I've seen it mentioned RE: forms. Please define it for me.
Thanks
Thanks
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
stoneheart said:In Okinawan karate-do, two-man sets are frequently used to illustrate the bunkai. As a student you will first study the solo form. Later, you learn that the solo form you just learned is half of a two man fighting form. Practicing the two man sets and other smaller, abbreviated prearranged sparring sequences helps the karateka bridge the gap into jiyu kumite or free fighting.
IcemanSK said:Thanks all. The word being Japanese, I'd never heard it in my dojang. It is a transferable idea, tho. I appreciate it.:asian:
MSUTKD said:Actually it is "Boon Hae" in Korean. This might help you.
http://www.msu.edu/~taekwon/Chinese.pdf
After read this
http://www.msu.edu/~taekwon/Essential%20Chinese%20Characters%20for%20the%20Martial%20Artist.pdf
It is important to learn the Chinese so that you can understand the concepts.
ron
http://www.itatkd.com/terminology.html#techniquesIcemanSK said:Thanks all. The word being Japanese, I'd never heard it in my dojang. It is a transferable idea, tho. I appreciate it.:asian:
I seriously recommend that we all review our forms and find the value of the lines, angles, conceptual movements, and then just watch the techniques just flow out!
With brotherhood,
Gand Master De Alba
GM De Alba
I recently picked up a book entitled "Bunkai" by Darrel Graig. I have some others that show different applications of movements found within katas or forms that are also found within TKD forms however this book had a different take on Bunkai. It was a pretty in depth discussion on what the word Bunkai means and how it applies in training and such. It's been a pretty good read so far.
Graig sensei defined it as dissasemble as well (if I remember right), but that it went deeper than just disassembling the kata and practicing the applications of the techniques. I believe he made the arguement that Bunkai applied the translation or the passing down of a kata from teacher to student without any variation, in other words an exact copy of what the founder taught. If there was variation than it was not Bunkai.
So any inovation as to technique that such and such a move might be is another word (I forget which) but it is not Bunkai. This is not saying that variation of the technique is not valid or that it doesn't work, it's just it is not Bunkai. (Please note I'm recalling this from the last time I read part of the book at work a couple of weeks ago, I would reference the exact qoutes/words/source etc. etc. but the book is at work and I am at home.)
Mark
exile
Thank you for your response and the detailed example you gave.
I haven't read all of Graig sensei's book, but what I was trying to say in a sense was in response to the question of what is Bunkai, the meaning of the word. I thought Graig sensei had a different take on the meaning of the word since from what I read in the thread everyone seemed to agree that it was the breaking down or applications of the katas (as I had been told and read over the years). However in reading that part of his book, I thought he had a different view and I threw it out there (as best I can remember what it was).
According to his view of the word Bunkai is the passing down the kata exactly as it was passed down from the founder of the system with no variation. Which is different than just the concept of applications of kata.
For example as someone pointed out on some thread here in MT there are 11 variations of the kata Bassai (which I learned as well, so I can garantee at least 12 different versions ). Now all of these would have had applications of the different moves in the kata and they could all be different. But they were changed from how they were originally taught (per the PDF article that was posted) due to the person's experience, their system of fighting etc. etc.
So if Master A. came up with Bassai and he taught it to student B, C, and D, then B and C have a falling out or leave and start their own schools. So they change the kata by adapting slightly different stances or a different block here or strike there then even if they have applications of the kata they are not doing Bunkai (as I understand Graig sensei's view of the word). Now if D were still teaching things the way that Master A taught him with no variation then he would be doing Bunkai.
Now it begs to question if Masters B and C teach students and they become instructors and they teach their students exactly the same way as they were taught from Masters B and C would those students be doing Bunkai? This is why this actually stuck with me, I didn't quite understand this view point.
I had always been taught and read (for that matter) that Bunkai was the breaking down of the katas and the applications of the techniques. This was the first time I had ever heard this view of the word. I am not a Japanese scholar so I have to go by what I read and what I have been taught. And in all honesty I might even have Graig sensei's view misrepresented here, and if so I apologize.
But once again thank you for your excellent post and the sources that you gave. I'll check them out.
Mark