Bunkai, history, and "authorities"

[SahBumNimRush]

I use applications in my daily training, and I am interested in learning more. The problem that I run into is that the history of JMA/OMA katas' "intended use" seems a bit cloudy. I understand the "watering down" of "jutsu" to "do" and adapting the arts' focus depending on its audience has resulted in the loss of such applications in certain lineages/styles.

However, what I am genuinely curious about, is where the "authorities" on Bunkai gained their knowledge? A few people on this forum seem to be Iain Abernethy disciples. Anytime bunkai is brought up, he is always referenced. While I see practical application of many of his techniques, I am curious as to how he came to the conclusions of the purposes of the Pinan/Heian katas. Is this something that is commonly taught in certain styles of karate, or did he come to this conclusion on his own. If the latter is the case, how did he arrive at this conclusion?

I would like to make clear that I am in no way attacking anyone's ideas, I am only attempting to bridge a gap in my knowledge of forms, uses, and history. I use simple, efficient applications from my forms that include locks, throws, breaks, sweeps, kicks, strikes and blocks.

Is there any evidence that shows what intended purpose of applications of forms are prior to the transition of "jutsu" to "do" or adult hard training to school children training? There are indications in texts like the Bubishi for certain movements, are there any other historical texts/resources that anyone here on MT would recommend?

 

[Tez3]

Well I bring him up because he lives up the road, is easily contacted, does fantastic seminars. He's also hugely practical, encourages people to work stuff out for themselves, says he doesn't know everything and is always willing to learn from others. I don't think he'd like being called an 'authority' though.
Having said he's easily contactable, why don't you ask him where he gets his knowledge from? he will tell you himself, much better than me speaking for him incompletely or people arguing with me rather than him. He has a very wicked straight old fashioned punch lol! first line of defence he calls it then the 'fancy' techniques.
http://iainabernethy.co.uk/contact

He also has a forum where you could put this same question, it would be interesting to get others on there's opinion too.

 

[Chris Parker]

I'd also question the idea of a move "from 'jutsu' to 'do'", as, from a Japanese art perspective, there really isn't any real distinction there anyway. I have also only ever heard of modern interpretations and groups using terms such as "Karate-jutsu" (to my mind without any real cause or historical precedent), with historical forms simply using terms like "Naha-te, Shuri-te" etc. No 'jutsu', and no 'do'. Just 'te'.

In regard to any change in training methods, the training of any and all martial arts are always a reflection of the current society that they are a part of, the time they are in, the people training, the culture around them, and so on. So I wouldn't necessarily be looking for a transition of one thing to another, but more be looking at the adaptations to new environments and needs as they occured.

 

[dancingalone]

I can only speak from my own experience. I learned bunkai from my teacher who studied Goju-ryu at the Jundokan on Okinawa. He didn't and still doesn't call it 'bunkai' today. He called them "drills" in English. From what I gather the use of the word bunkai to refer to kata applications seems to be a recent phenomenon anyway (within the last 40 years?).

My teacher would consider the idea of kata as abstract lessons in physical movement to be daft. While he would concede that usage is not always apparent within the stylized patterns, it remains the principal reason why we practice kata and then kata-based drills with partners.

When I studied Matsubayashi-ryu karate, we didn't get into pattern applications as much, but there were both informal and formal promise kumite sets that helped explain some of the physical motion in the forms.

Unfortunately, there is not any extensive 'traditional'-based bunkai set down into a book to my knowledge, regardless of the style. Believe me, I looked when I was in my exploratory phase of martial study. You can only get it from a teacher and this varies from person to person even if they nominally teach the same style. I will say I've studied on a seminar basis with some other Jundokan background people, including Higaonna Sensei. He was pleased when I demonstrated a technique my teacher taught me and said "Is Goju!".

 

[SahBumNimRush]

I'd also question the idea of a move "from 'jutsu' to 'do'", as, from a Japanese art perspective, there really isn't any real distinction there anyway. I have also only ever heard of modern interpretations and groups using terms such as "Karate-jutsu" (to my mind without any real cause or historical precedent), with historical forms simply using terms like "Naha-te, Shuri-te" etc. No 'jutsu', and no 'do'. Just 'te'.

In regard to any change in training methods, the training of any and all martial arts are always a reflection of the current society that they are a part of, the time they are in, the people training, the culture around them, and so on. So I wouldn't necessarily be looking for a transition of one thing to another, but more be looking at the adaptations to new environments and needs as they occured.

I was referring the change of Toude Jutsu (a.k.a. Tode) to Karate Do, I have personally never seen anything referring to Karate-Jutsu. Nor was I suggesting a hard change, but rather a trend of shifting emphasis. I believe we are on the same page?

 

[SahBumNimRush]

I can only speak from my own experience. I learned bunkai from my teacher who studied Goju-ryu at the Jundokan on Okinawa. He didn't and still doesn't call it 'bunkai' today. He called them "drills" in English. From what I gather the use of the word bunkai to refer to kata applications seems to be a recent phenomenon anyway (within the last 40 years?).

My teacher would consider the idea of kata as abstract lessons in physical movement to be daft. While he would concede that usage is not always apparent within the stylized patterns, it remains the principal reason why we practice kata and then kata-based drills with partners.

When I studied Matsubayashi-ryu karate, we didn't get into pattern applications as much, but there were both informal and formal promise kumite sets that helped explain some of the physical motion in the forms.

Unfortunately, there is not any extensive 'traditional'-based bunkai set down into a book to my knowledge, regardless of the style. Believe me, I looked when I was in my exploratory phase of martial study. You can only get it from a teacher and this varies from person to person even if they nominally teach the same style. I will say I've studied on a seminar basis with some other Jundokan background people, including Higaonna Sensei. He was pleased when I demonstrated a technique my teacher taught me and said "Is Goju!".

This is precisely what I thought, but I was hopeful that maybe there was something I have been missing.. . In particular, I was hoping that someone with some background/experience with folks like Abernethy could offer some information on the historical background/evidence of such techniques. Not that I don't believe that they work, but I'm curious as to the historical significance of some of their theories/claims.

In my personal experience, I was taught the "drills" and "techniques" with a disconnect to our forms practice. It wasn't until much later that I began recognizing the techniques in my forms. I am always thirsty for knowledge, and I was hoping for some direction of resources that I could trust.

Thank you for your input!

 

[SahBumNimRush]

Well I bring him up because he lives up the road, is easily contacted, does fantastic seminars. He's also hugely practical, encourages people to work stuff out for themselves, says he doesn't know everything and is always willing to learn from others. I don't think he'd like being called an 'authority' though.
Having said he's easily contactable, why don't you ask him where he gets his knowledge from? he will tell you himself, much better than me speaking for him incompletely or people arguing with me rather than him. He has a very wicked straight old fashioned punch lol! first line of defence he calls it then the 'fancy' techniques.
http://iainabernethy.co.uk/contact

He also has a forum where you could put this same question, it would be interesting to get others on there's opinion too.

From what I have read and watched, I am impressed with Mr. Abernethy's knowledge. I am just curious as to its source. Is this merely applied knowledge and theory? Or was this something that he was taught?

 

[dancingalone]

This is precisely what I thought, but I was hopeful that maybe there was something I have been missing.. . In particular, I was hoping that someone with some background/experience with folks like Abernethy could offer some information on the historical background/evidence of such techniques. Not that I don't believe that they work, but I'm curious as to the historical significance of some of their theories/claims.

I read an article about Abernethy once... if my memory is correct, I tend to think his stuff is home-brewed based on his experience as a bouncer and/or bodyguard, which is fine but perhaps not what you are looking for?

Have you looked at Patrick McCarthy Sensei's group, Koryu Uchinadi? I don't know much about his approach but he's a member here, and he did live in Japan for years, so perhaps his research into traditional Okinawan karate and subsequent spin on the subject might be of interest to you. Outside of that, there's not much to be done other than to find a knowledgeable sensei and then petition to become his student. That's what I did, but it certainly wasn't a quick process at all.

I don't really recommend following the 'bunkai expert' circuit. Too much pressure point disciple influence along with the gaggle of Crane chasers.

 

[SahBumNimRush]

I read an article about Abernethy once... if my memory is correct, I tend to think his stuff is home-brewed based on his experience as a bouncer and/or bodyguard, which is fine but perhaps not what you are looking for?

Have you looked at Patrick McCarthy Sensei's group, Koryu Uchinadi? I don't know much about his approach but he's a member here, and he did live in Japan for years, so perhaps his research into traditional Okinawan karate and subsequent spin on the subject might be of interest to you. Outside of that, there's not much to be done other than to find a knowledgeable sensei and then petition to become his student. That's what I did, but it certainly wasn't a quick process at all.

I don't really recommend following the 'bunkai expert' circuit. Too much pressure point disciple influence along with the gaggle of Crane chasers.

To be honest, I've never went to a single "seminar" in my life. The credibility of the presenter and/or the material presented always seems to fall short in what I am looking for. I have read a few of McCarthy's books, and I've been quite impressed. His translation and notes on the Bubishi are the best that I have found personally. Altough I've heard of Koryu Uchinadi, I haven't looked into it much. Thanks for the suggestion.

I mention Abernethy, because he suggests some interesting theories.. . such as:

"
If allowed to progress, a physical altercation will generally go through a series of stages: Pre-fight (verbal exchanges, aggressive body language), limbs coming into range (strikes, attempted grabs etc), grips being established, and finally grappling. Not every single fight will progress in exactly this way, but it should be obvious that a grip cannot be established until limbs come into range, and there will be no grappling until some kind of grip has been established. We should always aim to end fights as soon as possible so that the fight does not progress. Therefore, when teaching self-protection, it makes sense that we should deal with the earliest stages of the fight first. I believe this is the approach adopted by Itosu when formulating the Pinan Series.
The pre-fight ritual (aggressive language, posturing, controlling distance etc) would not be effectively recorded within a kata and should be something taught prior to a student leaning 'fighting skills'. Therefore, if my theory is correct, the original order of the Pinan series should deal with the initial exchange of limbs first; they should then progress to dealing with grips being established; and finally move on to techniques for use when grappling. This is exactly what the Pinan series does when taught and practised in the original order.
Upon analysis of the applications of the five Pinan katas, we can see that Pinan Shodan (Heian Nidan in Shotokan) contains techniques that predominately deal with the initial exchange of limbs. Pinan Nidan (Heian Shodan) predominately covers techniques that follow on from the initial grip. This includes techniques where you have grabbed an opponent, and techniques to counter an opponent's grip. Pinan Sandan is a grappling kata that includes a number of throws, takedowns, locks and other grappling techniques that can be utilised when you and the opponent are locked in a clinch. Over this series of articles we will see that by the end of the first three katas we have techniques that can be applied at all stages of a fight; exactly as the name 'Pinan' is said to represent."

I was just curious as to how he came to such a conclusion.. .

 

[Tez3]

I read an article about Abernethy once... if my memory is correct, I tend to think his stuff is home-brewed based on his experience as a bouncer and/or bodyguard, which is fine but perhaps not what you are looking for?

Have you looked at Patrick McCarthy Sensei's group, Koryu Uchinadi? I don't know much about his approach but he's a member here, and he did live in Japan for years, so perhaps his research into traditional Okinawan karate and subsequent spin on the subject might be of interest to you. Outside of that, there's not much to be done other than to find a knowledgeable sensei and then petition to become his student. That's what I did, but it certainly wasn't a quick process at all.

I don't really recommend following the 'bunkai expert' circuit. Too much pressure point disciple influence along with the gaggle of Crane chasers.

You are thinking of Geoff Thompson, Iain is an old fashioned Karateka training from being a child, also a Judoka. He, I know, does a lot of reseach into old Japanese writings, methods etc.

I don't know what you mean when you say the 'bunkai expert' circuit, there's no pressure point mumbo jumbo, no idea what Crane chasers mean. All I've seen is people with a love of martial arts looking to find practical answers.

 

[Tez3]

http://www.worldwidedojo.com/iain-abernethy/

"Beginning his training in karate under Doug James 7th Dan; who was in turn a student of Toru Takamizawa, Iain Abernethy earned his first black belt at the age of seventeen.
Iain received his rank of 5th dan from Peter Consterdine, 8th Dan and Geoff Thompson, 6th dan, the chief instructors of the British Combat Association in 2004, with whom Iain trained extensively. The British Combat Association is one of the world’s leading groups for practical martial arts, close-quarter combat, and self-protection. Iain is one of the few people to hold the BCA’s highest rank of “Coach”.
In 2005, the English Karate Governing Body also awarded a separate 5th dan to Iain. Iain holds a unique position in British martial arts because of his ability to seamlessly join “traditional” and “reality based” arts. Iain is a member of the “Combat Hall of Fame” and he regularly writes for the UK’s leading martial arts magazines."

http://www.martialedge.com/articles/interviews-question-and-answers/iain-abernethy/


In the nicest possible way, Iain Abernethy is a contradiction in terms. For someone who has made his life studying the practical bunkai of karate’s katas, in other words, the bone crunching fighting applications of the pattern movements that resemble a real life, close range punch up, he is an incredibly nice person. A man who is fascinated by his chosen martial art, he is in turn a fascinating person to talk to as his encyclopaedic depth of knowledge of the details of kata, history of karate and its masters. Although only 37, Iain is already a fifth Dan after practising karate for 27 years and is one of British martial arts well known exponents as he is a productive author and regularly holds seminars that are popular with martial artists of any creed, from all varieties of karate, taekwondo and tang soo-do. Originally an electrician based in Cumbria, Iain is lucky enough to be able to practise karate full time, filling his days with teaching, seminars and writing.
Iain describes the time when he decided to give up the day job, “I used to be an electrician as well as being the union rep. Five years ago I left to do karate full time; I got to the point that the karate was demanding that much of my time in terms of my own training, teaching, writing and work was getting in the way. So I had a chat with Geoff Thompson who has always been a good mentor to me and I explained I was struggling for time and he said, ‘well Iain, your job needs to go!’ It’s not without its challenges, it was nice when I got a regular wage and you knew how much money you would get every month. Those sorts of benefits were good and I miss some of the guys I worked with but I’m very lucky I get to do what I love doing for a job. I mean I got up this morning, drove 60 miles to the local Judo centre and spent 2 ½ hours being thrown about, that’s work, that’s my job! It’s great to be able to do that for a living.”

 

[Tez3]

To be honest, I've never went to a single "seminar" in my life. The credibility of the presenter and/or the material presented always seems to fall short in what I am looking for. I have read a few of McCarthy's books, and I've been quite impressed. His translation and notes on the Bubishi are the best that I have found personally. Altough I've heard of Koryu Uchinadi, I haven't looked into it much. Thanks for the suggestion.

I mention Abernethy, because he suggests some interesting theories.. . such as:

"
If allowed to progress, a physical altercation will generally go through a series of stages: Pre-fight (verbal exchanges, aggressive body language), limbs coming into range (strikes, attempted grabs etc), grips being established, and finally grappling. Not every single fight will progress in exactly this way, but it should be obvious that a grip cannot be established until limbs come into range, and there will be no grappling until some kind of grip has been established. We should always aim to end fights as soon as possible so that the fight does not progress. Therefore, when teaching self-protection, it makes sense that we should deal with the earliest stages of the fight first. I believe this is the approach adopted by Itosu when formulating the Pinan Series.
The pre-fight ritual (aggressive language, posturing, controlling distance etc) would not be effectively recorded within a kata and should be something taught prior to a student leaning 'fighting skills'. Therefore, if my theory is correct, the original order of the Pinan series should deal with the initial exchange of limbs first; they should then progress to dealing with grips being established; and finally move on to techniques for use when grappling. This is exactly what the Pinan series does when taught and practised in the original order.
Upon analysis of the applications of the five Pinan katas, we can see that Pinan Shodan (Heian Nidan in Shotokan) contains techniques that predominately deal with the initial exchange of limbs. Pinan Nidan (Heian Shodan) predominately covers techniques that follow on from the initial grip. This includes techniques where you have grabbed an opponent, and techniques to counter an opponent's grip. Pinan Sandan is a grappling kata that includes a number of throws, takedowns, locks and other grappling techniques that can be utilised when you and the opponent are locked in a clinch. Over this series of articles we will see that by the end of the first three katas we have techniques that can be applied at all stages of a fight; exactly as the name 'Pinan' is said to represent."

I was just curious as to how he came to such a conclusion.. .

I've asked.

 

[Makalakumu]

Some people that I have met that might be of use for your study are Taika Oyata, Stephen Carbone, and Master Jay S. Penfil. Master Penfil is a member here on MT. I've met him and trained with him. He's great and has a depth of knowledge of bunkai that comes from his long lineage of karate teachers. He's also a Tang Soo Do guy. Stephen Carbone lives in the Detroit area and has been to Okinawa dozens of times and is actually in charge of a kobudo organization that was previously based in Okinawa. All of his teachers are Okinawan and he has the inside track when it comes to bunkai. I had the chance to meet and interview him as part of the research for my book. Sensei Carbone is also responsible for bringing Taika Oyata over to the United States. Oyata Sensei is very old and he was actually trained by two very old Okinawan bushi who traced their techniques back to the line that protected the Okinawan kings. I've been to seminars with Oyata and I saw some karate that blew my mind. Try and get to a seminar with Oyata Sensei before he retires and/or passes. I don't know if he still teaches. If you can take a seminar from his students that would probably blow your mind as well. I trained with some of his students back in MN.

 

[SahBumNimRush]

I find myself in MN from time to time (Brother-in-law lives in Minneapolis). I will have to look them up. Thank you.

 

[Makalakumu]

I find myself in MN from time to time (Brother-in-law lives in Minneapolis). I will have to look them up. Thank you.

One of Oyata's senior students operates a dojo out of Moorhead, Minnesota. It's a city right across the river from Fargo.

 

[punisher73]

Bunkai, to me, is a very interesting subject. There are some styles that have always taught applications to their katas (Goju-Ryu) and have a direct transmission of that. Then there are other styles that only showed the basic block/punch/kick methods that first came to the west. Some people state that the "secret" techniques were not taught to the US serviceman and were kept hidden and shown only to their own okinawan students. Others state that the bunkai was not generally taught to anyone and they were kind of left to their own designs. Who knows how much was taught or not taught.

An interesting series of books was written by Javiar Martinez on Isshin-Ryu's katas. The books could also be applied to the Shorin-Ryu styles from which they came from as well. Martinez went and looked at the historical research and Chinese styles and their Chin Na techniques and identified the patterns of Chin Na taught in various kung fu styles and matched those to the kata. Some moves were VERY similiar and some with a slight modification also fit. Many "bunaki experts" will say that the katas are really secretly coded and that the applications are in reverse sequence as shown in the kata or that certain moves were missing from the kata to make the technique work. What is interesting is that this approach does not look at all like the Chin Na sequences that are almost a direct match for the moves in the kata. Also, I have heard many Okinawan masters state that if you have to change the order of the moves in the kata to make it work, then this is not the correct application.

Bottom line is for that study. IF it works for you and you like it and can apply it to your own study who cares where it came from? I only have issue when someone changes things up and then states that it was a secret hidden application for the kata (example: I have seen "bunkai experts" say that the crossover step from Naihanchi kata is really Judo's triangle choke on a horizontal plane and the kata is designed for ground grappling).

PS: This is not directed towards Mr. Abernathy when I use the term "bunkai experts" but other people whose stuff I have come across.

 

[Black Belt Jedi]

The Pinan/Heian katas were created by Anko Itosu so he can teach Karate to school children in the Okinawan Prefecture. The Pinan/Heian katas didn't have bunkai applications, but that's not altogether true. The katas that Itosu created has techniques from Passai/Bassai, Kushanku, and Wanshu. The templates of Pinan katas can be put in applications, but the hidden techniques were never taught to school children because they can be reckless with these techniques resulting in severe injury and possibly death.

 

[Makalakumu]

One thing that I've noticed is that when I study Dan Zan Ryu Jujutsu, many of the two person kata on the Yawara, Nage, Shime, Oku, and Goshin lists are exact or nearly exact interpretations of sequences in karate kata. There are lots of explanations for this, one of them being that Okazaki Sensei trained in Okinawan karate at a time when karate hadn't been changed to be taught in the school system. Hawaii is actually one of the first places that karate was taught outside of Okinawa. The first "dojo" (as in person who decided to teach karate) that is documented, opened on Kauai in 1894. Mr. Okazaki came to Hawaii and began training in martial arts in 1906. At any rate, some of the old techniques from the kata were clearly preserved in this system, IMO.

 

[K-man]

I love Iain Abernethy's work. I don't worry about his particular bunkai or applications, it is the principles of kata that he teaches. These principles remain constant regardless of style or kata.

If you would like to see practical bunkai in traditional form do a google search for "Taira bunkai". (On the iPad I can't post links.) Taira Sensei is a student of Miyazato Sensei (Miyagi Sensei's elected successor) who has spent a lifetime researching the Goju kata. His work encompasses most of Iain's principles and demonstrates the progression through the kata as a continuous self defence system. He has several levels of bunkai and I'm sure I haven't seen more that a speck of his knowledge demonstrated. Still, what he teaches is impressive and from that anyone with experience could develop a similar flow.

The simplicity of what Taira Sensei teaches is that there is no choreography. To your move from the kata your opponent must defend or he gets hit. If he defends, the next part of the kata is another attack, then the next and the next. In drilling, your partner doesn't need to know the bunkai, just a reflex defence against the technique. At speed there is no defence as you just run out of hands.

I don't believe there are any written bunkai from any of the early masters as the transmission of the knowledge was oral and only passed on to a select few. I have my doubts that many, if at all any, of the current masters have the original application of the kata. This doesn't matter because each master in turn would probably modify the application to suit their own style and body shape.

Punisher hit the nail on the head with the mention of Chi Na. The guys like Higaonna Sensei and the others who visited China in the 1800s learnt Kung Fu, not karate, so it makes perfect sense to me that they would have incorporated the best of those styles into their own. I believe most of the vital aspects of karate disappeared when they took it into the schools.

As Chris said, karate-jutsu technically never existed but it accurately describes the transition from an effective and brutal style of self defence to the current sport based karate that you normally see today that is referred to as karate-do.

 

[Cayuga Karate]

This question of the origins of bunkai is fascinating to me. I'm pretty convinced that the whole concept of useful applications is something quite recent in the history of kata. There are two issues here. One is the lack of reality of so much of what passes for "bunkai" and second is the entire question of what bunkai may have been handed down 100 to 150 years ago.

Regarding the first issue, (reality of applications), if one looks at a broad cross-section of bunkai associated with older traditional systems, one typically finds that these applications are simply not modelled on the way fighting actually occurs. Attackers routinely step in with on long step, freezing is a stance and striking to the mid-section. Second, there is just an overwhelming amount of bunkai where the self-defense application utilizes a single counter strike, often to the abdomen. There are dozens of examples of this in youtube.

The second issue regards what, if any, bunkai was passed down 100-150 years ago and earlier. I would argue, not much. Since everything was so secret, airtight conclusions are impossible. We have to look at hints here and there. A good example is the reference to Oyata. Yes he did study with two men after the close of WWII who taught him ti and kobudo. However, I do not believe there is a record of him learning kata from these two men. He learned kata from Nakamura.

The question should be not whether Oyata has good bunkai for a variety of movements in the kata that are part of his system. The real question is what Nakamura (and perhaps his senior students) passed on to Oyata. A related question is what percentage of movements of kata in the Nakamura system, does Oyata teach to his top students? I have had an opportunity to have discussions with a couple. And the simple answer is that Oyata has not taught bunkai, at least in any meaningful way, for a broad cross-section of kata movements.

Another example is Iha, a student of one of Chibana's top students. His system has preset sequences for a subset of the kata in his system. Some movements in these sequences map to what many might describe as useful, but quite a number, many might see as quite contrived. In most cases, the reality of the sequences suffer from the problem noted above, a lack of a realistic attack.

One of Zenryo Shimabukuro's students once wrote that he taught that he had four escapes from grabs. That was all he needed. Yet much of what modern bunkai is based on includes grappling and the use of movements to escape from grabs.

In no way, should my analysis, be taken to mean that the old masters could not use kata movements for self-defense. They can. Rather, I argue that these old masters may have only used, and taught, applications for a very small subset of their set of kata (7-15 for Kyan systems, 11 for goju systems, 15-27 for Shotokan, up to 50 for Shito Ryu)

I am also not arguing that the lack of application makes the practice of kata meaningless. On the contrary, I believe that the practice of kata, regardless of it's use in fighting, is quite beneficial. It increases strength, speed, balance, blocking and striking power, just to name a few.

It seems clear that the practice of Okinawan karate 100-150 years ago had a whole range of benefits towards fighting Hojo undo and Chiishi, makiwara striking, kobudo training, and incessant kata greatly strengthened practicioners and gave them substantial gains in striking power. A number of kata sequences aid in taisabaki skill development, useful in fighting. A quite surprising number of movements in kata seem uniquely well designed for all sorts of locks, takedowns, strikes, blocks, etc, and it is highly likely that the Okinawans leveraged the benefits of quite a number of these movements to greatly improve the development of fighting skills of those who trained. It was expected that they would routinely train up to 20 or more hours per week, and with the conditioning that was inherent in this training, these karatemen turned into remarkable physical specimens, quite capable of handling themselves against untrained fighters.

Funakoshi wrote that it was common to take 3 years to learn a kata, before another was taught. Yabu Kentsu taught one must practice a kata 10,000 times to make it one's own. And Funakoshi wrote that a person of significant skill might know 3 or at the most 5 kata. Itosu seems to have implied that the actual applications of kata are not supposed to be taught, but figured out. And that is not uncommon today. One of Oyata's students has written that when a student asked about "bunkai" for a specific move, he might reply "What do you think?"

The practice and transmission of kata changed significantly 100 years ago, when it became common for a system to include many kata. Perhaps the best example is Shito Ryu. Consider the direction sequences associated with 50 kata. Many sequences can be used in a variety of ways. That translates into literally thousands of potential applications. Yet modern Shito Ryu systems don't really focus on extensive bunkai. There is some practiced. But with all the kata, and kumite being a natural component of Japanese systems, there isn't a whole lot of time left in the training day to make even a reasonable dent in the thousands of potential uses of these 50+ kata. There's just no time.

So what do we have today? Many westerners, and hopefully a growing number of Okinawans and Japanese, have a significant desire to translate their practice of kata into self-defense skills. And as more karateka cross train in Judo, Jujitsu, Aikido, Chinese arts (Chi Na e.g.) PMA, and other arts, they see concepts that can map (to a certain degree) to the movements they have practiced in kata.

And as a result, the number of movements in kata that can be used in self-defense applications continues to grow.

But we should all recognize the distinct potential that historically, kata was handed down, perhaps without a whole lot of bunkai.

Of course, many will find this idea, which I fully acknowledge, as being just wild speculation. In a sense this is true. However, I also am reasonably confident that if lots of bunkai had been passed down, that there would be far more of it on youtube. Due to tournaments, and taped demonstrations, the old secret kata are now online. Why hasn't the bunkai. Because, I speculate, in large part because there is nothing there.

Some traditionalists argue that "their" system is different, they have the answers. I argue, "then put up the bunkai for us to judge". They counter, Well, it's still a secret.

Well maybe in another 10 years it won't be.

-Cayuga Karate