KIAI's - THEIR PLACE IN KATA

[isshinryuronin]

Want to address a few more of Chris P.'s comments. "Mushin" is an emptiness of mind/spirit as you define, but you stress it as an emotional (or lack thereof) state. This is just a part of a broader, deeper concept. Mushin has more to do with perception, the emptying providing a still surface without ripples, where things can be clearly reflected and seen undistorted (mizu no kokoro). Emotions are just one source of ripples. The main advantage to this clarity of mushin is that it allows "action and reaction to be one and the same." I am speaking here in regards to karate - Mushin may be nuanced differently in meditation or other "do" such as ikebana or kyudo (arts I'm not well versed in.)

The kiai serves to startle the opponent, fortify the body and release one's spirit and power during an attack. It must be timed correctly, explosive and forceful to accomplish these goals. Those five second, drawn out kiai as seen in kata competition are not true kiai and serve only theatrical purposes, or to impress uneducated judges. The same goes for kumite when used to tell the judges "Hey, I just scored a point."

Regarding the sound itself being the kiai, or just a manifestation of the internal kiai - Can the kiai be silent? A good question. Here is my opinion on it: I think not, sort of. While a sudden expulsion of air is needed as spirit and breath are connected, and in some cases can be silent, in terms of karate the sound is important as a tactical component of the attack to unbalance the opponent. And I also think it serves to help bring out the other elements of kiai as well.

 

[Buka]

As I'm picturing this unfold, I'm imagining the students lined up, all yelling, 'Keeee-yai!'

Anyone ever yell, "Hi-ya!" like in the old karate movies?

I haven't, but a friend of mine who has never taken a class in his life assumed what he thought was a Karate stance and yelled "Hi-ya" when he was about to fight two guys. He's an extremely tough individual who used to be a Bounty Hunter, and unbeknownst to the two guys, there were a dozen of us right there with him.

The two guys backed down. He always said he dazzled them with his Hi-ya.

 

[Steve]

I haven't, but a friend of mine who has never taken a class in his life assumed what he thought was a Karate stance and yelled "Hi-ya" when he was about to fight two guys. He's an extremely tough individual who used to be a Bounty Hunter, and unbeknownst to the two guys, there were a dozen of us right there with him.

The two guys backed down. He always said he dazzled them with his Hi-ya.

Good story. Lucky those guys backed down, because I don't think things would've gone their way had they not.

 

[JR 137]

Speaking of kiai...

A friend and I were in a bar. He was an American Kenpo guy, I was in a kyokushin offshoot. We were talking MA and a clown a few stools down said “aren’t you guys a little old to be doing karate?” We were in our mid 20s. My buddy says “I bet you $10 I can kick this ashtray off your head without touching you. The guy accepts. My buddy’s all of 5’5; the other guy is about 6’. My buddy gets into an angled kinda horse stance, lets out this hilarious Bruce Lee kiai, then side kicks the guy right in the stomach. You can hear this solid thud sound when he hits him. Knicks the guy back about 3 feet right onto his back. My buddy walks up, drops a $10 bill on him and simply says “I lose.”

My buddy sat right back down next to me and picked up the conversation exactly where he left off. The guy hobbled over to his barstool where he was harassed by his friends.

One of those”did that just happen” moments that I’ll never forget. Nothing that guy did surprised me. Always amazed me and got me laughing my a$$ off, but never surprised me. The kind of guy you’re glad he’s your friend and not your enemy.

 

[isshinryuronin]

Speaking of kiai...

A friend and I were in a bar. He was an American Kenpo guy, I was in a kyokushin offshoot. We were talking MA and a clown a few stools down said “aren’t you guys a little old to be doing karate?” We were in our mid 20s. My buddy says “I bet you $10 I can kick this ashtray off your head without touching you. The guy accepts. My buddy’s all of 5’5; the other guy is about 6’. My buddy gets into an angled kinda horse stance, lets out this hilarious Bruce Lee kiai, then side kicks the guy right in the stomach. You can hear this solid thud sound when he hits him. Knicks the guy back about 3 feet right onto his back. My buddy walks up, drops a $10 bill on him and simply says “I lose.”

My buddy sat right back down next to me and picked up the conversation exactly where he left off. The guy hobbled over to his barstool where he was harassed by his friends.

One of those”did that just happen” moments that I’ll never forget. Nothing that guy did surprised me. Always amazed me and got me laughing my a$$ off, but never surprised me. The kind of guy you’re glad he’s your friend and not your enemy.

Can't say I'm a fan of this story. There's one I've told before regarding Motobu Choki kicking a guy in the back as they were walking out of a bar, but that guy had threatened him with a knife and expressed the intent to kill him, so may be considered a pre-emptive attack. In your story, it seems your buddy was not threatened and just took a cheap shot on this guy. Not a very TMA action, nor in the spirit of Ed Parker's "Kenpo Creed."

 

[Steve]

Speaking of kiai...

A friend and I were in a bar. He was an American Kenpo guy, I was in a kyokushin offshoot. We were talking MA and a clown a few stools down said “aren’t you guys a little old to be doing karate?” We were in our mid 20s. My buddy says “I bet you $10 I can kick this ashtray off your head without touching you. The guy accepts. My buddy’s all of 5’5; the other guy is about 6’. My buddy gets into an angled kinda horse stance, lets out this hilarious Bruce Lee kiai, then side kicks the guy right in the stomach. You can hear this solid thud sound when he hits him. Knicks the guy back about 3 feet right onto his back. My buddy walks up, drops a $10 bill on him and simply says “I lose.”

My buddy sat right back down next to me and picked up the conversation exactly where he left off. The guy hobbled over to his barstool where he was harassed by his friends.

One of those”did that just happen” moments that I’ll never forget. Nothing that guy did surprised me. Always amazed me and got me laughing my a$$ off, but never surprised me. The kind of guy you’re glad he’s your friend and not your enemy.

In elementary school we played a trick where we would offer to play a game of who can punch the other guy in the arm the softest. The other guy goes first and barely taps you, then you hit him in the arm really hard and say, "You lose.".

 

[Gerry Seymour]

When I began my practice in 1966, kiai's were generally thrown in on the last rep of each drill. They were also firmly entrenched in kata, usually two in each, at specific places within the routine. These places seem to be accepted as part of the style's kata, as much as a punch or block, sometimes found across different styles. We all know the purposes of the kiai, but as I delve deeper into kata, questions come to mind.

Aside that they generally occur during a strong attack move, why are they in the kata at all? Were they always a part of kata, as taught by Matsumura or Higaonna, or something added in later, perhaps to conform to some notion of ferocity to impress the public? If later on, when? Why do they exist in all the kata I know? Was it found necessary to put them in all?

These days when practicing alone, I often omit kiais. If the "ki" in kiai means spirit, is that not an internal and personal thing? If so, why should the time and place of it in kata be determined by some outside authority or convention? Shouldn't I be free to determine my own spirit at the time and place of my choosing as the feeling explodes spontaneously from within me?

Reviewing my post, I see there were more questions than I realized. Perhaps too many for something as common and accepted as a simple kiai. But, as I have learned from my long study of karate, there is significance to everything.

A thought from outside the Karate world, and based entirely on my own experiece creating kata (so may or may not have any applicability to Karate kata). It's possible some things were put in just to be a challenge, or just to make sure that "thing" was somewhere in the kata. So perhaps someone was developing kata and thought, "I'd like my students to practice their kiai between sessions." Well, the kata was already going to be for that purpose, so why not throw a couple in. Choose some points in the movement when the kiai would best fit with the principles being taught (as I understand it, Karate usually focuses on using kiai for more intense movements and finishes). Then if that works well for the first person who does it, others borrow the good idea.

It could be as simple as that.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

You missed my point, I feel. I'm not doubting your study of Isshin Ryu... what I'm saying is that the more you decide to alter the art to suit your personal preferences, the less it remains Isshin Ryu...

To me, this includes an implicit assumption that Isshin Ryu was "finished" and the person who codified it would never want to change anything. There's a point at which enough changes that using the same name may be confusing to folks, but I don't at all buy into the concept that arts should be held static or they're less that same art. That inevitably leads to degredation of the art, both relative to other arts and absolutely (as 100% transmission from teacher to student is impossible).

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Ah, Steve... yeah, haven't really missed you, bud...

No. Says the guy with over 3 decades in dominantly Japanese systems, including those specialised in and focused on swordsmanship, but with a background including Classical Japanese arts (koryu, specifically Hyoho Niten Ichi Ryu, Tenshinsho Den Katori Shinto Ryu, and Muso Shinden Ryu, all sword arts), modern organisations and iterations of such (Takamatsuden arts), karate, Tae-kwon Do, Aikido, boxing, judo, jodo, and BJJ... as well as doing a range of seminars and other training events for FMA arts, RBSD ones, Hapkido, modern (Western) jujutsu systems, Seitei Iaido, Wing Chun, Hung Gar, Taiji, Western Fencing, HEMA, and probably half a dozen I'm forgetting. I've trained in modern arts, classical arts, traditional arts, sports/competitive arts, I've competed, I've been involved in real fights and violence. And, frankly, you've been told all this before, and have decided that my experience doesn't count for you. Simply speaking... tough. You've stated that your only background is your BJJ, you haven't gotten into actual fights, and your exposure and understanding of anything outside of your BJJ is incredibly limited, to say the least... hell, you thought the OP, a very reasoned and serious question, was a joke thread, due to your complete inability to understand anything being discussed.

And, for the record, no, XMA is an exhibition spectacle, it is not anything close to martial arts. To use the video you posted as an example, there is nothing close to anything like an effective understanding of te-no-uchi, hasuji, cutting mechanics, tactical application of a bladed weapon, context of usage of the weapon and much, much, much more. It is just a showy gymnastic show... to consider it anything else is to have no clue about what you're looking at. This isn't elitism, it's simple observation. I mean... the knife fight in West Side Story is more akin to martial arts than that display is. That's not to say that there isn't anything of value in what XMA guys do... just that there's no value from a martial perspective other than physical fitness (which, it must be said, is not equal to martial training in the slightest... there is a cross-over in the Venn diagram, but not as wide as might be believed... especially for this coming from a sports-related background).



Yep, that's absolutely fair... and, really, deliberate as well. I purposefully didn't go into detail other than to indicate where things were off-base, mainly to see how people would take it... if they'd re-examine their approach to the topic, ask for clarification, or what... so I apologise for coming off as somewhat dismissive of the ideas, as that's not the actual case... but I don't apologise for the lack of detail behind my answers... yet.



No, I meant what I said. I am, of course, familiar with the far more common quote from Nagamine-sensei, and I agree with it possibly more vehemently than many karate practitioners, but I meant my reference to kiai. Then again, I don't separate them out, as I consider them both integral to karate (and martial arts in general, especially Japanese ones).



Agreed completely. I think asking about such things as you've done here is exactly what everyone should be doing about their practice, regardless of what they study... ask questions, find out, understand all aspects of your practice if you can. This is why I am so baffled as to what in your OP Steve thought was indicative of this being a "joke thread" as he said.



You missed my point, I feel. I'm not doubting your study of Isshin Ryu... what I'm saying is that the more you decide to alter the art to suit your personal preferences, the less it remains Isshin Ryu... so to claim it to still be the same art is increasingly inaccurate. Of course, changes to a martial system can and do occur over time... with the strict caveat that such changes are typically from the head of the system on down, for a range of reasons... when someone changes something due to having a complete understanding, and coming to some kind of realisation, or adapting to some change, is one thing... when people change things because they don't understand them properly or fully, that's where it's problematic... and leads to the new version having less and less in common with the purported art it still claims to be. That can lead to new arts (look to Bruce Lee, Ed Parker, Wally Jay, the variant BJJ lineages etc for fairly modern examples), which again, no problem whatsoever... none of them claimed to be the same as their source, and all came from various levels of understanding of their foundational systems... or it can lead to a corruption of the original system itself... which is where there are issues.



My study of karate began in the late 80's, and I'm aware of who I'm addressing. I did, however, stop my karate training to move onto other arts in the early 90's, but my interest in all martial arts, especially those from Japan (and, by extension, Okinawan ones) has continued since. And, I might note, I began my first response by stating I was coming from other Japanese martial arts as my primary perspective... as that's my major focus... but karate is a big part of my history, as that's my starting point, at least for physical training.



Very true, Buka... of course, if I may, your case does highlight much of what I talk about above... you do not practice, nor claim to practice, a specific Okinawan or Japanese form/tradition of karate... you are very open in that you practice an American variant, which is a new system based in a personal direction of someone, or a group of people, back in the day... the approach separated from the way it was presented for whatever reasons... so it became it's own thing. Which is exactly what I describe about moving away from the original system, and no longer actually practicing that original art.



I get the whole "psych yourself up" idea... but that's anathema to martial arts the way it's presented here... a big part of it being that "emotional drain" you're talking about. Ideally, such things should be avoided, or at least minimalised as much as possible, as it only leads to exhaustion (mentally and physically), and, in the middle of combat, that's an equation for death.

As far as being unfamiliar with what I train, here's one of my main systems. This is the other main line, the Narita/Chiba group (I'm from the Kawasaki one), but the heart is the same:

One of the most common concepts in Japanese martial arts is that of mushin (無心 - pretty literally "an absence of mind/heart/spirit"), which is a concept of not having emotional extremes, keeping control over yourself internally in order to have external control, and so on. It's not a "soft style" thing, in fact, quite the opposite... it is simply what is required if you want to survive. Watch combat sports... those that keep their cool, stay calm and focused (in a Japanese expression, maintain mushin), are the ones who come across as the professionals... those just running in, emotions all over the place, get cleaned up.



Yeah... you missed the point. I was using that as an example of a very bad idea, not one that's hard to imagine yourself doing... a meaningless sacrifice grown out of being overly emotionally excited, and not being able to make any kind of clear decision.



Oh, I'm not talking about the soldier who is ordered to move forward despite the lack of odds of survival... I'm talking about the soldier who gets so hyped up he ignores any orders and just charges forward...



None of which was in the video Steve linked. That was pure emotional energy, focused, sure, but such an extreme waste of energy with such meaningless action that it is, as I said, the exact opposite of actual martial arts. It's jumping up and down and screaming "LOOK AT ME!!!!!"... it's a show, nothing else... there is no technical aspect related to martial arts, especially not the use of a sword, there is no tactical expression related, there is no mechanical aspect related, and more.



Then I say again. Put this guy up against anyone with 6 months of sword work, and he does this? Hell, he does anything close to this, or related to it? He dies.



Sure. I was going to do this at the end, but might as well put it here.

Let's take this back a bit, and examine exactly what a ki-ai actually is, what it refers to, and what it isn't. But first, let's remind ourselves what I was responding to when I said "Honestly, all of that is almost precisely what kiai is not."
You had said:
"I played college football and still remember how loud some guys would get during a game. No, it was not formally known as a kiai but the intent was much the same. My point is there is a very natural element to kiai (kihap) in the everyday, real world. I am sure we have all made the very loud 'grunt' when picking up something heavy. That is akin to the formal kiai."

So, my disagreement is that "getting loud (during a game of football)" is anything related to ki-ai... as well as that the idea of a "loud 'grunt' when picking up something heavy" is anything close either... and all that comes down to understanding what a ki-ai is in the first place, as most people attribute it to something that it, well, isn't... which is the noise itself.

Ki-ai (気合) is made up of two characters, as you can see (Korean arts obviously use the Korean Hangul for kihap, but they are actually the same words), with the first obviously being "ki", the second "ai". Both these characters/concepts have a fair amount of nuance to them, which is where it all gets a bit complicated, but to keep it pretty simple, "ki" (気) is often described as "energy" (the character itself represents the steam coming up off a cooked grain of rice... interesting!), with "ai" (会) meaning "to come together/unite"... so the term "ki-ai" means "to unite, or bring together, energy". Okay, but what does that mean? Well, it basically means that a ki-ai is the action, or concept of acting in total concert with yourself. It's the body and intention all working together; your arms, legs, core, breath, mind, intent, and so on. But you might notice that I haven't said anything about any sound or noise yet... and that's because it's not a part of the concept of ki-ai. It is used to express ki-ai, but it's not actually the ki-ai itself...

So what is the noise/shout, then? In Japanese terms, it's called the kakegoe (懸聲), which is literally a "suspended voice". From this, we can understand that the shout is not the ki-ai, although it can be part of the expression of a ki-ai, and that the presence of a shout (or noise) is not necessarily indicative of ki-ai. The examples of a "loud football game" is more to do with adrenaline, psyching each other up (or yourself), but is removed from the rest... unless the only noises where in conjunction with a particular action, and then also combined with a particular approach to intent... which is why the "grunt" of physical effort is also not related to the concept of ki-ai.

Now, none of this is to say that simple vocalisation is not valid in and of itself... the military have used it as a psychological tool, both in spurring the recruits into action in training drills, and to increase aggression when facing truly terrible situations. What must be noted there, though (and this is where the whole "I'm a soldier, therefore more of a martial artist than a judo guy" comes into it) is that the aim of the soldiers training is not to keep the soldier (individual) alive... it's to get them to follow the orders as part of the unit so the overall aims can be achieved. Honestly, soldiers are considered expendable in the over-arching scheme of things... that's kind of the point of them... and going into that career knowing that is something that demands respect, clearly. Just in case anyone felt I was speaking ill of military members. The only point I'm making is that the shouting in military training is not a ki-ai, as the aims and reasoning is quite different. By the same token, a "grunt" of effort is simply a way of expelling air, and therefore giving less "space" inside your body, reinforcing it for the action you're asking of it. Yes, it's combined with an action, but it's not so much about focusing the mind/spirit, or anything similar... it's just a physiological reinforcing of muscle groups when under (physical) stress.



"Something I tell new students (well, all students) is that kihap literally means 'expulsion of air'."

It doesn't. The term has no reference to air, expulsion, or anything else. In fact, it's about bringing things together (uniting - ai/hap/会), not expelling anything. So when you say it "literally means (this)" when it very literally does not, yeah, I'm going to correct that... saying that your claim of literal wasn't literal, but figurative, well... nah...



Ha, yeah, I'd suggest that as well... and, again, this isn't in and of itself an issue... but if we're discussing things in a forum dedicated to Japanese martial arts, then, well, I'd suggest we look to the Japanese approach to the concept... without getting into the suppositions of exactly what was brought across to Korea to create much of the modern KMA approaches...



Yeah... no. Not at all.



Yeah, I'd say so... but to expand on my comments, if your'e requiring a "forceful expulsion of air", that's removed from being united with the rest of your action... which means it is, again, simply not a ki-ai.



Ha, cool... I usually tell my guys that breathing is good for you, and I wholeheartedly recommend it for most people... there are always some exceptions, though, ha!



Firstly, bear in mind that Japanese arts, especially classical ones, utilise kata quite differently to Chinese-influenced arts (karate, TKD etc), in that kata are rarely the long string of solo actions... to see examples of kata in Japanese arts, well.... see the video I linked above. So there's going to be differences there already. That said, in many classical arts, there are a range of kakegoe applied throughout the waza, depending on the tradition... they may have them at the beginning, and end... only on the final action... all the way through... or even not have them at all.



Okay.

To finish (for now), @isshinryuronin, I'd like to invite you to ask for clarification of anything I have said here, or in my first post in this thread... as I said, yes, much is "unsubstantiated" in the post itself... deliberately so, aiming to provoke thought... so please, ask anything you want me to clarify or expand upon. Obviously you don't have to agree with me, but it may give some ways to think about this topic you haven't considered yet.

Thanks for the explanation of the term "kiai". I've known for some time the definition I was given was probably inacurate (through 3 generations of non-Japanese-speakers), but hadn't found a good, concise explanation of the words (not sure that's even the right term) invovled.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

As I'm picturing this unfold, I'm imagining the students lined up, all yelling, 'Keeee-yai!'

Anyone ever yell, "Hi-ya!" like in the old karate movies?

Kids often do.

 

[isshinryuronin]

A thought from outside the Karate world, and based entirely on my own experiece creating kata (so may or may not have any applicability to Karate kata). It's possible some things were put in just to be a challenge, or just to make sure that "thing" was somewhere in the kata. So perhaps someone was developing kata and thought, "I'd like my students to practice their kiai between sessions." Well, the kata was already going to be for that purpose, so why not throw a couple in. Choose some points in the movement when the kiai would best fit with the principles being taught (as I understand it, Karate usually focuses on using kiai for more intense movements and finishes). Then if that works well for the first person who does it, others borrow the good idea.

It could be as simple as that.

If so, that would put kiai in most Okinawan kata from as early as about 1800. To be honest, I don't know if there were kiai even outside of kata at that time. Could be they were placed there in the 1920's, or even later. I have never come across any early reference to kiai in any of the books I have seen or heard about. Is it that they weren't a big thing back then and nobody thought to write about or reference it, or were they just not there at all? This is something I want to research.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

If so, that would put kiai in most Okinawan kata from as early as about 1800. To be honest, I don't know if there were kiai even outside of kata at that time. Could be they were placed there in the 1920's, or even later. I have never come across any early reference to kiai in any of the books I have seen or heard about. Is it that they weren't a big thing back then and nobody thought to write about or reference it, or were they just not there at all? This is something I want to research.

That would be an interesting answer to have, to try to understand what changed that led to the addition of the audible kiai. Might be a small thing (as you said, maybe even as small as a performance bit), or might reflect some change in how Karate was taught.

 

[dvcochran]

To me, this includes an implicit assumption that Isshin Ryu was "finished" and the person who codified it would never want to change anything. There's a point at which enough changes that using the same name may be confusing to folks, but I don't at all buy into the concept that arts should be held static or they're less that same art. That inevitably leads to degredation of the art, both relative to other arts and absolutely (as 100% transmission from teacher to student is impossible).

Very, very well said.

 

[dvcochran]

That would be an interesting answer to have, to try to understand what changed that led to the addition of the audible kiai. Might be a small thing (as you said, maybe even as small as a performance bit), or might reflect some change in how Karate was taught.

A couple of thoughts a to more modern reasons for the formalization of the kiai.

As JMA's became more mainstream and introduced into their military and education systems, the kiai was/is used as an 'attention getter'. To help the person get and/or stay more focused. Something I find very helpful when teaching younger people.

I think this would be more of a CMA thing but many elements in some styles were modeled after animals movements. A naturalists approach. The growl or roar of some animals is said to be the elements of a kiai.

I realize this will not be historically accurate to some viewpoints (Parker) but it is true all the same. Makes me glad I am living in all of this great big world.

 

[Steve]

In elementary school we played a trick where we would offer to play a game of who can punch the other guy in the arm the softest. The other guy goes first and barely taps you, then you hit him in the arm really hard and say, "You lose.".

Correction. You would yell, 'I lose." Makes more sense that way. That's what I get for typing on a phone while also watching a movie.

 

[isshinryuronin]

To me, this includes an implicit assumption that Isshin Ryu was "finished" and the person who codified it would never want to change anything. There's a point at which enough changes that using the same name may be confusing to folks, but I don't at all buy into the concept that arts should be held static or they're less that same art. That inevitably leads to degredation of the art, both relative to other arts and absolutely (as 100% transmission from teacher to student is impossible).

Kata had never been static. Each of the old masters changed (maybe "adjusted" would be a better word) what they had learned in small ways to fit their own individual skills or views. They borrowed techniques from other styles as well, since Okinawa was quite small and many of the old guys cross trained with each other. But it is important to note that these guys were true masters to begin with and fully understood their art as few high ranking belts do today.

In regards to Isshinryu, in particular, it is one of the newest "modern" styles, dating from the mid 1950's, itself a synthesis of Miyagi's Goju and (mostly) Kyan's Shorinryu, along with a few unique tweeks from creator Shimabuku. But much of what he, and other masters knew, has been lost, or not passed down (except perhaps to family).

As a general rule, I think it is a bad idea to tinker with machinery one does not fully understand, and better to rely on the manual written by the guys who designed it and put it through lengthy trials. I may change something (like kiai placement) for myself, but would not teach it as being the style - After many decades of practice and study and teaching, I'm not close to fully understanding kata enough to presume to change it and call myself a "master."

 

[Steve]

As a general rule, I think it is a bad idea to tinker with machinery one does not fully understand, and better to rely on the manual written by the guys who designed it and put it through lengthy trials. I may change something (like kiai placement) for myself, but would not teach it as being the style - After many decades of practice and study and teaching, I'm not close to fully understanding kata enough to presume to change it and call myself a "master."

Very informative post. Question, though. You acknowledge that information is lost over time, which makes a lot of sense to me. It's inevitable for a number of reasons. The question is, if you don't tinker, how will you ever deconstruct the activities to master the skills? What I mean is, you know you're losing some insight... so, how does one rediscover that insight without some form of deconstruction? Or said another way, it seems without some tinkering, you risk attrition within the style.

This reminds me of an article I read about the rediscovery of damascus forging in the 1980s. I don't know enough about metallurgy to get into the weeds, but the gist of the article is that the method was lost for (I think) a couple hundred years. But guys had enough skill and experience in forging to basically figure out how it was done, through tinkering and deconstruction. They knew the outcome they were looking for, and they had the skills as a building block. They just had to tinker around to figure out to get from point a to point b.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Kata had never been static. Each of the old masters changed (maybe "adjusted" would be a better word) what they had learned in small ways to fit their own individual skills or views. They borrowed techniques from other styles as well, since Okinawa was quite small and many of the old guys cross trained with each other. But it is important to note that these guys were true masters to begin with and fully understood their art as few high ranking belts do today.

In regards to Isshinryu, in particular, it is one of the newest "modern" styles, dating from the mid 1950's, itself a synthesis of Miyagi's Goju and (mostly) Kyan's Shorinryu, along with a few unique tweeks from creator Shimabuku. But much of what he, and other masters knew, has been lost, or not passed down (except perhaps to family).

As a general rule, I think it is a bad idea to tinker with machinery one does not fully understand, and better to rely on the manual written by the guys who designed it and put it through lengthy trials. I may change something (like kiai placement) for myself, but would not teach it as being the style - After many decades of practice and study and teaching, I'm not close to fully understanding kata enough to presume to change it and call myself a "master."

Here's where I have some disagreement. Those old masters, back when they started making those adjustments, were instructors in much the same way some instructors today are. They understood the art, and made meaningful adjustments to make it work well (sometimes better) for their students). If you have understanding of the art, you should be capable of a similar approach. In my opinion, changes like that should propagate from active instructors (working with average students) up to the top, not the other way around. If all of the changes come from the folks who are currently controlling an association, it's like all the management decisions coming from the executive suite - which is a demonstrably weak way to run a business.

I'm not suggesting everyone should be as liberal with changes as I am. That's a personality thing, and that approach fits for me (and my students), but won't be the right approach for everyone. But I suspect with "many decades of practice and study" you probably know many things the folks who codified those kata didn't know at the time (though they may have learned it later).

 

[Steve]

What if, through your accumulated skill and experience, you actually knew more than the old masters? It's a smaller world now than in the past. Less insular and more diverse. @isshinryuronin , you say you've been training/teaching this system for over 50 years. There's a veneration of the "Masters" that seems like it could be counterproductive.

I've mentioned Bloom's taxonomy in the past, as a way to to explain the bottom end of building expertise. At the bottom end, it starts with Knowledge, then Comprehension, then Application. After that, it moves into Analysis, Synthesis, and Evaluation. The terms change slightly over the years, but the idea is, at a certain point, experts have to innovate and build on what came before them, or they will stagnate or stall. At the bottom, you have to get to application in order to progress. At the top end of expertise, meaning experts among experts... or the guys to whom experts go for help or instruction... those guys are expanding what is known and adding value to the field.

At 50+ years in a system... I think if anyone is well prepared to write the manual, it's you. At that point, it's not tinkering any more.

 

[isshinryuronin]

Steve & gps. All good comments above, Re: tinkering to "deconstruct" (this is a good spot to note "bunkai" basically means to deconstruct) - I sort of gave tinkering a negative connotation, which I meant to. What is good to do is reverse engineer the kata to more fully understand all it contains. To do this, we need to know the original intent of the moves we do. By understanding what old Okinawan karate was, we can look at the kata and try to discover the true meaning of the techniques which to us, simply look like blocks, kicks and punches - which they mostly are not.

Thanks to hard work by some karate historians conversant in Japanese, the few older written records which still exist have been found and translated. Also, the older living masters are not as secretive as in the old days and freer in sharing their knowledge. From this we know the original Okinawan styles had few actual blocks, a very aggressive and offensive doctrine, few kicks (and those were below the waist) and a whole lot of grabbing with some twisting and breaking thrown in, as well as takedowns. So rather than haphazard tinkering, we can more knowledgably reverse engineer from the basics we see now, to what it was meant to be - quite different from what the GI's brought back in the 1950's.

By the way, re: your last line in the post above, thanks for promoting me to master. In truth, I was not fully active that whole time and only fairly recently did I become "enlightened."

I respectfully disagree with your basic premise, Gerry. The old masters were not just "instructors" teaching classes to average students. They were masters (proven warriors, many were bodyguards/retainers to the king) personally teaching a few hand picked disciples who underwent very rigorous combat training. It was the top disciples of this group who went on to start their own style. It was not anything like what you see today. Definitely a different animal. There were no associations, no belts, not even clothes hardly. A couple of generations after that, things did change and there was some organization. But the head guy was acknowledged by his peers as being the top dog who earned his spot by his knowledge and skill, blood and sweat and dedication. I think few today can match these qualifications and make changes to their style however they and their students decide.

But none of this prevents anyone from exploring and experimenting and discovering what is already hidden there. Each may find something different.

Of course, these are just my views on the subject. Sounds a little dramatic, but the history of karate is dramatic - great stories, great personalities, great benefits to its practitioners. I love the sound of kiais in the morning!