Recreation of the application of forms

[hoshin1600]

This is a branch off topic moved from another thread.

if this is the case, are you saying that abernethy’s karate is not “traditional?” Once again, I’m not saying good or bad. Just making sure I understand. Are you suggesting that he is rediscovering the original intent or discovering/revealing new, modern application?

I would say hIs karate is traditional because he is rediscovering the original intent. What passes as 'Traditional' most of the time these days is anything but that.

 

[hoshin1600]

Abernethy’s karate is traditional but his bunkai application is not.
His application knowledge of the original intent of kata is probably as accurate as our own understanding of how the Egyptians built the pyramids.

There are two schools of thought on karate kata.
(A)BUNKAI BASED KATA...
the movements within the kata are a recreation of fighting actions and have a specific and defined application.
The belief is the kata is a catalog of specific techniques established by the kata creator through observation of what is effective in combat.

(B)..PRINCIPAL & MECHANICS KATA
The movement patterns within the kata are an abstract representation that reflect all the possibilities of human movement in combat.
The belief is that the kata creator through observation over time and over a multitude of combative exchanges, extracted and distilled the most effective and most applicable principles and mechanics, to a small number of movements that can be used in the largest number of applications.


The truth may be somewhere in the middle but like most politics people choose a side and a cause and defend their position with an unwavering adherence.

 

[Paul_D]

Abernethy’s karate is traditional but his bunkai application is not.

I don't understand this, so I need further clarification. Why is his bunkai not traditional? What do you mean by traditional, modern karate which is incorrectly labelled as traditional, or traditional as in his karate used to be before it was changed into what we have now?

 

[MI_martialist]

Bunkai v. Principal...why do you think these are different things?

 

[hoshin1600]

I don't understand this, so I need further clarification. Why is his bunkai not traditional? What do you mean by traditional, modern karate which is incorrectly labelled as traditional, or traditional as in his karate used to be before it was changed into what we have now?

I am giving him the benifit of doubt saying his karate is traditional. Having a base in Wado Ryu I would call that traditional. Although his practice of karate could be more influenced by Thompson. Since I don't know the man I will give him the doubt that he keeps his karate training traditional.
That aside, for bunkai to be considered traditional it would have to be the applications that have been passed down from the founder of what ever style we are discussing. In many instances that may go all the way back to the Chinese.
All karate originates from Okinawa. In particular the Shorin styles are the oldest and the history of these kata pass through one man, Matsumura Sokon. Our knowledge of karate prior to him has been lost to time. The kata Matsumura taught have not had any functional bunkai that have been passed down fully intact. The bulk of todays kata found in a wide variety of styles have a predominant feature of being rehashed and reconfigured movements of the original Matsumura kata.
Since we do not have a functional knowledge of Matsumura kata and bunkai it should be understood that a definitive bunkai for today's kata would also be lacking in a concise application and defined technique.
This leads us back to history. The question arises, did Matsumura not teach bunkai? Did he understand the applications himself, was his own learning deficient? We would expect that if he knew kata bunkai he would have passed that knowledge down and likewise Itosu and Funakoshi and all the other masters would have done the same.

Going back to Abernethy, the only possible way he could be resurrecting lost bunkai would be to travel to China and in a 1 in a billion chance find that original form ,,which would also have to be unchanged by time.
Abernethy is creating new bunkai based on his own understanding of mechanics and combat. He is doing nothing more than following the precepts of the Principal & Mechanics concept I stated earlier but then proclaiming his understanding as a single bunkai. The Principal & mechanics concept requires the student to challenge their understanding of kata and create bunkai. The depth of understanding constantly changes the bunkai, , in essence there is no single application.

 

[MI_martialist]

I am going to have to completely disagree with the aspect of bunkai you state here. I assume that an appropriate definition and understanding of BUNKAI would be necessary.

I am giving him the benifit of doubt saying his karate is traditional. Having a base in Wado Ryu I would call that traditional. Although his practice of karate could be more influenced by Thompson. Since I don't know the man I will give him the doubt that he keeps his karate training traditional.
That aside, for bunkai to be considered traditional it would have to be the applications that have been passed down from the founder of what ever style we are discussing. In many instances that may go all the way back to the Chinese.
All karate originates from Okinawa. In particular the Shorin styles are the oldest and the history of these kata pass through one man, Matsumura Sokon. Our knowledge of karate prior to him has been lost to time. The kata Matsumura taught have not had any functional bunkai that have been passed down fully intact. The bulk of todays kata found in a wide variety of styles have a predominant feature of being rehashed and reconfigured movements of the original Matsumura kata.
Since we do not have a functional knowledge of Matsumura kata and bunkai it should be understood that a definitive bunkai for today's kata would also be lacking in a concise application and defined technique.
This leads us back to history. The question arises, did Matsumura not teach bunkai? Did he understand the applications himself, was his own learning deficient? We would expect that if he knew kata bunkai he would have passed that knowledge down and likewise Itosu and Funakoshi and all the other masters would have done the same.

Going back to Abernethy, the only possible way he could be resurrecting lost bunkai would be to travel to China and in a 1 in a billion chance find that original form ,,which would also have to be unchanged by time.
Abernethy is creating new bunkai based on his own understanding of mechanics and combat. He is doing nothing more than following the precepts of the Principal & Mechanics concept I stated earlier but then proclaiming his understanding as a single bunkai. The Principal & mechanics concept requires the student to challenge their understanding of kata and create bunkai. The depth of understanding constantly changes the bunkai, , in essence there is no single application.

 

[hoshin1600]

Bunkai v. Principal...why do you think these are different things?

bunkai and principals are not different. perhaps you missed my intent.
i am referring to the origins of kata. one hypothesis is that , In The Beginning.......
warriors experienced in combat taught techniques that worked in combat. these techniques were later strung together to create a form. from this perspective one technique has a single bunkai or meaning for that action within the kata. i called this "Bunkai based kata" this is not to say that principals do not exist in kata but rather the purpose of kata is to pass down these tried and tested techniques.

on the contrary another hypothesis is that ...
warriors over time saw a pattern of movement that worked in multiple situations. thus an over arching principal was developed and the movements of the kata were strung together to pass down these principals and mechanics. i called this "Principal & Mechanics based kata" in this concept there can be no ONE SINGLE application because the movements are based on biomechanical physics of the human body and apply to a wide range of interactions.

 

[hoshin1600]

I am going to have to completely disagree with the aspect of bunkai you state here. I assume that an appropriate definition and understanding of BUNKAI would be necessary.

could you rephrase this or elaborate on this? this could have a few different meanings to me.

 

[hoshin1600]

the problem with bunkai is that we assume kata is fixed in time. the reality is that the movements in kata change over time. kata is subject to the laws of evolution. The Okinawan's have a word or phrase "Shimejurusan kata" this is the pure expression of kata devoid of any personal habits or quirks. the kata "exists" on its own accord and it is up to the practitioner to manifest it without his own habits, quirks or expression of movement. it is a lifetime pursuit to rid oneself of these individual habits. one benefit of Shimejurusan is that it is an attempt to minimize the evolutional changes that happen over time.
in nature evolution is based on random genetic mutations. a broken DNA strand causes a mutation and if that mutation is successful in nature it is passed to the next generation. in the same way one karate practitioner may have a mutation (a habit or quirk) the next generation inherits that change and if the inheritor can find meaning (intentional or not) within that mutation (successful efficiency) then the kata is altered to accept that changed meaning.
because kata changes it would be a mistake to think that Abernethy has an authentic bunkai, the interpretation would have to be based on the original performance of the kata, which for the most part has also been lost.

 

[hoshin1600]

Take kata. I don’t do kata but someone.... has explained that kata is a deep well of meaning, and that the more he practices the more meaning he gets out of it. He also has said that the more he learns about the intent behind the movements, the more meaning he gets. Is one more valuable than the other? I don’t know. Maybe, maybe not. But I would say that the more one knows about the original intent, the more one could get from one’s own practice and contemplation. Said plainly, would Iain Abernathy be the kata guru he is if he didn’t start with a solid grounding in what the katas were intended to mean?i would guess not.

i would say yes. his own interpretation is not based on historical intent but rather on modern applications primarily based on his own eclectic studies of martial arts as a whole.

 

[hoshin1600]

This is an excerpt from an interview with Abernethy.

"A lot depends upon one’s definition of “traditional”. The irony is, I feel I’m extremely traditional in my approach to Karate and bunkai! Much of what passes for bunkai today is not traditional. It’s predominantly from the 1940s onward and has been hugely influenced by the modern sport version of Karate. I would say that my take on bunkai is very traditional, and what is frequently called “traditional” is in fact a modern creation. I’ll give a few examples to explain where I’m coming from.”

“First of all: Most bunkai that people call “traditional” has a hero standing in the middle while the bad guys attack from prescribed angles. But that’s not traditional at all! Kenwa Mabuni wrote the following in the 1930s:

“The meaning of the directions in kata is not well understood, and frequently mistakes are made in the interpretation of kata movements. In extreme cases, it is sometimes heard that “this kata moves in 8 directions so it is designed for fighting 8 opponents” or some such nonsense.”

So what is called “traditional” today was called “nonsense” by one of modern Karate’s pioneers! Mabuni goes on to say that the angle does not represent the angle of attack, but the angle we shift to in relation to the enemy. I agree! My take on things is therefore fully in accord with what Mabuni said. Much of “modern traditional Karate”, however, is not.”




so from Iain's perspective what he does is traditional. but to me this means his INTENT is traditional. i totally see where he is coming from he is comparing his ideas with those karate practitioners who have perverted karate into a showcase spectacle.

but the key phrase is that he says what he does is in accord with Mabuni which is different that actually being what Mabuni taught.
what Iain is calling traditional i would term organizationally sanctioned.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Recreation of the application of forms

All MA systems have a finite set of "principles" that the system is built on. You should not create application from forms. You should create application from principle.

principle -> application

For example, a foot sweep principle can create more than 30 different kind of different foot sweep application. Since it's impossible to record all the foot sweep application into your forms, if you try to create application from forms, you will only create a small subset of your foot sweep principle.

 

[MI_martialist]

One technique has multiple armed and unarmed applications. It is the only way to be able to transmit a vast amount of information without the need to memorize 1 for 1 techniques. Have you not ever seen multiple applications for a kata technique? Let me see...how about one as simple as hikite, or a front stance, or a back stance, etc?

One cannot have application without fundamentals. The kata do transmit fundamentals, but that is so the application can be properly performed.

bunkai and principals are not different. perhaps you missed my intent.
i am referring to the origins of kata. one hypothesis is that , In The Beginning.......
warriors experienced in combat taught techniques that worked in combat. these techniques were later strung together to create a form. from this perspective one technique has a single bunkai or meaning for that action within the kata. i called this "Bunkai based kata" this is not to say that principals do not exist in kata but rather the purpose of kata is to pass down these tried and tested techniques.

on the contrary another hypothesis is that ...
warriors over time saw a pattern of movement that worked in multiple situations. thus an over arching principal was developed and the movements of the kata were strung together to pass down these principals and mechanics. i called this "Principal & Mechanics based kata" in this concept there can be no ONE SINGLE application because the movements are based on biomechanical physics of the human body and apply to a wide range of interactions.

 

[MI_martialist]

What is Bunkai??

could you rephrase this or elaborate on this? this could have a few different meanings to me.

 

[Dirty Dog]

What is Bunkai??

Bunkai is a term used to describe non-obvious techniques and applications found in forms.

 

[Paul_D]

what Iain is calling traditional i would term organizationally sanctioned.

I think we're just splitting hairs now.

 

[hoshin1600]

Have you not ever seen multiple applications for a kata technique?

This appears to be directed at me personally. To clarify I have not stated my personal preference for kata nor my personal beliefs. I have only brought up what the common beliefs are. There may be more, it may be more nuanced, I may be crazy and delusional. I opened this thread to prevent another from major thread drift and being hijacked.
The floor is open for discussion.

 

[hoshin1600]

I think we're just splitting hairs now.

Maybe so, but I felt it necessary so that when I say traditional it is not confused or misunderstood.

 

[MI_martialist]

A term used by those who do not understand what Bunkai means? Bunkai means "analysis" not non-obvious techniques and applications...

Bunkai is a term used to describe non-obvious techniques and applications found in forms.

 

[Dirty Dog]

A term used by those who do not understand what Bunkai means? Bunkai means "analysis" not non-obvious techniques and applications...

Bunkai (分解), literally meaning "analysis" or "disassembly", is a term used in Japanese martial arts referring to process of analysing kata and extracting fighting techniques from the movements of a "form" (kata). The extracted fighting techniques are called Oyo.

So, as I said...
When translating, especially languages as dissimilar as Japanese and English, literal translations are often not very helpful. Context and concepts are key.