Infinite Bunkai in Kata

[isshinryuronin]

"Infinite bunkai in kata." I very much dislike this phrase. IMO it's inaccurate and mispresents THE kata as taught in curriculum. Before you call me a dogmatic Luddite, let me explain using an example comparing a three-move kata combo to the three-letter word "cat," with each move being a letter. (This is a long post, but please bear thru it along with the literary license taken in regard to the English language.)

CAT is a type of furry animal with retractable claws (except for the cheetah). Now, let's play around with these letters to "discover" a new bunkai for it. I can spell it KAT, changing the C to a K, perhaps representing seeing a block as a strike. This is reasonable as it sounds the same, and the pronounced word still means the same furry animal.

One can also spell it KHAT which still sounds the same. The insertion of the H may be likened to adding a pivot between the K and A move. It may change the inflection of the word, but not the actual meaning. This also seems a reasonable modification to me and may even make the meaning of the combination more effective. (Perhaps the sensei introduces the H at brown belt level.)

How about CAGHTE? This can also sound the same, but the number of letters has doubled. Here, some potential problem may creep in. If it takes that many letters/moves to give the correct bunkai, there should be some remnant of those extra letters in the kata. But the kata only shows the original letters and continues on to the next word series.

Now we go to KATTAPULT. Not only have we changed the original letters, we've added a whole bunch of new ones! This is getting bad. The actual meaning of the word has changed and is most likely the wrong spelling and use of the word the kata intended - an incorrect bunkai. Not that "kattapult/catapult" isn't a nice word with meaning, it's just not the right word for the story's context.

Some go to great lengths to twist and contort the kata to justify their own imagined bunkai. They say, "Let's change the C to a D, after all, they are alphabetically consecutive. And let's change the A to an O, after all, they're both vowels. And let's change the T to a G, after all, they both have an "ee" sound to them." Before you know it, CAT has become DOG. As any cat or dog lover will tell you, they are nothing alike. If the karate master wanted a dog, he wouldn't have gone and gotten a cat. So, we must pay some mind to the kata's intent.

But there is plenty of flexibility built into kata. IMO there are 1 or 2 specific bunkai for many of a kata's combos as intended by the style's master and maybe another 1 or 2 additional logical and natural adaptations within the kata's framework, not compromising the kata's integrity. It is wise to explore these options as many masters encouraged in their writing.

Now, outside this framework there is little to restrain us from doing almost any effective MA moves we wish, using the kata merely as a springboard. This is the true value of kata - allowing us to creatively apply its principles to actual dynamic, free-flowing combat, adaptable to most any self-defense situation. BUT if we start overmodifying bunkai within the kata, weakening its integrity, when we leave the kata for actual combat we may find its intended lessons not there when we need it most.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

"Infinite bunkai in kata." I very much dislike this phrase.

So I see.

Now, outside this framework there is little to restrain us from doing almost any effective MA moves we wish, using the kata merely as a springboard. This is the true value of kata - allowing us to creatively apply its principles to actual dynamic, free-flowing combat, adaptable to most any self-defense situation. BUT if we start overmodifying bunkai within the kata, weakening its integrity, when we leave the kata for actual combat we may find its intended lessons not there when we need it most.

The key, I believe, is to not modify the kata which is taught to students. Omote, the bunkai is obvious and what it appears to be. To change the kihon or kata due to bunkai interpretation and represent it as the art would be incorrect. Not to start a war, but I consider the t stance to backfist in Seisan as an example. Some isshinryu lineages put an overhead block in there which isn't, to my understanding. Same for the ura uchi seiken tsuki kihon; there's no upper body block in there. That's bunkai that has migrated in the kihon and kata.

However taught as part of an advanced curriculum, I think it's great.

 

[isshinryuronin]

The key, I believe, is to not modify the kata which is taught to students. ,,, To change the kihon or kata due to bunkai interpretation and represent it as the art would be incorrect.

consider the t stance to backfist in Seisan as an example. Some isshinryu lineages put an overhead block in there which isn't, to my understanding.

Master Uechi clearly teaches a circular up/side motion prior/during to the backfist which he explains is a block, clearing the space for the strike. This is all done in one continuous motion - the "block" is not a distinct position but is part of the strike. His teacher, Master Uezu, the founder's son-in-law, shows a smaller circular motion (in later videos), and his teacher, the style's founder, T. Shimabuku, shows a barely perceptible one.

This leads me to think that over time, this circular motion and dual application of the technique (block-strike) was once hidden oyo, but has become more obvious omote over time (secrecy being discarded in modern TMA culture as bunkai gets more popularized). This circular motion also builds momentum. So, all in all, this way of doing it is very efficient. There is the element of circular > linear in the technique. That's in kata. In actual combat application, the circular blocking part may not be needed.

Such a double application in one move is fully consistent with traditional Okinawan karate. The gedan barai has a similar app of sweeping an area before a strike. The strike's path is going that way so why not put it to use? Motobu Choki utilized this concept in his fighting style as well.

However, videos of the founder's son, Kichiro, and one of his senior American students, Mike Calandra, do not show any circular motion, the arm going directly (linear) into the strike. Whether Kichiro's lineage does not have this app or is just "stingier" in sharing it, I don't know. I looked for clips of Sherman Harrill doing this move but couldn't find any.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

"Infinite bunkai in kata." I very much dislike this phrase.

I also don't like this logic. People said, "This move in the form can be a hip throw". No matter how your arms may move like a hip throw, if your body is not moving like a hip throw, it's not a hip throw.

A: Dear master! In your video, you rotate your hip in the middle of your form. Are you trying to show a power generation secret?"
B: When I made that video, a bee tried to land on my hip. I tried to get rid of it.

Sometimes people try to give too much credit for the form creator that the form creator doesn't deserve it.

 

[isshinryuronin]

People said, "This move in the form can be a hip throw". No matter how your arms may move like a hip throw, if your body is not moving like a hip throw, it's not a hip throw.

Yes. Deciphering technique requires expertise in technique. Another consideration, though: Perhaps a hip movement or leg position in the form has been lost over the past century or two during numerous transmissions.

A: Dear master! In your video, you rotate your hip in the middle of your form. Are you trying to show a power generation secret?"
B: When I made that video, a bee tried to land on my hip. I tried to get rid of it.

This is quite possible. An aberration or error in a form video can take on a life of its own and be seen as the standard. This is why direct transmission from master to student is best. Unfortunately, it's usually not a possibility these days.

 

[O'Malley]

Putting the "cat" in "kata".

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Master Uechi clearly teaches a circular up/side motion prior/during to the backfist which he explains is a block, clearing the space for the strike. This is all done in one continuous motion - the "block" is not a distinct position but is part of the strike. His teacher, Master Uezu, the founder's son-in-law, shows a smaller circular motion (in later videos), and his teacher, the style's founder, T. Shimabuku, shows a barely perceptible one.

This leads me to think that over time, this circular motion and dual application of the technique (block-strike) was once hidden oyo, but has become more obvious omote over time (secrecy being discarded in modern TMA culture as bunkai gets more popularized). This circular motion also builds momentum. So, all in all, this way of doing it is very efficient. There is the element of circular > linear in the technique. That's in kata. In actual combat application, the circular blocking part may not be needed.

Such a double application in one move is fully consistent with traditional Okinawan karate. The gedan barai has a similar app of sweeping an area before a strike. The strike's path is going that way so why not put it to use? Motobu Choki utilized this concept in his fighting style as well.

However, videos of the founder's son, Kichiro, and one of his senior American students, Mike Calandra, do not show any circular motion, the arm going directly (linear) into the strike. Whether Kichiro's lineage does not have this app or is just "stingier" in sharing it, I don't know. I looked for clips of Sherman Harrill doing this move but couldn't find any.

But this is exactly what you describe as being against. The bunkai as taught has migrated to the kata and altered it, hasn't it? I'm not disagreeing with any of the technical aspects you mentioned - all completely valid and good. I'm saying it wasn't in the kata and now it is. Perhaps I am missing your point, but you seemed to be against that, as am I.

Teach the kata as the founder taught it. Preserve the style. Teach advanced bunkai as advanced bunkai and do not alter the base kata as the basic foundation of the art. One can have it both ways, but not if the Oyo migrates to Omote and finally becomes part of the kata as it is taught to all students.

No one can deny that the different lineages of Isshinryu teach kata that look very different from each other to the trained eye; even beginning with the bow in. Stances change, extra movements are inserted, some are disregarded.

I do not complain about any of them; I merely note that there are differences. I have trained in NC as well as MI and I've seen them and experienced them with my own eyes. Judging in tournaments, I have seen things that made my eyes bug out but been assured by other judges that this was indeed what is being taught to students. It's all very...interesting.

The situation is exacerbated by the fact that the founder himself taught different things at different times to different students as he experimented and at times was (allegedly) influenced by other Okinawan masters to conform to their way of thinking (the famous period of the horizontal punch vs the traditional IR vertical fist).

And we have videos of the founder doing kata in the USA, but then others will say he was old and sick, or that he didn't want to be filmed and was therefore doing sloppy kata intentionally, etc. We have some few remaining first-generation students who can still directly transmit what was taught to them.

And yet we still all tend to disagree on what the correct way of doing IR is and is not.

I have said before that I'm not overly interested in how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Minutia past a certain point bores me, because I'm not a historian and it doesn't impact my life in any way. I am not qualified to say what was taught or what was intended or who said what to whom and when.

I know what I have been taught, and very little else. I watch the founder's tapes and I note that our kata is as close to his as my eyes can discern. My sensei teaches was he tells us is what Harrill and Mitchum taught him, and I choose to believe that. The Oyo bunkai I have been shown is astounding to me and I've appreciated it very much; I have mastered very little of it myself, but enough to know that's incredible and effective. I do not teach it to my students as kata; I leave the kata alone. I am simply not qualified or authorized to change a single aspect of the style.

To me, ultimately kata is kata and bunkai is bunkai. I use bunkai to gain a deeper understanding of what the kata means to me, but not how I perform it when I practice kata.

This becomes academic to me now, though. Through age and advanced decrepitude, my kata is worse than it has been and not likely to improve; I am ashamed of it. I am winding down. It's all mental games now and reflexion on what any of this means. I enjoy the discussion.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Yes. Deciphering technique requires expertise in technique. Another consideration, though: Perhaps a hip movement or leg position in the form has been lost over the past century or two during numerous transmissions.

This is quite possible. An aberration or error in a form video can take on a life of its own and be seen as the standard. This is why direct transmission from master to student is best. Unfortunately, it's usually not a possibility these days.

I am told (who knows if it is true) that the peculiar bow in that some lineages use before beginning a kata started when a master entered a dojo at the very moment a kata performance was about to begin and the senior student interrupted the bow to step towards the door the master entered from and bow in his direction. It was just a flub-up. The students followed his lead and it became codified as 'the way to bow in'.

All I know is some schools have the funniest bow in I've ever seen.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I also don't like this logic. People said, "This move in the form can be a hip throw". No matter how your arms may move like a hip throw, if your body is not moving like a hip throw, it's not a hip throw.

Because you do not see it does not mean it is not there. If it can be applied against a resisting opponent, it's valid. If it cannot, then it is not.

Advanced bunkai goes even further than Oyo, to Honto. At that level, which I am frankly not qualified to speak deeply upon, as I understand it, application becomes open to possibility, not received teaching being transmitted. It is personal. It is based upon deep reflection and understanding of the base movements and flow of the kata, open to the possibilities of 'what if'.

I do it to some extent with kihon. I apply an upper body block, for example, and then think "what else could I do that is in harmony with the direction both of our bodies are moving at this moment?" I think about the momentum or flow, the angles, and what my intent might be. The block can be developed into a strike of various sorts, it can become a trap, the other hand or hip can join in to continue the movement, the leg can sweep, etc. So many possibilities all become available during the course of the encounter, and each has distinct advantages and disadvantages to be considered, including what comes after the technique; it becomes a chess match of sorts.

None of these mental gymnastics have any effect on the block, which remains a block and is taught as a block, received as a block, and *is* a block. The block remains the block. Kata remains kata. Is it what you can do with it that I find interesting. I change nothing when I teach it or perform it as kihon or kata. My mind goes to other places, and I sometimes practice those things with training partners to see how they do or do not work.

A: Dear master! In your video, you rotate your hip in the middle of your form. Are you trying to show a power generation secret?"
B: When I made that video, a bee tried to land on my hip. I tried to get rid of it.

Sometimes people try to give too much credit for the form creator that the form creator doesn't deserve it.

And sometimes something new is found, even when not intended. This is how penicillin was discovered, I believe.

 

[isshinryuronin]

But this is exactly what you describe as being against. The bunkai as taught has migrated to the kata and altered it, hasn't it?

Not quite. I'm saying that particular bunkai was perhaps always there in the first place as a "hidden" oyo, now being emphasized enough to see it as borderline omote. I stress that the "block" in question does NOT really rise to the level as a distinct block as there is no stoppage at that point. It is accomplished as part of the (slightly exaggerated) backfist motion. It is not very discernable to the untrained eye as a block and yet looks a bit different than just a direct linear backfist. You can say then it's still oyo but on the cusp on omote. I personally would not teach this "block" aspect until the student has the kata's general motion down well, maybe in the middle color belt level. In this particular case, the movement is the same, just the full meaning of the movement may differ between the two.

Teach advanced bunkai as advanced bunkai and do not alter the base kata as the basic foundation of the art. One can have it both ways, but not if the Oyo migrates to Omote and finally becomes part of the kata as it is taught to all students.

It's my belief that in the 1800's - early 1900's, there was no such thing as oyo hidden techniques and thus, no omote. The students were taught the full application of the form from the outset. Only when karate started being taught to public groups of non-handpicked students (and foreigners) did this division arise.

I am of mixed feelings regarding teaching "oyo." Do I teach my personal students the old way or the new? I use a combination. Holding some things back till black belt and expert level, teaching other things when they demo the basic ability to do it, like any other technique you're teaching. It depends.

And yet we still all tend to disagree on what the correct way of doing IR is and is not.

For the most part, I see all lineage variants as correct, though if teaching a student from another lineage I would add, "But this is how we do it here." But in the specific move of high block-backfist, if the student is doing a complete block and a separate backfist, I would consider this wrong as neither the K. Shimabuku or the Uezu lineage teach this. IMO, all lesser instructors have an obligation to adhere to the top master's way of doing kata

the peculiar bow in that some lineages use before beginning a kata

In the case of isshinryu, the left leg extension prior to the bow started with Master Uezu, post 1970 it seems. Have no idea what the real significance or meaning it has. Master Uechi does not do it.
.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Because you do not see it does not mean it is not there. If it can be applied against a resisting opponent, it's valid. If it cannot, then it is not.

I don't have that much faith in the original form creator. If something in the form doesn't make sense, may be the creator created it wrong, or someone didn't pass it down correctly. Trying to spend effort and time to figure out the secret may not be worthwhile.

In the 1st long fist form "Lian Bu Quan" that I have learned, there is a vertical up block. I was taught that when my opponent punches at me. I can use this vertical up block to push up on his elbow joint with my palm. I was even taught to train this on a tree branch.

To be honest, I have never used this block even once in sparring. I think the successful rate that I can use this block to deflect my opponent's punch can be low. So, if it's not a block then what can it be?

- A groin strike? that's too high.
- A chin strike? That's not powerful enough.
- A push up on opponent's guard? My opponent's dropping elbow can be more powerful than my palm lifting force.



At 0.29 in this clip.

At 0.30-0.34 in this clip.