aren't recieving a punch that low anymore?

 

[seasoned]

Great article. Very well stated.......

 

[chinto]

ok, I have skimmed the thread and here is what I find to be the case for what its worth. ( no you do NOT get your money back ! :drinkbeer)

so that said, Kata is where its at. the system in Karate is passed down by kata. as to bunkai it is very much a traditional part of Okinawan Karate. in both systems of Karate I train in, and are traditional Okinawan systems, bunkai is a traditional part of those systems.

in the Traditional Okinawan kata there are at least 5 techniques in each movement. as time goes on you learn to see them. some are locks, throws, brakes, and sweeps. others might be knees and elbows or other strikes.

Karate from Okinawa always had locks, sweeps, throws, brakes, blocks, knees, elbows, kicks, punches. It was intended for use in self defense when your life was at stake. this included against armed and unarmed attackers. so as soon as the fight seemed unavoidable you were expected to take what ever action the situation demanded. the idea you were to wait till some one actually started to swing on you is something from much latter.

Please remember that most fights ended in death or serious injury. also remember that things that you will survive today with definitive medical care today were lethal even 50 to 70 years ago. so actual application of what you were learning was paramount to learning the art.
after all if you needed it your life was almost certainly at stake. all that shows that kata is there for a real and effective reason.

 

[bluewaveschool]

I was messing around with a video camera someone brought to class, and thought of this thread and the rising block. Now, we weren't being super serious, we haven't tried filming much before. It's not full speed, and pretend the foam blocker is a bat or something.

[video=youtube_share;RQbtb0I-kag]http://youtu.be/RQbtb0I-kag[/video]


Damn camera and it's 10lbs....

 

[Stac3y]

I know this goes far afield from where this thread has gone, but is in response to the original quoted post:

Originally Posted by Kaygee
And you know all of those high blocks and low blocks and inside outside blocks? Well, I have NEVER seen one of them used in sparring, so I believe they are not practical either and are just for the forms."

While I can't say I use EVERY block I know in sparring, I use several of them regularly. High block is probably the most common defensive movement you see in sport karate sparring matches. It's used to deflect a backfist or jab to the head (occasionally a punch; but my school fights sideways, so that's rare), and is usually followed by a reverse punch to the body. I think that deflecting a strike to the head with a high block would be useful in some street circumstances as well. I also use a parry, check low, or sometimes a low block to deflect midlevel kicks. I don't think I've ever used a knife hand block, but I've definitely used a backfist block at various levels.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I think that deflecting a strike to the head with a high block would be useful in some street circumstances as well.

In the US, you can pretty much count on the notion that if you're attacked by a typical thug, the punch is going to be a 'haymaker' or roundhouse right punch to the head. Often telegraphed.

The high block is great for blocking it, if that's all you want to do. You can also deflect, and use the attacker's momentum to turn their body, giving you full access to their tender vittles to punch, or the backs of their knees to kick, whatever seems like the most fun at the moment. Turn the block into a grab and bring the attacker's arm to your own waist, using their momentum again, and feeding off that with reverse power to drive your other hand in an uppercut into their face, which they basically feed to you as they bend forward at the waist as their attacking arm comes to your waist level.

Or ride the block down, meaning block and continue the movement towards their face. If you simply let your own arm follow theirs, it's aimed directly at their face and they can't block it, who blocks their own upraised arm? Strike with a backfist, a heel palm, a hammer first, whatever seems like good fun.

If you wish, once you've stopped the incoming punch, you can simply attack the punch itself, to keep the opponent from firing a punch from the other side. A sharp blow to the underside of the bicep of the attacking arm should serve as a nerve point attention-getter, which can be followed up, if you feel like it, by grasping the attackers's arm with the arm you used to block, going under their armpit while locking their wrist, and kicking them dead square in the face, which should now conveniently be at groin level. Since you control the arm at that point, you can kick as many times as you like until they collapse or you get tired; a backwards bend on the wrist keeps forcing them to present their face for you to kick some more.

Despite the right haymaker being the most popular punch thrown by your common thug, it's about the easiest to deal with, since you as a trained martial artist have all kinds of time to decide what you want to do with it once it finally arrives.

About the only things you have to worry about are an improperly set block, in which case, the incoming haymaker, having a hooking movement to it, crashes around your block and still hits you in the head, or you block so hard that the attacker's automatic response is to fire their other fist at you without thinking, like the same kind of reflex that makes people pull their hand away from a hot stove. But dealing with the incoming punch with a so-called 'high block' when done correctly, has lots of options that deal with all of that, and you can basically get as creative as you like. The possibilities are endless. I only know a few, but I sure do enjoy them.

 

[Flying Crane]

No, they're practical. You (as was I when I took Tang Soo Do) were just never taught what they were or how they actually work. Probably because no one else there knew either because they've never actually been in semi-real fighting, even a friendly fight.

Let me see if I got this right. Let's use the right side High Block, San Dan Mah Kee. You start from a "ready" stance with your right hand forward then you twist to the left and pull your right hand down to your left hip. Maybe you cross your left fist up to your right shoulder. You were told that this was "chambering" your block, winding up the power or something like that, right? Then you "unwind" your hip twist, uncrossing your arms, shooting your right fist up from your left hip and crossing up to above your head in a sort of "roof block." How am I doing so far?

...

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

I've skimmed thru the thread, not ready everything in detail, but I think what I'm about to say hasn't been covered yet so I'll go ahead with it. I'm probably sticking my nose in where it doesn't belong, but perhaps my insights might mean something to someone.

In the traditional Chinese arts, which in at least some cases influenced the Okinawan arts, which in turn influenced other arts from other cultures, the fundamental techniques are often practiced with what a Western mindset might term "exaggerated" movement. Sometimes that movement can be extremely exaggerated. Westerners often look at this kind of movement and decide that it doesn't match their concept of what a fighting art SHOULD look like, so there must be something wrong with it, it must not be a practical method, or it must be somehow outdated, more useful in an earlier era when "people used to fight differently", but not in today's world. People who come to this conclusion simply do not understand what is actually happening with this movement, do not understand the very approach to training and skill development that is being undertaken.

The exaggerated movement, when done correctly, and WHEN PROPERLY UNDERSTOOD in proper context and purpose within the bigger picture of training, helps the student develop a full-body connection to the technique. It helps learn how to engage the full body, from the feet against the ground to up the legs, thru the waist and torso, and down the arms to the hands in delivering the technique with the full body. Most people probably have some concept of this idea, but from what I've seen, most people do not do it well and really do not understand HOW to do it properly. The exaggerated movement is an approach to training that is meant to develop this skill, but it does take time and lots of work. This is not a skill that happens overnight. Years of training to develop it, refine it, and keep it sharp, it's something that never ends. But when properly developed, that full-body delivery makes for an extremely powerful technique that gets its power from the entire body bracing against the very Earth, rather than simply the strength of the arm and shoulder.

In the example of the blocks, I believe they fall into this same category. The blocks are taught and practiced with a level of exaggeration that makes a lot of people believe that they are not practical and useful. And on the surface they are correct: they are not practical and useful in a fight, in that particular shape and form and manner. But the training method is not the same as how the technique would be used in a real fight. When it comes to a real fight, the movement is much abbreviated, much quicker, and much more useful. However, it takes the big movement to develop that "full body" delivery with technique. If you skip the big movement and full body drills and go straight for the smaller, quicker, and "more useful" movements and versions of the technique, then you will never develop the same degree of full body delivery with the techniques, and the techniques will never reach their full potential and full power. They may still be useful, but they will never be as devastating as they could be. Training with big movement allows you to deliver the goods with small movement after you have developed the skill. But training with only small movement just does not develop the same ability to deliver the goods.

So that blocking example is the training method, the big, exaggerated movement. When the block is used in a fight to block a real punch, the movement is much smaller and more abbreviated and quicker and may look quite different, yet it still contains almost all of the same power as the larger movement. The use of the technique is very practical and can be devastatingly powerful but it is adjusted to fit the real situation and is not used with the big, exaggerated movement.

It seems to me that people are teaching the martial arts without understanding this very important issue, and their students and every successive generation suffers in lack of knowledge for it. People are taught the form of the technique and are left to believe that that is how it is done. They are never taught and do not understand, that the form of the technique is simply a training drill to help develop a fundamental skill that can then be applied to EVERY technique that they do, but the real useage of the technique WILL LOOK DIFFERENT from that training drill. Kata, in my understanding, is much the same as this. The movement in kata is done in this exaggerated movement, reinforcing this fundamental principle within every movement. And those movements, when translated into practical application, will also take on a different look, will become smaller, more subtle, more quick, and more "useful" than they appear in their drill form as found in the kata.

But unfortunately most people simply do not understand this, were never taught this, but they are now teaching others and they perpetuate the lack of real knowledge.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

But unfortunately most people simply do not understand this, were never taught this, but they are now teaching others and they perpetuate the lack of real knowledge.

When I was a child, quite often Catholic Mass was still said in Latin, and people responded at the appropriate parts in Latin. That did not mean they spoke Latin. There is a difference between knowing the words and speaking the language.

Likewise, the 'big moves' you describe, which I believe I understand. To demonstrate the movement, exaggeration of the movement can be required. For the actual move is subtle and hard to see. When learned, it can be honed, like a knife being sharpened. Eventually, the edge is all that is left, and all that was ever required. Unfortunately, as you said, some leave and begin teaching before the blade is sharp. They can say things in Latin; but they don't speak it, in that sense.

 

[Flying Crane]

When I was a child, quite often Catholic Mass was still said in Latin, and people responded at the appropriate parts in Latin. That did not mean they spoke Latin. There is a difference between knowing the words and speaking the language.

Likewise, the 'big moves' you describe, which I believe I understand. To demonstrate the movement, exaggeration of the movement can be required. For the actual move is subtle and hard to see. When learned, it can be honed, like a knife being sharpened. Eventually, the edge is all that is left, and all that was ever required. Unfortunately, as you said, some leave and begin teaching before the blade is sharp. They can say things in Latin; but they don't speak it, in that sense.

that was a pretty good comparison.

 

[Mark Lynn]

Additionally, the rising action is too vertical to be a backfist, and too particular to be just a potential counter. It really is a block. But what is it blocking? Really, I don't think it (or really much karate at all) is supposed to deal with an unarmed attack.

I mean, let's think about it. Were the attackers all likely to be unarmed? Honestly, I doubt it. Next, an almost identical action is seen in a range of classical Japanese arts... and it's not against a punch. It's a jamming action against a downward cut (jamming at the forearms). And, if we go back to the kata I posted, there's another huge clue that that is the actual usage of this movement... and it's not the arms.

He's stepping forwards.

Chris I have to disagree with the above statement (in bold), I believe Okinawan karate was developed more for unarmed defense than armed defense. Can the upper block be used in the manner you describe as a jamming technique, I believe so, however I believe it is more unlikely to be used in that manner than say blocking a punch, or as Kirk described as a strike.

Different styles have different chambers so while Kirk's description might not line up with the you tube video it doesn't mean the concept of using the so called block as a strike is not valid.

For instance in our style the "block" comes from below the retracting hand and then travels upward to cover the head. As a self defense technique if a person is grabbed by their lapel the defender could grab the hand pinning it to their chest (if it is a RH lapel grab the LH covers it pinning it to the chest) the defender can step in slightly with the R foot while bringing the R hand up from underneath to strike/shock the elbow for a lock.

However another way to do this is from the top. So same set up as before but this time the defender steps forward slightly with his R foot as he smashes his R arm downwards at the elbow drawing the attacker towards him (due to the arm bending from the strike) at the same time bouncing off of the arm as he steps forward (shuffles/leans forward transferring his weight and body motion) as he strikes with his forearm along side of the attackers neck face etc. etc. Both of these techniques work, but both still have the general upward block body mechanics behind it.

In fact, almost all times it turns up in kata, it's with a step forward, or a step to the sides, moving towards the attack. So think about it... if it's against a punch, and you need to step forward, then the punch wouldn't have reached you. But if it's against a downward sword cut, then you need to move in past the blade. In this form, no physical adaptation is needed, and it makes perfect sense, both in the singular action, and as it occurs in all kata.

The moving forward aspect can be from a long range like you described, or it can be in a shorter range as well as I described but they are both moving forward.

However in my Modern Arnis Anyos (forms) in Anyo 1, there is a upward block at the end of the Anyo and then you open your hand (making like you grabbed) and then you step back with that foot to turn and face 90 deg. as you down block. Here the upward block is used to block a strike or a punch, you grab the hand and turn as you off balance the person throwing them to the floor. In my Modern Arnis class when learning the Anyos we've covered this application (GM Remy shows this on his Anyo tape/DVD) and we pull it off all of the time.

In practicing Hubud (FMA flow drill) the upward block in it (defending against a high forehand feed) is done off of the same side block; I've practiced it as a block, as a intercepting punch or attack to the face, as a block and grab for a disarm, a set up for a take down, many different ways with many different outcomes. But all of them started with the upward block motion to defend against that line of attack. Here with the distance involved I generally assume almost a back stance with the weight on the same foot as the hand that is blocking (which in the drill would be more of the rear foot in this example) so that I then can transfer my weight onto the other foot as I feed in my strike, or so I can keep my other foot lite (less weight on it) so I can insert kicks or stomps.

And for a final example take the sword arm block used in Aikido, Aikijutsu etc. etc. it too is really again a form of an upward block, just coming at it from a different angle with a different intent but still protecting the head from a downward attack. Here it is not jamming the technique but receiving it and deflecting it.

I don't believe there is only one secret or main example of the upward block or any block for that matter but many. The fact that the upward block/motion turns up in so many different forms, different styles, from different cultures with different interpretations or applications speaks more to the importance of the block than to it's ineffectiveness as a single application technique.

With respect
Mark

 

[Mark Lynn]

In fact, almost all times it turns up in kata, it's with a step forward, or a step to the sides, moving towards the attack. So think about it... if it's against a punch, and you need to step forward, then the punch wouldn't have reached you. But if it's against a downward sword cut, then you need to move in past the blade. In this form, no physical adaptation is needed, and it makes perfect sense, both in the singular action, and as it occurs in all kata.

Chris

I'm sorry but I disagree with the whole idea here about this "makes perfect sense, both in the singular action, and as it occurs in all kata." Karate at one time was being developed to teach to school kids, in fact that is why Pinan/Heian katas were created. I'm not sure when the Taikyoku katas (Yondan having the upward block) were created but it was to teach beginners how to move again as a stepping stone for students. My point is that while the upward block is found in many katas, I find literally a very very small amount of sword defenses using the upward block as taught in Okinawan, Japanese or Korean MAs, and I don't believe that young kids had to face this type of attack very much either. However karate was meant to be a self defense art against other unarmed aggressors, not even amongst professional fighters but for everyday people, and mainly young men getting ready for war (in the university years in Japan).

"In short among the advantages of karate as a means of self defense are these: no weapons are necessary; the old or sick, or women, are able to apply it; and one can protect himself effectively even with little natural strength. These points combine to make karate a form of self defense without equal." Karate Do Kyohan pg 13 Gichin Funakoshi

I found one You Tube of the upward block being used in a Wado ryu knife defense, and I didn't see it used in the Wado ryu sword defenses as shown by the founder. Now I did find some avoidance techniques some passing techniques, checking techniques, but in everyone of the sword defenses the defender closes defends and then jumps away and ducks. Also the defender and the swordsman are at extremely long range with the swordsman slowly inching his way forward and the defender inching backwards till they were at the right distance and then he moved in for the cut as the defender closed in to defend.

Now I know this is for the safety of the defender while demoing (the closing of the gap and the long distances), however that is the very reason why I don't believe the sword defense (the jamming technique you describe) is a primary application of the block as taught in any form of MA. In real life the swordsman would close the gap and draw the sword in a flash he would repeatedly hack slash and cut at the defender not feed just one technique that is seen from a mile away.

In fact in the tanto defense clips there is one application where they used an upward block per say as a jam, but other than that I didn't see them. The founder of Wado ryu was a direct student of Funakoshi sensei and a Jujitsu master in his own right, who blended both arts to create his own system. He even went so far as to create as a part of the curriculum the tanto and sword defenses and yet while there are many techniques and concepts that repeat through the defenses (both sword and tanto), the jamming of the sword arms (or knife arm) as they are coming down aren't repeated and are left out of the sword defenses completely.

Great thread though

 

[punisher73]

Going back to the analogy of language, I think that is a key component here in understanding "hidden techniques". The word "uke" meant to receive and not necessarily to "block". Before the advent of picture books, you were taught the motions of the kata and perfected those. Then you worked on two person drills and applications. The moves in the kata had more than one meaning and weren't labeled. When you put the label of "block" onto it, it freezes the meaning in place as to it's meaning and application.

I have seen MANY reasons for the opening moves of Gekisai Dai Ichi (Taikyoku Shodan in the Shorin based systems). Where you do a left high block and then step forward with a right straight punch. ( http://www.rokc.ca/kata/geki-sai-dai-ichi/geki-sai-dai-ichi.html for a reference) If you did a left block against the punch, then why are you stepping into them with a longer range weapon since I haven't done something to change the distance of my attacker in relation to me? At this point, I have heard some people make the argument, that there is no meaning to the movements other than to just teach beginners to turn and move forward with body weight. I have heard other people say that the moves are "hidden" because they teach you the wrong way and that the steps are wrong to confuse students with the REAL meaning of moving back against the attack.

Here is another option. The "high block" is actually a forearm jam coming up underneath the attacker's throat/jawline which DOES drive them back and allows for the forward step to maintain distance and punch the attacker. Miyagi Sensei gave a big clue when he named what he created, "To Attack and Destroy". Doesn't this application seem more reasonable with that definition in mind? But, if we ONLY view that movement as a block, then we have to figure out how to apply that "block" in a specific context and then we get strange applications and bunkai to get a match. This is also why in okinawan karate a move in kata was NOT changed to only make a specific application fit, it was understood that the move had many applications.

 

[K-man]

What is this thread? Let's gang up on Chris? Hell, why not?


OK. The upper 'block', Jodan Uke. Against a sword? Mmm! Possible but unlikely. There are no examples of Jodan Uke in any of the early traditional Okinawan Goju Ryu kata. They are only introduced in around 1940 when Miyagi and Nagamine developed the Fukyugata which in Goju became Gekisai dai ichi and Gekisai dai ni. Whether it came from Shorin Ryu or whether it was from Shotokan I wouldn't be sure. (There is speculation that prior to this times Mawashi Uke was Goju's upper 'block'.) And, there were not that many people waking around Japan with swords in 1940.


If you look to aikido, the ikkyo technique could be used against the sword but it is a radically different technique to Jodan Uke. For a start the upper arm, that appears to be doing the work, actually does nothing at first and the lower hand, which is in front, opposite to Jodan Uke, is the hand taking the elbow. This would not be the preferred option against the downward sword. In aikido the defence against the downward sword cut is to move the body off line, Tsabaki, and using the front hand, bring the hand down before striking and controlling the sword arm.The other argument against the sword theory is that a downward cut is just that, a cut, not a slash. Even then, with a slash, if you try to jam the arm there are two likely outcomes. Firstly the block doesn't stop the sword (ouch) or the block stops the arm but the sword continues down (still ouch!).


So let's look at the beginning of the Gekisai kata ... 90 degree turn and Jodan Uke. Attacker punches to the head with right hand. Kata dictates, step off line and move through 90 degrees. Deflect the punch with the left hand and use the right hand in multiple ways. It could be to strike under the tricep, or it might be to trap the arm prior to punching with the left hand. It might be to strike to the vital points of the neck, or it might be a hammer fist to the temple. Depending on position it could even be a strike to the back of the head if the attacker has forward momentum, or, it might simply be a forearm smash to the face. The one thing it is not, is a 'block'. You don't have time to stop an attack and strike. You will be too busy stopping the next attack. Most 'ukes' use two hands. One parries while the other strikes or traps. :asian:

 

[DennisBreene]

What is this thread? Let's gang up on Chris? Hell, why not?


OK. The upper 'block', Jodan Uke. Against a sword? Mmm! Possible but unlikely. There are no examples of Jodan Uke in any of the early traditional Okinawan Goju Ryu kata. They are only introduced in around 1940 when Miyagi and Nagamine developed the Fukyugata which in Goju became Gekisai dai ichi and Gekisai dai ni. Whether it came from Shorin Ryu or whether it was from Shotokan I wouldn't be sure. (There is speculation that prior to this times Mawashi Uke was Goju's upper 'block'.) And, there were not that many people waking around Japan with swords in 1940.


If you look to aikido, the ikkyo technique could be used against the sword but it is a radically different technique to Jodan Uke. For a start the upper arm, that appears to be doing the work, actually does nothing at first and the lower hand, which is in front, opposite to Jodan Uke, is the hand taking the elbow. This would not be the preferred option against the downward sword. In aikido the defence against the downward sword cut is to move the body off line, Tsabaki, and using the front hand, bring the hand down before striking and controlling the sword arm.The other argument against the sword theory is that a downward cut is just that, a cut, not a slash. Even then, with a slash, if you try to jam the arm there are two likely outcomes. Firstly the block doesn't stop the sword (ouch) or the block stops the arm but the sword continues down (still ouch!).


So let's look at the beginning of the Gekisai kata ... 90 degree turn and Jodan Uke. Attacker punches to the head with right hand. Kata dictates, step off line and move through 90 degrees. Deflect the punch with the left hand and use the right hand in multiple ways. It could be to strike under the tricep, or it might be to trap the arm prior to punching with the left hand. It might be to strike to the vital points of the neck, or it might be a hammer fist to the temple. Depending on position it could even be a strike to the back of the head if the attacker has forward momentum, or, it might simply be a forearm smash to the face. The one thing it is not, is a 'block'. You don't have time to stop an attack and strike. You will be too busy stopping the next attack. Most 'ukes' use two hands. One parries while the other strikes or traps. :asian:

It is exciting to see so many skilled and knowledgeble practitioners spending so much time on bunkai. I was told when I reached first dan that now it was time to learn karate. I think that the points made by various discussants serves to support that and to demonstrate how layered the arts are. I learned the traditional explanations of the forms as I learned the forms and suspected that for the beginner, the focus was on simply "learning to walk and stand". It becomes fairly obvious when you watch a low belt struggle with position and balance while moving through a kata. Clearly what has been written here by others demonstrates that many techniques can flow from developing strong basics, even if the moves appear stylized and impractical. As I have added Modern Arnis to my studies of Tang Soo Do I have seen how new possibilities become apparent and I've also felt how my fundamental studies have assisted me in moving through the techniques of Arnis. Without stating it; my first instructor Grand Master James K Roberts Sr, took our basic abilities in kata and applied them in one step sparring (which we affectionatly called "if you want to's"). Mr Roberts always followed each technique with a follow on technique stating "if you want to". His point being that proper application of your technique required adapting to the resulting situation and was fluid; it was not a drill done by the numbers or by rote. I see bunkai as an extension of that philosophy and it is part of bringing the arts forward to explore how one would adapt kata to our personal needs and styles. I find that approaching kata in this mind set makes it meaningful and fun. I still get a thrill watching someone perform a near perfect kata in the old style, but I now am learning to see the subtle alternatives; Arnis' classic block, check, counter; throws, locks and takedowns from jiu jitsu; attention to position and distance from all styles. On a good day, I find myself thinking "what could be better than this" with pure joy in the art.

Now we should get back to work. There are arms to maim, meridions to be disrupted, gallbladder 6's to be struck and an occasional punch and kick to deliver for old times sake. [With apologies; my spell check doesn't seem to be working]
Dennis

 

[Cayuga Karate]

Chris Parker wrote

Were the attackers all likely to be unarmed?

This is a good question, and one that shouldn't be dismissed so quickly. Were kata designed to defend against armed attackers?

Nagamine has written the following:

Tribute (trade with China) was the the single most important aspect of the Ryukyu's social economy, and therefore, no expense was ever spared when it came to ensuring the safety of cargo, passengers and crew. In the event of an assault, which was quite frequent during feudal times, passengers who were skilled in combative disciplines were, by order of the King, commanded to aid the crew. All tribute ships that sailed the treacherous waters between China and the Ryukyu archipelago during feudal times were equipped with a turret, artillery, and weapons such as arrows, spears, guns and explosives.

Perhaps the kata that has been handed down today from the Chinese, notably military attachees tasked with ensuring the defense of their ships on their voyages to and from Okinawa, were not designed solely for empty hand fighting.

I applaud all efforts at studying the kata, and developing good empty hand fighting combinations based on the movements in kata. Those of us who train in kata all stand to benefit from those who think deeply about these movements and how they can be translated into useful empty hand fighting combinations.

However, I believe many of us recognize that from one critical perspective,much of kata just does not lend itself to empty hand fighting.

The upper block discussed at the beginning of this discussion can be used to illustrate a fundamental challenge we all have in translating numerous empty hand kata sequences into empty hand fighting.

If we are considering a kata movement in empty hand fighting, then I believe it logical that we look at the movements as they appear in kata. This upward block is found in several kata, and in each, there are movements that precede it and movements that follow. In Shotokan systems, this movements is first found in Heian Shodan (Pinan Nidan). It is preceded by a downward block and followed by two more upward blocks. There are four movements and four steps, a pattern found in many Okinawan kata.

In most all fighting systems outside of karate, if there is a sequence of four movements, then, in general, it is practiced as a unit, and can be used as a unit of fighting, a combination. In boxing, it is not uncommon to practice a sequence of four movements. Parry, and then follow with a three strike combo. In Kali, sequences can be far more lengthy (although there is no formal kata). In Aikido, the same.

Yet here we are in karate with four hand movements coupled with four steps in a sequence that appears to have eluded attempts at explanations for use in a realistic empty hand encounter. As noted above, we find these three and four step sequences across all manner of kata. And in case after case, explanations of the use of these sequences in empty hand fighting is never really addressed.

What we have instead is individuals who take small components out of these sequences, and they use them in isolation. The movements are decoupled from the patterns in which they occur, and only in isolation can good empty hand fighting applications be developed. The common practice is to add other movements to the combination to make it useful. Sometimes the hand sequences are kept, and the steps are eliminated, or greatly modified such that the final sequence really does not map all that well to the original kata movements.

For those who argue that kata has all the fighting sequences that one needs for self defense, it should be recognized that across many kata there are multi-step sequences that cover a lot of ground. These patterns, as they appear in the kata, are never "decoded" for use in meaningful fighting sequences for a simple reason. They don't map to empty hand fighting.

I am a lifetime student of kata, and I really appreciate all the effort that karateka have taken in helping translate empty hand kata movements into effective empty hand fighting. But I also believe that we should all fully appreciate the ramifications regarding the origins of kata. They were passed down to Okinawans by Chinese men, often military men at a time when the lifeblood of the Okinawan economy was tied up in tribute trade with China, when sailing vessels were at great risk from the rampant piracy off the coast of China.

Nagamine gives us a hint of this in his text. The quaint notion that Okinawans had no need for skill in armed combat is just that, a quaint notion. Their ships needed a full complement of able bodied men to thwart pirate attacks, and they most certainly didn't try to fight off armed pirates with their empty hands. They fought with weapons, and likely had great skill in doing so. They had been successful seafarers for centuries, and would have been quite skilled at armed conflict in the defense of their ships.

Perhaps we should consider that the Chinese, also highly skilled in maritime defense, may have passed down training regimens that at least in part could have helped Okinawans maintain proficiency in the armed arts vital to the success of their trade missions with China. In Nagamine's words, this trade was the single most important aspect of the Ryukyu's social economy.

 

[Makalakumu]

Chris Parker wrote



This is a good question, and one that shouldn't be dismissed so quickly. Were kata designed to defend against armed attackers?

Nagamine has written the following:

Perhaps the kata that has been handed down today from the Chinese, notably military attachees tasked with ensuring the defense of their ships on their voyages to and from Okinawa, were not designed solely for empty hand fighting.

I applaud all efforts at studying the kata, and developing good empty hand fighting combinations based on the movements in kata. Those of us who train in kata all stand to benefit from those who think deeply about these movements and how they can be translated into useful empty hand fighting combinations.

However, I believe many of us recognize that from one critical perspective,much of kata just does not lend itself to empty hand fighting.

The upper block discussed at the beginning of this discussion can be used to illustrate a fundamental challenge we all have in translating numerous empty hand kata sequences into empty hand fighting.

If we are considering a kata movement in empty hand fighting, then I believe it logical that we look at the movements as they appear in kata. This upward block is found in several kata, and in each, there are movements that precede it and movements that follow. In Shotokan systems, this movements is first found in Heian Shodan (Pinan Nidan). It is preceded by a downward block and followed by two more upward blocks. There are four movements and four steps, a pattern found in many Okinawan kata.

In most all fighting systems outside of karate, if there is a sequence of four movements, then, in general, it is practiced as a unit, and can be used as a unit of fighting, a combination. In boxing, it is not uncommon to practice a sequence of four movements. Parry, and then follow with a three strike combo. In Kali, sequences can be far more lengthy (although there is no formal kata). In Aikido, the same.

Yet here we are in karate with four hand movements coupled with four steps in a sequence that appears to have eluded attempts at explanations for use in a realistic empty hand encounter. As noted above, we find these three and four step sequences across all manner of kata. And in case after case, explanations of the use of these sequences in empty hand fighting is never really addressed.

What we have instead is individuals who take small components out of these sequences, and they use them in isolation. The movements are decoupled from the patterns in which they occur, and only in isolation can good empty hand fighting applications be developed. The common practice is to add other movements to the combination to make it useful. Sometimes the hand sequences are kept, and the steps are eliminated, or greatly modified such that the final sequence really does not map all that well to the original kata movements.

For those who argue that kata has all the fighting sequences that one needs for self defense, it should be recognized that across many kata there are multi-step sequences that cover a lot of ground. These patterns, as they appear in the kata, are never "decoded" for use in meaningful fighting sequences for a simple reason. They don't map to empty hand fighting.

I am a lifetime student of kata, and I really appreciate all the effort that karateka have taken in helping translate empty hand kata movements into effective empty hand fighting. But I also believe that we should all fully appreciate the ramifications regarding the origins of kata. They were passed down to Okinawans by Chinese men, often military men at a time when the lifeblood of the Okinawan economy was tied up in tribute trade with China, when sailing vessels were at great risk from the rampant piracy off the coast of China.

Nagamine gives us a hint of this in his text. The quaint notion that Okinawans had no need for skill in armed combat is just that, a quaint notion. Their ships needed a full complement of able bodied men to thwart pirate attacks, and they most certainly didn't try to fight off armed pirates with their empty hands. They fought with weapons, and likely had great skill in doing so. They had been successful seafarers for centuries, and would have been quite skilled at armed conflict in the defense of their ships.

Perhaps we should consider that the Chinese, also highly skilled in maritime defense, may have passed down training regimens that at least in part could have helped Okinawans maintain proficiency in the armed arts vital to the success of their trade missions with China. In Nagamine's words, this trade was the single most important aspect of the Ryukyu's social economy.

It's very interesting to consider the origins of the kata, especially when we identify the three main hubs of karate on Okinawa. Naha te and Tomari te strike me as systems that may have been more self defense orientated, especially the Naha te systems which trace their lineage back to Chinese boxing. Tomari te has some movements that are obviously not boxing. The shoulder carry throw, various arm drag take downs, and other entwining techniques can be found throughout these kata. These moves seem to indicate a possibly a different origin that developed because of a different need.

In Shuri te systems, this gets even more pronounced and I think we start to get the hint at where some of these moves may have originated. All of the "castle" systems of karate had some exposure to a system of swordsmanship that was imported from Japan called Jigen Ryu. This school has empty handed lists that contain techniques for dealing with an armed attacker while you are unarmed. It also contains techniques for subduing unarmed attackers. Many of these techniques are directly found in the kata. In particular, I think techniques for weapon retention, off hand draws of secondary weapons, and specific throwing techniques designed to clear a weapon and disable an attacker, can be identified.

This makes sense, because the government of Okinawa is going to have need for such training in the administration of it's power. Whether the government is merely a satellite of the Satsuma clan or it directly serves the king, dealing with armed attackers is going to be a regular challenge for this class of people. I wonder if entire versions of kata could basically be composed empty hand versus weapon techniques. Passai kata in particular strikes me as the kind of kata that holds a lot of this knowledge. "To Penetrate the Fortress" is a metaphor for defense needed when feces is hitting the fan blades and what better situation qualifies for this as when your opponent has a weapon and you don't.

 

[Cayuga Karate]

Makalakumu wrote:

In Shuri te systems, this gets even more pronounced and I think we start to get the hint at where some of these moves may have originated. All of the "castle" systems of karate had some exposure to a system of swordsmanship that was imported from Japan called Jigen Ryu. This school has empty handed lists that contain techniques for dealing with an armed attacker while you are unarmed. It also contains techniques for subduing unarmed attackers. Many of these techniques are directly found in the kata. In particular, I think techniques for weapon retention, off hand draws of secondary weapons, and specific throwing techniques designed to clear a weapon and disable an attacker, can be identified.

If there are movements in kata that are paralleled in Jigen Ryu, it would be interesting to see those concepts documented with video. I have my doubts they exist, but would certainly be open to evidence that Okinawan kata have such movements. I am most interested in sequences of movements rather than random hand patterns.

However, if it does turn out to be the case that there are parallels, that doesn't necessarily imply that Okinawan kata were designed with Jigen Ryu movements. The implication here is that Okinawans familiar with Jigen Ryu sword and empty hand concepts, designed these movements into Okinawan kata. However there is little if anything in the historical record that attributes Okinawans as the originators of the kata we practice today.

Rather, the historical record, despite its threadbare nature, indicates that the kata we practice today are of likely Chinese origin. Motobu is most specific, naming 12 kata. Funakoshi adds two more. Nakama, in Bishop's text, adds Channan (Pinan). There are other references as well.

One can argue that Itosu created the movements of Pinans, but that would not be fully correct. First, it is clearly obvious that Pinan kata have movements very similar to movements in a number of other kata of Chinese origin. What about those movements in Pinan that are not found in other known kata? Did Itosu design them? First, they may simply have been part of the Channan kata on which Pinans are based. However, we should consider that many kata have not survived, and it is quite possible that some of the Pinan kata draw from movements in kata that are now dead.

The kata attributed by Motobu, Funakoshi and Nakama as being of Chinese origin include nearly the full range of what we consider Shuri te kata. (Naihanchi, Passai, Kusanku, Gojushiho, Seisan, Chinto, Chintei, Pinan, Jutte, Jiin.) Motobu also describes Wansu, Rohai, Seinchin and Suparenpei as being of Chinese origin.

Regarding Naha te kata, though the record is far from clear, the current historical consensus is that Higaonna brought back four kata (Sanchin, Seisan, Sanseru and Suparenpei) from China. It is uncertain where Shisochin, Kururunfa, Seipei, Saifa originate. However, it is quite probable that these were kata practiced in Naha, possibly in the Kumemura district. The historical record does not name them.

There are other records of Chinese origin of Okinawan kata. Nakaima is credited with bringing back all the kata in his system, from China. Uechi, is also credited with bringing back a number of his kata from China. The origins of the other Uechi kata is uncertain, though many, I believe, are attributed to him.

It is common to find speculation on this forum and others, that the Chinese may have introduced kata long ago, and that these have evolved, through significant changes introduced by Okinawans, into the many variations we see today. Kusanku, Passai and Rohai are good examples of kata where there are many divergent variations of kata with a single shared name. However, there is no surviving historical evidence on which to make the claim that there are older "original" forms, and newer Okinawan creations based on the older forms. They could all be very old. For example, Kusanku could have taught a number of different kata to the individuals he trained.

The Okinawans certainly did develop some kata, noteably the "beginner" kata developed in the 30s and 40s. Funakoshi introduced Taikyoku, Miyagi the Gekisai, and Nagamine, the Fukyugata. There is documentation that these kata were created because the older kata were too complex to be learned quickly. Relatedly, there is evidence that Nagamine and Miyagi created their kata in response to the Japanese military authorities' requests for improvements in basic training for military recruits. The older kata were too difficult to be learned in the several months training before a soldier was shipped off to war. In that effort, the Okinawans certainly did contribute a bit to the body of kata that existed in Okinawa at that time. For example Mabuni is credited with a number of kata.

On this and similar forums, one can find numerous instances of arguments that the Okinawans changed the Chinese kata and made them distinctly Okinawan (or Japanese). Many point to the Funakoshi's statement that he made changes in kata to suit Japanese tastes. Perhaps most obvious is the evolution of Funakoshi's kata from shorter stances to longer, deeper stances, and from lower kicks to higher kicks. These changes may have been done to increase the strenuousness of kata practice. In Funakoshi's youth, he likely practiced kata two or more hours per day. In Japan in the 1930s, gym classes were likely far shorter. Longer, deeper stances, and higher kicks may simply have been a way to increase the exercise level of the training. Moreover, the longer back stance was familiar to many Japanese who trained in kendo in school gym classes.

Beyond those cosmetic changes, it is not all that clear what movements Okinawans may have introduced into the kata handed down to them by the Chinese. One can argue that the Okinawans modified the kata in all manner of ways. For example, this is done above in this thread by Makalakumu who claims that movements from Jigen Ryu sword and related empty hand arts were incorporated in Okinawan kata. The historical evidence implies otherwise and therefore the burden of proof falls on those who make such arguments. It's an easy burden. Show several kata sequences, and show the corresponding Jigen Ryu sequences.

In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I find it preferable to rely upon the surviving documentation we do have from Motobu, Funakoshi and others that uniformly note that Okinawan kata are of Chinese origin.

For those that are willing to accept this hypothesis at face value, an interesting follow up question might be useful.

"Why did Chinese military men, tasked with the armed defense of their sailing vessels to and from Okinawa, appear to limit their training of Okinawans in combative arts to empty hand movements only?"

That question has been studiously ignored by the karate community for the hundred years since karate training entered the public domain. And it remains studiously ignored to this day.

The Okinawans had clear military requirements in defending their trade to and from China. For most of the Okinawan elite, their path to success in the Okinawan aristocracy had a fundamental prerequisite. One needed to be assigned to a trade mission to China where one could acquire the goods and profit needed to be a full upstanding member in Okinawan society. (Funakoshi describes this in his opening pages of Karate-do Kyohan... "Even in the authors youth, lack of a full set of Chinese furniture and furnishings in one's home was a serious impediment to the social influence of any leading family.") Sakon describes how many had to toil for years in low-paying government positions, patiently earning their way to an appointment to a trade mission. For those who did receive such an appointment, they well knew the dangers of the voyage, described aptly by Nagamine. It should be a surprise to nobody that should an Okinawan ship be attacked, they would have fought, to a man, with the military weapons of the time, bladed weapons. Nagamine notes a ships arsenal includes spears. He does not mention swords.

Once one begins to appreciate the national interests of the Okinawans in having a population of able bodied men who could be quickly trained in the military fighting concepts of the time, then one can begin to appreciate the significance of the question above.

"For what purpose did Chinese military men, skilled in armed naval combat with bladed weapons, choose to train Okinawans in empty hand combative arts?"

 

[Makalakumu]

In Patrick McCarthy's translation of the Bubishi, the following passage can be found on page 85.

In Volume Eight of the Japanese Encycopedia Nihon Budo Taikei there is a provocative passage on page fifty one that provides and interesting explanation of the origins of the Ryukyo Kingdom's fighting traditions. The passage notes that Lord Shimizu instructed second generation Jigen Ryu Headmaster Togo Bizen no Kami Shigekata (1602-59) to teach self defense tactics to farmers and peasents in Satsuma. This was done so that in case of invasion, these farmers could act as a clandestine line of defense for their homeland. This non-warrior tradition was disguised in a folk dance called the Jigen Ryu Bo Odori and incorporated the jo against the sword; the rokushaku bo against the spear; and separate disciplines employing an eiku, the kama, shakuhachi, and other implements.

This phenomenon clearly illustrates how the principles of combat were ingeniously applied to occupationally related implements and then unfolded into a fold tradition, not unlike what of Okinawa's civil combative heritage nearly a century before. When I asked the eleventh generation Jigen Ryu headmaster Togo Shigemasa about this potential link, he said, "there can be no question that Jigen Ryu is connected to Okinawa's Domestic fighting traditions; however, the question remains, which influenced which!"

Here is another interesting tidbit.

http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/columns/0005/lens236.htm

Jigen-ryu is a school of swordsmanship founded in the late 16th century by Togo Chui in Satsuma domain, today's Kagoshima Prefecture.


Jigen-ryu places importance on the first sword strike, which must be extraordinarily fast and powerful in order to defeat opponents. Jigen-ryu teachings state that a second strike is not even to be considered.

This may be the origin of the "one strike one kill" meme that has filtered through karate circles for ages. Of course, I think as with many concepts, the original meaning of this has been lost and people may be taking it too literally.

Noting this, lets address the question at hand.

If there are movements in kata that are paralleled in Jigen Ryu, it would be interesting to see those concepts documented with video. I have my doubts they exist, but would certainly be open to evidence that Okinawan kata have such movements. I am most interested in sequences of movements rather than random hand patterns.

Here is an interesting example of a modern Jigen Ryu Syllabus that I was able to dig up.

JU kyu


1. History of Jigen Ryu Kenjutsu Rekishi
2. Concept of Kenjutsu
3. Attitude and Motivation
4. Sword Terminology: Katana no meisho
5. Etiquette Rei-ho

Ku Kyu

1. Warm up Exercises
2. Cool Down Exercises

3. Kamae
1. Chudan no Kamae
2. Hasso no Kamae
3. Jodan no Kamae
4. Wakki gakame

Hachi Kyu

1. Katachi (done both sides)
a. Bokuto - Bokuto
b. Bokuto – empty hand
c. Empty hand – Empty hand
2. Uke
a. migi Uke
b. hidari Uke
c. jo Uke

Shi Chi Kyu

1. Training Kata

Rok Kyu
1. Premeditated no contact sparring
2. Katachi
a. Bokuto - Bokuto
b. Bokuto – empty hand
c. Empty hand – Empty hand

Go Kyu
1. Kamae Kata with kiri waza inherent to each Kamae 8 directions 4 using Shomenuchi strike followed by a Menutsuki thrust
2. Bunkai
3. Aiki Goshin-jutsu
4. Tameshigiri Migi Hidari

Yon Kyu

1. Happo Giri Kata 8 Cut Kata with target areas for each cut
2. Bunkai
3. Aiki Ghoshin-jutsu
4. Katachi
a. Bokuto - Bokuto
b. Bokuto – empty hand
c. Empty hand – Empty Hand

San Kyu

1. Shodan no Kata
2. Bunkai
3. Aiki Ghoshin-Jutsu
4. Tameshigiri Yoku giri migi & hidari, Shin choku giri
5. Shiai Inside competition (shinai only)

Ni Kyu

1. Nidan no kata
2. variations on premeditated sparring (bogu, bokuto & shinai)
3. Shiai shinai against multiple opponents

Ik Kyu

Competition may be entered at this point.
1. All basic techniques
2. Kata’s
3. Pre meditatated shinai sparring
4. Shiai outside competion now allowed (bogu & shinai)
5. Aiki Ghoshin-Jutsu
6. Basic Knowledge of Swordmanship
7. Bunkai to all Kata & Waza
8. One handed and two handed test cutting
9. Katachi
Shodan
1. Dojo specific Kata’s 1 -7
2. Katachi
3. Free Style weapons sparring (Against other weapons Rattan) Bo, tonfa & nunchaku
4. Tameshigiri
1. Bunkai
1. Aiki Goshin-jutsu

Nidan

1. Dojo specific Kata’s 8-12
2. Katachi
3. Free style weapons sparring shinai (Against Multiple attackers using different weapons)

I haven't found any videos of the empty hand material, but apparently the school still exists in Kagoshima. One could theoretically go and settle this in a very authoritative way.