# Bunkai taught in the original kwans?



## MAist25 (Jun 1, 2014)

So I've been doing some thinking and a little bit of research. Obviously the debate of whether or not Taekwondo poomsae contain "hidden" practical applications besides the basic block, punch, kick, sequences, is ongoing. It seems that it would be highly unlikely that any of the original Taekwondo pioneers would not have been introduced to even the basic concept of bunkai in their training. Even though some dispute that Funakoshi did not know or teach bunkai in Japan, we still must remember that some of the pioneers did receive training from Kenwa Mabuni and Toyama Kanken as well. 

So under the assumption that the early Taekwondo pioneers did have at least some understanding of bunkai, is there any evidence anywhere that points to them actually teaching bunkai in Korea in the early kwans? I would be very interested if there was anything written that mentions this sort of practice occurring in Korea in the 1940's/early 50's. Thanks.


----------



## dancingalone (Jun 1, 2014)

MAist25 said:


> So under the assumption that the early Taekwondo pioneers did have at least some understanding of bunkai, is there any evidence anywhere that points to them actually teaching bunkai in Korea in the early kwans? I would be very interested if there was anything written that mentions this sort of practice occurring in Korea in the 1940's/early 50's. Thanks.



Nothing written that I am aware of expressively mentions that any Koreans studied form applications in the same manner found in Okinawan karate.  The closest exposure to bunkai that any WWII era Koreans would have received is through the Shudokan/Kanken Toyama connection.  I know with personal experience that Shudokan karate as taught today does have bunkai kumite sets which help explain the overt translation of the kata movements.  It's a reasonable extrapolation to project that Yon Kwai Byeong, Yoon Byung In, and Kim Ki Whang would have learned some facets of the same ideas...But looking at the TKD and TSD schools that survive from their lineages in North America (I have met people from the latter two's) I'll go so far as to argue that none of the Toyama ura bunkai survived if it was ever passed on.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Jun 1, 2014)

MAist25 said:


> So I've been doing some thinking and a little bit of research. Obviously the debate of whether or not Taekwondo poomsae contain "hidden" practical applications besides the basic block, punch, kick, sequences, is ongoing.



I'm not sure it is really a matter of debate.  Poomsae contain movements that are similar to the kata found in karate.  Some Korean art forms are simply kata that has been renamed.  So considering that kata, as found in karate, contain deeper applications beyond the block, punch, kick format it stands to reason that a Korean form, containing the same/similar movement will have the same applications.  I hesitate to use the word 'hidden' as they aren't necessarily hidden so much as not used and/or understood in some venues.  If a school has a focus on sport then they really have no need for these applications as they aren't used in competition.  If the school has a non-sport focus then they can be very beneficial.  

Many TKD pioneers very probably had bunkai training in whatever particular karate they studied.  Some weren't highly ranked, but this was not always the case.  We have many examples of from 2nd Dan to 4th Dan with at least one I'm aware of that was 7th Dan (though sources vary).  I would find it perfectly reasonable to expect that these pioneers had a wealth of training beyond the B/P/K.  For many reasons this apparently wasn't passed on to subsequent generations, at least not in mass.  And again, it all depends on the focus.  If the training was geared towards competition then it simply wasn't needed and would have been a waste of time.  

It's there if you need/want it.


----------



## Gorilla (Jun 1, 2014)

We have trained in both Song Moo Kwan (TKD) and Shotokan Karate.  Practical applications in both arts are very similar and they were trained in both schools.  Our TKD Grand Master was a student of Young Sup Lee who was trained by the Song Mo Kwan founder Byung Jick Ro who trained under Funakoshi.  Why is it being stated that practical application Bunkai is not being trained in Tkd.  Maybe I don't understand the definition of Bunkai...please elaborate...Because practical applications were passed down in our very direct lineage.  Thanks


----------



## MAist25 (Jun 1, 2014)

Kong Soo Do said:


> I'm not sure it is really a matter of debate.  Poomsae contain movements that are similar to the kata found in karate.  Some Korean art forms are simply kata that has been renamed.  So considering that kata, as found in karate, contain deeper applications beyond the block, punch, kick format it stands to reason that a Korean form, containing the same/similar movement will have the same applications.  I hesitate to use the word 'hidden' as they aren't necessarily hidden so much as not used and/or understood in some venues.  If a school has a focus on sport then they really have no need for these applications as they aren't used in competition.  If the school has a non-sport focus then they can be very beneficial.
> 
> Many TKD pioneers very probably had bunkai training in whatever particular karate they studied.  Some weren't highly ranked, but this was not always the case.  We have many examples of from 2nd Dan to 4th Dan with at least one I'm aware of that was 7th Dan (though sources vary).  I would find it perfectly reasonable to expect that these pioneers had a wealth of training beyond the B/P/K.  For many reasons this apparently wasn't passed on to subsequent generations, at least not in mass.  And again, it all depends on the focus.  If the training was geared towards competition then it simply wasn't needed and would have been a waste of time.
> 
> It's there if you need/want it.




I agree that the Japanese/Okinawan forms that are practiced by Koreans will obviously still contain the true applications and techniques as intended by the creator of the kata. But your statement about poomsae containing movements that are also seen in kata does not necessarily mean that the application is still there. Often in kata, the individual movements are not nearly as important as a sequence of movements that will contain a deeper application. Just because poomsae contain similar movements to certain kata, they are jumbled around and sporadically placed throughout the kata. Therefore, it is likely that even though some of the same individual movements are there, the sequences, and thus the true applications, are no longer there. 

The way I look at kata is like a sentence. In a sentence, words are specifically placed where they are in order for the statement to make sense and transmit a meaning. Without the words being in their specific order, the sentence simply becomes jibberish. In poomsae, even though the same words (techniques) are used, they are not in the same order, and therefore, the meaning behind the sentence is lost. So in the practice of poomsae, I hesitate to practice bunkai, because this was not the intentions of the creators of poomsae. As you said, "hidden" really is a bad word to use. Applications in kata likely weren't hidden on purpose, but rather just "lost" or failed to be passed along for various reasons. As for poomsae, the creators would not have included "hidden" applications, as it simply makes no sense to do so.

But I also do continue to practice some of the older Japanese/Okinawan forms, and these are the forms I am speaking about in my original question; the forms that would have been practiced in the original kwans, ie. the pyung ahns, naihanchi, bassai, etc. Although we all have our ideas and opinions on whether bunkai was practiced, I am looking for something more solid that points to the idea that bunkai was in fact practiced in the original kwans. I realize this information probably doesn't exist, but I figured I would post the question and see if anybody had seen anything written, or had personally heard through a reliable source that this practice did occur.


----------



## MAist25 (Jun 1, 2014)

Gorilla said:


> We have trained in both Song Moo Kwan (TKD) and Shotokan Karate.  Practical applications in both arts are very similar and they were trained in both schools.  Our TKD Grand Master was a student of Young Sup Lee who was trained by the Song Mo Kwan founder Byung Jick Ro who trained under Funakoshi.  Why is it being stated that practical application Bunkai is not being trained in Tkd.  Maybe I don't understand the definition of Bunkai...please elaborate...Because practical applications were passed down in our very direct lineage.  Thanks



Gorilla, this is great to hear. Do you know for a fact that Young Sup Lee was actually taught bunkai by Byung Jik Ro while training at the Song Moo Kwan?


----------



## Gorilla (Jun 1, 2014)

I do not know but since we were taught practical applications it would seem that he was...I will ask...I don't know for sure!  It could be that Gm Ro developed his own but they were very similar to Shotokan, definitely influenced by Karate.

it just makes since to me that Funakoshi would  have trained practical application (bunkai) but I have no concrete evidence of it that would stand any historical scrutiny.  Great thread thou!!!!


----------



## MAist25 (Jun 1, 2014)

Excellent, I'm looking forward to the response you get! And it does seem odd that Funakoshi would not teach applications, but I have researched a few reasons why he may not have, and in fact it seems very likely that very little, if any, emphasis was placed on bunkai training in early Shotokan. However, I am not making that statement as a historical fact. 

Also, my grandmaster, Richard Chun, wrote about his training at the Moo Duk Kwan Institute in Seoul under Chong Soo Hong. Now even though he did not train directly under Hwang Kee, Master Hong was an early Taekwondo practitioner and very close to the root. As described by GM Chun, training at the MDK Institute was very formal and Master Hong did not speak much or go into great detail during training. Also, students would never ask questions as it was seen as very disrespectful to do so. This style of training would make one believe that bunkai, which would require much more explanation as well as involvement of the master on a much more personal level, did not occur at the Moo Duk Kwan. This though, is also not something I am stating as fact, but from the description of training sessions by GM Chun, it sounds as though it would have been very out of place if something like training in bunkai ever occurred at the Moo Duk Kwan. However, things could have been different at the other kwans.


----------



## Gorilla (Jun 1, 2014)

I want to be clear is was trained in both Tkd and Shotokan but certainly not emphasized as much as sparing or Poomsae/Kata. It definitely was not a focus but something that was trained and part of curriculum. Practical application was not trained daily by any means but it was trained and passed down part of BB testing.  If I would ranked things 1. Sparing 2. Forms 3. Practical application... but having said that it would regularly get talked about during Poomsae/Kata training.

i could see how the term very little emphasis could be applied!  I may not have clear understanding of the difference between formal Bunkai sets which contain two to three steps and the two to three steps practical applications that I have seen in TKD. Practical applications of Kata/Poomsae are definitely trained in both schools.  For the hard core Bunkai enthusiast it would seem like an afterthought thou!


----------



## dancingalone (Jun 1, 2014)

IMO training bunkai is more than just so-called 'applications'.  You can't just turn it on and off - if you find that your study of applications is disconnected from everything else you do, including sparring, IMO you're not training what an Okinawan stylist thinks of when the subject comes up.  That's not to say that one style or teaching methodology is better in an absolute sense - far from it.  But, it's clear we don't all mean the same thing which demonstrates the difficulty of discussing karate via the written word when not everyone has the same martial background coming in.  <shrugs>  Nature of the beast.


----------



## dancingalone (Jun 1, 2014)

MAist25 said:


> But I also do continue to practice some of the older Japanese/Okinawan forms, and these are the forms I am speaking about in my original question; the forms that would have been practiced in the original kwans, ie. the pyung ahns, naihanchi, bassai, etc. Although we all have our ideas and opinions on whether bunkai was practiced, I am looking for something more solid that points to the idea that bunkai was in fact practiced in the original kwans. I realize this information probably doesn't exist, but I figured I would post the question and see if anybody had seen anything written, or had personally heard through a reliable source that this practice did occur.



I've participated in this type of discussion many times over the years on the web and also in person with a few martial artists who wanted to deepen their practice of Korean forms.  Some went the hapkido route to deepen their understanding of close range fighting.  Others did judo or jujutsu and one even added some BJJ to their school.  And one guy bought a bunch of Dillman and Abernethy videos and watched them diligently until he realized you just can't learn good karate that way.  

I think this type of exploration is a mixed bag at best.  I like good, knowledgeable instruction in person and ideally matching exactly what the student wants or is looking for.  I think if you (not you, you - the generic you) want to study bunkai, you should pick a style AND instructor that actually offers such things as a core competency and if that means moving physically and changing styles, so be it.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Jun 1, 2014)

MAist25 said:


> I agree that the Japanese/Okinawan forms that are practiced by Koreans will obviously still contain the true applications and techniques as intended by the creator of the kata. .



Unless or until someone shows me authenticated  written records establishing who created a Kata and what their intent was vis a vis bunkai for a move or motion any claims that one knows or does what the creator intended are anecdotal at best.  Further, many Kata have theri roots in earlier forms. So would not not the "True Application" lie with whoever first came up with the motion later used by the creator of a Kata?  Then we would need an authenticated record of what they intended. 

Certainly we have works like "Bubishi" going back in time to illustrate various applications. But ho is to say someone lese did not have an equaly valid claim to the "True Application" ?


----------



## dancingalone (Jun 1, 2014)

Earl Weiss said:


> Unless or until someone shows me authenticated  written records establishing who created a Kata and what their intent was vis a vis bunkai for a move or motion any claims that one knows or does what the creator intended are anecdotal at best.  Further, many Kata have theri roots in earlier forms. So would not not the "True Application" lie with whoever first came up with the motion later used by the creator of a Kata?  Then we would need an authenticated record of what they intended.
> 
> Certainly we have works like "Bubishi" going back in time to illustrate various applications. But ho is to say someone lese did not have an equaly valid claim to the "True Application" ?



Herein is the difficulty of using words like 'application'.  Hey, anything can be an application.  If my jodan uke is an upper block, great.  If it is a high section strike, also great.  Either will work if we're just talking about efficacy in a fight.  

But if we're talking Okinawan karate and 'bunkai' (maybe a relatively new word?), from my perspective we're talking about training mechanics in support of a targeted set of fighting objectives.  What is that jodan uke really doing?  Now of course, a reasonable answer is 'it depends', but IMO that's just the first pass at the problem.  What is the purpose of jodan uke in the context of THIS kata, given MY own skill set?  To me, that's the beginning of wisdom in karate.  And seemingly in contradiction to that, I think certain styles of Okinawan karate and correspondingly their kata will have certain prescribed paths to take.


----------



## MAist25 (Jun 1, 2014)

dancingalone said:


> I've participated in this type of discussion many times over the years on the web and also in person with a few martial artists who wanted to deepen their practice of Korean forms.  Some went the hapkido route to deepen their understanding of close range fighting.  Others did judo or jujutsu and one even added some BJJ to their school.  And one guy bought a bunch of Dillman and Abernethy videos and watched them diligently until he realized you just can't learn good karate that way.
> 
> I think this type of exploration is a mixed bag at best.  I like good, knowledgeable instruction in person and ideally matching exactly what the student wants or is looking for.  I think if you (not you, you - the generic you) want to study bunkai, you should pick a style AND instructor that actually offers such things as a core competency and if that means moving physically and changing styles, so be it.



I understand that people have been doing this as well. But sometimes people get wayyy too into it and seem to come up with a throw or lock for every single movement in the kata. Although I do believe they could contain these types of techniques, not every single motion is a throw or lock, and these people are simply thinking about it through a completely different mindset. A kata is not simply a catalogue of techniques, I'm sorry but I just don't buy that. It is my belief that each kata was made to teach a certain concept, and that the creator of the form chose specific techniques that were strung together, in order to teach this concept. If one is not looking at the form with the intended concept in mind, he's not going to understand what was really meant to be taught by the kata. 

As you mentioned in one of your other posts, a high block COULD be this, or it could be that. But what is it supposed to be in THIS form. The obvious question becomes, "does anybody actually know what the creator of the kata originally intended to teach or transmit through it?" For pretty much every kata practiced in Japanese/Okinawan Karate today, I would assume the answer is "no". However, this leads to the question of whether or not through reverse engineering, could someone actually discover the true concepts of what a specific kata was designed to teach simply through thoroughly dissecting the form itself. This seems to be something people like Iain Abernethy and Patrick McCarthy are at least exploring, which is quite interesting.


----------



## dancingalone (Jun 1, 2014)

MAist25 said:


> As you mentioned in one of your other posts, a high block COULD be this, or it could be that. But what is it supposed to be in THIS form. The obvious question becomes, "does anybody actually know what the creator of the kata originally intended to teach or transmit through it?" *For pretty much every kata practiced in Japanese/Okinawan Karate today, I would assume the answer is "no"*.



Depends on your starting place, I guess.  I think the Naha styles (Goju, Uechi, To'on, Ryuei, etc. as recent (late 1800s) imports/modifications of Fukien martial arts to Okinawa have a good chance of transmission of what the kata were designed for if you have a teacher who has real  connections and ties to the founder on down.  Unfortunately much of karate as taught in the US was brought back by servicemen who really didn't all that much time training with the source.  (At the same time, it's also true that this is just in general and sure there are exceptional sensei that went against the grain and reached a deep understanding of karate through continual training in Okinawa.)  

Some Shorin-ryu lineages like the Chibana, Kyan, and Matsumura lines can also arguably claim strong transmission of kata knowledge.  It's also true IMO that karate which came down through Itosu and Funakoshi, which is a huge cross-section of karate-ka, seems to be missing this type of understanding.


----------



## MAist25 (Jun 1, 2014)

Very interesting. So do you know if any of this knowledge from masters of the Naha styles, or Shorin-ryu masters, has been put into writing? Or is it still transmitted the old way, from master to trusted students. If this kind of knowledge were to be written down, even just the ideas of what the main concepts of each kata were intended to teach/what the creator wanted to pass down, would be invaluable to any and all martial artists with roots to Okinawan martial arts.


----------



## dancingalone (Jun 1, 2014)

MAist25 said:


> Very interesting. So do you know if any of this knowledge from masters of the Naha styles, or Shorin-ryu masters, has been put into writing? Or is it still transmitted the old way, from master to trusted students. If this kind of knowledge were to be written down, even just the ideas of what the main concepts of each kata were intended to teach/what the creator wanted to pass down, would be invaluable to any and all martial artists with roots to Okinawan martial arts.



All of this stuff you really have to feel and see in person to understand it.  It's a futile effort to write it down for people outside of your own group...the text is of use only to people who have access to that type of information anyway because of the impossibility to explain things solely by words and pictures.  Even video doesn't suffice to show the nuances that make the difference between OK and superior technique and discrete single kihon is only part of the entire picture.  

Think of it this way.  Have you ever taken a seminar in an art you have only a slight familiarity with?  If so, perhaps you went to it, had a good time, picked up a few good tricks that you were able to perform 'sort of' in a contrived fashion with the constant cueing of the teacher right there at hand.  But when you went home, you found it much harder to repeat and duplicate with a goal of adding it permanently to your arsenal.  It would be exactly like that with a book, except your chances of even getting as close as you did in the seminar are much lower.

By the way, there is some good Goju-ryu in NY if you're ever minded to travel a bit, keeping in mind that as with anything worthwhile, it takes time to reach the 'advanced' material.


----------



## MAist25 (Jun 1, 2014)

Yes, I do understand where you are coming from. Like it is reiterated time and again on this forum, it is impossible to learn solely from books or videos. Martial arts are something that you need to do and feel and experience. I guess I'm just being a stubborn and lazy American who expects everything to be readily accessible lol. But yea, I am always open to suggestions if you had anybody specific in mind in NY? I have actually always been quite interested in Okinawan Karate.


----------



## dancingalone (Jun 1, 2014)

MAist25 said:


> Yes, I do understand where you are coming from. Like it is reiterated time and again on this forum, it is impossible to learn solely from books or videos. Martial arts are something that you need to do and feel and experience. I guess I'm just being a stubborn and lazy American who expects everything to be readily accessible lol. But yea, I am always open to suggestions if you had anybody specific in mind in NY? I have actually always been quite interested in Okinawan Karate.



You can start with Dave Oddy's school in Syracuse.  He trains regularly with Taira Sensei.  

A word of warning though... some of the habits you have perhaps grooved in from training Moo Duk Kwan might make a transition to Goju difficult.  I have a former TSD bb studying with me and his reflexive desire to stay in medium to long range remains an issue even after a couple of years with me.


----------



## reeskm (Jun 2, 2014)

MAist25 said:


> Just because poomsae contain similar movements to certain kata, they are jumbled around and sporadically placed throughout the kata. Therefore, it is likely that even though some of the same individual movements are there, the sequences, and thus the true applications, are no longer there.



Agreed, MAist25. Although I don't want to disparage the TKD poomsae set, they were generally created very recently with the aim of replacing the okinawan kata completely.
I believe that unless you keep the original okinawan kata in your curriculum, you lose the essential secrets of Karate or Tang Soo Do. Hundreds of years of practice and perfection went into the Okinawan kata and it's astounding how much bunkai is contained within.

Does anybody have access to shudokan bunkai? If I could find some quick online material into the nature of that style, compared to Shotokan which is all over, I might be able to see if it resembles the bunkai my teacher taught me.

I believe that, fundamentally, "practical applications" and "bunkai" are the same. The only difference being is that bunkai generally refer to "hidden" or less obvious applications that are not directly obvious from the actual technique in the kata. Ex: elbow smash also contains a grab, low block contains rear elbow, etc.

Also, i would like to add that we all know that bunkai are rarely written down or published (contradicting my request above, but let's see where this goes!).
So, just because we can't see any evidence of bunkai being taught in early kwan's dosen't mean that it wasn't done.

My instructor has said for years, that Hwang Kee was a proponent of teaching practical applications, and passed on that it was essential to the study of Tang Soo Do.

Also, I have Song Duk Song's book at home on Korean Karate. I'll have to review it but I'm pretty sure he'll mention bunkai if he was teaching it in the '60s, in his book.


----------



## MAist25 (Jun 2, 2014)

^^^ Fortunately, my lineage has kept many of the Okinawan kata alive in my system, although I have yet to be taught practical applications. It is most likely that this is because my teacher was not taught. Like you said, I would also love to see some written/quick access to this information as well, as it is difficult to understand what the kata is truly trying to teach without the help of an instructor who has this knowledge. 

I do not have Grandmaster Son's book but if you review it and find anything describing bunkai, then please do share!

Also, I find it very interesting that you've heard GM Hwang taught practical applications to forms. I say this because it is my understanding that he learned kata mostly from Funakoshi's books. And although his early writings did include some applications, they were certainly just an introduction to the concept and some basic ideas compared to what was really contained in the kata. Also, my grandmaster, Richard Chun, trained under Chong Soo Hong, who was a very early and well-respected Moo Duk Kwan practitioner, and GM Chun's writings never mention applications being taught, as well as a training environment that was very strict, formal, and regimented, with very little explanation given, and no questions were to be asked. This environment makes it seem highly unlikely that bunkai would have been discussed, although I'm just speculating.


----------



## dancingalone (Jun 2, 2014)

reeskm said:


> My instructor has said for years, that Hwang Kee was a proponent of teaching practical applications, and passed on that it was essential to the study of Tang Soo Do.



I don't think GM Hwang taught applications.  There's a dearth of information from his senior students about the very subject, and one would think the opposite would be the case if form applications were considered central to his art.  In fact, SBN Dan Segarra, who used to be close to HC Hwang, says outright that HC Hwang had him make up his own interpretations of what the Chil Sung hyung could mean for public demo purposes.

Depending on whom you ask, GM Hwang either learned the Japanese kata from a book (likely the Funakoshi Kyohan if so) or from GM Won Kuk Lee.  In either case, neither source, Shotokan nor Chung Do Kwan, is noted historically for their bunkai either though certainly present day practitioners aim to change that.  



reeskm said:


> Also, I have Song Duk Song's book at home on Korean Karate. I'll have to review it but I'm pretty sure he'll mention bunkai if he was teaching it in the '60s, in his book.



I've discussed his book briefly here on MT before.  His words on haiwan uke were laughable without meaning any insult to GM Son.  I wouldn't look in that direction for this type of information.


----------



## reeskm (Jun 2, 2014)

Wow, you study under KJN Chun's group! Respect 
He wrote the intro to a TKD book that my sister gave me for Christmas one year. I was surprised to find out the intro was written by Richard Chun and that he mentioned fondly his memory of training in the old days and is MDK! My sis had no idea that I actually studied MDK Tang Soo Do 

Sure, I'll see if I can find time to look over that book "Korean Karate" by Master Son.

I think you have to be very careful regarding KJN Hwang Kee. Maybe you could write a letter to your KJN kindly asking him his opinion or knowledge on this matter? It's my strong belief that Hwang Kee did not learn from books as he claimed, but instead because of political reasons wanted to distance himself from any Japanese culture or link. Some Kwan heads were actually accused and "found guilty" of being "Japanese sympathizers" after the war and it wasn't too good for them at the time. I believe Won Kuk Lee was one of them. He redeemed himself by spending time teaching the police force, supposedly.

My personal hypothesis, is that between 1937 and 1945, Hwang Kee learned Karate through some experienced teachers, maybe even Japanese ones, during his time in Manchuria. But according to his own biography he fled Korea over the Great Wall of China to escape the Japanese in Korea for reportedly teaching Chuan Fa without permission, this is hard to come to terms with. 

Perhaps, he never told anybody, maybe even his own family, of what he did between 1937 and 1945. In his MDK history book, there is a massive gap concerning 8 years of his life. That's strange, seeing that time period is what he credits for developing his martial arts. Also, he claims he stopped learning Chuan Fa from Yang, Kuk Jin from 1937 on, and was only able to return briefly for a short time in 1941 to see him. So, what exactly was he doing in Manchuria while working for Mantetsu?

Many Karate masters went to Manchuria during the war. Tons of practitioners also were there while stationed in the army. Ex: Gogen Yamaguchi
It is very possible that as a railroad worker, he might have found himself under a Japanese boss, and while serving his boss then been privilege to learning Karate. There are documented stories of this happening to other men during this time period.

Hwang Kee was too smart and knowledgeable about martial arts - he would have known that studying from a book only was not enough.
Also, he seems to have been well respected among the other early Kwan founders and students. If his techniques or personal history never had any substance at all he would have been outed as a fraud from the get-go. But, that doesn't seem to be the case. He seems to have been respected as an equal.

The only thing for sure is that there is a huge gap in history there, that nobody has ever adequately addressed. And so I maintain that he was taught by an instructor, but the question is who?


----------



## reeskm (Jun 2, 2014)

dancingalone said:


> In fact, SBN Dan Segarra, who used to be close to HC Hwang, says outright that HC Hwang had him make up his own interpretations of what the Chil Sung hyung could mean for public demo purposes.



I am familiar with SBN Segarra. He has a great deal of knowledge and kind enough to share it. I follow what he says closely. I am dissapointed to hear that HC Hwang would say such things, but I believe too much has been pushed onto him and maybe was not knowledgeable enough when he was forced to take over the SBD MDK system when his father passed.
I have practiced the Chil Sung hyung for a while. They are quite good considering they are so modern. However, they are not of Okinawan origin and so at the moment I wish to leave those out of this discussion. While you can use Tan Tui and Tai Chi applications here, I was never taught any to go along with the Chil Sung Hyung.



dancingalone said:


> I've discussed his book briefly here on MT before.  His words on haiwan uke were laughable without meaning any insult to GM Son.  I wouldn't look in that direction for this type of information.


I will try searching for your posts. Are you saying the photos on his book of haiwan uke were not very good at all?
Most karate books have lousy pictures and are filled with mistakes though.


----------



## dancingalone (Jun 2, 2014)

reeskm said:


> I am familiar with SBN Segarra. He has a great deal of knowledge and kind enough to share it. I follow what he says closely. I am dissapointed to hear that HC Hwang would say such things, but I believe too much has been pushed onto him and maybe was not knowledgeable enough when he was forced to take over the SBD MDK system when his father passed.



By all accounts HC Hwang was capable of incredible feats well into his fifties.  He still looks very fit and strong today.  I don't know the man personally, but I'd argue it's more instructive to look at all the past MDK seniors that never merged into taekwondo.  People like CS Kim and JC Shin and even HC Hwang despite him being a generation or so behind.  Look at all their respective organizations - look at their syllabus and what typical practice is like.  It sure doesn't look like kata-based application study.  To me that speaks volumes about what the MDK taught in the early days.  Again, this is not to be taken as a negative thing exclusive of the bunkai discussion we are having.



reeskm said:


> I have practiced the Chil Sung hyung for a while. They are quite good considering they are so modern. However, they are not of Okinawan origin and so at the moment I wish to leave those out of this discussion. While you can use Tan Tui and Tai Chi applications here, I was never taught any to go along with the Chil Sung Hyung.



I take SBN Segarra's anecdote as further evidence that 'bunkai' just wasn't and isn't a Moo Duk Kwan artifact.  These were GM Hwang's creations after all.  No need to workout or guess what their meaning was.  If he thought their application was important, their study should be front and center in a place of prominence.  



reeskm said:


> I will try searching for your posts. Are you saying the photos on his book of haiwan uke were not very good at all?
> Most karate books have lousy pictures and are filled with mistakes though.



Been a while, but his explanation on the purpose of haiwan uke is lacking IMO, to say it mildly.  I found the book interesting as a historical example of ma writing from its time though.


----------



## MAist25 (Jun 2, 2014)

> My personal hypothesis, is that between 1937 and 1945, Hwang Kee learned Karate through some experienced teachers, maybe even Japanese ones, during his time in Manchuria. But according to his own biography he fled Korea over the Great Wall of China to escape the Japanese in Korea for reportedly teaching Chuan Fa without permission, this is hard to come to terms with.
> 
> Perhaps, he never told anybody, maybe even his own family, of what he did between 1937 and 1945. In his MDK history book, there is a massive gap concerning 8 years of his life. That's strange, seeing that time period is what he credits for developing his martial arts. Also, he claims he stopped learning Chuan Fa from Yang, Kuk Jin from 1937 on, and was only able to return briefly for a short time in 1941 to see him. So, what exactly was he doing in Manchuria while working for Mantetsu?



I think this is quite interesting, and it does make sense to me. But my only question is, why wouldn't he have written about it? Surely he was no longer at risk when he was writing his book and I'm sure he would have documented any formal Karate training he had, certainly to boost his credentials. It doesn't make sense that he would write extensively about his martial arts training, yet leave out the time gap in which he had the greatest amount of formal training!


----------



## MAist25 (Jun 2, 2014)

I have to agree with dancingalone that it seems much more likely that bunkai was not something trained in the MDK. In fact, it is my personal belief, based on my knowledge of GM Hwang's training, that if bunkai was trained in any of the original kwans, the MDK would have been the least likely one... And I am a Moo Duk Kwan guy through and through, with a very strong lineage. However, this just seems most logical to me. But hey, anything is possible, and that is why I am really enjoying this discussion so far.


----------



## MAist25 (Jun 2, 2014)

Maybe next time I see GM Chun I will ask him. I do have his phone number and have spoken with him on the phone on several occasions, but it still feels weird calling someone so high up in the Taekwondo world, while I am but a speck of dirt.


----------



## reeskm (Jun 2, 2014)

Yeah, I'm MDK through and through. My Kwan Jang stressed many many times the importance of always teaching practical applications. His general method was to teach forms separately from bunkai. He never used the word "bunkai", however. He would always call it applications. I would say that for our black belt classes, from the time I first started attending them, he would always give us at least one or two new applications each week. He would often quiz us: "what form is this from?" or "from this move, what do you think it could be?". After we guessed pretty well at the more _omote_, he'd almost always blow us away with something we never thought of. He _knew_
these techniques well.

Regarding the Chil Sung forms:
In the last several years, we began teaching and learning Chil Sung. Before that, we didn't even have them in our curriculum. The only reason he added them was because the other groups in Tang Soo Do he had contact with started learning them too, and he didn't want us at a disadvantage at tournaments. However, if he had a deeper reason he didn't say. As he was very old-school TSD, to him the newer forms were less important than the classical set based on Okinawan karate.
Not that he didn't have a huge depth of knowledge tho - he holds very senior ranks in TKD WTF and ITF, Chung Do Kwan TKD and Hapkido as well. He just made a decision since the 1990's to return to the MDK TSD roots.

-If you look at GM Ferraro's videos and material, every single one of his forms he presents contains applications following the form.
-C.S. Kim's videos follow the same style (I have his VHS tapes dating back to the 80's and 90's). They are remarkably consistent and both stress on every video the importance of practical applications.
-The American Tang Soo Do association's videos especially those featuring an intro from GM Byrne also follow the same format, and this is my source for the statement that Hwang Kee always said to teach applications with the hyung.


----------



## reeskm (Jun 2, 2014)

MAist25 said:


> Maybe next time I see GM Chun I will ask him. I do have his phone number and have spoken with him on the phone on several occasions, but it still feels weird calling someone so high up in the Taekwondo world, while I am but a speck of dirt.



I hear you loud and clear. However, after meeting a lot of senior members, although some of them are hard to approach or it feels intimidating, almost all I have met are getting older. Most of them seem to be very willing to share their knowledge of martial arts freely. Traditional martial arts is not as popular as it once was. The key is to approach with respect and to speak to them at the right time. I think they will greatly respect our desire to get at the root of our art.

Besides getting chewed out, do we really have anything to lose by asking politely?


----------



## MAist25 (Jun 2, 2014)

I agree, he has always been very open and welcoming, telling me to call him if I ever had any questions about anything. Still, I do not wish to be a bother, and he is quite a busy man. Last time I emailed him, he actually responded by asking me to call him, so I might try sending an email. I am positive he will respond, as he always does, and perhaps he will wish to speak to me about my questions on the phone.


----------



## reeskm (Jun 2, 2014)

Yeah, it seems most grand masters prefer to speak over the phone. That's how mine always is!
Good luck, and if you have a chance please tell him he has a big fan over here in Canada


----------



## MAist25 (Jun 2, 2014)

^^^ Yes, this does seem to be true. Where in Canada are you?


----------



## reeskm (Jun 2, 2014)

Calgary. Black Belt Academy, Calgary, Alberta


----------



## Gorilla (Jun 2, 2014)

MAist25 said:


> Gorilla, this is great to hear. Do you know for a fact that Young Sup Lee was actually taught bunkai by Byung Jik Ro while training at the Song Moo Kwan?



Spoke the GM practical application were definetly part of his training but any reference to its Japanese roots was downplayed to say the least.  The war was not that far away and the Martial Art were being nationalized in Korea. In using the term Bunkai would have been discouraged.


----------



## MAist25 (Jun 2, 2014)

Very interesting, thank you for asking. It is exciting to hear that applications to the forms were in fact a part of your GM's training. Do you know what forms he practiced back then? I'm assuming the pyung ahns, naihanchi, and the typical Okinawan kata?


----------



## reeskm (Jun 3, 2014)

I looked through the old books I have this morning.
1) "Korean Karate" by Son - has very simple but well explained applications throughout all his forms in his book.
2) "Karate-Do Kyohan" 2nd Ed by Funakoshi - has no bunkai that I can see directly related to his kata in the book
3) "Best Karate vol. 5 - Heian and Tekki" by Nakayama - has no bunkai on these two kata sets in his book
4) "This is Tang Soo Do" by Byrne and Mitchell - applications are throughout the forms in the book and well explained. I am very familiar with this as I graded to 1st Dan in their association and know a lot of other members. Applications were always taught with the forms and GM Byrne was always insistent applications should be taught with the forms.

I guess, the question comes down to
1) what are you looking for regarding the depth and detail of applications?
2) how far back do practical applications go in Tang Soo Do or Japanese Karate?
3) were practical applications or bunkai always taught in the original kwans?

So far, I have proof back to 1968 as that was the date of publication of Son's book.
Next, I will try and get a copy of an older version of Hwang Ki's books and have a quick read. Not many people I know can afford a copy! LOL


----------



## reeskm (Jun 3, 2014)

dancingalone said:


> I don't think GM Hwang taught applications.  There's a dearth of information from his senior students about the very subject, and one would think the opposite would be the case if form applications were considered central to his art.



Could you qualify "dearth" a bit better? I understand what you are saying but would like to know, compared to your main style, how much more would you be expecting to see?

And let me qualify that I didn't say applications were "central to his art" - what I meant was that applications are an essential part of training in and with kata. That teaching the kata as a pattern or sequence alone is not enough to reach a true understanding of them, which I would agree, a lot of martial artists are probably doing these days.


----------



## dancingalone (Jun 3, 2014)

Gorilla said:


> Spoke the GM practical application were definetly part of his training but any reference to its Japanese roots was downplayed to say the least.  The war was not that far away and the Martial Art were being nationalized in Korea. In using the term Bunkai would have been discouraged.



The operative phrase is 'training applications'.  What exactly do we mean by that?

Most everyone says they train kata/hyung applications.  Of course they do - the alternative would be 'well, we think the forms are good exercise and they teach idealized form, and they're kinda pretty and cool for competitions'.  Furthermore, I'm sure all those people probably are speaking truth as they understand it.  They aren't liars.

But the devil is in the details.  What does one's syllabus really look like?  A typical practice?  What do the drills look like?  How do you measure or determine competency in bunkai?  Questions of these sort go further in my opinion to peel back the nature of the martial art one studies rather than just blankly stating that 'yeah, we study apps'.

Not necessarily aimed at you, Gorilla.  Your post just gave me an opportunity to sound off.


----------



## dancingalone (Jun 3, 2014)

reeskm said:


> Could you qualify "dearth" a bit better? I understand what you are saying but would like to know, compared to your main style, how much more would you be expecting to see?



I'm occupied right now but will try to jot a few thoughts down later this afternoon.


----------



## reeskm (Jun 3, 2014)

dancingalone said:


> But the devil is in the details.  What does one's syllabus really look like?



Yes, that's the $1 million question.


----------



## MAist25 (Jun 3, 2014)

I agree that "application" is a very broad term. As I've seen, basic applications are frequently included in martial arts texts, often portraying the basic techniques of the form coming to use in various combat scenarios. However, this type of application is very simple and one does not need too much guidance to figure these out. What I am interested in are discovering what the movements of the forms were trying to teach before they became the "labeled" techniques we use today when teaching forms. What I want to find is some sort of definitive evidence that early Korean masters understood this idea, and possibly taught forms with this in mind. Not, "well we use the low block to defend against a kick and then counter by stepping in and punching." Although an application, this is an elementary application.


----------



## Gorilla (Jun 3, 2014)

dancingalone said:


> The operative phrase is 'training applications'.  What exactly do we mean by that?
> 
> Most everyone says they train kata/hyung applications.  Of course they do - the alternative would be 'well, we think the forms are good exercise and they teach idealized form, and they're kinda pretty and cool for competitions'.  Furthermore, I'm sure all those people probably are speaking truth as they understand it.  They aren't liars.
> 
> ...



My inderstanding is that Bunkai is training the practical applications of a Poomsae or Kata...my guess is that you guys have passion around Bunkai and level of understanding far greater than mine.  I have enjoyed this thread!


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 3, 2014)

As far as I know, none of the GMs of the original Kwans passed on any bunkai they may have learned.  I am pretty sure, based on comparisons with other forms of Japanese karate, that most of the GMs were not taught bunkai.  That said, that doesn't mean TSD practitioners can't learn and practice bunkai in their arts.  This is going to require rethinking the traditional TSD syllabus though.  The typical lesson for a bunkai based syllabus is going to be a lot different then how TSD is normally taught.  Also, the way in which you learn kata will also be different.  

Here is a sample lesson plan and requirement list for one entire kata.  Each kata in a bunkai based syllabus will have a set of requirements and lessons unique to it.



> *Pinan Shodan Requirements*
> 
> *Conditioning*
> 
> ...


----------



## K-man (Jun 3, 2014)

I've enjoyed sitting back and watching this thread develop. If I were to stick my neck out it would say that very little, if any, bunkai was taught in Japanese Karate and absolutely none in TKD. I would even say very little was taught in Okinawa. The reason is simple. Kata is for everyone. Bunkai is tailored for the individual. The bunkai for a 5'3" female will be totally different to the bunkai for a 6'7" male. 

There has been mention made of Taira Sensei who is one of the few people from Okinawa publicly teaching bunkai. He himself was not taught bunkai. He was obviously given good instruction in techniques and basics and was told by his teacher to go away and study the kata. What he is showing us today is the result of his studies. Even then, his bunkai is constantly evolving from one training session we have with him to the next.

Most of our training is centred around bunkai. What I teach is the bunkai Taira Sensei taught me. I then ask my more advanced students to modify the bunkai to make it work for them. There are no 'set in concrete' applications so if you ever find anything in a book or video, it is one person's interpretation, and some of those are really good. *Dancingalone* mentioned George Dillman and Iain Abernethy. Pat McCarthy is another and of course Masaji Taira. These guys have spent a lifetime analysing kata for the applications to develop bunkai. 

What I would suggest is this. If you applications are not hands on as in holding or controlling it is not bunkai. If you technique in the bunkai was to fail, the next move in the kata should lead you into the next application. If it doesn't you are practising an application, not a bunkai. And, more controversially, if your application is a 'block' I would again suggest your interpretation is not bunkai.
:asian:


----------



## MAist25 (Jun 3, 2014)

So basically, what I'm starting to get from this thread is that the techniques that the creators of the kata originally wanted to pass along are long gone. Also, the overall point of focus or specific aspect of combat that the creator intended to address, is also gone...


----------



## dancingalone (Jun 3, 2014)

reeskm said:


> Could you qualify "dearth" a bit better? I understand what you are saying but would like to know, compared to your main style, how much more would you be expecting to see?



I'm looking for a cohesive theme of fighting tactics woven tightly around physical technique taught through basics and then solo/partner kata practice.  I know my share of TKD and TSD martial artists (I hold rank in two different TKD styles myself) and none of them teach their students how to fight in the same fashion my Goju-ryu teacher taught me.  TKD and TSD dojang typically have basics, one step sparring, self-defense, tournament style sparring, and then free sparring. There's NO real connection from each sector to another.   Sure the basics are a foundation to the others, but what is done in the poomsae/hyung is nothing like in the hosinsul or the one steps.

It's rather different in Okinawan karate, or it should be anyway.  You probably know at least one Naihanchi kata, so let's use Naihanchi Shodan as an example.  The most fundamental strategem once we get past getting offline from an attack is the idea of trapping and striking.  That's the lesson I've seen over and over again from every Okinawan karate stylist I've met who uses Naihanchi.  The lead hand closest to the attacker traps and the rear hand strikes.  So the double punch at the end of each half of the kata is a trap or diversionary push or pull of a limb and the rear hand counters.  And the reinforced downwards back knuckle strike is a trap with the 'reinforcing' arm and the back knuckle is the smashing counter.  That's just two basic bunkai, but it's very effective if we can do it.

So how do we get there?  Obviously, it's not enough to just train the solo kata.  We have to drill each trap and strike sequence on its own in the air for familiarity, then against a bag to build power, and then with a partner for fluidity and dynamics.  If we're lucky enough to practice a style that has an explanatory partner set for Naihanchi that's fantastic.  Otherwise, we can just practice the movements over and over again with a partner like in a hubud drill from Filipino MA.  In recent years, it's also become fashionable to construct and practice partner flow drills based on a specific kata that lets one work through many applications in a seamless dance with one another as uke and tori attack, counter, and recounter.

So I'm looking for that type of training - that's what I mean by dearth from my prior post.  None of GM Hwang Kee's senior students talk about a comprehensive pedagogy involving hyung.  They may publish a few explanations of the simple block/punch/kick type which is fine and all, but that's it.  When I read through the standard TKD or TSD school syllabus that uses the old forms I don't see that they KNOW the forms.  They know the choreography but they have not become the form - they have not poured themselves into the hyung to the point that the pattern itself has become meaningless in their expression of it.  They are still following a script instead of actualizing the ideas the form is supposed to contain if that makes sense at all.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Jun 4, 2014)

MAist25 said:


> So basically, what I'm starting to get from this thread is that the techniques that the creators of the kata originally wanted to pass along are long gone. Also, the overall point of focus or specific aspect of combat that the creator intended to address, is also gone...



I think there may be a semantics issue but IMNSHO I think your statement is accurate.  While we may not know what was the original intent or intentions since there very likely may very well have been more than one created concurrently we may very well know and be able to perform those techniques and aspects originaly intended.  We are smart enough to figure stuff out.  We just have no way of knowing if it was an original intent or not. 

Then again by trying to determine or claim a single point of focus is one application may very well miss the "Original Point". Perhaps the original point was simply learning how to move quickly, efficiently, powerfuly in a well balanced way  for certain angles, distances and directions.  Once that was accomplished the motion could be applied in any number of ways as practical considerations and circumstances warranted.   I.E.   Daniel San - Wax on, wax off.


----------



## dancingalone (Jun 4, 2014)

Good post from Mr. Weiss.  I mostly concur.  As I alluded to above a few posts back however, there are styles of karate that have clear expectations of what each specific kata teaches though.  It may not be the original intent (various lineages will argue sometimes with sound basis that they do know the intent as taught by their founder) but the idea is schematically sound and well integrated in their style, so it IS the intent in their system.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Jun 4, 2014)

I just noticed this thread.  I read the first page but I'm not going to read the whole thing.  But I can tell you that when I taught Hapkido, one of my students was a 4th Dan in TKD.  There were times when I would teach a technique, and he would get a certain stare.  I would ask and he would relate that he recognized that move from a certain kata he had learned.  Usually it was distorted a little and not easy to recognize the correct move of the technique or its intent/application.  

Usually he related practitioners who asked what the move was in the kata, were told it was just art, from the art side of martial arts.  I can remember being told that a couple of times those many years ago when I studied TKD.  I never questioned that since as an 8th Green, that wasn't my place, simply to learn the kata.  I was never told that kata could usually be considered multiple-attacker defense either.

At any rate, that happened with my student several times up to and just beyond 1st Dan.  So I conclude somewhere along the line, kata was learned, and since it went beyond kick, punch, block, it wasn't understood, and if questioned, if the instructor didn't know or didn't want to say/teach, he would just say it was art.  Since seeing the question come up here in MT several times, I wish I had written down and correlated the specific move of the kata in question with the Hapkido technique.


----------



## reeskm (Jun 4, 2014)

K-man said:


> I've enjoyed sitting back and watching this thread develop. If I were to stick my neck out it would say that very little, if any, bunkai was taught in Japanese Karate and absolutely none in TKD.



This happens to be my hypothesis as well. It seems the early days of Karate in mainland Japan and Korea developed along these lines. Most students (not including old masters here) seem to have been most interested in developing the most powerful kicking and punching techniques, and creating what today is considered sport karate, which one can argue has led to more modern forms like PKA kick boxing, Olympic WTF TKD, and K1/UFC MMA

I currently believe that interest in bunkai/applications is quite rare and confined to a small number of traditionalists like ourselves that are interested in preserving traditional MA

K-man, I respectfully disagree with your last paragraph. While holds, joint locks and take-downs (what I interpret "holding and controlling" is) are something I was taught is essential and part of my style by my teacher, I do not believe that they are the only possible bunkai. I also do not particularly agree with the point of view of some that bunkai must be confined to a direct sequence in a kata. In other words, I do not believe for ex that Passai moves 1-4 must be done in succession in order to make an explanation. You can mix and match the opening x-leg back-fist with a later move is what I'm saying.

But maybe this is just too much detail!


----------



## reeskm (Jun 4, 2014)

MAist25 said:


> So basically, what I'm starting to get from this thread is that the techniques that the creators of the kata originally wanted to pass along are long gone. Also, the overall point of focus or specific aspect of combat that the creator intended to address, is also gone...



MAist25,
yes, I believe this is very true and I believe that even in very traditional Japanese karate circles this is a well known fact. That's why really well regarded historians like Patrick McCarthy have spent a lifetime of research trying to find out this kind of information.

To see a very critical view of bunkai, reference this thread: (i hope I'm allowed to do this here):
http://www.traditionalfightingartsforum.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=34&t=2573
The author of 24 Fighting Chickens believes this is all a modern invention.


----------



## reeskm (Jun 4, 2014)

Dancingalone:
Yes, I can agree with this (Post #47). In TSD anyway, where I hold rank, I know of these trap and grab applications. However, we don't learn a form and then directly drill those exact moves on a regular basis.

This is usually done in an advanced class, seminar or when an instructor decides to throw it in during a class. It's not done in a consistent manner like you seem to be suggesting.

This might have a historical basis. Of the kwan heads that had experience in Japan or had a direct connection to japanese Karate, they did not train in Okinawa to my knowledge. Most spent time in the Japanese university karate clubs and schools and would have followed that type of syllabus or curriculum.

So I think the answer would be found by looking at Chuo/Takashoku university's programs in the 1940s, with the exception of Yoon Kwei-Byung who also spent time with Mabuni in Osaka and also with Toyama at Chuo Univ.


----------



## dancingalone (Jun 4, 2014)

reeskm said:


> MAist25,
> To see a very critical view of bunkai, reference this thread: (i hope I'm allowed to do this here):
> http://www.traditionalfightingartsforum.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=34&t=2573
> The author of 24 Fighting Chickens believes this is all a modern invention.




Rob Redmond was a Shotokan guy before he quit karate.  He's a fun read, but he's not an authority in Okinawan karate imo.  I suggest Mario Mckenna's blog for another perspective.  You've probably seen it if you read about older karate on the web.


----------



## dancingalone (Jun 4, 2014)

reeskm said:


> Dancingalone:
> Yes, I can agree with this (Post #47). In TSD anyway, where I hold rank,  I know of these trap and grab applications. However, we don't learn a  form and then directly drill those exact moves on a regular basis.
> 
> This is usually done in an advanced class, seminar or when an instructor  decides to throw it in during a class. It's not done in a consistent  manner like you seem to be suggesting.



I gather sometimes that a lot of TKD/TSD people feel their training feeds into sparring.  That effectiveness in sparring is what they are studying and practicing for even though they realize on a rational level that sparring is not the same thing as fighting.



reeskm said:


> This might have a historical basis. Of the kwan heads that had experience in Japan or had a direct connection to japanese Karate, they did not train in Okinawa to my knowledge. Most spent time in the Japanese university karate clubs and schools and would have followed that type of syllabus or curriculum.
> 
> So I think the answer would be found by looking at Chuo/Takashoku university's programs in the 1940s, with the exception of Yoon Kwei-Byung who also spent time with Mabuni in Osaka and also with Toyama at Chuo Univ.



Absolutely.  Undoubtedly the Japanese university club connection is the reason for the widely prevalent free sparring too.  And the lack of kobudo training, etc.


----------



## MAist25 (Jun 4, 2014)

My hypothesis has also been that bunkai was not passed along to the original TKD masters. And I believe it is absolutely true that even though we have lost the original intent of the creator of each kata, that there is still much to be learned from them. Iain Abernethy never ceases to amaze me with his stuff, and I don't believe there are too many people on this earth with his understanding of kata. However, I still find it odd that the original intents of kata were not preserved even in Okinawa, as reeskm is claiming. I understand how they may have been no longer taught by Itosu, but he was only one of many To-De experts on Okinawa at that time. How was this knowledge not preserved through other masters? Or did they all follow in Itosu's footsteps?


----------



## reeskm (Jun 4, 2014)

oftheherd1 said:


> I just noticed this thread.  I read the first page but I'm not going to read the whole thing.  But I can tell you that when I taught Hapkido, one of my students was a 4th Dan in TKD.  There were times when I would teach a technique, and he would get a certain stare.  I would ask and he would relate that he recognized that move from a certain kata he had learned.  Usually it was distorted a little and not easy to recognize the correct move of the technique or its intent/application.



I visited a Hapkido school for several nights on a business trip. It was eye opening. I had this exact same "Aha!" moment too.

However, in my case it came from looking at a chart on their wall of their various throws and join locks/arm bars on their wall. I noticed that our ho-sin-sool (self defense one step routines) were incredibly similar. The major difference was that we had always applied these techniques after the attacker initiates a wrist grab, punch or a kick, whereas the hapkido school would just reach out, grab someone and apply the technique.

However, unlike your ex-TKD student, I was always taught that the hyung/kata was more than simply a dance or a routine that is art. I was always told that they contain the essence of the art. I have memories as a green belt (intermediate gup) that my instructor would break down the hyung for us often and show us how to apply the kata moves. I have good memories of the pyung ahn #3 spearhand, grab spin and punch application. At the time, that was an eye opener.


----------



## reeskm (Jun 4, 2014)

dancingalone said:


> Rob Redmond was a Shotokan guy before he quit karate.  He's a fun read, but he's not an authority in Okinawan karate imo.  I suggest Mario Mckenna's blog for another perspective.  You've probably seen it if you read about older karate on the web.



(Re: Sensei McKenna) Yes I've recently contacted him. He's from Lethbridge originally, about a 2 hour drive from Calgary. Right down the road as far as Canada goes 

Rob Redmond is an interesting read. I don't always agree with what he says but like to consider his point of view. He's not afraid of making controversial arguments.


----------



## reeskm (Jun 4, 2014)

dancingalone said:


> I gather sometimes that a lot of TKD/TSD people feel their training feeds into sparring.  That effectiveness in sparring is what they are studying and practicing for even though they realize on a rational level that sparring is not the same thing as fighting.



Interesting you mention it. While I don't dispute this at all, since I know other TSD schools well, our school has recently gone the complete opposite direction in the last 5 years, with our Kwan Jang, once highly ranked in competition in the 80's, has preached a return to the traditional and put much less focus on tournament/sport sparring.

Not that he can't or doesn't teach it effectively, mind you. But, his claim is that "tournaments are 5% of the art, if that" taking the view that it is important for martial artists to experience competition but that there is so, so much more than tournaments or sport sparring to make a well rounded MA.


----------



## dancingalone (Jun 4, 2014)

reeskm said:


> Yes I've recently contacted him. He's from Lethbridge originally, about a 2 hour drive from Calgary. Right down the road..



Neat.  I would love to see his kata in person.  His karate comes from Higashionna unfiltered through Miyagi, so as a Goju guy I have a more than passing curiosity about it.

Do you know any of the Legacy shorin-ryu group?  I am friends with some there.


----------



## reeskm (Jun 4, 2014)

MAist25 said:


> However, I still find it odd that the original intents of kata were not preserved even in Okinawa, as reeskm is claiming. I understand how they may have been no longer taught by Itosu, but he was only one of many To-De experts on Okinawa at that time. How was this knowledge not preserved through other masters? Or did they all follow in Itosu's footsteps?



The prevailing theory or hypothesis that I've come across is that any good master keeps his best techniques to himself out of a self preservation point of view. The would never teach their best techniques to their general students, and would reveal their secret techniques to only their best students they considered trustworthy enough to pass on their greatest teachings. The theory goes that some would rather die than pass on knowledge that could end up being their undoing or bring them or their schools disrespect if it were to be misused.

My teacher practices this old way.

The modern way is to put it all out there - to reveal it all either out of the interest of preserving traditional MA, for profit by selling expensives videos or books, or because of generosity and that technology make it possible for the betterment of all MA worldwide.


----------



## reeskm (Jun 4, 2014)

dancingalone said:


> Neat.  I would love to see his kata in person.  His karate comes from Higashionna unfiltered through Miyagi, so as a Goju guy I have a more than passing curiosity about it.


Yes, I would love to meet him as well, mainly for his historical research. I'm trying to get as much info as possible on Koreans in Japan to cut through the political whitewash that has occurred. He's got some amazing books translated from Japanese, and while my Japanese is getting there, I've got a lot more learning to do! LOL

He lives in Vancouver now, I believe. He wrote back and said he was feeling quite unwell, so I sincerely hope he gets well soon.



dancingalone said:


> Do you know any of the Legacy shorin-ryu group?  I am friends with some there.



No, i'm afraid I'm not. Can you give me the executive summary? :boing1:


----------



## K-man (Jun 4, 2014)

K-man said:


> What I would suggest is this. If you applications are not hands on as in holding or controlling it is not bunkai. If you technique in the bunkai was to fail, the next move in the kata should lead you into the next application. If it doesn't you are practising an application, not a bunkai. And, more controversially, if your application is a 'block' I would again suggest your interpretation is not bunkai.
> :asian:





reeskm said:


> K-man, I respectfully disagree with your last paragraph. While holds, joint locks and take-downs (what I interpret "holding and controlling" is) are something I was taught is essential and part of my style by my teacher, I do not believe that they are the only possible bunkai. I also do not particularly agree with the point of view of some that bunkai must be confined to a direct sequence in a kata. In other words, I do not believe for ex that Passai moves 1-4 must be done in succession in order to make an explanation. You can mix and match the opening x-leg back-fist with a later move is what I'm saying.
> 
> But maybe this is just too much detail!


In this context holding and controlling did not include joint locks and take downs at all, although if a technique was successful it may end with a joint lock or take down.

In reality, bunkai is what it means to you. If you believe, as I do, that each kata is a fighting system, then there are certain assumptions that you can make. Firstly you can enter and leave the kata at any point. In other words you may be grabbed, you respond, the guy is struck, he goes down ... game over. However what happens if the guy blocks your strike? In my understanding when you responded to the attack using your bunkai you would be restricting his movement in some way so that his response to your strike is limited. In this case he lifts an arm to block the strike. This is in fact within the bunkai a 'predicted response' as his other arm would be restrained in some way. If he misses with his block he is hit to a vital point (ie neck, jaw, temple etc) and if he blocks you can control that arm (because you have trained for that response) and move to the next step of the kata.

Secondly, to achieve a 'predicted response' you must be engaged. If your opponent can move away or strike with either hand or kick you with either foot there is no way you can be certain of what is going to happen. Once he attacks, or you move pre-emptively, and you engage you can move into the appropriate part of the bunkai.

Thirdly, there is no 'one real bunkai'. Bunkai is what makes the kata work for you. You can get ideas from other people and you can be taught various movements by experienced people but at the coal face it has to be the tools that work for you. I believe that is why 'the real bunkai' was never passed down. It never really existed. That is why the kata was passed down. All you need to develop the bunkai is contained in the kata.

(The alternative view is that kata are just a collection of techniques. IMHO, if that is the case then it makes no sense to me to study kata as you can always look at techniques individually and you can develop drills that combine techniques.)

As to Passai kata, I have no knowledge. I did watch it on video and see no reason why it would be any different to any other kata. But I am not suggesting moves as you described as 1 to 4 need to be done in succession for an explanation. You can give any number of explanations for a particular move and you can put 2 and 4 together if you want .. but you are no longer doing the kata so that is not kata bunkai, if that makes sense. I would suggest that if you are not using the techniques in the kata in order, then you are using the kata as a collection of techniques and not a fighting system. 

How any person interprets kata is up to them. If it makes sense, go for it. For many years I did not understand the kata. My teachers had no understanding or knowledge apart from the basic form that was required for grading and competition. At that time, if asked, I would say the kata was a collection of techniques. But for me the light came on when I saw what George Dillman and Iain Abernethy were teaching. When I started training under Taira Sensai it was like starting again. It was a whole new world.
:asian:


----------



## MAist25 (Jun 4, 2014)

> I would suggest that if you are not using the techniques in the kata in order, then you are using the kata as a collection of techniques and not a fighting system.



This is interesting. Does this then mean that when looking at modern Taekwondo poomsae, like the taegeuk and Kukki yudanja forms, since they are basically reorganized karate kata, that Taekwondo poomsae are simply a collection of techniques? When looking at Simon John O'Neill's book The Taeguek Cipher, he not only has great applications for the movements of the poomsae, but he also describes how the first 3 poomsae teach one aspect of combat, how the next 3 teach another aspect, etc. I believe he would argue that these forms are fighting systems as well.


----------



## chrispillertkd (Jun 4, 2014)

Gorilla said:


> I do not know but since we were taught practical applications it would seem that he was...I will ask...I don't know for sure!  It could be that Gm Ro developed his own but they were very similar to Shotokan, definitely influenced by Karate.
> 
> it just makes since to me that Funakoshi would  have trained practical application (bunkai) but I have no concrete evidence of it that would stand any historical scrutiny.  Great thread thou!!!!



FWIW, I have always heard that Funakoshi didn't teach much in the way of bunkai and altered the kata he taught when in Japan. Not that he didn't know them just that he didn't teach much to the mainland Japanese. Dancingalone would know better than me about this but I have never heard that Shotokan went into much in the way of bunkai apart from the more obvious applications.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## K-man (Jun 4, 2014)

MAist25 said:


> This is interesting. Does this then mean that when looking at modern Taekwondo poomsae, like the taegeuk and Kukki yudanja forms, since they are basically reorganized karate kata, that Taekwondo poomsae are simply a collection of techniques? When looking at Simon John O'Neill's book The Taeguek Cipher, he not only has great applications for the movements of the poomsae, but he also describes how the first 3 poomsae teach one aspect of combat, how the next 3 teach another aspect, etc. I believe he would argue that these forms are fighting systems as well.


Were these poomsae the original Shotokan kata or were they kata made up specifically to teach. If it was the former then you can use it and you see fit, but my original thoughts would still apply despite the fact that it is being used differently. If they were designed as a vehicle to teach, then that is what they are. There is no conflict.
:asian:


----------



## oftheherd1 (Jun 5, 2014)

reeskm said:


> I visited a Hapkido school for several nights on a business trip. It was eye opening. I had this exact same "Aha!" moment too.
> 
> However, in my case it came from looking at a chart on their wall of their various throws and join locks/arm bars on their wall. I noticed that our ho-sin-sool (self defense one step routines) were incredibly similar. The major difference was that we had always applied these techniques after the attacker initiates a wrist grab, punch or a kick, whereas the hapkido school would just reach out, grab someone and apply the technique.
> 
> However, unlike your ex-TKD student, I was always taught that the hyung/kata was more than simply a dance or a routine that is art. I was always told that they contain the essence of the art. I have memories as a green belt (intermediate gup) that my instructor would break down the hyung for us often and show us how to apply the kata moves. I have good memories of the pyung ahn #3 spearhand, grab spin and punch application. At the time, that was an eye opener.



That is interesting.  I can only comment on the Hapkido I learned.  It was mostly defensive.  But the last section before 1st Dan, 2nd Dan, and 3rd Dan, were offensive techniques, always using modifications of some of the defensive techniques we had learned; using them to engage the opponent rather than wait for an attack.


----------



## reeskm (Jun 5, 2014)

oftheherd1 said:


> That is interesting.  I can only comment on the Hapkido I learned.  It was mostly defensive.  But the last section before 1st Dan, 2nd Dan, and 3rd Dan, were offensive techniques, always using modifications of some of the defensive techniques we had learned; using them to engage the opponent rather than wait for an attack.



Yes, this makes sense. Keep in mind I walked in as a complete beginner, and other than the instructor we were mostly beginners. There was one intermediate student those nights.

Both nights, we did a warm-up, then practiced tumbling and falling, and then we would apply a grab to a hand and throw our opponent, when we were both in a ready stance with hands out in front. So, they might have done that out of consideration for me, or the other new students.

It was great, because unlike TSD where we apply a break to an arm or joint, and cause a submission while standing, or use a sweep to the ground, for the first time the exact same joint manipulation and locks were used to literally throw your opponent around. Some of the best fun I've ever had!

Way off topic tho... But I guess it is interesting to compare styles.


----------



## reeskm (Jun 5, 2014)

Thanks k-man. Your explanation is fantastic, and makes a lot of sense.

I guess we're all on this same journey together.

MAist25,
Although the major issue I've had with TKD poomsae is that most or all have names or a number of moves corresponding to historical events and persons.

I trust that the Koreans that created these forms did have a higher purpose. I have no evidence, but I'm sure they were very experienced in MA and would have been aware of what were are talking bout here (bunkai). But, these kinds of politics added to a martial art form bothers me to this day.

That being said, they were able to start with a completely fresh slate without bringing previous history and traditions regarding forms into their new ones, and so maybe were able to create a completely new set of forms with new origins and bunkai without having to do any kind of historical research.

The question is, do they have a deep multi-layered purpose and can they be applied in many situations? Or, like a comparative literary analysis class that put you to sleep in college, are we over analyzing this whole issue to death?


----------



## MAist25 (Jun 5, 2014)

I'm not sure you could say we are overanalyzing things simply because of the extreme varying degrees of explanations for what forms are and what there purpose is. There simply is no general consensus, even within the same style of martial art sometimes. Because of this, the true purpose of forms training has become obscure and argued about. As we see in the articles posted earlier, we have people who believe forms are folk dances with little to no combative value, and according to others, like Iain Abernethy, kata are purely for combat and contain extremely brutal techniques. Two extreme opposite viewpoints.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Jun 7, 2014)

reeskm said:


> The prevailing theory or hypothesis that I've come across is that any good master keeps his best techniques to himself out of a self preservation point of view. The would never teach their best techniques to their general students, and would reveal their secret techniques to only their best students they considered trustworthy enough to pass on their greatest teachings. The theory goes that some would rather die than pass on knowledge that could end up being their undoing or bring them or their schools disrespect if it were to be misused.
> 
> .



IMO this is the strategy used by *some* old timers to keep students dependant on them motivated in no small part by needs for fealty and $.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Jun 7, 2014)

Earl Weiss said:


> IMO this is the strategy used by *some* old timers to keep students dependant on them motivated in no small part by needs for fealty and $.



You also get it from *some* instructors who teach sport martial arts who don't want to teach their best techniques to students in case they have to compete against them later.


----------



## MAist25 (Jun 7, 2014)

^^^ This is true but very sad. A good friend of mine always said that a good instructor will take you to his level, but a great instructor will take you ten steps further.


----------



## K-man (Jun 7, 2014)

MAist25 said:


> Because of this, the true purpose of forms training has become obscure and argued about. As we see in the articles posted earlier, we have people who believe forms are folk dances with little to no combative value, and according to others, like Iain Abernethy, kata are purely for combat and contain extremely brutal techniques. Two extreme opposite viewpoints.



Of course this is exactly as kata was designed. To the uninitiated it is just a choreographed sequence of moves. People could practise it without causing alarm if they were watched. You could teach the kata safely to children knowing that when they were old enough they would be taught the meaning. So there is no extreme opposite here. It is the same road, just some are at the beginning of the road and some are further along it. Just that, sadly, some at the beginning of the the road have no transport (knowledgeable instructors) to take them on their journey.
:asian:


----------



## K-man (Jun 7, 2014)

RTKDCMB said:


> You also get it from some instructors who teach sport martial arts who don't want to teach their best techniques to students in case they have to compete against them later.


I know that in some schools they don't teach reversals of techniques until 3rd dan. That way the top guys are never shown up by their underlings. (FWIW I teach reversals early in the training.)
:asian:


----------



## Earl Weiss (Jun 7, 2014)

MAist25 said:


> ^^^ This is true but very sad. A good friend of mine always said that a good instructor will take you to his level, but a great instructor will take you ten steps further.



It is a compliment to an instructor to avbe the student surpass his pysical abilities.  It may be difficult for a student to surpass the instructors knoowledge and experience during the instructor's lifetime since the Instructor has had a head start. 

I tell my students they should be better than I ever was because they had a better instructor than I had. Not a slam at my instructor or arrogance  by me, but a statement as to what I think the natural progression should be. As instructors we should try to improve upon what and how we were taught.


----------



## jorgemp (Jun 7, 2014)

Ian Abernethy´s kata interpretations are as false as biblical interpretation of some pastors.


----------



## jks9199 (Jun 7, 2014)

Earl Weiss said:


> It is a compliment to an instructor to avbe the student surpass his pysical abilities.  It may be difficult for a student to surpass the instructors knoowledge and experience during the instructor's lifetime since the Instructor has had a head start.
> 
> I tell my students they should be better than I ever was because they had a better instructor than I had. Not a slam at my instructor or arrogance  by me, but a statement as to what I think the natural progression should be. As instructors we should try to improve upon what and how we were taught.



But the instructor has to really let their ego go, and find the ability to take satisfaction in their student's growth.  Not all can do this...


----------



## MAist25 (Jun 7, 2014)

jorgemp said:


> Ian Abernethy´s kata interpretations are as false as biblical interpretation of some pastors.



Very strong statement, please elaborate.


----------



## K-man (Jun 7, 2014)

jorgemp said:


> Ian Abernethy´s kata interpretations are as false as biblical interpretation of some pastors.


Mmm! I too would love to know what you mean by this. Iain is a highly ranked karateka who has written many books and produced a number of excellent videos on the subject. IMHO he is up there with the best in understanding kata. 

You are TKD and your experience is ... ?

Or are you trolling?
:asian:


----------



## RTKDCMB (Jun 8, 2014)

jorgemp said:


> Ian Abernethy´s kata interpretations are as false as biblical interpretation of some pastors.



Are you taking a dig at Ian Abernathy, the pastors or both? Or are you stating an oxymoron (like an honest politician or reality TV star)?


----------



## Earl Weiss (Jun 8, 2014)

jorgemp said:


> Ian Abernethy´s kata interpretations are as false as biblical interpretation of some pastors.



You know each of these things because...?


----------



## reeskm (Jun 17, 2014)

Earl Weiss said:


> It is a compliment to an instructor to avbe the student surpass his pysical abilities.  It may be difficult for a student to surpass the instructors knoowledge and experience during the instructor's lifetime since the Instructor has had a head start.
> 
> I tell my students they should be better than I ever was because they had a better instructor than I had. Not a slam at my instructor or arrogance  by me, but a statement as to what I think the natural progression should be. As instructors we should try to improve upon what and how we were taught.



The exact words of my teacher, and now my current philosophy as an instructor!

I think there is a great tendency to characterize a lot of current schools as McDojo's -- and we must be careful here.
To take the idea that you would keep techniques for higher level students that proved themselves worthy - *could be* and indication of a McDojo *if* it was tied up in the motive of profit or retention.

However, I've personally seen dojos ruined due to, in my opinion, a bunch of inexperienced students thinking that they go to a McDojo based on some website they read, or some other person that claims they are more authentic/traditional than another and bashes this student's school. The students all leave because they've fallen victim to someone wise who was able to take them away from a school that was very good and did it's very best to:
a) keep the doors open and the lights on and making a reasonalbe amount of money
b) teaching a traditional martial art in a traditional way

And that, is a real shame.

I think in order to be a "McDojo" you need a large number of the usual characteristics to be very obvious. One or two aspects in today's commercial world can not in any way be an indication of a McDojo.

Then again, I'm sure some hardcore traditionalists that teach out of a community center, a free place to train or their home would disagree.
But most who want a full time traditional dojo in a big city need to lease or buy a space in a community that has a large number of potential students. And then they have to run it as honestly as possible. And that's really hard to do.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jun 17, 2014)

This thread has drifted a little (ok, a LOT) from the original topic...
I had lunch with our Kwanjang last week, and asked about this subject.
He was originally a student of GM *Hwang*, Kee, but stayed with GM *Lee*, Kang Ik and the Kwan unification movement.
According to him, there was no bunkai taught in the Moo Duk Kwan. 
As he explains it, poomsae is intended to teach TKD, but there are no 'secrets' 'hidden' in them. There are many ways to apply each movement or series of movements within the forms, and the student should not limit themselves to thinking of any movement or series of movements as being limited to a few applications.
I also mentioned Master Weiss' comment about the student surpassing the teaching, and he agreed wholeheartedly with that sentiment.


----------



## MAist25 (Jun 17, 2014)

Dirty Dog said:


> This thread has drifted a little (ok, a LOT) from the original topic...
> I had lunch with our Kwanjang last week, and asked about this subject.
> He was originally a student of GM *Hwang*, Kee, but stayed with GM *Lee*, Kang Ik and the Kwan unification movement.
> According to him, there was no bunkai taught in the Moo Duk Kwan.
> ...



That is very cool to hear from someone else so close to the source. And I believe this is true as GM Chun's teachings and writings also point to no bunkai being taught in the Moo Duk Kwan. It sounds like my Kwanjang, GM Chun, seems to have the same idea about poomsae as yours does, which is not surprising seeing as they are both from similar backgrounds. Also, I think it might be safe to say that GM Hwang probably had the least amount of formal kata training out of all the other original kwan founders, although I cannot say this for sure. But this would definitely lead me to assume that this would contribute to the lack of bunkai training in the MDK. It would be very interesting to hear from senior members of other kwans as well.


----------



## reeskm (Jun 23, 2014)

I think that pretty much puts the debate to rest.

I think this fits in with the history of the original Kwans and founders that I know already - namely that they mostly came out of the university dojos in Tokyo during the war - which are famous for practicing "hard" karate (emphasis on physical training and sparring) and which were, in their day and today, criticized for their lack of bunkai and kata training.

However, I don't know if this riddle will ever be solved as the original Kwan founders are mostly gone or will not speak on the subject. I think we will have to form our own educated opinion on these things.

Dirtydog,
LEE, Kang Ik is different than LEE, Kang Uk correct?

When reading history books or literature on the MDK I always assumed that they were either:
a) the same person, with different romanization
b) Two different individuals

Of course, I only know of LEE, Kang Uk from the UK. I'm going to his seminar here in Canada in September. 
So maybe, I can ask him about the subject.


----------

