Is Bunkai on the belt test?

[skribs]

Curious on one aspect of Karate training - is bunkai on the belt test?

If so, how is it tested?

If not, why not? Are the lessons learned tested in some other way?

 

[Hot Lunch]

Curious on one aspect of Karate training - is bunkai on the belt test?

If so, how is it tested?

If not, why not? Are the lessons learned tested in some other way?

For some schools, yes. It was at my last school, but bunkai was drilled on at least once a week there; so you weren't likely to walk into the test having forgotten anything.

 

[_Simon_]

Yes it is in our belt testing. From learning the first kata we are taught bunkai alongside, and in belt tests we are to ask our 'attacker' to do something specific to demonstrate how we can apply what's in the kata.

We do have set bunkai/applications as a standard and are graded on that, but are encouraged to explain alternatives and I always explain the principles contained within it that are at work.

Obviously the higher ranks you still have to demonstrate all bunkai from previous kata, but to a higher degree of understanding and proficiency, and more of them. Last grading was at least 5 applications per kata (I tended to go more haha).

Not all schools grade on or even do bunkai. Goju seems big on it. My last style it had zero focus, however in Dan gradings the examiner I've noticed ask to simply explain (not demonstrate) some (like maybe 2 or 3 total, and just for one kata) bunkai in kata, but that was it.

 

[skribs]

So there is a prescribed bunkai that you're supposed to demonstrate.

 

[_Simon_]

So there is a prescribed bunkai that you're supposed to demonstrate.

Yeah pretty much, certainly makes it easier to grade it objectively. But we are encouraged to show other possibilities, and in our general classes we explore what else could be occurring or how else to demonstrate the principles.

 

[Cri70]

Curious on one aspect of Karate training - is bunkai on the belt test?

If so, how is it tested?

If not, why not? Are the lessons learned tested in some other way?

Well "bunkai" (which is a term far more used in the west, even if it's now getting traction in Japan, bit like cultural feedback) is about analyzing subsets of kata movements and invent interpretations of them. How, and why could it be tested? Everyone can make up whatever they want as a consequence of doing "bunkai", and your result is as good as mine or anybody... which means generally not that good at all: I think the whole idea makes no sense if one understands what kata is about.

If you're thinking about specific interpretations that may have been taught in a class, I suppose some dojos may ask you to try or explain them as part of a test.

 

[isshinryuronin]

"bunkai" .... is about analyzing subsets of kata movements...

A good definition.

... and invent interpretations of them. Everyone can make up whatever they want as a consequence of doing "bunkai", and your result is as good as mine or anybody... which means generally not that good at all

I completely agree with this statement as worded. However, it is based on the premise that bunkai is "invented" and being "made up." When this is done the result will indeed likely be "not that good at all." I have seen a lot of this.

Any interpretation of bunkai must be based on proper biomechanics, logical human response to your technique (both mentally and physically), simplicity and effectiveness. "...whatever they want" does not cut it. And it must harmonize with the kata. I cannot say a move is an elbow break if I haven't first extended (and immobilized) the arm, or that by standing on one leg the opponent will be enticed to do an elbow strike that I defend against, for example.

A short while ago in the thread, "Value of upper level forms," I used the terms "creative and flexible" to describe kata bunkai. This does not imply inventing and making stuff up. It has to be based on reality. But even those terms I used can be taken too far and completely diverge from the kata's design. Whatever modifications one makes to the kata for a particular bunkai to work, it should be recognizable as belonging to that particular kata. If not, I think one has gone too far and has likely compromised that movement series, or those that follow.

specific interpretations that may have been taught in a class

Some kata bunkai is self-evident and probably what the creator had in mind. Some is more obscure and require a good level of understanding the art to recognize. Some has to be reversed engineered to come up with an explanation, which may or may not be exactly what the creator had in mind. Whatever the case, IMO the bunkai must adhere to the qualities I listed in italics in paragraph two.

 

[Hot Lunch]

This is why, if I don't understand a particular step in a kata, I will observe how the kata is performed in other styles. You'll find that, in some cases, the bunkai might be more obvious in other styles than in your own.

 

[Stuarto]

With the short amount of time I have been training I have not had to demonstrate bunkai on the tests. Maybe that changes with the more advanced levels. My sensei has discussed bunkai with me a few times and demonstrated it with some of the self defense techs.

 

[isshinryuronin]

This is why, if I don't understand a particular step in a kata, I will observe how the kata is performed in other styles. You'll find that, in some cases, the bunkai might be more obvious in other styles than in your own.

You're smart to do this. But it doesn't have to be the same kata. Different kata can have the same or similar moves in common. Even if the motion/position is a little different, it may have the same bunkai.

 

[Cri70]

A good definition.

I completely agree with this statement as worded. However, it is based on the premise that bunkai is "invented" and being "made up." When this is done the result will indeed likely be "not that good at all." I have seen a lot of this.

Any interpretation of bunkai must be based on proper biomechanics, logical human response to your technique (both mentally and physically), simplicity and effectiveness. "...whatever they want" does not cut it. And it must harmonize with the kata. I cannot say a move is an elbow break if I haven't first extended (and immobilized) the arm, or that by standing on one leg the opponent will be enticed to do an elbow strike that I defend against, for example.

A short while ago in the thread, "Value of upper level forms," I used the terms "creative and flexible" to describe kata bunkai. This does not imply inventing and making stuff up. It has to be based on reality. But even those terms I used can be taken too far and completely diverge from the kata's design. Whatever modifications one makes to the kata for a particular bunkai to work, it should be recognizable as belonging to that particular kata. If not, I think one has gone too far and has likely compromised that movement series, or those that follow.

Some kata bunkai is self-evident and probably what the creator had in mind. Some is more obscure and require a good level of understanding the art to recognize. Some has to be reversed engineered to come up with an explanation, which may or may not be exactly what the creator had in mind. Whatever the case, IMO the bunkai must adhere to the qualities I listed in italics in paragraph two.

So that we are on the same page: often "bunkai" is used to mean "interpretation". However, insofar I understand, "bunkai" stands instead for the analysis process which leads to an interpretation: the word as a connotation of "decompose/analyze". So there is no "bunkai" for a move which is interpretation.. we do bunkai (aka we analyze) the move to try to find an interpretation, which tells us what the move was for. That's what I'm referring to on the above.

While I agree that the biomechanics etc is a good guide for analysis, the problem for me is that it's very seldom enough. The main reason is kata was never meant as standalone a way to learn. Rather, it is a way to practice at home something you have already learnt by drilling/sparring/fighting with your master or partner. You get the context, the principles and the intention of the moves, then you drill/spar/fight, then you go home and using kata you can practice them alone until the next visit.

And while there's a clear one to one path between combative context -> specific solution -> concretization in movement, it's not a given that a specific concretization in movements means a single solution, let alone to a single context. All kind of weird stuff can come out that way, also because people tend to reduce the space of possibilities to the contexts they know of. And quite a bit of what comes out - in that specific context - may be right.

For example, in a shotokan kumite match people do receive kicks with a gedan-barai. At that distance, and in a context where, say, just hopping back and walking away is not the point and pulling out a stick is not done - it is be a viable way to do things. But if one knows a bit of the evolution of karate, he knows that a movement which is similar to gedan barai was never placed in the kata to solve that problem - because the kumite problem itself did not exist when the kata was invented.

Another important effect I've noticed so many times, when practicing stuff, is that the passage from drilling/sparring/fighting to replicating the moves solo is quite destructive if you don't have any idea of what the aim is. Very often movements with very different intents and objective end up stylized the same way because well, that's easier to remember and there's nothing there to correct you (unless you know already). Most "three same techniques in a row" in katas are imho a clear example of that: the three moves weren't the same and do not have the same intent, but ended up stylized the same because they looked quite similar to begin with. Good luck in "interpreting" them from the way they look.

Looking at different versions of the kata may help, but all of them have likely suffered similar drifts (if they hadn't, there would be someone somewhere who has been _told_ directly what the meaning was, from the inventor of the kata. But there's nobody).

So while analyzing ("bunkai") katas for finding solutions to problems which did not exist when they were invented is certainly possible (and very popular these days), it's rather silly: I'm much better served to just try to find solutions directly from biomechanics: "how to best parry a kick from another trained fighter in a long distance sparring match?".

Different arts give different answers, and honestly if I had to solve that, I'd rather go muay thai or kickboxing than using my arm to deflect it

So how to go about finding the meaning of katas if we can't rely on "analysis"?

Imho, with a process: one first understands the context: he looks at history, the type of development the art was subject to, the type of threats and selective pressures that drove its development and the type of people who developed it and their life. Then one finds problems in that context; then one tries to find solutions (based on biomechanics), and checks out if these solutions could be stringed together to make a kata. And biomechanics being what they are, there's only so many ways to solve a given combative problem, and very often one finds that certain solutions match a kata quite well - with changes which are compatible both with physical differences and with the drift that any kata is likely to be subject to, should it be copied without knowing which solution it represents.

It's a mutual feedback process of course - the kata movements give ideas, but they first need to be found as real solutions to a real problem in the same context, then "kata-ized" and then you end up with something that makes (in my humble opinion) far more sense than any result of a bunkai session.

 

[isshinryuronin]

Wow, Cri70, there's a lot here to digest. While there are a few points my simple brain wasn't quite sure what you meant, I'm pretty sure I agree with everything you wrote. I went down your post and quoted select parts to comment on.

insofar I understand, "bunkai" stands instead for the analysis process which leads to an interpretation: the word as a connotation of "decompose/analyze".

Yes, "bunkai" technically refers to the process of deconstructing to facilitate analysis, so is kind of like a verb. But it's commonly used (by most in the West) as a noun to refer to the interpretation of that analysis - X move means Y is being done.

While I agree that the biomechanics etc is a good guide for analysis, the problem for me is that it's very seldom enough.

True. That's why I listed several other criteria. Also, as I think you wrote, one needs to understand the nature of early karate: Its emphasis on using close in fighting strikes and grabbing, pulling, etc., as well as its use as counters to common grabs and other self-defense situations. Knowing these things helps more accurately interpret kata movements.

The main reason is kata was never meant as standalone a way to learn. Rather, it is a way to practice at home something you have already learnt by drilling/sparring/fighting with your master or partner. You get the context, the principles and the intention of the moves, then you drill/spar/fight, then you go home and using kata you can practice them alone

Right. It's a sampling, presumably including some main principles and the most useful techniques that one has learned and drilled on during instruction.

For example, in a shotokan kumite match people do receive kicks with a gedan-barai. it is be a viable way to do things. But if one knows a bit of the evolution of karate, he knows that a movement which is similar to gedan barai was never placed in the kata to solve that problem - because the kumite problem itself did not exist when the kata was invented.

A fact not understood by most, even many black belts. Sport karate has little relation to kata. Karate was not designed to fight other karate-ka, for sport or otherwise. The fact it came to be used that way required major changes in the nature of the art for those so engaged, and sadly, often at the expense of understanding its original form.

Most "three same techniques in a row" in katas are imho a clear example of that: the three moves weren't the same and do not have the same intent, but ended up stylized the same because they looked quite similar to begin with. Good luck in "interpreting" them from the way they look.

This is something I have recently gotten around to thinking about and playing around with. I've been looking at it taking the moves at face value, not considering they may not really have been all the same in the past. But your thoughts on the matter seem an excellent conclusion in regard to at least some consecutively repeating techniques. Thank you for presenting this idea.

So while analyzing ("bunkai") katas for finding solutions to problems which did not exist when they were invented is certainly possible (and very popular these days), it's rather silly

Trying to understand and comment on kata when starting from a false premise has fueled many posts here on martialtalk.

 

[HighKick]

Yes it is in our belt testing. From learning the first kata we are taught bunkai alongside, and in belt tests we are to ask our 'attacker' to do something specific to demonstrate how we can apply what's in the kata.

We do have set bunkai/applications as a standard and are graded on that, but are encouraged to explain alternatives and I always explain the principles contained within it that are at work.

Obviously the higher ranks you still have to demonstrate all bunkai from previous kata, but to a higher degree of understanding and proficiency, and more of them. Last grading was at least 5 applications per kata (I tended to go more haha).

Not all schools grade on or even do bunkai. Goju seems big on it. My last style it had zero focus, however in Dan gradings the examiner I've noticed ask to simply explain (not demonstrate) some (like maybe 2 or 3 total, and just for one kata) bunkai in kata, but that was it.

Obviously the higher ranks you still have to demonstrate all bunkai from previous kata, but to a higher degree of understanding and proficiency, and more of them. Last grading was at least 5 applications per kata (I tended to go more haha).

This is my experience with it; the higher in rank, the more comprehensive your explanation/knowledge is of the movement.