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

[lklawson]

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.

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?

Like this:

And you think that won't work? You think that because... wait for it... you're right. It's BS.

The problem is that it absolutely WILL work, if you do it right. See, the thing is that 99% of the people teaching this think that the first movement is a "chamber." It's not. THAT movement is the actual block. The second movement, the one that everyone always calls the block, isn't. It is, in truth, a riposte; a return strike!

The way it's supposed to actually work is that a linear punch comes in, and you parry it outside and slightly down, away from your body, with a sort of "swatting" motion. That pushes your right hand over to the left hip. As you do that, you go ahead and slightly twist your hips in order to wind up for a Rising Backfist to the chin. Then you simply unwind and gobsmack the person who's punch you already parried.

It took me years to learn this. No one in TSD ever told me. I had to read it somewhere else. While I honestly think that I read it before, my first clear recollection of description of the technique actually comes from Boxing. I read about it in Jack Dempsey's seminal treatise "Championship Fighting." In it he describes keeping a nearly standard boxer's ready position, fists up. But he says to leave a gap between your fists in order to bait your opponent into trying to Straight Lead through the gap. You know it's coming so you are plenty able to swat it to the side with an open palm, then reverse the motion and backfist the fella in the kisser. You see these sort of open-palm parries in a lot of London Prize Ring boxing manuals and they go all the way up through the early 20th Century manuals such as Dempsey's.

Same with the "Middle Block" and the "Low Block." Middle block you swat the linear punch to the side and then follow up with a backfist to the side of the jaw or the temple. Low block, you swat the linear punch to the side and follow up with a downward flowing backfist; maybe straight down on the nose or the brow.

I really shouldn't be giving this stuff away for free.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[Chris Parker]

Ha, maybe you shouldn't be giving it away for free, Kirk... although I would also state that I'm not sold on that as the reason for it. I'm with you as much as the actual practical usage isn't really understood, and that the application you discuss is a possible interpretation, but the description you've given doesn't quite match the way I was taught it in both my Karate and TKD days. It would actually need a fair amount of alteration to be the form you're describing... and, from my other training, there's another application that simply makes a lot more sense (to my mind).

Firstly, if we compare the performance of it to this example (at 0:15-0:18), you'll notice that there isn't really a sweeping across motion (from the shoulder down) as would be required, and that all the power is in the rising action. Your hand simply comes across to the opposite hip, then pushes up across the front of your body, similar to a windscreen wiper, clearing what is in front of you.

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.

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.

 

[bluewaveschool]

The performance of the blocks in that video is completely off of anything I've ever taught or seen taught. Kirk's video is closer to how I do it, but not quite the same.

I agree on the idea of a defense from a downward sword cut. Makes sense... a long time ago. But what to do with it now? One thing I've shown in the past is this - say a man grabs you with both hands, on the chest/shirt area. Raise the arms in the 'i don't want any trouble, i give up' manner, then bring them downward into a traditional ready stance, striking the attacker in the elbows to bend the arms and bring him closer. Then do the 'block' delivering it as a strike underneath the chin while stepping forward. If you keep pressure, you can walk them off you. If you pop them hard, their head will snap back and they'll see stars long enough for you to get away.

I need to get a video camera, I think it'd make more sense to show instead of write out.

 

[lklawson]

Ha, maybe you shouldn't be giving it away for free, Kirk...

Well, my intent in the statement was humor. Like I said, I've read that interpretation from others too so it's not like it's a secret (though, based on how few people seem to know this application, you'd think it was).

although I would also state that I'm not sold on that as the reason for it.

Fair enough.

It would actually need a fair amount of alteration to be the form you're describing...

Naturally, I disagree. I suppose it wouldn't surprise you to know that I've seen and done it in almost exactly the way I described. Of particular note was the very slight hip winding instead of the exaggerated motion that I see usually taught. The issue is of timing. Unless the linear punch was very deep and very committed, most people simply do not have the time to push it that far. However, all of these Karate-based systems we're talking about are noted for teaching deep, committed, long, linear punches. There are 9 perfect examples in the video you just referenced.

Additionally, the rising action is too vertical to be a backfist,

Depends on the range. We'll come back to this.

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).

My experience in knife arts tells me something different. My experience is that the final movement of a traditional "high block" is:

1. A very poor defense against an ice-pick downward stab
2. almost never taught in arts that teach knife use
3. is taught very differently than this when it is taught
4. Doesn't fit very well with the ways an ice-pick attack is usually made (see the section "How Attacks Are Made" in this article: http://cbd.atspace.com/articles/degenhawk/hawk_and_rondell.html )

He's stepping forwards. 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.

This comes back to the range issue I noted above. If the defender steps forward, he is in the perfect place to drive the backfist (hammer fist, or whatever) into the opponent. It also matches the basic punching strategy (as opposed to the more advanced) illustrated in the basic forms: step into the strike.

So think about it... if it's against a punch, and you need to step forward, then the punch wouldn't have reached you.

It works perfect if one assumes the opponent is stepping into his punch as is illustrated with all 9 punches in the form.

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.

I don't accept it as a moving in to the hands on the grip of a sword either. The timing is near impossible, certainly not "basic." Nor does it match with any other "unarmed against a sword" techniques I've ever seen. In particular it lacks the "voiding" movement which takes the defender's body out of the path of the sword.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[lklawson]

The performance of the blocks in that video is completely off of anything I've ever taught or seen taught. Kirk's video is closer to how I do it, but not quite the same.

I agree on the idea of a defense from a downward sword cut. Makes sense... a long time ago. But what to do with it now? One thing I've shown in the past is this - say a man grabs you with both hands, on the chest/shirt area. Raise the arms in the 'i don't want any trouble, i give up' manner, then bring them downward into a traditional ready stance, striking the attacker in the elbows to bend the arms and bring him closer. Then do the 'block' delivering it as a strike underneath the chin while stepping forward. If you keep pressure, you can walk them off you. If you pop them hard, their head will snap back and they'll see stars long enough for you to get away.

I need to get a video camera, I think it'd make more sense to show instead of write out.

Sure. Be glad to see it.

The discussion is ranging a bit far afield now, and I doubt we'll agree on the actual application in the end. But as long as we're all friendly, right?

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[Chris Parker]

Right, that's it, it's war!

The performance of the blocks in that video is completely off of anything I've ever taught or seen taught. Kirk's video is closer to how I do it, but not quite the same.

I agree on the idea of a defense from a downward sword cut. Makes sense... a long time ago. But what to do with it now? One thing I've shown in the past is this - say a man grabs you with both hands, on the chest/shirt area. Raise the arms in the 'i don't want any trouble, i give up' manner, then bring them downward into a traditional ready stance, striking the attacker in the elbows to bend the arms and bring him closer. Then do the 'block' delivering it as a strike underneath the chin while stepping forward. If you keep pressure, you can walk them off you. If you pop them hard, their head will snap back and they'll see stars long enough for you to get away.

I need to get a video camera, I think it'd make more sense to show instead of write out.

Well, yeah, a defence against a sword makes sense "a long time ago" (although maybe not as long as you might be thinking), are you suggesting that although the same movements have been kept, due to there not being a prevalence of sword attacks these days, the action needs to have a different use? Surely you'd either just drop the movement, or come up with a new one, yeah? Otherwise it's like saying "yeah, a ship is a good way to get to an overseas country, but once you're flying in a jet, the boat is rather useless... so let's make a boat fly!"

When looking at anything classed as a "traditional art", it pays to understand the context that the art came from... which means understanding what it was meant to face, rather than what you expect it to face now. And, in that sense, Tang Soo Do/Tae Kwon Do are really nothing more than Korean adaptations of Japanese Karate (hell, that's what Tang Soo Do means...), which is an adaptation from Okinawan Te. And, as such, that's the context that you should be looking at for the techniques. So saying that "well, yeah, a sword defence back then...", it's really what it is. What it's used for now, and the reason it's seen as being rather impractical, is that it's removed from the actual reason for it. For the record, it's the same with pretty much all the other blocks as well, and the kata tend to work best when taken with this idea in mind....

Now, to my nemesis, Kirk...

Well, my intent in the statement was humor. Like I said, I've read that interpretation from others too so it's not like it's a secret (though, based on how few people seem to know this application, you'd think it was).

The "sweep across" one, you mean? As I said, I can see how it could be done that way, but I really don't think that's the actual application. It just doesn't make enough sense, on a number of levels.

Fair enough.

No, no, no, Kirk, we're meant to fight! Have at thee, and all that! I mean, where's the fun, otherwise?

..... spoilsport.....

Naturally, I disagree. I suppose it wouldn't surprise you to know that I've seen and done it in almost exactly the way I described. Of particular note was the very slight hip winding instead of the exaggerated motion that I see usually taught. The issue is of timing. Unless the linear punch was very deep and very committed, most people simply do not have the time to push it that far. However, all of these Karate-based systems we're talking about are noted for teaching deep, committed, long, linear punches. There are 9 perfect examples in the video you just referenced.

Yeah, I'm not taking the methods of punching as validation, honestly. We'll come back to this.

Depends on the range. We'll come back to this.

Hey, you're stealing my lines! But okay, cool. I'd also say that my reasoning isn't really about the range, it's about the mechanics... coming up vertically like that just doesn't have much power for a strike... but is very strong (structurally) as a jamming action against something coming down, as it's a bracing structure, not a striking one. Yeah, it can be done, but it's just far from optimal.

My experience in knife arts tells me something different. My experience is that the final movement of a traditional "high block" is:

1. A very poor defense against an ice-pick downward stab
2. almost never taught in arts that teach knife use
3. is taught very differently than this when it is taught
4. Doesn't fit very well with the ways an ice-pick attack is usually made (see the section "How Attacks Are Made" in this article: http://cbd.atspace.com/articles/degenhawk/hawk_and_rondell.html )

Right, a few things here. First, I wasn't talking about knife attacks, and particularly not "ice-pick grips". You might have noticed that I was talking Japanese weapon attacks (thinking specifically about sword, but also kodachi, and, to a small degree, tanto), I spoke about "forearms" (plural), and the idea of an "ice-pick grip" just isn't really a major thing in Japanese systems. You're more likely to get knife methods with the edge up than a reverse-grip like you're describing here. But, uh, on that page you've linked? Check out images 17, 21, 24, which all show something along the lines of the application I'm talking about.... hmm....

This comes back to the range issue I noted above. If the defender steps forward, he is in the perfect place to drive the backfist (hammer fist, or whatever) into the opponent. It also matches the basic punching strategy (as opposed to the more advanced) illustrated in the basic forms: step into the strike.

Yes, and he's just stepped directly into an incoming strike. The fact that the attacking punch is such a long, deep stepping action just tells you the range they're attacking from, really, the end of the punch is going to be the same (your nose, or a few inches beyond it, really)... so, why are you moving directly into it? Just so you can hopefully sweep the incoming punch to the side and apply a weakened rising strike? Really? Additionally, by moving into the strike, you're not only making it closer, you're making the timing far tighter as well, as you're now giving yourself less time to actually get your interception and deflection in... so this application has you stepping straight into a punch with less reaction time and a low-impact response. Yeah, I'm really, really not sold as this for a primary application....

It works perfect if one assumes the opponent is stepping into his punch as is illustrated with all 9 punches in the form.

Er... no. See above.

I don't accept it as a moving in to the hands on the grip of a sword either. The timing is near impossible, certainly not "basic." Nor does it match with any other "unarmed against a sword" techniques I've ever seen. In particular it lacks the "voiding" movement which takes the defender's body out of the path of the sword.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

Well, it may not be exactly "basic" (it is, actually, but that's another story, and is done in another fashion initially... but that's another little-understood aspect of many old systems....), but it is very much standard almost across the board. In fact, almost every system I can think of has some form of it... in the Ninjutsu traditions, for example, five out of the six main systems have it, as do many many many other schools, such as Takenouchi Ryu, Asayama Ichiden Ryu, Kashima Shinryu, and, well, many many others. But the thing is, whenever this type of action comes up, it is never against a straight (forward) attack... it is only ever against a downward one, whether a sword attack, a short sword one, a knife attack (not an "ice-pick grip" again), or an unarmed hand strike (which, frankly, are just preparation exercises for the defence against weapons later on). In fact, this is such a standard response that there are famous martial poems in Japanese traditions, dealing with unarmed defence against swords, which advises the reason for this:

"Under an upraised sword is Hell. Step forward, and find Heaven." (Note: this is not a Christian form of Heaven, so it does not imply being killed....). The step forward gets you in past the range of the sword blade, allowing you to jam the forearms as the person attacks. That would be your "voiding" action, I believe.

 

[bluewaveschool]

You misunderstand me Chris, I was not suggesting we throw out the block because of the lack of sword attacks in todays world. I was saying that we have to find more... meaning for the movement, I guess.

 

[Chris Parker]

Oh, I got that.... my question is why would you expect that there would be real practical applications other than it's intended? Surely it's more pragmatic to come up with a different action that fits the principles but is suited to the new needs... in which case, the only reason to keep it is to maintain the original context.

 

[Aiki Lee]

"Under an upraised sword is Hell. Step forward, and find Heaven." (Note: this is not a Christian form of Heaven, so it does not imply being killed....). The step forward gets you in past the range of the sword blade, allowing you to jam the forearms as the person attacks. That would be your "voiding" action, I believe.

Hence my tagline "Heaven lies under the sword".

I've noitced we are way off subject here, but this type of discussion is always interesting to me. Mostly I feel the need to side with Chris on this one for what the original purpose would be. I think lklawson's application could work if the initial deflection was able to utilize the idea kazushi, but then if the opponent was off balance to that degree then a stepping motion may not be necessary.

 

[lklawson]

Now, to my nemesis, Kirk...

I have a nemesis now? I'm moving up in the world! woo-hoo!

The "sweep across" one, you mean? As I said, I can see how it could be done that way, but I really don't think that's the actual application. It just doesn't make enough sense, on a number of levels.

Yeah, the theory that a "traditional bock" is really a two-action movement, 1) A parry followed by 2) a hammer/back-fist.

I will say that I have some documentation (antique boxing, of course) which shows a similar "pushing up" 'high block' and a similar "pushing down and out" 'low block' against linear punches. It doesn't fit with my preferred theory, but it is there and I acknowledge it.

"The Brush-Away"

"First Parry and Blow"

"Second Parry and Blow"

"Straight Counter"

Like I said, these look like the "High" and "Low" blocks but they do not account for the first half of the movement, the "chambering" that is taught. That is why I think the "block" is first a parry then a riposte.

No, no, no, Kirk, we're meant to fight! Have at thee, and all that! I mean, where's the fun, otherwise?

..... spoilsport.....

Well, that's true.

Right, a few things here. First, I wasn't talking about knife attacks, and particularly not "ice-pick grips". You might have noticed that I was talking Japanese weapon attacks (thinking specifically about sword, but also kodachi, and, to a small degree, tanto), I spoke about "forearms" (plural), and the idea of an "ice-pick grip" just isn't really a major thing in Japanese systems. You're more likely to get knife methods with the edge up than a reverse-grip like you're describing here. But, uh, on that page you've linked? Check out images 17, 21, 24, which all show something along the lines of the application I'm talking about.... hmm....

Those work because the Tempo and Measure (Maai). With a sword, the defender has to travel the length of the blade before he can contact the swordsman's arms. I contend that this is simply not possible the vast majority of the time from a Men strike. This is why I insist that a body void must accompany it. Simply being under the arm doesn't void the blade unless you get there. But the problem is getting there. the swordsman has the distance and the time. The Hand is quicker than the Body. There's a reason why George Silver lays out his priority of hand, body, foot, and feet movements. The Swordsman only has to move his arms. The Defender has to move his whole body. The "Time" goes to the swordsman every time. The defender gets his arm lopped off.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[Chris Parker]

I have a nemesis now? I'm moving up in the world! woo-hoo!

No, no, Kirk, you misunderstand... you're my nemesis, you don't have one yourself....

Yeah, the theory that a "traditional bock" is really a two-action movement, 1) A parry followed by 2) a hammer/back-fist.

I will say that I have some documentation (antique boxing, of course) which shows a similar "pushing up" 'high block' and a similar "pushing down and out" 'low block' against linear punches. It doesn't fit with my preferred theory, but it is there and I acknowledge it.

"The Brush-Away"

"First Parry and Blow"

"Second Parry and Blow"

"Straight Counter"

Like I said, these look like the "High" and "Low" blocks but they do not account for the first half of the movement, the "chambering" that is taught. That is why I think the "block" is first a parry then a riposte.

Yeah, they certainly do look similar... and, honestly, I wouldn't read into it that you don't see the chamber... there are reasons it's there in the karate form, and not there, part of which is speed, part of which is it's role as a training exercise, and part of it is pure efficacy, really. Oh, and what it's meant to go against...

Well, that's true.

Damn straight! Have at thee, enguarde, touche, and other fighting words! Avast, and all that!

Those work because the Tempo and Measure (Maai). With a sword, the defender has to travel the length of the blade before he can contact the swordsman's arms. I contend that this is simply not possible the vast majority of the time from a Men strike. This is why I insist that a body void must accompany it. Simply being under the arm doesn't void the blade unless you get there. But the problem is getting there. the swordsman has the distance and the time. The Hand is quicker than the Body. There's a reason why George Silver lays out his priority of hand, body, foot, and feet movements. The Swordsman only has to move his arms. The Defender has to move his whole body. The "Time" goes to the swordsman every time. The defender gets his arm lopped off.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

Actually, it's not only possible, it's been relied on by many systems over the centuries. The forward movement is, really, very desperate, and if you can instead move to the side, that's better... but stepping straight ahead gets you "inside" the blade, which is where you need to be. Remember, this isn't a Kendo "men-tap" we're talking about here, it's a fully committed stepping cut down. It's also applied by leaping in when the sword is raised in the first place, making it a jamming action before the cut, sometimes done from a half-kneeling position (dropping underneath, as well as moving inside the sword).

But let me ask, does the step forward make more sense to you if you're stepping in past a sword attack, or if you're stepping in to block a punch? Honestly, if you are stepping in to block the punch... well, the punch wouldn't have reached you... so why would you move in?

 

[lklawson]

No, no, Kirk, you misunderstand... you're my nemesis, you don't have one yourself....

Ah well. I'll go back to the Guild and reapply. Maybe The Monarch is done with Venture and will agree to be my Nemesis.

But let me ask, does the step forward make more sense to you if you're stepping in past a sword attack, or if you're stepping in to block a punch? Honestly, if you are stepping in to block the punch... well, the punch wouldn't have reached you... so why would you move in?

Remember that in my interpretation, you don't step in to block the punch. The first movement (the "chamber") is a parry that sweeps the punch aside, then the second movement is a backfist/hammerfist/whatever accompanied by a forward step (the part traditionally thought of as "the block").

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[Dirty Dog]

Due to topic drift, these posts have been split off. The original thread can be found here.

Mark Cochran
MT Moderator

 

[Bill Mattocks]

All I can say is kata, kata, kata. Do kata. All of the system (in my case Isshin-Ryu) is inside the kata. If you reach an advanced status and do not realize that, perhaps your training is not up to snuff. Everything is in the kata. Kata has bunkai, bunkai is application, and application is self-defense. None of the time you spend doing kata is wasted. It trains muscle memory and prepares you to eventually recognize the self-defense methods stored safely inside the kata, waiting for you to discover them and make them flower and adopt them as your own.

 

[Makalakumu]

The motions in kata can be taken literally and they an be interpretive at the same time. There are different levels of understanding and this allows for creative personalization of the kata. In essence, this is what makes it an art. When I have more time, I'll post some videos of some of my interpretations for these moves.

Excellent ties to boxing, Kirk. That's a cool angle to take with kata!

 

[Chris Parker]

Ah well. I'll go back to the Guild and reapply. Maybe The Monarch is done with Venture and will agree to be my Nemesis.

Remember that in my interpretation, you don't step in to block the punch. The first movement (the "chamber") is a parry that sweeps the punch aside, then the second movement is a backfist/hammerfist/whatever accompanied by a forward step (the part traditionally thought of as "the block").

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

Except... the step happens (in all cases I've seen) with the initial movement of the arms. Check the clip you put up, the lady demonstrating steps forward as she chambers, then performs the rising action. Besides that, simply standing still and relying on a parry with no body movement itself is just plain risky... you'd want to move out of the way, in some form. And, as the only movement is forward, it really can't be against a punching action, as you're either moving into it, or too close to perform any counter. I mean, if this is meant to be against a punch, if you stand where you are, the punch won't reach you... so what's the point?

All I can say is kata, kata, kata. Do kata. All of the system (in my case Isshin-Ryu) is inside the kata. If you reach an advanced status and do not realize that, perhaps your training is not up to snuff. Everything is in the kata. Kata has bunkai, bunkai is application, and application is self-defense. None of the time you spend doing kata is wasted. It trains muscle memory and prepares you to eventually recognize the self-defense methods stored safely inside the kata, waiting for you to discover them and make them flower and adopt them as your own.

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

 

[Makalakumu]

I think there was a beleif at one time that kata showed more direct and less interpretive applications. Therefore, it was thought that you could practice the kata and get better at the applications through this practice.

However, all of the old masters, including Funakoshi said this wasn't the case. In fact, they said that the physical kata was useless without the knowledge and skills practiced within it. It's essentially just a dance without the information it was intended to pass on.

Practicing the full art is how you get better.

 

[Chris Parker]

Funakoshi said that the secret to karate lay within the kata, but that's not the same thing as saying there are hidden applications to the kata movements, unless you're thinking of a different quote. And how can you be practicing the "full art" if you're trying to come up with your own interpretation (bunkai, exploration) of the kata? Surely that implies a lack of the full art in the first place, yeah?

 

[Makalakumu]

Funakoshi said that the secret to karate lay within the kata, but that's not the same thing as saying there are hidden applications to the kata movements, unless you're thinking of a different quote. And how can you be practicing the "full art" if you're trying to come up with your own interpretation (bunkai, exploration) of the kata? Surely that implies a lack of the full art in the first place, yeah?

These are good questions and looking from the outside in at how karate is practiced today, I can see how someone could frame them. Here is a podcast I recently listened to that lays out some of the quotations from the various people who practiced karate back during the time when a major change in how the art was practiced occurred.

http://www.iainabernethy.co.uk/content/masters-speak-podcast

The quotes show that the masters of the past thought that kata without application was “useless”, that karate training should include locking and throwing, that the directions in kata have nothing to do with the angle of attack, that the idea of the kata being for multiple “opponents” who attack in turn was “nonsense”, that awareness and avoidance training is vital, that we should hit first once conflict can’t be avoided, that there is no such thing as a “pure style”, and so forth.

Taking these quotes into account, I came to the conclusion that the way that modern karate was practiced was vastly different then it was originally intended to be practiced. The karateka at the beginning of the 19th century were vocally negative about the changes, but seemed powerless to prevent them. I'm not sure why and that would be an interesting avenue of research.

From my own research, particularly from some of the insights that Shoshin Nagamine shared about his time training with Chotoku Kyan, kata were meant to be taught and practiced in a way totally different from how they are taught to students now. When a student began to learn karate, the teacher would begin with various conditioning exercises that were designed to promote physical fitness and prepare the body to perform various martial arts moves. These exercises included weight training, body weight exercises, conditioning of striking surfaces, rolls, and falls. Then, the student would begin a study of responses to various attacks that included striking, pushing, and pulling techniques. The student would drill various key movements and then be taught how to put them together in combinations. Lastly, the teacher would allow the student to "play" with the concept and test it's effectiveness with resistance. The whole time, the teacher would be beside the small groups he instructed, offering demonstrations, giving out more insights and refining techniques. Eventually, after about 10 to 20 scenarios had been drilled, students would be shown the kata and they would be instructed in how the kata contained this information. After a certain amount of time, the student would begin to develop their own interpretations of principles and the way they reacted to scenarios would change. Thus, these changes were reflected in the alphabet and grammar of their kata. This was the process that produced so many different interpretations of various kata before karate entered it's modern age.

So, are there "hidden" moves in kata? The answer is yes and no. It depends on your perspective. If you were taught the kata without applications, then there are hidden moves. Otherwise, there are just techniques and information recorded in the kata.

Here is another article of import on the matter.

http://seinenkai.com/art-bunkai.html

In closing, I want to bring up Shoshin Nagamine again. His style, the Matsubayashi Ryu, does not really teach the kata like he stated how he originally learned it from Chotoku Kyan. In fact, there are more similarities with the Japanese interpretation of karate then there are with what he actually described in his writings. This difference in pedagogy is fascinating and represents something that I am researching right now. How did Okinawan karate transform into Japanese karate?

 

[Makalakumu]

Here is a video from 2006 where I break down a kata into it's various applications. These interpretations are my own, because I wasn't originally taught the applications. However, based off of my research, some are fairly accurate...and some are downright hokey. Enjoy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKhrc8jARJ8&list=UUQRaQdqLXTEtDcT8hjQTbAA&index=31&feature=plcp