# Shorin Ryu Katas



## harold (Dec 22, 2007)

I began training in the martial arts in 1971 studying Shorin Ryu. I was wondering if anyone could recommend any sites that have still photos and descriptions of the Shorin Ryu katas.


----------



## Andrew Green (Dec 22, 2007)

There are videos of a few branches here: http://kata-reference.com/


----------



## harold (Dec 22, 2007)

Thanks.


----------



## dancingalone (Dec 22, 2007)

I know you asked for an online source, but the best shorin-ryu (matsubayashi) book I have seen is *Okinawan Karate: The Teachings of Eihachi Ota.  *In my opinion, it's even better than Nagamine's book.


----------



## chinto (Dec 22, 2007)

dancingalone said:


> I know you asked for an online source, but the best shorin-ryu (matsubayashi) book I have seen is *Okinawan Karate: The Teachings of Eihachi Ota.  *In my opinion, it's even better than Nagamine's book.



i do not have that book but the book "Okinawan Karate,  teachers, styles and secret techniques"  by Mark Bishop is excellent.


----------



## Drac (Dec 22, 2007)

dancingalone said:


> I know you asked for an online source, but the best shorin-ryu (matsubayashi) book I have seen is *Okinawan Karate: The Teachings of Eihachi Ota. *In my opinion, it's even better than Nagamine's book.


 
Yes..A very good book ..Purchased both during my Shorin-Ryu days, like the one by Ota beter...


----------



## Kennedy_Shogen_Ryu (Dec 23, 2007)

I have never seen the Ota book though I have studied Nagamine's book.  What are the major differences between the two that makes Ota's so much better?  Would be interested in finding a copy, is it easily findable?


----------



## dancingalone (Dec 23, 2007)

It just came out this year and you can easily buy it from Amazon.  The book is actually authored by Michael Rovens and Mark Polland, but it's heavily illustrated with pictures of Ota Sensei performing the Matsubayashi kata.  What makes this book better than the Nagamine classic is the inclusion of some transition photos - the Nagamine book only has photos of each ending position.  The new book also has many notes from Ota Sensei,  giving some basic bunkai or performance tips.

Here's a passage from Pinan Sandan:  "Sensei Ota argues that this sequence (the opening simultaneous blocks) is not intended to be a fighting techinque because the simultaneous blocks are executed in a standing position or natural stance, instead of the lower stance that is typically used when blocking....

In kata, not every move has to have a practical fighting application.  Some moves are valuable specifically as training exercises to condition the body."


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 23, 2007)

dancingalone said:


> It just came out this year and you can easily buy it from Amazon. The book is actually authored by Michael Rovens and Mark Polland, but it's heavily illustrated with pictures of Ota Sensei performing the Matsubayashi kata. What makes this book better than the Nagamine classic is the inclusion of some transition photos - the Nagamine book only has photos of each ending position. The new book also has many notes from Ota Sensei, giving some basic bunkai or performance tips.
> 
> Here's a passage from Pinan Sandan:* "Sensei Ota argues that this sequence (the opening simultaneous blocks) is not intended to be a fighting techinque because the simultaneous blocks are executed in a standing position or natural stance, instead of the lower stance that is typically used when blocking....*
> 
> In kata, not every move has to have a practical fighting application. Some moves are valuable specifically as training exercises to condition the body."


 
That's interesting! I was taught they are CMA type of blocks, used for blocking punches whch they do very well.That's Wado Ryu though and we have a few techniques done from either standing or a short fighting stance where one foot is slightly in front of the other.


----------



## chinto (Dec 25, 2007)

dancingalone said:


> It just came out this year and you can easily buy it from Amazon.  The book is actually authored by Michael Rovens and Mark Polland, but it's heavily illustrated with pictures of Ota Sensei performing the Matsubayashi kata.  What makes this book better than the Nagamine classic is the inclusion of some transition photos - the Nagamine book only has photos of each ending position.  The new book also has many notes from Ota Sensei,  giving some basic bunkai or performance tips.
> 
> Here's a passage from Pinan Sandan:  "Sensei Ota argues that this sequence (the opening simultaneous blocks) is not intended to be a fighting techinque because the simultaneous blocks are executed in a standing position or natural stance, instead of the lower stance that is typically used when blocking....
> 
> In Kata, not every move has to have a practical fighting application.  Some moves are valuable specifically as training exercises to condition the body."




I am a student of Shobayashi Shorin Ryu, and I would disagree with you. there are at minumum 5 combat applications for every movement in our Kata.. in most Kata there are provably more...  but then some of the Okinawan stances are much higher then the Japanese styles use. ( the Japanese styles were derived Obviously from the Okinawan as Okinawa is where Karate is from)


----------



## exile (Dec 25, 2007)

chinto said:


> I am a student of Shobayashi Shorin Ryu, and I would disagree with you. there are at minumum 5 combat applications for every movement in our Kata.. in most Kata there are provably more...  but then some of the Okinawan stances are much higher then the Japanese styles use. ( the Japanese styles were derived Obviously from the Okinawan as Okinawa is where Karate is from)



Gotta say, I think Chinto's take here is probably the methodologically sounder one. Start from the assumption that there was a combat application and see if you can find it. If you assume that there wasn't one, then if there actually was, you'd never find it, because you're starting from the premist that there's nothing to find. In contrast, if you assume there was one, but in fact there wasn't, it'll probably become evident that the move in question just can't be given a plausible combat explanation.

I see how this works with the way in which an old Tomari-te form, Empi, was `massaged' into a more  stylistically Korean form, Eunbi, with consequent reduction of CQ practicality. There are a series of moves in Empi which involve a down block followed by a straight reverse punch and then a raised knee on the same side, followed by what looks like a low X-block in a  lowered upper-body position. In TKD, this knee raise has been modified to a front snap kick. But the good bunkai for Empi I've seen suggest that the raised knee is a very hard knee strike to the abdomen, and the X-block a grab by the defender to immobilize the now bent-over attacker combined with a simultaneous strike to the groin with the other fist in the so-called block. The TKD version, in turning the kick into a high-mid front snap kick, winds up assuming a distance between attacker and defender much greater than that in the Okinawan version, and thus renders the former less practical for the CQ situation which most street violence involves. You could look at the Eunbi moves and say, hell, that must be a balance exercise, it couldn't be a combat tech... and in a sense, you'd be on to something, but the point is, the solution is not to reject the combat utility of the move, but rather to define correctly just what the move at issue originally consisted of. I suspect something similar has gone on between the Okinawan and Japanese versions of the same kata in many instances, but here I'm glad to be able to defer to Chinto and others who can point to real examples!


----------



## Ray B (Dec 25, 2007)

Kata bunkai (analyizing) can reveal many applications (ohyo) to one
movement. There is a book out, I can't remember the author, called 75
down blocks. In it, the author shows 75 different applications to the down
block. If you take this theory and apply it to all/most of what you are
practicing, you will have enough to spend your life discovering.

I agree that you can find 5 or more applications to a set of movements,
but IMO, if you train too many, you will not have the conditioning for
an automatic response. Your mind will be going through too many
senarios. Find a few that work against large and small opponents and
drill them until they are second nature.

You should not have to change the kata to do this. Think of kata as
the framework and your ohyo as the body. Everyone has the same
basic skeleton, but we all have different bodies. Some more than others.
:jaw-dropping:

These may not be the ohyo that Itosu/Higoanna/Chibana/etc. have
handed down, but at least your kata will have meaning to you.

Peace.


----------



## exile (Dec 25, 2007)

Ray B said:


> Kata bunkai (analyizing) can reveal many applications (ohyo) to one
> movement. There is a book out, I can't remember the author, called 75
> down blocks. In it, the author shows 75 different applications to the down
> block. If you take this theory and apply it to all/most of what you are
> practicing, you will have enough to spend your life discovering.



Rick Clark. Incredibly good MA book, one of the best ever written. 



Ray B said:


> I agree that you can find 5 or more applications to a set of movements,
> but IMO, if you train too many, you will not have the conditioning for
> an automatic response. Your mind will be going through too many
> senarios. Find a few that work against large and small opponents and
> drill them until they are second nature.



The Hick's Law thing. I agree. But the alternatives are _in_ there, even if you strive (as you should) to keep your options few, simple, robust and easily retained...



Ray B said:


> You should not have to change the kata to do this. Think of kata as
> the framework and your ohyo as the body. Everyone has the same
> basic skeleton, but we all have different bodies. Some more than others.
> :jaw-dropping:
> ...



I agree again. Understand as many of the different bunkai as you can, but be selective, stick to what works for you, and train it hard and realistically. I can't imagine going wrong, following that prescription.


----------



## Ray B (Dec 25, 2007)

By all means, never be content with what you have worked out.
Always strive for better. Never believe your ohyo is the end all.
Sometimes it's just learning how to execute it better.

Parter training with different sized partners with different abilities.

Peace.


----------



## dancingalone (Dec 26, 2007)

Gentlemen, I love kata applications as much as any of you, but I certainly won't ignore someone the stature of Ota Sensei when he claims certain moves in his lineage aren't meant to have an application to them.  

My lineage in goju-ryu karate shares the same opinion as Ota.  Sometimes a movement is strictly to practice balance or strength or <gasp> even for artistic merit.  Nagamine, the founder of matsubayashi shorin-ryu, was an Okinawan folk dance enthusiast.  His line, of which Ota is a part of, certainly believes in kata as a transmission of fighting techniques and concepts but from their viewpoint, it's probably overdoing it to say EVERYTHING (as designed by the pattern's creator) has a martial purpose to it.

Of course that's just what our lines think.  Your system or ryu-ha may say differently and that's fine.  I just wanted to express the opinion from this side of the aisle.


----------



## exile (Dec 26, 2007)

dancingalone said:


> Gentlemen, I love kata applications as much as any of you, but I certainly won't ignore someone the stature of Ota Sensei when he claims certain moves in his lineage aren't meant to have an application to them.
> 
> My lineage in goju-ryu karate shares the same opinion as Ota.  Sometimes a movement is strictly to practice balance or strength or <gasp> even for artistic merit.  Nagamine, the founder of matsubayashi shorin-ryu, was an Okinawan folk dance enthusiast.  His line, of which Ota is a part of, certainly believes in kata as a transmission of fighting techniques and concepts but from their viewpoint, it's probably overdoing it to say EVERYTHING (as designed by the pattern's creator) has a martial purpose to it.
> 
> Of course that's just what our lines think.  Your system or ryu-ha may say differently and that's fine.  I just wanted to express the opinion from this side of the aisle.



OK, this post seems a good point to try to crystallize the discussion around some more general issues about the interpretation of kata. The question of whether there are non-combat moves in various kata has been bothering me for a long time, and I've been trying to see the question in terms of the kind of system that kata correspond to, which is part of a more general family of systems in which units of _form_ are combined by certain rules, applying to such units, to yield _interpretations_ (which are of various kinds, depending what kind of system we're talking about). Two other systems of the same kind are genetics and human/artificial languages. And in all such systems, there are elements of form which don't correspond to parts of the interpretation. Here's what I mean:

(i) _Genetics_

The formal units are certain large molecules; the rules of combination are determined by chemical valence and the physics of the molecular bond; the interpretation of these combinations of macromolecules represent sequences proteins (= tissue), and, at a larger scale, whole organisms.​
(ii) _Natural and artificial languages_

The formal units are words in NLs (such as human languages), or logical symbol types in ALs (such as logical constants and variables); the rules of combination are defined by the syntax of the language; the interpretation of these combinations of terminal symbols corresponds to truth conditions in human languages and logic, and computational operations in computer languages.​
(iii) _Kata_

The formal units are specific movements (labeled 'down block', 'double knife-hand block', 'middle punch' etc.), the rules of combination are... well, that's part of what's at issue here.... and the interpretation of these combinations corrends to the fighting moves a defender uses in responding to a violent attack. Basic to this way of putting is the well-known fact that Itosu repackaged karate for school use in a way that deflected attention from the extremely brutal effect of some of the movements Okinawan karate consisted of, using misleading labels such as `pivot', 'punch', 'stance' and 'block' for combat elements that might be more accurately described, respectively, as 'throw', 'neck twist', 'joint break' and 'damaging strike'.​
Think of chromosomes, languages, and the kata of a given karate style (including TSD/TKD, i.e., Korean karate) as made up of certain terminal elements, where only certain combinations of those elements are allowed by the system. In each case we have a set of strings of elements&#8212;of certain large molecules, terminal symbols and movement types respectively&#8212;which are allowed, whereas others are disallowed, i.e., not part of the organic possibilities, forms of the language, or kata set. Each such string corresponds to a particular interpretation in the _semantics_ of the system (tissue, meaning, combat action). Now the question is, do we know of any elements in the first two that are semantically empty&#8212;that play no role in the interpretation?

The answer is, yes, definitely. We know that there are sequences of macromolecules on many chromosomes which appear to do no work: they may contain subsidiary information for the genetic 'readers', the ribosomes, which translate RNA/DNA into protein sequences, but we do not know just what it is they're there for, and it looks as though the tissues the chromosomes in question would encode would be same without these sequences. We know that there are expressions in artificial languages like prop logic which contain parts that are irrelevant to the final interpretation: if _p,q_ are propositions, then _p_V_p_V_q_ has exactly the same truth conditions as _p_V_q_, so that one of the iterations of _p_ here does no work. And in natural languages, the word _there_ in

_There's a lion in the closet._

does no semantic work, because the conditions under which this sentence is true are exactly the same as those under which

_A lion is in the closet._ 

are true. _There_ adds nothing. It seems to be true that in mapping from units of form, combined by syntactic rules, to a semantic result, there is plenty of room for semantically empty forms. Notice that the first of these sentences contains exactly one more word than is present in the second, yet the meanings are the same (there is no state of affairs in which the first is true in which the second is false, or vice versa). It follows that _there_ contributes nothing to the meaning of the sentence in which it appears; syntacticians call such semantically empty forms 'dummy elements'. They take up space according to the formal rules of combination of the language, the syntax, but contribute nothing to the semantics.

Kata are similarly a formal system&#8212;basic elements combined by rules to yield strings or sequences which denote something in a specific domain (in this case, combat actions). So it would not be especially strange if we encountered dummy elements in kata as well, like the _there_ in the above sentence, or the _that_ in _I believe (that) Robin is a spy._ But it's an empirical question, not something that you can decide in advance.

The syntactic rules which govern English requires the appearance of an overt subject for each declarative sentence (as vs. languages such as Spanish, Italian, Greek or Mandarin).  In the same way, the syntactic rules which govern certain classes of TKD forms require an H-shaped performance space, with  symmetrical movements on the right and left of the 'crossbar' and the movements along each crossbar being mirror images of each other. Things like the embusen rule, the requirement that the performer of the kata ends up facing the same direction as the one in which s/he did when the kata began, and various other formal conventions, are all part of the rules for stringing movements into kata; they come with the territory, so to speak, in much the same way that English sentences require an overt subject. 

Given this basic framework&#8212;that kata are governed by certain rules of combination which put basic elements (kihon movements) together to form sequences which have certain combat meanings (typically, each such combination has five or six or so 'meaningful' subcombinations, each of which represents a complete attack-initiation/defense-completion scenario)&#8212;one of the big problems with interpreting kata is to decide when a given movement or movement sequence is just part of the formal requirements, vs. being 'meaningful' (in terms of combat content). Take, say, taikyoku shodan. You can think of the first four moves (downblock+lungepunch&#8212;(180º turn)&#8212;> downblock + lungepunch) as simply a two sequence combat scenario to the left followed by the same movement to the right. A plausible _bunkai_ for the downblock+lungepunch sequence would be:

(A)
(i) Attacker, face to face with defender, grabs defender's forearm, shirt, etc. with his right hand; defender closes right fist over attacker's right hand, pivots 90º away from attacker pulling attacker's right arm straight, pinning attacker's arm by thrusting left forearm into attacker's right arm above the elbow and driving bodyweight into the pin to hyperextend the elbow joint, forcing attacker's upper body down.

(ii) Defender pulls left forearm out of the pin and delivers left-arm elbow spear-thrust strike to attacker's face, immediately followed by downward striking knifehand or hammerfist strike to attacker's lowered larynx, exposed by preceding elbow strike.

(iii) Defender applies muchimi-shift of striking left hand to gripping left hand, immobilizing the injured attacker's head by gripping his hair or ear, and steps forward to deliver finishing righthand punch to attacker's lowered head (strike to jaw or, pulling his head backward, again striking and damaging exposed throat).​
The same bunkai are supplied in moves 3 and 4 of the kata, for a grab by the left-hand, i.e., the sequences 1/2 and 3/4 are just mirror images.

But it is entirely possible and realistic to see moves 3 and 4 as _continuations_ of the the scenario depicted in (1), as follows:

(B)
(i) Attacker, face to face with defender, grabs defender's forearm, shirt, etc. with his right hand; defender closes right fist over attacker's right hand, pivots 90º away from attacker pulling attacker's right arm straight, pinning attacker's arm by thrusting left forearm into attacker's right arm above the elbow and driving bodyweight into the pin to hyperextend the elbow joint, forcing attacker's upper body down.

(ii) Defender pulls left forearm out of the pin and delivers left-arm elbow spear-thrust strike to attacker's face, immediately followed by downward striking knifehand or hammerfist strike to attacker's lowered larynx, exposed by preceding elbow strike.

(iii) Defender applies muchimi-shift of striking left hand to gripping left hand, immobilizing the injured attacker's head by gripping his hair or ear, and steps forward to deliver finishing righthand punch to attacker's lowered head (strike to jaw or, pulling his head backward, again striking and damaging exposed throat).

(iv) Defender applies muchimi again, gripping the attacker's ear with his right hand, and attacker's right shoulder or arm with his left hand, and pivoting 180º to throw the attacker to the defender's right,

(v) then stepping in to deliver a third strike to the attacker's head with the left fist.​
In other words, in Taikyoku Shodan, moves 3 and 4 can simply be the mirror of moves 1 and 2, as in (A), _or_ the four moves 1&#8211;4 can constitute a single longer fighting sequence as per (B). 

I see this as a kind of 'parsing problem': in working out bunkai for maximally effective oyo, how should you group the separate movements recorded in the kata so that the result gives you the best applications? The problem is that kata, like natural languages, are ambiguous: a single string can have several different structures (e.g., _I saw the student with the telescope_). A similar problem arises in genetics, where it turns out that a single string of chromosomal molecules can be read by the ribosomal 'translator' in one of two or more different ways, yielding very different results depending on where the ribosome starts the reading operation that maps the chromosome into protein tissue.

Even in Okinawa, where the bunkai analysis traditions are unquestionably the best-preserved, it seems possible that different lineages could have interpreted the parsing of a given kata in two different ways, along the lines of (A) vs. (b). In the interpretation (A), the 180º pivot is a purely formal element, a part of the syntax of the kata but semantically empty (devoid, that is, of fighting content, only present as part of the 'display', as a transition to repetition of moves 1/2 on the opposite side); in this sense, it's like the empty pronoun _there_ in my example above from English. In the interpretation (B), though, the pivot has very definite combat content; it's a crucial part of the throw which, in (B), is a continuation of the counterattack following (iii). Two different interpretations, each of which might have gone with one of two different karate lineages. Neither is right or wrong, but the founders of the '(A)-lineage', as we can call it, and of the '(B)-lineage', simply had different takes on the matter. This wouldn't be surprising. We know that Motobu vehemently disagreed with some of Funakoshi's bunkai for Niahanchi, and, without taking sides, it seems possible that they came to different respective conclusions without ever having gotten formal directions from Itosu, who I can well imagine might have been less than explicit about the bunkai that he taught (Motobu certainly thought that Itosu had concealed the 'true' bunkai from Funakoshi, but then, he seems to have had a strong personal dislike for GF, so... ?)

My point is just that unless you've gone out of your way, as logicians and computer scientists have, to eliminate ambiguity from your formal system, it's entirely possible to have ambiguous parses of some given sequence in your system, with people deriving different views of the way in which the syntactic rules have combined the basic elements to yield complete structures, and therefore holding different views of how those structures should be interpreted. And even the most distinguished practitioners might take different perspectives on the right parsing, in the case of such ambiguity....


----------



## Victor Smith (Dec 26, 2007)

Hmmm, I see things in simpler light.

When I studied Isshinryu there were no applications studied for the kata, and several of my instructors trained on Okinawa.

Having no rules, after long training I worked out my own rules about what a technique might be and the principles in which any technique application might be applied.

Then I met the late Sherman Harrill, who returned from Okinawa with 45 self defense techniques that he worked out came from our kata. Over the next 40 years he worked out thousands of others. I know because the notes I kept from our brief clinics together were for 800 applications from Isshinryu's 8 kata.

One of the first principles I worked out was any technique sequence can be used to drop anyone with work. So 'pose' kamae, pause points when inserted into someone's attack just as executed in the kata can drop people and do.

Of course I don't have any rules telling me that it won't work.

Of course too, I also work at using each potential in Sanchin to drop people too.

Works for me,


----------



## exile (Dec 26, 2007)

Victor Smith said:


> Hmmm, I see things in simpler light.



I don't really think what I was saying was all that complex; if you think of kata as a codelike languages, or the genetic code, or any otherthen what I was talking about comes with the territory. It was really Anko Itosu who set up kata that way: rather than an explicit description of actual combat actions, he structured the 'delivery' of kata so that you have to decipher those actions on the basis of how simple basic moves are combined. My point was just that any time you have a body of knowledge which is, in this specific sense, encoded, you are going to wind up facing the same kinds of problemswhich includes, in many cases, the problem of ambiguity: multiple interpretations of the the 'same' sequence.

The reason it's useful to think of kata in terms of other code-types is that, like them, you don't get very far at all if you try to take them literally. People who say they don't think kata have combat utility routinely fall into this trap....



Victor Smith said:


> When I studied Isshinryu there were no applications studied for the kata, and several of my instructors trained on Okinawa.
> 
> Having no rules, after long training I worked out my own rules about what a technique might be and the principles in which any technique application might be applied.
> 
> ...



This is my impression alsoat least, for the technique sequences that make up the classic kata. There's a very good reason, I believe, why it was _those_ sequences which endured and became the foundation of a whole family of TMAs, and why others that might be formally possible were never put together or didn't survive...




Victor Smith said:


> So 'pose' kamae, pause points when inserted into someone's attack just as executed in the kata can drop people and do.



Can you elaborate on this a little bit more, Victor?


----------



## dancingalone (Dec 26, 2007)

> So 'pose' kamae, pause points when inserted into someone's attack just as executed in the kata can drop people and do.



I've been taught that sometimes the more posed positions (like the swastika block in pinan godan) are interrupted attacks.  Only the starting position or even a transition is shown in the kata, and you have to have your sensei teach you the rest.  The example I give is an obvious entry into an over/under throw like aikido's shihonage...


----------



## dancingalone (Dec 26, 2007)

Excellent post, by the way, Exile.  I enjoyed the explanation using the language metaphor.  The premise you make explains why I always enjoyed trading kata and kata bunkai with other karate-ka particularly if they come from a different system than I do.


----------



## exile (Dec 26, 2007)

dancingalone said:


> Excellent post, by the way, Exile.  I enjoyed the explanation using the language metaphor.  The premise you make explains why I always enjoyed trading kata and kata bunkai with other karate-ka particularly if they come from a different system than I do.



And thank _you_ for your thought-provoking comments in your earlier post, dancingalone, that got me thinking about what follows from thinking of kata as a kind of code, subject to rules of combination and rule of interpretation!  

I have to say, I find the aspect of kata training that involves deciphering the applications one of the most appealing things about the MAs... for the same reason that puzzles and logic problems are so addictive for so many people. The point you raise about the possibility that not all movements in a kata actually correspond to combat moves just raises the ante on the difficulty in the problem, in a way. In a sense, it's easy to solve a puzzle if you know that you have exactly the information you need to solve it, not one bit more or less. But if you're given extra information that doesn't play a part in the solution... but you don't know that that's the case... it makes the puzzle _way_ trickier, eh? Having moves in kata that may not represent parts of the combat scenariobut you don't know for sure that that's the case, and you don't necessarily know in advance which moves those arethat makes it way, way more challenging...


----------



## arnisador (Dec 26, 2007)

George Dillman has some fascinating (and also some nutty) thoughts on decoding kata. One I like is that sometimes when you point to something on your body it may be showing you a  weak spot to jit on your oppoenent's body, e.g. a one-legged stance with your left foot against your right knee could mean "kick him in the knee with your foot" in code.

One hopes that, unlike _There's a lion in the closet_ or _It is raining_, there are are no wasted "words" in kata. On the other hand, when people try to even interpret the opening bow as a technique I do get concerned about overinterpretation of the document.


----------



## exile (Dec 26, 2007)

arnisador said:


> George Dillman has some fascinating (and also some nutty) thoughts on decoding kata. One I like is that sometimes when you point to something on your body it may be showing you a  weak spot to jit on your oppoenent's body, e.g. a one-legged stance with your left foot against your right knee could mean "kick him in the knee with your foot" in code.



That bit isn't really so nutty, I suspect. Kane & Wilder and other prominent bunkai gurus like to stress the point that a movement in a kata that brings one of your limbs into contact with some part of your own body is 'code' for a strike or movement to the corresponding (or nearby) part of an attacker's body. All of those movements in the TKD Palgwes, for example, where you do an elbow strike with one arm into your other hand...



arnisador said:


> One hopes that, unlike _There's a lion in the closet_ or _It is raining_, there are are no wasted "words" in kata. On the other hand, when people try to even interpret the opening bow as a technique I do get concerned about overinterpretation of the document.



See, that's the problem... how much is _too_ much? I know what you mean here,  I've seen analyses in which the 'ready' stance preceding the actual kata itself is taken to be code for a strike of some kind, or breaking out of a double-handed grab... and yes, you can wind up getting very skeptical about it all. But if you look at the work of people like Abernethy, whose demos seem to get at extremely effective application of the moves in the great classic kata, you don't get the feeling that what they're suggesting is all that much of a stretch... just, why didn't _I_ think of that? The really good interpretations, I think, give you this feeling not just of plausibility, but of inevitability&#8212;yes, of course, that makes perfect sense!, etc. etc.


----------



## arnisador (Dec 26, 2007)

Well, in part it's as with any piece of artwork: How do we know that what we think we see there is what was intended by the artist, and how much does it matter? Did L. Frank Baum mean to write about mentary policy in _The Wizard of Oz_, or did others impute it to be there? If it's an interesting and consistent reading, does it matter?

When I hear someone finding 5000 applications in one kata, I'm confident the cerator didn't place them all in there. He may have put in movements he knew had many useful interpretations, but surely he couldn't have held all 5000 in his mind! But...does it matter?

So when I see an opening salute interpreted as a wrist escape, I find myself thinking "probably that interpretation wasn't intended" and "what should I care as long as it's useful" at the same time.

I feel in my heart that useful _physical motions_ are what is in the kata. You call it a reverse punch by focusing on the arm going out; I call it an arm drag  by focusing on the arm coming back. Who is right? Maybe it's just a movement that was deemed useful since it (or something very like it) appeared so often.

Yet, when I 'find' a technique in there that the founder never meant to be in there, am I doing something not in keeping with the overall philosophy of the style? Does it conflict with some principle of the system?

So, I never know what to make of finding these bunkai in a kata (or anyo as we say in the FMA). I read this editorial piece recently about minor (and possibly intentional) translation issues completely changing the reading of a text. It matters to me to get both a good 'reading' of self-defense material and good fidelity to teh art I study as I believe one muct have a consistent base. The story in the gosepl gives a good read either way. For kata, most of these self-defense techniques are known to martial artists as a whole and are not, for the most part, new in that sense...so, the issue of the intended reading has some force.

I admit to being somewhat conflicted. While anyos are not emphasized in the system I study, similar issues can come up with much shorter drills and techniques.


----------



## Victor Smith (Dec 31, 2007)

Exile,

Quote:
Originally Posted by *Victor Smith* 

 
_So 'pose' kamae, pause points when inserted into someone's attack just as executed in the kata can drop people and do._

Can you elaborate on this a little bit more, Victor?

When I originally studied my kata, the kamae were taught as pause points, to wait for the next attack.

But systematic analysis of kata showed a different answer. Of course it's hard to demonstrate in words, but take a Kame from Isshinryu wansu (Quite similar to Yang tai chi's 'Play Guitar' position) where you end up in left front stance (similar to sanchin) with the left open hand raised and the right open hand at the left elbow.

If the attackers really trying to nail you with a right roundhouse punch and you just form the kamae at the point their right biceps is driven into your left open hand you see them bounce back big time from the pain. you didn't strike into their biceps, you formed the kamae as their biceps was in the process of creating the roundhouse strike and they struck your arm.

While just one exmple it might suffice. kamae might be the idea of the immovable force striking into the immovable object....

Just a small subtle point. I could care less  if the originator meant it to be that way. If I can use it and cause great pain into an attacker, thats sufficient for my purposes. BTW the same kamae applied in similar manner fits many other spaces on an opponent as they're trying to rush you, such as angling into their kick and dropping the left elbow of the kamae into their shin....

So is it a pause point, a place that their biceps was not meant to invade, nor their face, nor their shin.

Just a Kamae?

Its much more fun when you attack and I can allow you to experience it personally....<GRIN>


----------



## dancingalone (Jan 1, 2008)

> Just a small subtle point. I could care less  if the originator meant it to be that way.



I agree, but I also think it's important to pass along the so-called "original" system as is if at all possible.  I make it a point to tell my students the source of what I am teaching them.  If it came from my sensei, great.  If it's not properly karate, that's fine too, but they need to know where it came from.


----------



## chinto (Jan 2, 2008)

ok, teach the kata as you were tought it. but also remember if the kata was not modified then there are a minimum of 5 techniques to find for every movement of the kata.


----------



## Victor Smith (Jan 2, 2008)

What the originator's intent for kata technique is always a very open question. 

I agree you should 1) pass along all of the applications that were taught you (in my case 0), and 2) source what you are teaching (explain where you got it).

That said the only purpose of any application ought be to drop an attacker (replace drop with appropriate verb for the application potential being studied.

As for how many applications are found in a technique, it depends on the technique and how you define a technique.

Seisan one technique might be:
1. Step out with the left foot and left side strike, followed by a right punch.
2. Use the crossing hands before the initial step.
3. Use the crossing hands before the initial step, then Step out with the left foot and left side strike, followed by a right punch.
4. Step out with the left foot and left side strike, followed by a right punch and then step with the right foot.
5. Use the crossing hands before the initial step, then step out with the left foot and left side strike, followed by a right punch and then step with the right foot.

While there are many other possible definitions as to what one technique is, that represents a fair openign sample.

Then the application potential is limited by your work. I take that section and have my new sho-dan's work on maybe 50 application potential studies stopping any sort of attack. And this is still on a surface level.

Which is not impossible, for example the strike itself can be to many different targets, each of which becomes one application potential.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 2, 2008)

Itosu Sensei told us that...

1.  Some moves in kata are direct application.
2.  Some moves are meant to teach principle.
3.  Some moves are designed for martial oriented physical fitness.

In Itosu derivitive styles, this is very important, because it gives us a basic clue as to how to view kata.  

Itosu further elaborates that there are a bunch of "clues" in kata that help you revert certain moves from the current "sanitized" state to the original more deadly state.

With this in mind, I believe that when we look at kata, we cannot discount any of the moves.  We need to take a critical look at all of them with the criteria that Itosu provided us and attempt to understand them in the way that he urges us.


----------



## arnisador (Jan 2, 2008)

upnorthkyosa said:


> Some moves are designed for martial oriented physical fitness.



Is this mostly Sanchin and similar dynamic tension kata, or is it in most kata?


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 2, 2008)

Most Itosu derivitive systems do not practice sanchin.  And they do not practice the kind of dynamic tension that is practiced in naha-te systems.  

IMHO, the moves that teach martial physical fitness are completely different in nature.  

In character, they are much more subtle.  They emphasize balance, stance and nimbleness, as well as strength, power and rootedness.  Power is captured with certain anatomical configurations and is transfered with others.  

The key to Itosu derivitive systems is footwork.  Each different stance is essential in describing the type of technique being employed.  They are also essential in strengthening the body.  

My personal opinion is that every technique is all three of the criteria that I listed above.  I don't think you can classify techniques as this or that or any combination.  They all fit depending on what you are looking at.


----------



## arnisador (Jan 2, 2008)

OK, thanks! I can imagine that at least most techniques are all three.


----------



## chinto (Feb 1, 2008)

upnorthkyosa said:


> Most Itosu derivitive systems do not practice sanchin.  And they do not practice the kind of dynamic tension that is practiced in naha-te systems.
> 
> IMHO, the moves that teach martial physical fitness are completely different in nature.
> 
> ...



true and the tamari-te linage use both the matsumura and Itosu techniques and some from the naha te linage as well...  shobayashi shorin ryu and matsubayashi shorin ryu have tamari linage ...


----------

