reeskm
Green Belt
Yes, that's the $1 million question.
Bunkai taught in the original kwans?
- Thread starter MAist25
- Start date
Yes, that's the $1 million question.
OP
OP
MAist25
Blue Belt
I agree that "application" is a very broad term. As I've seen, basic applications are frequently included in martial arts texts, often portraying the basic techniques of the form coming to use in various combat scenarios. However, this type of application is very simple and one does not need too much guidance to figure these out. What I am interested in are discovering what the movements of the forms were trying to teach before they became the "labeled" techniques we use today when teaching forms. What I want to find is some sort of definitive evidence that early Korean masters understood this idea, and possibly taught forms with this in mind. Not, "well we use the low block to defend against a kick and then counter by stepping in and punching." Although an application, this is an elementary application.
My inderstanding is that Bunkai is training the practical applications of a Poomsae or Kata...my guess is that you guys have passion around Bunkai and level of understanding far greater than mine. I have enjoyed this thread!
As far as I know, none of the GMs of the original Kwans passed on any bunkai they may have learned. I am pretty sure, based on comparisons with other forms of Japanese karate, that most of the GMs were not taught bunkai. That said, that doesn't mean TSD practitioners can't learn and practice bunkai in their arts. This is going to require rethinking the traditional TSD syllabus though. The typical lesson for a bunkai based syllabus is going to be a lot different then how TSD is normally taught. Also, the way in which you learn kata will also be different.
Here is a sample lesson plan and requirement list for one entire kata. Each kata in a bunkai based syllabus will have a set of requirements and lessons unique to it.
Here is a sample lesson plan and requirement list for one entire kata. Each kata in a bunkai based syllabus will have a set of requirements and lessons unique to it.
I've enjoyed sitting back and watching this thread develop. If I were to stick my neck out it would say that very little, if any, bunkai was taught in Japanese Karate and absolutely none in TKD. I would even say very little was taught in Okinawa. The reason is simple. Kata is for everyone. Bunkai is tailored for the individual. The bunkai for a 5'3" female will be totally different to the bunkai for a 6'7" male.
There has been mention made of Taira Sensei who is one of the few people from Okinawa publicly teaching bunkai. He himself was not taught bunkai. He was obviously given good instruction in techniques and basics and was told by his teacher to go away and study the kata. What he is showing us today is the result of his studies. Even then, his bunkai is constantly evolving from one training session we have with him to the next.
Most of our training is centred around bunkai. What I teach is the bunkai Taira Sensei taught me. I then ask my more advanced students to modify the bunkai to make it work for them. There are no 'set in concrete' applications so if you ever find anything in a book or video, it is one person's interpretation, and some of those are really good. Dancingalone mentioned George Dillman and Iain Abernethy. Pat McCarthy is another and of course Masaji Taira. These guys have spent a lifetime analysing kata for the applications to develop bunkai.
What I would suggest is this. If you applications are not hands on as in holding or controlling it is not bunkai. If you technique in the bunkai was to fail, the next move in the kata should lead you into the next application. If it doesn't you are practising an application, not a bunkai. And, more controversially, if your application is a 'block' I would again suggest your interpretation is not bunkai.
:asian:
There has been mention made of Taira Sensei who is one of the few people from Okinawa publicly teaching bunkai. He himself was not taught bunkai. He was obviously given good instruction in techniques and basics and was told by his teacher to go away and study the kata. What he is showing us today is the result of his studies. Even then, his bunkai is constantly evolving from one training session we have with him to the next.
Most of our training is centred around bunkai. What I teach is the bunkai Taira Sensei taught me. I then ask my more advanced students to modify the bunkai to make it work for them. There are no 'set in concrete' applications so if you ever find anything in a book or video, it is one person's interpretation, and some of those are really good. Dancingalone mentioned George Dillman and Iain Abernethy. Pat McCarthy is another and of course Masaji Taira. These guys have spent a lifetime analysing kata for the applications to develop bunkai.
What I would suggest is this. If you applications are not hands on as in holding or controlling it is not bunkai. If you technique in the bunkai was to fail, the next move in the kata should lead you into the next application. If it doesn't you are practising an application, not a bunkai. And, more controversially, if your application is a 'block' I would again suggest your interpretation is not bunkai.
:asian:
dancingalone
Grandmaster
I'm looking for a cohesive theme of fighting tactics woven tightly around physical technique taught through basics and then solo/partner kata practice. I know my share of TKD and TSD martial artists (I hold rank in two different TKD styles myself) and none of them teach their students how to fight in the same fashion my Goju-ryu teacher taught me. TKD and TSD dojang typically have basics, one step sparring, self-defense, tournament style sparring, and then free sparring. There's NO real connection from each sector to another. Sure the basics are a foundation to the others, but what is done in the poomsae/hyung is nothing like in the hosinsul or the one steps.
It's rather different in Okinawan karate, or it should be anyway. You probably know at least one Naihanchi kata, so let's use Naihanchi Shodan as an example. The most fundamental strategem once we get past getting offline from an attack is the idea of trapping and striking. That's the lesson I've seen over and over again from every Okinawan karate stylist I've met who uses Naihanchi. The lead hand closest to the attacker traps and the rear hand strikes. So the double punch at the end of each half of the kata is a trap or diversionary push or pull of a limb and the rear hand counters. And the reinforced downwards back knuckle strike is a trap with the 'reinforcing' arm and the back knuckle is the smashing counter. That's just two basic bunkai, but it's very effective if we can do it.
So how do we get there? Obviously, it's not enough to just train the solo kata. We have to drill each trap and strike sequence on its own in the air for familiarity, then against a bag to build power, and then with a partner for fluidity and dynamics. If we're lucky enough to practice a style that has an explanatory partner set for Naihanchi that's fantastic. Otherwise, we can just practice the movements over and over again with a partner like in a hubud drill from Filipino MA. In recent years, it's also become fashionable to construct and practice partner flow drills based on a specific kata that lets one work through many applications in a seamless dance with one another as uke and tori attack, counter, and recounter.
So I'm looking for that type of training - that's what I mean by dearth from my prior post. None of GM Hwang Kee's senior students talk about a comprehensive pedagogy involving hyung. They may publish a few explanations of the simple block/punch/kick type which is fine and all, but that's it. When I read through the standard TKD or TSD school syllabus that uses the old forms I don't see that they KNOW the forms. They know the choreography but they have not become the form - they have not poured themselves into the hyung to the point that the pattern itself has become meaningless in their expression of it. They are still following a script instead of actualizing the ideas the form is supposed to contain if that makes sense at all.
Earl Weiss
Senior Master
I think there may be a semantics issue but IMNSHO I think your statement is accurate. While we may not know what was the original intent or intentions since there very likely may very well have been more than one created concurrently we may very well know and be able to perform those techniques and aspects originaly intended. We are smart enough to figure stuff out. We just have no way of knowing if it was an original intent or not.
Then again by trying to determine or claim a single point of focus is one application may very well miss the "Original Point". Perhaps the original point was simply learning how to move quickly, efficiently, powerfuly in a well balanced way for certain angles, distances and directions. Once that was accomplished the motion could be applied in any number of ways as practical considerations and circumstances warranted. I.E. Daniel San - Wax on, wax off.
dancingalone
Grandmaster
Good post from Mr. Weiss. I mostly concur. As I alluded to above a few posts back however, there are styles of karate that have clear expectations of what each specific kata teaches though. It may not be the original intent (various lineages will argue sometimes with sound basis that they do know the intent as taught by their founder) but the idea is schematically sound and well integrated in their style, so it IS the intent in their system.
oftheherd1
Senior Master
I just noticed this thread. I read the first page but I'm not going to read the whole thing. But I can tell you that when I taught Hapkido, one of my students was a 4th Dan in TKD. There were times when I would teach a technique, and he would get a certain stare. I would ask and he would relate that he recognized that move from a certain kata he had learned. Usually it was distorted a little and not easy to recognize the correct move of the technique or its intent/application.
Usually he related practitioners who asked what the move was in the kata, were told it was just art, from the art side of martial arts. I can remember being told that a couple of times those many years ago when I studied TKD. I never questioned that since as an 8th Green, that wasn't my place, simply to learn the kata. I was never told that kata could usually be considered multiple-attacker defense either.
At any rate, that happened with my student several times up to and just beyond 1st Dan. So I conclude somewhere along the line, kata was learned, and since it went beyond kick, punch, block, it wasn't understood, and if questioned, if the instructor didn't know or didn't want to say/teach, he would just say it was art. Since seeing the question come up here in MT several times, I wish I had written down and correlated the specific move of the kata in question with the Hapkido technique.
Usually he related practitioners who asked what the move was in the kata, were told it was just art, from the art side of martial arts. I can remember being told that a couple of times those many years ago when I studied TKD. I never questioned that since as an 8th Green, that wasn't my place, simply to learn the kata. I was never told that kata could usually be considered multiple-attacker defense either.
At any rate, that happened with my student several times up to and just beyond 1st Dan. So I conclude somewhere along the line, kata was learned, and since it went beyond kick, punch, block, it wasn't understood, and if questioned, if the instructor didn't know or didn't want to say/teach, he would just say it was art. Since seeing the question come up here in MT several times, I wish I had written down and correlated the specific move of the kata in question with the Hapkido technique.
reeskm
Green Belt
This happens to be my hypothesis as well. It seems the early days of Karate in mainland Japan and Korea developed along these lines. Most students (not including old masters here) seem to have been most interested in developing the most powerful kicking and punching techniques, and creating what today is considered sport karate, which one can argue has led to more modern forms like PKA kick boxing, Olympic WTF TKD, and K1/UFC MMA
I currently believe that interest in bunkai/applications is quite rare and confined to a small number of traditionalists like ourselves that are interested in preserving traditional MA
K-man, I respectfully disagree with your last paragraph. While holds, joint locks and take-downs (what I interpret "holding and controlling" is) are something I was taught is essential and part of my style by my teacher, I do not believe that they are the only possible bunkai. I also do not particularly agree with the point of view of some that bunkai must be confined to a direct sequence in a kata. In other words, I do not believe for ex that Passai moves 1-4 must be done in succession in order to make an explanation. You can mix and match the opening x-leg back-fist with a later move is what I'm saying.
But maybe this is just too much detail!
reeskm
Green Belt
MAist25,
yes, I believe this is very true and I believe that even in very traditional Japanese karate circles this is a well known fact. That's why really well regarded historians like Patrick McCarthy have spent a lifetime of research trying to find out this kind of information.
To see a very critical view of bunkai, reference this thread: (i hope I'm allowed to do this here):
http://www.traditionalfightingartsforum.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=34&t=2573
The author of 24 Fighting Chickens believes this is all a modern invention.
reeskm
Green Belt
Dancingalone:
Yes, I can agree with this (Post #47). In TSD anyway, where I hold rank, I know of these trap and grab applications. However, we don't learn a form and then directly drill those exact moves on a regular basis.
This is usually done in an advanced class, seminar or when an instructor decides to throw it in during a class. It's not done in a consistent manner like you seem to be suggesting.
This might have a historical basis. Of the kwan heads that had experience in Japan or had a direct connection to japanese Karate, they did not train in Okinawa to my knowledge. Most spent time in the Japanese university karate clubs and schools and would have followed that type of syllabus or curriculum.
So I think the answer would be found by looking at Chuo/Takashoku university's programs in the 1940s, with the exception of Yoon Kwei-Byung who also spent time with Mabuni in Osaka and also with Toyama at Chuo Univ.
Yes, I can agree with this (Post #47). In TSD anyway, where I hold rank, I know of these trap and grab applications. However, we don't learn a form and then directly drill those exact moves on a regular basis.
This is usually done in an advanced class, seminar or when an instructor decides to throw it in during a class. It's not done in a consistent manner like you seem to be suggesting.
This might have a historical basis. Of the kwan heads that had experience in Japan or had a direct connection to japanese Karate, they did not train in Okinawa to my knowledge. Most spent time in the Japanese university karate clubs and schools and would have followed that type of syllabus or curriculum.
So I think the answer would be found by looking at Chuo/Takashoku university's programs in the 1940s, with the exception of Yoon Kwei-Byung who also spent time with Mabuni in Osaka and also with Toyama at Chuo Univ.
dancingalone
Grandmaster
Rob Redmond was a Shotokan guy before he quit karate. He's a fun read, but he's not an authority in Okinawan karate imo. I suggest Mario Mckenna's blog for another perspective. You've probably seen it if you read about older karate on the web.
Last edited:
dancingalone
Grandmaster
I gather sometimes that a lot of TKD/TSD people feel their training feeds into sparring. That effectiveness in sparring is what they are studying and practicing for even though they realize on a rational level that sparring is not the same thing as fighting.
Absolutely. Undoubtedly the Japanese university club connection is the reason for the widely prevalent free sparring too. And the lack of kobudo training, etc.
OP
OP
MAist25
Blue Belt
My hypothesis has also been that bunkai was not passed along to the original TKD masters. And I believe it is absolutely true that even though we have lost the original intent of the creator of each kata, that there is still much to be learned from them. Iain Abernethy never ceases to amaze me with his stuff, and I don't believe there are too many people on this earth with his understanding of kata. However, I still find it odd that the original intents of kata were not preserved even in Okinawa, as reeskm is claiming. I understand how they may have been no longer taught by Itosu, but he was only one of many To-De experts on Okinawa at that time. How was this knowledge not preserved through other masters? Or did they all follow in Itosu's footsteps?
reeskm
Green Belt
I visited a Hapkido school for several nights on a business trip. It was eye opening. I had this exact same "Aha!" moment too.
However, in my case it came from looking at a chart on their wall of their various throws and join locks/arm bars on their wall. I noticed that our ho-sin-sool (self defense one step routines) were incredibly similar. The major difference was that we had always applied these techniques after the attacker initiates a wrist grab, punch or a kick, whereas the hapkido school would just reach out, grab someone and apply the technique.
However, unlike your ex-TKD student, I was always taught that the hyung/kata was more than simply a dance or a routine that is art. I was always told that they contain the essence of the art. I have memories as a green belt (intermediate gup) that my instructor would break down the hyung for us often and show us how to apply the kata moves. I have good memories of the pyung ahn #3 spearhand, grab spin and punch application. At the time, that was an eye opener.
reeskm
Green Belt
(Re: Sensei McKenna) Yes I've recently contacted him. He's from Lethbridge originally, about a 2 hour drive from Calgary. Right down the road as far as Canada goes
Rob Redmond is an interesting read. I don't always agree with what he says but like to consider his point of view. He's not afraid of making controversial arguments.
Last edited:
reeskm
Green Belt
Interesting you mention it. While I don't dispute this at all, since I know other TSD schools well, our school has recently gone the complete opposite direction in the last 5 years, with our Kwan Jang, once highly ranked in competition in the 80's, has preached a return to the traditional and put much less focus on tournament/sport sparring.
Not that he can't or doesn't teach it effectively, mind you. But, his claim is that "tournaments are 5% of the art, if that" taking the view that it is important for martial artists to experience competition but that there is so, so much more than tournaments or sport sparring to make a well rounded MA.
dancingalone
Grandmaster
Yes I've recently contacted him. He's from Lethbridge originally, about a 2 hour drive from Calgary. Right down the road..
Neat. I would love to see his kata in person. His karate comes from Higashionna unfiltered through Miyagi, so as a Goju guy I have a more than passing curiosity about it.
Do you know any of the Legacy shorin-ryu group? I am friends with some there.
