Bunkai taught in the original kwans?

[reeskm]

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

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

My teacher practices this old way.

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

 

[reeskm]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[K-man]

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:

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

But maybe this is just too much detail!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[MAist25]

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

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

 

[chrispillertkd]

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

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

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

Pax,

Chris

 

[K-man]

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

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

 

[oftheherd1]

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

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

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

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

 

[reeskm]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[reeskm]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[MAist25]

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

 

[Earl Weiss]

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

.

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

 

[RTKDCMB]

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

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

 

[MAist25]

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

 

[K-man]

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

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

 

[K-man]

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

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

 

[Earl Weiss]

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

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

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

 

[jorgemp]

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

 

[jks9199]

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

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

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

 

[MAist25]

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

Very strong statement, please elaborate.

 

[K-man]

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

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

You are TKD and your experience is ... ?

Or are you trolling?
:asian: