Bunkai taught in the original kwans?

[MAist25]

So I've been doing some thinking and a little bit of research. Obviously the debate of whether or not Taekwondo poomsae contain "hidden" practical applications besides the basic block, punch, kick, sequences, is ongoing. It seems that it would be highly unlikely that any of the original Taekwondo pioneers would not have been introduced to even the basic concept of bunkai in their training. Even though some dispute that Funakoshi did not know or teach bunkai in Japan, we still must remember that some of the pioneers did receive training from Kenwa Mabuni and Toyama Kanken as well.

So under the assumption that the early Taekwondo pioneers did have at least some understanding of bunkai, is there any evidence anywhere that points to them actually teaching bunkai in Korea in the early kwans? I would be very interested if there was anything written that mentions this sort of practice occurring in Korea in the 1940's/early 50's. Thanks.

 

[dancingalone]

So under the assumption that the early Taekwondo pioneers did have at least some understanding of bunkai, is there any evidence anywhere that points to them actually teaching bunkai in Korea in the early kwans? I would be very interested if there was anything written that mentions this sort of practice occurring in Korea in the 1940's/early 50's. Thanks.

Nothing written that I am aware of expressively mentions that any Koreans studied form applications in the same manner found in Okinawan karate. The closest exposure to bunkai that any WWII era Koreans would have received is through the Shudokan/Kanken Toyama connection. I know with personal experience that Shudokan karate as taught today does have bunkai kumite sets which help explain the overt translation of the kata movements. It's a reasonable extrapolation to project that Yon Kwai Byeong, Yoon Byung In, and Kim Ki Whang would have learned some facets of the same ideas...But looking at the TKD and TSD schools that survive from their lineages in North America (I have met people from the latter two's) I'll go so far as to argue that none of the Toyama ura bunkai survived if it was ever passed on.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

So I've been doing some thinking and a little bit of research. Obviously the debate of whether or not Taekwondo poomsae contain "hidden" practical applications besides the basic block, punch, kick, sequences, is ongoing.

I'm not sure it is really a matter of debate. Poomsae contain movements that are similar to the kata found in karate. Some Korean art forms are simply kata that has been renamed. So considering that kata, as found in karate, contain deeper applications beyond the block, punch, kick format it stands to reason that a Korean form, containing the same/similar movement will have the same applications. I hesitate to use the word 'hidden' as they aren't necessarily hidden so much as not used and/or understood in some venues. If a school has a focus on sport then they really have no need for these applications as they aren't used in competition. If the school has a non-sport focus then they can be very beneficial.

Many TKD pioneers very probably had bunkai training in whatever particular karate they studied. Some weren't highly ranked, but this was not always the case. We have many examples of from 2nd Dan to 4th Dan with at least one I'm aware of that was 7th Dan (though sources vary). I would find it perfectly reasonable to expect that these pioneers had a wealth of training beyond the B/P/K. For many reasons this apparently wasn't passed on to subsequent generations, at least not in mass. And again, it all depends on the focus. If the training was geared towards competition then it simply wasn't needed and would have been a waste of time.

It's there if you need/want it.

 

[Gorilla]

We have trained in both Song Moo Kwan (TKD) and Shotokan Karate. Practical applications in both arts are very similar and they were trained in both schools. Our TKD Grand Master was a student of Young Sup Lee who was trained by the Song Mo Kwan founder Byung Jick Ro who trained under Funakoshi. Why is it being stated that practical application Bunkai is not being trained in Tkd. Maybe I don't understand the definition of Bunkai...please elaborate...Because practical applications were passed down in our very direct lineage. Thanks

 

[MAist25]

I'm not sure it is really a matter of debate. Poomsae contain movements that are similar to the kata found in karate. Some Korean art forms are simply kata that has been renamed. So considering that kata, as found in karate, contain deeper applications beyond the block, punch, kick format it stands to reason that a Korean form, containing the same/similar movement will have the same applications. I hesitate to use the word 'hidden' as they aren't necessarily hidden so much as not used and/or understood in some venues. If a school has a focus on sport then they really have no need for these applications as they aren't used in competition. If the school has a non-sport focus then they can be very beneficial.

Many TKD pioneers very probably had bunkai training in whatever particular karate they studied. Some weren't highly ranked, but this was not always the case. We have many examples of from 2nd Dan to 4th Dan with at least one I'm aware of that was 7th Dan (though sources vary). I would find it perfectly reasonable to expect that these pioneers had a wealth of training beyond the B/P/K. For many reasons this apparently wasn't passed on to subsequent generations, at least not in mass. And again, it all depends on the focus. If the training was geared towards competition then it simply wasn't needed and would have been a waste of time.

It's there if you need/want it.

I agree that the Japanese/Okinawan forms that are practiced by Koreans will obviously still contain the true applications and techniques as intended by the creator of the kata. But your statement about poomsae containing movements that are also seen in kata does not necessarily mean that the application is still there. Often in kata, the individual movements are not nearly as important as a sequence of movements that will contain a deeper application. Just because poomsae contain similar movements to certain kata, they are jumbled around and sporadically placed throughout the kata. Therefore, it is likely that even though some of the same individual movements are there, the sequences, and thus the true applications, are no longer there.

The way I look at kata is like a sentence. In a sentence, words are specifically placed where they are in order for the statement to make sense and transmit a meaning. Without the words being in their specific order, the sentence simply becomes jibberish. In poomsae, even though the same words (techniques) are used, they are not in the same order, and therefore, the meaning behind the sentence is lost. So in the practice of poomsae, I hesitate to practice bunkai, because this was not the intentions of the creators of poomsae. As you said, "hidden" really is a bad word to use. Applications in kata likely weren't hidden on purpose, but rather just "lost" or failed to be passed along for various reasons. As for poomsae, the creators would not have included "hidden" applications, as it simply makes no sense to do so.

But I also do continue to practice some of the older Japanese/Okinawan forms, and these are the forms I am speaking about in my original question; the forms that would have been practiced in the original kwans, ie. the pyung ahns, naihanchi, bassai, etc. Although we all have our ideas and opinions on whether bunkai was practiced, I am looking for something more solid that points to the idea that bunkai was in fact practiced in the original kwans. I realize this information probably doesn't exist, but I figured I would post the question and see if anybody had seen anything written, or had personally heard through a reliable source that this practice did occur.

 

[MAist25]

We have trained in both Song Moo Kwan (TKD) and Shotokan Karate. Practical applications in both arts are very similar and they were trained in both schools. Our TKD Grand Master was a student of Young Sup Lee who was trained by the Song Mo Kwan founder Byung Jick Ro who trained under Funakoshi. Why is it being stated that practical application Bunkai is not being trained in Tkd. Maybe I don't understand the definition of Bunkai...please elaborate...Because practical applications were passed down in our very direct lineage. Thanks

Gorilla, this is great to hear. Do you know for a fact that Young Sup Lee was actually taught bunkai by Byung Jik Ro while training at the Song Moo Kwan?

 

[Gorilla]

I do not know but since we were taught practical applications it would seem that he was...I will ask...I don't know for sure! It could be that Gm Ro developed his own but they were very similar to Shotokan, definitely influenced by Karate.

it just makes since to me that Funakoshi would have trained practical application (bunkai) but I have no concrete evidence of it that would stand any historical scrutiny. Great thread thou!!!!

 

[MAist25]

Excellent, I'm looking forward to the response you get! And it does seem odd that Funakoshi would not teach applications, but I have researched a few reasons why he may not have, and in fact it seems very likely that very little, if any, emphasis was placed on bunkai training in early Shotokan. However, I am not making that statement as a historical fact.

Also, my grandmaster, Richard Chun, wrote about his training at the Moo Duk Kwan Institute in Seoul under Chong Soo Hong. Now even though he did not train directly under Hwang Kee, Master Hong was an early Taekwondo practitioner and very close to the root. As described by GM Chun, training at the MDK Institute was very formal and Master Hong did not speak much or go into great detail during training. Also, students would never ask questions as it was seen as very disrespectful to do so. This style of training would make one believe that bunkai, which would require much more explanation as well as involvement of the master on a much more personal level, did not occur at the Moo Duk Kwan. This though, is also not something I am stating as fact, but from the description of training sessions by GM Chun, it sounds as though it would have been very out of place if something like training in bunkai ever occurred at the Moo Duk Kwan. However, things could have been different at the other kwans.

 

[Gorilla]

I want to be clear is was trained in both Tkd and Shotokan but certainly not emphasized as much as sparing or Poomsae/Kata. It definitely was not a focus but something that was trained and part of curriculum. Practical application was not trained daily by any means but it was trained and passed down part of BB testing. If I would ranked things 1. Sparing 2. Forms 3. Practical application... but having said that it would regularly get talked about during Poomsae/Kata training.

i could see how the term very little emphasis could be applied! I may not have clear understanding of the difference between formal Bunkai sets which contain two to three steps and the two to three steps practical applications that I have seen in TKD. Practical applications of Kata/Poomsae are definitely trained in both schools. For the hard core Bunkai enthusiast it would seem like an afterthought thou!

 

[dancingalone]

IMO training bunkai is more than just so-called 'applications'. You can't just turn it on and off - if you find that your study of applications is disconnected from everything else you do, including sparring, IMO you're not training what an Okinawan stylist thinks of when the subject comes up. That's not to say that one style or teaching methodology is better in an absolute sense - far from it. But, it's clear we don't all mean the same thing which demonstrates the difficulty of discussing karate via the written word when not everyone has the same martial background coming in. <shrugs> Nature of the beast.

 

[dancingalone]

But I also do continue to practice some of the older Japanese/Okinawan forms, and these are the forms I am speaking about in my original question; the forms that would have been practiced in the original kwans, ie. the pyung ahns, naihanchi, bassai, etc. Although we all have our ideas and opinions on whether bunkai was practiced, I am looking for something more solid that points to the idea that bunkai was in fact practiced in the original kwans. I realize this information probably doesn't exist, but I figured I would post the question and see if anybody had seen anything written, or had personally heard through a reliable source that this practice did occur.

I've participated in this type of discussion many times over the years on the web and also in person with a few martial artists who wanted to deepen their practice of Korean forms. Some went the hapkido route to deepen their understanding of close range fighting. Others did judo or jujutsu and one even added some BJJ to their school. And one guy bought a bunch of Dillman and Abernethy videos and watched them diligently until he realized you just can't learn good karate that way.

I think this type of exploration is a mixed bag at best. I like good, knowledgeable instruction in person and ideally matching exactly what the student wants or is looking for. I think if you (not you, you - the generic you) want to study bunkai, you should pick a style AND instructor that actually offers such things as a core competency and if that means moving physically and changing styles, so be it.

 

[Earl Weiss]

I agree that the Japanese/Okinawan forms that are practiced by Koreans will obviously still contain the true applications and techniques as intended by the creator of the kata. .

Unless or until someone shows me authenticated written records establishing who created a Kata and what their intent was vis a vis bunkai for a move or motion any claims that one knows or does what the creator intended are anecdotal at best. Further, many Kata have theri roots in earlier forms. So would not not the "True Application" lie with whoever first came up with the motion later used by the creator of a Kata? Then we would need an authenticated record of what they intended.

Certainly we have works like "Bubishi" going back in time to illustrate various applications. But ho is to say someone lese did not have an equaly valid claim to the "True Application" ?

 

[dancingalone]

Unless or until someone shows me authenticated written records establishing who created a Kata and what their intent was vis a vis bunkai for a move or motion any claims that one knows or does what the creator intended are anecdotal at best. Further, many Kata have theri roots in earlier forms. So would not not the "True Application" lie with whoever first came up with the motion later used by the creator of a Kata? Then we would need an authenticated record of what they intended.

Certainly we have works like "Bubishi" going back in time to illustrate various applications. But ho is to say someone lese did not have an equaly valid claim to the "True Application" ?

Herein is the difficulty of using words like 'application'. Hey, anything can be an application. If my jodan uke is an upper block, great. If it is a high section strike, also great. Either will work if we're just talking about efficacy in a fight.

But if we're talking Okinawan karate and 'bunkai' (maybe a relatively new word?), from my perspective we're talking about training mechanics in support of a targeted set of fighting objectives. What is that jodan uke really doing? Now of course, a reasonable answer is 'it depends', but IMO that's just the first pass at the problem. What is the purpose of jodan uke in the context of THIS kata, given MY own skill set? To me, that's the beginning of wisdom in karate. And seemingly in contradiction to that, I think certain styles of Okinawan karate and correspondingly their kata will have certain prescribed paths to take.

 

[MAist25]

I've participated in this type of discussion many times over the years on the web and also in person with a few martial artists who wanted to deepen their practice of Korean forms. Some went the hapkido route to deepen their understanding of close range fighting. Others did judo or jujutsu and one even added some BJJ to their school. And one guy bought a bunch of Dillman and Abernethy videos and watched them diligently until he realized you just can't learn good karate that way.

I think this type of exploration is a mixed bag at best. I like good, knowledgeable instruction in person and ideally matching exactly what the student wants or is looking for. I think if you (not you, you - the generic you) want to study bunkai, you should pick a style AND instructor that actually offers such things as a core competency and if that means moving physically and changing styles, so be it.

I understand that people have been doing this as well. But sometimes people get wayyy too into it and seem to come up with a throw or lock for every single movement in the kata. Although I do believe they could contain these types of techniques, not every single motion is a throw or lock, and these people are simply thinking about it through a completely different mindset. A kata is not simply a catalogue of techniques, I'm sorry but I just don't buy that. It is my belief that each kata was made to teach a certain concept, and that the creator of the form chose specific techniques that were strung together, in order to teach this concept. If one is not looking at the form with the intended concept in mind, he's not going to understand what was really meant to be taught by the kata.

As you mentioned in one of your other posts, a high block COULD be this, or it could be that. But what is it supposed to be in THIS form. The obvious question becomes, "does anybody actually know what the creator of the kata originally intended to teach or transmit through it?" For pretty much every kata practiced in Japanese/Okinawan Karate today, I would assume the answer is "no". However, this leads to the question of whether or not through reverse engineering, could someone actually discover the true concepts of what a specific kata was designed to teach simply through thoroughly dissecting the form itself. This seems to be something people like Iain Abernethy and Patrick McCarthy are at least exploring, which is quite interesting.

 

[dancingalone]

As you mentioned in one of your other posts, a high block COULD be this, or it could be that. But what is it supposed to be in THIS form. The obvious question becomes, "does anybody actually know what the creator of the kata originally intended to teach or transmit through it?" For pretty much every kata practiced in Japanese/Okinawan Karate today, I would assume the answer is "no".

Depends on your starting place, I guess. I think the Naha styles (Goju, Uechi, To'on, Ryuei, etc. as recent (late 1800s) imports/modifications of Fukien martial arts to Okinawa have a good chance of transmission of what the kata were designed for if you have a teacher who has real connections and ties to the founder on down. Unfortunately much of karate as taught in the US was brought back by servicemen who really didn't all that much time training with the source. (At the same time, it's also true that this is just in general and sure there are exceptional sensei that went against the grain and reached a deep understanding of karate through continual training in Okinawa.)

Some Shorin-ryu lineages like the Chibana, Kyan, and Matsumura lines can also arguably claim strong transmission of kata knowledge. It's also true IMO that karate which came down through Itosu and Funakoshi, which is a huge cross-section of karate-ka, seems to be missing this type of understanding.

 

[MAist25]

Very interesting. So do you know if any of this knowledge from masters of the Naha styles, or Shorin-ryu masters, has been put into writing? Or is it still transmitted the old way, from master to trusted students. If this kind of knowledge were to be written down, even just the ideas of what the main concepts of each kata were intended to teach/what the creator wanted to pass down, would be invaluable to any and all martial artists with roots to Okinawan martial arts.

 

[dancingalone]

Very interesting. So do you know if any of this knowledge from masters of the Naha styles, or Shorin-ryu masters, has been put into writing? Or is it still transmitted the old way, from master to trusted students. If this kind of knowledge were to be written down, even just the ideas of what the main concepts of each kata were intended to teach/what the creator wanted to pass down, would be invaluable to any and all martial artists with roots to Okinawan martial arts.

All of this stuff you really have to feel and see in person to understand it. It's a futile effort to write it down for people outside of your own group...the text is of use only to people who have access to that type of information anyway because of the impossibility to explain things solely by words and pictures. Even video doesn't suffice to show the nuances that make the difference between OK and superior technique and discrete single kihon is only part of the entire picture.

Think of it this way. Have you ever taken a seminar in an art you have only a slight familiarity with? If so, perhaps you went to it, had a good time, picked up a few good tricks that you were able to perform 'sort of' in a contrived fashion with the constant cueing of the teacher right there at hand. But when you went home, you found it much harder to repeat and duplicate with a goal of adding it permanently to your arsenal. It would be exactly like that with a book, except your chances of even getting as close as you did in the seminar are much lower.

By the way, there is some good Goju-ryu in NY if you're ever minded to travel a bit, keeping in mind that as with anything worthwhile, it takes time to reach the 'advanced' material.

 

[MAist25]

Yes, I do understand where you are coming from. Like it is reiterated time and again on this forum, it is impossible to learn solely from books or videos. Martial arts are something that you need to do and feel and experience. I guess I'm just being a stubborn and lazy American who expects everything to be readily accessible lol. But yea, I am always open to suggestions if you had anybody specific in mind in NY? I have actually always been quite interested in Okinawan Karate.

 

[dancingalone]

Yes, I do understand where you are coming from. Like it is reiterated time and again on this forum, it is impossible to learn solely from books or videos. Martial arts are something that you need to do and feel and experience. I guess I'm just being a stubborn and lazy American who expects everything to be readily accessible lol. But yea, I am always open to suggestions if you had anybody specific in mind in NY? I have actually always been quite interested in Okinawan Karate.

You can start with Dave Oddy's school in Syracuse. He trains regularly with Taira Sensei.

A word of warning though... some of the habits you have perhaps grooved in from training Moo Duk Kwan might make a transition to Goju difficult. I have a former TSD bb studying with me and his reflexive desire to stay in medium to long range remains an issue even after a couple of years with me.

 

[reeskm]

Just because poomsae contain similar movements to certain kata, they are jumbled around and sporadically placed throughout the kata. Therefore, it is likely that even though some of the same individual movements are there, the sequences, and thus the true applications, are no longer there.

Agreed, MAist25. Although I don't want to disparage the TKD poomsae set, they were generally created very recently with the aim of replacing the okinawan kata completely.
I believe that unless you keep the original okinawan kata in your curriculum, you lose the essential secrets of Karate or Tang Soo Do. Hundreds of years of practice and perfection went into the Okinawan kata and it's astounding how much bunkai is contained within.

Does anybody have access to shudokan bunkai? If I could find some quick online material into the nature of that style, compared to Shotokan which is all over, I might be able to see if it resembles the bunkai my teacher taught me.

I believe that, fundamentally, "practical applications" and "bunkai" are the same. The only difference being is that bunkai generally refer to "hidden" or less obvious applications that are not directly obvious from the actual technique in the kata. Ex: elbow smash also contains a grab, low block contains rear elbow, etc.

Also, i would like to add that we all know that bunkai are rarely written down or published (contradicting my request above, but let's see where this goes!).
So, just because we can't see any evidence of bunkai being taught in early kwan's dosen't mean that it wasn't done.

My instructor has said for years, that Hwang Kee was a proponent of teaching practical applications, and passed on that it was essential to the study of Tang Soo Do.

Also, I have Song Duk Song's book at home on Korean Karate. I'll have to review it but I'm pretty sure he'll mention bunkai if he was teaching it in the '60s, in his book.