Is this possible to avoid? Is this always a bad thing? Isn't reverse engineering tied intimately to henka - variations? What do my fellow karateka have to say about this?
Reverse Engineering Bunkai
- Thread starter Makalakumu
- Start date
OP
- Thread Starter
- #2
This is a tough question and I believe that there are two camps on this issue. One that believes the original applications should only be taught and another that has no problem with reverse engineering bunkai. For myself, as a tangsoodoist, I was never taught the original applications, so the only way I can use kata is to reverse engineer them.
Fot those that may not understad what your asking please explain reverse engineering vs. the normal way of doing things
When I read "reverse engineering" it makes me think you mean, exploring possible applications from movements in kata - applications not taught but ones that you "create".
I think this is certainly fun, and stimulating. I think if approached with the realization that most of what you 'create' will not really be viable LOL then it's a good exercise.
I am now more in pursuit of application taught by guys much older and more exepreinced than me. My kata, even when named the same, are often different than these masters', so then I have to try to map what they are doing to my kata, determine if what they are showing is even still part of it...
Which, really, is that so different?
I think this is certainly fun, and stimulating. I think if approached with the realization that most of what you 'create' will not really be viable LOL then it's a good exercise.
I am now more in pursuit of application taught by guys much older and more exepreinced than me. My kata, even when named the same, are often different than these masters', so then I have to try to map what they are doing to my kata, determine if what they are showing is even still part of it...
Which, really, is that so different?
Reverse Engineering is not necessarily creating something new. Basically, it is taking a finished product or something that you already have and trying to determine how it was made and with what materials.
So reverse engineering a kata could mean one of two things, either trying to figure out what the original creators had in mind when they made it or determining what the parts that make it up are. The interpretation of those parts could be included in either scenario.
Personal opinion, reverse engineering and/or finding your own applications, in my opinion is what the kata were originally intended for. If you cannot look at something and figure out ways to apply it and what makes it up, it will be more difficult to creatively apply the other things that you already know. Learning how the creators or other people interpret it and apply it helps to build your way of thinking....i.e. creating intuition.
So reverse engineering a kata could mean one of two things, either trying to figure out what the original creators had in mind when they made it or determining what the parts that make it up are. The interpretation of those parts could be included in either scenario.
Personal opinion, reverse engineering and/or finding your own applications, in my opinion is what the kata were originally intended for. If you cannot look at something and figure out ways to apply it and what makes it up, it will be more difficult to creatively apply the other things that you already know. Learning how the creators or other people interpret it and apply it helps to build your way of thinking....i.e. creating intuition.
HankinSalem
White Belt
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2006
- Messages
- 10
- Reaction score
- 0
My understanding of tradition is that reverse engineering is what the advanced student is SUPPOSED to do. Only the designated heir to the system was taught all the "secrets" of the system. The rest of the students were supposed to figure it out for themselves.
However, in "modern" times, certain "masters" in order to maintain control over the people in their organizations, have set things up where there was an orthodoxy, one way and one way only that was proper for kata practice and interpretation.
Any casual study of the history of the martial arts will quickly show that this is NOT the real tradition, that the student was supposed to be blazing his own trail after a certain amount of study.
If you want to see some interesting histories, look at the early days of Tai Chi Chuan, back when it was still a fighting art. One teacher would teach "large frame" his successor would develop and teach "small frame" another disciple would teach something completely different.
Same thing with White Crane Kung fu which went from White Crane to Feeding Crane to Shouting Crane to Ancestral Crane, all in the same lineage.
Each generation is supposed to bring value to the art, not just pass on some increasingly sterile dances from generation to generation
However, in "modern" times, certain "masters" in order to maintain control over the people in their organizations, have set things up where there was an orthodoxy, one way and one way only that was proper for kata practice and interpretation.
Any casual study of the history of the martial arts will quickly show that this is NOT the real tradition, that the student was supposed to be blazing his own trail after a certain amount of study.
If you want to see some interesting histories, look at the early days of Tai Chi Chuan, back when it was still a fighting art. One teacher would teach "large frame" his successor would develop and teach "small frame" another disciple would teach something completely different.
Same thing with White Crane Kung fu which went from White Crane to Feeding Crane to Shouting Crane to Ancestral Crane, all in the same lineage.
Each generation is supposed to bring value to the art, not just pass on some increasingly sterile dances from generation to generation
Well said, HS.
It might be worth noting what Harry Cook, in his magisterial Shotokan Karate: a Precise History has to say about this issue of individual discovery vs. rote replication. We in the West are justiably proud of our emphasis on the innovative potential of individual learners, who absorb the discoveries of the past but then try to forge ahead in new directions, rather than simply reproduce the received wisdom of past generations, and we often compare this perspective to our own advantage with that of the standard picture of Asian models of education, where respect for, and deference to, traditional authority supposedly trumps originality every time. But things may not be so simple. Consider Cook's observation that
As the stress in following a Way lies in action, it follows that while a teacher may be very valuable, the ultimate authority is the student's own experience. The teacher's role is to create situations whereby the student learns from experience, and blind faith in anything is regarded as ultimately pointless. This has a long tradition in eastern thought. The usual cliché offered by Shotokan instructors is that a hunter who chases two rabbits catches neither. I've often thought that these instructors might do better to reflect that the hunter facing a charging lion has a much better chance of survival with a double rifle than with a single shot weapon.
Cook's point is that there is a pragmatic element in the Asian view of learning which is not so different from our own empirical perspective that formal knowledge must meet the test of actual practice. This dovetails with your comment that the student was supposed to be blazing his own trail after a certain amount of study. The study, the absorption of the accumulated experience of previous generations of practitioners, is crucial; but so is the next step, the student's own reformulation of the valid residue of that experience in light of his or her own contact with the world. Learning how to decode the hidden applications, if one weren't lucky enough to be the designated inheritor of the system, would be crucial to the dedicated student. The trick—as has been pointed out in a number of different threads—is that what sounds good and looks good has to be tested in noncompliant training to determine if it really is good. There were hundreds of designs for flying machines from the Middle Ages on, but we had to wait until 1903 to get one that actually worked...
marlon
Master Black Belt
reverse engineering the forms not only allows you to better 'learn' from your forms but because the forms emphasize the basics so well (if properly taught and trained), when one 'creates' one does so from within a well established and true foundation. However, if you do not 'test' your creation against an well trained non compliant 'partner' you may well be just deluding yourself.
respectfully,
Marlon
respectfully,
Marlon
Martin h
Green Belt
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2002
- Messages
- 133
- Reaction score
- 5
I have no problem with reverse engineering -as long as it is done with realism in mind. Certainly most of the orthodox bunkai Ive seen has been just as stupid/unrealistic as most reverse engineered stuff Ive seen.
Some of the reverse engineered stuff Ive seen has been MUCH more realistic that the orthodox stuff though, so why not accept it?
I strongly urge anyone interested in reverse engineering formal kata into effective&realistic bunkai/oyo to take a look at the works of Iain Abernethy.
http://iainabernethy.com/
I would say that he is leading that particular field of karate.
I dont agree with all his stuff, but it makes kata make sense!
Some of the reverse engineered stuff Ive seen has been MUCH more realistic that the orthodox stuff though, so why not accept it?
I strongly urge anyone interested in reverse engineering formal kata into effective&realistic bunkai/oyo to take a look at the works of Iain Abernethy.
http://iainabernethy.com/
I would say that he is leading that particular field of karate.
I dont agree with all his stuff, but it makes kata make sense!
Hi Martina lot of people at MT agree completely with you about the kind of good sense that Abernethy and his BCS mates bring to the discussion of bunkai, and my own sense is, he's done a lot to help revive some of what were probably old, familiar bunkai idea amongst the Okinawan masters that were lost when the expats went to Japan to teach karate.
I'm very interested not just in your overall positive view of his work, which as I say many of us share, but in your reservations. Could you expand a little about the places in his treatment of particular kata where you feel his reverse engineering is less than sound?
In the system I've trained under (Shorei Goju Ryu), Not only is designing one's own bunkai accepted, it's a requirement for all Dan ranks. Standard (read unimaginative) Bunkai is taught to kyu ranks, so as to give them a foundation of understanding in kata. Any of them are free to create their own bunkai as well, as long as they learn the required one. It's also an indispensable tool for anyone who preforms kata in competition. I haven't found a more effective method of giving a form the unique lifelike timing and pace, that can mean the difference between 1st place and walking away empty handed (no pun intended). You can't easily fake the look of knowing precisely what you want each technique to accomplish.
This is very interesting, Scarey... but how do students learn how to ramp up the effectiveness of the application beyond the standard (I assume you mean the routine kick-punch-block) level? It's hard to learn how to do something if you don't know what the possibilities are. Are they given 'worked examples', say, where a given kata is shown, with first the 'literal' bunkai given, then a more sophisticated version, and so on up? Don't people need to actually see a bit of how you get deeper bunkai from the same kata subsequences? And if so, how is that done at your dojo?
Depending on your level of membership and rank, the students at our dojo have a varying range of material open to them. A basic membership is just striking, blocking, and simple self-defence. That covers white, gold and yellow belt ranks. That level of in involvement suits some people just fine. For those who want to dive in head first, the most intense course is the leadership club. In it, a student has not only the base curriculum, but also the option of attending classes for more advanced material. This includes more specific varieties of self-defense, such as club or knife defense. Also, classes on arm bars and wrist locks, leg locks, throws, and weapons. For those who want to compete (or just get in some extra practice), there is also a weekly competition class, where they can work on, and get help with the skills they will be using in tournaments. Depending on how much one wants to give themselves into it, they have the option of gaining some rather advanced knowledge at a relatively early period in their training. On top of that, our Black belt population is usually more than happy to help anyone who asks for advice or pointers. A good example of this willingness to help was when I was just starting out, someone told me we didn't actually practice blocks, they were really strikes or more, to aggressive parts of your opponents body. You could just imagine how a low kyu rank would be amazed by such a shocking revelation, and how that might effect their whole outlook on the art in general.
Yes, I see. If you don't mind my asking, what's the difference in price between the basic membership and the leadership/advanced techs course? And I'd be curious to know if more people are content to stay at the basic level, or whether after a while they decide they want to upgrade to the more in-depth program.
Absolutely. When I learned for the first time that the hikite-retraction movements weren't actually chambers for an upcoming strike but grab/control/anchoring moves pulling your attacker in towards you or working as part of a pinning/locking setup to control his upper body and force targets into your range, it was like the sun coming up after a totally dark night...
I'm not really sure about the monetary details, the benefit of having a 5th dan who owns a dojo for a father is free training, but it tends to leave you in the dark about such things. All I know is that the up front cost is greater for the highest membership level, but it costs much less in the long run. As opposed to upgrading program by program (Basic Club, Black Belt Club, Masters Club, leadership Club). The other part of your question is well within my range of knowledge. A few take the basic course and leave, most go to the next level, some of them actually stick around long enough to make it to 1st dan, a few stay on afterwards. It's pretty much a text book scenario, that applies to any skilled hobby.
Very good, thanks for the info. I agree, that's the usual bell-curve pattern of participation. Sounds good!
My understanding of tradition is that there is a specific structure to interpreting kata that is taught within each style to a varying degree. Without getting too specific (this is not really an open-door concept), the idea is that a given movement is part of a superset of movements in a common family. This governs the range of orthodox interpretations. It also means that you can make changes without losing the core sequence. This is combined with core principles to create a standard array of applications.
For example, if your system has a scheme of eight directions and eight categories of waza, a movement can be modified to apply to each category to present a subset of the total range of applications. This means that applications will not look like orthodox enbugata (which is what most people mean when they're talking about kata) but at the same time, it's not a matter of anything goes.
For example, if your system has a scheme of eight directions and eight categories of waza, a movement can be modified to apply to each category to present a subset of the total range of applications. This means that applications will not look like orthodox enbugata (which is what most people mean when they're talking about kata) but at the same time, it's not a matter of anything goes.
