Self defense from forms

[dancingalone]

I would be interested to review the views of the founders of the parent arts. Where might I find them?

You won't find anything too specific about 'bunkai' from the likes of 'founders' like Matsumura or Higashionna. They are long dead and they didn't leave much if any writings behind them. Their direct students like Itosu or Miyagi didn't write a lot either.

The best we can get is from several generations down through people like Funakoshi or TOGUCHI Seikichi or the various Japanese & Americans who learned from SOKEN Hohan. Or the very available western students of SHINJO Uechi-ryu. Or Mario McKenna who studies the Higashionna line of karate unfiltered through Goju-ryu/Miyagi lens.

I am sure I am leaving out a bunch of other resources, some perhaps easily found than others. I think the point is that if we want to learn the finer points and verbally transmitted details of esoteric karate, we have to seek it out in person. It's not easily wrapped up in a Black Belt magazine article for us to read, perhaps unfortunately.

Another point is that karate has many diverse perspectives given the different sources each ryu came from. Shotokan is not the only kind of karate there is though certainly it is probably the most relevant for taekwondoin. I do not believe it is universally correct to state that ALL kata applications are reverse-engineered. What Mr. Rick Clark says is not necessarily accurate for Goju-ryu or Uechi-ryu or Ryuei-ryu or Isshin-ryu, etc. when it comes to kata/bunkai or indeed anything else.

 

[dancingalone]

Although other arts had their imprint on TKD, Shotokan is often thought of as 'the' parent art. I would suggest the writings of Funakoshi Sensei as a good starting point. Also, there are many authors that have done varying levels of research on Funakoshi Sensei (and others). Among these are Iain Abernethy, Stuart Anslow and Simon O'Neill. Iain has several free e-books available on his website as well as a plethora of articles (many by other authors as well). Much of Funakoshi Sensei's writings are referenced in Iain's books/articles. This would be a good first start.

Those gentlemen while probably very good reads definitely fall into the "reverse engineered" camp. If anyone is interested in pursuing combat tactics and techniques developed under the 'karate' umbrella with perhaps a longer lineage will have to look elsewhere. Most likely in person. (I have given a few hints above.)

Patrick McCarthy has a few interesting DVDs and books out based on his research in Okinawa and Japan, though ultimately his stuff too has been adapted for modern times & usages (probably not a bad thing at all if we are most concerned about practical things).

 

[Kong Soo Do]

Those gentlemen while probably very good reads definitely fall into the "reverse engineered" camp.

I think that is the uniquely interesting thing about forms in that they can be reverse engineered.

 

[dancingalone]

I think that is the uniquely interesting thing about forms in that they can be reverse engineered.

Absolutely. That can be a lot of fun if one has the inclination. It can often be constructive to run through a form you know already with an expert from another style that studies the same form. The underlying assumptions they make in their rendition can help us improve ourselves when we do it our way.

However I got the impression that Mr. Weiss was interested in a snapshot of what 'original' karate was like with a possible aim to compare to the current image of both karate and TKD. If so, I think he would be better served by making a few personal contacts rather than reading/watching Abernethy, et al. There's good, authentic karate in the West now from students and students of students who learned from the likes of Shinjo, Toguchi, Miyazato, Soken, etc. They can teach karate as it was taught post WWII, maybe even earlier, when teaching methodology was still small group based and the arcane aspects were more likely to be transmitted.

 

[Earl Weiss]

Although other arts had their imprint on TKD, Shotokan is often thought of as 'the' parent art. I would suggest the writings of Funakoshi Sensei as a good starting point. Also, there are many authors that have done varying levels of research on Funakoshi Sensei (and others). Among these are Iain Abernethy, Stuart Anslow and Simon O'Neill. Iain has several free e-books available on his website as well as a plethora of articles (many by other authors as well). Much of Funakoshi Sensei's writings are referenced in Iain's books/articles. This would be a good first start.

Wait, I thought Funakoshi was one of the guys the "Rewal Application " guys critiqued for having dumbed down the art to teach children and not teaching the real aaplications. Besides, Funakoshi's system was , as he said based on the Shorin and Shorei systems so he would not be a founder of a parent art.
I have a couple of mhis books and don't recall any radical departues from the BPK applications.

Any other sources?

 

[Earl Weiss]

Also, there are many authors that have done varying levels of research on Funakoshi Sensei (and others). Among these are Iain Abernethy, Stuart Anslow and Simon O'Neill. Iain has several free e-books available on his website as well as a plethora of articles (many by other authors as well). Much of Funakoshi Sensei's writings are referenced in Iain's books/articles. This would be a good first start.

I have Mr. Anslows book. As I recall O'Neill did the "Taeguk Cipher" Did he do others? I have read some of Abernathy's stuff.
I know Mr. Anslow does not claim to have any firsthand knowledge from any founders of Parent Arts. The Taeguks are part of any parent art. I don't recall Abernathy citing firsthand info from founders.
I read Rick Clarks' stuff. I think he's the most forthright.

 

[Earl Weiss]

You won't find anything too specific about 'bunkai' from the likes of 'founders' like Matsumura or Higashionna. They are long dead and they didn't leave much if any writings behind them. Their direct students like Itosu or Miyagi didn't write a lot either.

The best we can get is from several generations down through people like Funakoshi or TOGUCHI Seikichi or the various Japanese & Americans who learned from SOKEN Hohan..

I think this is the more accurate perspective. No one really knows what the founders intended. And, quite frankly, as addressed in my "Pattern Paradigm" article (others address this as well) other than beginning practice, if you focus on a single supposedly originaly intended application your focus is too narrow.

 

[Earl Weiss]

What Mr. Rick Clark says is not necessarily accurate for Goju-ryu or Uechi-ryu or Ryuei-ryu or Isshin-ryu, etc. when it comes to kata/bunkai or indeed anything else.

Does that make it inaccureate?
Is what anyone else claims is the true or real intent of those system neccessarily accurate?

 

[Earl Weiss]

I think that is the uniquely interesting thing about forms in that they can be reverse engineered.

Do you think reverse engineering is the same as knowing the true intent of the founders?

 

[Earl Weiss]

However I got the impression that Mr. Weiss was interested in a snapshot of what 'original' karate was like with a possible aim to compare to the current image of both karate and TKD. If so, I think he would be better served by making a few personal contacts rather than reading/watching Abernethy, et al. .

I have been to seminars with Dilman, Taika Oyata, Vince Morris, and a couple of Dilman's top guys. (Chris Thoma and I believe the other one's name was "Birch" it was a while ago. I would have to check my archives.)

 

[dancingalone]

Does that make it inaccureate?
Is what anyone else claims is the true or real intent of those system neccessarily accurate?

It does. Some lines of Okinawan karate can claim with validity that some of their system has been passed down with little change for at least 3-4 generations. In karate, that's as good as it gets.

Mr. Rick Clark is a Shotokan man, I believe. I think what he says about reversed engineered applications is reasonable enough within the context of Shotokan karate, but not necessarily so with all forms of karate.

 

[dancingalone]

I have been to seminars with Dilman, Taika Oyata, Vince Morris, and a couple of Dilman's top guys. (Chris Thoma and I believe the other one's name was "Birch" it was a while ago. I would have to check my archives.)

None of those guys would I consider 'super traditional' with regard to their karate lineage, though I think Dillman comes the closest which might surprise some here.

[edit] I was thinking of Tak Kubota... Dillman of course flows from the Taika Oyata tree (or did - not sure what he currently claims on his lineage chart). [/edit]

IMO, the 'real' karate men don't do the bunkai seminar circuit really. You have to join their schools and train with them to get the good stuff.

 

[Tez3]

Absolutely. That can be a lot of fun if one has the inclination. It can often be constructive to run through a form you know already with an expert from another style that studies the same form. The underlying assumptions they make in their rendition can help us improve ourselves when we do it our way.

However I got the impression that Mr. Weiss was interested in a snapshot of what 'original' karate was like with a possible aim to compare to the current image of both karate and TKD. If so, I think he would be better served by making a few personal contacts rather than reading/watching Abernethy, et al. There's good, authentic karate in the West now from students and students of students who learned from the likes of Shinjo, Toguchi, Miyazato, Soken, etc. They can teach karate as it was taught post WWII, maybe even earlier, when teaching methodology was still small group based and the arcane aspects were more likely to be transmitted.

If it's of any interest Iain will be in Kansas from 28th to 30th September this year for seminars.

 

[dancingalone]

If it's of any interest Iain will be in Kansas from 28th to 30th September this year for seminars.

<shrugs> If I had a craving for Cajun food, a Porterhouse steak, no matter how good, wouldn't do.

 

[Tez3]

]<shrugs>[/B] If I had a craving for Cajun food, a Porterhouse steak, no matter how good, wouldn't do.

Ok so I provide a piece of information that I know quite a few people would be interested in and you can only post a sulky reply? I'd expect better on this site, might not be your thing but it's others, there's no need to disrepect.

 

[dancingalone]

Ok so I provide a piece of information that I know quite a few people would be interested in and you can only post a sulky reply? I'd expect better on this site, might not be your thing but it's others, there's no need to disrepect.

Sulky? I used an analogy, Tez, to help explain the point that you seemed to have missed, namely that Mr. Weiss seems to be interested in some rather particular information instead of just a modern bunkai framework, no matter how effective it can be.

Are you sulking? I know you train with Mr. Abernethy and more power to you for it, but it's apples to oranges. The answer to all bunkai questions is not Iain Abernethy. In this case, we're not even really discussing bunkai. We're discussing historical intent of kata of the 'founders' which while related is not the same thing.

Sorry if that bugs you.

 

[Archtkd]

I think that is the uniquely interesting thing about forms in that they can be reverse engineered.

I don't know about other systems/styles, but reverse engineering has never been part of Kukkiwon poomsae instruction and practice, in so far as its top practitioners -- the teachers at the Kukkiwon -- are concerned. I can't imagine what it would like if I faced Grandmasters PARK Hae Man, KIM Soon Bae or LEE Chong Woo -- who are alive and were involved with development of Kukkiwon poomsae -- and told them I was performing taeguk so and so in a particular way, because I have altered it using my own knowledge, knowledge gleaned from what I believe is a "base" art or information I lifted from a book authored by an Englishman.

It could be that I misunderstand the term, "reverse engineer," but even if I took it to mean that I have used Kukkiwon taeguk and yudanja poomsaee to create a self defense technique, there would be a problem if I misinterpreted the basic movements in the poomsae . That misinterpretation of techniques would show up in how I perform, practice and teach the poomsae. If, for example, I decided that an augmented back fist in a form is actually an augmented outside inside middle block (for perceived historical accuracy and self defense purposes), that misinterpretation would become evident in the way I perform the form.

Maybe a bigger question in all this is whether we should try to reverse-engineer something we have not mastered in taekwondo and still claim we are practicing taekwondo.

 

[dancingalone]

It could be that I misunderstand the term, "reverse engineer," but even if I took it to mean that I have used Kukkiwon taeguk and yudanja poomsaee to create a self defense technique, there would be a problem if I misinterpreted the basic movements in the poomsae . That misinterpretation of techniques would show up in how I perform, practice and teach the poomsae. If, for example, I decided that an augmented back fist in a form is actually an augmented outside inside middle block (for historical accuracy self defense purposes), that misinterpretation would become evident in the way I perform the form.

That is the conundrum. Pattern applications, reverse-engineered or not, need to fit with the knowledge base and tactical tree of the system itself. It does no good to proclaim that there is a hidden arm drag to shoulder control within a kata to a practitioner unless he understands what such things are in the first place. It is not just a matter of saying it's in the kata - we must train the basics also outside of the kata (like arm drags in the above example)... and in so doing, are we still training our system as it was intended in the first place or have we become a mix-and-match system with no thought behind it?

Without being too biased I hope, I think some karate styles have managed to keep their kata-based pedagogy both traditional and practical at the same time.

 

[dancingalone]

Maybe a bigger question in all this is whether we should try to reverse-engineer something we have not mastered in taekwondo and still claim we are practicing taekwondo.

Another good question. This IS something I have taught in the past with students with some success. Was it still taekwondo? Well, I would say yes, given the perspective that the early TKD men often had backgrounds in both karate and judo. Was it KKW taekwondo? I would freely admit not.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

Wait, I thought Funakoshi was one of the guys the "Rewal Application " guys critiqued for having dumbed down the art to teach children and not teaching the real aaplications.

I don't understand what 'rewal applications' are? I'm unfamiliar with this term. You're thinking of Anko Itosu Sensei, who was Funakoshi Sensei's teacher in Okinawa. Itosu Sensei is the one that relabeled the Pinan Katas. Although 'dumbed down' could be applied I suppose, it isn't quite accurate. He took out the more dangerous applications as inappropriate for children. Although a kick or punch 'could' be deadly from a child, it probably isn't as probable as a movement that could easily maim someone/kill someone even if done incorrectly/unintentionally.

Besides, Funakoshi's system was , as he said based on the Shorin and Shorei systems so he would not be a founder of a parent art.

Funakoshi founded Shotokan, which traces its roots directly back to Shuri Te in large part. Thus, he is the founder of a parent art of TKD.

I have Mr. Anslows book. As I recall O'Neill did the "Taeguk Cipher" Did he do others? I have read some of Abernathy's stuff.
I know Mr. Anslow does not claim to have any firsthand knowledge from any founders of Parent Arts. The Taeguks are part of any parent art. I don't recall Abernathy citing firsthand info from founders.

Since Mr. O'Neill became a father, I don't know if he's had time for another book

How much is 'some' of Abernethy's 'stuff'? He cites Funakoshi (among others) in his books/articles. Including photos and excerpts from earlier writings.

Do you think reverse engineering is the same as knowing the true intent of the founders?

In some cases, it can be inferior and in other cases it can be superior. It depends in large part on the knowledge base of the 'founder' vs. that of the person doing the reverse engineering. As long as the principle of the movement is sound then it can/should be trained. It may or may not be the 'original' intent, but if it works, and works well then it is/can be valid.