# Bunkai, history, and "authorities"



## SahBumNimRush (Jan 19, 2012)

I use applications in my daily training, and I am interested in learning more.  The problem that I run into is that the history of JMA/OMA katas' "intended use" seems a bit cloudy.  I understand the "watering down" of "jutsu" to "do" and adapting the arts' focus depending on its audience has resulted in the loss of such applications in certain lineages/styles.  

However, what I am genuinely curious about, is where the "authorities" on Bunkai gained their knowledge?  A few people on this forum seem to be Iain Abernethy disciples.  Anytime bunkai is brought up, he is always referenced.  While I see practical application of many of his techniques, I am curious as to how he came to the conclusions of the purposes of the Pinan/Heian katas.  Is this something that is commonly taught in certain styles of karate, or did he come to this conclusion on his own.  If the latter is the case, how did he arrive at this conclusion?  

I would like to make clear that I am in no way attacking anyone's ideas, I am only attempting to bridge a gap in my knowledge of forms, uses, and history.  I use simple, efficient applications from my forms that include locks, throws, breaks, sweeps, kicks, strikes and blocks.  

Is there any evidence that shows what intended purpose of applications of forms are prior to the transition of "jutsu" to "do" or adult hard training to school children training?  There are indications in texts like the Bubishi for certain movements, are there any other historical texts/resources that anyone here on MT would recommend?


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 19, 2012)

Well I bring him up because he lives up the road, is easily contacted, does fantastic seminars. He's also hugely practical, encourages people to work stuff out for themselves, says he doesn't know everything and is always willing to learn from others. I don't think he'd like being called an 'authority' though.
Having said he's easily contactable, why don't you ask him where he gets his knowledge from? he will tell you himself, much better than me speaking for him incompletely or people arguing with me rather than him. He has a very wicked straight old fashioned punch lol! first line of defence he calls it then the 'fancy' techniques. 
http://iainabernethy.co.uk/contact

He also has a forum where you could put this same question, it would be interesting to get others on there's opinion too.


----------



## Chris Parker (Jan 19, 2012)

I'd also question the idea of a move "from 'jutsu' to 'do'", as, from a Japanese art perspective, there really isn't any real distinction there anyway. I have also only ever heard of modern interpretations and groups using terms such as "Karate-jutsu" (to my mind without any real cause or historical precedent), with historical forms simply using terms like "Naha-te, Shuri-te" etc. No 'jutsu', and no 'do'. Just 'te'.

In regard to any change in training methods, the training of any and all martial arts are always a reflection of the current society that they are a part of, the time they are in, the people training, the culture around them, and so on. So I wouldn't necessarily be looking for a transition of one thing to another, but more be looking at the adaptations to new environments and needs as they occured.


----------



## dancingalone (Jan 19, 2012)

I can only speak from my own experience.  I learned bunkai from my teacher who studied Goju-ryu at the Jundokan on Okinawa.  He didn't and still doesn't call it 'bunkai' today.  He called them "drills" in English.  From what I gather the use of the word bunkai to refer to kata applications seems to be a recent phenomenon anyway (within the last 40 years?).

My teacher would consider the idea of kata as abstract lessons in physical movement to be daft.  While he would concede that usage is not always apparent within the stylized patterns, it remains the principal reason why we practice kata and then kata-based drills with partners.

When I studied Matsubayashi-ryu karate, we didn't get into pattern applications as much, but there were both informal and formal promise kumite sets that helped explain some of the physical motion in the forms.

Unfortunately, there is not any extensive 'traditional'-based bunkai set down into a book to my knowledge, regardless of the style.  Believe me, I looked when I was in my exploratory phase of martial study.  You can only get it from a teacher and this varies from person to person even if they nominally teach the same style.  I will say I've studied on a seminar basis with some other Jundokan background people, including Higaonna Sensei.  He was pleased when I demonstrated a technique my teacher taught me and said "Is Goju!".


----------



## SahBumNimRush (Jan 19, 2012)

Chris Parker said:


> I'd also question the idea of a move "from 'jutsu' to 'do'", as, from a Japanese art perspective, there really isn't any real distinction there anyway. I have also only ever heard of modern interpretations and groups using terms such as "Karate-jutsu" (to my mind without any real cause or historical precedent), with historical forms simply using terms like "Naha-te, Shuri-te" etc. No 'jutsu', and no 'do'. Just 'te'.
> 
> In regard to any change in training methods, the training of any and all martial arts are always a reflection of the current society that they are a part of, the time they are in, the people training, the culture around them, and so on. So I wouldn't necessarily be looking for a transition of one thing to another, but more be looking at the adaptations to new environments and needs as they occured.



I was referring the change of Toude *Jutsu *(a.k.a. Tode) to Karate *Do*, I have personally never seen anything referring to Karate-Jutsu.  Nor was I suggesting a hard change, but rather a trend of shifting emphasis.  I believe we are on the same page?


----------



## SahBumNimRush (Jan 19, 2012)

dancingalone said:


> I can only speak from my own experience.  I learned bunkai from my teacher who studied Goju-ryu at the Jundokan on Okinawa.  He didn't and still doesn't call it 'bunkai' today.  He called them "drills" in English.  From what I gather the use of the word bunkai to refer to kata applications seems to be a recent phenomenon anyway (within the last 40 years?).
> 
> My teacher would consider the idea of kata as abstract lessons in physical movement to be daft.  While he would concede that usage is not always apparent within the stylized patterns, it remains the principal reason why we practice kata and then kata-based drills with partners.
> 
> ...



This is precisely what I thought, but I was hopeful that maybe there was something I have been missing.. . In particular, I was hoping that someone with some background/experience with folks like Abernethy could offer some information on the historical background/evidence of such techniques.  Not that I don't believe that they work, but I'm curious as to the historical significance of some of their theories/claims.  

In my personal experience, I was taught the "drills" and "techniques" with a disconnect to our forms practice.  It wasn't until much later that I began recognizing the techniques in my forms.  I am always thirsty for knowledge, and I was hoping for some direction of resources that I could trust.

Thank you for your input!


----------



## SahBumNimRush (Jan 19, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> Well I bring him up because he lives up the road, is easily contacted, does fantastic seminars. He's also hugely practical, encourages people to work stuff out for themselves, says he doesn't know everything and is always willing to learn from others. I don't think he'd like being called an 'authority' though.
> Having said he's easily contactable, why don't you ask him where he gets his knowledge from? he will tell you himself, much better than me speaking for him incompletely or people arguing with me rather than him. He has a very wicked straight old fashioned punch lol! first line of defence he calls it then the 'fancy' techniques.
> http://iainabernethy.co.uk/contact
> 
> He also has a forum where you could put this same question, it would be interesting to get others on there's opinion too.



From what I have read and watched, I am impressed with Mr. Abernethy's knowledge.  I am just curious as to its source.  Is this merely applied knowledge and theory?  Or was this something that he was taught?


----------



## dancingalone (Jan 19, 2012)

SahBumNimRush said:


> This is precisely what I thought, but I was hopeful that maybe there was something I have been missing.. . In particular, I was hoping that someone with some background/experience with folks like Abernethy could offer some information on the historical background/evidence of such techniques.  Not that I don't believe that they work, but I'm curious as to the historical significance of some of their theories/claims.



I read an article about Abernethy once... if my memory is correct, I tend to think his stuff is home-brewed based on his experience as a bouncer and/or bodyguard, which is fine but perhaps not what you are looking for?

Have you looked at Patrick McCarthy Sensei's group, Koryu Uchinadi?  I don't know much about his approach but he's a member here, and he did live in Japan for years, so perhaps his research into traditional Okinawan karate and subsequent spin on the subject might be of interest to you.  Outside of that, there's not much to be done other than to find a knowledgeable sensei and then petition to become his student.  That's what I did, but it certainly wasn't a quick process at all.

I don't really recommend following the 'bunkai expert' circuit.  Too much pressure point disciple influence along with the gaggle of Crane chasers.


----------



## SahBumNimRush (Jan 19, 2012)

dancingalone said:


> I read an article about Abernethy once... if my memory is correct, I tend to think his stuff is home-brewed based on his experience as a bouncer and/or bodyguard, which is fine but perhaps not what you are looking for?
> 
> Have you looked at Patrick McCarthy Sensei's group, Koryu Uchinadi?  I don't know much about his approach but he's a member here, and he did live in Japan for years, so perhaps his research into traditional Okinawan karate and subsequent spin on the subject might be of interest to you.  Outside of that, there's not much to be done other than to find a knowledgeable sensei and then petition to become his student.  That's what I did, but it certainly wasn't a quick process at all.
> 
> I don't really recommend following the 'bunkai expert' circuit.  Too much pressure point disciple influence along with the gaggle of Crane chasers.



To be honest, I've never went to a single "seminar" in my life.  The credibility of the presenter and/or the material presented always seems to fall short in what I am looking for.  I have read a few of McCarthy's books, and I've been quite impressed.  His translation and notes on the Bubishi are the best that I have found personally.  Altough I've heard of Koryu Uchinadi, I haven't looked into it much.  Thanks for the suggestion.

I mention Abernethy, because he suggests some interesting theories.. . such as:

"
 	If allowed to progress, a physical altercation will generally go  through a series of stages: Pre-fight (verbal exchanges, aggressive body  language), limbs coming into range (strikes, attempted grabs etc),  grips being established, and finally grappling. Not every single fight  will progress in exactly this way, but it should be obvious that a grip  cannot be established until limbs come into range, and there will be no  grappling until some kind of grip has been established. We should always  aim to end fights as soon as possible so that the fight does not  progress. Therefore, when teaching self-protection, it makes sense that  we should deal with the earliest stages of the fight first. I believe  this is the approach adopted by Itosu when formulating the Pinan Series.
  	The pre-fight ritual (aggressive language, posturing, controlling  distance etc) would not be effectively recorded within a kata and should  be something taught prior to a student leaning 'fighting skills'.  Therefore, if my theory is correct, the original order of the Pinan  series should deal with the initial exchange of limbs first; they should  then progress to dealing with grips being established; and finally move  on to techniques for use when grappling. This is exactly what the Pinan  series does when taught and practised in the original order.
  	Upon analysis of the applications of the five Pinan katas, we can see  that Pinan Shodan (Heian Nidan in Shotokan) contains techniques that  predominately deal with the initial exchange of limbs. Pinan Nidan  (Heian Shodan) predominately covers techniques that follow on from the  initial grip. This includes techniques where you have grabbed an  opponent, and techniques to counter an opponent's grip. Pinan Sandan is a  grappling kata that includes a number of throws, takedowns, locks and  other grappling techniques that can be utilised when you and the  opponent are locked in a clinch. Over this series of articles we will  see that by the end of the first three katas we have techniques that can  be applied at all stages of a fight; exactly as the name 'Pinan' is  said to represent."

I was just curious as to how he came to such a conclusion.. .


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 19, 2012)

dancingalone said:


> I read an article about Abernethy once... if my memory is correct, *I tend to think his stuff is home-brewed based on his experience as a bouncer and/or bodyguard, which is fine but perhaps not what you are looking for?
> 
> *Have you looked at Patrick McCarthy Sensei's group, Koryu Uchinadi? I don't know much about his approach but he's a member here, and he did live in Japan for years, so perhaps his research into traditional Okinawan karate and subsequent spin on the subject might be of interest to you. Outside of that, there's not much to be done other than to find a knowledgeable sensei and then petition to become his student. That's what I did, but it certainly wasn't a quick process at all.
> 
> I don't really recommend following the 'bunkai expert' circuit. Too much pressure point disciple influence along with the gaggle of Crane chasers.



You are thinking of Geoff Thompson, Iain is an old fashioned Karateka training from being a child, also a Judoka. He, I know, does a lot of reseach into old Japanese writings, methods etc.

I don't know what you mean when you say the 'bunkai expert' circuit, there's no pressure point mumbo jumbo, no idea what Crane chasers mean. All I've seen is people with a love of martial arts looking to find practical answers.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 19, 2012)

http://www.worldwidedojo.com/iain-abernethy/

_"Beginning his training in karate under Doug James 7th Dan; who was in turn a student of Toru Takamizawa, Iain Abernethy earned his first black belt at the age of seventeen.
__Iain received his rank of 5th dan from Peter Consterdine, 8th Dan and Geoff Thompson, 6th dan, the chief instructors of the British Combat Association in 2004, with whom Iain trained extensively. The British Combat Association is one of the world&#8217;s leading groups for practical martial arts, close-quarter combat, and self-protection. Iain is one of the few people to hold the BCA&#8217;s highest rank of &#8220;Coach&#8221;._
_In 2005, the English Karate Governing Body also awarded a separate 5th dan to Iain. Iain holds a unique position in British martial arts because of his ability to seamlessly join &#8220;traditional&#8221; and &#8220;reality based&#8221; arts. Iain is a member of the &#8220;Combat Hall of Fame&#8221; and he regularly writes for the UK&#8217;s leading martial arts magazines."

http://www.martialedge.com/articles/interviews-question-and-answers/iain-abernethy/


In the nicest possible way, Iain Abernethy is a contradiction in terms. For someone who has made his life studying the practical bunkai of karate&#8217;s katas, in other words, the bone crunching fighting applications of the pattern movements that resemble a real life, close range punch up, he is an incredibly nice person. A man who is fascinated by his chosen martial art, he is in turn a fascinating person to talk to as his encyclopaedic depth of knowledge of the details of kata, history of karate and its masters. Although only 37, Iain is already a fifth Dan after practising karate for 27 years and is one of British martial arts well known exponents as he is a productive author and regularly holds seminars that are popular with martial artists of any creed, from all varieties of karate, taekwondo and tang soo-do. Originally an electrician based in Cumbria, Iain is lucky enough to be able to practise karate full time, filling his days with teaching, seminars and writing. 
Iain describes the time when he decided to give up the day job, &#8220;I used to be an electrician as well as being the union rep. Five years ago I left to do karate full time; I got to the point that the karate was demanding that much of my time in terms of my own training, teaching, writing and work was getting in the way. So I had a chat with Geoff Thompson who has always been a good mentor to me and I explained I was struggling for time and he said, &#8216;well Iain, your job needs to go!&#8217; It&#8217;s not without its challenges, it was nice when I got a regular wage and you knew how much money you would get every month. Those sorts of benefits were good and I miss some of the guys I worked with but I&#8217;m very lucky I get to do what I love doing for a job. I mean I got up this morning, drove 60 miles to the local Judo centre and spent 2 ½ hours being thrown about, that&#8217;s work, that&#8217;s my job! It&#8217;s great to be able to do that for a living.&#8221; 

_


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 19, 2012)

SahBumNimRush said:


> To be honest, I've never went to a single "seminar" in my life. The credibility of the presenter and/or the material presented always seems to fall short in what I am looking for. I have read a few of McCarthy's books, and I've been quite impressed. His translation and notes on the Bubishi are the best that I have found personally. Altough I've heard of Koryu Uchinadi, I haven't looked into it much. Thanks for the suggestion.
> 
> I mention Abernethy, because he suggests some interesting theories.. . such as:
> 
> ...



I've asked.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 19, 2012)

Some people that I have met that might be of use for your study are Taika Oyata, Stephen Carbone, and Master Jay S. Penfil.  Master Penfil is a member here on MT.  I've met him and trained with him.  He's great and has a depth of knowledge of bunkai that comes from his long lineage of karate teachers.  He's also a Tang Soo Do guy.  Stephen Carbone lives in the Detroit area and has been to Okinawa dozens of times and is actually in charge of a kobudo organization that was previously based in Okinawa.  All of his teachers are Okinawan and he has the inside track when it comes to bunkai.  I had the chance to meet and interview him as part of the research for my book.  Sensei Carbone is also responsible for bringing Taika Oyata over to the United States.  Oyata Sensei is very old and he was actually trained by two very old Okinawan bushi who traced their techniques back to the line that protected the Okinawan kings.  I've been to seminars with Oyata and I saw some karate that blew my mind.  Try and get to a seminar with Oyata Sensei before he retires and/or passes.  I don't know if he still teaches.  If you can take a seminar from his students that would probably blow your mind as well.  I trained with some of his students back in MN.


----------



## SahBumNimRush (Jan 20, 2012)

I find myself in MN from time to time (Brother-in-law lives in Minneapolis).  I will have to look them up.  Thank you.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 20, 2012)

SahBumNimRush said:


> I find myself in MN from time to time (Brother-in-law lives in Minneapolis).  I will have to look them up.  Thank you.





One of Oyata's senior students operates a dojo out of Moorhead, Minnesota.  It's a city right across the river from Fargo.


----------



## punisher73 (Jan 20, 2012)

Bunkai, to me, is a very interesting subject.  There are some styles that have always taught applications to their katas (Goju-Ryu) and have a direct transmission of that.  Then there are other styles that only showed the basic block/punch/kick methods that first came to the west.  Some people state that the "secret" techniques were not taught to the US serviceman and were kept hidden and shown only to their own okinawan students.  Others state that the bunkai was not generally taught to anyone and they were kind of left to their own designs.  Who knows how much was taught or not taught.

An interesting series of books was written by Javiar Martinez on Isshin-Ryu's katas.  The books could also be applied to the Shorin-Ryu styles from which they came from as well.  Martinez went and looked at the historical research and Chinese styles and their Chin Na techniques and identified the patterns of Chin Na taught in various kung fu styles and matched those to the kata.  Some moves were VERY similiar and some with a slight modification also fit.  Many "bunaki experts" will say that the katas are really secretly coded and that the applications are in reverse sequence as shown in the kata or that certain moves were missing from the kata to make the technique work.  What is interesting is that this approach does not look at all like the Chin Na sequences that are almost a direct match for the moves in the kata.  Also, I have heard many Okinawan masters state that if you have to change the order of the moves in the kata to make it work, then this is not the correct application.

Bottom line is for that study.  IF it works for you and you like it and can apply it to your own study who cares where it came from?  I only have issue when someone changes things up and then states that it was a secret hidden application for the kata (example:  I have seen "bunkai experts" say that the crossover step from Naihanchi kata is really Judo's triangle choke on a horizontal plane and the kata is designed for ground grappling).

PS:  This is not directed towards Mr. Abernathy when I use the term "bunkai experts" but other people whose stuff I have come across.


----------



## Black Belt Jedi (Jan 20, 2012)

The Pinan/Heian katas were created by Anko Itosu so he can teach Karate to school children in the Okinawan Prefecture. The Pinan/Heian katas didn't have bunkai applications, but that's not altogether true. The katas that Itosu created has techniques from Passai/Bassai, Kushanku, and Wanshu. The templates of Pinan katas can be put in applications, but the hidden techniques were never taught to school children because they can be reckless with these techniques resulting in severe injury and possibly death.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 20, 2012)

One thing that I've noticed is that when I study Dan Zan Ryu Jujutsu, many of the two person kata on the Yawara, Nage, Shime, Oku, and Goshin lists are exact or nearly exact interpretations of sequences in karate kata.  There are lots of explanations for this, one of them being that Okazaki Sensei trained in Okinawan karate at a time when karate hadn't been changed to be taught in the school system.  Hawaii is actually one of the first places that karate was taught outside of Okinawa.  The first "dojo" (as in person who decided to teach karate) that is documented, opened on Kauai in 1894.  Mr. Okazaki came to Hawaii and began training in martial arts in 1906.  At any rate, some of the old techniques from the kata were clearly preserved in this system, IMO.


----------



## K-man (Jan 21, 2012)

I love Iain Abernethy's work. I don't worry about his particular bunkai or applications, it is the principles of kata that he teaches.  These principles remain constant regardless of style or kata.

If you would like to see practical bunkai in traditional form do a google search for "Taira bunkai". (On the iPad I can't post links.)  Taira Sensei is a student of Miyazato Sensei (Miyagi Sensei's elected successor) who has spent a lifetime researching the Goju kata.  His work encompasses most of Iain's principles and demonstrates the progression through the kata as a continuous self defence system.  He has several levels of bunkai and I'm sure I haven't seen more that a speck of his knowledge demonstrated. Still, what he teaches is impressive and from that anyone with experience could develop a similar flow. 

The simplicity of what Taira Sensei teaches is that there is no choreography. To your move from the kata your opponent must defend or he gets hit. If he defends, the next part of the kata is another attack, then the next and the next.  In drilling, your partner doesn't need to know the bunkai, just a reflex defence against the technique. At speed there is no defence as you just run out of hands.

I don't believe there are any written bunkai from any of the early masters as the transmission of the knowledge was oral and only passed on to a select few. I have my doubts that many, if at all any, of the current masters have the original application of the kata.  This doesn't matter because each master in turn would probably modify the application to suit their own style and body shape. 

Punisher hit the nail on the head with the mention of Chi Na. The guys like Higaonna Sensei and the others who visited China in the 1800s learnt Kung Fu, not karate, so it makes perfect sense to me that they would have incorporated the best of those styles into their own.  I believe most of the vital aspects of karate disappeared when they took it into the schools.

As Chris said, karate-jutsu technically never existed but it accurately describes the transition from an effective and brutal style of self defence to the current sport based karate that you normally see today that is referred to as karate-do.


----------



## Cayuga Karate (Jan 21, 2012)

This question of the origins of bunkai is fascinating to me. I'm pretty convinced that the whole concept of useful applications is something quite recent in the history of kata. There are two issues here. One is the lack of reality of so much of what passes for "bunkai" and second is the entire question of what bunkai may have been handed down 100 to 150 years ago. 

Regarding the first issue, (reality of applications), if one looks at a broad cross-section of bunkai associated with older traditional systems, one typically finds that these applications are simply not modelled on the way fighting actually occurs. Attackers routinely step in with on long step, freezing is a stance and striking to the mid-section. Second, there is just an overwhelming amount of bunkai where the self-defense application utilizes a single counter strike, often to the abdomen. There are dozens of examples of this in youtube.

The second issue regards what, if any, bunkai was passed down 100-150 years ago and earlier. I would argue, not much. Since everything was so secret, airtight conclusions are impossible. We have to look at hints here and there. A good example is the reference to Oyata. Yes he did study with two men after the close of WWII who taught him ti and kobudo. However, I do not believe there is a record of him learning kata from these two men. He learned kata from Nakamura. 

The question should be not whether Oyata has good bunkai for a variety of movements in the kata that are part of his system. The real question is what Nakamura (and perhaps his senior students) passed on to Oyata. A related question is what percentage of movements of kata in the Nakamura system, does Oyata teach to his top students? I have had an opportunity to have discussions with a couple. And the simple answer is that Oyata has not taught bunkai, at least in any meaningful way, for a broad cross-section of kata movements. 

Another example is Iha, a student of one of Chibana's top students. His system has preset sequences for a subset of the kata in his system. Some movements in these sequences map to what many might describe as useful, but quite a number, many might see as quite contrived. In most cases, the reality of the sequences suffer from the problem noted above, a lack of a realistic attack. 

One of Zenryo Shimabukuro's students once wrote that he taught that he had four escapes from grabs. That was all he needed. Yet much of what modern bunkai is based on includes grappling and the use of movements to escape from grabs.

In no way, should my analysis, be taken to mean that the old masters could not use kata movements for self-defense. They can. Rather, I argue that these old masters may have only used, and taught, applications for a very small subset of their set of kata (7-15 for Kyan systems, 11 for goju systems, 15-27 for Shotokan, up to 50 for Shito Ryu)

I am also not arguing that the lack of application makes the practice of kata meaningless. On the contrary, I believe that the practice of kata, regardless of it's use in fighting, is quite beneficial. It increases strength, speed, balance, blocking and striking power, just to name a few.

It seems clear that the practice of Okinawan karate 100-150 years ago had a whole range of benefits towards fighting Hojo undo and Chiishi, makiwara striking, kobudo training, and incessant kata greatly strengthened practicioners and gave them substantial gains in striking power. A number of kata sequences aid in taisabaki skill development, useful in fighting. A quite surprising number of movements in kata seem uniquely well designed for all sorts of locks, takedowns, strikes, blocks, etc, and it is highly likely that the Okinawans leveraged the benefits of quite a number of these movements to greatly improve the development of fighting skills of those who trained. It was expected that they would routinely train up to 20 or more hours per week, and with the conditioning that was inherent in this training, these karatemen turned into remarkable physical specimens, quite capable of handling themselves against untrained fighters. 

Funakoshi wrote that it was common to take 3 years to learn a kata, before another was taught. Yabu Kentsu taught one must practice a kata 10,000 times to make it one's own. And Funakoshi wrote that a person of significant skill might know 3 or at the most 5 kata. Itosu seems to have implied that the actual applications of kata are not supposed to be taught, but figured out. And that is not uncommon today. One of Oyata's students has written that when a student asked about "bunkai" for a specific move, he might reply "What do you think?"

The practice and transmission of kata changed significantly 100 years ago, when it became common for a system to include many kata. Perhaps the best example is Shito Ryu. Consider the direction sequences associated with 50 kata. Many sequences can be used in a variety of ways. That translates into literally thousands of potential applications. Yet modern Shito Ryu systems don't really focus on extensive bunkai. There is some practiced. But with all the kata, and kumite being a natural component of Japanese systems, there isn't a whole lot of time left in the training day to make even a reasonable dent in the thousands of potential uses of these 50+ kata. There's just no time. 

So what do we have today? Many westerners, and hopefully a growing number of Okinawans and Japanese, have a significant desire to translate their practice of kata into self-defense skills. And as more karateka cross train in Judo, Jujitsu, Aikido, Chinese arts (Chi Na e.g.) PMA, and other arts, they see concepts that can map (to a certain degree) to the movements they have practiced in kata.

And as a result, the number of movements in kata that can be used in self-defense applications continues to grow.

But we should all recognize the distinct potential that historically, kata was handed down, perhaps without a whole lot of bunkai. 

Of course, many will find this idea, which I fully acknowledge, as being just wild speculation. In a sense this is true. However, I also am reasonably confident that if lots of bunkai had been passed down, that there would be far more of it on youtube. Due to tournaments, and taped demonstrations, the old secret kata are now online. Why hasn't the bunkai. Because, I speculate, in large part because there is nothing there.

Some traditionalists argue that "their" system is different, they have the answers. I argue, "then put up the bunkai for us to judge". They counter, Well, it's still a secret.

Well maybe in another 10 years it won't be.

-Cayuga Karate


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 21, 2012)

Cayuga Karate said:


> One of Oyata's students has written that when a student asked about "bunkai" for a specific move, he might reply "What do you think?"



This is excellent teaching practice because it forces a student to begin looking at applications from the lens of their experience and needs.  It's how you personalize bunkai.



Cayuga Karate said:


> But we should all recognize the distinct potential that historically, kata was handed down, perhaps without a whole lot of bunkai.



This is true.  For the last 100 years, Shuri-te and Tomari-te kata were not taught with a lot of actual bunkai.  Was this always the case?  It seems like the further back you go in history, bunkai become more important.

Another thing to consider is that various karate kata have been so heavily modified throughout the years that they may have scrambled the bunkai they were supposed to teach.


----------



## Cayuga Karate (Jan 21, 2012)

Makalakuma wrote:



> It seems like the further back you go in history, bunkai become more important.



I would be grateful if you would elaborate on this.

-Cayuga Karate


----------



## kbarrett (Jan 21, 2012)

I use to teach "bunkai" application when teaching the "Hyungs" I stopped to this a long time back, I discovered that there where many different applications to any given technique within the "Hyung" also nobodies application is wrong, that's the application they see and works for them. So I teach the "Hyungs" but I let my students find their own applications for the techniques within that "Hyung" which work best for them. Ken


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 21, 2012)

Cayuga Karate said:


> Makalakuma wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



From what I've read, the old masters talked more about the importance of kata, the applications of the moves, and what kinds of techniques one could expect from them.  Here is an article from one of the premier experts in Hawaii in Karate.  This man, Charles Goodin, accumulated the largest collection of rare karate books in the world and donated them to the University of Hawaii at Manoa.  

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



> Before 1900, Karate was taught in private, usually to only one, two or a  handful of students.  Even great teachers like Anko Itosu had  relatively few students.  These were "private" students who often  trained with a teacher for life.  Such students, after learning the  movements and sequence of kata, also learned the meanings.  The term  "bunkai" might not have been used.  The study of applications was an  essential part of the process of learning kata.  An emphasis on "bunkai"  as a distinct subject only became necessary when the study of  applications was watered down or eliminated altogether.
> 
> 
> When Karate was taught in public, first in the public schools in Okinawa  and later in colleges and schools on mainland Japan, teachers suddenly  had to deal with large groups.  Instead of training with a teacher for  life, students trained for only a few years, or even only a single term.   In such a short time, teachers could only teach the most basic form of  Karate.  And without personally knowing each student (and his family)  for many years, a teacher might be reluctant to teach certain dangerous  applications of techniques.
> ...



So, what tradition have you been handed down?


----------



## Cayuga Karate (Jan 22, 2012)

Makalakumu,

Thanks for the source. 



> Before 1900, Karate was taught in private, usually to only one, two or a   handful of students.  Even great teachers like Anko Itosu had   relatively few students.  These were "private" students who often   trained with a teacher for life.  *Such students, after learning the   movements and sequence of kata, also learned the meanings.*  The term   "bunkai" might not have been used.  The study of applications was an   essential part of the process of learning kata.  An emphasis on "bunkai"   as a distinct subject only became necessary when the study of   applications was watered down or eliminated altogether.[Emphasis added]



If we go perhaps a few decades before 1900, karate was taught in complete secrecy, and had for hundreds of years prior. There are numerous references to this secrecy, and the lack of a historical record. Goodin provides no source for his quote, highlighted above, that students were taught the meanings of the movements after learning the movements. Without a source, it appears to be speculation to me. This isn't a minor issue. We have but a few authoritative references to the history of karate. Texts from Funakoshi, Nagamine and Motobu are extremely vague on the history of karate instruction prior to 1900. If there is an authoritative source that is more specific he should quote it.

Thanks for the reference.

-Cayuga Karate


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 22, 2012)

Cayuga Karate said:


> Makalakumu,
> 
> Thanks for the source.
> 
> ...



I agree, I definitely would like to see something cited from people who lived at that time.  Considering that we have the largest rare book and document collection on karate in the world right here in Hawaii, I'm sure we'll make some progress toward that.  Incidentally, I have read in a number of books by Nagamine and other old karateka that the teaching method was essentially to learn the applications and eventually be taught the kata.  When I talked to Goodin, he confirmed this as well.  Supporting this position more academically, is going to take more work, however.


----------



## Cayuga Karate (Jan 23, 2012)

Makalakuma wrote:



> Incidentally, I have read in a number of books by Nagamine and other old karateka that the teaching method was essentially to learn the applications and eventually be taught the kata.



I have the following texts. 

Nagamine's *Essence of Okinawan Karate *and *Tales of Okinawa's Great Masters*. 
Funakoshi - *Karate Do Kyohan*, *Karate-Do, My Way of Life*, *The Essence of Karate* and *The Twenty Guiding Principles of Karate
*Motobu - *Okinawan Kempo
*Bishop - *Okinawan Karate

*I don't think that is principle is mentioned in any of these. Can you please confirm? I would be very grateful if you could point to other texts that mention this. 

This is a fairly essential topic relating to our understanding of what we have today (kata and bunkai) and how this relates to practices in the past.

-Cayuga Karate


----------



## kbarrett (Jan 23, 2012)

Reading everybodies posts on this thread, does the true history and origins of the kata's come into question, I know everybody say's they came from China, but when you see Chinese Forms and compare them to Okinawan Kata's they really don't seem to have any similarities at all.  Is it possible that the Okinawan Masters themselves created the kata's that we have today, I know iin TSD we practice that same kata's (Hyungs) as every other Karate style except for the Yuk Rho, Chil Sung & Hwa Sun Hyungs in these Hyungs to see some Chinese movement in them with the "Long Fist" which MG Kee created, so is it possiblle that the Master of Okinawa simply took what the Chinese taugh them and created their own kata's. Ken


----------



## dancingalone (Jan 23, 2012)

kbarrett said:


> Reading everybodies posts on this thread, does the true history and origins of the kata's come into question, I know everybody say's they came from China, but when you see Chinese Forms and compare them to Okinawan Kata's they really don't seem to have any similarities at all.  *Is it possible that the Okinawan Masters themselves created the kata's that we have today*, I know iin TSD we practice that same kata's (Hyungs) as every other Karate style except for the Yuk Rho, Chil Sung & Hwa Sun Hyungs in these Hyungs to see some Chinese movement in them with the "Long Fist" which MG Kee created, so is it possiblle that the Master of Okinawa simply took what the Chinese taugh them and created their own kata's. Ken



The bolded text is probably true of most karate kata, particularly the ones handed down through Itosu Sensei which later made it into Tang Soo Do.  

There are a few notable exceptions like Sanchin, perhaps Seiunchin, from the Naha-te systems which were imported to Okinawa more recently from China by comparison and thus the linkage is clearer with them.  Sanchin kata has definite versions still practiced in Chinese gung fu systems such as Bai He Quan or Wu Zu Quan.


----------



## Cayuga Karate (Jan 23, 2012)

kbarrett wrote:



> Reading everybodies posts on this thread, does the true history and origins of the kata's come into question, I know everybody say's they came from China, but when you see Chinese Forms and compare them to Okinawan Kata's they really don't seem to have any similarities at all.* Is it possible that the Okinawan Masters themselves created the kata's that we have today*,



And Dancingalone wrote:



> The bolded text is probably true of most karate kata, particularly the ones handed down through Itosu Sensei which later made it into Tang Soo Do.
> 
> There are a few notable exceptions like Sanchin, perhaps Seiunchin, from the Naha-te systems which were imported to Okinawa more recently from China by comparison and thus the linkage is clearer with them.



We have some texts that most in the karate community would consider authoritative that describe the belief that much of the kata came from China.

We know of some kata that are of relatively recent creation.

According to Nakama in Bishop's text, Itosu learned Channan from a Chinese man and modified them, creating the Pinan/Heian.

Miyagi is credited with creating Gekisai and Tensho. Mabuni with several kata, Funakoshi with Taikyoku. Nagamine with a Fukyugata. Toguchi a few, Miyazato created one, and Asai, a whole bunch.

But much of the kata we have are believed to go back to the 1800s during a time when they were taught and practiced in secrecy. 

Funakoshi, Nagamine and Motobu have all stated that Chinese men are the likely origin. I will provide the supporting documentation in a future post.

We have more substantial documentation that Higaonna learned 4 kata in China. Nakaima learned the kata of his Ryuei ryu there. Uechi learned three kata in China. And Mabuni learned a few kata (including Nipaipo) from a Chinese in Okinawa.

However, I am aware of no historical record of Okinawans, prior to 1900, of creating the empty hand kata that have been handed down. The historical record does indicate that they were likely responsible for much of the kobudo kata that have come down.

In the absence of documentation for Okinawan origins of kata, and documentation from the leading masters who have written that the believe kata is of Chinese origin, it is probably best to assume that the kata we have that are known to have been handed down, in Okinawa, 100 years ago, are most likely of Chinese origin. 

-Cayuga Karate


----------



## punisher73 (Jan 23, 2012)

kbarrett said:


> Reading everybodies posts on this thread, does the true history and origins of the kata's come into question, I know everybody say's they came from China, but when you see Chinese Forms and compare them to Okinawan Kata's they really don't seem to have any similarities at all. *Is it possible that the Okinawan Masters themselves created the kata's that we have today*, I know iin TSD we practice that same kata's (Hyungs) as every other Karate style except for the Yuk Rho, Chil Sung & Hwa Sun Hyungs in these Hyungs to see some Chinese movement in them with the "Long Fist" which MG Kee created, so is it possiblle that the Master of Okinawa simply took what the Chinese taugh them and created their own kata's. Ken



Yes, we have documented evidence that certain katas were created by Okinawan masters after their exchanges with Chinese masters; Kusanku and Chinto both come to mind immediately.  We also know that Itosu created the Pinans from existing kata.  Others are also attributed to chinese sources, such as Wansu.  I think it is fair to assume that many of the Shuri/Tomari katas were created by combining the lessons learned from the chinese sources and the existing okinawan te.  I don't think all of them are direct katas brought from China since in those lineages we haven't seen them still kept in the parent style.  Naha-te katas are more of a direct transmission with Seisan, Sanseiryu, Sanchin and Suparenpei, there have been cultural exchanges that have seen those kata practiced in various southern styles and we know that two of the big founders of the Naha systems (Higaonna and Uechi) both studied in China before coming back to Okinawa and sharing what they learned.

Think of the formation of okinawan karate like this, through the eyes of an American kid in the late 50's early 60's.  Your dad teaches you some boxing so you can take care of yourself.  You really enjoy it and want to learn more.  You end up talking to one of your uncles one 4th of July and he talks about the stuff he learned in the military.  You ask him to teach you and he shows you some moves from the H2H he learned in the Army while he was in.  You start to combine that with the boxing your dad taught you and come up with something new and other people ask you to teach them what you do.  I think alot of okinawan karate started like this, of course this is my opinion and there is probably research out there that may show otherwise.


----------



## dancingalone (Jan 23, 2012)

Cayuga Karate said:


> kbarrett wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Not that I necessarily disagree with the above - it is the generally accepted history left to us through the writings and interviews of the masters and seniors who came before us.  

With that said, has anyone made a more than cursory attempt to link the various karate kata with current Chinese forms in practice across the various systems?  It's a tall order to follow.  To my knowledge, Sanchin is the only kata easily matched to a Chinese equivalent, again in Wu Zu Quan or Bai He Quan.  

Some Hung fist people I am familiar with likewise said they could see some of the same things they do when I played Seiunchin for them, but they did say they didn't see a clear line of descent from anything they were familiar with in Seiunchin.

What about the famous Naihanchi kata?  Or the Pinan forms which are believed to have been created from an older (Chinese?) form/Channan?  Anyone come across equivalents for them in CMA over the years?


----------



## Cayuga Karate (Jan 23, 2012)

Below are some of the historical records regarding the Chinese origins of kata [emphasis added throughout]: 

Choki Motobu also has left behind his opinion on the origins of karate in *Okinawa Kenpo*



> As to the origins of Karate, there are many theories, however *I am inclined to believe that this art was taught by Chinese men since there were many contacts made between Ryu Kyu and China since ancient days*. There have been numerous styles (kata) in Karate. Some have already been forgotten and others are still being used and developed into some other styles. Changes in the different styles are difficult to trace. Throughout the history of Karate the demands for changes by society and the lifestyles of the people and even geographic differences caused each school to choose its own course to become popular or unpopular. Among those styles or katas which have been used in Ryu Kyu from ancient days are:
> Sanchin, Jo-Ju-Shi-Ho, Seisan, Seiunchin, Ippakkku-Re-Hachi, Naihanchi, (Ichidan, Nidan, Sandan), Passai, Chinto, Chinte, (bamboo-yari spear style), Wanshu, Rohai and Kusanku.
> 
> And especially the three styles Nai-hanchi, Passai (great and small), and Kusanku which are widely known to many islanders. As I have mentioned, *Ryu Kyu Kempo-Karate originally came from China*. Sanchin, Jo-Ju-Shi-Ho, Seisan and Seiunchin have been used there for many centuries. However, the Naihanchi, Passai, Chinto, [and] Rohai styles are not left in China today and remain only in Okinawa as active Martial Arts. Wanshu and Rohai were used only in Tomari until [the] geographic reorganization in 1871 was made as a part of the Meiji Restoration. No one in Naha or Shuri learned those two styles until then, but later they were introduced to those main cities in Okinawa. As to the Pinan, the modern-time warrior Mr. Itosu originated this style to use a teaching material for his students.



In the *The Essence of Okinawan Karate-Do*, Nagamine further discussed the secrecy in which karate was practiced. 


> Through oral tradition and hand-to-hand training, *the secret performances of the Chinese masters* in the art of self-defense came to be known and their kata integrated with te.



In his *Historical Outline of Karate-Do, Martial Arts Of Ryukyu*, (1934) Chojun Miyagi described the lack of a historical record, and reviewed three common hypotheses regarding the origins of karate:


> When we consider how karate was introduced to Ryukyu (= Okinawa), we have various opinions without any historical evidence. We have not yet come to a correct conclusion on this matter. There are three main opinions, namely "*Thirty-six Chinese Immigrants*", "Oshima Notes" and "Importation in Keicho Period". Simple explanation of each opinion are as follows.
> _(1) Thirty-six Chinese Immigrants
> _
> In 1392 (Ming dynasty in China), thirty-six Chinese immigrants came to Ryukyu from Fujian province. At that time karate was introduced to Ryukyu by Chinese immigrants from Fujian province.(2)_ Oshima Notes
> ...



Bishop, in his text *Okinawan Karate*, quotes Itosu student Chozo Nakama as stating:



> Many of the karate katas taught today are simplified versions of *Chinese forms* and consist mostly of block-then-strike techniques in two separate movements as opposed to the original *Chinese block then strike-in-one-movement techniques*. In the Okinawan arrangements of these *Chinese katas*, the punching techniques consist generally of the flat (closed) fist type, whereas originally all kinds of hand-form variations were employed.



Regarding specific Chinese authorities responsible for the propagation of combative arts in Okinawa, Funakoshi provides some insight in *The Master Text*: 



> There is no doubt that the many experts who traveled between Okinawa and China contributed heavily to the bringing of karate to its present level. For example it has come down by word of mouth that about 200 years ago, a certain Sakugawa of Akata, in Shuri, traveled to China and then returned to Okinawa after mastering karate to become known as Karate Sakugawa. Again, according to Shiodaira of Shuri, one hundred and fifty years ago (as noted in the Oshima Note, by Tobe of Tosa, Japan), a *Chinese expert, by name of Ku Shanku*, arrived in Okinawa with a few of his students and introduced a type of kempo. Okinawan experts such as Sakiyama, Gushi, and Tomoyori, of Naha, studied for some time with the *Chinese military attache, Ason*; Matsumuma of Shuri, Maesato and Kogusuku of Kume, with the *military attaché, Iwah*; and Shimabuku of Uemonden, and Higa, Senaha, Gushi, Nagahama, Aragaki, Higjuanna and Kuwae, all of Kunenboya, with the *military attaché, Waishinzan*. It is said that Gusukuma, Kanagusuku, Matsumura, Oyatomari, Yamada, Nakazato, Yamazato, and Toguchi, all of Tomari, was a Southern Chinese who drifted ashore at Okinawa."




In the text The Secret Royal Martial Arts of Ryukyu, Matsuo Sakon quotes noted Okinawan historian Higaonna Kanjun:



> Once Toyotomi Hideyoshi began to flex his might on the high seas during the Bunroku era (late 1500s), the Chinese government changed its policies. In 1600, when King Sho Nei sent Tei Do and others to request a Sappushi (government envoys), the Emperor issued a decree, to send *military specialists *long [sic] with the scholars who oversaw the formalities.



In a 1914 article in an Okinawan newspaper, Funakoshi attributes Jitte, Jiin, Chinto and Chinte as being taught by the shipwrecked Chinese sailor referenced in the master text. There are references that Wansu was taught in the late 1600s by a Chinese diplomat (Sappushi). And it is documented that Higaonna, Nakaima, and Uechi all brought kata back from China. 

Although karate was handed down in complete secrecy, and the absolute truth can never be determined, there is a general belief, documented in sources such as those above, that Okinawa empty hand kata are of Chinese origin. 

Regarding the issue, raised by Dancingalone as to why there appear to be no similar kata still practiced in China, Morio Higaonna&#8217;s gives us his opinion when he describe the varying rate of change in Chinese and Okinawan fighting arts in the 1800s (Encyclopaedia of Goju Ryu, vol. 4: Sanseru and Seipai). 



> *Goju-ryu makes no secret of its Chinese origins*, yet it should not be considered a purely Chinese martial art. While the patriarch of Goju-ryu, Kanryo Higaonna, trained in China as a young man and was clearly influenced by the principles and practices of Chinese boxing, Okinawan Goju-ryu is more than just another form of White Crane Fist.
> 
> In the evolution of Goju-ryu karate, *Okinawan self-defense methods were blended with Chinese combat techniques, principles, and strategies.* Training methods were changed somewhat to suit Okinawan practitioners, their physiques, and lifestyles. What resulted after more than a half century of development was classical Okinawan Goju-ryu karate as presented in this series of programs. Ironically, this is without doubt closer, in a technical sense, to what Okinawan students were taught by 19th century boxing masters in China, than modern Chinese Wushu.
> 
> ...



I think it best to trust the meager history we have and assume that these old masters are not all wrong, that the origins of Okinawan kata are Chinese, and were often taught by Chinese military authorities who traveled to Okinawa.

-Cayuga Karate


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Jan 23, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> You are thinking of Geoff Thompson, Iain is an old fashioned Karateka training from being a child, also a Judoka. He, I know, does a lot of reseach into old Japanese writings, methods etc.



I think he (Abernethy) talks about his research in the Pinan/Heian series on his website, as well as some of the articles.  He references Itosu Sensei and the writings of Funakoshi Sensei quite a bit.  I would consider each an excellent source since they were closer to the source(s).  

I would also suggest taking a look at Stuart Anslow and Simon O'Neill as well.  Whether they would consider themselves 'authorities' or not would be a question to ask them.


----------



## dancingalone (Jan 23, 2012)

Cayuga Karate said:


> I think it best to trust the meager history we have and assume that these old masters are not all wrong, that the origins of Okinawan kata are Chinese, and were often taught by Chinese military authorities who traveled to Okinawa.



No one reasonable would dispute that.  You've given some good citations from the available written record on karate history with information given directly by some of the greats in our recent memory.  No one says the likes of Nagamine is wrong - I certainly don't.  

However, I think it is fair to ask how far from the tree the apple has fallen.  Where are the common patterns and kata between karate and "kung fu"?  You'd think it would be easier to trace out a genealogical chart than it is, if the connection is so strong and true.  Consider the example case of aikido and hapkido, two sister arts that may have descended from the same parent art of Daito-ryu Aikijutsu.  In the example of aikido, we KNOW the connection.  With hapkido, it's more shrouded and controversial, yet if we lay out the common techniques in both arts, we can see a clear similarity.

What about karate?  Would anyone care to give their opinion on trying to connect it to the Chinese martial arts on a physical observance level, trying to discover actual relationships like kata/forms shared commonly?  My general sense is that this is something hard to do, that considerable drift has occurred over the years.  What Chinese styles practice versions of Kusanku and Wansu?  Seisan, Suparinpei?  What about those Uechi-ryu forms?  The answer IMO is that likely none of them do although these kata are 'Chinese'.  We won't find clear analogs of them in Chinese systems because they were created or adapted by Okinawan martial artists, albeit based on training received from Chinese sources.


----------



## puunui (Jan 23, 2012)

dancingalone said:


> What about karate?  Would anyone care to give their opinion on trying to connect it to the Chinese martial arts on a physical observance level, trying to discover actual relationships like kata/forms shared commonly?  My general sense is that this is something hard to do, that considerable drift has occurred over the years.  What Chinese styles practice versions of Kusanku and Wansu?  Seisan, Suparinpei?  What about those Uechi-ryu forms?  The answer IMO is that likely none of them do although these kata are 'Chinese'.  We won't find clear analogs of them in Chinese systems because they were created or adapted by Okinawan martial artists, albeit based on training received from Chinese sources.



Funny how some people want to jump up and down about how vague korea's martial arts history is, not realizing that Okinawa, and by extension Japan's karate history is also vague and tenuous.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 23, 2012)

puunui said:


> Funny how some people want to jump up and down about how vague korea's martial arts history is, not realizing that Okinawa, and by extension Japan's karate history is also vague and tenuous.



You do have a point.  Maybe we all need to take a deep breath sometimes.


----------



## punisher73 (Jan 24, 2012)

puunui said:


> Funny how some people want to jump up and down about how vague korea's martial arts history is, not realizing that Okinawa, and by extension Japan's karate history is also vague and tenuous.



Big difference between "vague" and "made up".


----------



## punisher73 (Jan 24, 2012)

dancingalone said:


> No one reasonable would dispute that. You've given some good citations from the available written record on karate history with information given directly by some of the greats in our recent memory. No one says the likes of Nagamine is wrong - I certainly don't.
> 
> What about karate? Would anyone care to give their opinion on trying to connect it to the Chinese martial arts on a physical observance level, trying to discover actual relationships like kata/forms shared commonly? My general sense is that this is something hard to do, that considerable drift has occurred over the years. *What Chinese styles practice versions of Kusanku and Wansu?* Seisan, Suparinpei? What about those Uechi-ryu forms? The answer IMO is that likely none of them do although these kata are 'Chinese'. We won't find clear analogs of them in Chinese systems because they were created or adapted by Okinawan martial artists, albeit based on training received from Chinese sources.



I don't have the resources right with me, but Kusanku, Chinto, and Wansu have all been talked about as katas created FROM their studies with the chinese masters and were not katas taught BY the chinese masters.  In essence, they took the teaches of what they liked and created a kata based on those teachings to pass on in addition to what they did already.

As far as Seisan, Sanseiryu, Sanchin, and Suparenpei they can be all traced to one location in southern China where many okinawans worked and stayed.  This is where Uechi, Miyagi and Higaonna all went and trained.  What is not known is what exact style was taught, or if it was a unique style that was passed on to them and then died out.  Not only is White Crane a source, but also 5 Ancestor Fist shows many similarities to the okinawan karate.  

As to the Uechi katas, it is well documented that Kanbun Uechi learned Sanchin, Seisan and Sanseiryu while in China.  We also have statements that Kanbun Uechi said that he did not learn all of Suparenpei.  The other 5 Uechi kata, we know were created to bridge and flush out the material of the 3 foundation katas.  They also contain some moves that are not in the other 3 and is believed that they may be parts of Suparenpei.  So we have a source in China that taught the same 4 kata that were brought back to Okinawa and formed the Naha-Te styles.  

So looking at the differences between Shuri and Naha styles, we could fill in the blanks between the known historical record and come to the conclusion that the Shuri styles were mainly developed from the native Te and Chinese masters visiting in Okinawa.  The Naha styles were mainly developed by the native Te and then the Okinawan teachers going to China to learn and then bringing it back to Okinawa.  Then we can add into the mix that Okinawan sailors would have come in contact with Siam and other neighboring places during their trade and were probably influenced by them as well.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Jan 24, 2012)

> Originally Posted by *dancingalone*
> 
> What about karate?  Would anyone care to give their opinion on trying to connect it to the Chinese martial arts on a physical observance level, trying to discover actual relationships like kata/forms shared commonly?  My general sense is that this is something hard to do, that considerable drift has occurred over the years.  What Chinese styles practice versions of Kusanku and Wansu?  Seisan, Suparinpei?  What about those Uechi-ryu forms?  The answer IMO is that likely none of them do although these kata are 'Chinese'.  We won't find clear analogs of them in Chinese systems because they were created or adapted by Okinawan martial artists, albeit based on training received from Chinese sources.





puunui said:


> Funny how some people want to jump up and down about how vague korea's martial arts history is, not realizing that Okinawa, and by extension Japan's karate history is also vague and tenuous.



Actually no, it is pretty well documented (Japan/Okinawa history), and it can't be accused of historical re-writes to the same extent as Korean history.  In regards to the quote by dancingalone;



> What Chinese styles practice versions of Kusanku and Wansu?  Seisan, Suparinpei?  What about those Uechi-ryu forms?



Pangainoon, as taught in the Southern Fukein Providence used Seisan and Suparinpei.  Uechi Kanbun Sensei brought back three forms, Sanchin (which differs from Gojo Ryu Sanchin), Seisan and Sanseiryu.  He did not learn Suparinpei.  Many of the Okinwan katas came from, or had direct connections to earlier Chinese forms.  Both through the Uechi Ryu and also the Ryu that came from Itosu Sensei and of course the Goju Ryu.

Punisher above has done a fine job of explaining the connections between China and Okinawa.  Well done.


----------



## dancingalone (Jan 24, 2012)

Kong Soo Do said:


> Pangainoon, as taught in the Southern Fukein Providence used Seisan and Suparinpei.



Correct me if I am wrong, but Pan-gai-noon does not exist today in China as an extant style, right?  In other words, you can't find Pan-gai-noon schools there teaching Seisan nor Sanseiryu, yes? 

That is the point I am making.  I have no quarrel with what you and Punisher or Cayuga have posted regarding the historical link between Chinese martial arts and Okinawan karate.  Given the trading and political ties, the Ryukyu islands had with mainland China, there was bound to be substantial cultural exchanges, including martial arts practices.

At the same time, I'm not sure how much 'practical worth' there is to proclaiming that a form is so-called 'Chinese' if we can't find clear CURRENT examples of a close matching pattern in contemporary practice.  Or even in an archaic record somehow.  I don't deny the influence was and is there - but I'd like to get beyond the rote history.  HOW is what we practice 'Chinese'?  And how does this make a difference in our daily training?  How can we use the Chinese linkage to get better?  Musing over this type of research is more interesting IMO.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Jan 24, 2012)

> Correct me if I am wrong, but Pan-gai-noon does not exist today in China as an extant style, right?



I would say that you are correct.  I've looked over the years for schools and/or organizations that are pre-Uechi.  I have not found any, though I can't be dogmatic and say they don't exist.  Post-Uechi is another story as Uechi broke into fragments in the early 90's and you were able to find Pangainoon Jutsu, Kempo, Karate, Do etc.


----------



## puunui (Jan 24, 2012)

punisher73 said:


> Big difference between "vague" and "made up".



According to one American born scholar who lived in China for decades, all of the history surrounding the martial arts is vague, made up, or whatever term you wish to use. He has translated all of the texts frequently discussed, bubishi, muyedobotongji, etc. After he left China, he taught himself Japanese and is now working on japanese texts. He lives here in Hawaii now. I wish to be his student.


----------



## punisher73 (Jan 24, 2012)

dancingalone said:


> Correct me if I am wrong, but *Pan-gai-noon *does not exist today in China as an extant style, right? In other words, you can't find Pan-gai-noon schools there teaching Seisan nor Sanseiryu, yes?
> 
> That is the point I am making. I have no quarrel with what you and Punisher or Cayuga have posted regarding the historical link between Chinese martial arts and Okinawan karate. Given the trading and political ties, the Ryukyu islands had with mainland China, there was bound to be substantial cultural exchanges, including martial arts practices.
> 
> At the same time, I'm not sure how much 'practical worth' there is to proclaiming that a form is so-called 'Chinese' if we can't find clear CURRENT examples of a close matching pattern in contemporary practice. Or even in an archaic record somehow. I don't deny the influence was and is there - but I'd like to get beyond the rote history. HOW is what we practice 'Chinese'? And how does this make a difference in our daily training? How can we use the Chinese linkage to get better? Musing over this type of research is more interesting IMO.



Part of that is the confusion.  Pangai Noon wasn't the name of the style per se, it was what Kanbun Uechi described it as.  It only means Half Hard/Half Soft, much like Goju is Hard/Soft.  Both Higaonna and Uechi learned in Fuzhou at very close times (Uechi 1897 for 13 years and Higaonna 1869 for 13 years).  So no one knows what "style" they actually learned.  Now, for the second problem.  Many chinese teachers taught in concepts and not a hard set of things so knowing that they would teach on an individual basis and on a students strengths etc.  you could have very divergent forms/katas taught by the same instructor.  THEN we will throw in that many chinese words weren't translated but just pronounced phonetically and that could have been altered, you will find very close movements but no direct match for katas like you would see from okinawan to japanese versions of the same kata.

Knowing the history is fun for some, but "how" does it help us?  If a person can track down the probable style of kung fu and can find similiar movements then you can find applications that are probably closer to the original intent.  Also, you can understand what the kata/form was designed for.  In chinese systems many times a movement was not a direct combat application, but a concept to reinforce an idea.  For example, the arm isolation movements at the beginning of many Hung Gar forms; They give you 3 corners and expect you to find the 4th type idea.  Other times the movement was for health purposes only (Chi Kung) and was not meant to be a combat application.  

Not knowing where something came from or what it's purpose was leads us to the problem of Japanese arts like Shotokan that try and base their applications of off sport-style sparring distance and the applications because very contrived to make them fit in that parameter.  Knowing, first and foremost, that the parent styles were for civilian self-defense starts to help you look in that direction to help you find applications.  Now, to toss in the chinese influence.  You know that the chinese systems had 3 levels of applications in their form and that included stand up locking/grappling/throwing techniques.  Each style would have an approach and philosophy to how and when they applied their Chin Na, so trying to find that out can lead you to find those chin na ideas in your own kata and how they would be applied and when.


----------



## puunui (Jan 24, 2012)

punisher73 said:


> Yes, we have documented evidence that certain katas were created by Okinawan masters after their exchanges with Chinese masters; Kusanku and Chinto both come to mind immediately.



Can you be more specific about the "documented evidence" that "we" have? What documents? Kusanku's passport or visa records? Certificates he gave to his Okinawan students? Photos? Documentation of Kusanku's own training?


----------



## puunui (Jan 24, 2012)

dancingalone said:


> At the same time, I'm not sure how much 'practical worth' there is to proclaiming that a form is so-called 'Chinese' if we can't find clear CURRENT examples of a close matching pattern in contemporary practice.  Or even in an archaic record somehow.  I don't deny the influence was and is there - but I'd like to get beyond the rote history.  HOW is what we practice 'Chinese'?  And how does this make a difference in our daily training?  How can we use the Chinese linkage to get better?  Musing over this type of research is more interesting IMO.



Good points. At least when people argue taekwondo is nothing more than shotokan, they can look at the forms and point to that. But with Okinawan karate, where is that link? The styles don't exist anymore? Did they ever exist at all? Or was it maybe that the Okinawan people felt that "all good things come from China", and wanting to make their martial art "good", created a vague, dubious unsubstantiated link to china that was never there in the first place? All there really is is the bubishi, supposedly a white crane manual, but we have no evidence, at least not any that was "documented" about where that came from. For all we know, someone could have bought that at Barnes and Noble in Fujian and brought it back to Okinawa. I have a book on Uechi Ryu, but that doesn't necessarily mean that I studied that art from an Uechi Ryu practitioner. I just means I have the book. 

My point being, if you are going to hold korean arts to a high standard, then the least one can do is apply that standard to japanese, okinawan or chinese arts as well.


----------



## Cayuga Karate (Jan 25, 2012)

Dancingalone wrote:



> At the same time, I'm not sure how much 'practical worth' there is to  proclaiming that a form is so-called 'Chinese' if we can't find clear  CURRENT examples of a close matching pattern in contemporary practice.   Or even in an archaic record somehow.  I don't deny the influence was  and is there - but I'd like to get beyond the rote history.  HOW is what  we practice 'Chinese'?  And how does this make a difference in our  daily training?  How can we use the Chinese linkage to get better?   Musing over this type of research is more interesting IMO.



Above, I have provided what I believe are significant references to the origins of much of the kata found in karate today. I believe these can be very useful in trying to understand the origins of these kata, the combative skills they were designed to develop.

Funakoshi names five Chinese by name who taught combative arts in Okinawa. Four were military attaches. One was a shipwrecked Chinese sailor. One of the military attaches, Waishinzan, is a central figure in the history of karate. Funakoshi names eight Okinawans he trained while in Okinawa. While his time in Okinawan is not fully documented, there are some sources that indicate the time frame. The Wikipedia Ryuei Ryu page hints that he was part of an investiture mission in 1866. These missions lasted a number of months. Funakoshi names one of his students as Arakaki, born in 1840. There are some sources that state that Higaonna trained with Arakaki before traveling to China in 1873 at the age of 20. One source claims that after his arrival in China, he sought out instruction with Waishinzan, but was not able to train with him. At that time military officials were prohibited from training civilians. He then sought training under an associate of Waishinzan, Ru Ru Ko, where he trained for several years. Nagamine writes that before returning to Okinawa, Higaonna did wind up training with Waishinzan.

The Ryuei Ryu Wiki site also states that Norisato Nakaima (born in 1850) traveled to China when he was 19 (1869), and trained under Ru Ru Ko until his departure in 1876.

There is a record that hints at Ru Ru Ko's military background. Before Higaonna departed for Okinawan, Ru Ru Ko gave him a gift of a spear shaft, whose blade was cut off in battle with a swordsman. Despite the dramatic reduction in the effectiveness of his weapon, he still went to defeat (likely kill) his opponent. 

Now some may dismiss this history as not relevant to the karate the train in today. I have a quite different perspective. I think it fundamentally important to explore this heritage for a quite simple reason. Why is it that Chinese military officials taught Okinawans combative arts? What was their motivation?  I have taken the time above to review historical sources on the role of Chinese in the transmission of combative arts, specifically kata, to Okinawans. That is the first step in a broader discussion. There are some who reference nameless sources that it is the Okinawans who created kata from lessons they learned from the Chinese. There are some that look at Chinese fighting systems practiced today, find little or no similarities to old Okinawan kata and assume therefore that these kata must be of Okinawan origin.

The truth will forever be debatable. Karate was taught and practiced in the utmost of secrecy, right up until the early years of the 20th century. We have but a few historical speculations from the old masters who have documented the past. 

However, if we take at face value, those sources we do have, and dismiss speculations that have no support in the historical record, we are left with a few key bits of history. Call the speculations, call them beliefs. It is what has been handed down.

1. There are kata specifically attributed to Chinese origin. Motobu and Funakoshi name thirteen kata practiced today, as having come from China. Included are two three kata Higashionna learned in China. Other sources state he also learned Sanseiru. Nakaima brought back a number of kata from China that comprise the Ryuei Ryu family. Funakoshi attributes two other kata to the Chinese sailor. 

2. Funakoshi names four military authorities who taught combative arts in Okinawan. Higaonna is recorded as having sought one of these men out in his travels to China in 1873, but was refused as military authorities were forbidden from teaching civilians combative arts. He then trained under a person who quite possibly had military experience. Three of the military officials cited by Funkakoshi, as well as one shipwrecked sailor, apparently taught combative arts in Okinawa in the mid 1800s. The fourth military official named by Funakoshi, Kusanku, shipwrecked in Okinawa, taught Okinawans until his return voyage several years later. Both Motobu and Nagamine write that the practice of combative arts goes back hundreds of years.

3. All of this transmission was done in the strictest of secrecy. And once Okinawans did learn from the Chinese, it was common for Okinawans to pass down their combative arts from father to eldest son only. The practice was so secret that even other family members were no permitted to learn what was taught.

Let's for a moment, take all this information at face value. Let's assume it is all true. How can it help us to better understand these kata today. 

It gets back to the question I posed above. "*Why did Chinese military authorities teach kata, some of which has survived until today, to Okinawans?*" That is, to me, a fundamental question that strikes at the heart of Okinawan karate. Why did military officials in Okinawa teach these kata, to Okinawans.

I will explore this more fully in another post. 

-Cayuga Karate


----------



## punisher73 (Jan 25, 2012)

puunui said:


> Can you be more specific about the "documented evidence" that "we" have? What documents? Kusanku's passport or visa records? Certificates he gave to his Okinawan students? Photos? Documentation of Kusanku's own training?





> In the year 1762, a tribute ship sent to Satsuma from Ryukyu was blown off course during a storm, and ended up landing at Tosa Province in Shikoku, where they remained for a month. The Confucian scholar of Tosa, (Tobe Ryoen 1713-1795), was petitioned to collect testimony from the crew. The record of this testimony is known as the Oshima Hikki (literally "Note of Oshima", the name of the area of Tosa where the ship had run aground). In this book, there is some very provocative testimony by a certain Shionja Peichin, describing a man from China called Koshankin, who demonstrated a grappling technique (McCarthy, 1995; Sakagami, 1978).



All of the other stuff wouldn't be documented because it wouldn't have been important at the time. Back then, they wouldn't have given certificates to students like we do now for training. Most documentation if it did ever exist was probably destroyed in the Battle of Okinawa where the US bombed the crap out of the country destroying almost everything.  What we have left are just a few personal journals that survived that are related to other items.  Also, I didn't state that Koshankin taught a style called "kusanku", it is known that the kata was created after studying with a chinese master and taking certain lessons from him.


----------



## punisher73 (Jan 25, 2012)

puunui said:


> Good points. At least when people argue taekwondo is nothing more than shotokan, they can look at the forms and point to that. But with Okinawan karate, where is that link? The styles don't exist anymore? Did they ever exist at all? Or was it maybe that the Okinawan people felt that "all good things come from China", and wanting to make their martial art "good", created a vague, dubious unsubstantiated link to china that was never there in the first place? All there really is is the bubishi, supposedly a white crane manual, but we have no evidence, at least not any that was "documented" about where that came from. For all we know, someone could have bought that at Barnes and Noble in Fujian and brought it back to Okinawa. I have a book on Uechi Ryu, but that doesn't necessarily mean that I studied that art from an Uechi Ryu practitioner. I just means I have the book.
> 
> My point being, if you are going to hold korean arts to a high standard, then the least one can do is apply that standard to japanese, okinawan or chinese arts as well.



Seems to me you are comparing apples to oranges in the history of the arts.  There is documentation that people have posted in this thread and also how the chinese influenced the okinawan arts.  That seems to be the issue.  The Okinawans never said that they were teaching kung fu, no one on here has said that they were teaching kung fu.  The Okinawans and researchers have always stated that the okinawans already had their own martial arts (Te and Tegumi) and then were INFLUENCED by the chinese.  

The problem with the korean arts isn't that they are saying that they were influenced by the japanese arts, they completely take them out of the equation and state that TKD is an ancient martial art of Korea.  THAT is the probelm.  It isn't about having a high standard for one and not the other.  If the "historians" had come out and said that TKD was japanese Shotokan that went through several revisions and was influenced by a child's kicking game and stated that as their history no one would have an issue with it.  But, you have one korean martial art (Tang Soo Do) that claims that the 5 Pinans katas were learned in China and were an ancient martial art from there and assigned animals to the katas.  We have documented history that Itosu created the katas and direct students of his who stated what the purpose of the 5 Pinans were for.  

What about the Bubishi?  Again, another piece that says that the okinawan arts were INFLUENCED by chinese martial arts.


----------



## SahBumNimRush (Jan 25, 2012)

punisher73 said:


> But, you have one korean martial art (Tang Soo Do) that claims that the 5 Pinans katas were learned in China and were an ancient martial art from there and assigned animals to the katas.  We have documented history that Itosu created the katas and direct students of his who stated what the purpose of the 5 Pinans were for.



I was never taught this "story" of the Pyung Ahns, nor do we associate any animals to our forms.  I have seen the animals attributed certain TSD/SBD schools, but it wasn't something that my KJN ever did.  I wonder when/where this "story" came about?

It was never made a secret that the forms that we practice are adapted Japanese form sets.


----------



## Cayuga Karate (Jan 25, 2012)

Punisher73 wrote:



> it is known that the kata was created after studying with a chinese master and taking certain lessons from him.



Could you provide the text you are referring to that states that "Okinawans created kata after studying with Kusanku"? I do not believe the quotation provided necessarily leads to that conclusion. 

-Cayuga Karate


----------



## punisher73 (Jan 25, 2012)

SahBumNimRush said:


> I was never taught this "story" of the Pyung Ahns, nor do we associate any animals to our forms. I have seen the animals attributed certain TSD/SBD schools, but it wasn't something that my KJN ever did. I wonder when/where this "story" came about?
> 
> It was never made a secret that the forms that we practice are adapted Japanese form sets.



I have seen a TSD book that had it in it, but I can't remember which one it was that I was looking through at the bookstore. Here is a personal article from someone that examines the "official" story vs. known facts.
http://www.usadojo.com/articles/tang-soo-do-forms.htm

I'm sure that not all taught that, but many did teach it that way.

As to the animals, I can't remember all of them right off hand, but the Pinans are "turtle" and Kusanku is "eagle".


----------



## dancingalone (Jan 25, 2012)

punisher73 said:


> I have seen a TSD book that had it in it, but I can't remember which one it was that I was looking through at the bookstore.



If we are referring to the TSD 'animal' attributions in forms, GM Kang Uk Lee's book has them.  http://www.amazon.com/Tang-Soo-Do-Ultimate-Martial/dp/0865681708


----------



## Cayuga Karate (Jan 25, 2012)

Punisher73 wrote: 



> We have documented history that Itosu created the [Pinan] katas.



We also have documented history that he learned Channan from a Chinese man and modified these into Pinan. This is found in a Nakama quote in Bishop's text.

There is also an online reference (I will have to dig it up) that Motobu knew of these Channan, and when he later saw Itosu's students doing Pinan, he immediately recognized the Channan pattern, but it had been modified.

Assuming these accounts are correct, we can all recognize that we will never be able to verify what in Pinan were in Channan, as those kata apparently did not survive. We can however look at a wide variety of the Pinan movements and see identical and similar movements in Kusanku, Passai, Naihanchi, Chinto, Jutte and perhaps other kata. In addition, we can never know what these Pinan kata may have had in common with other Chinese kata, taught in Okinawa, that have been lost to time.

Therefore, we can never truly know what original ideas, outside of existing Chinese kata of the time, that Itosu chose to add to the Channan kata he modified into Pinan. What specifically are the Itosu-created movements that are in Pinan? We can never know.

I would argue that based on the prevalence of movements found in other Chinese kata, coupled with the information from Motobu and Nakama that Pinan are modified Channan, which Nakama says is of Chinese origin, that specific Itosu-designed movements in the kata may not be all that significant.

I would also argue that a careful study of the currently existing Chinese kata practiced in Okinawa, especially those known as shuri kata, coupled with a careful study of Pinan, would reveal remarkable similarities in embusen, hand movements, and stepping/kicking sequences. When looking at the thousand or so movements found on youtube of kata that are likely of Chinese origin, the entirety of movements found in Pinan kata represent no significant departure. 

-Cayuga Karate


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 25, 2012)

I see we've moved into the 'is TKD Korean etc. etc.' territory again.


----------



## punisher73 (Jan 25, 2012)

Cayuga Karate said:


> Punisher73 wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The quote that I had mentioned was in response to who "Kusanku" was and if he even existed at puuniui implied.

Here is one of the various oral traditions about Kusanku outside of the historical reference.


> Sakugawa studied under Master Kushanku until he was 29 years old and his first instructor died. It was at this time that he developed Kusanku kata from a series of techniques he learned from Kushanku and Peichin Takahara and then named the kata in honor of Kushanku. Therefore, we can say Masters Peichin Takahara and Kushanku both influenced the development of Kusanku kata. Master Sakugawa passed his kata down to Master Matsumora and Master Itosu. Itosu then developed two versions of Kusanku: Kushanku dai and Kushanku sho and incorporated them into his own system of karate. A very well known student of Itosu's, Gichin Funakoshi became very well known for his mastery of these kata.



Historian Joe Swift also acknowledges that Kushanku was the inspiration of the kata (or even the kata itself), but agrees outside of the previous mention no one knows much about the person.


----------



## punisher73 (Jan 25, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> I see we've moved into the 'is TKD Korean etc. etc.' territory again.



Not the intent, just that one person wanted to argue that okinawan karate can't say where the chinese influence stemmed from and claimed that it was the same case with the Korean arts. Just showing that they are VERY different ideas and claims.  Much like, how the Japanese refused to state that their karate came from chinese sources originally.

Another historical point is that the Okinawans called their own system just by "Te" and added the "Kara" meaning "China" to it later to reflect that additional influence.  Seems odd that something that was practiced by such a small group of people in secret would need to change the name since they didn't have commercial dojos and the name change would bring in more students.


----------



## dancingalone (Jan 25, 2012)

Cayuga Karate said:


> I would argue that based on the prevalence of movements found in other Chinese kata, coupled with the information from Motobu and Nakama that Pinan are modified Channan, which Nakama says is of Chinese origin, that specific Itosu-designed movements in the kata may not be all that significant.
> 
> I would also argue that a careful study of the currently existing Chinese kata practiced in Okinawa, especially those known as shuri kata, coupled with a careful study of Pinan, would reveal remarkable similarities in embusen, hand movements, and stepping/kicking sequences. When looking at the thousand or so movements found on youtube of kata that are likely of Chinese origin, the entirety of movements found in Pinan kata represent no significant departure.



I would sincerely appreciate any further information you would care to share in specific about the movements you feel are Chinese.  Perhaps an example or two to illustrate.  Also, do you feel there is any value to be found by analyzing the curricula in current usage with our Chinese martial arts cousins?


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 25, 2012)

Did they train 'in secret' or 'in private'? doing something privately is very differently from doing it in secret.


----------



## puunui (Jan 25, 2012)

punisher73 said:


> Seems to me you are comparing apples to oranges in the history of the arts.  There is documentation that people have posted in this thread and also how the chinese influenced the okinawan arts.  That seems to be the issue.  The Okinawans never said that they were teaching kung fu, no one on here has said that they were teaching kung fu.  The Okinawans and researchers have always stated that the okinawans already had their own martial arts (Te and Tegumi) and then were INFLUENCED by the chinese.



Again, if you ask those who actually learned in Japan, or those who learned from those who learned in Japan, they will readily and without hesitation that they learned in Japan. No one is saying that taekwondo was not INFLUENCED by karate or that Koreans did not have their own martial arts. So apples and apples. 

One question for you though. What parts of karate today come from te or tegumi that is not from chinese martial arts? 




punisher73 said:


> The problem with the korean arts isn't that they are saying that they were influenced by the japanese arts, they completely take them out of the equation and state that TKD is an ancient martial art of Korea.  THAT is the probelm.  It isn't about having a high standard for one and not the other.  If the "historians" had come out and said that TKD was japanese Shotokan that went through several revisions and was influenced by a child's kicking game and stated that as their history no one would have an issue with it.



Have you seen this: 

http://tkd.stanford.edu/documents/tkd_history.pdf




punisher73 said:


> But, you have one korean martial art (Tang Soo Do) that claims that the 5 Pinans katas were learned in China and were an ancient martial art from there and assigned animals to the katas.  We have documented history that Itosu created the katas and direct students of his who stated what the purpose of the 5 Pinans were for.



The gentleman who created the name Tang Soo Do, GM LEE Won Kuk told me that he learned shotokan while he lived in Japan. It isn't a big secret. he even went on to explain the differences in the way FUNAKOSHI Gichin Sensei taught and how his son Yoshitaka Sensei taught. 




punisher73 said:


> What about the Bubishi?  Again, another piece that says that the okinawan arts were INFLUENCED by chinese martial arts.



My understanding is the bubishi was a white crane manual. So that book is chinese martial arts, not something that was influenced by chinese martial arts.


----------



## puunui (Jan 25, 2012)

punisher73 said:


> All of the other stuff wouldn't be documented because it wouldn't have been important at the time. Back then, they wouldn't have given certificates to students like we do now for training. Most documentation if it did ever exist was probably destroyed in the Battle of Okinawa where the US bombed the crap out of the country destroying almost everything.  What we have left are just a few personal journals that survived that are related to other items.  Also, I didn't state that Koshankin taught a style called "kusanku", it is known that the kata was created after studying with a chinese master and taking certain lessons from him.



In other words, no documentation then.


----------



## punisher73 (Jan 25, 2012)

puunui said:


> Again, if you ask those who actually learned in Japan, or those who learned from those who learned in Japan, they will readily and without hesitation that they learned in Japan. No one is saying that taekwondo was not INFLUENCED by karate or that Koreans did not have their own martial arts. So apples and apples.
> 
> One question for you though. What parts of karate today come from te or tegumi that is not from chinese martial arts?
> 
> ...



http://www.usadojo.com/articles/tang-soo-do-forms.htm  There must be other people who created the term "Tang Soo Do", because this one talks about how the founder of TSD says he learned the Pinans in China with other karate masters (Funakoshi included).  This is the story I had also read and heard from a TSD book.

Up until recently, most Korean masters did NOT admit that what they taught was japanese karate, they invented a long drawn out history that it was an ancient korean art over 2,000 years old.  It is just now that more karate research is out there and made public that some korean masters are talking about what they did and most western students will talk about the true history.  The "official" TKD story had nothing to do with japanese karate though due to the atrocities commited against the koreans.

Yes, the bubishi was a kung fu manual.  It influenced okinawan karate.  AGAIN, another piece of history that shows that karate was influenced by the chinese.


----------



## punisher73 (Jan 25, 2012)

puunui said:


> In other words, no documentation then.



Must be nice to read what you want to and ignore the other stuff.  Did you miss the text that talked about the voyage with the man Koshankin?  What exactly do you want as proof that chinese martial artists exchanged information with okinawans and it influenced them?


----------



## punisher73 (Jan 25, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> Did they train 'in secret' or 'in private'? doing something privately is very differently from doing it in secret.



Well, I guess I would call it "secret" when you snuck off in the middle of the night and never told anyone where you were going or what you were doing and weren't supposed to (Funakoshi's autobiography).  Later, it became private in that only people introduced to the teacher were allowed and the "classes" were very small and almost one on one training.


----------



## puunui (Jan 25, 2012)

punisher73 said:


> Must be nice to read what you want to and ignore the other stuff.  Did you miss the text that talked about the voyage with the man Koshankin?  What exactly do you want as proof that chinese martial artists exchanged information with okinawans and it influenced them?



Documentation implies documents.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 25, 2012)

Title of thread implies discussion on Bunkai.


----------



## puunui (Jan 25, 2012)

punisher73 said:


> http://www.usadojo.com/articles/tang-soo-do-forms.htm  There must be other people who created the term "Tang Soo Do", because this one talks about how the founder of TSD says he learned the Pinans in China with other karate masters (Funakoshi included).  This is the story I had also read and heard from a TSD book.



GM HWANG Kee is not the founder of Tang Soo Do. That article is from 15 years or more ago and is considered outdated. Click the link I provided in the earlier post. The history of taekwondo starts with the creation of the kwans, with the kwan founders studying karate in japan, among other places.




punisher73 said:


> Up until recently, most Korean masters did NOT admit that what they taught was japanese karate, they invented a long drawn out history that it was an ancient korean art over 2,000 years old.  It is just now that more karate research is out there and made public that some kkorean masters are talking about what they did and most western students will talk about the true history.  The "official" TKD story had nothing to do with japanese karate though due to the atrocities commited against the koreans.



Korean born masters at least the second or third generation ones teaching in the US, did not know the history of their art. I cannot tell you how many us based instructors I have spoken to. When asked who their direct teacher was, they would say "Lee Sabum", meaning Teacher Lee. They did not know their own teacher's first name, they never asked. History of the arts was also never discussed or covered in class. No one asked any questions about anything. They might know the name of their kwan jang, because it is on some of their dan certificates, but they did not know who their kwan jang's teacher was, much less the detailed origins of their martial art. 

I have also visited numerous schools all over the US, and I always grab the flyers or other information. I often times see, but not always, some small reference to 2000 years ago. When I ask the teachers why they included that, they invariably all say that one of their american students helped make that. So blame the american student, not the korean born instructor on that one. 




punisher73 said:


> Yes, the bubishi was a kung fu manual.  It influenced okinawan karate.  AGAIN, another piece of history that shows that karate was influenced by the chinese.



Question: Who, if anyone, learned white crane kung fu in Okinawa? In fact, who was the person who first brought that book to Okinawa? The bubishi would be a "document", but without more information, it is difficult to figure out exact where it fits into the scheme of things. 

Put another way: If I said that okinawan karate was nothing more than transplanted kung fu, what would be your reply to that? If someone questioned te or tegumi as being nothing more than undocumented okinawan legend that played no part in the creation of karate which is really just kung fu from china, how would you respond? That is the type of accusations faced by taekwondo, and it would be interesting to see how karate practitioners respond when the same accusations are made against their art, when the shoe is on the other foot.


----------



## puunui (Jan 25, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> Title of thread implies discussion on Bunkai.



as well as history and authorities.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 25, 2012)

puunui said:


> as well as history and authorities.



Hisotry of Bunkai in particular and those who in modern days decide they or we decide are authorities on Bunkai. We have a thread for who 'invented' TSD. if we are going to discuss just Korean arts perhaps we should use whatever word the Koreans use for Bunkai and the karateka will leave the Korean arts people to it there endless seeimng arguements on who invented what.


----------



## SahBumNimRush (Jan 25, 2012)

While this discussion may have fragmented slightly, I think that the crossfertilization and origins are important to applications.  Knowing where the art draws from can hopefully provide some insight into our own arts.  DancingAlone has been putting out the question of tangible ties of Okinawa Te's katas to CMA forms in a few different threads of discussion, which I think is an excellent question.  Alas, we have not heard of any CMA practicing parent forms of Okinawa Te katas.  Obviously the bubishi illustrates movements found in Okinawa Te katas (and therefore Japanese Karate and old style Tang Soo Do forms).  The question is were these katas assembled as a catalog of Chinese techniques *by *the Okinawans, or were these Chinese forms adapted by the Okinawans.  Either way, it would be interesting to find a correlation between Okinawan techniques and Chinese techniques.

The same line of discussion can be made between Korean and Japanese arts, and has been.  I don't think that discussion has been offensive or terribly off topic, since it does address the history of parent arts, which gives us a resource to look to for application.


----------



## clfsean (Jan 25, 2012)

You can see CMA influence in OMA heavily in Goju-ryu & Uechi-ryu. Shorthand MA from Fujian. Bak Hok & Ngo Chor (White Crane & Five Ancestors) as best I can relate to what I've been lucky enough to be exposed to.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 25, 2012)

The OP I believe was asking for the history of the use of Bunkai in kata, the discussion has got onto whether there's a Chinese influence or an Okinawan, the history of Korean martial arts rather than the actual use of Bunkai. To a certain extent it doesn't matter where the influences came from, it's the actual use of Bunkai the discussion _was_ about. Saying that certain katas came from certain countries if fine but what about the use of Bunkai in them? We've got totally away from the Bunkai, who uses it,the why, what and who teaches Bunkai now?


----------



## Cayuga Karate (Jan 25, 2012)

Dancingalone wrote:



> I would sincerely appreciate any further information you would care to share in specific about the movements you feel are Chinese. Perhaps an example or two to illustrate.



Aside from what I have provided below, it is my intent to provide a full comparative analysis of all Okinawan kata that may be of Chinese origin. That would include video to show where movements from different kata overlap. This will be especially useful in understanding families of kata such as Kusanku, Passai, Rohai, and the like. 

For the moment, off the top of my head, I can list the following components of Pinan that are found, at least in part, in other kata that are reputed to be of Chinese origin:

1. The third, fourth, fifth and sixth directions of Pinan Shodan (starting with the turn to back, through shutos to back corners) are all found in Kusanku.

2. The opening position of the hands in Pinan Shodan is found in: Arakaki Sochin, Nipaipo, Heiku, a version of Naihanchi and Seipei. 

3. The three rising blocks in the initial forward sequence of Pinan Nidan has a corollary at the end of Jutte where there are two rising blocks, done twice.

4. The Pinan Nidan side-to-side (angular) sequences to the back of downward block step strike are found in a number of kata. 

5. The Pinan Nidan sequence to the back is found twice in a version of Rohai. 

6. The Pinan Nidan ending angular lower shuto movements are found in a version of Passai, which has a sequence of three to the front.

7. The double blocks found in the opening of Pinan Sandan are found in Naihanchi and at least one version of Passai. 

8. The direction forward in Pinan Sandan, (spearhand followed by a spin) is very similar to what is found in several versions of Kusanku. (In Pinan Sandan, the hand moves down, whereas in Kusanku it raises up.)

9. The opening two movements of Pinan Yondan are found on a version of Kusanku Dai taught by Itosu.

10. The double downward block in Pinan Yondan (and Pinan godan) can be found in the some of the Kyan versions of Kusanku.

11. Pinan Yondan's side-to-side kicking/elbow movements followed by the high block/shuto/kick/backfist is found in Itosu's Kusanku Sho. 

12. The following movements to the back corner (block/kick/double strike), as practiced in Funakoshi systems are the same as those found in Jiin. 

13. The shuto endings of Pinan Yondan in Mabuni and Chibana systems, are the same as those found in the Mabuni P(B)assai sho, and the Chibana Gusukuma or koryu Passai.

14. The initial block strike movements in the opening of Pinan Godan are found in Mabuni's Kusanku dai. Coming forward, the x-block at chest/head height, and the following strike are quite similar to what is found at the opening of Matsumura Chinto. 

15. Also in Pinan godan, following the final movement of the initial forward sequence, there is a spin to the back with a single right downward block, followed by a sweeping left straight block back to the front. This spin, with different hand movements is found in Matsumura Chinto. And many versions of Passai have a very similar movement, including the forward movement following with an elbow. 

16. The final sequence in Funakoshi's Pinan Godan is found (on side only) in Funakoshi's Kusanku Dai. The hand positions of the second to last movement in Mabuni/Chibana's Pinan Godan are found in Mabuni's Kusanku Sho, Bassai Sho, Jitte, Jiin, Jion and a version of Rohai. The hand position of the final movement is found in a version of Rohai.

17. There is a supported block found in all Pinans except Pinan Nidan. This is found in a different context in the opening two movements of Itosu's Kusanku Sho. It is also found in the Ken Shin Ryu Kusanku, Arakaki Sochin. 

18. If one looks at Kusanku, Jion, Seisan, Gojushiho, and a few other other kata there is a commonality to the overall design of the kata. There are alternating sets of side-to-side and forward. The side to side are short and symmetrical. The forward moving sequences often are often four steps which can include shuffles and spins. 

The Pinan kata are faithful to this pattern. Pinan Shodan and Nidan, each have three sets of symmetrical side-to-side movements (although the opening of Nidan is not quite symmetrical.) These two kata have these side-to-side movements at the opening, following the first forward sequence, and following the second forward sequence to close the kata. Pinan Sandan has these symmetrical side-to-side sequences only at the beginning and end. Pinan Godan has it only at the beginning in Mabuni/Chibana versions, but also at the end in the Funakoshi version. Pinan Yondan has four sets of side to side movements, although the end is not quite symmetrical.

Pinan Shodan and Nidan, both have four steps forward and back, always beginning with the left foot. Pinan Sandan has four steps forward, with one being a spin. Pinan Yondan has four steps to the rear, and to the front it has four steps broken up by side-to-side kick/elbow. 

Passai kata don't follow this pattern. They typically have a somewhat symmetrical ending, and about 1/3 of the way through, have a single projection off the mainline. But other than that, they go forward and back. A number of versions have a long sequence to the back (beginning with shutos found in Pinan Shodan), followed by raised arms, and shuffling forward. Then a single block in the opposite direction, followed by another long sequence to the rear. There are applications where this is treated as an entire sequence. This has a corollary in Pinan Godan which has a similar sequence but to the front (described above).    

I have mentioned a number of kata above. Of these, Motobu states that Kusanku, Passai, Naihanchi, Chinto, Gojushiho and Rohai are of Chinese origin. Funakoshi states that Jiin and Jitte were taught by a Chinese sailor. Heiku is reported to have been brought back by Nakaima. Nipaipo was taught to Mabuni by a Chinese tea merchant named Gokenki. Sochin is from Arakaki, who was reported to have trained with the Chinese military attache Waishizan. We do not know the origin of Arakaki kata, nor do we know the origin of Seipei. It apparently was a kata practiced in or near Naha, that somehow got included in Higaonna's or Miyagi's curriculum.

-Cayuga Karate


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 25, 2012)

I'm done, No chance of a discussion on Bunkai, its uses and the history thereof.


----------



## Cayuga Karate (Jan 25, 2012)

Tez3 wrote:



> The OP I believe was asking for the history of the use of Bunkai in kata, the discussion has got onto whether there's a Chinese influence or an Okinawan, the history of Korean martial arts rather than the actual use of Bunkai. To a certain extent it doesn't matter where the influences came from, it's the actual use of Bunkai the discussion _was_ about. Saying that certain katas came from certain countries if fine but what about the use of Bunkai in them? We've got totally away from the Bunkai, who uses it,the why, what and who teaches Bunkai now?​



The original post stated



> The history of JMA/OMA katas' "intended use" seems a bit cloudy.What I am genuinely curious about, is where the "authorities" on Bunkai gained their knowledge? Is there any evidence that shows what intended purpose of applications of forms are prior to the transition of "jutsu" to "do" or adult hard training to school children training? Are there any other historical texts/resources [regarding bunkai] that anyone here on MT would recommend?



This question is in part a question of history. The OP references the transition of do to jutsu, which arguably occurred over 100 years ago. (It also asks if there are historical texts that document application.) I pose the general question a bit differently. For the movements of kata that have survived until today, did bunkai get passed down from originators to the present? In my opinon, this question requires further clarification. What do we know of the origins of these kata. I would argue that we should believe Funakoshi when he names four Chinese military attaches that taught kata to Okinawans. 

Now, some may argue that this is irrelevant. I would argue it goes to the heart of the question. This forum, and others, are filled with debates over the utility of many, if not all, kata movements. Knowledgeable sources claim little was handed down in bunkai. Let's assume that was the case. Why? Why do we have these kata, that were handed down, likely in part, by Chinese military authorities, yet much of which appears to have no real use in empty hand fighting.

In order to have a discussion of the possible implications of Chinese military personnel training Okinawans in combative arts, I think it necessary for the less informed readers of this forum to recognize that the primary sources we rely on for information regarding the origins of karate have documented Chinese sources for these kata. There are a number of posters here, and elsewhere, that are not fully familiar with these sources. They have been exposed to stories on the internet and in their dojos that may lack documentation. There are posters on this thread that point to Okinawan origins of the kata. So I have tried to provide the historical material necessary to have a fruitful discussion of the potential implications of this question. 

Many have looked at some of these hundreds of sequences of movements. And we wind up scratching our heads wondering why. Why did Chinese military authorities teach the Okinawans kata for which many movements have not come down with application. We look at these movements and are plain perplexed at what these applications could possibly be. These movements just don't seem to map to the way empty hand fights work.

I plan to address this more fully in a separate post, with further documentation. However, it is my belief that if you don't see the question this way, you will not be prepared to understand the answer. 

Why did Chinese military authorities teach to Okinawans, empty hand kata, where many of the movements appear to have no conceivable use in empty hand fighting?

If you are ready to accept that the historical record "clarifies" the OP question in this manner, then we can have a thoughtful discussion of these implications. I have a perspective that goes to the heart of the question. But that is for another thread. In this thread, I have tried to lay the groundwork.

-Cayuga Karate


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 25, 2012)

We have threads about the history of various arts, and we've been through this before even down to the same arguments. It's a tad patronising to assume that the members of this forum are less than informed btw.
If you guys want to discuss, again, the more esoteric views of martial arts, crack on. I'll look to my usual source of information on kata and actually practice Bunkai. My style is pragmatic martial arts not just the theory. I want to know if something works and why, not that it came from China via Kathmandu via Timbucktu. More practice less showing off how much history we know.


----------



## Cayuga Karate (Jan 25, 2012)

Dancingalone wrote:



> Do you feel there is any value to be found by analyzing the curricula in current usage with our Chinese martial arts cousins?



I don't want to say that I believe comparative analysis would not be helpful. Rather, I have a different perspective. I start with my belief of several things about these Okinawan kata. The existing collection of kata is quite large. On Youtube there are perhaps 120 rather unique kata. I would imagine for every kata that has survived, one or more has perished. That is the natural but unfortunate fate of what was once passed down in secret, father to eldest son. 

Imagine, over hundreds of years, Chinese men, some sailors, some military personnel, some former military personnel, passing down empty hand combative arts, in the form of hundreds of Chinese kata, to Okinawans who then practiced them faithfully. We have over a hundred of these relics remaining. They are opaque. Many, if not most movements appear to have no real relationship to how we understand fights to unfold. 

I believe the first step is to look at the entire collection of movements of these kata as a whole. I want to try to best understand them, in their totality, as I can. This is a large undertaking for me. I am in my mid 50s, and my memory is not what it once was. But the task is not too formidable. The collection is large, but not too large for me. 

Now, back to your question. Would I benefit from a comparative analysis with modern day Chinese systems? The problem is that the universe of movements to study would now increase from a thousand to twenty thousand. That's something that is beyond me. I leave that daunting task to others. There are likely hundreds of system across China, and thousands of forms. China is a vast country with a massive population. What is the relation of kata from one geographic area to another. Over hundreds of years the goals of martial arts have transitioned. What were once military arts where skill in the use of military weapons was the primary goal, have gradually evolved to have more of a focus on personal defense, where empty hand fighting capability is a key or the key or the sole goal. 

For over 500 years, the Ryukyu kingdom traded with China on ships that sailed to and from the port city of Fuzhou. For much of that history, when Chinese trade and investiture (diplomatic) missions sailed to Okinawa, military authorities sailed on those missions. These military authorities were tasked with providing protection for these missions, and for much of this period piracy off the coast of China was a terrible menace. One authority has written that in the early 1800s, one single band of pirates (there were many) had 2,000 vessels and 70,000 men. 

Once in Okinawa, these trading missions lasted 6 months. This provided an opportunity for the visiting Chinese military authorities to provide training in combative arts to a few carefully chosen members of the Okinawan aristocracy. 

I recognize that there are those who are impatient with this level of analysis. There are those that just want to talk about technique. They believe they have no use for history. What does a history lesson have to do with fighting? How could events that happened 150 years ago and earlier possible matter now? 

Well maybe, just maybe, these events hold a window into the heart of these kata. Take a moment and ask yourself a simple question. Imagine for a moment you are one of these visiting Chinese military authorities. Fully dwell on that for a moment. If you are going to share combative arts with these Okinawans, there is likely some purpose? What is that purpose. 

Answer that question, and the quest to understand the potential application of these movements just might take you in a quite different direction, an entirely new dimension.

-Cayuga Karate


----------



## Cayuga Karate (Jan 25, 2012)

Tez3 wrote:



> I'll look to my usual source of information on kata and actually practice Bunkai.



Perhaps you could share your thoughts on the question posed in the OP. Do you believe that the concepts you are learning from your usual source have been handed down for a hundred or more years? 

Do you believe that, in general, lots of bunkai came down with the kata as they were taught 75 years ago? Did Funakoshi pass on bunkai for his 20+ kata? Did Mabuni pass on bunkai for the movements in his 50 kata? Did Kyan pass on bunkai for all the movements in his 7 kata? Did Higaonna and Miyagi pass down bunkai for all movements in all of the naha-te kata they taught?

I am just curious at what your thoughts are here. This is central to the question posed in the OP.

-Cayuga Karate


----------



## puunui (Jan 25, 2012)

Cayuga Karate said:


> Now, back to your question. Would I benefit from a comparative analysis with modern day Chinese systems? The problem is that the universe of movements to study would now increase from a thousand to twenty thousand. That's something that is beyond me. I leave that daunting task to others. There are likely hundreds of system across China, and thousands of forms.




I would be happy to see just one form from any chinese art that is substantially or even vaguely similar to any okinawan kata. For example, dancingalone and I once had a discussion about whether wing chun's siulimtao was in any way similar to gojuryu's sanchin. In dancingalone's opinion, they were not. oh well, maybe we will have better luck with some other form.


----------



## Cayuga Karate (Jan 25, 2012)

There has been much discussion on the origins of Korean kata here. I would like to make a couple of points. This is somewhat off-topic from the original post, but nevertheless, I would like to add my perspective.

First, I think everyone recognizes that many TKD systems have kata that appear to come from Funakoshi. 

Second, there are some original histories that make no reference to this, and attribute TKD to ancient Chinese sources. 

I think we may be able to infer something from a key development in the history of karate.

In the mid-thirties, the Japanese made a decision that this growing fighting art simply could not have the name "Chinese hand". There was an alternate reading of kanji, first written about by Chomo Hanashiro 30 years earlier, that seemed far more palatable to the Japanese. There was a meeting in Okinawa in 1936, and the Japanese made it quite clear that "empty hand" was the appropriate term for the art.

We can only speculate, but at that time Japan had had a long, bitter and bloody rivalry with the Chinese. At the very time of this discussion, a massive invasion of was only a year away, and there had been skirmishes since 1931. 

The Japanese had a long and revered tradition of martial arts, and the newly adopted karate from recently annexed Okinawa was being rapidly integrated into their society and their schools. In this era of intense regional conflict, the widespread adoption of an art called "Chinese hand" was simply never going to happen. They wanted a "Japanese" art, and they in essence re-wrote history to remove the Chinese origins of this art.

Should we be surprised then that the Koreans, after having suffered a 35 year occupation by the Japanese, might want to do the same. Korea has been a stomping ground for expansionist Japanese going back to the late 1500s, when Japan launched two massive invasions. During WWII especially, the Japanese caused great hardship on the Korea population. 

I would think it would have been perfectly understandable for the early Korean Tae Kwon Do historians in the 1950s and 1960s to simply remove mentions of the Japanese from their history. I argue above, that these kata are Chinese in origin. The Koreans can claim, IMO, with some accuracy, that their kata go back to ancient China, and their fighting art of that has a heavy emphasis on kicking, etc, also goes back to ancient China. Maybe they felt perfectly justified in writing the Japanese out of their history. 

From time to time, history does repeat itself.

Regarding the transmission of bunkai, we can safely assume that the Koreans got little. It was not a meaningful part of Funakoshi's curriculum. 

-Cayuga Karate


----------



## clfsean (Jan 25, 2012)

puunui said:


> I would be happy to see just one form from any chinese art that is substantially or even vaguely similar to any okinawan kata. For example, dancingalone and I once had a discussion about whether wing chun's siulimtao was in any way similar to gojuryu's sanchin. In dancingalone's opinion, they were not. oh well, maybe we will have better luck with some other form.



SNT is not really similar to Sanchin except in the idea they both lay foundation.

However... Sam Chien is Sanchin. Fujianese White Crane or Five Ancestors.


----------



## puunui (Jan 25, 2012)

Cayuga Karate said:


> In the mid-thirties, the Japanese made a decision that this growing fighting art simply could not have the name "Chinese hand". There was an alternate reading of kanji, first written about by Chomo Hanashiro 30 years earlier, that seemed far more palatable to the Japanese. There was a meeting in Okinawa in 1936, and the Japanese made it quite clear that "empty hand" was the appropriate term for the art.




I read that in McCarthy Sensei's book as well, but Hanashiro Sensei wasn't the first to use the kanji for "empty hand", because there was in fact a japanese art called that earlier. Books from the 1800s make reference to it. Some say that Funakoshi Sensei knew this and changed the character from Tou or Kara in part because of that, the inference being that karate was a japanese art. He also took out the weapons because of what you said, that Japan did have a long cultural history of weapons training on its own, with more elegant weapons that okinawan farm implements, which could not compare to a katana for example. The two weapons that he did choose to teach in Japan, the bo and sai, seem similar to japanese weapons, like jutte for example, and so might have been more on the scale of acceptance than a mill handle or a farming sickle. 

But we do not know for sure.


----------



## dancingalone (Jan 26, 2012)

Cayuga Karate said:


> I believe the first step is to look at the entire collection of movements of these kata as a whole. I want to try to best understand them, in their totality, as I can. This is a large undertaking for me. I am in my mid 50s, and my memory is not what it once was. But the task is not too formidable. The collection is large, but not too large for me.


What is your reasoning for the need to study the movement as a complete collection?  It's often been said that separate, discrete kata are to be regarded as distinct fighting styles.  Thus Naihanchi would be a dictionary for an entirely different set of tactics and techniques than say Kusanku or Rohai - not to mention the historical record that said the old masters actually trained far fewer kata than we do today.Also how do you reconcile the two camps of karate kata which came from different sources?  Do you try to understand the Naha-te movements in conjunction with the Shuri/Tomari kata?  Or do you stick to one side of the equation?  I seem to think you are a Shito-ryu man, and if so, it would seem that you'd be looking at both approaches, perhaps an unenviable task to begin with.





Cayuga Karate said:


> Now, back to your question. Would I benefit from a comparative analysis with modern day Chinese systems? The problem is that the universe of movements to study would now increase from a thousand to twenty thousand. That's something that is beyond me. I leave that daunting task to others. There are likely hundreds of system across China, and thousands of forms. China is a vast country with a massive population. What is the relation of kata from one geographic area to another. Over hundreds of years the goals of martial arts have transitioned. What were once military arts where skill in the use of military weapons was the primary goal, have gradually evolved to have more of a focus on personal defense, where empty hand fighting capability is a key or the key or the sole goal.


It's a matter of filtering down to a manageable volume of material.  I see little reason for example to study something like Wu Dang systems to enrich my understanding of Goju-ryu karate.  If I wanted to look to the roots of Goju, I'd cast my gaze towards White Crane or Feeding Crane.  And if I wanted to go outside of the Goju ancestral tree yet look for domain relevance in another Chinese style, I think Baji Quan would be a great fit.No reason to have to look at the entire spectrum of Chinese martial arts which are indeed vast and diverse.





Cayuga Karate said:


> Well maybe, just maybe, these events hold a window into the heart of these kata. Take a moment and ask yourself a simple question. Imagine for a moment you are one of these visiting Chinese military authorities. Fully dwell on that for a moment. If you are going to share combative arts with these Okinawans, there is likely some purpose? What is that purpose. Answer that question, and the quest to understand the potential application of these movements just might take you in a quite different direction, an entirely new dimension.


I have read some of your past writings about weapons and kata with interest.  However, I believe it is more relevant for our needs today to understand the unarmed applications to the karate kata and so it upon that aspect that I choose to focus, as kobudo practice is sufficient for my own archaic weapons study.


----------



## SahBumNimRush (Jan 26, 2012)

dancingalone said:


> I see little reason for example to study something like Wu Dang systems to enrich my understanding of Goju-ryu karate.  If I wanted to look to the roots of Goju, I'd cast my gaze towards White Crane or Feeding Crane.  And if I wanted to go outside of the Goju ancestral tree yet look for domain relevance in another Chinese style, I think Baji Quan would be a great fit.No reason to have to look at the entire spectrum of Chinese martial arts which are indeed vast and diverse.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## dancingalone (Jan 26, 2012)

SahBumNimRush said:


> I'm curious if anyone has seen similar patterns in other He Quan or Changquan forms.


This is not what you are looking for, Benjamin, but I think it's easier to see the Long Fist influence in the Chil Sung & Yuk Rho forms GM Hwang created.  I know you don't train those forms, but I think there's a easily made technical connection there. Have you ever seen Lian Bu Quan or Gong Li Quan played?  They are common 'beginner' forms across many Northern Chinese styles that fall under the general 'Long Fist' moniker.  I don't know if GM Hwang knew and trained these forms (probably not - there's no documentation I am aware of that states he did), but I can see some broad similarities in these forms and how I would play the Chil Sung and Yuk Rho if I practiced them.Lian Bu Quan [yt]pynQL_y4c1U[/yt]Gong Li Quan [yt]ZkcF_V3GzfY[/yt]


----------



## punisher73 (Jan 26, 2012)

puunui said:


> I would be happy to see just one form from any chinese art that is substantially or even vaguely similar to any okinawan kata. For example, dancingalone and I once had a discussion about whether wing chun's siulimtao was in any way similar to gojuryu's sanchin. In dancingalone's opinion, they were not. oh well, maybe we will have better luck with some other form.



Sanchin





Suparinpei learned in Fujian (the form was called something else that translated into 108 steps) as taught originally by Master Guo Kong Xi


----------



## SahBumNimRush (Jan 26, 2012)

dancingalone said:


> This is not what you are looking for, Benjamin, but I think it's easier to see the Long Fist influence in the Chil Sung & Yuk Rho forms GM Hwang created.  I know you don't train those forms, but I think there's a easily made technical connection there. Have you ever seen Lian Bu Quan or Gong Li Quan played?  They are common 'beginner' forms across many Northern Chinese styles that fall under the general 'Long Fist' moniker.  I don't know if GM Hwang knew and trained these forms (probably not - there's no documentation I am aware of that states he did), but I can see some broad similarities in these forms and how I would play the Chil Sung and Yuk Rho if I practiced them.Lian Bu Quan [yt]pynQL_y4c1U[/yt]Gong Li Quan [yt]ZkcF_V3GzfY[/yt]



I can't say for certain, but I seem to remember hearing that the Chil Sung and Yuk Ro forms were inspired from GM Hwang's study of the Muyedobotongji.  This text was a transcription of an older Chinese text, although I'm not sure where in China, so it is possible that the movements represented in this text could have been Changquan or something similar.


----------



## SahBumNimRush (Jan 26, 2012)

punisher73 said:


> Sanchin
> 
> 
> Suparinpei learned in Fujian (the form was called something else that translated into 108 steps) as taught originally by Master Guo Kong Xi



As a layperson who does not practice either of these forms, I can definitely see a correlation between He Quan and OMA katas in both of these videos.


----------



## punisher73 (Jan 26, 2012)

Getting back to the original question.  I think that "where" a form derived from helps answer the questions of bunkai and where that stems from.  For example, in the japanese styles, such as Shotokan, not a lot of bunkai was passed on other than the block/punch/kick variety.  Their emphasis was more on kihon practice and kumite, the view of many was that kata was just a way to practice the kihon.  So, I think that many Shotokan stylists may have "reverse engineered" their kata to look at Shorin-Ryu applications for certain movements of the same kata or came up with meanings for the movements that worked for them (whether or not it is close to the original).  

This is the main crux between eccletic and traditional studies.  A more modern approach doesn't care where the info came from as long as it works; A traditional approach many times will disregard something because it's not from what their instructor/master said it was.  Just using Mr. Abernathy as an example; his approach works and fits within the patterns of the katas he trains it with, to many that is all that matters.  They have an effective means of self-defense and a way to practice it through the kata.  Others will disregard that approach because it didn't come from the head of their organization or they were told that there were no grappling applications in kata, so they will ignore the applications in favor of a more basic approach of kicking and punching.


----------



## puunui (Jan 26, 2012)

punisher73 said:


> This is the main crux between eccletic and traditional studies.  A more modern approach doesn't care where the info came from as long as it works; A traditional approach many times will disregard something because it's not from what their instructor/master said it was.  Just using Mr. Abernathy as an example; his approach works and fits within the patterns of the katas he trains it with, to many that is all that matters.  They have an effective means of self-defense and a way to practice it through the kata.  Others will disregard that approach because it didn't come from the head of their organization or they were told that there were no grappling applications in kata, so they will ignore the applications in favor of a more basic approach of kicking and punching.



Or they study a separate art such as Jujitsu or Hapkido which have those self defense techniques, taught in an organized fashion, and therefore they see no need to practice kata based bunkai training methods, whether or not the bunkai was reverse engineered or not.


----------



## SahBumNimRush (Jan 26, 2012)

punisher73 said:


> Getting back to the original question.  I think that "where" a form derived from helps answer the questions of bunkai and where that stems from.  For example, in the japanese styles, such as Shotokan, not a lot of bunkai was passed on other than the block/punch/kick variety.  Their emphasis was more on kihon practice and kumite, the view of many was that kata was just a way to practice the kihon.  So, I think that many Shotokan stylists may have "reverse engineered" their kata to look at Shorin-Ryu applications for certain movements of the same kata or came up with meanings for the movements that worked for them (whether or not it is close to the original).
> 
> This is the main crux between eccletic and traditional studies.  A more modern approach doesn't care where the info came from as long as it works; A traditional approach many times will disregard something because it's not from what their instructor/master said it was.  Just using Mr. Abernathy as an example; his approach works and fits within the patterns of the katas he trains it with, to many that is all that matters.  They have an effective means of self-defense and a way to practice it through the kata.  Others will disregard that approach because it didn't come from the head of their organization or they were told that there were no grappling applications in kata, so they will ignore the applications in favor of a more basic approach of kicking and punching.



While I do not have any inherent problems with people "reverse engineering" applications, I am more interested in drawing parallels between the "purposes" of similar looking movements in other arts.  As Puunui has stated, some have the luxury of training in systems that have an organized approach to teaching the locks, grabs, throws, etc.. . that some arts emphasize in form application.  I live in rural America, where there aren't other arts offered in my area, so that isn't an option for me.  

I have been practicing MDK TKD for 26 years now, and I have a fairly solid base of applications for most movements in my forms, but there are some peculiar movements that I am still curious about.  I believe that with the knowledge base and experience that the members of MT have, we should be able to draw some of these commonalities of movements, even if individual style applications differ.  Certainly mechanics and the foundational philosophy of movement in some arts differ greatly, and may not lend themselves to easy comparison, but I am interested in hearing if anyone has attempted to do this here on MT in the past?


----------



## SahBumNimRush (Jan 26, 2012)

For instance, even if we take the Pinan/Heian/Pyung Ahn form sets which are relatively newer than some of the forms that I practice, and look at the different styles that practice them, they are relatively similar in most all movements.

Pyung Ahn Oh Dan Moo Duk Kwan Version:





Pinan Godan Shito Ryu:





Heian Godan Shotokan:





Pinan Godan Wadoryu:





Pinan Godan Ryukyu Kempo:





Pinan Sono Go Kyokushin:





The one movement that I have always had a difficult time understanding is the turning jumping downward double handed block.  My instructor explained it as merely a jumping downward block, intercepting a kick, but that movement doesn't seem efficient to say the least.  I was wondering if other styles use it as some sort of throw maybe?


----------



## dancingalone (Jan 26, 2012)

SahBumNimRush said:


> The one movement that I have always had a difficult time understanding is the turning jumping downward double handed block.  My instructor explained it as merely a jumping downward block, intercepting a kick, but that movement doesn't seem efficient to say the least.  I was wondering if other styles use it as some sort of throw maybe?


One interpretation is as a hip lever throw.  You scoop forward one leg with one arm as you simultaneously press against the opponent's hip or thigh with the other arm in a scissoring action.


----------



## SahBumNimRush (Jan 27, 2012)

Do you know what this move is called in Japanese/Okinawan?  I've been attempting to look for more information about its uses, but I don't know the terminology.


----------



## dancingalone (Jan 27, 2012)

SahBumNimRush said:


> Do you know what this move is called in Japanese/Okinawan?  I've been attempting to look for more information about its uses, but I don't know the terminology.



I only know the judo name:  kibisu gaeshi.


----------



## SahBumNimRush (Jan 27, 2012)

Thus far in my search on YouTube, the only application that seems to fit the movement and is practical and efficient is from Mr. Abernethy.


----------



## SahBumNimRush (Jan 27, 2012)

Looking at Kubisu Gaeshi:






Slightly different version:





As it pertains to the movement in the form, I see some resemblance, but not exactly the movement in the form.  Are there other variations that fit the movement more accurately?

Something vaguely similar from Didier Lupo at 6:16





The interesting thing about the movement in the last video is the application of the combination of the two movements (low cross stance double block to the forward stance double/reinforced block).  I'm not sure how much this movement really qualifies as a kubisu gaeshi though.. .


----------



## dancingalone (Jan 27, 2012)

SahBumNimRush said:


> As it pertains to the movement in the form, I see some resemblance, but not exactly the movement in the form.  Are there other variations that fit the movement more accurately?



I think an ordinary kibisu gaeshi is a good explanation for the movement.  To shed some light on my perspective, the Pinan Godan I trained came from Matsubayashi-ryu and it's done without the jump.  The 'kibisu gaeshi' is at 27-28 seconds of this video:

[yt]81uH9zHSwhw[/yt]

And here is an example of kibisu gaeshi pretty much performed as I envision although the performer pushes/braces against the chest rather than squatting than then levering against the hip or thigh as the squat in the kata would specify.

[yt]3GBXgY5oT_c[/yt]


----------



## SahBumNimRush (Jan 27, 2012)

Further reading has lead me to Nipaipo (Naha Te/ Shito Ryu) vs. Er Shi Ba Bu (white crane).  These forms are nearly identical.

Nipaipo:






Er Shi Ba Bu:


----------



## SahBumNimRush (Jan 27, 2012)

I also ran across this video, claiming to be Southern Fukien Grand Ancestor Boxing.  I'm not well versed in CMA's, but he's wearing a wrap uniform, which I've not seen in CMA's.  However, the movements are very familiar to me from many forms that I practice.


----------



## clfsean (Jan 27, 2012)

Yeah that's Tai Cho (Tai Zu).  I don't know if that's Tai Cho alone or the Tai Cho from Ngo Cho. Either way, straight up Fujianese CMA. No dilution there. 

The guy who filmed it was or is affiliated with a guy named Eric Ling from Singapore. He's big into cataloging & trying to preserve the southern arts found in Malaysia, Singapore & Indonesia before they are lost. Those areas carry on the old traditions, not the new. He was a big part of a documentary I watched on Hulu called "Needle through Brick". 

As far as the uniform, there's a group in Taiwan that has been wearing a Japanese style gi for years doing White Crane, Xingyi & Bagua. Then again, they are all about the contact & the cotton gi's are more durable than the "traditional" CMA type wear.


----------



## SahBumNimRush (Jan 27, 2012)

Digging some more, it looks like it is Master Teo Choon Tek of San Cheen Do, and yes he is from Singapore.

http://www.sancheendo.org/


----------



## dancingalone (Jan 27, 2012)

SahBumNimRush said:


> I also ran across this video, claiming to be Southern Fukien Grand Ancestor Boxing.  I'm not well versed in CMA's, but he's wearing a wrap uniform, which I've not seen in CMA's.  However, the movements are very familiar to me from many forms that I practice.



Thanks for the clip.  I can really see the kinship there with Goju-ryu and Uechi-ryu.  Fascinating.


----------



## SahBumNimRush (Jan 27, 2012)

Thanks to clfsean's identification of the prior mentioned art, here's another Tai Zu Quan (Southern Grand Ancestor Boxing) form:

Little Lohan form (I don't think it's referring to Ali Lohan ):






However, I see less off a similarity in this form compared to the one from Master Teo Choon Teck (Particularly the second set of movements Master Teck performs; from 1:23-1:56).


----------



## ninjanoir78 (Feb 1, 2014)

Cayuga Karate said:


> This question of the origins of bunkai is fascinating to me. I'm pretty convinced that the whole concept of useful applications is something quite recent in the history of kata. There are two issues here. One is the lack of reality of so much of what passes for "bunkai" and second is the entire question of what bunkai may have been handed down 100 to 150 years ago.
> 
> Regarding the first issue, (reality of applications), if one looks at a broad cross-section of bunkai associated with older traditional systems, one typically finds that these applications are simply not modelled on the way fighting actually occurs. Attackers routinely step in with on long step, freezing is a stance and striking to the mid-section. Second, there is just an overwhelming amount of bunkai where the self-defense application utilizes a single counter strike, often to the abdomen. There are dozens of examples of this in youtube.
> 
> ...



Hi, oyata learnt from nakamura kata.. many kata but he kept just 12.. from his 2 main instructors (bushi) he learnt weapons, kyusho and how to analyse kata.. so he received kata fron nakamura but not bunkai. Anyway their bunkai were not good, just basic karate. .

Envoyé de mon SGH-I747M en utilisant Tapatalk


----------

