The Why of Bunkai: A Guide for Beginners by Charles Goodin

[Makalakumu]

Victor Smith turned me on to this article with this blog and I thought it was so good that I had to post it separately. I've met Charles in person and used the library of rare books he donated to the University of Hawaii at Manoa and I believe that this is truly a treasure for all karateka. It's the largest collection of rare karate books on Earth. This article represents one of the best pieces discussing bunkai that I've read. I love that it is Hawaii specific and that he discusses this from the island perspective. Check it out!

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

 

[Makalakumu]

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 short and sweet summation describes the process of how I think the practice of "bunkai" was lost to karateka. Awesome!

 

[seasoned]

Great post, thanks.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

We teach bunkai at my dojo. Not *all* of it, there's no way. And not everyone wants to learn a lot of bunkai with their kata. But to me, bunkai gives perspective to my kata.

We have one sensei who is big into block/punch/kick. We have another who sees dozens of applications inside every move in every kata, and not only can he describe it, but he can apply it and by golly it works like a champ.

There is a story in our dojo that in Shimabuku Soke's dojo in Agena, there were posters on the walls of each of the kata; and one more, which simply said "Kumite." It listed many applications (bunkai) for each of the kata. Over the years, it has become 'lost' to many Isshin-Ryu dojos, and it is sometimes referred to as "The Secret Scroll of Kumite." In our dojo, that's considered humor; there's nothing 'secret' about it; it was posted on the wall in the Agena dojo, for crying out loud!

Bunkai means a lot to me. I can't perform some of the more subtle or complicated moves, but it helps so much for me to make sense of the kata; it does indeed explain 'why' I am doing this or that in the kata. And when I am doing kata, I am doing bunkai in my head; I try to mentally 'see' my opponent and react to what's happening. The kata is alive to me, primarily because of my (admittedly basic) grasp of bunkai.

 

[SahBumNimRush]

Great read, thanks for sharing!

 

[dancingalone]

I am sometimes too literal for my own good, perhaps. Regardless I do not think it bad to name something. Leaving something undefined and vague can be 'bad' teaching also. How do we teach then if we fear naming techniques? Simply by showing the movement and then artfully saying never mind the usage I just showed you, it can be many other things as well? Maybe this type of ambiguity works when you have a small number of students all passionate and thirsting for knowledge on their own, but I have few of those.

I do have a good amount of relatively unimaginative pupils. They work hard and they're good people, but they do not LIVE for karate. With them I still feel a responsibility to teach the highest standard of karate that I can. For me, this means I do use terminology such as 'down block' at least to initially transmit the concept of the down block. Eventually, the down block becomes a lower arm sweep. Still later, it becomes low section parry and trap. And so on.

If a student leaves me at the down block stage, so be it. It may be that he will peel back the layers of the onion later on for himself. But if he does not, his understanding and execution of the down block will hopefully still be excellent if I do a good enough job teaching it. If he stays with me long enough to progress to the later stages, so much the better, but in of itself, I don't think the use of descriptive words and terminology is bad pedagogy. Loss of knowledge comes NOT from using language. It comes from students and teachers not communicating fully due to lack of time or effort - any reason really.

 

[Makalakumu]

We teach bunkai at my dojo. Not *all* of it, there's no way. And not everyone wants to learn a lot of bunkai with their kata. But to me, bunkai gives perspective to my kata.

We have one sensei who is big into block/punch/kick. We have another who sees dozens of applications inside every move in every kata, and not only can he describe it, but he can apply it and by golly it works like a champ.

There is a story in our dojo that in Shimabuku Soke's dojo in Agena, there were posters on the walls of each of the kata; and one more, which simply said "Kumite." It listed many applications (bunkai) for each of the kata. Over the years, it has become 'lost' to many Isshin-Ryu dojos, and it is sometimes referred to as "The Secret Scroll of Kumite." In our dojo, that's considered humor; there's nothing 'secret' about it; it was posted on the wall in the Agena dojo, for crying out loud!

Bunkai means a lot to me. I can't perform some of the more subtle or complicated moves, but it helps so much for me to make sense of the kata; it does indeed explain 'why' I am doing this or that in the kata. And when I am doing kata, I am doing bunkai in my head; I try to mentally 'see' my opponent and react to what's happening. The kata is alive to me, primarily because of my (admittedly basic) grasp of bunkai.

Isshin Ryu is one of the arts that I feel has kept the bunkai as a core part of the art. One thing that I'm wondering about is the basics. I worked out with an Isshin-ryu instructor and we worked through basic strikes and I thought those were straight forward and practical. When it came to the blocks, I liked the concept of the double bone block, but I wasn't impressed by the application. In the article, Mr. Goodin addresses this by saying that these move really aren't served by their names and are actually much more.

So, here's my question, how much did the "modern" karate approach bleed into Isshin-ryu?

Shimabuku sensei was trained at a time when "modern" karate was beginning to be promoted. Perhaps the methodology started slowly and grew to overtake the old approach? I've noticed this same trend in many of the traditional styles of Okinawan karate. The "blocks" are always much more, but they always use that same terminology.

 

[Makalakumu]

I am sometimes too literal for my own good, perhaps. Regardless I do not think it bad to name something. Leaving something undefined and vague can be 'bad' teaching also. How do we teach then if we fear naming techniques? Simply by showing the movement and then artfully saying never mind the usage I just showed you, it can be many other things as well? Maybe this type of ambiguity works when you have a small number of students all passionate and thirsting for knowledge on their own, but I have few of those.

One thing that I try to do as a teacher is to challenge my assumptions about my students constantly. Assumptions can lock you into a certain way of thinking and limit your approach.

I got rid of the traditional names in my dojo years ago and have all kinds of people roll through my dojos in Minnesota and in Hawaii. Some are passionate about karate and some had other priorities. What I noticed is that when we teach practical techniques as basics, techniques that need very little interpretation to work, all students see the practical value of kata immediately. I describe it as a shorthand way of showing a student how to put the basics together. There is no magic and there is no "unlearning" that has to happen before a student can truly appreciate the kata.

I do have a good amount of relatively unimaginative pupils. They work hard and they're good people, but they do not LIVE for karate. With them I still feel a responsibility to teach the highest standard of karate that I can. For me, this means I do use terminology such as 'down block' at least to initially transmit the concept of the down block. Eventually, the down block becomes a lower arm sweep. Still later, it becomes low section parry and trap. And so on.

I've found that for busy, practical minded, folk, the pragmatic, bunkai centered approach to kihon-kata-kumite, is key. A lot of people just don't have time to think to much about anything superfluous in their busy lives and would like to see something that works right now. They are interested in self defense and karate because they walked through the door, but they won't stay if the training doesn't have immediate value. Teaching bunkai and teaching practical basics is what sinks the hooks into people who think like this.

IMO, the concept that holds most instructors minds on the "modern" approach, is the concept of stance. Sometimes, in order to get a student to move their body in a certain way, I have to use the "traditional" line drill in order to repeat the movement enough so that the student can see the intricacies. Then, I plug that stance into the kata. The whole time I keep telling the student that "stance" is really how we are moving our body in relation to our opponent. The only time I have to do this is with people who have previous training. Otherwise, we can move through the kata and never touch a line drill. With kata, I tell my students, when the feet move, that is showing you something about footwork and about applying a technique with your hips, legs and feet.

If a student leaves me at the down block stage, so be it. It may be that he will peel back the layers of the onion later on for himself. But if he does not, his understanding and execution of the down block will hopefully still be excellent if I do a good enough job teaching it. If he stays with me long enough to progress to the later stages, so much the better, but in of itself, I don't think the use of descriptive words and terminology is bad pedagogy. Loss of knowledge comes NOT from using language. It comes from students and teachers not communicating fully due to lack of time or effort - any reason really.

I'm a professional teacher and I'm currently engaged in graduate level curriculum writing.

One of the biggest hurdles I face are assumptions that create barriers to learning. It's not enough to write a curriculum where these assumptions are absent. People are creatures of habit and these assumptions are comfortable routines that are well practiced. Never mind the fact that they rest on mile high houses of toothpicks. A foundational argument presented to someone who hasn't done the personal growth work to develop the ego strength to grow beyond reactionary behavior will be immediately rejected. I think this is the primary way that the "naming" convention persists. This is exactly the same thing that happens in the education world as a whole.

The ultimate price of this learning barrier is that the techniques don't work. You can't use a "down block", as it is presented initially, in a fight and even beginning students know this. I just experienced a situation where one of my newer students was attacked and had to immediately put something that I taught to use. I don't think the situation would have turned out the way it did if I had taught anything but the practical basics and bunkai that I teach. The naming convention presents a barrier to learning that has a high price.

 

[Victor Smith]

[h=1]Makalakumu asks " How much did modern karate bleed into Isshinryu"

I would suggest little and a lot. Shimabuku Tatsuo was primarily a student of Kyan, and the core of Isshinryu is Kyan's karate, including focusing on the vertical strike which Kyan felt was superior. He also included studies from all his instructors, but that was traditional as his instructors did that too. In fact tradition was when you outlived your instructors you changed what you needed to.

Shimabuku showed the Okinawan's you could make a living teaching, that running a beginning program ( the 1 1/2 year USMC training) you could export your art to the world. He also proved short term students could become life long adepts. He did live his unique stamp on the karate he taught, but I still find that traditional.

As for naming techniques , too much effort is paid to what beginners are told to initiate them into training.
The low block/strike is a tool that can be used from the beginning, quite effectively, if and only if, there is a reason to train beginners in its use. IMO in most cases there is no harm waiting until they develop skill say 5 or 6 years before the blinders come off. But each dojo is in different circumstances and will make different answers.
[/h]So, here's my question, how much did the "modern" karate approach bleed into Isshin-ryu?

 

[Makalakumu]

First of all, thank you so much for your opinion in regards to Shimabuku sensei.

I think this deserves more discussion, however.

IMO in most cases there is no harm waiting until they develop skill say 5 or 6 years before the blinders come off. But each dojo is in different circumstances and will make different answers.

The second sentence describes how I feel about the matter. Each dojo will make decisions based on their needs and that's the way it should be. If you want to wait five or six years and your students are cool with this, that's how the dojo rolls.

The first sentence is something that I struggle with as a karateka and a teacher. I don't want to wait because I recognize that my students may need to access the broader definition of "down block" in a near future serious situation. It's already happened. I've had students with as little as one month of training have to apply a technique from the kata that would have been useless if I had initially presented it as a "down block" or an "outside inside block".

For example, in Minnesota, my brother lived with me for six months. He trained at my dojo the entire time, then met his future wife and moved out on his own. About a year later, he was working as a convenience store clerk and was held up. The man was armed, pushed him aside and grabbed the money and then turned back to deal with my brother. He used the armbar that I taught from a basic kata, slammed the man on the counter, pinned him, and held him there until police arrived.

With something like karate, the consequences of pedagogy choices can be serious and immediate. It's something that every sensei needs to seriously consider, IMO.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Isshin Ryu is one of the arts that I feel has kept the bunkai as a core part of the art. One thing that I'm wondering about is the basics. I worked out with an Isshin-ryu instructor and we worked through basic strikes and I thought those were straight forward and practical. When it came to the blocks, I liked the concept of the double bone block, but I wasn't impressed by the application. In the article, Mr. Goodin addresses this by saying that these move really aren't served by their names and are actually much more.

So, here's my question, how much did the "modern" karate approach bleed into Isshin-ryu?

Shimabuku sensei was trained at a time when "modern" karate was beginning to be promoted. Perhaps the methodology started slowly and grew to overtake the old approach? I've noticed this same trend in many of the traditional styles of Okinawan karate. The "blocks" are always much more, but they always use that same terminology.

Keeping in mind that I am a simple beginner, just a san-kyu, I am not sure what you're talking about. We have no double block in our basic exercises. We do have a couple in our various kata, though. Some up and some down blocks, could you be referring to these?

We also tend not to use 'bone blocks'; in fact, that is a distinguishing characteristic of Isshin-Ryu; we use 'meat blocks' instead. Some say that this was because Shimabuku Soke was primarily teaching Marines on Okinawa, and he was asked not to send them back to base with broken bones; I can't speak to such legends. But for whatever reason, we try to block with the meaty part of the arm, rather than the bone.

I am not sure what double-block you're referring to; but if you mean the double-overhead block that is done in Seisan and Chinto kata, that is done with the meat part of the arm - the palms of the fists face inward. I have also been shown bunkai for this block in which is it not a set block so much as a clearing strike will a follow-through attack; I don't think I'd be able to adequately describe it here.

I've heard a lot of 'explanations' for various moves in our kata by different karateka trained in different lineages, and some of them make me shake my head a bit as well. I'm sure they're repeating what they were taught, but it's not what *I* have been taught and shown, and so far, ever time someone in our dojo asks "why do we do this" or "why do we do that" with regard to the kata or basic exercises, the explanations always makes perfect sense and can be demonstrated with alacrity; no one is left doubting that this or that technique 'works'.

It is possible (perhaps probable) that I am extraordinarily lucky to have such a wonderful dojo and great senseis. I really get a lot out of it; it all makes sense to me.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

First of all, thank you so much for your opinion in regards to Shimabuku sensei.

I think this deserves more discussion, however.



The second sentence describes how I feel about the matter. Each dojo will make decisions based on their needs and that's the way it should be. If you want to wait five or six years and your students are cool with this, that's how the dojo rolls.

The first sentence is something that I struggle with as a karateka and a teacher. I don't want to wait because I recognize that my students may need to access the broader definition of "down block" in a near future serious situation. It's already happened. I've had students with as little as one month of training have to apply a technique from the kata that would have been useless if I had initially presented it as a "down block" or an "outside inside block".

For example, in Minnesota, my brother lived with me for six months. He trained at my dojo the entire time, then met his future wife and moved out on his own. About a year later, he was working as a convenience store clerk and was held up. The man was armed, pushed him aside and grabbed the money and then turned back to deal with my brother. He used the armbar that I taught from a basic kata, slammed the man on the counter, pinned him, and held him there until police arrived.

With something like karate, the consequences of pedagogy choices can be serious and immediate. It's something that every sensei needs to seriously consider, IMO.

One of my senseis refers to this as 'being sprinkled with the karate fairy dust.' He says that one day, the light comes on for some (not all) karateka and it's like they've been sprinkled with moondust. Suddenly they start to put it all together and everything just works. He says that he and other senseis can literally see it happen. One day the student is just bumbling along, learning as best they can, and one day, bang, they seem to have jumped to a whole new level.

 

[Victor Smith]

Makalakumu the struggle never ends. What is the right thing to teach and when. The reality in my +30 years as an instructor I've never had a student need their training. I'm very familiar with what it takes to build skill in my program, where students can only train 2 days a week with me. You make choices and the path I've chosen is that I just teach karate, not self defense, not physical education, not sport, just karate.

Those and other options can come in time, but they're subsidiary to the training. I don't start formal study of applications until after sho-dan, exactly as I was taught. I slowly teach a basic set of skills as the student progresses through kyu ranks, developing their ability to insert themselves into some attacks.

But nothing is held back, I continually show them why they are learning movements a specific way, applying the movements on them, but don't stress they learn those applications.

If I was living in an area that required different skills, I would make adjustments to the program appropriately. But that isn't the base reality of where I live.

In this I first follow the way I was taught, with no application studies, ever, but a few grab releases, and most of the time in 70's style sport kumite (before safety gear) and those methods were successful too. In fact most of the skilled karate-ka I've trained with follow a similar template these past 30 years. Working first a few generic answers and work on building skill.

I'd much rather hope my students never need their training, but as skill develops what I can develop with them grows correspondingly.

 

[puunui]

I've met Charles in person and used the library of rare books he donated to the University of Hawaii at Manoa and I believe that this is truly a treasure for all karateka. It's the largest collection of rare karate books on Earth.

I have all the respect in the world for Goodin Sensei, but it is difficult to make statement like the above. I think there are people out there who have incredible collections, and we just don't know about them.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

Thank you for the link