Bunkai, history, and "authorities"

[clfsean]

I would be happy to see just one form from any chinese art that is substantially or even vaguely similar to any okinawan kata. For example, dancingalone and I once had a discussion about whether wing chun's siulimtao was in any way similar to gojuryu's sanchin. In dancingalone's opinion, they were not. oh well, maybe we will have better luck with some other form.

SNT is not really similar to Sanchin except in the idea they both lay foundation.

However... Sam Chien is Sanchin. Fujianese White Crane or Five Ancestors.

 

[puunui]

In the mid-thirties, the Japanese made a decision that this growing fighting art simply could not have the name "Chinese hand". There was an alternate reading of kanji, first written about by Chomo Hanashiro 30 years earlier, that seemed far more palatable to the Japanese. There was a meeting in Okinawa in 1936, and the Japanese made it quite clear that "empty hand" was the appropriate term for the art.

I read that in McCarthy Sensei's book as well, but Hanashiro Sensei wasn't the first to use the kanji for "empty hand", because there was in fact a japanese art called that earlier. Books from the 1800s make reference to it. Some say that Funakoshi Sensei knew this and changed the character from Tou or Kara in part because of that, the inference being that karate was a japanese art. He also took out the weapons because of what you said, that Japan did have a long cultural history of weapons training on its own, with more elegant weapons that okinawan farm implements, which could not compare to a katana for example. The two weapons that he did choose to teach in Japan, the bo and sai, seem similar to japanese weapons, like jutte for example, and so might have been more on the scale of acceptance than a mill handle or a farming sickle.

But we do not know for sure.

 

[dancingalone]

I believe the first step is to look at the entire collection of movements of these kata as a whole. I want to try to best understand them, in their totality, as I can. This is a large undertaking for me. I am in my mid 50s, and my memory is not what it once was. But the task is not too formidable. The collection is large, but not too large for me.

What is your reasoning for the need to study the movement as a complete collection? It's often been said that separate, discrete kata are to be regarded as distinct fighting styles. Thus Naihanchi would be a dictionary for an entirely different set of tactics and techniques than say Kusanku or Rohai - not to mention the historical record that said the old masters actually trained far fewer kata than we do today.Also how do you reconcile the two camps of karate kata which came from different sources? Do you try to understand the Naha-te movements in conjunction with the Shuri/Tomari kata? Or do you stick to one side of the equation? I seem to think you are a Shito-ryu man, and if so, it would seem that you'd be looking at both approaches, perhaps an unenviable task to begin with.

Now, back to your question. Would I benefit from a comparative analysis with modern day Chinese systems? The problem is that the universe of movements to study would now increase from a thousand to twenty thousand. That's something that is beyond me. I leave that daunting task to others. There are likely hundreds of system across China, and thousands of forms. China is a vast country with a massive population. What is the relation of kata from one geographic area to another. Over hundreds of years the goals of martial arts have transitioned. What were once military arts where skill in the use of military weapons was the primary goal, have gradually evolved to have more of a focus on personal defense, where empty hand fighting capability is a key or the key or the sole goal.

It's a matter of filtering down to a manageable volume of material. I see little reason for example to study something like Wu Dang systems to enrich my understanding of Goju-ryu karate. If I wanted to look to the roots of Goju, I'd cast my gaze towards White Crane or Feeding Crane. And if I wanted to go outside of the Goju ancestral tree yet look for domain relevance in another Chinese style, I think Baji Quan would be a great fit.No reason to have to look at the entire spectrum of Chinese martial arts which are indeed vast and diverse.

Well maybe, just maybe, these events hold a window into the heart of these kata. Take a moment and ask yourself a simple question. Imagine for a moment you are one of these visiting Chinese military authorities. Fully dwell on that for a moment. If you are going to share combative arts with these Okinawans, there is likely some purpose? What is that purpose. Answer that question, and the quest to understand the potential application of these movements just might take you in a quite different direction, an entirely new dimension.

I have read some of your past writings about weapons and kata with interest. However, I believe it is more relevant for our needs today to understand the unarmed applications to the karate kata and so it upon that aspect that I choose to focus, as kobudo practice is sufficient for my own archaic weapons study.

 

[SahBumNimRush]

I see little reason for example to study something like Wu Dang systems to enrich my understanding of Goju-ryu karate. If I wanted to look to the roots of Goju, I'd cast my gaze towards White Crane or Feeding Crane. And if I wanted to go outside of the Goju ancestral tree yet look for domain relevance in another Chinese style, I think Baji Quan would be a great fit.No reason to have to look at the entire spectrum of Chinese martial arts which are indeed vast and diverse.

My knowledge of CMA is very limited, but from what I have read and understand, it seems that He Quan (White Crane) and Changquan (Long Fist) seem to get much of the credit as sources of the traditional OMA katas. My limited exposure to both of these arts reveals very little in respect to techniques seen in my own forms. I see vaguely similar techniques in some these CMA forms, but not combinations of movements that I would recognize from any OMA katas. He Quan's Sam Chien "3 battles" looks like Sanchin kata, but that's not a form I practice. I'm curious if anyone has seen similar patterns in other He Quan or Changquan forms.

 

[dancingalone]

I'm curious if anyone has seen similar patterns in other He Quan or Changquan forms.

This is not what you are looking for, Benjamin, but I think it's easier to see the Long Fist influence in the Chil Sung & Yuk Rho forms GM Hwang created. I know you don't train those forms, but I think there's a easily made technical connection there. Have you ever seen Lian Bu Quan or Gong Li Quan played? They are common 'beginner' forms across many Northern Chinese styles that fall under the general 'Long Fist' moniker. I don't know if GM Hwang knew and trained these forms (probably not - there's no documentation I am aware of that states he did), but I can see some broad similarities in these forms and how I would play the Chil Sung and Yuk Rho if I practiced them.Lian Bu Quan [yt]pynQL_y4c1U[/yt]Gong Li Quan [yt]ZkcF_V3GzfY[/yt]

 

[punisher73]

I would be happy to see just one form from any chinese art that is substantially or even vaguely similar to any okinawan kata. For example, dancingalone and I once had a discussion about whether wing chun's siulimtao was in any way similar to gojuryu's sanchin. In dancingalone's opinion, they were not. oh well, maybe we will have better luck with some other form.

Sanchin

Suparinpei learned in Fujian (the form was called something else that translated into 108 steps) as taught originally by Master Guo Kong Xi

 

[SahBumNimRush]

This is not what you are looking for, Benjamin, but I think it's easier to see the Long Fist influence in the Chil Sung & Yuk Rho forms GM Hwang created. I know you don't train those forms, but I think there's a easily made technical connection there. Have you ever seen Lian Bu Quan or Gong Li Quan played? They are common 'beginner' forms across many Northern Chinese styles that fall under the general 'Long Fist' moniker. I don't know if GM Hwang knew and trained these forms (probably not - there's no documentation I am aware of that states he did), but I can see some broad similarities in these forms and how I would play the Chil Sung and Yuk Rho if I practiced them.Lian Bu Quan [yt]pynQL_y4c1U[/yt]Gong Li Quan [yt]ZkcF_V3GzfY[/yt]

I can't say for certain, but I seem to remember hearing that the Chil Sung and Yuk Ro forms were inspired from GM Hwang's study of the Muyedobotongji. This text was a transcription of an older Chinese text, although I'm not sure where in China, so it is possible that the movements represented in this text could have been Changquan or something similar.

 

[SahBumNimRush]

Sanchin


Suparinpei learned in Fujian (the form was called something else that translated into 108 steps) as taught originally by Master Guo Kong Xi

As a layperson who does not practice either of these forms, I can definitely see a correlation between He Quan and OMA katas in both of these videos.

 

[punisher73]

Getting back to the original question. I think that "where" a form derived from helps answer the questions of bunkai and where that stems from. For example, in the japanese styles, such as Shotokan, not a lot of bunkai was passed on other than the block/punch/kick variety. Their emphasis was more on kihon practice and kumite, the view of many was that kata was just a way to practice the kihon. So, I think that many Shotokan stylists may have "reverse engineered" their kata to look at Shorin-Ryu applications for certain movements of the same kata or came up with meanings for the movements that worked for them (whether or not it is close to the original).

This is the main crux between eccletic and traditional studies. A more modern approach doesn't care where the info came from as long as it works; A traditional approach many times will disregard something because it's not from what their instructor/master said it was. Just using Mr. Abernathy as an example; his approach works and fits within the patterns of the katas he trains it with, to many that is all that matters. They have an effective means of self-defense and a way to practice it through the kata. Others will disregard that approach because it didn't come from the head of their organization or they were told that there were no grappling applications in kata, so they will ignore the applications in favor of a more basic approach of kicking and punching.

 

[puunui]

This is the main crux between eccletic and traditional studies. A more modern approach doesn't care where the info came from as long as it works; A traditional approach many times will disregard something because it's not from what their instructor/master said it was. Just using Mr. Abernathy as an example; his approach works and fits within the patterns of the katas he trains it with, to many that is all that matters. They have an effective means of self-defense and a way to practice it through the kata. Others will disregard that approach because it didn't come from the head of their organization or they were told that there were no grappling applications in kata, so they will ignore the applications in favor of a more basic approach of kicking and punching.

Or they study a separate art such as Jujitsu or Hapkido which have those self defense techniques, taught in an organized fashion, and therefore they see no need to practice kata based bunkai training methods, whether or not the bunkai was reverse engineered or not.

 

[SahBumNimRush]

Getting back to the original question. I think that "where" a form derived from helps answer the questions of bunkai and where that stems from. For example, in the japanese styles, such as Shotokan, not a lot of bunkai was passed on other than the block/punch/kick variety. Their emphasis was more on kihon practice and kumite, the view of many was that kata was just a way to practice the kihon. So, I think that many Shotokan stylists may have "reverse engineered" their kata to look at Shorin-Ryu applications for certain movements of the same kata or came up with meanings for the movements that worked for them (whether or not it is close to the original).

This is the main crux between eccletic and traditional studies. A more modern approach doesn't care where the info came from as long as it works; A traditional approach many times will disregard something because it's not from what their instructor/master said it was. Just using Mr. Abernathy as an example; his approach works and fits within the patterns of the katas he trains it with, to many that is all that matters. They have an effective means of self-defense and a way to practice it through the kata. Others will disregard that approach because it didn't come from the head of their organization or they were told that there were no grappling applications in kata, so they will ignore the applications in favor of a more basic approach of kicking and punching.

While I do not have any inherent problems with people "reverse engineering" applications, I am more interested in drawing parallels between the "purposes" of similar looking movements in other arts. As Puunui has stated, some have the luxury of training in systems that have an organized approach to teaching the locks, grabs, throws, etc.. . that some arts emphasize in form application. I live in rural America, where there aren't other arts offered in my area, so that isn't an option for me.

I have been practicing MDK TKD for 26 years now, and I have a fairly solid base of applications for most movements in my forms, but there are some peculiar movements that I am still curious about. I believe that with the knowledge base and experience that the members of MT have, we should be able to draw some of these commonalities of movements, even if individual style applications differ. Certainly mechanics and the foundational philosophy of movement in some arts differ greatly, and may not lend themselves to easy comparison, but I am interested in hearing if anyone has attempted to do this here on MT in the past?

 

[SahBumNimRush]

For instance, even if we take the Pinan/Heian/Pyung Ahn form sets which are relatively newer than some of the forms that I practice, and look at the different styles that practice them, they are relatively similar in most all movements.

Pyung Ahn Oh Dan Moo Duk Kwan Version:

Pinan Godan Shito Ryu:

Heian Godan Shotokan:

Pinan Godan Wadoryu:

Pinan Godan Ryukyu Kempo:

Pinan Sono Go Kyokushin:

The one movement that I have always had a difficult time understanding is the turning jumping downward double handed block. My instructor explained it as merely a jumping downward block, intercepting a kick, but that movement doesn't seem efficient to say the least. I was wondering if other styles use it as some sort of throw maybe?

 

[dancingalone]

The one movement that I have always had a difficult time understanding is the turning jumping downward double handed block. My instructor explained it as merely a jumping downward block, intercepting a kick, but that movement doesn't seem efficient to say the least. I was wondering if other styles use it as some sort of throw maybe?

One interpretation is as a hip lever throw. You scoop forward one leg with one arm as you simultaneously press against the opponent's hip or thigh with the other arm in a scissoring action.

 

[SahBumNimRush]

Do you know what this move is called in Japanese/Okinawan? I've been attempting to look for more information about its uses, but I don't know the terminology.

 

[dancingalone]

Do you know what this move is called in Japanese/Okinawan? I've been attempting to look for more information about its uses, but I don't know the terminology.

I only know the judo name: kibisu gaeshi.

 

[SahBumNimRush]

Thus far in my search on YouTube, the only application that seems to fit the movement and is practical and efficient is from Mr. Abernethy.

 

[SahBumNimRush]

Looking at Kubisu Gaeshi:

Slightly different version:

As it pertains to the movement in the form, I see some resemblance, but not exactly the movement in the form. Are there other variations that fit the movement more accurately?

Something vaguely similar from Didier Lupo at 6:16

The interesting thing about the movement in the last video is the application of the combination of the two movements (low cross stance double block to the forward stance double/reinforced block). I'm not sure how much this movement really qualifies as a kubisu gaeshi though.. .

 

[dancingalone]

As it pertains to the movement in the form, I see some resemblance, but not exactly the movement in the form. Are there other variations that fit the movement more accurately?

I think an ordinary kibisu gaeshi is a good explanation for the movement. To shed some light on my perspective, the Pinan Godan I trained came from Matsubayashi-ryu and it's done without the jump. The 'kibisu gaeshi' is at 27-28 seconds of this video:

[yt]81uH9zHSwhw[/yt]

And here is an example of kibisu gaeshi pretty much performed as I envision although the performer pushes/braces against the chest rather than squatting than then levering against the hip or thigh as the squat in the kata would specify.

[yt]3GBXgY5oT_c[/yt]

 

[SahBumNimRush]

Further reading has lead me to Nipaipo (Naha Te/ Shito Ryu) vs. Er Shi Ba Bu (white crane). These forms are nearly identical.

Nipaipo:

Er Shi Ba Bu:

 

[SahBumNimRush]

I also ran across this video, claiming to be Southern Fukien Grand Ancestor Boxing. I'm not well versed in CMA's, but he's wearing a wrap uniform, which I've not seen in CMA's. However, the movements are very familiar to me from many forms that I practice.