# Bunkai discussion (no applications)



## Sensei Mike (Sep 23, 2002)

> Chufeng stated: I don't study in another system...I train in YiLiQuan...
> 
> I use Naihanchi Shodan to emphasize to my students how even the simplest (on the surface) forms contain a wealth of information...I am quite frankly surprised at how many karateka don't know more about the layers of technique within kata, and even more surprised at those who would discard kata altogether.
> 
> ...



Chufeng:

I enjoy your perspective. I too show my students how basic kata, such as Naihanchi Shodan and Pinan Shodan have such a wealth of information. Do you know where some of my best ideas come from? My students. An example. I had taught a strike to the biceps to lower the head. Some months later, I was having real trouble making a particular big spin work well as a takedown for large opponents. (It worked against smaller opponents) A student tried the biceps strike and voila, magic, one of the best takedowns I use. Now this takedown is referred to by the student's name.

This has happened time and again. Just the other evening, a student was toying with a move I had used against a grab. He wanted to make it work against a left strike, right strike combo. (In my class, we are pretty much in agreement that this is an attack we have to deal with, and it is a big problem.) We both had a couple of good ideas, as did other students doing partner work next to this student. Together we crafted a great response to this attack. After effectively blocking both strikes, there is a left elbow to the head/neck coupled to a 180 degree rotation of the body for lots of power. The takedown was a new one, but worked really well. Like all the bunkai I practice, it came from the next movement in the kata. 

For me, the key to success in motivating students, is to find techniques that they believe will work (whether mine, someone else's or their own). Then they often become determined to do the massive repetition (both kata and partner work) necessary to make them work.


----------



## Sensei Mike (Sep 23, 2002)

> "Ryu"ShiKan stated:
> 
> I agree with you (Chufeng) on the "spoon feeding" part. Something that is earned too easily is easily taken for granted or disregarded.
> 
> ...



Fellow karateka (and other martial artists). Following is a long post. (Did someone expect a short one from me?) I started this new thread to take the non-application issues off the application thread, as I and several others have requested. I think our colleague "Ryu"ShiKan deserves a thorough rebuttal to his point above regarding the need to limit what you teach a student.

I imagine that from the perspective describe in the quote above, that all martial arts teachers must somehow limit what they show to their students. It seems it would be fine to show their students some techniques, but not others.(What these are, or how they are determined, I don't know). Perhaps it is appropriate if these techniques are limited to basic kicks, blocks and strikes, or body shifting, or other basic patterns. Perhaps if merely a simple kick is shown, then the teacher would not be "tell[ing] you (the student) the answers to all the questions."

But if an interpretation to a series of movements in a kata is shown, then it seems to appear, according to the above argument, that the student would then be denied the ability to learn for himself. Rather, it seems from the above perspective, that it would be optimal to leave kata as somewhat of a mystery to students. 

This approach shouldn't be surprising. It pretty accurately describes much the way that kata has been handed down over the past 50 years. And the results are a dismal failure. System after system practices kata as a dance, as something to be done only for promotions and in tournaments. Countless hours of students' practice time are spent mindlessly going over repetitive movements they have no hope of making meaning out of. System after system has downplayed the practice of kata to where a given form may be practiced, in the dojo, perhaps a few times a month. And this is in the "kata oriented" systems. 

Many systems have reacted by abandoning kata altogether. I fully support this. I think it is foolish to practice a movement that has no meaning for you. For those interested in self-defense, as do the vast majority of the students who have trained with me, the key to success is massive repetition of effective techniques. A technique will never be effective if you don't know how to apply it. For perhaps hundreds of thousands, if not millions of students in karate and Tae Kwon Do, there is blind repetition of movements that will never make sense to them. 

This is a failed experiment on a grand scale.     

I take a different approach. I train in, and teach a system that does nothing but kata, as well as partner work for the practice of applications from kata. Of course, we include makiwara and bag work to build power for these combinations, as well as other strengthening exercises. After two weeks, my beginning students practice Pinan Shodan 25 times per evening. After a semester, they will have practiced 1000 repetitions. This repetition only begins to approach the level of repetition practiced in Okinawa 100 years ago. Is this the only way to practice self-defense, or karate? Absolutely not, there are many, many ways. I just try to model my training as best I can on how karate might have been practiced 100 years ago. (This is not all that clear, as the historical record is spotty.) But there are many wonderful arts out there that do things a lot different. 

I too agree with the "teach a man to fish" concept but before he can fish, he needs a pole, a line, and a hook (or in Okinawa, perhaps a net or a nunte sai). I don't think students have the luxury of not learning practical applications right away. When are they best taught? Should they wait a year? How about  two? What happens to the two year students who are attacked and hurt seriously, if not killed? Do you then apologize and say that the time just wasn't right for you to teach them practical applications?

I start right away, with movements from kata. Like other teachers, I could teach any movements I want. I choose those that Itosu taught, the movements from his kata. Others choose other techniques and combinations. There is lots good out there. The key is that it is best if they are effective.

I have a couple of goals for my students. Like in Okinawa 100 years ago, the key is massive repetitions in the air, and then lower repetitions to the bag (improved substitute for makiwara) and with partners. My students take sequential movements from kata, and practice them with partners in self defense patterns, all the way to a takedown. The finish after the takedown is often added, but in many cases, (like my Naihanchi Shodan stomp), the finish can often come from the next step in the kata. This approach is not that common. It is but one. But it is effective. You leverage the muscle memory built by countless repetitions to execute, just as in the kata. No changes are necessary. You have power where you need it and relaxation where you need it. 

It is all too unfortunate that so many, many karate systems have such simplistic approaches to bunkai. A block then a strike, or a block then a kick and a strike. How about this ridiculous interpretation. As you proceed forward with several steps (for example in Pinan Shodan where there are three sequential steps forward with a shuto (knife hand) movement, the opponent is stepping back, one step at a time and striking. I find it difficult to imagine that anybody could imagine a fight unfolding like this. But this bunkai is found in many systems. Students often blindly follow what their sensei teach, without the critical question, "would it work for me?" 

In some of the kenpo (Japanese and Chinese) and other Chinese systems, an attack is often met with a response that can only be considered a barrage. Multiple strikes, kicks and locks. This multi-counter response seems to make such good sense. A single counter might not work. It might be blocked or miss. It might not hit hard enough, whatever. 

But in many Japanese, as well as Okinawan systems today, there is often a significant emphasis on ikken hisatsu. (One strike kills or better, one strike, certain death). Often, the bunkai of many karate systems leans heavily on a single counterstrike to the solar plexus. In fact,  jiyu kumite in general, and certainly most tournament jiyu kumite is built around this very principle.

Naïve students accept the teachings of their teachers that they can hit a large aggressive opponent with a single strike to his mid-section and end the fight. The notion that the solar plexus is the prime target in a real life fight, with the high stakes that are involved, is, in my view, a fantasy. It is very hard to hit, and even harder to kick. And surrounding it is perhaps the best protected part of the body. 

For many who study other martial systems, the whole notion of ending the attack of a large aggressive attacker with a single strike is absurd. Are there masters out there that can do this? Sure. Oyata is a great example. Mas Oyama, probably even a better one. But it takes many, many years, perhaps decades, and countless hours at the makiwara, to get this power. Yet this technique is taught as if students who train once or twice a week will acquire this capability in perhaps a short period (two to three years perhaps).   

Teaching ikken hitatsu to gullible beginners is to me, simply wrong. You are taking a dangerous situation (an attack) and compounding it by having a response that is likely to be completely ineffective. But if some poor student gets seriously hurt, perhaps even after years of training, the sensei has no skin in the game.  

There are a growing number of systems and dojos that have transcended beyond this, and teach not just any old bunkai, but meaningful bunkai. But they are still well in the minority. We all can be thankful that Oyata has exposed much, especially regarding locking techniques and striking to vital zones. 

There are many other contributors to the bunkai resurgence, especially those that have cross-trained in grappling arts. In order for people to look deeply inside the kata, they need glimpses of what is there. Let them see a variety of ideas for the movements, and maybe they too can find something that works for themselves. 

In some cases, they can take non-sequential movements, say this block, coupled with that step two movements earlier, and add this counter from three moves later. They can patch it altogether and come up with a technique. That is one approach, and Oyata has done this with great brilliance in his technique. But then when the kata is practiced, that combination is not practiced. However, if combinations using sequential movements are studied, then they are practiced, as they are executed, when the kata is. 

One of Itosu's 10 precepts urged students to study the meaning of the movements (kata) for themselves. But, and here is the key requirement, they FIRST need to learn the theory of torite (usage). Many systems today do not teach much in the way of torite. They do not teach the breadth of atemi waza (striking techniques). Many karate systems rarely teach the importance of obvious vital zones such as the neck and groin, rather than just the solar plexus. Many do not teach locks and joint manipulations. Many do not teach much in the way of takedowns, and they certainly don't teach all that many takedowns from within the movements of kata. Many systems teach no groundfighting despite the rather high probability that an attack can be more than a punch, kick or grab, and that you can easily wind up on the ground. 

And many pay only lip service to the repetitions needed to make techniques useful, especially when it comes to the practice of kata. Perhaps a few each week, rather than the many dozens, or better yet hundreds, needed to really develop effectiveness.  

But other "non-karate" systems are replete with some of these concepts. Many include great repetitions of movements. The Chi na of Taichi is a rich art of grappling or seizing, as are many of the Chinese systems. Judo, Ju Jitsu and Aikido, teach an abundance of locking and throwing techniques, as do many Phillipino systems. And ti, is it was practiced in Okinawa, 100 years ago, was full of these concepts. What has happened? Who knows? Many of us have our pet theories. 

My posts are intended to provide some insight into the vast capability of kata, to those who have not considered such possibilities before, and to learn from others that have developed or learned other useful applications. What I have done in my interpretations is not all that difficult, and I want to encourage others to do the same. My ideas come from a simple series of "what-if" questions. What if it was a right strike. What if I wanted to effectively hit him on this next move. What if I tried to use the next direction to take him down.

My threads are somewhat lengthy because I am introducing some karateka to concepts they might not have considered before. I think of this as Itosu's notion of torite, or theory of usage. For example, in Aikido, as well as other arts, you treat your body as the weapon. It is used in virtually every move. That differs from some karate systems where many blocks, and sometimes the strikes as well are done with just arm movements with little or no gain from body rotation. Here is another example. In Aikido, Judo and Ju Jitsu, large turns are used to throw an opponent to the defender's rear. Great concept. You can't see what is behind you, so you take no chances. Just insert attacker A into the path of potential attacker B, whom you can't see. 

Here's another. Movements have lots of meanings and should be looked upon with as a blank slate. Take any arm movement. It may look like a block in the kata, but what could be accomplished if it were viewed as a lock, or a strike. Here's another. Imagine your opponent is a lot bigger and is punching to your head with a right hook. Many view this as a high probability attack. The typical outside blocks, found everywhere in the kata, which one may think can only protect the solar plexus, can be raised up, every so slightly to protect your very vulnerable head. Here's another, your front kick to your own stomach or solar plexus level, is about the perfect height for a groin kick to a larger opponent, so just because you practice a kick to your own solar plexus height, doesn't mean you necessarily have to use it against an attacker's solar plexus. Think groin, and the neck becomes a great target.

This is all torite, or theory of usage and I include these concepts in my posts to help karateka understand perhaps a different way to think about the movements they practice every day. When I started the application thread, I was informed that text was not a useful way to pass along ideas. I disagree. As long as the detail is there, text can do accomplish a great deas.   

I like to think that instead of showing people how to fight, I help them understand how they can look into their own repetitive movements (kata) such that they can teach themselves how to fight. I never claimed to have all the bunkai, not even a small percentage of it. I have effective bunkai out of the sequential movements of the kata. Anyone can find new applications, and they can found what I have found, if only they take the time to look.

Kind of like teaching a man to fish.


----------



## Matt Stone (Sep 23, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Sensei Mike _
> 
> *I think our colleague "Ryu"ShiKan deserves a thorough rebuttal to his point above regarding the need to limit what you teach a student.*



I think you misunderstood the idea of limiting what is taught...  RyuShiKan and Chufeng both pointed out the value of *earn*ing your l*earn*ing by not giving all the answers to the students, but instead giving them enough information to allow them to discover the answers for themselves...  My teacher _gave_ me certain breakdowns to many of our forms.  I refer to them as the "orthodox" or "standard" breakdowns.  Time, training, experience and practice allowed me (using the information my Sifu provided) to "discover" breakdowns that were "hidden" in the form.  When I asked Sifu about their validity, his answer was along the lines of Chufeng's and RyuShiKan's comments - had I gotten them from him, I wouldn't remember them as well nor value them as much as having found them myself.  I *earn*ed what l*earn*ed. 



> *I imagine that from the perspective describe in the quote above, that all martial arts teachers must somehow limit what they show to their students. It seems it would be fine to show their students some techniques, but not others.(What these are, or how they are determined, I don't know). Perhaps it is appropriate if these techniques are limited to basic kicks, blocks and strikes, or body shifting, or other basic patterns. Perhaps if merely a simple kick is shown, then the teacher would not be "tell[ing] you (the student) the answers to all the questions."*



Again, misunderstood and misinterpreted.  But I can see where you come from on this point...



> *But if an interpretation to a series of movements in a kata is shown, then it seems to appear, according to the above argument, that the student would then be denied the ability to learn for himself. Rather, it seems from the above perspective, that it would be optimal to leave kata as somewhat of a mystery to students.*



See above comments...



> *This approach shouldn't be surprising. It pretty accurately describes much the way that kata has been handed down over the past 50 years. And the results are a dismal failure. System after system practices kata as a dance, as something to be done only for promotions and in tournaments. Countless hours of students' practice time are spent mindlessly going over repetitive movements they have no hope of making meaning out of. System after system has downplayed the practice of kata to where a given form may be practiced, in the dojo, perhaps a few times a month.*



Not, I think, because of the motivation to make the student earn the knowledge, but possibly due to poor teaching ability on the part of the teacher (good fighter does not automatically equal good teacher) and poor learning on the part of the student.  Too many low quality students and practitioners have left good schools only to pop up later with elevated self-promotions teaching what they claim is the newest, deadliest style ever...  Their lack of understanding due to their lack of training has contributed more, I feel, to the "dismal failure" than the motivations of the original teachers.



> *I too agree with the "teach a man to fish" concept but before he can fish, he needs a pole, a line, and a hook (or in Okinawa, perhaps a net or a nunte sai).*



The student has the tools.  The techniques he/she has been taught, and the guidance of the teacher in teaching the form in the first place (to include the principles of that style's application of techniques).

I wish I had more time to reply to this...  Public computer (still waiting for my household stuff to be delivered) with a 30 minute limit...  I think I understand where Mike is coming from, and his motivations are well intentioned, but I would point to his understanding of bunkai - earned by his own practice - as the benchmark of the success of the original training methods.  He knows because he earned it, not because it was given to him.

See you tomorrow.

Gambarimasu.


----------



## RyuShiKan (Sep 23, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Sensei Mike _
> 
> *
> I imagine that from the perspective describe in the quote above, that all martial arts teachers must somehow limit what they show to their students.   *



Nope never said that.
What I said was they don't "spoon feed" the answers out all the time, but they help the student learn and discover how to learn more which actually expedites the whole process. I never said they "limit" what they teach. There is a big difference. 
Another thing it does is help weed out the nut cases that have no patience and just wanna learn how to kick butt. 
I would never hand someone I didn't know a loaded weapon just as I would never show that same person a potentially dangerous technique.
It's called responsibility.



> _Originally posted by Sensei Mike _
> 
> * But if an interpretation to a series of movements in a kata is shown, then it seems to appear, according to the above argument, that the student would then be denied the ability to learn for himself. Rather, it seems from the above perspective, that it would be optimal to leave kata as somewhat of a mystery to students. *



Again, that is not what I said. 
If you would have understood what I said originally you could have saved yourself a lot of writing time.




> _Originally posted by Sensei Mike _
> 
> * I too agree with the "teach a man to fish" concept but before he can fish, he needs a pole, a line, and a hook (or in Okinawa, perhaps a net or a nunte sai).   *



There is no such thing as a "nunte sai". There is Sai, Manji Sai (swastika shaped Sai), a Manji Sai stuck on the end of a Bo and it is called a Nunte Bo.......but there is no such thing as a Nunte Sai.




> _Originally posted by Sensei Mike _
> 
> * For many who study other martial systems, the whole notion of ending the attack of a large aggressive attacker with a single strike is absurd. Are there masters out there that can do this? Sure. Oyata is a great example.   *



I don't recall my teacher ever saying what he does is "ikken hisastu" or even similar to it.


----------



## chufeng (Sep 23, 2002)

Mike,

I'm glad you used my post to expand on the concept of "teaching a man to fish," but, I never intended my post to spark a protest against RyuShiKan's posts...

We each know what we know...but the real key to learning is know what we don't know...

...what you know, I don't...what I know, you don't...but there is an overlap in our knowing and in that common ground we can exchange ideas. (Note: ideas, not techniques)...I try and keep an open mind (I know: "do or do not, there is no try.") and learn much from each encounter with the people I meet (electronically, or otherwise)...

Your call to loudly proclaim RyuShiKan a heretic (my term, not yours) seems a bit insecure...why call all karateka to speak out against one from whom a lot of you can learn? 

I'm willing to exchange ideas, but let's check ego at the door.

:asian:
chufeng


----------



## RyuShiKan (Sep 23, 2002)

> _Originally posted by chufeng _
> 
> *
> Your call to loudly proclaim RyuShiKan a heretic (my term, not yours) seems a bit insecure...*




Is a malcontent higher or lower than a heretic?


----------



## chufeng (Sep 23, 2002)

RyuShiKan,

A malcontent and heretic are the same; one yin, one yang...

:asian:
chufeng


----------



## RyuShiKan (Sep 23, 2002)

> _Originally posted by chufeng _
> 
> *RyuShiKan,
> 
> ...




So have I come full "circle"?


----------



## RyuShiKan (Sep 23, 2002)

Thinking techniques from the kata are sequential like the moves in the kata is not wrong.........in fact in some cases it is correct........but not in many cases. It depends on the kata and which move in the kata you are doing. I make this statement from an Okinawa karate kata point of view, Chinese kata seem to follow the sequential pattern more than Okinawan. 
Something that also might be of interest is while in China I witnessed Bagua and was told it basically has no "kata" per say but relies more on "feel".  Very interesting art.

Referring back to the Alphabet analogy from the other thread.
Doing movements/techniques in sequential order is OK........example. ABCDEFGHIJ. Those are the basic building blocks for words. But why limit yourself to the Dick & Jane books  like "See spot run." when you can expand on it to more advanced levels of thought and learning like "Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain" - Nietzsche. 
What happens is the more you advance in the kata the more, and better, you will understand and be able to reproduce the basics of what you "thought" you knew. 
In language you are not limited to one pattern of grouping words and so too is kata technique. You can not have a "canned" reaction because nobody attacks in the "exact" manner all the time. So having a rigid sequential application series doesn't always work.  

To give an example:  

I had a friend that wanted to learn to sing a Japanese Karaoke song, he could neither read nor speak Japanese. 
However, he managed to learn the song, several actually, and sang them rather well, they were kind of basic but still had no idea of what he was singing. 
He had merely played the tape with his song on it back enough and mimicked what was on the tape, he learned to just sing the words in the order they were in by rote.
If he had taken the time to learn the basics of Japanese he could have sung any song in the karaoke book.


----------



## chufeng (Sep 23, 2002)

RyuShiKan wrote:

"So have I come full "circle"?"

In the health care field, we say a perfect circle is one who has had a hemorrhoidectomy...do you still want an answer to your question?   

...and our interpretation of form is really no different than yours. The sequential patterns are where we start...after that it is looking at things done backwards...it is looking at things that happen between obvious technique...it is looking at where on your own body you might be pointing with the "non-attacking" hand...it is looking at the potential attack with the same defensive movement from 360 degrees...and why a kick is not a kick and why a particular stepping action IS a kick, etc. 

But you'll never get that from a cathode ray tube projecting words or images...you'll only get that one on one with another. So we are the same, just different...

:asian:
chufeng


----------



## RyuShiKan (Sep 23, 2002)

> _Originally posted by chufeng _
> 
> *RyuShiKan wrote:
> 
> ...




I think I'll pass.


----------



## Sensei Mike (Sep 26, 2002)

> RyuShiKan stated:
> 
> Thinking techniques from the kata are sequential like the moves in the kata is not wrong.........in fact in some cases it is correct........but not in many cases.



Tough point to argue, since you don't say what kata you are referring to. How about the Pinans. Do you know of cases in the Pinans where the sequential moves are "not correct". (My interpretation is that "not correct" means the sequential movements do not provide a meaningful, useful application.)

btw, your statement above appears to me to be an ever-so-slight change from an earlier post you made.



> RyuShiKan stated
> 
> kata too has no meaning if you think of the moves as merely ABCDEF



But I am sure that is just my imagination.


----------



## RyuShiKan (Sep 26, 2002)

Some schools of thought think kata application is done A~Z just as it is done in the kata. This is not true.
There are short sections in kata like ABC that run sequential and can be applied as such but are not restricted to it. 
Example:
first 3 moves of Pinan Shodan can be applied as a sequential application........but don't have to be.
The 3 upper blocks of Pinan Nidan...........the last 2 are connected the first one is not.


----------



## Kempojujutsu (Sep 26, 2002)

RyuShiKan, This how Tai Chi forms are put together are they not. You learn the form, then break it down to learn the application of the movements, then you could do the form tying different movements together?
Bob :asian:


----------



## RyuShiKan (Sep 26, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Kempojujutsu _
> 
> *RyuShiKan, This how Tai Chi forms are put together are they not. You learn the form, then break it down to learn the application of the movements, then you could do the form tying different movements together?
> Bob :asian: *



I don't know really...........my TaiChi is pretty awfull. 
This is how we do things in our dojo though. 

Just like when you cook you don't put in equal amounts of everything.

You put in some of this a bit of that stir it up and out comes something you can eat. Same with kata, you take this evasive move put it with that strike ad some tuite and then a take down and you have a technique.

The reason why "canned" responses don't work is because there is no "canned" attack. Therefore you have to learn body movement and mechanics and incorporate them into your techniques naturally.


----------



## Kempojujutsu (Sep 26, 2002)

Hey RyuShiKan congrats on your Martial Talk Black Belt. Did you become some kind of Ninja. Didn't see your name at the bottom of the main page.:ninja: 
Bob


----------



## RyuShiKan (Sep 26, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Kempojujutsu _
> 
> *Hey RyuShiKan congrats on your Martial Talk Black Belt. Did you become some kind of Ninja. Didn't see your name at the bottom of the main page.:ninja:
> Bob *




You actually become an "all seeing and all knowing sentient being" ...................actually I hadn't even noticed until you said something. 
Thanks.


----------



## Sensei Mike (Sep 27, 2002)

> RyuShiKan stated:
> Thinking techniques from the kata are sequential like the moves in the kata is not wrong.........in fact in some cases it                             is correct........but not in many cases.
> 
> Sensei Mike requested clarification:
> ...



RyuShiKan,

Okay. You seem pretty sure about this third direction in Pinan Nidan. The last two are connected, the first one is not. That seems definitive. 

I want to make sure I am not misrepresenting the implication here. Please help me to be sure. First, to clarify, we are talking about the connection between the movements in the Pinan Nidan's third direction, specifically between the ability to connect the initial downward block and upper block, with the second and third upper blocks, and make a useful application out of that sequence.

Now, are you saying, the first block(s) *are not connected* to the following two, *in your system?* Or are you saying that these two parts of the third direction are *unconnected, in every system?* This would mean that there simply could be no useful application that can bring the entire directional sequence together as a cohesive whole? (Or as part of a perhaps larger cohesive whole.)

And just to make sure we are on the same page, there is to be no implication that if this entire directional sequence can work together as a complete (or part of a complete) combination, that this would be the only interpretation for this series of movements. There would be many more useful applications. Some might use the sequential movements, while other great, effective applications would make use of movements not part of the sequence (referred to in some systems as oyo bunkai). 

Thank you for the clarification.


----------



## Kempojujutsu (Sep 27, 2002)

Does any one teach these kata's, and what order do you teach kata's (example Naihanchi kata's followed by Pinan kata's etc.)
Bob  :asian:


----------



## Sensei Mike (Sep 27, 2002)

Kempojujutsu,

You probably know some of the history on this. Prior to Itosu introducing the Pinan, it was common for beginners to practice Naihanchi Shodan. 

In Karate-Do Kyohan, Funakoshi states: "In the past, it was expected that about three years were required to learn a single kata, and it was usual that even an expert of considerable skill would know three or at the most five kata. Thus in short, it was left that a superficial understanding of many kata was of little use. The aim of training reflected the precept expressed by the words "Although the doorway is small, go deeply inward. I, too, studied for ten years to really learn the three Tekki forms."  

Funakoshi also divides his kata into two groups, Shorin Ryu and Shorei Ryu, and states that from the Shorin Ryu, a beginner should start with Taikyoku Shodan, Nidan and Sandan, (his kata) and follow these with the Heian (Pinan) ... From the Shorei Ryu he says to begin with the three Tekki (Naihanchi).

The order of the kata are mixed in the text.

In Nagamine's "Essence of Okinawan Karate-Do" the order of the kata presented in the book are Fukyugata 1 and 2 (beginner kata), then the Pinans, then Naihanchi. 

Bishop's text, Okinawan Karate, lists kata that are taught at each of the many schools he surveyed, and the lists seemed to indicate the order in which they are generally taught, as Naihanchi and Pinans are at the beginning of many lists. 

In the Matsubayashi, Kobayashi and Shobayashi dojos I have trained in, the Naihanchi are taught after the Pinans. In the several Shotokan systems I have been in, it is common to have other kata taught before all the Tekki (Naihanchi) are learned. (Jutte for example). It is my opinion. that some Shotokan dojos that are more tournament oriented, are more likely to introduce a kata like Bassai Dai, before introducing Tekki Sandan.


----------



## Sensei Mike (Sep 27, 2002)

> RyuShiKan stated:
> Maybe you should stick with one dojo instead of hopping around between them. You know the story about chasing rabbits


Whatever could you mean by this statement? Would you care to elaborate? I would love to hear your views on this subject.


----------



## RyuShiKan (Sep 28, 2002)

What do you think I mean?


----------



## D.Cobb (Sep 28, 2002)

> _Originally posted by chufeng _
> 
> *RyuShiKan wrote:
> 
> ...




So would that make him a perfect a**hole?
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: 
Love your work Robert. Hehe
--Dave:rofl:


----------



## D.Cobb (Sep 28, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Kempojujutsu _
> 
> *Does any one teach these kata's, and what order do you teach kata's (example Naihanchi kata's followed by Pinan kata's etc.)
> Bob  :asian: *


At our school, we learn the Taikyoku katas 1, 2 & 3, before we learn other katas.The Pinan katas are learnt after black belt, as is Bassai Dai. Naihanchi is learnt around green belt.

--Dave

:asian:


----------



## RyuShiKan (Sep 28, 2002)

> _Originally posted by D.Cobb _
> 
> *
> At our school, we learn the Taikyoku katas 1, 2 & 3, before we learn other katas.The Pinan katas are learnt after black belt, as is Bassai Dai. Naihanchi is learnt around green belt.
> ...




From what I have seen most Shorin Ryu school start with the Taikyoku katas.

We start with the Naihanchis then Seisan then the Pinans......so Pinan Shodan is actually the 4th or 5th kata we learn.......depends on the teacher really.


----------



## RyuShiKan (Sep 28, 2002)

> _Originally posted by D.Cobb _
> 
> *
> 
> ...



It would seem so..............nice to be perfect at something anyway


----------



## Sensei Mike (Sep 28, 2002)

RyuShiKan,

You have been such a terrific contributor to this forum, and so responsive to answering questions. 

I hope you can find the time to answer my request for clarification on Pinan Nidan, 7 posts above. It's really a very simple question.

Just a reminder:



> RyuShiKan stated:
> Thinking techniques from the kata are sequential like the moves in the kata is not wrong.........in fact in some cases it is correct........but not in many cases.
> 
> Sensei Mike requested clarification:
> ...



Does this mean there are no useful interpretations to the entire forward sequence?

Thanks so much for your response.


----------



## Kempojujutsu (Sep 28, 2002)

There's this thread in the grappling section "best takedowns" This guy ACE said kata is only good in the dojo but not for the street. Figure a couple of you may want to respone if you like. I have already.
Bob :asian:


----------



## chufeng (Sep 28, 2002)

Mike,

I can't speak for RyuShiKan...but, I can say that in our system (YiLiQuan) the "obvious" (read basic) techniques are included in sequence...BUT, the real MEAT of the movements found in the forms is hidden.

If you look at the basic breakdown of some of the movements in our first set, the series of movements only works if the supposed attacker is moving backwards, away from you, in a straight line. The only place I see that kind of movement is at a bad tournament.

However, the real applications are numerous and are only fragments of the series of movements. I suspect the Okinawan forms are similar in nature.

As I read RyuShiKan's posts, I think that is what he is trying to point out...look beyond the obvious, take the form apart and try each of its pieces forwards, backwards, and from many angles. you may find one part from the form fits together nicely with another part of the form...

I am not suggesting that you change anything...the form is simply a reference book for you to come back to and it was put together a certain way for good reasons.

I hope this helps.

:asian:
chufeng


----------



## DKI Girl (Sep 28, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Kempojujutsu _
> 
> *Does any one teach these kata's, and what order do you teach kata's (example Naihanchi kata's followed by Pinan kata's etc.)
> Bob  :asian: *



Hi Bob....at my school we are teaching Naihanchi Shodan first, then Pinan Shodan, and we alternate between the two until black belt.  Then we teach Gankaku.

dki girl


----------



## RyuShiKan (Sep 29, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Sensei Mike _
> 
> *
> 
> ...



Did I say there weren't any?


----------



## RyuShiKan (Sep 29, 2002)

> _Originally posted by chufeng _
> 
> *
> As I read RyuShiKan's posts, I think that is what he is trying to point out...look beyond the obvious, take the form apart and try each of its pieces forwards, backwards, and from many angles. you may find one part from the form fits together nicely with another part of the form...
> ...




Yup...........that is what I was saying.


----------



## Kong (Sep 29, 2002)

I`m not too familiar with all the different styles of Karate, but I used too train Wado Ryu when I was younger. We started with the Pinans then Kushanku, Naifanchi, Seishan and then Chinto. 


> The Pinan katas are learnt after black belt


The Pinans always seemed kind of basic to me, is it common in other styles of Karate (then WR) to teach them as late into the curriculum?


----------



## RyuShiKan (Sep 29, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Sensei Mike _
> 
> *  Kempojujutsu,
> 
> You probably know some of the history on this. Prior to Itosu introducing the Pinan, it was common for beginners to practice Naihanchi Shodan. *



Yes and No.
It was only common for them to practice it if it was part of there style.
However, prior to Itosu most people only had 1 or 2 kata as their style, (Motobu Choki-Ryukyu Karate Kenpo Jutsu) which is why many people now think that the 3 Naihanchi kata were derived/engineered from a single kata or someone invented 2 and 3 later.....possibly Itosu.





> _Originally posted by Sensei Mike _
> 
> *  Funakoshi also divides his kata into two groups, Shorin Ryu and Shorei Ryu, and states that from the Shorin Ryu, a beginner should start with Taikyoku Shodan, Nidan and Sandan, (his kata) and follow these with the Heian (Pinan) ... From the Shorei Ryu he says to begin with the three Tekki (Naihanchi). *



It has been discussed before but given the information from Motobu's book that it was common to know only 1 or 2 kata it is logical to state that out of the old kata there is no such thing as a "beginners" kata, and that they are ALL advanced.




> _Originally posted by Sensei Mike _
> 
> *Bishop's text, Okinawan Karate, lists kata that are taught at each of the many schools he surveyed, and the lists seemed to indicate the order in which they are generally taught, as Naihanchi and Pinans are at the beginning of many lists. *



Again, See above about beginners kata. 
We teach Naihanchis first since they are some of the most difficult to fully understand and therefore take more time to discover. 




> _Originally posted by Sensei Mike _
> 
> * It is my opinion. that some Shotokan dojos that are more tournament oriented, are more likely to introduce a kata like Bassai Dai, before introducing Tekki Sandan. *



At the Shotokan and JKA honbu dojo I have been to here the general consensus is that Naihanchi (Tekki) kata are beginners kata and because they are so short and lack the "flash" and crowd pleasing effect of other kata they are not really practiced that much. 
Which is a shame since they have such a treasure chest of technique.................


----------



## Sensei Mike (Sep 29, 2002)

RyuShiKan, 



> RyuShiKan stated: Yup...........that is what I was saying.


Wow, impressive. You have actually responsed, after not one, but two requests for clarification. I am surprised, but not much. Still there is no clarification, just a non-answer, an obvious evasion.

So let's try this yet again. I will tell you what you said, and ask again, and ask for further clarification, knowing that the cat seems to have your tongue. 
First you stated:


> RyuShiKan stated: As my teacher has explained to many different martial arts people from various styles the kata are just like the alphabet. Just as ABCDEF......doesn't spell anything and has no meaning, kata too has *no meaning if you think of the moves as merely ABCDEF *or as I have stated above first A technique then B technique and so on.


I had a lengthy reply which included the following:


> Sensei Mike stated: I have recently completed a lengthy description of ABCDEFGHI as it applies to Naihanchi shodan. (Or some would argue BCDEFGHIJ, as I left off the beginning.)


Your reply responded to 13 statements I made in that post but studiously *avoided *responding to this key issue I raised. 
But you did come back to this point later in this new thread.


> RyuShiKan stated: Thinking techniques from the kata are *sequential like the moves in the kata is not wrong.........in fact in some cases it is correct........but not in many cases. *It depends on the kata and which move in the kata you are doing. Referring back to the Alphabet analogy from the other thread. Doing movements/techniques in sequential order is OK........example. ABCDEFGHIJ. Those are the basic building blocks for words. But why limit yourself to the Dick & Jane books like "See spot run." when you can expand on it to more advanced levels of thought and learning like "Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain" - Nietzsche.


I referred to the "in some cases it is correct but not in many cases" and requested clarification:


> Sensei Mike stated: Tough point to argue, since you don't say what kata you are referring to. How about the Pinans. *Do you know of cases in the Pinans where the sequential moves are "not correct". (My interpretation is that "not correct" means the sequential movements do not provide a meaningful, useful application.*)
> btw, your statement above appears to me to be an ever-so-slight change from an earlier post you made.


And of course you responded:


> RyuShiKan stated: The 3 upper blocks of Pinan Nidan...........the last 2 are connected the first one is not.


To which I asked for clarification: 


> Sensei Mike stated:  Now, are you saying, the first block(s) are not connected to the following two, *in your system?* Or are you saying that these two parts of the third direction *are unconnected, in every system?* This would mean that there simply could be no useful application that can bring the entire directional sequence together as a cohesive whole? (Or as part of a perhaps larger cohesive whole.)


Your next 3 posts to the thread omitted a clarification so I asked again, this time with a question:


> Sensei Mike stated: Does this mean there are no useful interpretations to the entire forward sequence?


To which you gave the non-answer reply.


> RyuShiKan stated: Did I say there weren't any?


So I am batting 0 for 2 in getting a clarification from you.  

*Following is my third request for clarification regarding your vague statements. These statements are unclear. You have complained several times about the Internet being a poor medium for discussion. How about a little clarification on your following statements. What do you mean when you say "many cases" below, what do you mean when you say "the last two are connected, the first two are not"* 


> RyuShiKan stated: sequential like the moves in the kata is not wrong.........in fact in some cases it is correct........but not in many cases.
> RyuShiKan stated:The 3 upper blocks of Pinan Nidan...........the last 2 are connected the first one is not.


Do I expect an answer from you on this subject. Of course not. At least not a meaninful one. You, the distinguished RyuShiKan, first, last and only foreigner allowed to teach at the Nippon Budokan, you who have repeatedly browbeat numerous posters on this "friendly" forum, will likely go on simply ducking the question. All your years of learning martial arts and you can't answer a simple request for clarification of YOUR statements. 

Rather, if do eventually choose to lower yourself to respond at all, you will likely wait until a positive contributor like Chufeng makes a post, trying to help me to better understand what you meant. Then you will have the opportunity to respond to that post with another non-response such as the one you just made:


> RyuShiKan stated: Yup...........that is what I was saying.


I don't expect a clarification from you. I do expect you to be consistent and duck this question again and again. Why you choose to duck requests for clarification on YOUR statements, is anyone's guess. My guess is that while you have made it abundantly obvious that you revel in dishing it out, it seems just as abundantly clear that you just can't take it. Your silence is deafening.


----------



## RyuShiKan (Sep 29, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Sensei Mike _
> 
> *RyuShiKan,
> 
> ...




Well, you are obviously angry about something.

Just because I don't answer doesn't mean I don't have an answer.

Chufeng, Kempojujtsu and others actually read what other people post and obviously reflect upon what they have read and respond accordingly without the "knee-jerk" troglodyte" type answers I have been reading from you.
In case you haven't noticed the reason why I don't answer all your questions is, to be totally blunt, you have a bad attitude.
Having said that, I am surprised that I have answered any of questions after the snide remarks and left handed compliments you keep pumping out.........


----------



## chufeng (Sep 29, 2002)

Methinks you have a chip on your shoulder, Mike. 

Your latest post is clearly antagonistic...

My teacher used to throw out one line clues during class to see who was paying attention and who would explore the ideas. He didn't expound at length about what he meant...he expected the student to do the work necessary to arrive at an understanding.  Example: "Jiu Bu Quan is really a breathing exercise."

Our Jiu Bu Quan is a stepping form...it teaches all of the stepping actions and all of the base stances from which we execute technique...How is it a breathing exercise? How many students actually explored that idea? Maybe ten or so...and all of them have been promoted to senior levels over the years...Sifu dropped pearls like that about every fourth class...95% of the class was content to come and train for 90 minutes 3 times a week...the other 5% went home and drilled and explored and studied the little pearls that were offered...

I think RyuShiKan has done the same thing throughout this and other threads...I don't think you are giving him a fair assessment.
He doesn't OWE anybody here an explanation about anything... he is not your sensei so stop acting like he has to spoon feed you stuff...he stated his own students have to EARN what they learn. Why, then, does he owe you or anyone else MORE than his own students get?

Go back and re-explore the pearls that he has provided...work on them a little and maybe you'll discover more bunkai (even better than what you have discovered on your own up to this point).

Good training to you...

:asian:
chufeng


----------



## RyuShiKan (Sep 29, 2002)

> _Originally posted by chufeng _
> 
> *..................I think that is what he is trying to point out...look beyond the obvious, take the form apart and try each of its pieces forwards, backwards, and from many angles. you may find one part from the form fits together nicely with another part of the form...
> *



Also, I have noticed that many modern day martial arts people are under the false impression that they needn't think for themselves and their teachers should just spoon feed them the answers to all their questions. Maybe it is because they figure they want their moneys worth or maybe they don't know any other way.

What happens if that persons teacher dies........or doesn't know the answer............what then?
Should they just give up? 

I think this is somewhat of a problem that has restricted the growth and innovation in MA recently. Why should I wait for my teacher to answer the questions I have about bunkai? Why can't I just work on them myself and then ask him if it is right or wrong?
My teacher often didn't give direct answers to questions about bunkai and so on, we were made to think about it and if possible find the answer for ourselves, or possibly later he would tell us.

This is actually a good, but often frustrating way to learn. 
What he was teaching us was how to learn, as well as finding out what kind of character we had.
If a student had good character he got to learn more, if the student had a bad character he was often not given much information..................for good reasons. 

Me personally, I don't want "cookie cutter" students that are cranked out by the score and get their "money's worth". I would rather have a few quality students that know how to learn and therefore enrich the art.

You can't mass produce a Rembrandt or Picaso and expect it to have the same value as the original.........


----------



## RyuShiKan (Sep 29, 2002)

> _Originally posted by chufeng _
> 
> *Go back and re-explore the pearls that he has provided........ *



Thanks, but I would hardly call anything I have posted "pearls" (meaning something of great value) becasue I never discuss really important things like technique and so on in-depth over the Internet. I really only discuss the things I think are important, or to borrow your word, "pearls" to close friends and students that I like.


----------



## chufeng (Sep 29, 2002)

The link to Naihanchi was a pearl...

Mayhaps you posted that in a moment of weakness 

:asian:
chufeng


----------



## chufeng (Sep 29, 2002)

RyuShiKan,

What you consider "basic" at this point in your martial arts journey could be called pearls to many folks...

The unfortunate truth is that most schools teach a very shallow level of martial arts (note I said most, not all)...

No one would ever expect the deepest levels to be posted in a public forum...those things you now consider pearls are diamonds to the rest of us.

:asian:
chufeng


----------



## Cthulhu (Sep 29, 2002)

Mod. Note

*EVERYONE*

Keep the discussion friendly and respectful.

Cthulhu

-MT Admin.-


----------



## chufeng (Sep 29, 2002)

Disrespect???
Where???? :idunno:

chufeng


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Sep 29, 2002)

chufeng,  we've gotten a few complaints about the heat level in this thread starting to rise.  No worries. 


All:
This topic is pretty intense (and admitadly over my head), but I've seen some good information in here.  Lets stick to the discussion proper, and leave the personal shots out of it, ok?  Thanks!

:asian:


----------



## Sensei Mike (Sep 29, 2002)

Chufeng:

Thank you for taking the time to come to RyuShiKan's defense. Why do you think he is so unwilling to clarify something he said. He has criticized this medium for not being nuanced enough, and when I ask him to give me a sentence or two of more nuance, there is just silence.


> Your latest post is clearly antagonistic...
> 
> I think RyuShiKan has done the same thing throughout this and other threads...I don't think you are giving him a fair assessment. He doesn't OWE anybody here an explanation about anything... he is not your sensei so stop acting like he has to spoon feed you stuff...he stated his own students have to EARN what they learn. Why, then, does he owe you or anyone else MORE than his own students get.



You think I am not giving RyuShiKan a fair assessment? I wonder what some posters who have been at the other end of RyuShiKan's "fair assessments" will think of that statement. 

There seems to be an implication in your statement above that I think RyuShiKan has something to offer me in terms of martial arts. Well, I didn't make myself clear. I would like to challenge a bizarre statement he made and was looking for more ammunition. He crafts his posts vague enough so that his darts reach their target , but when challenged he always has an opening. (I didn't mean that, you misunderstood me.) He is a fine wordsmith. Am I surprised he hasn't obliged me? Clearly no. 

I began participation in this forum with a request to exchange Naihanchi bunkai. From the start RyuShiKan was a thorn in that discussion. (He has been accused of arrogance on another thread and drawn the moderators into the threads more than once. For such a "friendly discussion" site, it surprises me they have tolerated the complaints, of which I know there have been at least two to date.) 

After once asking if he wanted to participate in the exchange, I have never repeated a request for technique. To imply that I am asking him for some "knowledge" he may have is, I believe, a misreading of my post. I have merely asked for a clarification. He knows what I am after, just a bit more information so I can tell him how misguided some of his statements are. 

Let's review how this all started. 



> RyuShiKan stated: As my teacher has explained to many different martial arts people from various styles the kata are just like the alphabet. Just as ABCDEF......doesn't spell anything and has no meaning, kata too has no meaning if you think of the moves as merely ABCDEF or as I have stated above first A technique then B technique and so on.



This statement is beyond wrong. It is patently absurd. Before I point out the obvious to everyone, first let me clarify something that has been misrepresented. No one on this, or other threads have ever said that one MUST use sequential movements from the kata to have applications with meaning. And nowhere in any of the threads has there been an implication that the only approach to kata analysis is by using sequential movements. On the contrary, my immediate response to RyuShiKan's statement above was:



> Sensei Mike stated: I am familiar with the alphabet soup approach to kata taught by Master Oyata. It is a fine approach. But it too is limiting.  It is not the ONLY approach, it is but one approach.



But the statement from RyuShiKan, above, pretty clearly states that sequential movements HAVE NO MEANING. Here is the catch. They do. Plain and simple. So the RyuShiKan is incorrect. And if Master Oyata has been accurately quoted, he is too. 

Now let's think about how truly bizarre this statement is. The great masters have created kata, but the techniques done, in the order that the appear in the kata, have no meaning. Now, we all know that the kata are designed to be done in massive repetition. It builds speed, power, and makes the execution of the movements reflexive, to be done without any thought: just stimulus and response.

But the kata movements, in the order they appear, simply don't work, because they have no meaning, at least according to Oyata. You have to pull out a technique from here and there and cobble together something that will work. So when you are practicing kata, you really aren't practicing useful combinations. You have to go pull that piece and this piece together. Now here is the catch. In order for any application to be truly reflexive, it has to be done thousands of times. 

So according to RyuShiKan, and Oyata, it is up to us to pick and choose, craft new combinations and then I guess go and practice those sequences thousands of times. Sounds to me a lot like this means we are to make our own mini-kata out of the kata we have. Remember, we are talking about essentially unconscious reactions to attacks. The argument simply doesn't hold that if I practice this movement from over here and want to go to another piece of some other sequence from before or much later, that this skill comes simply through the practice of kata. 

For moves to work you have to practice the whole move thousands of times, some (like Yabu Kentsu) might say 10,000 minimum. And you have to practice it extensively with lots of partners. So if you craft combinations outside of the sequential movements of the kata, they too must be practiced, the same way that kata is practiced.

I am not denigrating in any way this approach by Oyata. For those that want to pursue it, wonderful. Many systems practice combinations without any kata. What I am taking issue with is RyuShiKan's approach to discussing ideas on this forum. When he disagrees, he lets you know you are wrong. And as noted above, he is a master wordsmith so that he can always plead that he was misunderstood, taken out of context. When asked for clarification, then silence.

I am not sure he could have been more creative than in this one barb to me: 



> RyuShiKan stated: Thinking techniques from the kata are sequential like the moves in the kata is not wrong.........in fact in some cases it is correct........but not in many cases. It depends on the kata and which move in the kata you are doing. Referring back to the Alphabet analogy from the other thread. Doing movements/techniques in sequential order is OK........example. ABCDEFGHIJ. Those are the basic building blocks for words. *But why limit yourself to the Dick & Jane books like "See spot run." when you can expand on it to more advanced levels of thought and learning like "Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain" - Nietzsche. *



Very clever. He can say he was just quoting Nietzche. However could I interpret this statement by Nietzsche as directed at me. Very clever indeed. 

Let's review one last issue. 


> RyuShiKan stated: The 3 upper blocks of Pinan Nidan...........the last 2 are connected the first one is not.



For RyuShiKan, if he wants to consider them unconnected, that is fine. So for anyone else as well. This is a basic way of breaking down the kata, and is done in many karate systems with limited bunkai. Keeping sequences separate is the norm. But it is not the only way to break down kata, and RyuShiKan's implication (though he can deny it since he has declined to clarify and pin himself down) is that if he considers sequences separate, then they are, period. 

This breaking up kata into separate sequences is a useful approach, but a basic one. A more thorough analysis of the Pinans and many other kata clearly reveals that EVERY movement throughout is connected to its previous and following movement in a seamless whole. I can verify this for kata I have analyzed including Pinans, Naihanchis, Bassai Dai, Kusanku Sho and Dai, Jutte, Seinchin, Seipei. For these kata, there is no place where one cannot link a movement with its predecessor. This steps beyond the basic approach of advocated by RyuShiKan.

RyuShiKan has never commented on my detailed explanations of the movements in Naihanchi. All he has to say is that if you use sequential movements, then that is basic. And if you show useful movements to your students you are spoonfeeding them. What is basic? It is techniques taught to beginners. My applications are basic as I teach them to beginners. They use them learn how to defend themselves with them. And they work. They are not my techniques, they are Itosu's, or some long-dead Chinese master's. They work.

There is has been much discussion by RyuShiKan of spoonfeeding. Let me go on record: if teaching my students how to defend themselves is spoonfeeding, if giving them movements that motivate them to appreciate the endless repetitions of kata we do in class, if all this motivates them to do kata on their own, for life, then guess what, I am spoonfeeding them. And you know what I need? More spoons. 

I wonder what his response will be to this post. Much to be commented on, corrected and attacked. Will his comrade join the fray? Likely. Much to be written and criticized. But regarding my initial three requests for clarification from the ever voluble RyuShiKan, for just a brief sentence or two, there was but silence.


----------



## RyuShiKan (Sep 29, 2002)

"student" Mike,





> _Originally posted by Sensei Mike _
> 
> *RyuShiKan stated: As my teacher has explained to many different martial arts people from various styles the kata are just like the alphabet. Just as ABCDEF......doesn't spell anything and has no meaning, kata too has no meaning if you think of the moves as merely ABCDEF or as I have stated above first A technique then B technique and so on.
> ---------------------------
> ...




I recall reading the Alphabet soup theory, as you call it, being first mentioned in a book by Kenwa Mabuni. I guess he was "patently absurd" as well.


As for this statement: "But the statement from RyuShiKan, above, pretty clearly states that sequential movements HAVE NO MEANING. "

See below.

RyuShiKan stated: *Thinking techniques from the kata are sequential like the moves in the kata is not wrong.........in fact in some cases it is correct.*.......but not in many cases. It depends on the kata and which move in the kata you are doing. Referring back to the Alphabet analogy from the other thread. Doing movements/techniques in sequential order is OK........

Try and read what I write more carefully before you make your knee jerk replies.



> _Originally posted by Sensei Mike _
> 
> *
> quote: RyuShiKan stated: Thinking techniques from the kata are sequential like the moves in the kata is not wrong.........in fact in some cases it is correct........but not in many cases. It depends on the kata and which move in the kata you are doing. Referring back to the Alphabet analogy from the other thread. Doing movements/techniques in sequential order is OK........example. ABCDEFGHIJ. Those are the basic building blocks for words. But why limit yourself to the Dick & Jane books like "See spot run." when you can expand on it to more advanced levels of thought and learning like "Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain" - Nietzsche.
> ...




Sounds like someone is a little paranoid............or at the very least a little upset.
That statement was not in any way directed at you.
It is one of several quotes that I sometimes sign email with. 
Just like this one:

"Tell me, Brother Baldrick, what exactly did God do to the Sodomites?" 
"I dunno, but I can't imagine it was worse than what they used to do to each other." 
- E.Blackadder & Baldrick, "Blackadder's Christmas Carol"

and this one:

"If my answers frighten you then you should cease asking scary questions."
- Samuel L. Jackson as "Jules Winnfield" in Pulp Fiction. 





> _Originally posted by Sensei Mike _
> 
> * Let's review one last issue.
> 
> quote: RyuShiKan stated: The 3 upper blocks of Pinan Nidan...........the last 2 are connected the first one is not.   *




I never said it was the "only" way they could be arranged..............this was merely an example of a possible scenario. 
I have often said there is no concrete way to think/analyze of kata bunkai/application since it is not etched in stone.



> _Originally posted by Sensei Mike _
> 
> *
> A more thorough analysis of the Pinans and many other kata clearly reveals that EVERY movement throughout is connected to its previous and following movement in a seamless whole.  *



Do you really think so?

If I could only get my attackers to line up like the techniques in the kata then I would be all set.



> _Originally posted by Sensei Mike _
> 
> *
> RyuShiKan has never commented on my detailed explanations of the movements in Naihanchi. *



That's probably due to the fact that I am not really interested in doing so, and due to the fact that most of what you claim to have 'discovered" I have seen in various martial arts publications over the years...................but most of all I don't care for your bad attitude. 

I don't ask that anyone agree with me.........but your rudeness pretty much puts me off and makes any meaningful discussion with you impossible.





> _Originally posted by Sensei Mike _
> 
> *  They are not my techniques, they are Itosu's, or some long-dead Chinese master's. *




Kewl!
Did he show you these techniques himself?.......... because I have yet to see one thing ever printed that showed and verified any of Itosu's techniques.





> _Originally posted by Sensei Mike _
> 
> *  I wonder what his response will be to this post. Much to be commented on, corrected and attacked. Will his comrade join the fray? Likely. Much to be written and criticized. But regarding my initial three requests for clarification from the ever voluble RyuShiKan, for just a brief sentence or two, there was but silence. *



I can't imagine that you think we can have serious meaningful discussion after your temper tantrum and whining.

Basically you are doing this because you got your pride bruised by something I wrote so you have gone on this rampage about a trivial question that if answered will give you no real benefit. 
Let me put it another way.........you got the answer you deserve.
Too bad, I would think your time would be better spent doing something more constructive.


----------



## arnisador (Sep 29, 2002)

There's been a lot of useful discussion here but there's also been a lot of arguing about arguing. Please, keep the discussion polite, respectful, and focused on the martial arts, not the personalities of martial artists.

-Arnisador
-MT Admin-


----------



## chufeng (Sep 29, 2002)

Mike,

If honesty bothers you...I am sorry.
I call them like I see them...

You can carry on your personal war with RyuShiKan if you want, but YOU started this thread with MY quote...if I were to ignore everything said here, I would be like a host ignoring his guests.

Since everything I typed fell on deaf eyes, I really see no point in trying to help you understand a very simple but important concept...you seem more focused on keeping the argument going than learning anything...again, I call them like I see them...and I didn't come to anybody's defense...I simply pointed out MY observation of a written exchange...

I hope you find what you're looking for...Glory, Fame, being known as THE expert on such matters...whatever...

I don't believe in experts...
I don't think anyone truly masters anything, and when they think they have, they wallow in the quagmire of their own delusion.

But, just one last time, let me try and clear one thing up for you.
RyuShiKan has stated more than once that HE does NOT intend to answer your querstion because HE does NOT like your attitude.

I tried to help you with the concepts he was putting out, but your desire to "show him who's who" has led to a complete breakdown in any real communication...

and I am not a RyuShiKan puppy, puppet, or student...I don't say this because I think he needs to be defended...I say this because YOU keep pushing the issue...what part of NO confuses you?

I hope future exchanges can be on a more REAL level.

No, you don't have to respond to this...

Good training

:asian:
chufeng


----------



## Sensei Mike (Sep 29, 2002)

Beginner Bob (aka RyuShiKan),



> RyuShiKan stated: most of what you claim to have 'discovered" I have seen in various martial arts publications over the years



I have described a mere four detailed descriptions of applications in Naihanchi Shodan, but none of perhaps 200 other combinations I have, all with takedowns directly from the sequential movements from kata. So it is interesting that most of what you say "I have claimed to have discovered" you have seen in various martial arts publications. These four combinations make up a scant 2% of the 200 I have, but of course you know the 98% you haven't seen. Tell me, just how you do that. Is this clairvoyance something Oyata teaches?

Of course you "claim" to have seen the Naihanchi interpretations in various martial arts publications over the years. But would you be able to substantiate this claim? Of course not. And you have an easy out. You can always claim the dog ate your magazine. Go ahead, find just one example of the four combinations I have described? (Yes, yes, you probably don't have the space for the old rag sheets, we understand your any convenient excuse that prevent you from substantiating your claims.)

You may have access to publications in Japan that I have not seen, where there is a heavy emphasis on bunkai, but I doubt it. In Japan Bunkai is pretty much too taboo a topic to be extensively photographed and put in magazines. Though I have not been west of CA, I have many karate peers that have studied in Okinawa and Japan for many years. Not just in the military either, but fully fluent former English teachers and the like. We have discussed the lack of emphasis in Japan on bunkai. It is near universal. 

And I have been subscribing and reading US martial arts magazines since they began publication in the late 60s and early 70s. Bunkai is very rare. Comparative techniques are very common, but Japanese and Okinawan Bunkai, is just plain not there. That what why Oyata's article in the winter '94 issue of Budo-Dojo was so special. Finally, bunkai (Naihanchi no less) in a magazine. Perhaps you will make the case that these few images of him represent the complexity of the 4 techniques I have shown. There are just 3 images of him with a partner and none of them are included in anything I have described. But go ahead and say they do anyway. Just like you did in saying all his web videos corresponded to the initial movements to the right of the kata, when that was a pure fabrication, for all to see.

I would be interested if you could come up just with 10 examples of magazine articles of Shorin Ryu bunkai as long as mine, from any kata, let alone all from the same kata. What is the probability that the actual combinations I have shown will be these magazines that so rarely show bunkai. They are nill. You have told another fish story. 

This lack of sharing of bunkai is pretty widespread and you are such a good example of this. You choose not to share your bunkai over the Internet. Might get into the wrong hands. 

I call your bluff. You don't have these magazines, and never did. Go ahead and respond with more silence. 

There is something interesting here. I never claimed that what I have done is out of the ordinary. I just look at kata do a lot of what ifs, apply basic commonsense principles, and the techniques flow. What is so magical is everyone can do it. But so few do. These techniques aren't mine, they are Itosu's or some long dead Okinawan or Chinese master. I am merely the transmitter of some of this knowledge to those with open minds who want to see what new combinations they might benefit from. 

Moreover, people with open minds may see a small part of a larger technique they hadn't considered before and then apply it to their combinations. Amazing what some sharing information (aka spoonfeeding) can accomplish. Not cookie cut martial artists, but those who expand their foundations and apply new ideas to their repertoire where possible.

You know you could do it too. The sequential movements do work. Try it sometime. Don't be a slave to Oyata's ideas of this mixed with that over there mixed with this over here. Try opening your mind to this radical concept passed down by Itosu. Great applications, all with takedowns, from the direct sequential movements from the kata. They work brilliantly. 

Hey, what's the harm.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Sep 29, 2002)

Enough folks..... Enough.

Pick up any of the 'content' from this thread in a new one, preferably without the 'attitudes'...this ones locked.

Its quite obvious that y'all have a 'difference of opinions' going on... I'll be blunt...at this point in time, you wont resolve anything. So, either take it to email/PM, agree to disagree, or take it somewhere else.

You all have valid points from various perspectives...from mine, you're going in so many circles that I'm getting dizzy, and I'm not the only one.

There is an incredible richness to be found in the arts...everyone has their own opinions, experiences and perspectives.  Take a step back and maybe you'll see that everyones right and wrong...from a certain perspective.

As to the content of this thread, please, by all means feel free to pick it up again...but leave the personal shot out of it.

Good day.


----------

