The problem of breaking up the kata...

[Makalakumu]

For many years now I've struggled with this problem. Charles Goodin writes about it here.

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

Lost in Translation. Kata are sequences of techniques, presumably ones the creator (or modifiers) of the kata had found to be particularly effective. Today we know the names of the kata and the names of each technique and stance present in the kata. Fukyugata Ichi (created by Matsubayashi-Ryu founder Shoshin Nagamine in 1940), for example, begins with a left downward block (gedan barai or gedan uke) in a left zenkutsu dachi, followed by a right middle punch (chudan tsuki) in a right shizentai dachi. See: The 1940 Karate-Do Special Committee: The Fukyugata "Promotional" Kata. Can you visualize this?


That was a trick! Once the movements of a kata are identified as specific techniques, the meanings become fixed. A "block" has a certain meaning, as does a "punch." A stance has a certain configuration and weight distribution. A dynamic process is reduced to a series of still photographs.


We assume that techniques and movements have always had names. The teachers of old were much less likely to verbalize or write down such things. They would demonstrate techniques and say "like this." The student would follow and generally not ask any questions. If the student asked for clarification, the teacher would often reply, "I already said, like this." The teacher was unlikely to elaborate verbally.


Words became particularly necessary when books about Karate started to be written in the 1920s. Each technique had to be named to accompany the proper picture or photograph. Often names were just descriptive or made up. If the teacher showed a punch to the face, the author (in his language) might have used the term "face punch." Or he might have used "upper level punch" or "rising punch." But the odds are that his teacher used no term at all (except "like this.")


But wait a minute. Suppose instead of merely punching, the teacher actually poked the attacker in the eyes, closed his fingers, and followed through with a punch. Should this be written down? Perhaps the author of the book would leave out the eye poke because it was not quite suitable for the general readership (we can't have children going around poking eyes). Such a gruesome technique might offend the publisher (who probably thought that Kendo was a more noble art). Karate teachers had to overcome widespread prejudice against and misinformation about their art during this time period. Besides, this aspect of the technique could be practiced by the teacher's advanced students who didn't really need a book anyway.


Editorial choices aside, the very act of naming techniques presents a very real danger of limiting them in terms of performance and applications. My sensei, Katsuhiko Shinzato, is a professor of linguistics in Okinawa. Although fluent in both Japanese and English, and an established expert in linguistics, he resists any requests to label techniques or body dynamics processes. "In order for the body to move freely," he says, "the mind must not be fixed."

Once you name a technique, you limit it -- you limit its performance and potential applications.

This is a primary issue that I face when it comes to teaching and learning karate. So much of the art was changed in the early 1900s and the assumptions have gone unchallenged for so long that it becomes hard to get the idea of applications across to the students. My own understanding of these techniques has been shaped by learning "gedan barai aka hadan mahkee" that I have had to completely that language from my teaching vocabulary. This leaves me with an inability to communicate with my students.

So, here is a solution I've worked out. It's a solution that I'm going to publish in a textbook on this curriculum. I've thought that it was necessary to break down the kata in a different way for a long time. And we need to do it in a way that doesn't assume too much about the movements. Therefore, I've begun to break the kata by key movements and have decided to just number the movements. Therefore, when we start thinking about application, we can identify the sequence by numbers rather than by loaded terms.

Here is my first crack at this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frrHkfQWSv4&list=UUQRaQdqLXTEtDcT8hjQTbAA&index=1&feature=plcp

Thoughts?

 

[Makalakumu]

So, here is how this works.

Application One

Basics

Finger point or weapon point
Sweeping block/inside pivot
Instep knee kick
Hook punch or elbow strike

Forms

Moves 1-2 – Uke points finger at tori. Tori pivots and kiai’s, sweeping weapon hand into either a hook punch or elbow. Tori also uses an instep kick to strike uke’s knee as he grabs uke’s hand with a sword grip on the wrist.

Sparring

Defang the snake sparring – put on pads and spar with light contact slow to medium speed. Look for opportunities to strike the opponents limb as it attempts to strike you.

Principles

Defang the Snake
Kiai
P-6 as a grabbing point


Application Two

Basics

Sword grip on wrist, drawing and unbalancing
Wrist lock #1 with armwhip throw
Sacrifice Fall
Immediate weapon draw

Forms

Moves 3-4

Uke thrusts and Tori pivots off line, grabbing the weapon hand drawing uke off balance. Tori uses an outside pivot to apply a wrist lock arm whip throw. Uke performs a sacrifice to save his arm and wrist from breaking. Tori uses uke’s body on the ground as a barrier to give him time to draw his own weapon.

Sparring

Continuous armwhip

Principles

Stacking opponents for multiple opponents.
Finding a weapon

So, let me describe the typical class. For this kata, you'd be teaching red belts. The teacher would start by covering the basics. Then, sensei would show the particular moves in the kata and demonstrate the application. Students would begin to work on the application. When that looks like it's been practiced enough, students would be encouraged to test the application with some sparring drills. After that, sensei would add some principles and other esoteric stuff that would improve the students understanding.

 

[Makalakumu]

Here is a video of what the lessons could look like. I mashed both lessons above into one for the video and split them up later.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Kata are sequences of techniques ...

Why do you have to map your form (Kata) into application? Why can you just go direct to the application? The following clip has nothing to do with form. It's just pure application. Why can we train MA this way - no form (Kata), no style, just application?

 

[Makalakumu]

Kata are sequences of techniques ...

Why do you have to map your form (Kata) into application? Why can you just go direct to the application? The following clip has nothing to do with form. It's just pure application. Why can we train MA this way - no form (Kata), no style, just application?

You could train it that way, however karate uses kata to help remember the applications. This is why the "mapping" of the kata is so important.

 

[Aiki Lee]

I don't currently have sound on my computer, but if you are doing what I think you are doing I like it. I studied karate for years and never recieved very good bunkai training. Because I had no other martial arts experience, I had no idea what the movements in kata were for. What we did in sparring never looked like the kata, so I ended up thinking that the kata were kind of useless. I know now that kata are the essence to karate (a martial arts in general), but again I was never instructed properly to learn that.


The way you break down the kata into manageable applications, I feel, is an excellent way to get students to learn how to effectively utilize those principles.

 

[Makalakumu]

I don't currently have sound on my computer, but if you are doing what I think you are doing I like it. I studied karate for years and never recieved very good bunkai training. Because I had no other martial arts experience, I had no idea what the movements in kata were for. What we did in sparring never looked like the kata, so I ended up thinking that the kata were kind of useless. I know now that kata are the essence to karate (a martial arts in general), but again I was never instructed properly to learn that.


The way you break down the kata into manageable applications, I feel, is an excellent way to get students to learn how to effectively utilize those principles.

Thanks. My goal is to try to break the log jam on the subject of bunkai and publish everything. I posed my original thesis in The Lost Art of Tang Soo Do, which is available on Amazon and I am now working on a complete text book. All of this is going to be part of a greater organization that I hope will pass this on.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

After you have mapped you Kata X into a sequence of applications, you may want to modify your applications to make all application to be maximum effective by adjusting your feet and hands positions. After you have done that, you may want to map your applications back to Kata Y again. You may find out that the new Kata Y is different from the original Kata X.

- Why the new Kata Y is different from the original Kata X?
- Since Kata Y is more closer to the real combat, should you teach the new Kata Y instead of the original Kata X?
- If you add some new applications into Kata Y and pass Kata Y down to the next generation, do you have big contributation to your style? After that, nobody will ever say that you are just a "copy machine".

My suggestion are:

- Never assume that the original Kata is perfect. There is always room to improve it.
- Without new information be added in, your style will never grow.
- It's always good idea to modify your Kata to be as close to the real combat as possible.
- Try not to allow the original Kata to limit your personal growth.

 

[Makalakumu]

After you have mapped you Kata X into a sequence of applications, you may want to modify your applications to make all application to be maximum effective by adjusting your feet and hands positions. After you have done that, you may want to map your applications back to Kata Y again. You may find out that the new Kata Y is different from the original Kata X.

- Why the new Kata Y is different from the original Kata X?
- Since Kata Y is more closer to the real combat, should you teach the new Kata Y instead of the original Kata X?
- If you add some new applications into Kata Y and pass Kata Y down to the next generation, do you have big contributation to your style? After that, nobody will ever say that you are just a "copy machine".

I've thought about that, but there is another aspect of kata motion that makes it interesting. Each motion can be interpreted as several different applications. Some of them can result in very different outcomes for the same movement. If I did change the kata to match my map, I would possibly be losing some of that depth.

That said, some martial arts have done that in the past. Some styles of kenpo have taken the basic kata and "fitted them to their maps. I see karate as being more interpretive and this makes my work more of a starting point.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Each motion can be interpreted as several different applications.

Should Kata be abstract or concrete? When you raise your knee with toes pointing down, it can be a knee strike, knee lift throw, if can also be a front kick, side kick, round house kick, hook kick, ... In order to cover all those possibilities, will you just stop at your knee up and toes down posture? The moment that you kick your leg out such as front toe kick, you can no longer say that kick can be side kick any more because you have mapped it into concrete application. People said, "Every step is a kick. Every kick is a step." It make sense but does this kind of abstraction truly help or not help someone's MA development?

The "hip throw" and "shoulder throw" have similiar body motion. Both require to bend upper body down. The only difference is the hands position. If your Kata has a forward bending move that can be mapped into either hip throw or shoulder throw, do you want to maintain the level of abstraction so it can cover both throws, or should you just map into either hip throw or shoulder throw but not both?

 

[Makalakumu]

Should Kata be abstract or concrete? When you raise your knee with toes pointing down, it can be a knee strike, knee lift throw, if can also be a front kick, side kick, round house kick, hook kick, ... In order to cover all those possibilities, will you just stop at your knee up and toes down posture? The moment that you kick your leg out such as front toe kick, you can no longer say that kick can be side kick any more because you have mapped it into concrete application. People said, "Every step is a kick. Every kick is a step." It make sense but does this kind of abstraction truly help or not help someone's MA development?

The "hip throw" and "shoulder throw" have similiar body motion. Both require to bend upper body down. The only difference is the hands position. If your Kata has a forward bending move that can be mapped into either hip throw or shoulder throw, do you want to maintain the level of abstraction so it can cover both throws, or should you just map into either hip throw or shoulder throw but not both?

Those are all good questions and good point. Maybe when I'm finished, I'll be better able to answer. Imagine this, we have 12 core kata and about 8 others that are taught to later ranks. When I finish mapping them all, I'm going to have so many variations of applications because so many of the moves are redundant. I can see a more concrete approach working because a lot of the common sense application variations will have been covered in one kata or another.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

we have 12 core kata and about 8 others that are taught to later ranks.

Can you combine all your 20 Katas by removing all the redundency and condense into just 1 Kata? You then map that Kata into applications. For each move in that Kata, you can map into as many applications as you want. That Kata will be yours. Whether you want to teach that Kata to the next generation will be all up to you.

 

[Makalakumu]

Can you combine all your 20 Katas by removing all the redundency and condense into just 1 Kata? You then map that Kata into applications. For each move in that Kata, you can map into as many applications as you want. That Kata will be yours. Whether you want to teach that Kata to the next generation will be all up to you.

That might be possible, but not until I finish the work that I'm doing now. I don't know what is really possible yet. Also, I like that the kata have their own kuden. Each one or set has a general philosophy as well.

 

[Danny T]

I've thought about that, but there is another aspect of kata motion that makes it interesting. Each motion can be interpreted as several different applications. Some of them can result in very different outcomes for the same movement.

This is why I teach movement and technique potential then have the student find it in the form/kata. The same movement but different application based upon one's spatial relationship with the opponent. Not only as to range (distance) but inside or outside the opponent's guard, Facing one side or the other, facing the back or having your back toward the opponent. Does the movement make contact with a limb, body, head/neck. Same movement, different application.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Thoughts?

I dunno, man. I don't learn that way. Too much. "Could you show me number 52 again?"

I see absolutely nothing wrong with kata as it is taught to me in my dojo. It works. All these people agonizing over all the things that they suppose are wrong with kata, how it's done, how it's taught, what it all means, how it's been distorted, OMG. Get in the dojo and do kata. No more.

But that's just me. I don't get all wrapped around the axle over this stuff. Do kata. Period.

 

[Makalakumu]

I dunno, man. I don't learn that way. Too much. "Could you show me number 52 again?"

I see absolutely nothing wrong with kata as it is taught to me in my dojo. It works. All these people agonizing over all the things that they suppose are wrong with kata, how it's done, how it's taught, what it all means, how it's been distorted, OMG. Get in the dojo and do kata. No more.

But that's just me. I don't get all wrapped around the axle over this stuff. Do kata. Period.

When I was a brown belt, I might have said something similar. It all changes when you start teaching, however. Teaching forces you to explain and contradictions are problematic in that setting.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

When I was a brown belt, I might have said something similar. It all changes when you start teaching, however. Teaching forces you to explain and contradictions are problematic in that setting.

I am assisting with teaching kata to children. I'm not having the issues you report. I still think that counting up is going to be more confusing than just saying what you're doing.

I would say something like this to the kids I help with regard to the beginning of Seisan kata (as an example):

Attention, bow, ready position.
Step left, middle body block left, punch right.
Step right, punch left.
Step left, punch right.
Shuffle step left, double-overhead block.
Look over your left shoulder.
Turn to face behind you.
Hands up, cross block.
Hands down, double chop low to your sides.

I suppose I could assign each of these a number, but why? I am communicating with my students easily this way. If they need correction on the type of step, or the way the punch goes, or how the block is supposed to look, we do that as we go along. We typically teach them one kata at a time, and we break it down into sections that will hopefully be easy to remember and practice at home. When they come back, if they retained it, we clean it up some if needed and then add a few more steps, until they're through the kata. We fix issues as they come up. When we're asked 'what is this for' with regard to a particular move, we answer. If I do not know the answer, I'll ask someone who does, but usually the basic bunkai for the moves doesn't escape me, and when I explain it, I always ask if that makes sense to them, if they understand it, if I answered their question.

There is a lot that is not described in detail in my explanation above. For example, there are lots of ways to turn around to face behind oneself. We do it a particular way. However, once we've got them turning around, we can address the method used to do so, and the guiding principle behind it (don't turn into an oncoming fist, for example). Once they have that, when we say 'turn to face behind you', they turn the way we want them to (once they have practiced a few times). I don't need to explicitly state how to do it each time.

I am sure there are lots of ways to learn kata, and some folks are going to do it better one way than another way. But honestly, this is how it was and is being taught to me, and I'm using it when asked to assist with the kids, and it works. I don't spend a lot of time agonizing over it. Just practice kata.

If I may respectfully say that if there are contradictions and problems with the kata that can't be explained, maybe there's something missing in the training the instructor has received. I can explain our kata; at least the parts I am currently helping kids with. I would hope that by the time I am qualified to 'teach' the art from start to finish, I would also be able to resolve any questions or conflicts with the kata. I'm not sure I would trust a system that didn't offer valid explanations for every single move. "Why do we do it this way" should always have an answer, and it should be demonstrable and provable as an effective method.

 

[Makalakumu]

I am assisting with teaching kata to children. I'm not having the issues you report. I still think that counting up is going to be more confusing than just saying what you're doing.

I would say something like this to the kids I help with regard to the beginning of Seisan kata (as an example):

Attention, bow, ready position.
Step left, middle body block left, punch right.
Step right, punch left.
Step left, punch right.
Shuffle step left, double-overhead block.
Look over your left shoulder.
Turn to face behind you.
Hands up, cross block.
Hands down, double chop low to your sides.

I suppose I could assign each of these a number, but why? I am communicating with my students easily this way. If they need correction on the type of step, or the way the punch goes, or how the block is supposed to look, we do that as we go along. We typically teach them one kata at a time, and we break it down into sections that will hopefully be easy to remember and practice at home. When they come back, if they retained it, we clean it up some if needed and then add a few more steps, until they're through the kata. We fix issues as they come up. When we're asked 'what is this for' with regard to a particular move, we answer. If I do not know the answer, I'll ask someone who does, but usually the basic bunkai for the moves doesn't escape me, and when I explain it, I always ask if that makes sense to them, if they understand it, if I answered their question.

There is a lot that is not described in detail in my explanation above. For example, there are lots of ways to turn around to face behind oneself. We do it a particular way. However, once we've got them turning around, we can address the method used to do so, and the guiding principle behind it (don't turn into an oncoming fist, for example). Once they have that, when we say 'turn to face behind you', they turn the way we want them to (once they have practiced a few times). I don't need to explicitly state how to do it each time.

I am sure there are lots of ways to learn kata, and some folks are going to do it better one way than another way. But honestly, this is how it was and is being taught to me, and I'm using it when asked to assist with the kids, and it works. I don't spend a lot of time agonizing over it. Just practice kata.

If I may respectfully say that if there are contradictions and problems with the kata that can't be explained, maybe there's something missing in the training the instructor has received. I can explain our kata; at least the parts I am currently helping kids with. I would hope that by the time I am qualified to 'teach' the art from start to finish, I would also be able to resolve any questions or conflicts with the kata. I'm not sure I would trust a system that didn't offer valid explanations for every single move. "Why do we do it this way" should always have an answer, and it should be demonstrable and provable as an effective method.

Have you ever run into the situation where you called a move one thing and then later learned that it could be used for something else entirely?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Have you ever run into the situation where you called a move one thing and then later learned that it could be used for something else entirely?

Of course, they're all pretty much like that. A punch is a block, a block is a punch, etc. Lots and lots of bunkai (application) in the kata, it's never-ending!

However, there is bunkai and there is kata.

When I say to the children, "Step left, middle body block left, punch right," that's what it is. Later on, they will learn many of the techniques that are present. The crescent step itself can be a block, the middle body block can be used as a strike, the punch can block another punch, and so on. But all of this comes along at the appropriate time. I'm just a beginner myself in that sense, but I don't struggle to grasp the enormity of it all; it will come in time for me too. The fact that I give it a name like 'middle body block' (or as we call it 'chudan uke') does not lock us into using it only that way. I call a pair of vice-grips by their name, but they are also a hammer, you know? Shall I call them "Tool 1" because naming them restricts their use?

Good gosh, last Thursday night, I got kicked in the shin so hard by one of my instructors that I thought for a minute I was going to fall down grasping my shin in pain! We were doing a simple self-defense application out of the kata 'Naihanchi', and one of the very first moves is a step-over to the left (for us, other styles step to the right first). That step-over is simply moving one's body to the left. But, there is bunkai there; it is also a wicked shin-kick with the ball of the foot, as was painfully demonstrated to me Thursday night.

Does that mean we should change the name of the move to reflect how it could be used? Not something I want to do. Not to mention the fact that if we started calling that step-over a 'shin kick', people would start doing it in the kata; and it doesn't belong in the kata. It's bunkai. One knows it is there, one practices how to use it that way. One does not demonstrate this in the kata itself.

That's my take on it.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

There are only 3 categories of hand skills in the striking art (not include kicking). There are:

1. Block and strike - You block with one arm and punch back with another arm. The block can be any kind of blocks. The strike can be any kind of strikes. If you style has 6 different kind of blocks and 5 different kind of punches, you will have maximum 6 x 5 = 30 different kind of "block and strike".

2. Switch hands - You block with one arm, use the other arm to take over, and still strike with the same arm. Since this will require 2 blocks, you may have maximum 6 x 6 x 5 = 180 different kind of "switch hands".

3. Dodge and strike - You dodge the punch without blocking it and punch back. If you have 4 different way to dodges then you will have maximum 4 x 5 = 20 different kind of "dodge and strike".

If you can just categoried your hand striking into these 3 categories, it will be very easy to manage no matter what style that you may train.