# Bunkai/Hidden techniques - Split from "How Do I Quit"



## lklawson (Oct 19, 2012)

Kaygee said:


> And you know all of those high blocks and low blocks and inside outside blocks? Well, I have NEVER seen one of them used in sparring, so I believe they are not practical either and are just for the forms.


No, they're practical.  You (as was I when I took Tang Soo Do) were just never taught what they were or how they actually work.  Probably because no one else there knew either because they've never actually been in semi-real fighting, even a friendly fight.

Let me see if I got this right.  Let's use the right side High Block, San Dan Mah Kee.  You start from a "ready" stance with your right hand forward then you twist to the left and pull your right hand down to your left hip.  Maybe you cross your left fist up to your right shoulder.  You were told that this was "chambering" your block, winding up the power or something like that, right?  Then you "unwind" your hip twist, uncrossing your arms, shooting your right fist up from your left hip and crossing up to above your head in a sort of "roof block."  How am I doing so far?

Like this:





And you think that won't work?  You think that because... wait for it... you're right.  It's BS.

The problem is that it absolutely *WILL* work, if you do it right.  See, the thing is that 99% of the people teaching this think that the first movement is a "chamber."  It's not. *THAT* movement is the actual block.  The second movement, the one that everyone always calls the block, isn't.  It is, in truth, a riposte; a *return strike*!

The way it's supposed to actually work is that a linear punch comes in, and you parry it outside and slightly down, away from your body, with a sort of "swatting" motion.  That pushes your right hand over to the left hip.  As you do that, you go ahead and slightly twist your hips in order to wind up for a Rising Backfist to the chin.  Then you simply unwind and gobsmack the person who's punch you already parried.

It took me years to learn this.  No one in TSD ever told me.  I had to read it somewhere else.  While I honestly think that I read it before, my first clear recollection of description of the technique actually comes from Boxing.  I read about it in Jack Dempsey's seminal treatise "Championship Fighting."  In it he describes keeping a nearly standard boxer's ready position, fists up.  But he says to leave a gap between your fists in order to bait your opponent into trying to Straight Lead through the gap.  You know it's coming so you are plenty able to swat it to the side with an open palm, then reverse the motion and backfist the fella in the kisser.  You see these sort of open-palm parries in a lot of London Prize Ring boxing manuals and they go all the way up through the early 20th Century manuals such as Dempsey's.

Same with the "Middle Block" and the "Low Block."  Middle block you swat the linear punch to the side and then follow up with a backfist to the side of the jaw or the temple.  Low block, you swat the linear punch to the side and follow up with a downward flowing backfist; maybe straight down on the nose or the brow.

I really shouldn't be giving this stuff away for free.  

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Chris Parker (Oct 20, 2012)

Ha, maybe you shouldn't be giving it away for free, Kirk... although I would also state that I'm not sold on that as the reason for it. I'm with you as much as the actual practical usage isn't really understood, and that the application you discuss is a possible interpretation, but the description you've given doesn't quite match the way I was taught it in both my Karate and TKD days. It would actually need a fair amount of alteration to be the form you're describing... and, from my other training, there's another application that simply makes a lot more sense (to my mind).

Firstly, if we compare the performance of it to this example (at 0:15-0:18), you'll notice that there isn't really a sweeping across motion (from the shoulder down) as would be required, and that all the power is in the rising action. Your hand simply comes across to the opposite hip, then pushes up across the front of your body, similar to a windscreen wiper, clearing what is in front of you.






Additionally, the rising action is too vertical to be a backfist, and too particular to be just a potential counter. It really is a block. But what is it blocking? Really, I don't think it (or really much karate at all) is supposed to deal with an unarmed attack. 

I mean, let's think about it. Were the attackers all likely to be unarmed? Honestly, I doubt it. Next, an almost identical action is seen in a range of classical Japanese arts... and it's not against a punch. It's a jamming action against a downward cut (jamming at the forearms). And, if we go back to the kata I posted, there's another huge clue that that is the actual usage of this movement... and it's not the arms.

He's stepping forwards.

In fact, almost all times it turns up in kata, it's with a step forward, or a step to the sides, moving towards the attack. So think about it... if it's against a punch, and you need to step forward, then the punch wouldn't have reached you. But if it's against a downward sword cut, then you need to move in past the blade. In this form, no physical adaptation is needed, and it makes perfect sense, both in the singular action, and as it occurs in all kata.


----------



## bluewaveschool (Oct 20, 2012)

The performance of the blocks in that video is completely off of anything I've ever taught or seen taught.  Kirk's video is closer to how I do it, but not quite the same.  

I agree on the idea of a defense from a downward sword cut.  Makes sense... a long time ago.  But what to do with it now?  One thing I've shown in the past is this - say a man grabs you with both hands, on the chest/shirt area.  Raise the arms in the 'i don't want any trouble, i give up' manner, then bring them downward into a traditional ready stance, striking the attacker in the elbows to bend the arms and bring him closer.  Then do the 'block' delivering it as a strike underneath the chin while stepping forward.  If you keep pressure, you can walk them off you.  If you pop them hard, their head will snap back and they'll see stars long enough for you to get away.

I need to get a video camera, I think it'd make more sense to show instead of write out.


----------



## lklawson (Oct 20, 2012)

Chris Parker said:


> Ha, maybe you shouldn't be giving it away for free, Kirk...


Well, my intent in the statement was humor.    Like I said, I've read that interpretation from others too so it's not like it's a secret (though, based on how few people seem to know this application, you'd think it was).



> although I would also state that I'm not sold on that as the reason for it.


Fair enough.



> It would actually need a fair amount of alteration to be the form you're describing...


Naturally, I disagree.  I suppose it wouldn't surprise you to know that I've seen and done it in almost exactly the way I described.  Of particular note was the very slight hip winding instead of the exaggerated motion that I see usually taught.  The issue is of timing.  Unless the linear punch was *very* deep and *very* committed, most people simply do not have the time to push it that far.  However, all of these Karate-based systems we're talking about are noted for teaching deep, committed, long, linear punches.  There are 9 perfect examples in the video you just referenced. 



> Additionally, the rising action is too vertical to be a backfist,


Depends on the range.  We'll come back to this.



> I mean, let's think about it. Were the attackers all likely to be unarmed? Honestly, I doubt it. Next, an almost identical action is seen in a range of classical Japanese arts... and it's not against a punch. It's a jamming action against a downward cut (jamming at the forearms).


My experience in knife arts tells me something different.  My experience is that the final movement of a traditional "high block" is:

A very poor defense against an ice-pick downward stab 
almost never taught in arts that teach knife use 
is taught very differently than this when it is taught 
Doesn't fit very well with the ways an ice-pick attack is usually made (see the section "How Attacks Are Made" in this article: http://cbd.atspace.com/articles/degenhawk/hawk_and_rondell.html ) 



> He's stepping forwards. In fact, almost all times it turns up in kata, it's with a step forward, or a step to the sides, moving towards the attack.


This comes back to the range issue I noted above.  If the  defender steps forward, he is in the perfect place to drive the backfist  (hammer fist, or whatever) into the opponent.  It also matches the  basic punching strategy (as opposed to the more advanced) illustrated in  the basic forms: step into the strike.



> So think about it... if it's against a punch, and you need to step forward, then the punch wouldn't have reached you.


It works perfect if one assumes the opponent is stepping into his punch as is illustrated with all 9 punches in the form.



> But if it's against a downward sword cut, then you need to move in past the blade. In this form, no physical adaptation is needed, and it makes perfect sense, both in the singular action, and as it occurs in all kata.


I don't accept it as a moving in to the hands on the grip of a sword either.  The timing is near impossible, certainly not "basic."  Nor does it match with any other "unarmed against a sword" techniques I've ever seen.  In particular it lacks the "voiding" movement which takes the defender's body out of the path of the sword.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (Oct 20, 2012)

bluewaveschool said:


> The performance of the blocks in that video is completely off of anything I've ever taught or seen taught.  Kirk's video is closer to how I do it, but not quite the same.
> 
> I agree on the idea of a defense from a downward sword cut.  Makes sense... a long time ago.  But what to do with it now?  One thing I've shown in the past is this - say a man grabs you with both hands, on the chest/shirt area.  Raise the arms in the 'i don't want any trouble, i give up' manner, then bring them downward into a traditional ready stance, striking the attacker in the elbows to bend the arms and bring him closer.  Then do the 'block' delivering it as a strike underneath the chin while stepping forward.  If you keep pressure, you can walk them off you.  If you pop them hard, their head will snap back and they'll see stars long enough for you to get away.
> 
> I need to get a video camera, I think it'd make more sense to show instead of write out.


Sure.  Be glad to see it.

The discussion is ranging a bit far afield now, and I doubt we'll agree on the actual application in the end.  But as long as we're all friendly, right?  

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Chris Parker (Oct 21, 2012)

Right, that's it, it's war!



bluewaveschool said:


> The performance of the blocks in that video is completely off of anything I've ever taught or seen taught.  Kirk's video is closer to how I do it, but not quite the same.
> 
> I agree on the idea of a defense from a downward sword cut.  Makes sense... a long time ago.  But what to do with it now?  One thing I've shown in the past is this - say a man grabs you with both hands, on the chest/shirt area.  Raise the arms in the 'i don't want any trouble, i give up' manner, then bring them downward into a traditional ready stance, striking the attacker in the elbows to bend the arms and bring him closer.  Then do the 'block' delivering it as a strike underneath the chin while stepping forward.  If you keep pressure, you can walk them off you.  If you pop them hard, their head will snap back and they'll see stars long enough for you to get away.
> 
> I need to get a video camera, I think it'd make more sense to show instead of write out.



Well, yeah, a defence against a sword makes sense "a long time ago" (although maybe not as long as you might be thinking), are you suggesting that although the same movements have been kept, due to there not being a prevalence of sword attacks these days, the action needs to have a different use? Surely you'd either just drop the movement, or come up with a new one, yeah? Otherwise it's like saying "yeah, a ship is a good way to get to an overseas country, but once you're flying in a jet, the boat is rather useless... so let's make a boat fly!"

When looking at anything classed as a "traditional art", it pays to understand the context that the art came from... which means understanding what it was meant to face, rather than what you expect it to face now. And, in that sense, Tang Soo Do/Tae Kwon Do are really nothing more than Korean adaptations of Japanese Karate (hell, that's what Tang Soo Do means...), which is an adaptation from Okinawan Te. And, as such, that's the context that you should be looking at for the techniques. So saying that "well, yeah, a sword defence back then...", it's really what it is. What it's used for now, and the reason it's seen as being rather impractical, is that it's removed from the actual reason for it. For the record, it's the same with pretty much all the other blocks as well, and the kata tend to work best when taken with this idea in mind....

Now, to my nemesis, Kirk... 



lklawson said:


> Well, my intent in the statement was humor.    Like I said, I've read that interpretation from others too so it's not like it's a secret (though, based on how few people seem to know this application, you'd think it was).



The "sweep across" one, you mean? As I said, I can see how it could be done that way, but I really don't think that's the actual application. It just doesn't make enough sense, on a number of levels.



lklawson said:


> Fair enough.



No, no, no, Kirk, we're meant to fight! Have at thee, and all that! I mean, where's the fun, otherwise?

..... spoilsport..... 



lklawson said:


> Naturally, I disagree.  I suppose it wouldn't surprise you to know that I've seen and done it in almost exactly the way I described.  Of particular note was the very slight hip winding instead of the exaggerated motion that I see usually taught.  The issue is of timing.  Unless the linear punch was *very* deep and *very* committed, most people simply do not have the time to push it that far.  However, all of these Karate-based systems we're talking about are noted for teaching deep, committed, long, linear punches.  There are 9 perfect examples in the video you just referenced.



Yeah, I'm not taking the methods of punching as validation, honestly. We'll come back to this. 


lklawson said:


> Depends on the range.  We'll come back to this.



Hey, you're stealing my lines! But okay, cool. I'd also say that my reasoning isn't really about the range, it's about the mechanics... coming up vertically like that just doesn't have much power for a strike... but is very strong (structurally) as a jamming action against something coming down, as it's a bracing structure, not a striking one. Yeah, it can be done, but it's just far from optimal.



lklawson said:


> My experience in knife arts tells me something different.  My experience is that the final movement of a traditional "high block" is:
> 
> 
> A very poor defense against an ice-pick downward stab
> ...






Right, a few things here. First, I wasn't talking about knife attacks, and particularly not "ice-pick grips". You might have noticed that I was talking Japanese weapon attacks (thinking specifically about sword, but also kodachi, and, to a small degree, tanto), I spoke about "forearms" (plural), and the idea of an "ice-pick grip" just isn't really a major thing in Japanese systems. You're more likely to get knife methods with the edge up than a reverse-grip like you're describing here. But, uh, on that page you've linked? Check out images 17, 21, 24, which all show something along the lines of the application I'm talking about.... hmm....



lklawson said:


> This comes back to the range issue I noted above.  If the  defender steps forward, he is in the perfect place to drive the backfist  (hammer fist, or whatever) into the opponent.  It also matches the  basic punching strategy (as opposed to the more advanced) illustrated in  the basic forms: step into the strike.



Yes, and he's just stepped directly into an incoming strike. The fact that the attacking punch is such a long, deep stepping action just tells you the range they're attacking from, really, the end of the punch is going to be the same (your nose, or a few inches beyond it, really)... so, why are you moving directly into it? Just so you can hopefully sweep the incoming punch to the side and apply a weakened rising strike? Really? Additionally, by moving into the strike, you're not only making it closer, you're making the timing far tighter as well, as you're now giving yourself less time to actually get your interception and deflection in... so this application has you stepping straight into a punch with less reaction time and a low-impact response. Yeah, I'm really, really not sold as this for a primary application.... 



lklawson said:


> It works perfect if one assumes the opponent is stepping into his punch as is illustrated with all 9 punches in the form.



Er... no. See above.



lklawson said:


> I don't accept it as a moving in to the hands on the grip of a sword either.  The timing is near impossible, certainly not "basic."  Nor does it match with any other "unarmed against a sword" techniques I've ever seen.  In particular it lacks the "voiding" movement which takes the defender's body out of the path of the sword.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk




Well, it may not be exactly "basic" (it is, actually, but that's another story, and is done in another fashion initially... but that's another little-understood aspect of many old systems....), but it is very much standard almost across the board. In fact, almost every system I can think of has some form of it... in the Ninjutsu traditions, for example, five out of the six main systems have it, as do many many many other schools, such as Takenouchi Ryu, Asayama Ichiden Ryu, Kashima Shinryu, and, well, many many others. But the thing is, whenever this type of action comes up, it is never against a straight (forward) attack... it is only ever against a downward one, whether a sword attack, a short sword one, a knife attack (not an "ice-pick grip" again), or an unarmed hand strike (which, frankly, are just preparation exercises for the defence against weapons later on). In fact, this is such a standard response that there are famous martial poems in Japanese traditions, dealing with unarmed defence against swords, which advises the reason for this:

"Under an upraised sword is Hell. Step forward, and find Heaven." (Note: this is not a Christian form of Heaven, so it does not imply being killed....). The step forward gets you in past the range of the sword blade, allowing you to jam the forearms as the person attacks. That would be your "voiding" action, I believe.


----------



## bluewaveschool (Oct 21, 2012)

You misunderstand me Chris, I was not suggesting we throw out the block because of the lack of sword attacks in todays world.  I was saying that we have to find more... meaning for the movement, I guess.


----------



## Chris Parker (Oct 21, 2012)

Oh, I got that.... my question is why would you expect that there would be real practical applications other than it's intended? Surely it's more pragmatic to come up with a different action that fits the principles but is suited to the new needs... in which case, the only reason to keep it is to maintain the original context.


----------



## Aiki Lee (Oct 21, 2012)

Chris Parker said:


> "Under an upraised sword is Hell. Step forward, and find Heaven." (Note: this is not a Christian form of Heaven, so it does not imply being killed....). The step forward gets you in past the range of the sword blade, allowing you to jam the forearms as the person attacks. That would be your "voiding" action, I believe.



Hence my tagline "Heaven lies under the sword".

I've noitced we are way off subject here, but this type of discussion is always interesting to me. Mostly I feel the need to side with Chris on this one for what the original purpose would be. I think lklawson's application could work if the initial deflection was able to utilize the idea kazushi, but then if the opponent was off balance to that degree then a stepping motion may not be necessary.


----------



## lklawson (Oct 22, 2012)

Chris Parker said:


> Now, to my nemesis, Kirk...


I have a nemesis now?  I'm moving up in the world!  woo-hoo!





> The "sweep across" one, you mean? As I said, I can see how it could be done that way, but I really don't think that's the actual application. It just doesn't make enough sense, on a number of levels.


Yeah, the theory that a "traditional bock" is really a two-action movement, 1) A parry followed by 2) a hammer/back-fist.

I will say that I have some documentation (antique boxing, of course) which shows a similar "pushing up" 'high block' and a similar "pushing down and out" 'low block' against linear punches.  It doesn't fit with my preferred theory, but it is there and I acknowledge it.






"The Brush-Away"





"First Parry and Blow"





"Second Parry and Blow"





"Straight Counter"

Like I said, these look like the "High" and "Low" blocks but they do not account for the first half of the movement, the "chambering" that is taught.  That is why I think the "block" is first a parry then a riposte.



> No, no, no, Kirk, we're meant to fight! Have at thee, and all that! I mean, where's the fun, otherwise?
> 
> ..... spoilsport.....


Well, that's true.  




> Right, a few things here. First, I wasn't talking about knife attacks, and particularly not "ice-pick grips". You might have noticed that I was talking Japanese weapon attacks (thinking specifically about sword, but also kodachi, and, to a small degree, tanto), I spoke about "forearms" (plural), and the idea of an "ice-pick grip" just isn't really a major thing in Japanese systems. You're more likely to get knife methods with the edge up than a reverse-grip like you're describing here. But, uh, on that page you've linked? Check out images 17, 21, 24, which all show something along the lines of the application I'm talking about.... hmm....


Those work because the Tempo and Measure (Maai).  With a sword, the defender has to travel the length of the blade before he can contact the swordsman's arms.  I contend that this is simply not possible the vast majority of the time from a Men strike.  This is why I insist that a body void must accompany it.  Simply being under the arm doesn't void the blade unless you get there.  But the problem is getting there.  the swordsman has the distance and the time.  The Hand is quicker than the Body.  There's a reason why George Silver lays out his priority of hand, body, foot, and feet movements.  The Swordsman only has to move his arms.  The Defender has to move his whole body.  The "Time" goes to the swordsman every time.  The defender gets his arm lopped off.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Chris Parker (Oct 24, 2012)

lklawson said:


> I have a nemesis now?  I'm moving up in the world!  woo-hoo!



No, no, Kirk, you misunderstand... you're my nemesis, you don't have one yourself.... 



lklawson said:


> Yeah, the theory that a "traditional bock" is really a two-action movement, 1) A parry followed by 2) a hammer/back-fist.
> 
> I will say that I have some documentation (antique boxing, of course) which shows a similar "pushing up" 'high block' and a similar "pushing down and out" 'low block' against linear punches.  It doesn't fit with my preferred theory, but it is there and I acknowledge it.
> 
> ...



Yeah, they certainly do look similar... and, honestly, I wouldn't read into it that you don't see the chamber... there are reasons it's there in the karate form, and not there, part of which is speed, part of which is it's role as a training exercise, and part of it is pure efficacy, really. Oh, and what it's meant to go against...



lklawson said:


> Well, that's true.



Damn straight! Have at thee, enguarde, touche, and other fighting words! Avast, and all that!



lklawson said:


> Those work because the Tempo and Measure (Maai).  With a sword, the defender has to travel the length of the blade before he can contact the swordsman's arms.  I contend that this is simply not possible the vast majority of the time from a Men strike.  This is why I insist that a body void must accompany it.  Simply being under the arm doesn't void the blade unless you get there.  But the problem is getting there.  the swordsman has the distance and the time.  The Hand is quicker than the Body.  There's a reason why George Silver lays out his priority of hand, body, foot, and feet movements.  The Swordsman only has to move his arms.  The Defender has to move his whole body.  The "Time" goes to the swordsman every time.  The defender gets his arm lopped off.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk



Actually, it's not only possible, it's been relied on by many systems over the centuries. The forward movement is, really, very desperate, and if you can instead move to the side, that's better... but stepping straight ahead gets you "inside" the blade, which is where you need to be. Remember, this isn't a Kendo "men-tap" we're talking about here, it's a fully committed stepping cut down. It's also applied by leaping in when the sword is raised in the first place, making it a jamming action before the cut, sometimes done from a half-kneeling position (dropping underneath, as well as moving inside the sword).

But let me ask, does the step forward make more sense to you if you're stepping in past a sword attack, or if you're stepping in to block a punch? Honestly, if you are stepping in to block the punch... well, the punch wouldn't have reached you... so why would you move in?


----------



## lklawson (Oct 24, 2012)

Chris Parker said:


> No, no, Kirk, you misunderstand... you're my nemesis, you don't have one yourself....


Ah well.  I'll go back to the Guild and reapply.  Maybe The Monarch is done with Venture and will agree to be my Nemesis.



> But let me ask, does the step forward make more sense to you if you're stepping in past a sword attack, or if you're stepping in to block a punch? Honestly, if you are stepping in to block the punch... well, the punch wouldn't have reached you... so why would you move in?


Remember that in my interpretation, you don't step in to block the punch.  The first movement (the "chamber") is a parry that sweeps the punch aside, then the second movement is a backfist/hammerfist/whatever accompanied by a forward step (the part traditionally thought of as "the block").

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Dirty Dog (Oct 27, 2012)

Due to topic drift, these posts have been split off. The original thread can be found here.

Mark Cochran
MT Moderator


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 27, 2012)

All I can say is kata, kata, kata.  Do kata.  All of the system (in my case Isshin-Ryu) is inside the kata.  If you reach an advanced status and do not realize that, perhaps your training is not up to snuff.  Everything is in the kata.  Kata has bunkai, bunkai is application, and application is self-defense.  None of the time you spend doing kata is wasted.  It trains muscle memory and prepares you to eventually recognize the self-defense methods stored safely inside the kata, waiting for you to discover them and make them flower and adopt them as your own.


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 27, 2012)

The motions in kata can be taken literally and they an be interpretive at the same time. There are different levels of understanding and this allows for creative personalization of the kata. In essence, this is what makes it an art. When I have more time, I'll post some videos of some of my interpretations for these moves. 

Excellent ties to boxing, Kirk. That's a cool angle to take with kata!


----------



## Chris Parker (Oct 28, 2012)

lklawson said:


> Ah well.  I'll go back to the Guild and reapply.  Maybe The Monarch is done with Venture and will agree to be my Nemesis.
> 
> Remember that in my interpretation, you don't step in to block the punch.  The first movement (the "chamber") is a parry that sweeps the punch aside, then the second movement is a backfist/hammerfist/whatever accompanied by a forward step (the part traditionally thought of as "the block").
> 
> ...



Except... the step happens (in all cases I've seen) with the initial movement of the arms. Check the clip you put up, the lady demonstrating steps forward as she chambers, then performs the rising action. Besides that, simply standing still and relying on a parry with no body movement itself is just plain risky... you'd want to move out of the way, in some form. And, as the only movement is forward, it really can't be against a punching action, as you're either moving into it, or too close to perform any counter. I mean, if this is meant to be against a punch, if you stand where you are, the punch won't reach you... so what's the point?



Bill Mattocks said:


> All I can say is kata, kata, kata.  Do kata.  All of the system (in my case Isshin-Ryu) is inside the kata.  If you reach an advanced status and do not realize that, perhaps your training is not up to snuff.  Everything is in the kata.  Kata has bunkai, bunkai is application, and application is self-defense.  None of the time you spend doing kata is wasted.  It trains muscle memory and prepares you to eventually recognize the self-defense methods stored safely inside the kata, waiting for you to discover them and make them flower and adopt them as your own.



Couple of things, though, Bill. Firstly, I agree that everything is in the kata... but not in the way that most seem to think (that that refers to techniques). Next, kata doesn't have bunkai (inherently), nor is bunkai actually the application of the movements found in kata... what bunkai actually is is exploration. In other words, it's an exploration of potential interpretations and applications of the actions, not necessarily the actual applications themselves. This is mainly as the actual applications have been essentially lost as karate has been tranmitted down... but, it might be noted, that not all systems even use bunkai as a training concept. A notable exception is Wado Ryu, who teach specific applications, based on the teachings of Funakoshi and others, and the methods of Shindo Yoshin Ryu Jujutsu that Otsuka learnt, so there is no need for any speculative exploration. Of course, the question then becomes that, if you're not aware of the actual applications, whether it's not something discussed, or taught, then what exactly are you instilling in your muscle memory? What's the reason for training over and over again movements that might or might not be what you think they are?


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 28, 2012)

I think there was a beleif at one time that kata showed more direct and less interpretive applications. Therefore, it was thought that you could practice the kata and get better at the applications through this practice.

However, all of the old masters, including Funakoshi said this wasn't the case. In fact, they said that the physical kata was useless without the knowledge and skills practiced within it. It's essentially just a dance without the information it was intended to pass on.

Practicing the full art is how you get better.


----------



## Chris Parker (Oct 28, 2012)

Funakoshi said that the secret to karate lay within the kata, but that's not the same thing as saying there are hidden applications to the kata movements, unless you're thinking of a different quote. And how can you be practicing the "full art" if you're trying to come up with your own interpretation (bunkai, exploration) of the kata? Surely that implies a lack of the full art in the first place, yeah?


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 28, 2012)

Chris Parker said:


> Funakoshi said that the secret to karate lay within the kata, but that's not the same thing as saying there are hidden applications to the kata movements, unless you're thinking of a different quote. And how can you be practicing the "full art" if you're trying to come up with your own interpretation (bunkai, exploration) of the kata? Surely that implies a lack of the full art in the first place, yeah?



These are good questions and looking from the outside in at how karate is practiced today, I can see how someone could frame them.  Here is a podcast I recently listened to that lays out some of the quotations from the various people who practiced karate back during the time when a major change in how the art was practiced occurred.

http://www.iainabernethy.co.uk/content/masters-speak-podcast



> The quotes show that the masters of the past thought that kata without  application was &#8220;useless&#8221;, that karate training should include locking  and throwing, that the directions in kata have nothing to do with the  angle of attack, that the idea of the kata being for multiple  &#8220;opponents&#8221; who attack in turn was &#8220;nonsense&#8221;, that awareness and  avoidance training is vital, that we should hit first once conflict  can&#8217;t be avoided, that there is no such thing as a &#8220;pure style&#8221;, and so  forth.



Taking these quotes into account, I came to the conclusion that the way that modern karate was practiced was vastly different then it was originally intended to be practiced. The karateka at the beginning of the 19th century were vocally negative about the changes, but seemed powerless to prevent them.  I'm not sure why and that would be an interesting avenue of research.  

From my own research, particularly from some of the insights that Shoshin Nagamine shared about his time training with Chotoku Kyan, kata were meant to be taught and practiced in a way totally different from how they are taught to students now.  When a student began to learn karate, the teacher would begin with various conditioning exercises that were designed to promote physical fitness and prepare the body to perform various martial arts moves.  These exercises included weight training, body weight exercises, conditioning of striking surfaces, rolls, and falls.  Then, the student would begin a study of responses to various attacks that included striking, pushing, and pulling techniques.  The student would drill various key movements and then be taught how to put them together in combinations.  Lastly, the teacher would allow the student to "play" with the concept and test it's effectiveness with resistance.  The whole time, the teacher would be beside the small groups he instructed, offering demonstrations, giving out more insights and refining techniques.  Eventually, after about 10 to 20 scenarios had been drilled, students would be shown the kata and they would be instructed in how the kata contained this information.  After a certain amount of time, the student would begin to develop their own interpretations of principles and the way they reacted to scenarios would change.  Thus, these changes were reflected in the alphabet and grammar of their kata.  This was the process that produced so many different interpretations of various kata before karate entered it's modern age.

So, are there "hidden" moves in kata?  The answer is yes and no.  It depends on your perspective.  If you were taught the kata without applications, then there are hidden moves.  Otherwise, there are just techniques and information recorded in the kata.

Here is another article of import on the matter.

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

In closing, I want to bring up Shoshin Nagamine again.  His style, the Matsubayashi Ryu, does not really teach the kata like he stated how he originally learned it from Chotoku Kyan.  In fact, there are more similarities with the Japanese interpretation of karate then there are with what he actually described in his writings.  This difference in pedagogy is fascinating and represents something that I am researching right now.  How did Okinawan karate transform into Japanese karate?


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 28, 2012)

Here is a video from 2006 where I break down a kata into it's various applications.  These interpretations are my own, because I wasn't originally taught the applications.  However, based off of my research, some are fairly accurate...and some are downright hokey.  Enjoy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKhrc8jARJ8&list=UUQRaQdqLXTEtDcT8hjQTbAA&index=31&feature=plcp


----------



## seasoned (Oct 28, 2012)

I happen to be on Facebook and a friend of mind posted this video that I feel is pertinent to the discussion of bunkai. It covers some basic techniques that are in fact used as building blocks, "so to speak", to ingrain the muscle memory that Bill was eluding to earlier. 
The faster pace of self defense is something that can be addressed down the road once the basic patterns are practiced and certain principles of structure, breath and movement are owned by the student.    

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=iToelaMy2WQ


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 28, 2012)

Chris Parker said:


> Couple of things, though, Bill. Firstly, I agree that everything is in the kata... but not in the way that most seem to think (that that refers to techniques).



OK, I can buy that, in the sense that most don't seem to actually have a lot of use for kata, which I think is a shame.



> Next, kata doesn't have bunkai (inherently), nor is bunkai actually the application of the movements found in kata...



Hmm.  I don't know if I can agree with that.  When we work on kata, we also work on the 'back side' of the kata; that is, we have one person play attacker and one person perform the kata.  The attacker provokes the kata movements.  It answers the most basic question as to 'why' we are doing what we are doing.  It's the narrative, if you will.  That's the most basic bunkai of all.  In many cases, people will question it.  _"Who is going to attack me with a double-overhead chop?"_  Valid question; but it explains the double-overhead block, and the founder gave it as the basic reason for the movement.  It's bunkai, I think, no matter how basic, and it's built-in to the kata as-is, no experimentation needed.



> what bunkai actually is is exploration. In other words, it's an exploration of potential interpretations and applications of the actions, not necessarily the actual applications themselves.



I can buy that.  I know at least one student of one of the first-generation students of Shimabuku Soke who has basically devoted himself to exploring the kata and extracting more and more applications from it.  He continues what his Sensei taught him.  So in that sense, yes.

In my own little way, I am 'discovering' bunkai in the kata as well; but in my case, I'm not discovering anything new.  I'm finding things out that are known by many, just not by me.  Some would have been shown to me in time, some have probably been shown to me and I didn't 'get it' but later on the light bulb came on.



> This is mainly as the actual applications have been essentially lost as karate has been tranmitted down... but, it might be noted, that not all systems even use bunkai as a training concept. A notable exception is Wado Ryu, who teach specific applications, based on the teachings of Funakoshi and others, and the methods of Shindo Yoshin Ryu Jujutsu that Otsuka learnt, so there is no need for any speculative exploration.



I can't speak for any other system but the one I train in, and I'm far from an expert in that one.  But in our case, I think I can say that a great deal of the bunkai came from our Soke, and that wasn't so long ago that any of it is lost.



> Of course, the question then becomes that, if you're not aware of the actual applications, whether it's not something discussed, or taught, then what exactly are you instilling in your muscle memory? What's the reason for training over and over again movements that might or might not be what you think they are?



Because the movements in the kata form the core of the bunkai.  The movements, when modified, still rely upon the same base.  The block-sweep of the arm in Kusanku while reaching for the obi with the other hand is the same as the elbow strike in Sunsu, just described differently.  Same base movement, and it shows you can apply that movement in both ways.  Master the kata and you should be able to apply either technique as a natural movement of your body.  Not that I have mastered any of it, but I see now in ways that I once did not.

Speaking only for myself, I enjoy doing kata, it makes sense for me to want to do it, and I keep on practicing it.  I feel it is key to becoming proficient in Isshin-Ryu.


----------



## punisher73 (Oct 29, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I can't speak for any other system but the one I train in, and I'm far from an expert in that one.  But in our case, I think I can say that a great deal of the bunkai came from our Soke, and that wasn't so long ago that any of it is lost.



Bill beat me to it.  That may be true of many arts, but there are some okinawan karate systems that are not that far removed from the founder of the system who did teach what the movements were for.  Isshin-Ryu is one of them, and I would say that Uechi-Ryu is another one of those.  

There was an article I posted in another thread, that I think is of use here as well.  To sum it up, the author is a Goju-Ryu instructor and talks about why the traditional blocks work and talks about the parry/chambering movement first before the "block" and one of the reasons it is trained that way.
http://dandjurdjevic.blogspot.com/2008/06/why-blocks-do-work.html

I know that Mr. Lawson has done alot more research into the older boxing manuals.  But, one of the things I have noticed to in regards to older western boxing and the older Muay Boran.  It looks alot more like "traditional karate" than the modern sports versions of these combat sports.   Lots of ideas are lost as more rules are added and contests are crafted around a specific ruleset.  For example, why would you need the "low block" in boxing when most of those guys wear their boxing trunks so high that you aren't recieving a punch that low anymore?


----------



## seasoned (Oct 29, 2012)

Great article. Very well stated.......


----------



## chinto (Oct 29, 2012)

ok,  I have skimmed the thread and  here is what I find to be the case for what its worth. ( no you do NOT get your money back ! :drinkbeer)

so that said, Kata is where its at. the system in Karate is passed down by kata. as to bunkai it is very much a traditional part of Okinawan Karate.  in both systems of Karate I train in, and are traditional Okinawan systems, bunkai is a traditional part of those systems. 

in the Traditional Okinawan  kata  there are at least 5 techniques in each movement.  as time goes on you learn to see them. some are locks, throws, brakes, and sweeps. others might be knees and elbows or other strikes. 

 Karate from Okinawa always had locks, sweeps, throws, brakes, blocks, knees, elbows, kicks, punches.  It was intended for use in self defense when your life was at stake. this included against armed and unarmed attackers.  so as soon as the fight seemed unavoidable you were expected to take what ever action the situation demanded.  the idea you were to wait till some one actually started to swing on you is something from much latter.

Please remember that most fights ended in death or serious injury. also remember that things that you will survive today with definitive medical care today were lethal even 50 to 70 years ago.  so actual application of what you were learning was paramount to learning the art. 
after all if you needed it your life was almost certainly at stake. all that shows that kata is there for a real and effective reason.


----------



## bluewaveschool (Oct 30, 2012)

I was messing around with a video camera someone brought to class, and thought of this thread and the rising block.  Now, we weren't being super serious, we haven't tried filming much before.  It's not full speed, and pretend the foam blocker is a bat or something.

[video=youtube_share;RQbtb0I-kag]http://youtu.be/RQbtb0I-kag[/video]


Damn camera and it's 10lbs....


----------



## Stac3y (Oct 31, 2012)

I know this goes far afield from where this thread has gone, but is in response to the original quoted post:







 Originally Posted by *Kaygee* 

 
 				And you know all of those high blocks and low  blocks and inside outside blocks? Well, I have NEVER seen one of them  used in sparring, so I believe they are not practical either and are  just for the forms."

While I can't say I use EVERY block I know in sparring, I use several of them regularly. High block is probably the most common defensive movement you see in sport karate sparring matches. It's used to deflect a backfist or jab to the head (occasionally a punch; but my school fights sideways, so that's rare), and is usually followed by a reverse punch to the body. I think that deflecting a strike to the head with a high block would be useful in some street circumstances as well. I also use a parry, check low, or sometimes a low block to deflect midlevel kicks. I don't think I've ever used a knife hand block, but I've definitely used a backfist block at various levels.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 31, 2012)

Stac3y said:


> I think that deflecting a strike to the head with a high block would be useful in some street circumstances as well.



In the US, you can pretty much count on the notion that if you're attacked by a typical thug, the punch is going to be a 'haymaker' or roundhouse right punch to the head.  Often telegraphed.

The high block is great for blocking it, if that's all you want to do.  You can also deflect, and use the attacker's momentum to turn their body, giving you full access to their tender vittles to punch, or the backs of their knees to kick, whatever seems like the most fun at the moment.  Turn the block into a grab and bring the attacker's arm to your own waist, using their momentum again, and feeding off that with reverse power to drive your other hand in an uppercut into their face, which they basically feed to you as they bend forward at the waist as their attacking arm comes to your waist level.

Or ride the block down, meaning block and continue the movement towards their face.  If you simply let your own arm follow theirs, it's aimed directly at their face and they can't block it, who blocks their own upraised arm?  Strike with a backfist, a heel palm, a hammer first, whatever seems like good fun.

If you wish, once you've stopped the incoming punch, you can simply attack the punch itself, to keep the opponent from firing a punch from the other side.  A sharp blow to the underside of the bicep of the attacking arm should serve as a nerve point attention-getter, which can be followed up, if you feel like it, by grasping the attackers's arm with the arm you used to block, going under their armpit while locking their wrist, and kicking them dead square in the face, which should now conveniently be at groin level.  Since you control the arm at that point, you can kick as many times as you like until they collapse or you get tired; a backwards bend on the wrist keeps forcing them to present their face for you to kick some more.

Despite the right haymaker being the most popular punch thrown by your common thug, it's about the easiest to deal with, since you as a trained martial artist have all kinds of time to decide what you want to do with it once it finally arrives.

About the only things you have to worry about are an improperly set block, in which case, the incoming haymaker, having a hooking movement to it, crashes around your block and still hits you in the head, or you block so hard that the attacker's automatic response is to fire their other fist at you without thinking, like the same kind of reflex that makes people pull their hand away from a hot stove.  But dealing with the incoming punch with a so-called 'high block' when done correctly, has lots of options that deal with all of that, and you can basically get as creative as you like.  The possibilities are endless.  I only know a few, but I sure do enjoy them.


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 31, 2012)

lklawson said:


> No, they're practical. You (as was I when I took Tang Soo Do) were just never taught what they were or how they actually work. Probably because no one else there knew either because they've never actually been in semi-real fighting, even a friendly fight.
> 
> Let me see if I got this right. Let's use the right side High Block, San Dan Mah Kee. You start from a "ready" stance with your right hand forward then you twist to the left and pull your right hand down to your left hip. Maybe you cross your left fist up to your right shoulder. You were told that this was "chambering" your block, winding up the power or something like that, right? Then you "unwind" your hip twist, uncrossing your arms, shooting your right fist up from your left hip and crossing up to above your head in a sort of "roof block." How am I doing so far?
> 
> ...



I've skimmed thru the thread, not ready everything in detail, but I think what I'm about to say hasn't been covered yet so I'll go ahead with it.  I'm probably sticking my nose in where it doesn't belong, but perhaps my insights might mean something to someone.

In the traditional Chinese arts, which in at least some cases influenced the Okinawan arts, which in turn influenced other arts from other cultures, the fundamental techniques are often practiced with what a Western mindset might term "exaggerated" movement.  Sometimes that movement can be extremely exaggerated.  Westerners often look at this kind of movement and decide that it doesn't match their concept of what a fighting art SHOULD look like, so there must be something wrong with it, it must not be a practical method, or it must be somehow outdated, more useful in an earlier era when "people used to fight differently", but not in today's world.  People who come to this conclusion simply do not understand what is actually happening with this movement, do not understand the very approach to training and skill development that is being undertaken.

The exaggerated movement, when done correctly, and WHEN PROPERLY UNDERSTOOD in proper context and purpose within the bigger picture of training, helps the student develop a full-body connection to the technique.  It helps learn how to engage the full body, from the feet against the ground to up the legs, thru the waist and torso, and down the arms to the hands in delivering the technique with the full body.  Most people probably have some concept of this idea, but from what I've seen, most people do not do it well and really do not understand HOW to do it properly.  The exaggerated movement is an approach to training that is meant to develop this skill, but it does take time and lots of work.  This is not a skill that happens overnight.  Years of training to develop it, refine it, and keep it sharp, it's something that never ends.  But when properly developed, that full-body delivery makes for an extremely powerful technique that gets its power from the entire body bracing against the very Earth, rather than simply the strength of the arm and shoulder.

In the example of the blocks, I believe they fall into this same category.  The blocks are taught and practiced with a level of exaggeration that makes a lot of people believe that they are not practical and useful.  And on the surface they are correct: they are not practical and useful in a fight, in that particular shape and form and manner.  But the training method is not the same as how the technique would be used in a real fight.  When it comes to a real fight, the movement is much abbreviated, much quicker, and much more useful.  However, it takes the big movement to develop that "full body" delivery with technique.  If you skip the big movement and full body drills and go straight for the smaller, quicker, and "more useful" movements and versions of the technique, then you will never develop the same degree of full body delivery with the techniques, and the techniques will never reach their full potential and full power.  They may still be useful, but they will never be as devastating as they could be.  Training with big movement allows you to deliver the goods with small movement after you have developed the skill.  But training with only small movement just does not develop the same ability to deliver the goods.

So that blocking example is the training method, the big, exaggerated movement.  When the block is used in a fight to block a real punch, the movement is much smaller and more abbreviated and quicker and may look quite different, yet it still contains almost all of the same power as the larger movement.  The use of the technique is very practical and can be devastatingly powerful but it is adjusted to fit the real situation and is not used with the big, exaggerated movement.

It seems to me that people are teaching the martial arts without understanding this very important issue, and their students and every successive generation suffers in lack of knowledge for it.  People are taught the form of the technique and are left to believe that that is how it is done.  They are never taught and do not understand, that the form of the technique is simply a training drill to help develop a fundamental skill that can then be applied to EVERY technique that they do, but the real useage of the technique WILL LOOK DIFFERENT from that training drill.  Kata, in my understanding, is much the same as this.  The movement in kata is done in this exaggerated movement, reinforcing this fundamental principle within every movement.  And those movements, when translated into practical application, will also take on a different look, will become smaller, more subtle, more quick, and more "useful" than they appear in their drill form as found in the kata.

But unfortunately most people simply do not understand this, were never taught this, but they are now teaching others and they perpetuate the lack of real knowledge.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 31, 2012)

Flying Crane said:


> But unfortunately most people simply do not understand this, were never taught this, but they are now teaching others and they perpetuate the lack of real knowledge.



When I was a child, quite often Catholic Mass was still said in Latin, and people responded at the appropriate parts in Latin.  That did not mean they spoke Latin.  There is a difference between knowing the words and speaking the language.

Likewise, the 'big moves' you describe, which I believe I understand.  To demonstrate the movement, exaggeration of the movement can be required.  For the actual move is subtle and hard to see.  When learned, it can be honed, like a knife being sharpened.  Eventually, the edge is all that is left, and all that was ever required.  Unfortunately, as you said, some leave and begin teaching before the blade is sharp.  They can say things in Latin; but they don't speak it, in that sense.


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 31, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> When I was a child, quite often Catholic Mass was still said in Latin, and people responded at the appropriate parts in Latin. That did not mean they spoke Latin. There is a difference between knowing the words and speaking the language.
> 
> Likewise, the 'big moves' you describe, which I believe I understand. To demonstrate the movement, exaggeration of the movement can be required. For the actual move is subtle and hard to see. When learned, it can be honed, like a knife being sharpened. Eventually, the edge is all that is left, and all that was ever required. Unfortunately, as you said, some leave and begin teaching before the blade is sharp. They can say things in Latin; but they don't speak it, in that sense.



that was a pretty good comparison.


----------



## Mark Lynn (Oct 31, 2012)

Chris Parker said:


> Additionally, the rising action is too vertical to be a backfist, and too particular to be just a potential counter. It really is a block. But what is it blocking? Really, I don't think it (or really much karate at all) is supposed to deal with an unarmed attack.
> 
> *I mean, let's think about it. Were the attackers all likely to be unarmed?* Honestly, I doubt it. Next, an almost identical action is seen in a range of classical Japanese arts... and it's not against a punch. It's a jamming action against a downward cut (jamming at the forearms). And, if we go back to the kata I posted, there's another huge clue that that is the actual usage of this movement... and it's not the arms.
> 
> He's stepping forwards.



Chris I have to disagree with the above statement (in bold), I believe Okinawan karate was developed more for unarmed defense than armed defense.  Can the upper block be used in the manner you describe as a jamming technique, I believe so, however I believe it is more unlikely to be used in that manner than say blocking a punch, or as Kirk described as a strike.

Different styles have different chambers so while Kirk's description might not line up with the you tube video it doesn't mean the concept of using the so called block as a strike is not valid.  

For instance in our style the "block" comes from below the retracting hand and then travels upward to cover the head.  As a self defense technique if a person is grabbed by their lapel the defender could grab the hand pinning it to their chest (if it is a RH lapel grab the LH covers it pinning it to the chest) the defender can step in slightly with the R foot while bringing the R hand up from underneath to strike/shock the elbow for a lock.

However another way to do this is from the top.  So same set up as before but this time the defender steps forward slightly with his R foot as he smashes his R arm downwards at the elbow drawing the attacker towards him (due to the arm bending from the strike) at the same time bouncing off of the arm as he steps forward (shuffles/leans forward transferring his weight and body motion) as he strikes with his forearm along side of the attackers neck face etc. etc.  Both of these techniques work, but both still have the general upward block body mechanics behind it.



Chris Parker said:


> In fact, almost all times it turns up in kata, it's with a step forward, or a step to the sides, moving towards the attack. So think about it... if it's against a punch, and you need to step forward, then the punch wouldn't have reached you. But if it's against a downward sword cut, then you need to move in past the blade. In this form, no physical adaptation is needed, and it makes perfect sense, both in the singular action, and as it occurs in all kata.



The moving forward aspect can be from a long range like you described, or it can be in a shorter range as well as I described but they are both moving forward.

However in my Modern Arnis Anyos (forms) in Anyo 1, there is a upward block at the end of the Anyo and then you open your hand (making like you grabbed) and then you step back with that foot to turn and face 90 deg. as you down block.  Here the upward block is used to block a strike or a punch, you grab the hand and turn as you off balance the person throwing them to the floor.  In my Modern Arnis class when learning the Anyos we've covered this application (GM Remy shows this on his Anyo tape/DVD) and we pull it off all of the time.

In practicing Hubud (FMA flow drill) the upward block in it (defending against a high forehand feed) is done off of the same side block; I've practiced it as a block, as a intercepting punch or attack to the face, as a block and grab for a disarm, a set up for a take down, many different ways with many different outcomes.  But all of them started with the upward block motion to defend against that line of attack.  Here with the distance involved I generally assume almost a back stance with the weight on the same foot as the hand that is blocking (which in the drill would be more of the rear foot in this example) so that I then can transfer my weight onto the other foot as I feed in my strike, or so I can keep my other foot lite (less weight on it) so I can insert kicks or stomps.

And for a final example take the sword arm block used in Aikido, Aikijutsu etc. etc. it too is really again a form of an upward block, just coming at it from a different angle with a different intent but still protecting the head from a downward attack.  Here it is not jamming the technique but receiving it and deflecting it.

I don't believe there is only one secret or main example of the upward block or any block for that matter but many.  The fact that the upward block/motion turns up in so many different forms, different styles, from different cultures with different interpretations or applications speaks more to the importance of the block than to it's ineffectiveness as a single application technique.

With respect
Mark


----------



## Mark Lynn (Oct 31, 2012)

Chris Parker said:


> In fact, almost all times it turns up in kata, it's with a step forward, or a step to the sides, moving towards the attack. So think about it... if it's against a punch, and you need to step forward, then the punch wouldn't have reached you. *But if it's against a downward sword cut, then you need to move in past the blade. In this form, no physical adaptation is needed, and it makes perfect sense, both in the singular action, and as it occurs in all kata.*



Chris

I'm sorry but I disagree with the whole idea here about this "makes perfect sense, both in the singular action, and as it occurs in all kata."  Karate at one time was being developed to teach to school kids, in fact that is why Pinan/Heian katas were created.  I'm not sure when the Taikyoku katas (Yondan having the upward block) were created but it was to teach beginners how to move again as a stepping stone for students.  My point is that while the upward block is found in many katas, I find literally a very very small amount of sword defenses using the upward block as taught in Okinawan, Japanese or Korean MAs, and I don't believe that young kids had to face this type of attack very much either.  However karate was meant to be a self defense art against other unarmed aggressors, not even amongst professional fighters but for everyday people, and mainly young men getting ready for war (in the university years in Japan).

"In short among the advantages of karate as a means of self defense are these: no weapons are necessary; the old or sick, or women, are able to apply it; and one can protect himself effectively even with little natural strength.  These points combine to make karate a form of self defense without equal."  Karate Do Kyohan pg 13 Gichin Funakoshi   

I found one You Tube of the upward block being used in a Wado ryu knife defense, and I didn't see it used in the Wado ryu sword defenses as shown by the founder.  Now I did find some avoidance techniques some passing techniques, checking techniques, but in everyone of the sword defenses the defender closes defends and then jumps away and ducks.  Also the defender and the swordsman are at extremely long range with the swordsman slowly inching his way forward and the defender inching backwards till they were at the right distance and then he moved in for the cut as the defender closed in to defend.

Now I know this is for the safety of the defender while demoing (the closing of the gap and the long distances), however that is the very reason why I don't believe the sword defense (the jamming technique you describe) is a primary application of the block as taught in any form of MA.  In real life the swordsman would close the gap and draw the sword in a flash he would repeatedly hack slash and cut at the defender not feed just one technique that is seen from a mile away.

In fact in the tanto defense clips there is one application where they used an upward block per say as a jam, but other than that I didn't see them.  The founder of Wado ryu was a direct student of Funakoshi sensei and a Jujitsu master in his own right, who blended both arts to create his own system.  He even went so far as to create as a part of the curriculum the tanto and sword defenses and yet while there are many techniques and concepts that repeat through the defenses (both sword and tanto), the jamming of the sword arms (or knife arm) as they are coming down aren't repeated and are left out of the sword defenses completely.  

Great thread though


----------



## punisher73 (Nov 1, 2012)

Going back to the analogy of language, I think that is a key component here in understanding "hidden techniques".  The word "uke" meant to receive and not necessarily to "block".  Before the advent of picture books, you were taught the motions of the kata and perfected those.  Then you worked on two person drills and applications.  The moves in the kata had more than one meaning and weren't labeled.  When you put the label of "block" onto it, it freezes the meaning in place as to it's meaning and application.

I have seen MANY reasons for the opening moves of Gekisai Dai Ichi (Taikyoku Shodan in the Shorin based systems).  Where you do a left high block and then step forward with a right straight punch.  ( http://www.rokc.ca/kata/geki-sai-dai-ichi/geki-sai-dai-ichi.html for a reference)  If you did a left block against the punch, then why are you stepping into them with a longer range weapon since I haven't done something to change the distance of my attacker in relation to me?  At this point, I have heard some people make the argument, that there is no meaning to the movements other than to just teach beginners to turn and move forward with body weight.  I have heard other people say that the moves are "hidden" because they teach you the wrong way and that the steps are wrong to confuse students with the REAL meaning of moving back against the attack.

Here is another option.  The "high block" is actually a forearm jam coming up underneath the attacker's throat/jawline which DOES drive them back and allows for the forward step to maintain distance and punch the attacker.  Miyagi Sensei gave a big clue when he named what he created, "To Attack and Destroy".  Doesn't this application seem more reasonable with that definition in mind?  But, if we ONLY view that movement as a block, then we have to figure out how to apply that "block" in a specific context and then we get strange applications and bunkai to get a match.  This is also why in okinawan karate a move in kata was NOT changed to only make a specific application fit, it was understood that the move had many applications.


----------



## K-man (Nov 5, 2012)

What is this thread?  Let's gang up on Chris?  Hell, why not?


OK. The upper 'block', Jodan Uke.  Against a sword?  Mmm! Possible but unlikely.  There are no examples of Jodan Uke in any of the early traditional Okinawan Goju Ryu kata.  They are only introduced in around 1940 when Miyagi and Nagamine developed the Fukyugata which in Goju became Gekisai dai ichi and Gekisai dai ni.  Whether it came from Shorin Ryu or whether it was from Shotokan I wouldn't be sure.  (There is speculation that prior to this times Mawashi Uke was Goju's upper 'block'.) And, there were not that many people waking around Japan with swords in 1940.


If you look to aikido, the ikkyo technique could be used against the sword but it is a radically different technique to Jodan Uke.  For a start the upper arm, that appears to be doing the work, actually does nothing at first and the lower hand, which is in front, opposite to Jodan Uke, is the hand taking the elbow. This would not be the preferred option against the downward sword. In aikido the defence against the downward sword cut is to move the body off line, Tsabaki, and using the front hand, bring the hand down before striking and controlling the sword arm.The other argument against the sword theory is that a downward cut is just that, a cut, not a slash. Even then, with a slash, if you try to jam the arm there are two likely outcomes. Firstly the block doesn't stop the sword (ouch) or the block stops the arm but the sword continues down (still ouch!).


So let's look at the beginning of the Gekisai kata ... 90 degree turn and Jodan Uke.  Attacker punches to the head with right hand. Kata dictates, step off line and move through 90 degrees. Deflect the punch with the left hand and use the right hand in multiple ways.  It could be to strike under the tricep, or it might be to trap the arm prior to punching with the left hand. It might be to strike to the vital points of the neck, or it might be a hammer fist to the temple. Depending on position it could even be a strike to the back of the head if the attacker has forward momentum, or, it might simply be a forearm smash to the face. The one thing it is not, is a 'block'. You don't have time to stop an attack and strike. You will be too busy stopping the next attack. Most 'ukes' use two hands. One parries while the other strikes or traps.      :asian:


----------



## DennisBreene (Nov 23, 2012)

K-man said:


> What is this thread?  Let's gang up on Chris?  Hell, why not?
> 
> 
> OK. The upper 'block', Jodan Uke.  Against a sword?  Mmm! Possible but unlikely.  There are no examples of Jodan Uke in any of the early traditional Okinawan Goju Ryu kata.  They are only introduced in around 1940 when Miyagi and Nagamine developed the Fukyugata which in Goju became Gekisai dai ichi and Gekisai dai ni.  Whether it came from Shorin Ryu or whether it was from Shotokan I wouldn't be sure.  (There is speculation that prior to this times Mawashi Uke was Goju's upper 'block'.) And, there were not that many people waking around Japan with swords in 1940.
> ...



It is exciting to see so many skilled and knowledgeble practitioners spending so much time on bunkai.  I was told when I reached first dan that now it was time to learn karate.  I think that the points made by various discussants serves to support that and to demonstrate how layered the arts are. I learned the traditional explanations of the forms as I learned the forms and suspected that for the beginner, the focus was on simply "learning to walk and stand".  It becomes fairly obvious when you watch a low belt struggle with position and balance while moving through a kata.  Clearly what has been written here by others demonstrates that many techniques can flow from developing strong basics, even if the moves appear stylized and impractical. As I have added Modern Arnis to my studies of Tang Soo Do I have seen how new possibilities become apparent and I've also felt how my fundamental studies have assisted me in moving through the techniques of Arnis.  Without stating it; my first instructor Grand Master James K Roberts Sr, took our basic abilities in kata and applied them in one step sparring (which we affectionatly called "if you want to's"). Mr Roberts always followed each technique with a follow on technique stating "if you want to". His point being that proper application of your technique required adapting to the resulting situation and was fluid; it was not a drill done by the numbers or by rote.  I see bunkai as an extension of that philosophy and it is part of bringing the arts forward to explore how one would adapt kata to our personal needs and styles.  I find that approaching kata in this mind set makes it meaningful and fun. I still get a thrill watching someone perform a near perfect kata in the old style, but I now am learning to see the subtle alternatives; Arnis' classic block, check, counter; throws, locks and takedowns from jiu jitsu; attention to position and distance from all styles. On a good day, I find myself thinking "what could be better than this" with pure joy in the art.

Now we should get back to work.  There are arms to maim, meridions to be disrupted, gallbladder 6's to be struck and an occasional punch and kick to deliver for old times sake. [With apologies; my spell check doesn't seem to be working]
Dennis


----------



## Cayuga Karate (Nov 26, 2012)

Chris Parker wrote 



> Were the attackers all likely to be unarmed?



This is a good question, and one that shouldn't be dismissed so quickly. Were kata designed to defend against armed attackers?

Nagamine has written the following:



> Tribute (trade with China) was the the single most important aspect of the Ryukyu's social economy, and therefore, no expense was ever spared when it came to ensuring the safety of cargo, passengers and crew. In the event of an assault, which was quite frequent during feudal times, passengers who were skilled in combative disciplines were, by order of the King, commanded to aid the crew. All tribute ships that sailed the treacherous waters between China and the Ryukyu archipelago during feudal times were equipped with a turret, artillery, and weapons such as arrows, spears, guns and explosives.


Perhaps the kata that has been handed down today from the Chinese, notably military attachees tasked with ensuring the defense of their ships on their voyages to and from Okinawa, were not designed solely for empty hand fighting. 

I applaud all efforts at studying the kata, and developing good empty hand fighting combinations based on the movements in kata. Those of us who train in kata all stand to benefit from those who think deeply about these movements and how they can be translated into useful empty hand fighting combinations.

However, I believe many of us recognize that from one critical perspective,much of kata just does not lend itself to empty hand fighting. 

The upper block discussed at the beginning of this discussion can be used to illustrate a fundamental challenge we all have in translating numerous empty hand kata sequences into empty hand fighting. 

If we are considering a kata movement in empty hand fighting, then I believe it logical that we look at the movements as they appear in kata. This upward block is found in several kata, and in each, there are movements that precede it and movements that follow. In Shotokan systems, this movements is first found in Heian Shodan (Pinan Nidan). It is preceded by a downward block and followed by two more upward blocks. There are four movements and four steps, a pattern found in many Okinawan kata.

In most all fighting systems outside of karate, if there is a sequence of four movements, then, in general, it is practiced as a unit, and can be used as a unit of fighting, a combination. In boxing, it is not uncommon to practice a sequence of four movements. Parry, and then follow with a three strike combo. In Kali, sequences can be far more lengthy (although there is no formal kata). In Aikido, the same. 

Yet here we are in karate with four hand movements coupled with four steps in a sequence that appears to have eluded attempts at explanations for use in a realistic empty hand encounter. As noted above, we find these three and four step sequences across all manner of kata. And in case after case, explanations of the use of these sequences in empty hand fighting is never really addressed.  

What we have instead is individuals who take small components out of these sequences, and they use them in isolation. The movements are decoupled from the patterns in which they occur, and only in isolation can good empty hand fighting applications be developed. The common practice is to add other movements to the combination to make it useful. Sometimes the hand sequences are kept, and the steps are eliminated, or greatly modified such that the final sequence really does not map all that well to the original kata movements. 

For those who argue that kata has all the fighting sequences that one needs for self defense, it should be recognized that across many kata there are multi-step sequences that cover a lot of ground. These patterns, as they appear in the kata, are never "decoded" for use in meaningful fighting sequences for a simple reason. They don't map to empty hand fighting. 

I am a lifetime student of kata, and I really appreciate all the effort that karateka have taken in helping translate empty hand kata movements into effective empty hand fighting.  But I also believe that we should all fully appreciate the ramifications regarding the origins of kata. They were passed down to Okinawans by Chinese men, often military men at a time when the lifeblood of the Okinawan economy was tied up in tribute trade with China, when sailing vessels were at great risk from the rampant piracy off the coast of China.

Nagamine gives us a hint of this in his text. The quaint notion that Okinawans had no need for skill in armed combat is just that, a quaint notion. Their ships needed a full complement of able bodied men to thwart pirate attacks, and they most certainly didn't try to fight off armed pirates with their empty hands. They fought with weapons, and likely had great skill in doing so. They had been successful seafarers for centuries, and would have been quite skilled at armed conflict in the defense of their ships. 

Perhaps we should consider that the Chinese, also highly skilled in maritime defense, may have passed down training regimens that at least in part could have helped Okinawans maintain proficiency in the armed arts vital to the success of their trade missions with China. In Nagamine's words, this trade was the single most important aspect of the Ryukyu's social economy.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 27, 2012)

Cayuga Karate said:


> Chris Parker wrote
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It's very interesting to consider the origins of the kata, especially when we identify the three main hubs of karate on Okinawa.  Naha te and Tomari te strike me as systems that may have been more self defense orientated, especially the Naha te systems which trace their lineage back to Chinese boxing.  Tomari te has some movements that are obviously not boxing.  The shoulder carry throw, various arm drag take downs, and other entwining techniques can be found throughout these kata.  These moves seem to indicate a possibly a different origin that developed because of a different need.

In Shuri te systems, this gets even more pronounced and I think we start to get the hint at where some of these moves may have originated.  All of the "castle" systems of karate had some exposure to a system of swordsmanship that was imported from Japan called Jigen Ryu.  This school has empty handed lists that contain techniques for dealing with an armed attacker while you are unarmed.  It also contains techniques for subduing unarmed attackers.  Many of these techniques are directly found in the kata.  In particular, I think techniques for weapon retention, off hand draws of secondary weapons, and specific throwing techniques designed to clear a weapon and disable an attacker, can be identified.  

This makes sense, because the government of Okinawa is going to have need for such training in the administration of it's power.  Whether the government is merely a satellite of the Satsuma clan or it directly serves the king, dealing with armed attackers is going to be a regular challenge for this class of people.  I wonder if entire versions of kata could basically be composed empty hand versus weapon techniques.  Passai kata in particular strikes me as the kind of kata that holds a lot of this knowledge.  "To Penetrate the Fortress" is a metaphor for defense needed when feces is hitting the fan blades and what better situation qualifies for this as when your opponent has a weapon and you don't.


----------



## Cayuga Karate (Nov 27, 2012)

Makalakumu wrote:



> In Shuri te systems, this gets even more pronounced and I think we start to get the hint at where some of these moves may have originated. All of the "castle" systems of karate had some exposure to a system of swordsmanship that was imported from Japan called Jigen Ryu. This school has empty handed lists that contain techniques for dealing with an armed attacker while you are unarmed. It also contains techniques for subduing unarmed attackers. Many of these techniques are directly found in the kata. In particular, I think techniques for weapon retention, off hand draws of secondary weapons, and specific throwing techniques designed to clear a weapon and disable an attacker, can be identified.



If there are movements in kata that are paralleled in Jigen Ryu, it would be interesting to see those concepts documented with video. I have my doubts they exist, but would certainly be open to evidence that Okinawan kata have such movements. I am most interested in sequences of movements rather than random hand patterns.

However, if it does turn out to be the case that there are parallels, that doesn't necessarily imply that Okinawan kata were designed with Jigen Ryu movements. The implication here is that Okinawans familiar with Jigen Ryu sword and empty hand concepts, designed these movements into Okinawan kata. However there is little if anything in the historical record that attributes Okinawans as the originators of the kata we practice today. 

Rather, the historical record, despite its threadbare nature, indicates that the kata we practice today are of likely Chinese origin. Motobu is most specific, naming 12 kata. Funakoshi adds two more. Nakama, in Bishop's text, adds Channan (Pinan). There are other references as well.

One can argue that Itosu created the movements of Pinans, but that would not be fully correct. First, it is clearly obvious that Pinan kata have movements very similar to movements in a number of other kata of Chinese origin. What about those movements in Pinan that are not found in other known kata? Did Itosu design them? First, they may simply have been part of the Channan kata on which Pinans are based. However, we should consider that many kata have not survived, and it is quite possible that some of the Pinan kata draw from movements in kata that are now dead.

The kata attributed by Motobu, Funakoshi and Nakama as being of Chinese origin include nearly the full range of what we consider Shuri te kata. (Naihanchi, Passai, Kusanku, Gojushiho, Seisan, Chinto, Chintei, Pinan, Jutte, Jiin.) Motobu also describes Wansu, Rohai, Seinchin and Suparenpei as being of Chinese origin.

Regarding Naha te kata, though the record is far from clear, the current historical consensus is that Higaonna brought back four kata (Sanchin, Seisan, Sanseru and Suparenpei) from China. It is uncertain where Shisochin, Kururunfa, Seipei, Saifa originate. However, it is quite probable that these were kata practiced in Naha, possibly in the Kumemura district. The historical record does not name them.

There are other records of Chinese origin of Okinawan kata. Nakaima is credited with bringing back all the kata in his system, from China. Uechi, is also credited with bringing back a number of his kata from China. The origins of the other Uechi kata is uncertain, though many, I believe, are attributed to him.

It is common to find speculation on this forum and others, that the Chinese may have introduced kata long ago, and that these have evolved, through significant changes introduced by Okinawans, into the many variations we see today. Kusanku, Passai and Rohai are good examples of kata where there are many divergent variations of kata with a single shared name. However, there is no surviving historical evidence on which to make the claim that there are older "original" forms, and newer Okinawan creations based on the older forms. They could all be very old. For example, Kusanku could have taught a number of different kata to the individuals he trained. 

The Okinawans certainly did develop some kata, noteably the "beginner" kata developed in the 30s and 40s. Funakoshi introduced Taikyoku, Miyagi the Gekisai, and Nagamine, the Fukyugata. There is documentation that these kata were created because the older kata were too complex to be learned quickly. Relatedly, there is evidence that Nagamine and Miyagi created their kata in response to the Japanese military authorities' requests for improvements in basic training for military recruits. The older kata were too difficult to be learned in the several months training before a soldier was shipped off to war. In that effort, the Okinawans certainly did contribute a bit to the body of kata that existed in Okinawa at that time. For example Mabuni is credited with a number of kata. 

On this and similar forums, one can find numerous instances of arguments that the Okinawans changed the Chinese kata and made them distinctly Okinawan (or Japanese). Many point to the Funakoshi's statement that he made changes in kata to suit Japanese tastes. Perhaps most obvious is the evolution of Funakoshi's kata from shorter stances to longer, deeper stances, and from lower kicks to higher kicks. These changes may have been done to increase the strenuousness of kata practice. In Funakoshi's youth, he likely practiced kata two or more hours per day. In Japan in the 1930s, gym classes were likely far shorter. Longer, deeper stances, and higher kicks may simply have been a way to increase the exercise level of the training. Moreover, the longer back stance was familiar to many Japanese who trained in kendo in school gym classes. 

Beyond those cosmetic changes, it is not all that clear what movements Okinawans may have introduced into the kata handed down to them by the Chinese. One can argue that the Okinawans modified the kata in all manner of ways. For example, this is done above in this thread by Makalakumu who claims that movements from Jigen Ryu sword and related empty hand arts were incorporated in Okinawan kata. The historical evidence implies otherwise and therefore the burden of proof falls on those who make such arguments. It's an easy burden. Show several kata sequences, and show the corresponding Jigen Ryu sequences. 

In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I find it preferable to rely upon the surviving documentation we do have from Motobu, Funakoshi and others that uniformly note that Okinawan kata are of Chinese origin.

For those that are willing to accept this hypothesis at face value, an interesting follow up question might be useful. 

"Why did Chinese military men, tasked with the armed defense of their sailing vessels to and from Okinawa, appear to limit their training of Okinawans in combative arts to empty hand movements only?"

That question has been studiously ignored by the karate community for the hundred years since karate training entered the public domain. And it remains studiously ignored to this day.

The Okinawans had clear military requirements in defending their trade to and from China. For most of the Okinawan elite, their path to success in the Okinawan aristocracy had a fundamental prerequisite. One needed to be assigned to a trade mission to China where one could acquire the goods and profit needed to be a full upstanding member in Okinawan society. (Funakoshi describes this in his opening pages of Karate-do Kyohan... "Even in the authors youth, lack of a full set of Chinese furniture and furnishings in one's home was a serious impediment to the social influence of any leading family.") Sakon describes how many had to toil for years in low-paying government positions, patiently earning their way to an appointment to a trade mission. For those who did receive such an appointment, they well knew the dangers of the voyage, described aptly by Nagamine. It should be a surprise to nobody that should an Okinawan ship be attacked, they would have fought, to a man, with the military weapons of the time, bladed weapons. Nagamine notes a ships arsenal includes spears. He does not mention swords. 

Once one begins to appreciate the national interests of the Okinawans in having a population of able bodied men who could be quickly trained in the military fighting concepts of the time, then one can begin to appreciate the significance of the question above.

"For what purpose did Chinese military men, skilled in armed naval combat with bladed weapons, choose to train Okinawans in empty hand combative arts?"


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 27, 2012)

In Patrick McCarthy's translation of the Bubishi, the following passage can be found on page 85.



> In Volume Eight of the Japanese Encycopedia Nihon Budo Taikei there is a provocative passage on page fifty one that provides and interesting explanation of the origins of the Ryukyo Kingdom's fighting traditions.  The passage notes that Lord Shimizu instructed second generation Jigen Ryu Headmaster Togo Bizen no Kami Shigekata (1602-59) to teach self defense tactics to farmers and peasents in Satsuma.  This was done so that in case of invasion, these farmers could act as a clandestine line of defense for their homeland.  This non-warrior tradition was disguised in a folk dance called the Jigen Ryu Bo Odori and incorporated the jo against the sword; the rokushaku bo against the spear; and separate disciplines employing an eiku, the kama, shakuhachi, and other implements.
> 
> This phenomenon clearly illustrates how the principles of combat were ingeniously applied to occupationally related implements and then unfolded into a fold tradition, not unlike what of Okinawa's civil combative heritage nearly a century before.  When I asked the eleventh generation Jigen Ryu headmaster Togo Shigemasa about this potential link, he said, "there can be no question that Jigen Ryu is connected to Okinawa's Domestic fighting traditions; however, the question remains, which influenced which!"



Here is another interesting tidbit.

http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/columns/0005/lens236.htm



> Jigen-ryu is a school of swordsmanship  founded in the late 16th  century by Togo Chui in Satsuma domain, today's Kagoshima Prefecture.
> 
> 
> Jigen-ryu places importance on the first sword strike, which must be  extraordinarily fast and powerful in order to defeat opponents.  Jigen-ryu teachings state that a second strike is not even to be  considered.



This may be the origin of the "one strike one kill" meme that has filtered through karate circles for ages.  Of course, I think as with many concepts, the original meaning of this has been lost and people may be taking it too literally.

Noting this, lets address the question at hand.



Cayuga Karate said:


> If there are movements in kata that are paralleled in Jigen Ryu, it would be interesting to see those concepts documented with video. I have my doubts they exist, but would certainly be open to evidence that Okinawan kata have such movements. I am most interested in sequences of movements rather than random hand patterns.



Here is an interesting example of a modern Jigen Ryu Syllabus that I was able to dig up.



> JU kyu
> 
> 
> 1. History of Jigen Ryu Kenjutsu Rekishi
> ...



I haven't found any videos of the empty hand material, but apparently the school still exists in Kagoshima.  One could theoretically go and settle this in a very authoritative way.


----------



## Cayuga Karate (Nov 27, 2012)

Makalakula wrote:



> n Shuri te systems, this gets even more pronounced and I think we start to get the hint at where some of these moves may have originated. All of the "castle" systems of karate had some exposure to a system of swordsmanship that was imported from Japan called Jigen Ryu. This school has empty handed lists that contain techniques for dealing with an armed attacker while you are unarmed. *It also contains techniques for subduing unarmed attackers. Many of these techniques are directly found in the kata.* In particular, I think techniques for weapon retention, off hand draws of secondary weapons, and specific throwing techniques designed to clear a weapon and disable an attacker, can be identified.



Emphasis added.

In your response you noted 



> The passage notes that Lord Shimizu instructed second generation Jigen Ryu Headmaster Togo Bizen no Kami Shigekata (1602-59) to teach self defense tactics to farmers and peasents in Satsuma...."there can be no question that Jigen Ryu is connected to Okinawa's Domestic fighting traditions; however, the question remains, which influenced which!"



I may be missing something here, but I don't see how Satsuma teaching local farmers in Satsuma, in the early 1600s, how to use their native implemements against an attack shows how Jigen Ryu concepts were incorporated into the Okinawan kata that Motobu and others describe as being of Chinese origin, many of them taught to Okinawans a hundred or more years later.



> This may be the origin of the "one strike one kill" meme that has filtered through karate circles for ages. Of course, I think as with many concepts, the original meaning of this has been lost and people may be taking it too literally.



Yes Jigen Ryu has an emphasis on killing with the first strike. Again, I fail to see the relationship of this concept with the movements in Okinawan kata. If anything the complexity of Okinawan kata indicate to me that there is far more emphasis on multiple movements than on single blows. If single blows were all that mattered, then I believe the Okinawans would have abandoned kata and focused exclusively on makiwara training. 



> Noting this, lets address the question at hand.



I don't mean to appear rude here in any way, but I fail to see how a list of techniques/drills from a Jigen Ryu syllabus in any way addresses the issue at hand. 

Was Jigen Ryu taught by samurai to select members of the Okinawan elite? Certainly. Do Japanese sword arts commonly have derivative empty hand training. Certainly. We can see that with Jiu Jitsu, Aiki Jitsu and Aikido.

But simply because we have Japanese sword arts that were practiced by a few Okinawans does not necessarily mean that those Okinawans took sequences from those arts and blended them into the Chinese kata that they had practiced for generations.

We do have fairly clear guidance from Motobu, Funakoshi, Nakama and others that the Okinawans practiced Chinese forms. We do know some changes were made. I believe Higaonna is attributed to the change to Sanchin where the hands are now closed, as compared to, for example, Shisochin, and Uechi ryu kata where they are open.

Nakama said Itosu closed the hands on some sequences, and added more pauses, a distinct characteristic of modern Okinawan kata. (Nakama stated that he modified the original Chinese kata simultaneous sequences to more block-then-strike sequences.)

That's what we know, and precious little else. If posters here would like to help our collective understanding of the origins of kata, then it would be helpful if they made use of known documentation. 

This is no insult to the Okinawans who have given us the little history we do have, but it is clear that it is woefully incomplete and in many ways just non-sensical. I have noted above, and will do so again. There are many references to the requirement that the Okinawans need to develop empty hand arts after the Satsuma prohibited the carrying of swords and spears. Nowhere in the Okinawan karate history (until Nagamine's text from the 1990s), is there mention of the fundamental national security requirement that Okinawans be able to fight off pirate attacks from their trading convoys to and from China. These Okinawans had to use the common bladed weapons of the time, and they were likely very proficient in using them. They had been seafarers, and their formal trading relationship with China extended over 500 years, long before handheld firearms were used at sea.

Among the karate community there appears to be a willful blindness to these basic facts of history. And it extends further. It is simply accepted that the Chinese military authorities who trained Okinawans in combative arts taught them empty hand fighting soley with the goal to protect Okinawans on land in Okinawa. It is never considered why these Chinese military authorities, skilled in defense of naval vessels, wouldn't have been motivated to teach the Okinawans how to defend their precious tribute cargo to and from China, and their very lives as well. It is useful to note that the usual result of a successful pirate attack would be that all passengers and crew would either be killed, or forced into a miserable life of slave labor aboard a pirate ship, where one could expect a less than subsistance diet, onerous working conditions, and other horrors as well.

These threats to Okinawa's national security interests have been studiously ignored, by the historians of Okinawan karate, and by their millions of students worldwide. What has been provided is a simplistic model of history that completely omits much of the basic history of Okinawa's past as a seafaring nation.

I believe a time will come when the karate community begins to accept this past, and the ramifications of this past on their study of the Chinese kata handed down to Okinawans, in part by Chinese military authorities. 

We're certainly not there yet. I will continue to make this case here and in other venues. I do recognize that I am challenged by an institutional aversion to these concepts. Someday there may be a much greater appreciation of the question posed above.

"Why did Chinese military authorities, skilled in the armed defense of maritime commerce, choose to teach empty hand kata to Okinawans whose national security interests required broad skill in armed defense of maritime commerce?"


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 27, 2012)

Cayuga Karate said:


> I may be missing something here, but I don't see how Satsuma teaching local farmers in Satsuma, in the early 1600s, how to use their native implemements against an attack shows how Jigen Ryu concepts were incorporated into the Okinawan kata that Motobu and others describe as being of Chinese origin, many of them taught to Okinawans a hundred or more years later.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Ryukyu



> The *invasion of Ryukyu* (&#29705;&#29699;&#24449;&#20240; _Ry&#363;ky&#363; Seibatsu_[SUP]?[/SUP]) by forces of the Japanese feudal domain of Satsuma took place in 1609, and marked the beginning of the Ry&#363;ky&#363; Kingdom's  status as a vassal state under Satsuma. The invasion itself involved  few casualties, as Ryukyu had little military strength, and its people  were ordered by their king to surrender and to spare themselves any  bloodshed.



This program included Okinawa because it was a vassal state under Satsuma.  This is why so many Okinawan masters were awarded Menkyo Kaiden in Jigen Ryu in later years.



Cayuga Karate said:


> Yes Jigen Ryu has an emphasis on killing with the first strike. Again, I fail to see the relationship of this concept with the movements in Okinawan kata. If anything the complexity of Okinawan kata indicate to me that there is far more emphasis on multiple movements than on single blows. If single blows were all that mattered, then I believe the Okinawans would have abandoned kata and focused exclusively on makiwara training.



Makiwara training was very much emphasized in the old art, but I think we'll get off track on this if we're not careful.  At any rate, I think people are being far too literal.  "End it NOW!" is the moral of this story, IMO.  Still, the idea is there and that is what matters for this discussion.  I don't think the appearence of this meme is coincidental when you consider all of the information.



Cayuga Karate said:


> I don't mean to appear rude here in any way, but I fail to see how a list of techniques/drills from a Jigen Ryu syllabus in any way addresses the issue at hand.



Many of the concepts on these syllabus are referring to two person kata that are shared between systems of aikijujutsu and jujutsu.  Some of these techniques are directly analogous to those found in kata.  I have a shodan in Japanese jujutsu and many of the two person techniques appear to be direct matches between the movement sequences in Okinawan Kata.  I'll shoot a video of some of it when I have time. 



Cayuga Karate said:


> Was Jigen Ryu taught by samurai to select members of the Okinawan elite? Certainly. Do Japanese sword arts commonly have derivative empty hand training. Certainly. We can see that with Jiu Jitsu, Aiki Jitsu and Aikido.



It's not just a few Okinawan Elite.  Soken Matsumura, Ankoh Azato and many of his entire line were awarded the Menkyo Kaiden in Jigen Ryu.  This school of Japanese Martial Arts was pervasive.




Cayuga Karate said:


> But simply because we have Japanese sword arts that were practiced by a few Okinawans does not necessarily mean that those Okinawans took sequences from those arts and blended them into the *Chinese *kata that they had practiced for generations.



I don't think it's fair to call the kata Chinese.  I think, as other karate researchers like Patrick McCarthy points out, that the kata were blends of Chinese concepts, Japanese concepts, and traditional homegrown Okinawan concepts.  It's an amalgamation.

Regarding your point about weapons training, I think it's very plausible that the kata contain information on weapon techniques.  The origin is not pure, however.  We must look in many directions.


----------



## Cayuga Karate (Nov 27, 2012)

> This program included Okinawa because it was a vassal state under Satsuma. This is why so many Okinawan masters were awarded Menkyo Kaiden in Jigen Ryu in later years.



Do you have a source that specifically states that Satsuma had a training program across the Ryukyu Kingdom? If you have one, please provide it. If you are using the reference you have provided, I don't see anything that states this was taught outside of Satsuma. The text appears quite clear. This was a program in Satsuma, not in the Ryukyu archipelago. Moreover, if Satsuma had engaged in a training program of the Okinawan peasantry, I find it difficult to believe there would be no reference to in in the standard histories of Okinawan karate. I believe the fact that it is mentioned in none of them is proves that it is highly unlikely that it ever occurred. 



> It's not just a few Okinawan Elite. Soken Matsumura, Ankoh Azato and many of his entire line were awarded the Menkyo Kaiden in Jigen Ryu. This school of Japanese Martial Arts was pervasive.


I would be grateful if you could provide a reference regarding the statement "many of his entire line"? Is there a list of specific individuals, or a claim to a number of those awarded the Menkyo Kaiden? Also, what reference/source do you have that Japanese sword arts were pervasive in Okinawa? I am aware of brief mention of it in Funakoshi's writings, regarding Azato, and there are references of Matsumura training in Jigen Ryu. I would be grateful if you could provide any other historical references to sword training in Okinawa in the 19th century. 



> I don't think it's fair to call the kata Chinese. I think, as other karate researchers like Patrick McCarthy points out, that the kata were blends of Chinese concepts, Japanese concepts, and traditional homegrown Okinawan concepts. It's an amalgamation.


 I am familiar with a number of sources that state the *karate* is a blend of various inputs, including both Okinawan and Chinese. But I am unaware of any authoritative source that attributes specific *kata*, known to have existed 100 years ago in Okinawa, as being a blend of Chinese concepts, Japanese concepts and traditional homegrown Okinawan concepts. I would be grateful if you could provide a source, especially McCarthy's statements. 

I think you would find much disagreement in the Goju community with the implication that Higaonna created the kata he is claimed to have brought back from China. I think you would also find much disagreement in the Ryue Ryu community that Nakaima created the kata he brought back from China.  

While I await your references of the incorporation of Japanese influences in specific Okinawan kata, I will be content to rely on some authoritative sources regarding the origins of Okinawan kata. (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IASrvM7gGkcA48ISIJRF4uzlGweWxfFV28x4CLDUkts/edit)

*Motobu (1870-1944)
*


> As I have mentioned, Ryu Kyu Kempo-Karate originally came from China. Sanchin, Jo-Ju-Shi-Ho, Seisan and Seiunchin have been used there for many centuries. However, the Naihanchi, Passai, Chinto and Rohai styles are not left in China today and remain only in Okinawa as active Martial Arts.



*Funakoshi (1868-1957)*



> Those who received instruction from a castaway from Annan in Fuzhou include: Gusukuma and Kanagusku (Chinto), Matsumura and Oyadomari (Chinte), Yamasato (Jiin) and Nakasato (Jitte), all of Tomari who learned the kata separately. The reason being that their teach was in a hurry to return to his home country.



*Nagamine (1907-1997)*


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


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 27, 2012)

I'm sorry, but this post is probably going to let you down.  I'm at home and time is limited.



Cayuga Karate said:


> Do you have a source that specifically states that Satsuma had a training program across the Ryukyu Kingdom? If you have one, please provide it. If you are using the reference you have provided, I don't see anything that states this was taught outside of Satsuma. The text appears quite clear. This was a program in Satsuma, not in the Ryukyu archipelago. Moreover, if Satsuma had engaged in a training program of the Okinawan peasantry, I find it difficult to believe there would be no reference to in in the standard histories of Okinawan karate. I believe the fact that it is mentioned in none of them is proves that it is highly unlikely that it ever occurred.



I'm not at the office anymore, so specific sources will have to wait.  However, if the program was not extended to Okinawans, how did so many of the Okinawan Bushi receive Menkyo Kaiden in Jigen Ryu?

Incidentally, I did find this website interesting...

http://hakudaryukempojutsu.webs.com/okinawante2nobleti.htm



> The _Satsuma Samurai _who had occupied Okinawa from 1609 practised _Jigen Ryu _which can be traced to _Marume_'s _Taisha Shin Kage Ryu._ _Murame _had when a student of _Kamiizumi_ _Nobutsuna_, the founder of the _Shin Kage Ryu_, assisted in a demonstration before _Ashikaga Yoshiteru Shogun_.
> 
> _Sakugawa _who is believed to have been a student of _Kusankun _who practised what was called _Kumiai-Jutsu_. _Sakugawa _was also in charge of security for a large commercial shipping firm and had studied martial arts in _Beijing _and _Fuzhou _in China and _Satsuma _in Japan.
> There is little doubt that _Sakugawa_'s influence of on Okinawan martial arts combined methods from both China (_Kumiai Jutsu_) and Japan (_Jigen Ryu_).
> ...





Cayuga Karate said:


> I would be grateful if you could provide a reference regarding the statement "many of his entire line"? Is there a list of specific individuals, or a claim to a number of those awarded the Menkyo Kaiden? Also, what reference/source do you have that Japanese sword arts were pervasive in Okinawa? I am aware of brief mention of it in Funakoshi's writings, regarding Azato, and there are references of Matsumura training in Jigen Ryu. I would be grateful if you could provide any other historical references to sword training in Okinawa in the 19th century.



Imagine that two of your martial arts teachers had trained in the same style.  Now imagine that martial arts instruction was much more rare than it is today.  The fact that two of Funakoshi's teacher's were awarded Menkyo Kaiden in Jigen Ryu is not to be overlooked.  It bespeaks that this art was common in the circles of people who practiced martial arts.

That said, tracking down all of the Okinawans that were awarded the Menkyo Kaiden in Jigen Ryu probably requires a visit to the Honbu in Kagoshima.  Maybe someday...



Cayuga Karate said:


> I am familiar with a number of sources that state the *karate* is a blend of various inputs, including both Okinawan and Chinese. But I am unaware of any authoritative source that attributes specific *kata*, known to have existed 100 years ago in Okinawa, as being a blend of Chinese concepts, Japanese concepts and traditional homegrown Okinawan concepts. I would be grateful if you could provide a source, especially McCarthy's statements.



McCarthy's statements can be read in his translation of the Bubishi. Allow me to paraphrase, he states that karate incorporated techniques from chinese, japanese, and indiginous okinawan sources.  This is a pervasive theme IMO.



Cayuga Karate said:


> I think you would find much disagreement in the Goju community with the implication that Higaonna created the kata he is claimed to have brought back from China. I think you would also find much disagreement in the Ryue Ryu community that Nakaima created the kata he brought back from China.



I'm sorry, I should have been more specific.  I was referring mostly to Shuri Te systems.  Maybe my comments relate to Tomari Te systems as well, but that would require more research.  One thing I do know is that many Tomari kata have the same specatacular throws that are found in Japanese martial arts!


----------



## Cayuga Karate (Dec 3, 2012)

Makalakula

I believe throughout this thread, you have made numerous statements for which you appear to have no supporting historical documentation. I have requested sources for a variety of statements for which nothing has been provided. So for the benefit of the historical record, I would like to review your claims further. If you would like to provide sources that rebut my claims, please feel free to do so.  

You wrote:



> In Shuri te systems, this gets even more pronounced and I think we start to get the hint at where some of these moves may have originated. *All of the "castle" systems of karate had some exposure to a system of swordsmanship that was imported from Japan called Jigen Ryu.**  This school has empty handed lists that contain techniques for dealing with an armed attacker while you are unarmed. It also contains techniques for subduing unarmed attackers. Many of these techniques are directly found in the kata.



*This statement (in bold) regarding "all" of the castle systems has no support in the historical record. We do know that one significant contributor to karate (Matsumura) did train in Jigen Ryu during at least one of his two voyages to Satsuma. But there is no real evidence that he taught anyone this Jigen Ryu art. In "The Essence of Karate" Funakoshi states:



> Master Azato received insturction in horsemanship from the Meiji emperor's equerry, Instructor Masachika Megata,: in the use of wooden swords from Instructor Yashichiro Ijuin of the Jigen-ryu school of swordsmanship; and in archery from Instructor Genta Sekiguchi.



As Funakoshi makes no mention of Matsumura having a role in Azato's Jigen-ryu training, we should suspect that he likely didn't. In support of this position, I think it instructive to consider whether Matsumura taught Jigen-ryu to his other students which include Itosu, Kentsu, Hanashiro, Funakoshi, Kyan, Nabe Matsumura, Tawada, Takemura, Kiyuna, Sakihara and Ishimine. And we find no mention of any instruction of Jigen-ryu by Matsumura to any of these students. The lack of any evidence that Matsumura taught Jigen-ryu to any of these other students lends support to the likelihood that Funakoshi's statement that Azato's instruction in Jigen Ryu was limited to Ijuin. 

In a later post, you reference the Satsuma training of Satsuma residents as to: 


> ...why so many Okinawan masters were awarded Menkyo Kaiden in Jigen Ryu in later years.



I asked for documentation referring to this and you wrote:


> This [Satsuma Training] program included Okinawa because it was a vassal state under Satsuma. This is why so many Okinawan masters were awarded Menkyo Kaiden in Jigen Ryu in later years...It's not just a few Okinawan Elite. Soken Matsumura, Ankoh Azato and many of his entire line were awarded the Menkyo Kaiden in Jigen Ryu. This school of Japanese Martial Arts was pervasive.



Your statement is unclear whether "his entire line" refers to students of Matsumura or students of Azato. Regarding Azato, his only known student is Funakoshi, and Funakoshi makes no claim he learned sword arts from Azato. I have addressed the issue of Matsumuru's students, above. 

If you have been exposed to some historical information that all of these Okinawan unnamed karatemen (aside from Matsumura and Azato) receiving Menkyo Kaiden in Jigen Ryu, I would be grateful if you would provide it. 

The issue here is not really whether there is any documenation regarding whether some Okinawans trained in Jigen-ryu, but rather what impact that may have had on the development of what you refer to as "castle systems". It is not clear whether you are considering the collective arts of Shuri, or whether you are considering that the fighting arts of Shuri were not uniform, but they themselves were different and somewhat distinct systems. It is worth noting that Yabu Kentsu referred to specific kata as "styles". Gojushiho, Kusanku, Passai and Naihanchi were considered themselves to be styles. Funakoshi mentions that experienced karateka knew only a few kata (styles) each. 

We all need to recognize that due to the secrecy of the past, and to the devastation of the scant records of karate history in WWII, that we are left with a sparse historical record. But not all records were destroyed.  Funakoshi, Miyagi and Motobu all recorded their histories before the destruction of WWII, and these survive intact. These histories uniformly describe the Shuri kata (aka castle systems) as being  Chinese in origin, not Japanese, not even Okinawan. 

This is not to say that there couldn't be sequences of movements in other combative arts such as Jigen-ryu that parallel some movements in the Chinese kata practiced in Okinawa. However, the existence of occasional similar movements in two different systems is not necessarily evidence that one influenced the other. 

In another post on this thread, I requested information supporting the statement regarding exposure of all castle systems to Jigen Ryu, and you pointed to a web site that described the Satsuma program for teaching Satsuma residents homeland defense using their native implements, such as kama, the rice harvesting tool common throughout Southeast Asia. It appears quite clear from the information you provided that there is nothing in the historical documentation that has explicitly attributed this Satsuma practice as having influenced the development of a similar practice in Okinawa. Your source, in fact, includes a quotation that it could not be determined whether the Okinawans influenced the Satsuma, or vice versa. It is clear that this is source is engaging in pure speculation. He cites no references to support his vague claims that one of the systems must have influenced the other system without knowing which influenced which. 

It should be noted that there is essentially no documentation of any influences on Okinawan karate development in the 1600s. The first source noted came from the mid-18th century, and it, as well as references to 19th century influences make clear that Okinawan martial developments of that period were based upon Chinese teachings rather than Japanese practices. Motobu, Miyagi, Funakoshi, Nagimine and others make no reference of Japanese influences on Okinawan kata and all attribute the development of the Okinawan art of "Chinese Hand" to Chinese sources. Funakoshi does state that Azato incorporated his experience of horsemanship, archery and jigen ryu into has karate. However, as I find it perplexing to understand how horsemanship practices and archery techniques would influence the kata that Azato taught, likewise, I find it doubtful that Azato's Jigen-ryu training resulted in any meaningful changes to the kata he taught.

For many on this forum, these may seem like some obscure historical points, completely divorced from the practical aspects of how one trains in karate today, whether for health, for improved fighting skills or for the many reasons that drive people to train. And I understand that perspective. However, I would argue that with such scant information on the development of Okinawan karate, that we should all be able to recognize what the literature does claim. And that is that the kata were of Chinese origin, and handed down in secret. That may lead some to try to answer the question posed above. _Why would Chinese military authorities, tasked with the protection of ships to and from the Ryukyu kingdom, be inclined to teach their empty hand kata to the Okinawans? Why not teach the arts that were needed such that the Okinawans could likewise protect their precious cargo to and from China?_ It is my belief that once one fully appreciates the implications of those questions, one can have their perspectives on the purpose of kata forever changed. 

I have limited my discussion thus far to the origins of kata. Though the practice of empty hand kata was a major component of combative arts training in the 1800s (and likely earlier), it is still only one element of what we now karate, which as a general practice is clearly Okinawan. The specifics of ti techniques, of hojo undo, (including the rigors of makiwara practice), the practice of kobudo, and the specific tempos at which the Chinese kata are practiced (punctuated with numerous pauses and tension versus the Chinese practice of fast and flowing), all come together to form distinct blends of uniquely Okinawan combative arts. Could the practice of Jigen-ryu provided some influence to the overall arts that some Okinawans practiced and taught? I don't see why not. 

However, if one wants to claim that there are clear influences of Jigen ryu, or other arts, on the development of the Okinawan kata we practice today, and in addition, that the practice of Jigen-ryu was widespread in the karate community of 150 years ago, then these claims need to rest on historical documentation. We cannot simply wish these influences into the kata, nor wish widespread Menkyo Kaiden among the numerous karateka who participated in the transmission of the castle systems we practice today. The historians of karate have clearly pointed exclusively to Chinese influences on kata. In addition, the training in Jigen-ryu appears limited to only two individuals who, by all accounts, chose not to pass down these sword arts. For Jigen-ryu to have had some influence on the development of kata, or karate for that matter, we should all recognize that such alternative and novel theories must be based on historical evidence. In the absence of that historical documentation, claims of heritages that diverge significantly from the known sources are nothing other than idle speculation, and all should recognize these claims as being unsupported in the historical record.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 3, 2012)

Cayuga Karate said:


> In the absence of that historical documentation, claims of heritages that diverge significantly from the known sources are nothing other than idle speculation, and all should recognize these claims as being unsupported in the historical record.



I think you may be minimizing the effect the Japanese had on Okinawa. There are plenty of historical sources that tie right back to the founders of many of the styles of karate we practice and it all ties into broader historical trends. 

On top of that, we have direct techniques in kata that are nearly identical to those taught in various aikijujutsu and jujutsu systems. Even Mark Bishop describes the original Te practiced by Choyu Motobu as being very different from the karate being practiced. It resembles Aikido

There is no doubt that the majority of the influence for the historical development of karate is Chinese. However, I would say that there is also no doubt that the Japanese influenced karate to some extent as it developed. Where does that influence come from? Well, I think we have a link to Jigen Ryu. I disagree with your assessment of what other researchers like Patrick McCarthy have suggested. 

That said, I don't forsee anybody proving this with first hand documentable sources. The people who passed on the kata didn't leave detailed notes about the influences of their kata and the applications contained therein. So, the curse of Tetsu No Ame bears more ugly fruit.

From personal experience, I've realized that it has been valuable to study Japanese and Chinese martial arts. It's only deepened my understanding of karate. This is because of the perfectly reasonable relationship of the cultures and their martial arts.


----------



## Mark Lynn (Dec 3, 2012)

Cayuga Karate said:


> However, *I believe many of us recognize that from one critical perspective,much of kata just does not lend itself to empty hand fighting*.



I have to disagree here, I believe that the historical record shows and that they are mean for self defense, primarily for empty hand to empty hand fighting.  Also from what I have seen the majority of posters on this thread and others view that the katas are more empty hand vs. empty hand rather than empty hand vs. weapons.

Let me be clear, it is not that I don't believe you can take the motion of a scooping type of a block and not use it as a disarm against a club attack. However I don't think it (meaning a weapon defense) was the primary application taught.



Cayuga Karate said:


> The upper block discussed at the beginning of this discussion can be used to illustrate a fundamental challenge we all have in translating numerous empty hand kata sequences into empty hand fighting.
> 
> If we are considering a kata movement in empty hand fighting, then I believe it logical that we look at the movements as they appear in kata. This upward block is found in several kata, and in each, there are movements that precede it and movements that follow. In Shotokan systems, this movements is first found in Heian Shodan (Pinan Nidan). It is preceded by a downward block and followed by two more upward blocks. There are four movements and four steps, a pattern found in many Okinawan kata.
> 
> In most all fighting systems outside of karate, if there is a sequence of four movements, then, in general, it is practiced as a unit, and can be used as a unit of fighting, a combination. In boxing, it is not uncommon to practice a sequence of four movements. Parry, and then follow with a three strike combo. In Kali, sequences can be far more lengthy (although there is no formal kata). In Aikido, the same.



I disagree with your point here.  Because the move is repeated doesn't mean it is tied together and must be thought of as one sequence.  I have often heard the point/teaching that if it is repeated you are also practicing it on the opposite side.  Also if it is done in groups of 3 moves repeating then it might be more important that the application is practice more for a right handed attack than say a left one (or maybe thought of as more practical).

Also the FMAs do have katas (Anyos) at least we do in Modern Arnis and in Kombatan Arnis.  The FMAs do have combnations that are repeated over and over again teaching a response or prescribed series of hits.  In Kombatan in the Espda y Daga training you have almost mini katas (drills) that are done in a certian way to teach basic principles and types of strikes.  To say though that the movements of the kata (getting back to the Okinawa katas) must be practiced as a 4 count unit of movement instead of 1, 2, or 3 moves (or why not 20 moves), I believe is to general of a statement to apply to all of the diverse styles and katas found today or what was created back in times past.



Cayuga Karate said:


> Yet here we are in karate with four hand movements coupled with four steps in a sequence that appears to have eluded attempts at explanations for use in a realistic empty hand encounter. As noted above, we find these three and four step sequences across all manner of kata. And in case after case, explanations of the use of these sequences in empty hand fighting is never really addressed.
> 
> *What we have instead is individuals who take small components out of these sequences, and they use them in isolation.* The movements are decoupled from the patterns in which they occur, and only in isolation can good empty hand fighting applications be developed._ The common practice is to add other movements to the combination to make it useful. Sometimes the hand sequences are kept, and the steps are eliminated, or greatly modified such that the final sequence really does not map all that well to the original kata movements. _
> 
> For those who argue that kata has all the fighting sequences that one needs for self defense, it should be recognized that across many kata there are multi-step sequences that cover a lot of ground. *These patterns, as they appear in the kata, are never "decoded" for use in meaningful fighting sequences for a simple reason. They don't map to empty hand fighting.*



Again you make several sweeping statements here like those who do these things are wrong and you because you believe that they should go together has the correct answer.  I disagree.  When I look at material from Iain Abernethy, Tonny Annesi, Harry Cook and others they all show applications pulling out one section from the kata, as well as stringing together movements from the kata.  But I don't see where anyone says that they don't relate to empty hand at all.

Taika Seiyu Oyata would take what he called the upper art and the lower art (meaning the upper body and lower body) and he would use different movements (hand movements from one kata with the foot work from a different move in another kata) to show applications from the kata.  It was like having a container (the kata) with words in it (moves) and taking the words out and spelling different sentences.  Only instead of coming up with one sentence he would write a mini book because he then combined different elements; different timings, different attacks etc. etc.  

I believe that this is one way that students could spend years studying one kata over and over and over again.


----------



## Mark Lynn (Dec 4, 2012)

The following excerts are from an article To'on Ryu Karate -do's forgotten style by Mario McKenna Dragon Times Vol.17.  I did not reference all of the references given in the article but I did qoute what was being written.

The article is about Kyoda Jujatsu who "received instruction from Higashionna Kanryo (1853-1915), the same Higashionna Kanryo who instructed Go Ju ryu foounder Miyagi Chojun (188-1953)."   ...." Higashionna Kanryo had also trained in quan'fa with Aragaki Seisho (1840-1918/20)."

Sometime between 1901-1903, Kyoda Juhatsu began to study Fujian based quan-fa from his father's acquaintance, Higashionna Kanryo.  Higashionna Kanryo had studied extensively under Aragaki Seisho and Kojo Taite of Kume village in his youth and later received instruction in Ming He Quan (Whooping Crane Fist) from Xie Zhong Xiang (in Fuzhou City, Fujian province.  Higashionna was considered along with Itosu Anko, to be one of the foremost inovators of karate-do on Okinawa at the turn of the 20th Century.  A few months later, Miyagi Chojun; founder of Goju ryu also began studying from  Higashionna." 

So Higashionna Kanryo was teaching quan-fa (which later became karate-do).  Here in the next paragraph is adescription of what he was taught.

"Like most karate-do training in the early 20th century, instruction wass tailored to the needs of the individual with a strong emphasis on the application of techniuqe.  Kyoda Juhatsu for his part spent several long months learning the basic footwork and breathing of San Chin, the fundamental kata used by Higashionna. In fact, Kypda Juhatsu as with all of  Higashionna's students spent the first few years mastering San Chin, basic applications (e.g. kakie-push hands and yakusoku kumite-pre arranged sparring) and supplementary strengthening excercises ..... before being taught other kata by Higashionna."

"Once these fundementals training methods had been adequately mastered, Higashionna would teach one or more additional kata and their respective applications.  These included Seisan, Sanseru and Perchurin/Suparempei.  Among the students that Higashionna instructed Kyoda Juhatsu was the only one to learn all four of the kata directly from Higashionna Kanryo.  Furthermore Kyoda unlike Miyagi, learned the use of Chinese weaponry from Higashionna, including the use of the spear and broadsword." 

From the above it appears they spent years mastering basics and learning empty hand applications and then at some period also learned Chinese weaponry.  However it appears it wasn't the main thrust of the instruction since Miyagi Chojun didn't learn it.

Kyoda Juhatsu also learned from other instructors like "Yabu Kentsu, one of the greaest exponents of Shuri-te.....For a brief tie Kyoda also learned under Yabu's teacher, Itosu Anko."  ... "Kyoda also lent his talents to the establishment of several karate-do associations and research societies."......Besides Kyoda there were many famous karate-do teachers who instructed there, including Choju Oshiro, Choshin Chibana, Mabuni Kenwa, Miyagi Chojun,Hanashiro Chomo, and Motobu Choyu and Wu Xian Hui (Jap. Go Kenki)."

Being part of a research society I would think that if empty hand defense against weaponry was the main interpretations or true applications of the katas than that would have a stronger foothold in systems today.  I don't see it.

On a side note because it keeps being put forth that the chinese were training people to fight against pirates and it was the Chinese military doing it here is some info about  Wu Xian Hui.

"Of all of the instructors who participated in the karate-jutsu Kenky Kai, perhaps Wu Xian Huihad the most lasting and profound influence on all of the others.... there is little factual evidence surrounding his life.  It is known that Wu was Chinese and immigrated from fuzhou in 1912.  He was a tea merchant by trade and resided in Naha's Higashi-machi.  Wu was also an instructor in White Crane boxing and it was from Wu that Kyoda learned the kata Nepai."

Kyoda also learned from an elder brother from a man named Miyagi (this Miyagi rented a room from Kyoda in their family house).  The elder brother "...traveled to China and studied quan-fa. This man did not use any other kata, and specialized only in Seisan"

Getting back to the Chinese military training/teaching again I don't see it.  Time and time again it seems like Okinawa martial arts were influenced by people that had gone to China (like the elder brother of Miyagi example), or someone like the tea mechant Wu who joined a research society.  We have White Crane Boxing, Whooping Crane Fist, and the elder brother who taught Seisan.  Three different people who taught someone else who then taught others and impacted karate-do as we know it today.


----------



## Mark Lynn (Dec 4, 2012)

Here is an excerpt from an article  entitled "A night of Talking about Karate  karate Ichiyu-Tan by Choki Motobu 1934 :translated by Joe Swift B.Sc. 2003 that appeared in Dragon Times vol #2

Choki Motobu ... "(I) studied with Itosu Sensei for 7-8 years" he goes on to describe a visit he had with him and the following took place.  Itosu Sensei turned to the students and said show us a kata.  The kata that they performed was very similar to the Chnnan Kata that I knew, but there were some differences also.  Upon asking the student what the kata was, he replied, "it is Pinanno Kata".  The students left shortly after that, upon which I turned to Itosu Sensei and said, "I learned a kata called Channan, but that kata that those students just performed now was different.  What is going on?  Itosu Sensei replied, "Yes, the kata is slightly different, but the kata you just saw is the kata I have decided upon.  The students all told me the name Pinan is better, so I went along with the opinions of the young people."  These kata which were developed by Itosu Sensei *underwent change even during his own life time*."  

Later on he goes on about Naifunchi Kata
"There are differences in the performance of Naifuanchi no kata between Matsumura Sensei and Itosu Sensei." He describes the leg being raised to the knee.   "In Matsumura Sensei's style, the foot is set down flat on the ground quietly.  However in Itosu Sensei's style the foot is stomped down strongly on a diagonal."  Later he goes on to describe the difference in their double punches.

OK why bother posting this.  Because once again I believe this shows one reason why we can't make sweeping statements about how kata is performed or whatever.  Two of the founder's of karate (Ok older masters, influential instructors/masters at that) changed the kata from how they learned it or taught it.  Both of them would have a reason for the change(s), the method of foot placement (stomping of the foot or quietly placing the foot), the breaking down a long form into 5 katas etc. etc. for the educational system, even the placement of the hands during the kata.  All of this, changes the meaning and intent of the technique when the application is performed.

Also while we might look for some really deep hidden meaning as to why something is done a certain way or named a certian way it could be pretty simple like "The students all told me the name Pinan is better, so I went along with the opinions of the young people."


----------



## Mark Lynn (Dec 4, 2012)

Going back to the theme influences on the Okinawan martial arts or Japanese martial arts.

Is it possible that 1) Old jujitsu had some techniques that looked like karate?  2) Did some master of the martial arts cross train early on in the development of karate and absorbed it into what became karate later on?

I believe yes to a degree.  Dragon Times article on Shindo Jine Ryu karate Vol.9 pg 35 in an article on Yasuhiro Konishi Sensei

"Shindo Jinen Ryu was founded by Yasuhiro Konishi who was born in 1893....began his training in martial arts at age 6 in Muso Ryu Jujitsu.....(when he entered high school) he began training in Takeuchi Ryu Jujitsu.  This particular jujitsu style is known for it's strong kicks and punches, very similar to karate."  "At age 13 he began his studies in kendo as well.

"Konoshi Sensei's first exposure to* Te *(which later develop into karate was through a fellow classmate at Keio University Tsuneshige Arakaki of Okinawa.  Konoshi found the techniques of* Te* (as refered to by Arakaki) very similar to those of Takeuchi Ryu jujitsu.  Though Arakaki was in no way a master of *Te*, Konoshi Sensei found the system intriguing." 

......"Konshi Sensei however was a visionary in the sense that he saw value in cross training; he remembered the kata demonstrated during his university days by Arakaki, and he agreed to Funakoshi's request.   With Konoshi's Sensei's help, Funokoshi established a To-te practice club at Keio University (the first university cub in Japan).

Here we have a system of jujitsu that looks like karate with strong kicks and punches, likewise we have *Te* that is similar to jujitsu (before Okinawa karate showed up on main land Japan).  Konoshi sensei sees the value of cross training so he helps Funakoshi Sensei establish the first university club.  From several different sources now (cited in previous posts) it appears that there was a lot of cross training going on back then, as I would venture to say like today.


----------



## Cayuga Karate (Dec 4, 2012)

The Boar Man wrote



> Later on he goes on about Naifunchi Kata
> "There are differences in the performance of Naifuanchi no kata between Matsumura Sensei and Itosu Sensei." He describes the leg being raised to the knee. "In Matsumura Sensei's style, the foot is set down flat on the ground quietly. However in Itosu Sensei's style the foot is stomped down strongly on a diagonal." Later he goes on to describe the difference in their double punches.
> 
> OK why bother posting this. Because once again I believe this shows one reason why we can't make sweeping statements about how kata is performed or whatever. *Two of the founder's of karate (Ok older masters, influential instructors/masters at that) changed the kata from how they learned it or taught it. *Both of them would have a reason for the change(s), the method of foot placement (stomping of the foot or quietly placing the foot), the breaking down a long form into 5 katas etc. etc. for the educational system, even the placement of the hands during the kata. All of this, changes the meaning and intent of the technique when the application is performed.



The statement above (in bold) appears to make the assumption that because Matsumura and Itosu taught slightly different versions of Naihanchi, that one of those two or both of them made those changes. This is not the only conclusion possible. It overlooks the possibility that Naihanchi may have been taught differently, or modified by the Chinese, over time. Itosu's primary instructor was Gusukuma. Both Gusukuma and Matsumura are recorded by Funakoshi as having trained with different Chinese men. Those differences in Naihanchi could have come down from variations the Chinese themselves taught to different individuals. 

The fact that we have differences in kata today is not proof that the Okinawans meaningfully changed kata. It is quite possible that the very Chinese who taught these kata taught variations that could lead to different applications.

I am not arguing that no changes were ever introduced by the Okinawans. I would argue that small changes were likely. The more important issue to me are the huge differences in kata and embusen within the kata families of Kusanku, Passai, Rohai and others.

Consider Kusanku. There are well over a dozen distinct versions. There are some common movements between them, but some versions, (e.g. from Chito Ryu, Ken Shin Kan and Genwakai) bear little resemblance to the Yara kusanku of Kyan, or the Kusanku Dai and Sho of Mabuni, Chibana and Funakoshi.

One can argue that there was some historical "original" Kusanku in Okinawa, and that these many diverse versions were all Okinawan creations. But there is nothing in the historical literature that hints at Okinawans taking a kata and creating something wholly different of the same name. That does not mean it didn't happen. However, the historical record indicates that the Okinawans were diligent students of all manner of Chinese culture. Much of that culture evolved incredibly slowly in China. I would argue that the Okinawans worked diligently to propogate the Chinese culture, and were not all that motivated to introduce grand changes to many aspects of it.

For that reason, it is arguable, that much of the variety we see across families of kata are quite likely the result of Chinese influence rather than Okinawan influence.


----------



## Cayuga Karate (Dec 4, 2012)

The Boar Man wrote:




> Getting back to the Chinese military training/teaching again I don't see it. Time and time again it seems like Okinawa martial arts were influenced by people that had gone to China (like the elder brother of Miyagi example), or someone like the tea mechant Wu who joined a research society.



Funakoshi names 22 individuals who studied, in Okinawa, with the military attachees Iwah, Ason and Waishinzan. And he mentions in addition that Kusanku, a military attachee taught a number of Okinawans as well. 

In the time frame that this instruction was going on (early to mid 1800s), we have a very limited record of Okinawans going to China for training. And we have no record of any sort for the hundreds of years that precede it.

What Okinawans are documented as having traveled to China? Sakugawa in the 1700s, Nakaima in perhaps the 1840s, and Higashionna, in the mid-to-late 1870s. Uechi didn't travel to China until around 1897, 20 years after the time that Japan ended tribute trade with China, which brought to an end the travel of Chinese military attachees traveling to Naha and Shuri. 

I do not want to minimize the importance of Higaonna's training in China. Current research indicates he brought back Sanchin, Sanseru, Seisan and Suparenpei. We can never know the true source of Seipei, Seinchin, Shisochin, Kururunfa, and Saifa, but it is not at all far-fetched to consider that these kata were practiced in the Kumemura district, and all predate Higashionna's travels to China. My point here is that according to the current conventional wisdom, a large portion of Higashionna and Miyagi's curriculum are composed of kata not brought back from China by Higashionna, and were quite likely to have been taught to Okinawans by Chinese in Okinawa.

For the record, according to the historical record, in this timeframe, (mid 1870s) it was no trivial matter to travel to China and simply join a kungfu school. Legend has it that Higashionna left Okinawa because he could not get training in a Chinese school in Okinawa. And once he did get to China, he was refused instruction until after he courageously saved the teacher's daughter in a flood. (http://sanzinsoo.angelfire.com/oral.html)


The Boar Man wrote:



> I would think that if empty hand defense against weaponry was the main interpretations or true applications of the katas than that would have a stronger foothold in systems today. I don't see it



My argument is a bit more subtle than that. It hinges on the historical realities of the Ryukyu kingdom of the period preceeding the ending of Tribute trade with China. If we accept:



that Funakoshi was correct and that military attachees taught Okinawans, and,
that these military attachees were in Naha and Shuri to provide protection, including protection at sea against pirates off the coast of China, and,
that these military men would have been quite skilled at armed combat with the bladed weapons of the time, and,
that these military personnel would only have taught Okinawans if they were officially authorized to do so, and,
the Chinese government, made somewhat substantial investments in this trade (100-300 person convoys every two years), and,
to ensure the success of this relationship, the Chinese would be motivated to ensure that the Okinawans were able to successfully make their bi-annual voyages to China, then

a conclusion we can draw is that Chinese military authorities would have been authorized to teach military arts (weapon arts) to the Okinawans to ensure they could successfully defend against incessant pirate attacks.

Once we get to that discussion, there are obvious questions that arise from it.

For example:

During the 6-9 month periods that the Chinese military authorities were in Okinawa, how did they go about preparing Okinawans to fight armed pirates? 

A similar question is:

To what extent did the Chinese train Okinawans for empty hand against empty hand, empty hand against weapon, and weapon and against weapon?

I would argue that if the Chinese were motivated to teach Okinawans how best to kill pirates, they would emphasize training that would best prepare Okinawans to fight weapon against weapon, and that the emphasis on empty hand against weapon, and empty hand against empty hand would be only a marginal effort. Military training has always been primarily about fighting with weapons. 

If one accepts that conclusion, another question arises.

What record do we have of Chinese military authorities, in Okinawa, teaching bladed weapon arts to the Okinawans? More specifically, what bladed weapon kata survive. 

And the answer to that is very, very little, if any. 

Yet, the Okinawans did preserve numerous empty hand forms.

This, IMO, is an important conversation. The standard histories of karate make virtually no mention of the military requirements of the Ryukyu kingdom, namely the vital importance of tribute trade with China, and the national security interests in ensuring those bi-annual convoys successfully navigate the dangerous waters off the Chinese coast.

But simply because the literature overlooks this key requirement for skill in armed conflict with pirates, does not mean the requirement did not exist. 

We can all read the standard histories regarding how the Satsuma took bladed weapons away from the Okinawans and how that forced them to learn how to fight with their hands and feet. But these histories simply do not explain why Chinese military authorities would have focused their efforts on preparing the Okinawans for empty hand fighting in Okinawa, rather than armed conflict at sea. The latter is what they were uniquely skilled in, and something of great benefit to the Okinawans.

If one accepts that the standard histories are woefully deficient on this subject, and accepts that the Chinese would have been motivated to invest time in training Okinawans in armed conflict, two simple questions arise.


Why did those armed arts suddenly disappear once the Okinawans ended tribute trade with China?
Why did so many empty hand arts survive?

Those are questions that may lead some to a very different understanding of the Chinese forms that have been handed down.


----------



## Aiki Lee (Dec 4, 2012)

I just want to say that I think this thread is a facinating read with good points made by all.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 5, 2012)

Cayuga Karate said:


> The Boar Man wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Do you have any examples of weapons techniques that you think are shown in the kata?  What do you teach your students?


----------



## Mark Lynn (Dec 9, 2012)

First off I want to extend my appreciation to you for the civil dialog  and discussion.  I've found the thread fascinating and it has made me  look up past articles and such to defend my view.  So even though I  still disagree I thank you for the discussion.



Cayuga Karate said:


> Funakoshi names 22 individuals who studied, in Okinawa, with the military attachees Iwah, Ason and Waishinzan. And he mentions in addition that Kusanku, a military attachee taught a number of Okinawans as well.
> 
> In the time frame that this instruction was going on (early to mid 1800s), we have a very limited record of Okinawans going to China for training. And we have no record of any sort for the hundreds of years that precede it.



Where does Funokoshi name these individuals and the military attachees. What source.  

I believe everyone can agree that written historical records are sketchy at best, with no records written at worst.  So we have to rely on what is available, and oral histories that are handed down in the form of dojo lore.  Also considering that we are trying to put forth positions based on persons travel between three countries, in various dialects (which causes name or spelling challenges), it is a very hard subject to debate.  Also considering that I'm not a historian, or professional reasearcher, or have even studied an Okinawan martial art etc. etc. I'm having to rely on other peoples research.  So it is what it is.  

However I will quote from other noted researchers from their articles written in Dragon Times so as to give context to my points and so that anyone can try and find the articles to do further reading if interested.



Cayuga Karate said:


> What Okinawans are documented as having traveled to China? Sakugawa in the 1700s, Nakaima in perhaps the 1840s, and Higashionna, in the mid-to-late 1870s. Uechi didn't travel to China until around 1897, 20 years after the time that Japan ended tribute trade with China, which brought to an end the travel of Chinese military attachees traveling to Naha and Shuri.
> 
> I do not want to minimize the importance of Higaonna's training in China. Current research indicates he brought back Sanchin, Sanseru, Seisan and Suparenpei. We can never know the true source of Seipei, Seinchin, Shisochin, Kururunfa, and Saifa,* but it is not at all far-fetched to consider that these kata were practiced in the Kumemura district, and all predate* Higashionna's travels to China. My point here is that according to the current conventional wisdom, a large portion of Higashionna and Miyagi's curriculum are composed of kata not brought back from China by Higashionna, *and were quite likely to have been taught to Okinawans by Chinese in Okinawa.*
> 
> For the record, according to the historical record, in this timeframe, (mid 1870s) it was no trivial matter to travel to China and simply join a kungfu school. Legend has it that Higashionna left Okinawa because he could not get training in a Chinese school in Okinawa. And once he did get to China, he was refused instruction until after he courageously saved the teacher's daughter in a flood. (http://sanzinsoo.angelfire.com/oral.html)




While it might not be far fetched to consider, I believe it is a stretch to base a position on when there isn't any documentaion that supports that all of these forms predate the 1870's and come from a certain area.

In regardsto the 2nd bolded statement, I agree parts of their curriculum probably were influenced by the chinese in Okinawa but that doesn't mean it was from military personal based there for 6 months.



Cayuga Karate said:


> My argument is a bit more subtle than that. *It hinges on the historical realities* of the Ryukyu kingdom of the period preceeding the ending of Tribute trade with China. If we accept:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I don't know exactly if the part of the sentence (in your statement) that I bolded you were meaning that the below 6 points are "historical realities" or are you meaning that the historical realities in that time period *these things might have happened*?  If you mean they might have happened Ok I'll go with that, not that I believe they did but... anything is possible.  If you are saying they did happen then I beg to differ.

Heres why
1) Ok I'll take it that Funokoshi stated that military attachees Okinawans but I would still like to see the proof, what book, page# etc. etc.
2) Again proof?
3) We don't know this, since there is no record.  We can say they were quite skilled, but they could have been sent there as well because they pissed off the higher ups, they could have been sent there because they were planning on marry the generals daughter for all we know.  It also could have been a training mission for them to help them move up in the ranks.  Its just specualtion at this point unless there is documented proof.
4) Again this seems like speculation.  Time and time again I find references of tea merchants, family members, a stranded (or ship wrecked) chinese guy, and people traveling trying to find work and learning and teaching the MA on the side.  I haven't seen anything that says this was an officer or that guy was an officer sent to train the Okinawans to fight against the priates.
5) Ok I agree the chinese were making money off of the Okinawans so yes they would have an investment there.
6) Ok I see this point as well but....

Then you go back to making the statement (that I underlined) that is based on point 3 and 4 as if they were fact.  



Cayuga Karate said:


> Once we get to that discussion, there are obvious questions that arise from it.
> 
> For example:
> 
> During the 6-9 month periods that the Chinese military authorities were in Okinawa, how did they go about preparing Okinawans to fight armed pirates?



We don't know if they did this first off, and I suspect they didn't to the degree in which you seem to suggest.  For instance complicated kata isn't the way to teach masses fighting techniques.  After this period in time (up to the 1870's) instruction seems to become a more individual manner.  This established a much closer student/teacher relationship where katas were (possibly) selected to fit the individual.   Itosu even broke katas down to teach school kids, etc. etc. (i.e. younger students and larger classes) therefore it seems that complexe katas wouldn't be taught to men to fight off pirates.  The teaching model doesn't make sense.

Instead the teaching model of the Filipino's during WWII makes more sense, get them out in the training area and start them hacking with the bolos, simple, effective.  Likewise the Filipino's along the coasts of the Philippine islands have a multitude of different styles of FMA created to defend their villages from pirates.  There is/was no need for manuals/books written records of any kind (and there isn't much) just someone who knows how to fight would pass down the methods to the family or villagers, simple and effective.  These systems will die out as the people move on, or as the originators die off.

Even the Japanese who imported karate training into the military and into the school systems to promote good health and gear up for military service taught differently than the manner in which karate was taught just after the 1870s.  Applications were stressed less, students spent much shorter time learning kata, gone were the days of spending years to learn Naihanchi, or developing a strong stances in Sanchin etc. etc.  Not that some wasn't passed down but... the emphasis on teaching changed when the military was involved.  So I can't see where the chinese would teach the Okinawans a teaching method (mass instruction, no applications or limited bunkai, weapon katas and defenses against weapons on ships etc. etc.) and that the Okinawans would later abandon only to have that teaching method resurected again but without the weapon katas and ship board defenses just 30-50 years later.



Cayuga Karate said:


> A similar question is:
> 
> To what extent did the Chinese train Okinawans for empty hand against empty hand, empty hand against weapon, and weapon and against weapon?
> 
> I would argue that if the Chinese were motivated to teach Okinawans how best to kill pirates, they would emphasize training that would best prepare Okinawans to fight weapon against weapon, and that the emphasis on empty hand against weapon, and empty hand against empty hand would be only a marginal effort. Military training has always been primarily about fighting with weapons.



You are talking about hand to hand combat on a rolling boat in the sea, just like weapon to weapon combat on the sea.  If training sessions were held it was probably out on the ocean on boats.  Basic instruction on how to repel boarders and fight with whatever was available.  Why bother with katas on the open sea.  In fact I've never heard of a kata being developed specifically for warfare on a boat.



Cayuga Karate said:


> If one accepts that conclusion, another question arises.
> 
> What record do we have of Chinese military authorities, in Okinawa, teaching bladed weapon arts to the Okinawans? More specifically, what bladed weapon kata survive.
> 
> ...



Again I believe the answer is obvious because they weren't taught forms as a way to fight against pirates.



Cayuga Karate said:


> This, IMO, is an important conversation. The standard histories of karate make virtually no mention of the military requirements of the Ryukyu kingdom, namely the vital importance of tribute trade with China, and the national security interests in ensuring those bi-annual convoys successfully navigate the dangerous waters off the Chinese coast.
> 
> But simply because the literature overlooks this key requirement for skill in armed conflict with pirates, does not mean the requirement did not exist.
> 
> ...



You wrote
"Why did those armed arts suddenly disappear once the Okinawans ended tribute trade with China?"  I don't believe they were there as you seem to be hinting at, in the first place.  So there were none to disapear.

"Why did so many empty hand arts survive?"  These came later and were influenced passed down from 3 sources (and possibly more).
1) Chinese who immagrated to Okinawa (and the guy who got stranded there)
2) Okinawans who went to China
3) The Okinawans created some of ther own.

We are looking back on history as it is now we have a bunch of different forms and styles of karate.  However back then there were far fewer styles or methods and teachers.  Over time people cross trained and then added their own influences and different lineages were created and so on and so on.


----------



## Mark Lynn (Dec 10, 2012)

In my previous post I wrote this
"However I will quote from other noted researchers from their articles  written in Dragon Times so as to give context to my points and so that  anyone can try and find the articles to do further reading if  interested."

So I'll try and back up my position.



Cayuga Karate said:


> The statement above (in bold) appears to make the assumption that because Matsumura and Itosu taught slightly different versions of Naihanchi, that one of those two or both of them made those changes. This is not the only conclusion possible. It overlooks the possibility that Naihanchi may have been taught differently, or modified by the Chinese, over time. Itosu's primary instructor was Gusukuma. Both Gusukuma and Matsumura are recorded by Funakoshi as having trained with different Chinese men. *Those differences in Naihanchi could have come down from variations the Chinese themselves taught to different individuals.*



I disagree, Itosu appears to have modified the kata

_From DT Vol 20 article entitled The Big Fifteen Original Kata of Gichin Funakoshi by Joe Swift. _
Nahanchi (Tekki 1,2,3,)
"There are three kata in modern (i.e.post  1900) karate, with the second and third being thought to have been  created by Itosu Anko. Another popular theroy is that originally the  three were one kata, but were broken up into three seperate parts by  Itosu."

"*He is also known to have changed the original kata*.  Mabuni Kenwa (1889-1941) a direct student of Itosu and founder of Shito  ryu karatedo, supposedly learned the Naifuanchi kata from an old expert  named Matayoshi Seihaku.  Upon showing this kata to Itosu, Mabuni was  told that the way he performed it was the old way, and *that Itosu had  researched and improved the kata so Mabuni should practice it the new  way instead."*



Cayuga Karate said:


> The fact that we have differences in kata today is not proof that the Okinawans meaningfully changed kata. It is quite possible that the very Chinese who taught these kata taught variations that could lead to different applications.
> 
> I am not arguing that no changes were ever introduced by the Okinawans. I would argue that small changes were likely. The more important issue to me are the huge differences in kata and embusen within the kata families of Kusanku, Passai, Rohai and others.



But it is a well known fact that Itosu changed kata and even created the Pinian katas.  _From DT Vol 20 article entitled The Big Fifteen Original Kata of Gichin Funakoshi by Joe Swift._   "Motobu Choki, in both his 1926 and 1932 publications, states; "The Pinan were created by the modern Bujin Itosu Sensei as teaching materials for his students, *making them truly a unique form of Okinawa kenpo*, which is indeed a very joyus thing for those that follow the way"."         "Contrasting this is the theory which states that Itosu did not create the Pinans, but actually remolded older Chinese based xing/kata called Channan.  The theroy states that Itosu learned a series of Chinese Quan-fa xing/kata from a ship wrecked Chinese at Tomari, and reworked them into five smaller components,....."

Same article but on Passai
"Of the Okinawan version of Passai, a clear evolutionary link can be seen from the Matsumura no Passai to the Oyadomari no Passai and then onto the Passai Dai of Itosu.  Out of these the Matsummura version seems to have retained an essentially Chinese flavor, whereas the Oyadomari version is more *"Okinawanized"* form, which was further modified by Itosu into the unquely Okinawan modern version seen today."  "Funakoshi's Passai is clearly the Passai Dai of Itosu, which is very similar to the Ishimine no Passai, believed to be passed down by Bushi Ishimine.

So here we have references to an evolution of a kata Passi (going through 2 changes), and one that bears resembalance to another version.  We could argue that Itosu was the only one changing anything but that isn't true, since he modified the 2nd version to the one we see today (it had already been modified once), and there is Bushi Ishimine version which is similar yet different still.



Cayuga Karate said:


> Consider Kusanku. There are well over a dozen distinct versions. There are some common movements between them, but some versions, (e.g. from Chito Ryu, Ken Shin Kan and Genwakai) bear little resemblance to the Yara kusanku of Kyan, or the Kusanku Dai and Sho of Mabuni, Chibana and Funakoshi.
> 
> One can argue that there was some historical "original" Kusanku in Okinawa, and that these many diverse versions were all Okinawan creations. But there is nothing in the historical literature that hints at Okinawans taking a kata and creating something wholly different of the same name. That does not mean it didn't happen. However, the historical record indicates that the Okinawans were diligent students of all manner of Chinese culture. Much of that culture evolved incredibly slowly in China. I would argue that the Okinawans worked diligently to propogate the Chinese culture, and were not all that motivated to introduce grand changes to many aspects of it.
> 
> For that reason, it is arguable, *that much of the variety we see across families of kata are quite likely the result of Chinese influence rather than Okinawan influence*.



I disagree, I don't think there were a bunch of Chinese teaching people the same kata different ways, maybe some small differences but not "heavily modified" as we see in the following quote.

Taken  from an article in_ Dragon Times Vol 20 entitled Wu Xianhui and Tang  Daiji Pioneers of Okinawan Karate by mario McKenna M.Sc._

Wu and  Daiji both immigrated to Okinawa from China. "It is believed that Wu and  to a lessor extent Tang, had a tremendous impact both technically and  personally on many karate's early pioneers such as Miyagi Chojun (gojo  ryu), Mabuni Kenwa (Shito ryu) Kyoda Juhatsu (to'on ryu) and others Both  Mabuni Kenwa and Kyoda Juhatsu preserved the xing (kata) Nepai in their  respective styles.  However it should be noted *that the Shorin ryu  version of this form was heavily modified* and renamed Nipairo.  The  To'on version *retained some of its original form* with the emphasis on  smooth, continous circular technique.  Mabuni also retained the form  Happoren in his Shito ryu as well *which was also subsequently modified*". 

However speaking of Kusanku taken from the _DT article on the Big 15 kata of Fonakoshi_ cited above.
"Although it is said that Funakoshi's Kushanku came from Asato Anko, a careful comparitive analysis shows that it is infact the Kushanku Dai that Itosu* re-worked* for his physical education curriculum."

From the same article cited above talking about Kushanku comes this.
"In the year 1762, a tribute ship sent to Satsuma from Ryuky was blown off course during a storm, and ended up landing in Tosa Province in Shikoku where they remained for a month.  The Confucian scholar of Tosa, Tobe Ryoen (1713-1795), was petitioned to collect testimony from the crew.  The record of this testimony is known as the Oshima Hikki (literally "Note of Oshima", the name of the area the where the ship ran aground) .  In this book there is some very provacitive testimony by a certian Shinja Peichin, describing *a man from China called Koshankin*, who demonstrated a grappling technique."       "It is commonly accepted that this Koshankin was the originator of the Okinawan Kusanku kata, or at least inspired it.  However there are several unknowns in this equation.  First of all, was Koshankin his name or title, or even a term of affection towards him?  second, if it was a title or term of affection, what was his real name?  Thirdly what martial art(s) did he teach, and how do they differ from modern karate kata of Kushanku?  Most of these questions are still being reasearched by this author and others."

Ok so if this is true than it was one man who 100 years before showed a grappling technique and who might have shown or inspired a kata.  That being said I believe the Okinawans have institutedthe changes and not several Chinese of whom there is no record of teaching different people the different kata with the same name.  

And from DT Vol.21 article entitled "A Brief Overview of The Etymology Of Modern Goju-ryu Kata" comes the following.
"Although many Goju-ryu stylists would like to think of their system and it's coresponding training kata as an unadulterated and traditional method handed down by Ru Ru Ko to Higasshionna Kanryo and finaly to Miyagi Chojun, recent evidence suggests the contary.  *Indeed, Goju-ryu is Miyagi Chojun's personal interpretatin of his instruction from Higashionna Kanryo in conjujunction with his own research*."

Earlier in this post I mentioned Wu Xianhui and his influence on Okinwan karate.  In that same article comes the following about Miyagi Chojun.  "On his second trip Xianhui accompanied Miyagi and for 10 days Miyagi Chojun was a guest at Aniya's home (a former student of Wu's) in Shanghai.  During this time Miyagi Chojun demonstrated karate at various clubs and associations.  He later met with Chinese quan-fa masters Zhao & Jia for the purpose of research and further studies.  Unfortunately it is unknown what fighting traditions these two men followed.  Miyagi was also introduced to Miao Xing (1889-1939) a renowed master of Lohan Quan (Monk Fist Boxing).  Miyagi reportedly trained with Miao Xing at the Jing Wu Athletic Association and it was through this experience that Miyagi *based his Geki Sai kata on*."  ....... "it is known that Miyagi sought out several books on quan-fa and these were obtained through the efforts of Aniya."

My point to all of this is that it appears to me that it wasn't the Chinese attachees teaching quanfa to the founders of Okinawan karate, but rather common instructors who immagrated there as well as individuals who went to China for one reason or another and studied.  As these instructors grew in their knowledge of the martial arts they inturned added to, changed or deleted what they had learned previosuly.  In fact karate seems to have always been under a slow but constant change in one way or another.  As in the example of Passai above it evolves.


----------



## Mark Lynn (Dec 10, 2012)

Cayuga Karate said:


> I do not want to minimize the importance of Higaonna's training in China. Current research indicates he brought back Sanchin, Sanseru, Seisan and Suparenpei. *We can never know the true source of Seipei, Seinchin, Shisochin, Kururunfa, and Saifa, but it is not at all far-fetched to consider that these kata were practiced in the Kumemura district, and all predate Higashionna's travels to China.* My point here is that according to the current conventional wisdom, a large portion of Higashionna and Miyagi's curriculum are composed of kata not brought back from China by Higashionna, and were quite likely to have been taught to Okinawans by Chinese in Okinawa.
> 
> For the record, according to the historical record, in this timeframe, (mid 1870s) it was no trivial matter to travel to China and simply join a kungfu school. Legend has it that Higashionna left Okinawa because he could not get training in a Chinese school in Okinawa. And once he did get to China, he was refused instruction until after he courageously saved the teacher's daughter in a flood. (http://sanzinsoo.angelfire.com/oral.html)



Not being familar with the kata you referenced above; in  _DT Vol.21 article entitled "A Brief Overview of The Etymology Of Modern Goju-ryu Kata"  _There is a table 2 that shows "Gojuryu Kaishu kata and their respective animal origin according to Kinjo and Tokashi"   In it, it lists these forms along with the others you mentioned and has the animal name that corresponds to the name of the kata.  As it relates to Miyagi Chojun  the following is stated  ".... During his studies he came into contact with such fighting traditions as Fujian White Crane Boxing, Tiger Boxing (Hu Quan), Monk fist boxing (lohan Quan) and quite possibly Five Ancestor fist boxing ( Wu Zu Quan).  Not surprisingly these diverse styles are reflected in the katas of Gojuryu."  

Considering that Miyagi Chjun lived between 1888 and 1953 he wasn't born yet to be instructed by the Chinese attachees during the 6 month period they were in Okinawa.  However it is documented that he had contact with these fighting systems and that he traveled to China and studied Quan-fa and demonstrated karate, all for his research.

So I disagree with your statement "My point here is that according to the current conventional wisdom, a  large portion of Higashionna and Miyagi's curriculum are composed of  kata not brought back from China by Higashionna, and were quite likely  to have been taught to Okinawans by Chinese in Okinawa." unless you mean in Miyagi's lifetime.


----------



## Cayuga Karate (Jan 6, 2013)

The Boar Man wrote:




> Where does Funokoshi name these individuals and the military attachees.




Funakoshi recorded the names of Chinese Military attaches and Okinawans that studied under them in his 1914 Newspaper article, his 1925 text Karate Jutsu and his 1935 text Karate-Do Kyohan.


----------



## Cayuga Karate (Jan 6, 2013)

Earlier, I wrote:



> During the 6-9 month periods that the Chinese military authorities were in Okinawa, how did they go about preparing Okinawans to fight armed pirates?



The Boar Man wrote:



> We don't know if they did this first off, and I suspect they didn't to the degree in which you seem to suggest. For instance complicated kata isn't the way to teach masses fighting techniques. After this period in time (up to the 1870's) instruction seems to become a more individual manner. This established a much closer student/teacher relationship where katas were (possibly) selected to fit the individual. Itosu even broke katas down to teach school kids, etc. etc. (i.e. younger students and larger classes) therefore it seems that complexe katas wouldn't be taught to men to fight off pirates. The teaching model doesn't make sense.



We have an historical record on which to draw. It's meagher, but it exists. we can draw conclusions on it. 

First, the following authorities all born in the late 1800s, credit toudi (Chinese hand) as having been taught by Chinese. Funakoshi, Motobu, Miyagi, Nagamine, Nakama. 

We can consult Kerr's text on the tributary relationship between Okinawa and China. By the 1700s, Okinawa sent a convoy of three vessels to China every two years. China sent investiture missions (formal recognition of the new king) to the Ryukyu kingdom in 1719, 1757, 1800 and 1866. Swanson notes that the 1800 mission contained a ship of 200 Fujian navymen for protection. 

Kerr notes that these trading missions lasted 6-9 months. We can reasonably infer that the military officials that accompanied these missions (to protect the passengers and valuable cargo) were available during portions of these layovers, to provide some instruction in combat. 

Funakoshi names three of these military men by name. According to Kinjo, one of those, Waishinzan, was sought out by Higaonna, when he travelled to Fuzhou in the 1870s, but was unable to teach civilians due to his military status. His friend Ru Ru Ko, apparently was no longer serving in the military and eventually was able to take Higaonna on as a student. Apparently Nakaima trained Ru Ru Ko, some years earlier, as well. 

Motobu attributes 13 kata, by name, to Chinese sources. Funakoshi references 4 kata taught by the shipwrecked sailor stranded in Tomari. (Two were on Motobu's list, Jitte and Jiin were not.)

Nagamine mentions that Chinese kata were integrated with Okinawan arts to form karate. 

Now you can argue that forms have not been the primary vehicle that the Chinese have provided instruction in martial arts. You are entitled to your opinion. But I believe the record is overwhelming on this subject. The vast majority of Chinese martial systems utilize formalized routines (forms or kata) for training. You may think this is not an optimal way to teach. But that doesn't change history. Chinese martial arts have been handed down, in large part through long sequences of prearranged movements. This contrasts greatly with fighting arts in other parts of the world. PMA doesn't have true formalized forms. Japanese Koryu systems have very different kata. They are primarily short, and utilize two persons. The Chinese arts utilize forms.


----------



## Cayuga Karate (Jan 6, 2013)

The Boar Man wrote:




> You are talking about hand to hand combat on a rolling boat in the sea, just like weapon to weapon combat on the sea. If training sessions were held it was probably out on the ocean on boats. Basic instruction on how to repel boarders and fight with whatever was available. Why bother with katas on the open sea. In fact I've never heard of a kata being developed specifically for warfare on a boat.



I have been writing about the challenges of military combat at sea, and therefore I am talking about weapon-to-weapon combat. The fact that you may have never heard about a kata developed specifically for warfare on a boat does not mean they did not exist. Kata provide a vehicle for information and skill transmission from teacher to student. In their essence, that is what they do. There are weapons kata throughout the Japanese koryu curriculum. Kata was the vehicle for the transfer of military skill through the Japanese samurai community for hundreds of years. Why should you be surprised that the Chinese utilized kata for weapons training. In fact, this very question gets to the very issue I have been addressing. I would argue, that martial arts should be viewed as having martial (military - in the most basic definition of the term) origins. Xingyi was created from spear arts. The Aiki arts have many movements derived from sword techniques. Empty hand Kali flows from the weapons kali. The ancient martial arts were far more likely to provide skill in the use the weapons of the times. However, as firearms replaced bladed weapons in combat, the old weapons forms fell into disuse. Now we live in societies protected by large military systems. We no longer have need for weapon arts of sword and spear. And since we face serious consequences to using weapons in personal confrontations, we resort to our empty hands. These empty hand arts, can be viewed, to some extent, as the last vestiges of old military arts that thrived in the far east and around the world for all of our existence.

The western art of fencing commonly utilizes planned sequences in training. Planned sequences are no different than kata. Western fencing methods were common on western sailing vessels for hundreds of years.

The Chinese have numerous weapons kata, from sword to spear. Kata is the vehicle in which the Chinese have passed down fighting arts from generation to generation. I would imagine that what remains is but a small percentage of what was practiced over time. As these weapons are no longer needed for military combat, the old forms have gone extinct. What remain in the Chinese curriculum are but a small percentage of what was practiced over hundreds, if not thousands of years.

We are indeed fortunate that the Chinese chose to share their combative arts with the Okinawans. Morio Higaonna his described the faithfulness with which Okinawans preserved the old kata taught to them by the Chinese. Encyclopaedia of Goju Ryu, vol. 4: Sanseru and Seipai).



> Goju-ryu makes no secret of its Chinese origins, yet it should not be considered a purely Chinese martial art. While the patriarch of Goju-ryu, Kanryo Higaonna, trained in China as a young man and was clearly influenced by the principles and practices of Chinese boxing, Okinawan Goju-ryu is more than just another form of White Crane Fist.
> 
> In the evolution of Goju-ryu karate, Okinawan self-defense methods were blended with Chinese combat techniques, principles, and strategies. Training methods were changed somewhat to suit Okinawan practitioners, their physiques, and lifestyles. What resulted after more than a half century of development was classical Okinawan Goju-ryu karate as presented in this series of programs. Ironically, this is without doubt closer, in a technical sense, to what Okinawan students were taught by 19th century boxing masters in China, than modern Chinese Wushu.
> 
> During the late Qing era and the early days of the Chinese republic, with notable exceptions, the martial arts went into decline in China. In the backwater of Okinawa, however, when change happened, it did so at a snail&#8217;s pace. As good Confucians, the Okinawans revered tradition and resisted change.With the rest of Asia in turmoil for more than fifty years, the tranquil, rustic, sub-tropical islands of *Okinawa provided a safe repository for Chinese boxing methods*, as well as the crucible in which they were refined and developed for use by the generations that would follow. (emphasis added)


*

*


----------



## Cayuga Karate (Jan 6, 2013)

The Boar Man wrote:



> We are looking back on history as it is now we have a bunch of different forms and styles of karate. However back then there were far fewer styles or methods and teachers. Over time people cross trained and then added their own influences and different lineages were created and so on and so on.



I need to make something very clear here. I am not concerned with "styles" or methods, or teachers, or cross-training, or influences. I am only concerned with kata, those of likely Chinese origin. I have not been discussing the "ti" that Okinawans used in fighting, nor in the Hojo undo of Okinawa, the makiwara training, nor the complex kobudo of staff and two handed weapons, nor the free sparring addition to karate by the Japanese. I am interested soley in kata. The historical record points to Chinese origin of the kata. How the Okinawans organized the various kata into various styles, and what other training became part of various systems, is in my view irrelevant to the issue of the origins and purpose of the kata we have today. We do have an inventory of kata that are documented by old masters as being of Chinese origin. We can look at those movements today, and determine if there are military uses of the movements. 

In addition, posters here can argue over whether this source, or that source, means this, or means that. 

Let me state this again. This is what has been handed down.

1. Throughout the 18th and 19th centuries, the Okinawans sent convoys of tribute vessels 450 nautical miles to Fuzhou in China every two years. These were laden with valuable cargo on both journeys. They remained at port for up to 6-9 months. They were sailing vessels, and needed to wait until the trade winds of the South China sea went through there annual change (SW from May to August and NE from November to March). 

2. In 1719, 1757, 1800 and 1866, the Chinese sent Investiture missions to Okinawa. These missions included hundreds of military personnel as escorts. 

3. There are thousands of islands off the coast of China that provided harbor to scores of thousands of pirates. One band was documented in 1805 as having 2000 vessels and 70,000 men. There were many smaller bands. Pirate ships would surround a sailing vessel, launch sulfur bombs to burn the sails, and begin attack with other artillery (arrows were common). 

4. The Okinawans lost several vessels to pirates and bad weather. It was a national priority to protect these vessels.

5. Funakoshi documents four military men, as well as a sailor, as having taught combative arts to Okinawans.

6. Higaonna and Nakaima traveled to Fuzhou and received training in fighting arts. Both brought back kata. Sanseru and Seisan were brought back by both. 

7. Motobu states that 13 kata were of Chinese origin. Funakoshi writes that Jiin, Jitte, Chinto and Chinte were all taught by the shipwrecked Chinese sailor before he returned home.

Based on that information above, we can ask some questions. 

1. Were the Chinese military authorities that accompanied these vessels across pirate infested waters skilled at training men in combating pirates? I believe many would answer yes.

2. The Okinawans had formal tributary trade with China for 500 years. Should we believe that the Okinawans were skilled at thwarting pirate attacks? I believe many would answer yes.  

3. Was it in the Okinawans national interest in learning the best fighting techniques for thwarting pirate attacks to their vessels. I believe many would answer yes.

4. Did the Okinawans have an opportuntity to learn current fighting methods while the Chinese ships were in port at Naha, and on occasion when their ships were docked at Fuzhou? I believe many would answer yes. 

Now we get to a different, but related question. Many of the histories, those from Funakoshi, especially, make references to Okinawa having no need for weapons. But that is clearly false. They had great need to defend their ships at sea with the weapons of the day (spears, primarily, but swords as well.) What can we make of this? I would argue that the histories were designed to mislead us. Funakoshi wasn't uninformed. It's true he was only ten years old when tribute missions were finally terminated by the Japanese, but this trade with China was a fundamental component of Okinawa's heritage. The Satsuma invaded Okinawa to tax them and to control their trade with China so that they could profit from it. The Okinawans maintained their privileged tributary status with China until the late 1870s. With that tribute trade came Chinese culture in the way of dress, literature, poetry, art, furniture, ceramics, and on and on.

Those histories that state that Okinawans developed empty hand fighting because they could not carry weapons are telling only part of the story. The Okinawa elite still had a fundamental requirement to be able to successfully trade with China, and that meant every member of their biannual 300 strong delegations to China needed to have some competence in repelling attacks on their ships. Should they lose a ship, the people on that ship could be executed, or subjected to a brutal existence aboard a pirate vessel. They needed military techniques, armed techniques to ensure the success of these tribute missions.

If you are willing to accept what I have stated above, then you also may have a simple question. If we take it as a given that the Okinawans had to have had military skill across a broad community, then the simple question is "what happened to it?" No spear arts appear to have survived. 

And therein lies the most interesting question. 

None "appear" to have survived? But is that truly the case?

Which brings me to the fundamental question, one that I am surprised not more are interested in?

For what purpose did Chinese military authorities, tasked with protecting their vessels from hostile takeovers at sea, teach Okinawans Kaishu kata (open hand kata)? 

There are millions out there who believe the only answer can be that these kind military men taught kata to enable the Okinawans to protect themselves without weapons on the rough and tumble streets of Shuri and Naha.


----------



## Cayuga Karate (Jan 6, 2013)

Makalakumu wrote:



> Do you have any examples of weapons techniques that you think are shown in the kata?



There are a variety of ways to approach this issue. Let me try what I think might be the most fruitful way to share information on this topic. 

       1. Can you think of any examples of movements in the kata that seem to defy use for empty hand fighting.

       2. If you look at those movements, does it seem inconceivable that you could propel a short light polearm with them. 

I think if we begin this way, we just might be able to have a productive discussion.

It is not really my purpose here to debate the history. I believe it is clear. The history shows that *there is a potential that these kata may have been, at least in part, designed to propel a short polearm*. It is the actual examination of the movements in the kata that is important. I maintain that history we have been handed down is deficient. The Okinawans absolutely had a need for military (armed) skill. It was in their national security interests. At the very same time, they had a fundamental obligation to the Chinese who might have been motivated to help with the development of that skill. 

Those with military background can best appreciate this obligation to the Chinese, but even those without should recognize the basic need for protection of military information. What was the information needing protection? How the Chinese (and the Okinawans) would organize military responses to attacks on their ships. How would they fight? What techniques would they use? How would they fight in groups or teams? How would they train?

Their armed capabilities required the greatest of secrecy, as does so much military information, throughout history, and certainly today.

How could the Chinese hand down these capabilities such that it was not clear what they were, how they could be used.

One potential answer is just so blindingly simple. You take the weapon out of your hands. 

If the Chinese elected to use this most simple of mechanisms, consider just how incredibly powerful it was. Here we are 150 years later. Millions have learned these kata, yet, it appears, millions have overlooked the potential that these movements can be used to propel a short polearm. 

So my question back to you remains. There must be some movements from some kata that perplex you, that you look at and don't understand how it could be used for empty hand fighting. Look at those movements again with another simple question. If you held at one end, a short light polearm (certainly no taller than you), could you utilize the movements to propel it?

This is the discussion I want to have. I don't want to debate with people the effectiveness of using a polearm in a movement as compared to the effectiveness of using that same movement in a good fighting sequence. There are plenty of kata movements that work remarkably well in fighting. That is not my goal. Rather, I want to engage those that are frustrated with certain moves, kata sequences that seem unrelated to fighting. Moreover, I want those that are interested in looking further to try out this simple concept. What happens when you pick up a broomstick, hold it at one end, and try to use kata movements to propel it. Can it be done?


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 7, 2013)

I'd love to see a basic tutorial from a basic kata of what you are talking about.  Break it down and let's analyze it.  There are plenty of existent Chinese martial arts systems to compare it to and perhaps gain further understanding.  Grab a camera and a couple of students and go for it!


----------



## K-man (Jan 7, 2013)

Cayuga Karate said:


> So my question back to you remains. There must be some movements from some kata that perplex you, that you look at and don't understand how it could be used for empty hand fighting. Look at those movements again with another simple question. If you held at one end, a short light polearm (certainly no taller than you), could you utilize the movements to propel it?
> 
> This is the discussion I want to have. I don't want to debate with people the effectiveness of using a polearm in a movement as compared to the effectiveness of using that same movement in a good fighting sequence. There are plenty of kata movements that work remarkably well in fighting. That is not my goal. Rather, I want to engage those that are frustrated with certain moves, kata sequences that seem unrelated to fighting. Moreover, I want those that are interested in looking further to try out this simple concept. What happens when you pick up a broomstick, hold it at one end, and try to use kata movements to propel it. Can it be done?


 I have followed the discussion with great interest but I do disagree with a lot of the 'facts'.  I don't believe the Okinawans were taught by Chinese military. In fact I would go even further and say that with a couple of documemented examples, the Chinese taught very little to the Okinawans.  The exception may have been the guards and garrison at Shuri Castle. But even then, why would they have taught kata?  Even now, if you want to learn self defence, or even MMA, you wouldn't dream of learning kata. Why did the Okinawan masters spend years teaching just one kata to a student before they may have moved on to another kata?

Could he kata be used for weapons? Possibly, but why wouldn't you learn a specific weapon kata like the jo kata we learn in aikido? Why wouldn't there be some historical evidence to show that the kata had been used that way? 

Questions were asked as to whether the kata came from China or were they developed in Okinawa?  The origins are in the main Chinese, especially in Goju Ryu. But that is all academic.  Regardless of he origin, kata are more than just a collection of techniques although at beginner level that would appear to be the case.  In fact, kata taught without a deep understanding of the application, is just that, a collection of techniques.  You can look at YouTube and see very highly ranked practitioners demonstrating children's applications.  It is no wonder that people can say you can't use kata in a fight because all they see is BS application that could/would get you killed. 

But, what brought me back into the discussion was the question relating to movements that perplex.  I have just spent more than 3 months mulling over one particular move in Kururunfa kata.  Eventually I have settled on two applications, one a take down, the other an arm bar. To get to my current understanding I was working from the previous move and looking at the following move as the fail safe. I looked at hours of video with some of the world's top karate-ka demonstrating bunkai and they all either ignore the technique completely or use an 'obvious' explanation that you would never use is a live situation. I have asked every high ranking karate-ka I know about that particular move and none had more than the most unlikely, basic explanation.  So, certainly I could have reached for my trusty broomstick but with hindsight I think I made the right decision to pursue the empty hand option. 

Now, have I identified 'hidden' truths of kata or have I perhaps found two of several applications that would have been handed down from father to son in the family fighting system back in China two hundred years ago but never made it to Okinawa?    :asian:


----------



## Cayuga Karate (Jan 7, 2013)

K-Man wrote:




> I do disagree with a lot of the 'facts'. I don't believe the Okinawans were taught by Chinese military.


Anyone here can believe anything they like. I provided _*references from numerous sources regarding the role of Chinese military providing instruction to Okinawans*_. I think it would be helpful to me to have you specifically state which sources you disagree with.



> even then, why would they have taught kata?


I have presented historical information that states Chinese men, some in the military, taught the Okinawans kata. It you want to disagree with the statements of Funakoshi, the historical record of Higashionna and Nakaima, the statements of Motobu, Nakama and Nagamine, feel free. The record shows the Chinese taught Okinawans kata. You can believe what you like. As noted above, you might want to post here on which specific sources you disagree with. 

K-Man wrote:



> Why wouldn't there be some historical evidence to show that the kata had been used that way? (with weapons)


There are two answers to this. One is that *everything was handed down in secret*. So if this translation was not typically handed down with the kata, then we could attribute that to secrecy. 

Second, we do have abundant historical evidence to show that the kata can be used that way. We have the kata. They are historical records. Whether or not we choose to study the kata to determine if the movements can propel a short polearm is up to each student of the art.  

K-Man wrote:



> Questions were asked as to whether the kata came from China or were they developed in Okinawa? The origins are in the main Chinese, especially in Goju Ryu. Regardless of the origin, kata are more than just a collection of techniques.


I agree that the historical record shows that kata, with a few exceptions, are Chinese in origin. I would also agree that kata are more than just a collection of techniques. I believe they were designed to be used, as is, in combat.




> You can look at YouTube and see very highly ranked practitioners demonstrating children's applications.


I have looked at a great deal on youtube. And I find much of it lacking. That leads to another question, &#8220;why is it lacking?&#8221; One answer is that all the good stuff has been kept secret. Another answer could be that for some movements, there just aren&#8217;t ways to map them to effective empty hand fighting.

K-Man wrote:




> But, what brought me back into the discussion was the question relating to movements that perplex. I have just spent more than 3 months mulling over one particular move in Kururunfa kata. Eventually I have settled on two applications, one a take down, the other an arm bar. To get to my current understanding I was working from the previous move and looking at the following move as the fail safe. I looked at hours of video with some of the world's top karate-ka demonstrating bunkai and they all either ignore the technique completely or use an 'obvious' explanation that you would never use is a live situation. I have asked every high ranking karate-ka I know about that particular move and none had more than the most unlikely, basic explanation. So, certainly I could have reached for my trusty broomstick but with hindsight I think I made the right decision to pursue the empty hand option. now, have I identified 'hidden' truths of kata or have I perhaps found two of several applications that would have been handed down from father to son in the family fighting system back in China two hundred years ago but never made it to Okinawa?



This statement reveals a lot about the way in which kata have been handed down. In most translations of Itosu&#8217;s sixth lesson of toudi, he states that it is up to the student to figure out how to use movements. There are many on this forum, and others that argue that is what they have been taught, you have to figure it all out for yourself. 

When I step back and think about that approach to learning how to defend one&#8217;s self against a dangerous attack, I find it quite odd indeed. If one goes to an Aikido, Aikido, Jujutsu school, one immediately begins learning applications. Kata are in support of applications. In boxing and Muay Thai schools, one immediately begins learning applications, how to hit in combinations and how to combine those multiple strike movements with parries, evasions, etc. Same with Indonesian and PMA systems. Same with western fencing. Same with wrestling. You learn the fighting sequences by practicing them with others, in application. Where there are kata, they are secondary. 

How does that compare to schools that teach forms and kata. One learns the forms/kata, whether in a Chinese TMA or a karate school, and maybe, just maybe, one will be shown useful fighting applications for some of the movements. In karate schools, it is a given that in part, it is up to the student to &#8220;figure stuff out&#8221;. While that may make sense to some, I find it simply astounding that one is expected to practice kata, and then &#8220;go figure out&#8221; how to use the movements so that they could be effectively applied when their life is on the line. That is just not the way that fighting instruction is done in other systems.

There&#8217;s an important point that needs to be made here. I am not arguing, and never have, that Okinawan kata movements can&#8217;t be used for empty hand fighting. *There are all sorts of movements that lend themselves to useful fighting sequences. *

Rather, I look at the body of kata, as a whole, and wonder why there are so many sequences that have been handed down, with no apparent use in empty hand fighting.

If you are successful in fully decoding all the movements from all the goju kata you have learned, and others as well, more power to you. My goal is not to convince those that are satisfied with what they have and what they have been taught. Rather, I am seeking out those that have been frustrated. If none are here, we don&#8217;t need to take this any further. I imagine that there are karateka here and there that have not been all that happy with the application they have been taught. This thread and numerous others on this and other forums is a testament to that.


----------



## Cayuga Karate (Jan 7, 2013)

Makalakumu wrote:




> I'd love to see a basic tutorial from a basic kata of what you are talking about. Break it down and let's analyze it. There are plenty of existent Chinese martial arts systems to compare it to and perhaps gain further understanding. Grab a camera and a couple of students and go for it!



I have stated that it is my contention that movements in kata should be explored to determine if they had a military heritage. I specifically described the military challenge that faced the Okinawans, the protection of their tribute vessels from hostile attacks. That environment dictates a set of requirements for the weapons useful in defending it. 

In Western naval defense, navymen chose to use *cutlasses* because their short length was more effective in the restrictive environments on a ship. 

We do have evidence that the *Chinese used spears in defense of their ships*. We should expect that in naval defense that short maneuverable spears would have a big advantage over long spears. We should expect them to be short, no taller than the navyman, preferably a bit shorter. The key design point is that we should expect a short polearm that could be light enough that it could be wielded by holding it at the end. Bamboo was a standard wood used for spears at the time, and it's light weight would give the sailor the ability to wield it from one end.

There is a basic challenge in looking at "existent Chinese martial arts systems" for comparison. There isn't all that much emphasis on short polearms in Chinese systems today. There is the cudgel ("gun") that is found in numerous gun-shu forms which are much like wushu but with a polearm. But even the gun-shu students prefer a longer staff for competition. Rather, Chinese systems generally utilize long polearms 6, 7 feet and longer. These cannot be held at one end, and therefore a broad range of technique is simply unavailable to them. Once you move to a short enough polearm that can be wielded like a baseball bat, which can be swung from one end, a vast set of fighting sequences suddenly becomes available. For those weapons that must be held in the middle, these sequences are simply unavailable. It's important to note that the basic polearm of the Ryukyu kingdom, the rokushaku bo, was significantly longer than the height of the men of the time. It is a 6 foot pole, wielded by men that were commonly less than five and a half feet. Plus, it had no blade. That is not to say that longer polearms were not useful in any aspect of naval defense. They could be thrown, like javelins. But they could not be effectively wielded at one end. We should consider a polearm that is held at one end. 

I am here to share. I have ideas on ways to move forward with this discussion for those interested. In light of that, I am uncertain that it is best to begin analysis with  a "basic" kata. In fact, I don't think it best to start with an entire kata at all. Rather, I would you pick the *movements* from one or more kata that you think don't seem to map to empty hand fighting. All you have to do is provide the youtube link with the starting time and ending time of the sequences you are referring to. And in addition, tell me whether they look like the movements could might be able to propel a polearm. That's all I am asking. We can take this one step at a time. There are lots of kata, and many, many sequences. Let's start with a few short steps first. The destination may well be worth the journey.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 7, 2013)

Cayuga Karate said:


> Let's start with a few short steps first. The destination may well be worth the journey.



That's all I'm saying.  Grab a couple of students, show a movement, grab a sword or a polearm, and go to town on film so we can get a real idea of what you are talking about.  It would really help to see some practical examples.


----------



## punisher73 (Jan 7, 2013)

Food for thought.  In the last issue of Classical Fighting Arts, there is an article/interview done about one of Chotoku Kyan's students.  In the interview, he talks about how Kyan had two teaching methods, one for his close personal and private students that he taught at his own home, and the public version he taught in schools.

A couple of the moves he mentioned that were different applications were from Chinto and Kusanku, both of these katas are attributed to Chinese influences.  In Chinto, at the beginning when you bring your hands together and then kind of rotate them around each other before the double punch.  It was taught that this was a move if your hands had been bound to loosen the rope (it was explained that okinawan rope was very fibrous and this would stretch and loosen it enough to get your hand out to punch).  The other was a move from Kusanku that had you move your hand above and over your head.  This move was designed to grab the sharp hair pin that okinawan men wore in their hair.  Other applications included learning how to fight in the dark and the movements in the kata weren't strikes, but searching movements for the attacker in the dark.

If someone were to suggest these types of things now, many people would disregard them as fanciful and missing the point of the bunkai, but here we have one of the karate greats (Chotoku Kyan) telling us that exact thing.


----------



## Cayuga Karate (Jan 7, 2013)

I wrote:



> What we have instead is individuals who take small components out of these sequences, and they use them in isolation. The movements are decoupled from the patterns in which they occur, and only in isolation can good empty hand fighting applications be developed. The common practice is to add other movements to the combination to make it useful. Sometimes the hand sequences are kept, and the steps are eliminated, or greatly modified such that the final sequence really does not map all that well to the original kata movements.
> 
> For those who argue that kata has all the fighting sequences that one needs for self defense, it should be recognized that across many kata there are multi-step sequences that cover a lot of ground. These patterns, as they appear in the kata, are never "decoded" for use in meaningful fighting sequences for a simple reason. They don't map to empty hand fighting.


The Boar Man wrote:



> Again you make several sweeping statements here like those who do these things are wrong and you because you believe that they should go together has the correct answer. I disagree. When I look at material from Iain Abernethy, Tonny Annesi, Harry Cook and others they all show applications pulling out one section from the kata, as well as stringing together movements from the kata. But I don't see where anyone says that they don't relate to empty hand at all.
> 
> Taika Seiyu Oyata would take what he called the upper art and the lower art (meaning the upper body and lower body) and he would use different movements (hand movements from one kata with the foot work from a different move in another kata) to show applications from the kata. It was like having a container (the kata) with words in it (moves) and taking the words out and spelling different sentences. Only instead of coming up with one sentence he would write a mini book because he then combined different elements; different timings, different attacks etc. etc.



I do take issue with your first statement. I have not made sweeping statements "those that do these things are wrong." I maintain that some kata movements do lend themselves quite well to good fighting techniques. I have stated that the secret origins of kata should lead us to consider alternatives as to the purpose of their origin. But when karateka find good fighting sequences in kata, that's good, and in no way wrong. 

We have been handed down empty hand kata, and we are tasked at studying the kata so that it may reveal meaningful application for empty hand fighting. And there is plenty of it. You bring up a series of individuals who have looked at some movements from some kata and have provided us with useful movements for empty hand fighting.

However, I stand by the statements above, and in fact you make a point for me. Or rather you make Oyatas point. He claims that the sequences of movements were not designed to be used in sequence. 

I am not arguing that there is anything wrong with Oyata's approach of taking a bit here, adding a bit there and coming up with good fighting sequences. Our goal is to develop good sequences, and if that is a way to do it, then we are better for it.

I am familiar with Oyata's idea here. He has used an analogy of "the alphabet" to describe it. A kata will have a sequence of movements, a, b, c, d, e, etc. Together, this sequence of letters doesn't spell anything useful. But from these letters, you can create lots of words, "mini-books" as you stated.  I agree with the former, but not with the latter. I believe that in addition to Oyata's "recombination" theory of kata, that indeed, sequences are designed to be used, as they appear. In fact, in my view, the notion that the kata were not designed to be used, as is, is something that I really find quite odd.  

I like to use the term directional sequence. The kata have all of these sequences forward that consist of several steps (stances), with associated hand movements. For example, in Heian Shodan (Pinan Nidan) there are two sets of four step sequences in front stance. These sequences cover about ten feet. And it is this distance that sequences cover that make it so difficult to find applications for them because this distance doesnt map to way empty hand fighting occurs. The obvious challenge here is in the defensive art of empty hand fighting, there is an opponent an arm's distance away. He is physically blocking the the way of your four step forward path. 

So how do karateka get around this massive hurdle of interpretation? Well one way is to have the attacker retreat while the defender charges forward. This is common in *early Shotokan Heian applications.*

You can find that same approach in this* Matsubayashi Kusanku sequence *(1:50) I think many would find that this kind of application doesn't really map to empty hand fighting. 

Another approach, more common today, (I would argue to better map application to actual fighting) is to utilize a portion of the sequence only, and ignore the remainder of it. One way is to utilize the beginning movements, ignore the ends of the sequence. For a good set of examples, you can that is a common approach in these *Shito Ryu Pinan applications.*

If a forward sequence is too long, you can remove the beginning as well. We find that approach in Higaonna's 1980s video of *Gekki sai bunkai.* In the first sequence of this video, the initial stance/block in the sequence is removed, leaving a useful application for the remainder of the sequence. 

One can also extract a useful movement out of the middle as well. In this instance we can look at Higaonna's first movement in his Seisan video. He extracts a only a small part of the full sequence for his application. 

Again, this is all good. I like this approach. If you can't use the entire sequence, make some use of a portion. That is half of Oyata's claim. In addition to his teachings that applications are built up from portions of different sequences, he has, IMO, made a more interesting claim. He has readily stated that the *lengthier sequences of movements* (such as those that walk forward four steps) *were simply not intended to be used in the order they appear*. That's the part I find perplexing. I do agree that many of these longer directional sequences do not map to empty hand fighting. But I just can't bring myself to believe that these Chinese men were passing down, in great secrecy, movements that could not be used in the way they appear in kata, that the only way to apply them was to pull them apart and reassemble them to make use of them. I just find that method of teaching bewildering. 

This is not the first time I have ventured out to these forums to discuss these ideas. My experience in the past has been that in these kinds of discussions, posters take issue at my ideas and say they have no merit (that's the polite version). No problem there. But during this back and forth of whether there are indeed meaningful uses of movements of forward sequences, one thing that seems never to happen are links documenting the utility of forward sequences, used in their entirety. Rather, references are made to Oyata, Anessi and Abernethy and how they have provided the answers. So I am glad you brought up these three. First regarding Oyata, there is very little video of him on youtube. He wouldn't permit it. Regardinging Abernethy and Anessi, it's important to first note that these individuals *did not* publish applications that were handed down to them by with the kata that they learned. Abernethy, from what I know, has a jujutsu (grappling) background, and Anessi has an aikjutsu (grappling) background. Rather, they have applied their grappling knowledge to kata for a significant amount of what they teach. Once again, I must state the caveat that this is all good. We are all trying to make use of these bewildering forms. But the notion that 150 years and more after these kata were taught, we finally have the answers because of these two persons applied their training from completely separate Japanese grappling arts, well I find that answer unsatisfying. 

There is another comment worth making here. When you choose to point to techniques of Anessi and Abernethy, you choose to point to concepts that are behind a paywall. In Jujutsu, in Aikido, in PMA, in numerous Chinese arts, in Iaido, in Naginata, in western boxing, in western wrestling, in modern fencing, in all manner of traditional and modern fighting systems, there is freely available information on youtube. Why is it that the only sources that are referenced regarding the true aka non-childrens, bunkai are behind a paywall so groups of interested individuals cant debate their merits in a public forum. Just how well do the applications taught by these two map to sequences found in kata. We can't see for ourselves.  

And let's not forget we do have numerous youtube videos of Okinawans doing bunkai. If the Okinawans passed down useful bunkai for some of the more complex sequences, or those that have hand and feet motions that don't appear to map to empty hand fighting, posters should be able to reference those videos support the frequent claims that the kata are nothing but textbooks of great fighting. 

One last point. I have been discussing these ideas for some time, and I fully recognize that, at least to some, they are threatening. Karate has been handed down as an "empty hand" art, for empty hand fighting. Many posters have long training in kata and have fully internalized their value in empty hand fighting. This novel idea that I have proposed, that the origins of kata could have been military is potentially unsettling. I get it.

But it should also be noted that I intend to take this conversation forward. The historical evidence is clear enough that we should at least consider examining the kata for use as military arts. Going forward, I intend to focus more on kata movements, and I am hopeful that posters will recognize there is no harm in doing so.  

I have not come here to attempt to convince anyone that their view of the karate is wrong. Everybody is entitled to their own views. But I have begun down a path I find quite fruitful, and I am seeking only those that are unsatisfied, that are unconvinced about what they have been taught. The only thing that will convince them is their own experience. I am looking to share in a productive way, how these forms can be evaluated for use with a polearm. 

There's no harm in trying. If the evidence is unconvincing, then people will ignore it. If it is convincing, that some may gain benefit.*
*


----------



## Cayuga Karate (Jan 7, 2013)

I wrote:



> There must be some movements from some kata that perplex you, that you look at and don't understand how they could be used for empty hand fighting. Look at those movements again with another simple question. If you held at one end, a short light polearm (certainly no taller than you), could you utilize the movements to propel it?



Makalakumu wrote:



> Grab a couple of students, show a movement, grab a sword or a polearm, and go to town on film so we can get a real idea of what you are talking about. It would really help to see some practical examples.



My apologies for being less than clear. I am interested in karateka who would like to explore the meanings of movements that they are frustrated by. I am interested in helping those who have found the bunkai they have been shown, in class, and elsewhere, to be unconvincing. 

I have not come here to just demonstrate random movements, and random kata. My instruction is conditional upon input from those interested in these ideas, as they relate to specific kata movements. If none are interested in specific movements, that's fine with me. I know I gave it a shot.   

So my question to you Makalakumu is whether you believe that you have good useful application for all movements in all the kata you know, or are interested in. And if you don't, why not share those sequences that you find confusing. If you don't want to do it on this forum, you can send me a pm, and we can proceed from there. 

All I am requesting is that I be given youtube links to those kata, and the time periods that the sequences occur, and we can start from there.


----------



## Guy Preston (Jan 7, 2013)

Apologies if I've got this wrong, as I have little to no practical TSD experience, and also for the late point, have only just seen this and was reading some of the ideas for this...

But to me the defence from a sword cut just doesn't fit...

I understand the moving forward and jamming, etc.. It's the 'winding up' or 'chambering' movement that's out of place for me...

Anyone seen an experienced swordsman cut from daijoden? Blink and you'll miss the entire cut!!

To have any chance of defending against a cut like this you need to be in and jam them in a split second, 'chamber' or 'wind up' as was described earlier in this thread and to my reckoning you just got cut in half...

in kata I've practiced there is no time for wind up, either jam immediately, or attack something immediately, either way the forward movement is instant..


----------



## rframe (Jan 7, 2013)

Cayuga Karate said:


> In fact, in my view, the notion that the kata were not designed to be used, as is, is something that I really find quite odd.



I see nothing unusual about looking at kata as simple patterns for training exercises and not as a complete fight story.  The former makes much more sense.  They are tools to practice combinations and movement, in my view forcing them to be some complete story from first to last sequence is silly and was never the intent.


----------



## Cayuga Karate (Jan 7, 2013)

Ninniku Dojo wrote: 



> But to me the defence from a sword cut just doesn't fit



I don't know if you are referencing something that I wrote, but since I am the only one arguing that the historical evidence suggests we consider that kata might have been designed for military purposes, I would imagine you are. 

Every two years in the 18th and 19th centuries, the Okinawans sent convoys of hundreds of men and valuable cargo to Fuzhou across an area that had significant pirate activity. They needed military (armed) methods to defend these ships. Yet the standard histories all claim that Okinawa had no use for weapons. 

The Chinese also sent investiture convoys to the Ryukyu kingdom in 1719, 1757, 1800 and 1866. These were staffed with hundreds of soldiers for protection.

Funakoshi names four military attaches who instructed Okinawans in combative arts. If that is a correct statement, I ask why.

The answer for that would not be so that the Okinawans could use their empty hands to defend against armed attacks. That is certain. But an answer could be that the Chinese were providing to the Okinawans methods to defend their ships from armed attacks. If we assume that Funakoshi, and others, were correct in that Chinese military men had a role in training Okinawans in fighting arts, and that Okinawans needed armed combative capabilities to thwart pirate attacks, then a simple question arises. What happened to these military arts that the Chinese military personnel taught to Okinawans.

And the answer to that is different depending on your perspective. You can have a perspective that there Funakoshi was wrong, that there was no military role in the instruction of Okinawans. But if you assume that he was correct, then that leads pretty much to two conclusiions. The first is that the arts were so secret that they did not survive until the present time.

But there is another conclusion. We have a fairly extensive family of movements that are documented as having been taught by Chinese men. Funakoshi attributes four kata to a Chinese sailor. Wansu is attributed to another military man. We have Kusanku kata, and Funakoshi names him as a military attachee. These kata were all taught in the utmost secrecy, just the way one would military information to be transmitted.

I believe this evidence begs a question. 

Why did Chinese military authorities, tasked with protecting Chinese dignitaries on the high seas, choose to teach the Kaishu (open hand) kata that have survived until today. What was their motivation. Did the only have a goal of giving the Okinawans that they instructed the means to ensure their own personal safety on land in Okinawa? Or did they provide them with the capabilities, hidden within the kata, of successfully challenging armed attacks against attacks to their bi-annual trade missions to China?

With this question in mind, we can look at the kata and evaluate the movements to determine whether they can be used to propel a short polearm, the weapon of choice for the Chinese at sea.


----------



## Guy Preston (Jan 7, 2013)

Cayuga Karate said:


> Ninniku Dojo wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Actually no, I wasn't referencing anything you wrote..

I made a rookie mistake, and was reading the first page, thinking it was the last, so actually referencing something said on the first page specifically about Japanese kata and defending from a sword cut...

my bad!!...


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 7, 2013)

Cayuga Karate said:


> Rather, Chinese systems generally utilize long polearms 6, 7 feet and longer. *These cannot be held at one end, and therefore a broad range of technique is simply unavailable to them*. Once you move to a short enough polearm that can be wielded like a baseball bat, which can be swung from one end, a vast set of fighting sequences suddenly becomes available. For those weapons that must be held in the middle, these sequences are simply unavailable. It's important to note that the basic polearm of the Ryukyu kingdom, the rokushaku bo, was significantly longer than the height of the men of the time. It is a 6 foot pole, wielded by men that were commonly less than five and a half feet. Plus, it had no blade. That is not to say that longer polearms were not useful in any aspect of naval defense. They could be thrown, like javelins. *But they could not be effectively wielded at one end*. We should consider a polearm that is held at one end.



Regarding the bolded portion, perhaps you are referring to something different than I am about to describe so feel free to clarify, but I find these statements to be untrue.  My Chinese staff forms make extensive use of the staff from one end.  One of my forms is exclusively that, keeping the grip at the one end and not switching to the other.  My other set switches from one end to the other, but the strikes are always done from one end.  We do not hold the staff in the middle.  Perhaps you are referring to a single-handed grip?  If so, that's a different thing.  But we use a double handed grip on one end of the staff, and use the full length of the staff for combative techniques.  And there is a rich supply of techniques that can be used that way.

I also have some anecdotal evidence for you.  My sifu delights in pointing out similarities between our empty hand forms and techniques, and our weapons forms and techniques.  He will often take a movement from our weapons forms, be it staff, spear, dao, gim, butterfly swords, etc., and show how the same movement can be done empty handed and translates cleanly into an empty hand technique or combination.  It's often just a very minor modification of the movement to translate from weapon to empty hand.  When you know what to look for and are familiar with the weapon, you will see a lot of overlap.  Not 100%, but more than you might think possible.


----------



## Cayuga Karate (Jan 7, 2013)

rframe wrote:



> I see nothing unusual about looking at kata as simple patterns for training exercises and not as a complete fight story. The former makes much more sense. They are tools to practice combinations and movement, in my view forcing them to be some complete story from first to last sequence is silly and was never the intent.



One can slice and dice the kata into very short sequences, a block, a strike. Or one can slice and dice the kata into longer sequences. If a kata goes in eight directions, then there could be eight sequences. 

It's easy for just about anyone to pick a random block out of the kata, use it, add a punch, perhaps a takedown, and say that is the bunkai. I, and I believe others, aren't so convinced. I believe that the sequences of movements that appear as they are in the kata, should, in large part, be able to be used as they appear, and not pulled apart into basic units of single arm movements.

So I ask for links. If you have something that you are aware of online that helps support your point, by all means, please provide the link. Without examples, we are just arguing semantics.


----------



## Cayuga Karate (Jan 7, 2013)

I wrote:


> _ather, Chinese systems generally utilize long polearms 6, 7 feet and longer. _These cannot be held at one end, and therefore a broad range of technique is simply unavailable to them. Once you move to a short enough *polearm that can be wielded like a baseball bat, which can be swung from one end*, a vast set of fighting sequences suddenly becomes available. For those weapons that must be held in the middle, these sequences are simply unavailable. It's important to note that the basic polearm of the Ryukyu kingdom, the rokushaku bo, was significantly longer than the height of the men of the time. It is a 6 foot pole, wielded by men that were commonly less than five and a half feet. Plus, it had no blade. That is not to say that longer polearms were not useful in any aspect of naval defense. They could be thrown, like javelins. But they could not be effectively wielded at one end. We should consider a polearm that is held at one end*. *(emphasis added)



Flying Crane wrote:



> Regarding the bolded portion, perhaps you are referring to something different than I am about to describe so feel free to clarify, but I find these statements to be untrue. My Chinese staff forms make extensive use of the staff from one end. One of my forms is exclusively that, keeping the grip at the one end and not switching to the other. My other set switches from one end to the other, but the strikes are always done from one end. We do not hold the staff in the middle. Perhaps you are referring to a single-handed grip? If so, that's a different thing. But we use a double handed grip on one end of the staff, and use the full length of the staff for combative techniques. And there is a rich supply of techniques that can be used that way.



Thank you for pointing out that I was unclear in my description. I had some of the information that needed to be considered (in bold) but my wording was incomplete.  Let me try again: 

These long Chinese spears cannot be held at one end and be effectively wielded like a baseball bat. The longer polearm's increased air resistance coupled with a reduction in leverage (both relative to a short polearm), make it nearly impossible to propel the blade quickly in a plane parallel to the ground, at torso height, traveling from one shoulder to the next. Rather, what we see is that for this kind of movement, the end is more plodding. I agree with you that there is a "rich supply of techniques" that can be used for the traditional longer Chinese polearms that are held at the end. But what is rare in these arts, especially with the seven foot weapons, is where the polearm is held at the end and swung horizontally in complete movements from side to side.

We find this same principle with the six foot rokushaku bo, when yielded by people 5 and a half feet tall. It is very rare to find techniques with this kind of movement. There is always the exception that proves the rule. The Isshin Ryu *Tokumine No Kun* (1:55) does have this horizontal swing. However, neither the *Shorinji-ryu* nor the *Seibukan* systems appear not to have it. And even the Isshin ryu movement contains only the first half of the full swing. The staff does not cross the body, but could, if continued.

What we find is the length of long Chinese polearms does inhibit, to various extents, a whole series of additional movements and associated combinations that can be performed with great speed with a polearm short enough to be propelled like a baseball bat. 

I would be grateful if you could provide links to one or more online forms from your art, or something similar, so I could better describe the limitations I am discussing.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 7, 2013)

Cayuga Karate said:


> I would be grateful if you could provide links to one or more online forms from your art, or something similar, so I could better describe the limitations I am discussing.



Unfortunately there is little online of my system that is of any value at all.  I've not seen any that I felt was quality, it's all quite sloppy and I don't recall seeing any of the staff or spear online anywhere.


----------



## rframe (Jan 7, 2013)

Cayuga Karate said:


> So I ask for links. If you have something that you are aware of online that helps support your point, by all means, please provide the link. Without examples, we are just arguing semantics.


----------



## Cayuga Karate (Jan 7, 2013)

Thanks for providing this link. I would like to make a number of observations. 



Kudos to Mr. Abernethy for his efforts to provide useful applications.
I do not want this to appear like I am in any way minimizing the potential use of this concept he is teaching while I dissect it.

First, I have repeatedly noted that the long sequences of three and four steps forward are those that provide the greatest obstacles to being used for application. The attacker is at arm's distance and clearly in your way. This sequence has Iain using the opening movements, side to side, of Heian Shodan. There is only one step forward from the initial stance. If one compares this to the latter half of Heian Shodan, there is a forward movement with a downward block, followed by a forward strike, followed by two more strikes, each in a long stance forward. Iain does not begin by stepping forward, he steps back (3:03). This is a minor change, but helps illustrate the profound difficulty of making these long stance forward line up with an attacker already at arm's distance.

The next small issue I have with this technique is the degree which it would be effective against a bigger attacker. While the attacker is taller than Iain, he clearly is a lot lighter. The problem here is that empty hand attacks most likely come from those heavier, or if not heavier, taller. That is the nature of fighting. Bigger people tend to pick on smaller people. This is not universal, but it is widely prevalent. I would argue that the strike to the neck that Iain does at 3:12, an the takedown he does at 3:49 (and after) would be near impossible against a larger attacker. Iain pulls on the arm of the attacker and he folds over with the advantage to Iain of the target on the back of the neck, and the ability to wrap around the neck and secure the opponent. This is no trivial task when the opponent is heavier person, or one of near the same weight and taller, and resisting. And the key is resisting.

Finally, I would argue that this karate movement is based on a non-threatening attack and that this somewhat of a problem. The two are arm to arm. This is not a strike to the head that snaps back. The key is that when the arms are in contact, one can initiate the start of the movement, the grab, with far greater ease than if the attacker were throwing out a snapping strike. Those are near impossible to grab. 

I am glad you picked this movement. This movement that Iain demonstrates is not only a defense, but the standard attack used in many karate schools when practicing application. I believe that some if you might notice similarities between Iain's movement from 3:05 to 3:06, and *Shimabukuro's Tokumine No Kun *movement from :13 to :14. Moreover, Shimabukuro continues forward with two more movements which when combined with the first two, map surprisingly well to the four steps in rear in *Heian Shodan*.  28 to :32)

For those that practice bo kata, there are a number of kata with the first part of this sequence. This *bo versus bo clip* shows this kind of attack repeatedly. It is most vivid at :29-:30. 

Throughout this thread, I have been arguing that the historical record provides enough hints that we should consider evaluating kata movements to determine their utility in effectively propelling a short polearm. I am grateful that a technique was picked for analysis that so clearly can be readily transformed into the most basic of polearm techniques.

One last note. I do not mean to infer, in any way that the short polearm these kata might be able to propel is the length and weight of the rokkushaku bo. It would be shorter, lighter, bladed, and held at one end. But there should be no doubt that movements that can be used to propel long polearms also can propel short ones as well.


----------



## K-man (Jan 7, 2013)

rframe said:


>


Which is why I hold Iain Abernethy in such high esteem and wish that he would visit Australia more regularly!


----------



## K-man (Jan 7, 2013)

Cayuga Karate said:


> K-Man wrote:
> Anyone here can believe anything they like. I provided _*references from numerous sources regarding the role of Chinese military providing instruction to Okinawans*_. I think it would be helpful to me to have you specifically state which sources you disagree with.
> 
> You seem to be assuming I am challenging what you are saying which in fact is not the case. You took my remarks out of context. What I said was ..
> ...


That addresses your reply to my post. What I would like to do is look at an issue you raised in another post.



> Originally Posted by Cayuga Karate
> 
> 
> I like to use the term &#8220;directional sequence&#8221;. The kata have all of these sequences forward that consist of several steps (stances), with associated hand movements. For example, in Heian Shodan (Pinan Nidan) there are two sets of four step sequences in front stance. These sequences cover about ten feet. And it is this distance that sequences cover that make it so difficult to find applications for them because this distance doesn&#8217;t map to way empty hand fighting occurs. The obvious challenge here is in the defensive art of empty hand fighting, there is an opponent an arm's distance away. He is physically blocking the the way of your four step forward path.
> ...



i think the bunkai shown in the applications you linked is typical of the schoolboy interpretation we all grew up with.  Kata does not address multiple atackers with choreographed moves. Any bunkai starts with an aggressive move, either from us or our opponent and from that point onwards the attacker doesn't have to do any move to enable the bunkai to proceed.

But to address the issue of travelling distance in the kata.  If, for example, the kata has three steps forward, that means that we start right foot forward, step forward left and again with the right. But, it could also mean we just change feet. It might mean that we step forward right, step back which gives us left, then forward again right. Now our three steps have just moved us one step. Just a thought.    :asian:


----------



## geezer (Jan 8, 2013)

K-man said:


> ...But to address the issue of travelling distance in the kata. If, for example, the kata has three steps forward, that means that we start right foot forward, step forward left and again with the right. But, it could also mean we just change feet. It might mean that we step forward right, step back which gives us left, then forward again right. Now our three steps have just moved us one step. Just a thought. :asian:



I like this way of thinking. Although I'm not a Karate practitioner, I apply the same approach to my training. I believe it leads to a deeper understanding of how to apply the movements. When we take movements from forms and practice them in two-man drills, we always "mess with them" like this.


----------



## punisher73 (Jan 8, 2013)

K-man said:


> i think the bunkai shown in the applications you linked is typical of the schoolboy interpretation we all grew up with.  Kata does not address multiple atackers with choreographed moves. Any bunkai starts with an aggressive move, either from us or our opponent and from that point onwards the attacker doesn't have to do any move to enable the bunkai to proceed.
> 
> But to address the issue of travelling distance in the kata.  If, for example, the kata has three steps forward, that means that we start right foot forward, step forward left and again with the right. But, it could also mean we just change feet. It might mean that we step forward right, step back which gives us left, then forward again right. Now our three steps have just moved us one step. Just a thought.    :asian:



What is often forgotten in these discussions is that kata are a mnuemonic device.  For example,  "Please Excuse My Dear Aunt Sally".  What does that mean?  For many of us, we remember after all these years that it was taught to us as school children to remember the order of operations in math.  Without that context the mnuemonic device means nothing and does nothing for us.  We could spend endless hours on the ettiquette rules that it shows us on how to properly address our elder relatives and we would all miss the point.

Kata is the same way.  Until the advent of picture books, labels were not given to the techniques.  For example, the movement of an upward/rising block.  Just by calling it an upward/rising block we have given it's function and now try to find out how to use the "block" in that sequence.  We may rule out that it's not even a block but a forearm strike under the chin.  The kata gives us both examples in it by reminding us of the motion, so that we can train multiple applications with one set of movements.  That is why there is the big push (in okinawan karate) to not change kata.  If I change the kata to fit a certain application, I have lost the other applications contained in that movement. 

Going back to kata and multiple steps in one direction.  It doesn't necessarily mean that the whole sequence is to be taught all together to one attacker all at once.  In many cases it can mean different attack scenarios with similar variables based on attacker's positioning or attack (right vs. left).  Even in some katas, angles were changed to accomodate the space available.  For example, Sanchin kata used to be just moving foward and then get to the end of the dojo and turn around and go back.  It wasn't until later that the number of steps were added and then things were put so you started and ended in the same spot, why?  So everyone wouldn't run into each other.

Also, we need to understand that up more recent times (around WW2 era) that one kata was considered a complete fighting system so it would contain LOTS of information to be contained within it and not just "an application", it would be multiple applications all very similiar to the movements.   So you may find things in the kata to train your body to move in a certain way that don't have an EXACT combat application but train something important for combat, for example 90 and 180 degree turns, or movements built into them to promote health/fitness.  Isometric moves in Seisan kata anyone?  Or going very slowly in a kata to highlight an aspect, which we know wouldn't be performed that way in a fight.

So, we need to acknowledge that without being told the specific purpose of what the specifc creator of the kata intended, we are guessing at straws.  As far as the empty hand katas containing weapons techniques, I don't agree with that, if you mean attacking with a weapon and not defending against one.  The reason is that Okinawa had a very rich Kobudo history and almost all of the early karate masters taught weapons seperately even though that didn't get passed down.  It doesn't make sense that they would teach staff techniques and how to use a staff along with basics, drills and sometimes kata and then tell a student that they way to really use the bo is hidden in their empty hand kata.  That being said, I think that there are some personal weapons that were used in kata that aren't talked about.  For example, I used the example of Chotoku Kyan talking about using the Jiffa (hair pin) in Kusanku.  Kyan also talked about using the cloth headwrap with a rock in it to strike an opponent.  So, if a kata was a whole system it would make sense that once in awhile you would have that mnuemonic device to remind you of that fact, but it would also mean that there were other uses for that movement and it wasn't exclusive.


----------



## lklawson (Jan 8, 2013)

K-man said:


> Which is why I hold Iain Abernethy in such high esteem and wish that he would visit Australia more regularly!


He's a super nice guy and has been generous in not only letting me post my republished old school boxing books on his forum but even gave a recommendation for my Banned from Boxing book in one of his articles.

Class Act.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## punisher73 (Jan 9, 2013)

Sorry, in my last post I mixed a phrase (which I hate) and didn't catch it until too late.

I was typing and was debating between just saying "we are guessing" and "we are just grasping at straws".  I have no idea what guessing at straws is....LOL


----------



## Cayuga Karate (Jan 9, 2013)

Punisher wrote:



> Going back to kata and multiple steps in one direction. It doesn't necessarily mean that the whole sequence is to be taught all together to one attacker all at once. In many cases it can mean different attack scenarios with similar variables based on attacker's positioning or attack (right vs. left).



There are scores of hours of video online of aikido usage, jujutsu usage, kali usage, boxing usage, actual video of the way the movements are used with two persons. And there are scores of examples of kata application online. 

From all that available bunkai online for karate application, are you aware of any video that shows what you are describing? 

Again, the issue at present (I have others) is that kata sequences of several movements forward (steps/shuffles/jumps) that cover several or more feet, often don't translate to actual fighting because the attacker is in the way of the forward movement. Now he can retreat. And some Okinawan systems practice application that uses a retreating attacker. However some of the ways Okinawans practice bunkai where attackers retreat does not map to the actual ways in which humans fight. There are several systems that practice applications where the attacker retreats, a step at a time, striking with each step. Humans don't fight this way. 

Here's a sequence from Kusanku in Matsubayashi Shorin Ryu. (1:50 to 1:55), and another from Pinan Shodan in Shidokan 05 to :08)

There are quite a number of these four step sequences in the Pinan. And throughout the kata there a variety of sequences in a single direction that cover quite a bit of ground, enough ground that would require either the attacker to retreat, if not, the technique would cause the defender to run his body into the attacker before completing the sequence.

Consequently, those who practice bunkai for these sequences have had to adapt them. A good place to look at examples of these kinds of adaptations is in the Higoanna videos from the 1980s. 

For example in his *suparenpei bunkai *video, Higaonna performs the movement in the kata at :56. But he leaves off a step and block that precede it. I believe Higaonna reveals the fundamental challenge of doing this forward jumping kick to a target at arm's length, in his performance of the kick. At 1:10, he moves his left foot, which in the kata is in front of his right foot, back well behind his right foot. This is just not the way the movement is done in the kata. It's clear to me that this is an adaption for an attacker at arm's distance.

A better example of this truncation is found in Higaonna's *Sanseru bunkai video*. If you look at the way the actual movement is *performed in kata*, 21 to 27) you can see that the movement where the two open hands thrust downward is done with the *right* foot forward. Then there are *two* stepping kicks forward. In the *bunkai video*, beginning at :01, the* left *foot is forward with both hands down. *One kick *is eliminated from the application. 

We can see this "truncating" again in the Sesan bunkai video. In the *kata video*, there is a left hand thrust at :33, and it is followed by a big shuffle forward. In the *bunkai video*, at 1:15 he begins an angular retreat, and has no shuffle forward prior to the triple strike. 

The kata* Seipei* has a long opening sequence forward. 01 to :17). In the *bunkai video*, this was broken down into defenses against three separate attacks. The first defense has a single counter, a spear hand to the abdomen. The second, has an escape from a grab followed be a single elbow to the abdomen, the third technique has two counters. The last two movements of the sequence are left unaddressed.

My purpose here is not to be critical of Higaonna's movements. It's only to point out the challenges of adapting sequences of forward movements to empty hand fighting where the opponent is at arm's length, and likely not retreating. 

These sequences forward that cover distance happen throughout the kata. Many kata are sets of movements that don't cover much ground combined with those that cover more ground. There are the side-to-side sequences, and the forward sequences. 

I have listed below, a number of sequences from a range of Okinawan kata where the number of steps shuffles and jumps forward would put the defender past the initial position of the attacker. 

Unsu (2:18 to 2:36) 
Oyadomari Passai 45 to :49)
Wankan 18 to :24)
Kusanku 38 to :45, 1:25 to 1:30, 1:37 to 1:41)
Naihanchi Nidan 06 to :13)
Wansu 10 to :18, 34 to :37)
Gojushiho 30 to :36)
Chinto 32 to :39, :42 to :54, 1:01 to 1:07)
Jion 23 to :28, :37 to :51, 1:01 to 1:10, 1:17 to 1:24)
Chinte (1:10 to 1:16, 1:18 to 1:27, 1:50 to 1:56)
Jitte 23 to :24)
Matsumura Passai 22 to :29)
Koryu Passai 15 to :19)
Ananko 36 to :43)
Anan (7:43 to 7:50, 8:02 to 8:06)
Pachu (3:56 to 4:00) 

Now one can argue that in these sequences, that they were never designed to be done against a single individual. Or that they were designed to be deconstructed and reassembled in sequences that were more stationary.

That is one way of looking at these movements. Another would be to wonder why they shouldn't be designed to be used _as they appear _in the kata, as they are practiced, _in the kata_. 

And from that frame of reference, if they really don't work all that well against an opponent at arm's length, one could then speculate why were they taught in the first place.

My question remains. 

_Why did Chinese military authorities, tasked with the defense of Investiture missions to Okinawa choose to teach these Okinawans the Kaishu (open hand) kata that have survived until today?
_
Were they concerned that the Okinawans, who couldn't carry swords, needed to be able to defend themselves on the rough and tumble streets of Naha, Shuri and Tomari?

The answer to that, in my opinion, lies in the kata. For those that think they can argue successfully that the kata were indeed designed for empty hand fighting, perhaps they could provide evidence to support their case. 

Please, post some links to youtube videos that support your ideas. Any of the sequences from the list I have provided above might be a good place to start. 

One last point. I am not arguing, and have never argued that there aren't movements, and sequences of movements in kata, that don't lend themselves quite efficiently, to empty hand fighting. Armed kali movements translate into empty hand kali. Koryu sword movements translate into locks and throws in Aiki and Jujutsu arts. The Chinese art of *Xing Yi Quan*, is said to be a "*martial art based on the combat principles of the spear*." There are commonalities in the movements if Taichi empty hand, sword and staff. My arguments that military arts may have been the basis for empty hand arts is based, in part, on the fact that this is common across a number of martial arts.

This doesn't make the empty hand art weak, or deficient. In my view it is empowering. It ties movements back to the days when men's lives utterly depended on their skill with a weapon, skill developed from intense training over many years. The ability to propel something in your hands strengthens and hones your ability to propel your hands when not holding a weapon.

I find karate to be an extraordinary training tool for strengthening, developing agility, and providing a broad set of good fighting skills. I am not bashing karate when I evaluate the kata and find some movements lacking for self defense. I am celebrating the art. I no longer have to ask "why, why are there so many kata movements that don't map to fighting." They all do, every one of them. And the added bonus is that quite a number of them map quite effectively to empty hand fighting.

So I have two requests. One, if posters here want to go on criticizing my statement that we should consider the potential that these movements can effectively propel a polearm, I ask for evidence to support your claims that kata were designed for empty hand fighting. There are a number of links/times above. Please consider taking the time to provide some evidence. I, and so many others, have been searching for a long time. Let us know where we can find it. (But please, don't refer us to a couple of people who charge for their recently developed applications)

My second request is that I again invite those that may be frustrated by what they have seen with bunkai and application to post a link to what you find perplexing. I might be able to help point to a different view of the kata, one that others just might find interesting, rewarding, and worth the effort.


----------



## K-man (Jan 10, 2013)

Cayuga Karate said:


> Again, the issue at present (I have others) is that kata sequences of several movements forward (steps/shuffles/jumps) that cover several or more feet, often don't translate to actual fighting because the attacker is in the way of the forward movement. Now he can retreat. And some Okinawan systems practice application that uses a retreating attacker. However some of the ways Okinawans practice bunkai where attackers retreat does not map to the actual ways in which humans fight. There are several systems that practice applications where the attacker retreats, a step at a time, striking with each step. Humans don't fight this way.
> 
> Here's a sequence from Kusanku in Matsubayashi Shorin Ryu. (1:50 to 1:55), and another from Pinan Shodan in Shidokan 05 to :08)
> 
> ...


I will post one link that I found that shows some aspects of what I am saying. 

http://iainabernethy.co.uk/content/taira-sensei-demonstrating-bunkai-seipai-kata

Not surprising that it is the site of the man who singlehandly change my understanding of kata many years ago and features the man whom I now consider my Master and whom I have spent many hours training under both in Australia and overseas.  I am thinking that these are the people you are referring to when you say "please don't refer us to a couple of people who charge for their recently developed applications."  Both of these men have devoted their lives to their work and I have no hesitation in paying for their knowledge.  

And, yes I am frustrated by my lack of understanding of certain techniques in kata, but I'm working on those and with the help of like minded people I'm sure we will come up with reasonable, testable and practical applications in due course.   :asian:


----------



## punisher73 (Jan 10, 2013)

Cayuga Karate said:


> Punisher wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Again, you are making the mistake that kata is a LITERAL translation of an exact sequence.  Reread my _whole _post.  Kata is a mnuemonic device, a REMINDER of the lessons that you learned.  It is the motion that is important.  There are MULTIPLE applications (each one slightly) different contained in the kata.  Some of them will need adjustments depending on the circumstance, but if you taught a kata with EVERY "what if" or consideration they would be ungodly long to remember or train each one.

As to some of the kicks.  Okinwan kicks used to NOT extend past the end of your punch when being used in conjunction (low level knee attacks etc.)  When you see a long front kick like that followed by a punch, the kata has been altered for the japanese sport style sparring approach.  Lower those kicks to the knee and you will find most don't need adjustments.


----------



## K-man (Jan 10, 2013)

punisher73 said:


> As to some of the kicks.  Okinwan kicks used to NOT extend past the end of your punch when being used in conjunction (low level knee attacks etc.)  When you see a long front kick like that followed by a punch, the kata has been altered for the japanese sport style sparring approach.  Lower those kicks to the knee and you will find most don't need adjustments.


And just to elaborate. The kick is not necessarily a 'kick'. At close range it becomes a knee, a takedown or even a means of relocating your attacker's feet to destabilise.

And, you are so correct in highlighting the difference in focus between the Japanese and Okinawan kicks.   :asian:


----------



## punisher73 (Jan 10, 2013)

K-man said:


> And just to elaborate. The kick is not necessarily a 'kick'. At close range it becomes a knee, a takedown or even a means of relocating your attacker's feet to destabilise.
> 
> And, you are so correct in highlighting the difference in focus between the Japanese and Okinawan kicks.   :asian:



Correct, I was pressed for time and didn't elaborate too much.  But, it goes back to the mnuemonic device thing.  When you step, it could be all of those things whether  I am in close or the attacker is just a little bit farther away etc.

Same with the arm movements, the reverse motion, the chambering motion, the return motion etc. are all parts of techniques that have other applications.  Not to even get into talking about enlarging your motion or tightening your motion to change between offensive and defensive movements in kata.

Here is another problem I have with the karate katas are for weapons training.  I have not heard of any chinese system saying that their empty handed sets/forms are _really_ designed to teach weapons fighting and that those applications were somehow lost/hidden.  They were always seperate.  Now that does NOT mean that you won't find systems that integrate their weapons training to match the concepts of their empty hands (Wing Chun) or integrated their empty hand fighting to match their weapon training (Filipino MA's).  But, to me, this is different than claiming that the karate katas somehow never knew that their motions was for weapons training and disguised as empty hand forms.

I would strongly suggest if anyone wants a good understanding of how kata is/was designed and how it was to be used.  Read "The Way of Kata" by Kane and Wilder.  The examples are from Goju-Ryu, but their analysis and breakdown applies to all okinawan systems.

I would also point out that any theory of lost/hidden stuff from a japanese karate standpoint, is fairly obvious from those who's lineage stem from the Funakoshi/Shotokan line.  Funakoshi took out many things and altered many other things for the japanese audience.  For example, when comparing Shuri-style Wansu with Shotokan's Empi.  Wansu shows a student how to do a fireman's carry throw in it (Kata Guruma), but Empi has a jumping/spinning move in it's place.  Of course now the sequence has been altered and lost so you are now looking at a missing piece that doesn't make sense at all.

Go to about the 55 second mark for Shotokan's Enpi





Now look at the older version from Chotoku Kyan's lineage.  Go to about the 35 second mark, and it is the same move.





I think this alteration from okinawan karate to japanese karate is where many things were lost and we got the block/kick/punch applications, and theories abounding as to what the applications were supposed to be.  Step one: Close your distance


----------



## chinto (Jan 10, 2013)

punisher73 said:


> Correct, I was pressed for time and didn't elaborate too much.  But, it goes back to the mnuemonic device thing.  When you step, it could be all of those things whether  I am in close or the attacker is just a little bit farther away etc.
> 
> Same with the arm movements, the reverse motion, the chambering motion, the return motion etc. are all parts of techniques that have other applications.  Not to even get into talking about enlarging your motion or tightening your motion to change between offensive and defensive movements in kata.
> 
> ...



I agree, as a student of Okinawan Karate I see a lot of holes in the shotokan kata compared to the okinawan kata of the same name or type.  I think this was done by Funikoshi to differentiate it from Jujitsu more clearly to the Japanese people who were completely unfamiliar with Karate. 
That is Not to say the Japanese Karate systems are not good, but just different.  I myself much prefer the Okinawan Originals to the Japanese modified versions for myself. They fit me better, but I do know some Shotokan people who much prefer and are better fitted by shotokan and such.  all karate is good karate in general.. just a different take on it... once again in general. there are exceptions to every rule.


----------



## Cayuga Karate (Jan 10, 2013)

K-Man wrote:



> _I don't believe the Okinawans were taught by Chinese military. In fact I would go even further and say that with a couple of documemented examples, the Chinese taught very little to the Okinawans. The exception may have been the guards and garrison at Shuri Castle."_



I put together this graphic in powerpoint and exported to jpg. Over the next couple of weeks I will redo it in Visio where I can do it better. I will have an additional document that lists the sources for each connection.

I believe this information is not consistent with your statement above.


----------



## K-man (Jan 11, 2013)

Cayuga Karate said:


> K-Man wrote:
> 
> 
> I put together this graphic in powerpoint and exported to jpg. Over the next couple of weeks I will redo it in Visio where I can do it better. I will have an additional document that lists the sources for each connection.
> ...


Not at all. It is exactly as I said.

Let's look at these in order.

*Wansu*


> This kata is said by many to have been brought to Okinawa by the 1683 Sappushi Wang Ji (Jpn. Oshu, 1621-1689). It is possible that it is based upon or inspired by techniques that may have been taught by Wang Ji.
> 
> 
> The problem with this theory is that why would such a high ranked government official teach his martial arts (assuming he even knew any) to the Okinawans? Also, Wang Ji was only in Okinawa for 6 months (Sakagami, 1978).
> ...


No mention of Chinese military.

*RuRu Ko
*


> Ry&#363; Ry&#363; Ko (&#12523;&#12540;&#12523;&#12540;&#12467;&#12454; R&#363; R&#363; Kou?, died before 1915), also known as Ryuko, Ryuru Ko, Liu Liu Gung, Liu Liu Ko, To Ru Ko, was a teacher of a style possibly Fujian White Crane, notable for instructing many of the founders of Okinawan martial arts which later produced Karate. The kata Sanchin, taught in G&#333;j&#363;-ry&#363; and most other styles of Karate, was originally taught by Ry&#363; Ry&#363; Ko.
> Although Ry&#363; Ry&#363; Ko is mostly known from the accounts of his Okinawan students, he is sometimes known, based on the research of Tokashiki Iken, as Xie Zhongxiang, born in Changle, Fujian,. Xie Zhongxiang (&#35613;&#23447;&#31077;&#65289;was also known as Xia YiYi (&#35613;&#22914;&#22914;&#65289;in local Fukian Dialect, or Xie RuRu in modern Mandarin. Those who believe that Ryu Ryu Ko is Xie Zhongxiang refer to his alias Xie Ru Ru, whereby as a term of endearment amongst friends, he was often referred to as Ru Ru Ko&#65292;the suffix &#8221;Ko&#8220; &#65288;&#21733;&#65289;meaning "Brother", and hence, Ru Ru Ko was a nickname for Xie Zhong Xiang which meant Brother RuRU.
> By some accounts he was one of the first generation masters of Míng hè quán (&#40180;&#40372;&#25331;, Whooping Crane Fist), which he either learned from his teacher Kwan Pang Yuiba (who was a student of F&#257;ng Q&#299;niáng, the originator of the first White Crane martial art), or created himself, based on more general White Crane style of his teacher. He had to conceal his name and aristocratic lineage and took on the name Ryu Ryu Ko, under which he worked, making household goods from bamboo and cane. He has been teaching martial arts at his home to a very small group of students, which included Higaonna Kanry&#333;, who stayed with Ryu Ryu Ko from 1867 to 1881. Ryu Ryu Ko expanded his class to an actual public school in 1883, running it with his assistant, Wai Shinzan (Wai Xinxian).
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ry&#363;_Ry&#363;_Ko


Not military and not in Okinawa.

*Wai Shinzan*


> What persons are "Wai Shinzan" and "Tou Ruko"?( These are the pronunciations of an old Okinawa language.)
> "Wai Shinzan" is Chinese martial artist and teacher of ARAGAKI Sesyo (Teacher of HIGAONNA Kanryo) . His real name is WANG Daxing(1793?&#65374;1894&#65311. He came to Okinawa twice at 1838 and 1866 as a military arts executive of the Chinese government accompanying.. The pronunciation "Wai Shinzan" originates in "Wang Shijiang (meaning of Wang Sensei)".. Wai Shinzan had kept deeply relations with Shihan in Okinawa. In martial arts book "Bubishi" mainly handed down to Goju-ryu, his philosophy is recorded with his pen name "WANG Yuedeng".( "Bubishi" can be called Bible of Goju-ryu&#65294&#12288;. He was regarded as one of the origins of Goju-ryu. But MATSUMURA Sokon was his student too.And thereares his influences also in the Syuri-De (the roots of Syotokan-Ryu and Shito-Ryu) and Tomari-De. For example.the Kata's names such as "Wankan", "Wansyu" "Unsu" originate in the alias named Wang Shijiang. "Wankan" is a shortened form of "Wan-Bukan". Bukan is a meaning of martial bureaucrat. "Wansyu" is a shortened form of "Wang Shijiang (meaning of Wang Sensei)". "Unsu" is the one that the shortened form of "Wang Shijiang" and the pronunciation were changed. By the way, he was a famous martial artist in China "White Crane Kung Fu ". Therefore, Karate has the influence fron this Kun-Fu.
> (attention; Wai Shinzan = WANG Shijiang =WANG Daxing = WANG Yuedeng)
> http://www.japan-karate.com/goju-ryu karate history.html


What is a 'military arts executive'?

*Ason*


> Shaolin Kempo (also Shorin Kempo, Shaolin Ryu, Shorin Ryu, Zhao Ling Liu in Chinese) was first mentioned in an ancient Japanese document. Ason, a Chinese martial arts teacher, taught some students in Kumemura on Okinawa in the art of Shaolin Kempo. However, this first line ended with Tomigusuku. Next one finds no mention, also which time Ason stayed on Okinawa is not clearly proven. In the fifties of last century, the martial art of Kempo is introduced under the name Kuntao in the Netherlands. To what extent it is a similar system is, which was taught by Ason Liu as Zhao Ling on Okinawa, one could only speculate. Historians believe, however, that Kuntao in the course of trade relations between China and Southeast Asia is widespread in this area. Assuming, then the Okinawan Kempo has the same roots as the Southeast Asian Kuntao styles that you search in the southern Chinese province of Fujian (Fukien jap) must. There was the White Crane style of Baihequan justified the significant influence on the martial arts in Okinawa and had probably also in Southeast Asia.
> http://www.shorin-kempo-ryu.com/articles.php?lng=en&pg=7


Can't find any reference to 'military' and he was in Tomari.

*Kusanku*


> The mysterious Kusanku of a Chinese envoy settled in Okinawa for some time.His most famous student was Satunuku "Tode" Sakugawa (1733-1815). It is believed Sakugawa became a student of Kusanku in 1756. Sakugawa was a student of Takahara Peichin (1683-1760) (Peichin is a title of status) until the arrival of Kusanku in Okinawa. At that time Sakugawa was granted permission from Takahara Peichin to train under Kusanku.
> 
> 
> Sakugawa traveled to China with Kusanku to study Kempo. He returned to Okinawa in 1762 to introduce this fighting method. Before long *Sakugawa was considered an expert in the Chinese hand fighting method*. It is said that Sakugawa was awarded the title of Satonushi for his services to the Okinawa King.
> ...


Matsumura was taught by Chinto, a trader.

*Iwah
*
Good luck finding much on this guy.  Military? Probably, I did find one reference as military 'envoy', but no suggestion he taught weapons.

*Castaway (Chinto)*


> Legend tells of a shipwrecked Chinese sailor named Chinto who hid in an Okinawan cave and stole his food at night.  The villagers complained and Matsumura, the best Samurai, was sent to capture the sailor.  When confronted, Chinto successfully blocked or eluded each of Matsumura&#8217;s offensive techniques and then he ran away.  Matsumura eventually found him hiding in a cemetery and befriended him.  Chinto taught Matsumura his &#8220;form&#8221;.  This form was thought to be from Shorin-Ji Kempo and many feel that this is how Shorin-Ji Kempo was brought to Okinawa.
> http://www.ashsokinawankarate.com/history_karate.html


Military? Very doubtful.  Weapons? No mention.


> *"Te the evolution"*
> The development of "Te" continued over many years and was mostly practiced in secret by only a few individuals. development was centered primarily in the three Okinawan villages of Shuri, Naha, and Tomari and village had a master who is credited with developing the style unique to that area. Since Tomari was a town of farmers and fisherman, it was scorned by the villages of the more sophisticated Naha and Shuri. However, many Chinese fisherman came to the port of Tomari and the people there also learned a martial art, which is important to the history of karate also. The two primary Sensei's of Tomari were Matsumora (1829-1898) and Oyadomari (1831-1905). These men never became as famous as Itosu or Higaonna but they each taught men who later played an important role in the history of karate. Oyadomari taught Kyan Chotoku (1870-1945) who created one of the three styles of Shorin-Ryu, Sukunaihayashi Shorin-Ryu. Matsumora's student Motobu, Choki (1871-1944) became known as an excellent fighter.
> http://www.angelfire.com/ak4/tw/Karate_History.html


No mention of weapons even though Mutsumura and Higaonna had learned weapons in China along with their Gung fu.



> Karate&#8217;s origin has been obscured by myths and legends.  However, near the time karate was developing, it is known that many scoundrels would rob and kill travelers, not caring if the travelers were beggars or monks.  Monks were not allowed to carry weapons.  In the monasteries, the monks were taught various forms of self-defense along with their Buddhist religion.
> http://www.ashsokinawankarate.com/history_karate.html


Little doubt Kenpo was open hand and was the basis of karate. Weapons were taught, but separately.

So what exactly did I say?



> "I don't believe the Okinawans were taught by Chinese military. In fact I would go even further and say that with a couple of documemented examples, the Chinese taught very little to the Okinawans. The exception may have been the guards and garrison at Shuri Castle."
> 
> 
> (I think my spell check substituted examples for exceptions .. Sorry  )


Maybe I should have qualified Chinese military. Organised military no, individual military in a private capacity, perhaps.

How is that in terms of what you claim? Out of seven teachers maybe two or three were attached to the military and they only taught a handful of Okinawans. Hardly a militia capable of protecting a fleet of ships and no mention anywhere of them teaching weapons. Even though two or three of these men may have been soldiers (they may have just been military in administrative positions as envoys) there is no evidence of large scale military instruction.

And finally, it depends on what you consider empty hand kata to be. I believe that, in China and transmitted to Okinawa, the kata were fighting systems. They only work as a fighting system when you have direct physical control of your opponent. When you introduce weapons the scenario changes. Weapons by their very nature are at arms length. Knives are closer range than sword or bo, spears longer again. You cannot have a predicted response so a weapon kata as such becomes a training system rather than a fighting system. There are weapon kata and there are open hand kata. You may be able to adapt an open hand kata to work with weapons but not without changing a lot of the kata. Why would you bother?  :asian:


----------



## punisher73 (Jan 11, 2013)

K-man said:


> Maybe I should have qualified Chinese military. Organised military no, individual military in a private capacity, perhaps.
> 
> How is that in terms of what you claim? Out of seven teachers maybe two or three were attached to the military and they only taught a handful of Okinawans. Hardly a militia capable of protecting a fleet of ships and no mention anywhere of them teaching weapons. Even though two or three of these men may have been soldiers (they may have just been military in administrative positions as envoys) there is no evidence of large scale military instruction.
> 
> And finally, it depends on what you consider empty hand kata to be. I believe that, in China and transmitted to Okinawa, the kata were fighting systems. They only work as a fighting system when you have direct physical control of your opponent. When you introduce weapons the scenario changes. Weapons by their very nature are at arms length. Knives are closer range than sword or bo, spears longer again. You cannot have a predicted response so a weapon kata as such becomes a training system rather than a fighting system. There are weapon kata and there are open hand kata. You may be able to adapt an open hand kata to work with weapons but not without changing a lot of the kata. Why would you bother?  :asian:



Agreed about the military idea.  It was not like we see in the US, where we send instructors and groups over for the SOLE purpose of training foreign military people from the ground up in certain ways of doing things.

Also, agree that "Yes" there are movements in the katas that if you had a weapon in your hand would still work fairly well for striking.  But, that is far different than it being a tool to properly train/strategize/implement a weapon.  I am reminded of the movie, "The Little Mermaid" when people start finding certain ideas of what the katas are for.






I think there are too many kata "dinglehoppers" out there.


----------



## Cayuga Karate (Jan 11, 2013)

In support of my contention that longer forward sequences in kata don't appear to be all that well suited for empty hand fighting, I posted the following links to a range of kata across a number of systems. I am interested in seeing the evidence that these sequences do map well to empty hand fighting. 

Unsu (2:18 to 2:36) 
Oyadomari Passai 45 to :49)
Wankan 18 to :24)
Kusanku 38 to :45, 1:25 to 1:30, 1:37 to 1:41)
Naihanchi Nidan 06 to :13)
Wansu 10 to :18, 34 to :37)
Gojushiho 30 to :36)
Chinto 32 to :39, :42 to :54, 1:01 to 1:07)
Jion 23 to :28, :37 to :51, 1:01 to 1:10, 1:17 to 1:24)
Chinte (1:10 to 1:16, 1:18 to 1:27, 1:50 to 1:56)
Jitte 23 to :24)
Matsumura Passai 22 to :29)
Koryu Passai 15 to :19)
Ananko 36 to :43)
Anan (7:43 to 7:50, 8:02 to 8:06)
Pachu (3:56 to 4:00) 

K Man replied:



> I have looked at all of your examples and they are all performed as kihon kata. Have you ever seen advanced forms of these kata. Personally, I have only seen the advanced forms of the Goju kata but there must be practitioners of the other styles teaching advanced forms. (Sorry, I have seen advanced bagua kata performed by Erle Montaigue.)



I would be most grateful if anyone could provide two videos of any Okinawan kata, especially ones from this list, one of the "kihon" kata and one of the "advanced form".

I am also interested in any responses from any non-Goju students. Are there, in your schools, kihon and advanced versions of kata? Did any of Kyan's students, or Itosu's students, or Hohan Soken, provide kihon versions and advanced versions of the kata that have been handed down. Are they done in less widespread systems like Uechi Ryu, Ryuei Ryu, Genseiryu, or Bugeikan?

I was not aware that Higaonna or Miyagi passed down two (or more) versions of each kata, one basic, the other advanced. I have not seen that in any literature, nor seen that in the several Goju dojos I have been in, nor heard that Mabuni, who trained with Higaonna as well as Miyagi, taught multiple versions of kata. I would be most interested to learn if this practice is done in more than one of the systems of Miyagi's students (Higa, Yagi, Miyazato, Toguchi, Yamaguchi), as well as in Toon Ryu, which also descends from Higaonna. 

I would be grateful to K Man for links to one Goju kata (please not Gekkisai or Tensho) in both kihon and advanced versions.

Update, I think this is getting very off-thread, so I have reposted this to another thread. Please post any responses on the new thread.


----------



## punisher73 (Jan 11, 2013)

Cayuga Karate said:


> In support of my contention that longer forward sequences in kata don't appear to be all that well suited for empty hand fighting, I posted the following links to a range of kata across a number of systems. I am interested in seeing the evidence that these sequences do map well to empty hand fighting.
> 
> Unsu (2:18 to 2:36)
> Oyadomari Passai 45 to :49)
> ...



Again, this is a misunderstanding of the kata when you say an "advanced" version of the kata or a "basic" version of the kata.  The kata will not appear to change (not referring to the refinement as a student advances) it is the application and understanding of the movements that change so there aren't multiple versions of the same kata that a student is learning.  Why?  There are at LEAST three applications for every sequence in a kata.  There is no "only" application to them.  When referring to "kihon" or fundamental/foundation/basic applications, those are the movements that appear very plain on the surface and only take into account striking aspects and not really the grappling aspects.


Here is advanced bunkai for some Goju-Ryu katas:





I only looked at a couple of the clips you listed (Wansu and Kusanku).  Again, it comes back to the assumption that the whole string is one long continuous single attack and it is not.  Notice in that first section of Wansu, there is the downblock followed by the punch, and then a step forward and then movements done very slowly.  This type of thing denotes a seperation of ideas, much like a comma does.  The slow moving parts usually denote joint/locking aspects of the art.  In the case of this video we see the hand come back across to the head/face on the opposite side and then a punch with the other hand.  If you look at other versions, that is not a punch but actually a groin grab.  So here we see an example of a technique being hidden in plain sight as to the other applications.  The older style okinawan katas had more open hands in them to denote grabbing/tearing motions and then were changed to closed hands (horizontal punches) when taught to the general public.  

In the part about kusanku, one of the things that it teaches is how to fight at night.  The series of steps and "knifehands" aren't strikes at all, but moving forward to find your attacker in the dark.  You will also notice many dropping movements in the kata to obscure yourself.  In the Isshin-Ryu version, they even highlighted some of the ideas more and included a heel stomp to distract your attacker from your true position.

When you look at Naha based styles (Goju, To'on, Uechi and I would even include Isshin in this analysis) they stayed closer to the source material than the Shuri (Shorin ryu) styles.  Itosu admits that he altered the kata for school children to make it less dangerous.  Funakoshi admits that he further altered the kata as well.  One of the big differences that you see between Naha and Shuri styles is the amount of open hands.  Most of the Shuri styles closed alot of the hands and are shown as punches now.  This is one reason why I included Isshin-Ryu in with Naha styles, Tatsuo Shimabuku trained with both Miyagi and Kyan and while utilizing many Shuri katas, he reopened alot of the hand strikes to illustrate certain areas of grabbing and such.


----------

