Shotokan for self defence.

[K-man]

Now you're differentiating okinawan from the rest of karate a distinction that hasn't been emphasized before. If the original quote said that groundfighting in karate is lacking, and you agree with this than why not just say so? but add the qualifier that it is more present in okinawan. This seems to be the gist of what you are saying. You agree that grappling is not common in the majority of karate, correct?

You haven't bothered to read the thread. The differentiation has been there from way back.

But that aside, yes I agree that grappling on the ground is not common in the majority of karate. Grappling while standing is common.

I agree with this, but the implications that japanese karate isn't for fighting are far more likely to cause disagreement, which is another completely different issue, but still worth discussing. So, perhaps shotokan isn't good for self defense if karate in japan's main puropse is health benefits.

I didn't say that Japanese karate isn't for fighting. I said karate was first introduced to Japan for health reasons and that it has developed mainly down the road of competitive sport.

Personal attacks aren't the way to have a productive debate. Questioning Honzou's training and his "command of the english language" are personal attacks. The fact that you've had this long drawn out debate shows he must be able to communicate well enough. "grappling is rarely taught" and "karate lacks grappling" are similar statements and much less absolute than you assume.

If you can't understand plain English it is a fact, not a personal attack. If you choose to be deliberately obtuse, then you are being deliberately obtuse. Nothing to do with personal attack.

I'd say rarely practiced counts as an implication that it has been forgotten. It may bnot be forgotten by all but if it's rare than grappling has been forgotten by the majority.

'Rarely practised' in Japanese karate does not mean forgotten. If it wasn't taught in the first place it wasn't forgotten. If a style is practising kata then it is inherently there, just not being trained, if the bunkai is not being explored.

But you are just rehashing old news. Do you have anything to add to the discussion?

 

[Hanzou]

The statement, "Grappling is rarely taught in Karate" may well apply to generic 'karate' but it doesn't apply to Okinawan karate where it is still being taught as it always was. Iain's point is that overall Tegumi is absent from Karate where the bulk of the karate is Japanese. Get a life. The point has been addressed and explained.

Again, I find it astonishing that you make that distinction, yet Abernethy didn't. Is Abernethy wrong in his statement that Grappling is rarely taught in Karate?

I think the most sensible conclusion is that when Okinawan karate was taken to Japan it was taken more for its health benefits that the actual fighting aspect.

So basically Japanese Karate is watered down Karate, and Okinawan Karate is "real" Karate?

Nice.

Not at all. Your command of the English language is lacking if you can't understand what Iain is saying. You are twisting words. I'm not sure that there is any 'established fact' here at all. There is an opinion, with which I agree, that "grappling is rarely taught and is a forgotten aspect of karate practise", karate being the genetic term. "Grappling is rarely taught" and "karate lacks grappling" are two totally different things.

If the majority of Karate students are coming out of Karate not knowing grappling (which is what would happen since its rarely taught), wouldn't they have a lack of grappling knowledge?

Let's look at what Iain actually wrote ..
"The grappling & seizing aspects of karate are rarely practised today, but it is vital to understand that grappling was once as much a part of karate as the striking techniques most commonly associated with the art today."

You do remember that the title of the article is called Tegumi - Karate s Forgotten Range Iain Abernethy

Why would he entitle it "Karate's Forgotten Range" if its not really in fact forgotten?

 

[Hanzou]

I haven't trained in BJJ, but when a BJJ explains to me where striking is in classic BJJ, I'm not going pretend I know more than him because 99% of the BJJ videos and demos out there don't include any striking.

Except this Bjj just also happens to be a Shodan in Shotokan Karate do.

 

[Drose427]

Except this Bjj just also happens to be a Shodan in Shotokan Karate do.

one who was time and time again not understood the concept of Bunkai or how it relates to forms.

When a shodan can't understand that, it brings up questions of how well they understand Karate

 

[Mephisto]

yes I agree that grappling on the ground is not common in the majority of karate. Grappling while standing is common.

Progress, I don't think anyone disagrees with you. Karate is lacking when it comes to ground grappling, because as you say ground grappling is not common in the majority of karate. Which is fine.

I didn't say that Japanese karate isn't for fighting. I said karate was first introduced to Japan for health reasons and that it has developed mainly down the road of competitive sport.

So karate was brought to japan for health reasons, not fighting. Karate was developed for sport, not self defense. As has been determined before sport is completely different than self defense. So karate or s per the thread title, shotokan is not for self defense.It's purpose is sport and promotion health. Which is also fine.

But you are just rehashing old news. Do you have anything to add to the discussion?

Well sometimes it's important to frame a discussion. I didn't realize we both agreed. Here we have established that grappling is not common in karate and that shotokan is not for self defense. I'm glad we can agree!

 

[Tez3]

Exactly, I have no knowledge of Wado and never claimed such. Not sure why you'd assume that I believe in the existence of no touch k.o.s unless you're just resorting to personal attacks again. If grappling is common in Wado post a link or a pic. You're losing the argument and getting upset, that's why you're resorting to personal attacks. Grappling is not common in karate. Do you agree with this?

You didn't understand what was being said if you think there is a personal attack there. You admit to not reading much of the thread nor the links so it's impossible for you to understand what has been said. You said I was being obtuse so you were therefore by your lights making a personal attack on me.

 

[Mephisto]

You didn't understand what was being said if you think there is a personal attack there. You admit to not reading much of the thread nor the links so it's impossible for you to understand what has been said. You said I was being obtuse so you were therefore by your lights making a personal attack on me.

Didn't admit to not reading to "reading much of the thread", I was just saying that I may have missed something along the way as this thread is now gotten very long. I was't making a personal attack on you as you really were being obtuse, unless you really believe that Honzou thinks that anything that is not on youtube does not exist. But the point is moot. All this discussion has gone in circles to establish that 1)ground grappling is not common in karate and that 2)shotokan is not meant for self defense. Which I have been a proponent of all along.

 

[K-man]

another 2 secs and I found this:

At 4:28, he addresses tegumi and ground fighting. Where he basicall states some limited ground grappling did exist in classical karate but it was never a focus or specialty. Note, he also mentions how karate is known for strikes but that it does have some standing up joint lock techniques and throws. No where does he state that ground fighting is common or that it exists in karate at present time. I can't do all of your homework guys, but given some more in depth examples you might be able to make a compelling argument for groundfighting in karate. Of course, what intially brought up ground fighting was a knife attack on the ground, so the limited ground fighting of karate still might not have been much good in that specific scenario.

So who is he and what are his credentials?

What a surprise! "Some limited ground grappling did exist in classical karate but it was never a focus or specialty." Yep, I can live with that. By the way, no one has mentioned that ground fighting is common. As to no evidence of ground fighting ... I suppose Karate being just striking is so effective that we never end up on the ground. Right, that makes sense. So let's be realistic and say that the objective for most martial artists ,in other than competition, is to get up from the ground as soon as practical. Oh yes, he said that too didn't he?

Why do we need to give compelling arguement for ground fighting in karate? No one I have seen is claiming that karate has an extensive ground fighting system. If you cared to read the thread you will find that my comment was that if someone was clever enough to incorporate BJJ techniques into a bunkai it would be a great effort.

As you state, it was Hanzou's post of the stabbing on the ground that introduced the ground game. I would suggest that the defence against knife that we train every session would put any of my guys at least on an even footing with guys trained in BJJ even if we don't train it on the ground. I'll try that out at training this week.

By the way, he is Matthew Apsokardu. Out of interest he practises a style called Okinawan Kenpo, not one of the traditional ones but seems to have the right principles.

Which brings up another point. What are your credentials?

 

[Mephisto]

So who is he and what are his credentials?

What a surprise! "Some limited ground grappling did exist in classical karate but it was never a focus or specialty." Yep, I can live with that. By the way, no one has mentioned that ground fighting is common. As to no evidence of ground fighting ... I suppose Karate being just striking is so effective that we never end up on the ground. Right, that makes sense. So let's be realistic and say that the objective for most martial artists ,in other than competition, is to get up from the ground as soon as practical. Oh yes, he said that too didn't he?

Why do we need to give compelling arguement for ground fighting in karate? No one I have seen is claiming that karate has an extensive ground fighting system. If you cared to read the thread you will find that my comment was that if someone was clever enough to incorporate BJJ techniques into a bunkai it would be a great effort.

As you state, it was Hanzou's post of the stabbing on the ground that introduced the ground game. I would suggest that the defence against knife that we train every session would put any of my guys at least on an even footing with guys trained in BJJ even if we don't train it on the ground. I'll try that out at training this week.

By the way, he is Matthew Apsokardu. Out of interest he practises a style called Okinawan Kenpo, not one of the traditional ones but seems to have the right principles.

Which brings up another point. What are your credentials?

You as well as some others were suggesting ground grappling was common in karate and Honzou just received inferior training because he didn't do any ground training in karate. Now you have backpedaled and completely changed your stance. No one here was criticizing karate for lacking an extensive ground grappling curriculum, what we were looking for was any evidence of ground grappling at all. Which has been shown to exist in early okinawan karate but doesn't seem to exist elsewhere, if so it is uncommon. I would really question your standing karate game as being effective for knife defense on the ground. Standing grappling and knife defense does not cover principals of position and control on the ground, a BJJ guy would still be better off IMO. By posting that video I was demonstrating that evidence does exist that grappling has been used in karate as was corroborated by Apsokardu in the video. You just have to be willing to look for evidence and present it to the discussion rather than talking in circles and restating opinion. My credentials? In karate, I have none. I'm here to learn. But i've been into martial arts for almost eleven years 9 of that in FMA as well as a number of other styles, but no serious karate. A JJJ school I trained at incorporated some karate strikes and kata into the curriculum but I don't really consider it in depth. But my credentials really don't matter, this is a discussion and anyone can contribute.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

You as well as some others were suggesting ground grappling was common in karate and Honzou just received inferior training because he didn't do any ground training in karate.

Yeah ... that's not what K-man (or anyone else that I've noticed) said. The comments about Hanzou's "inferior" training mostly is carrying over from arguments in numerous other threads about the effectiveness of karate, the existence of any form of grappling in karate, and the usefulness of kata in general.

Part of what's making this thread contentious is that some people are settled into a determination to prove the other guy wrong and are reading each other's posts in whatever way will support that argument.

Let's see if I can summarize some points which shouldn't be controversial.

Traditional Okinawan karate contained and contains a significant amount of stand-up grappling (throws, sweeps, joint locks). This grappling is integrated with the striking and is primarily intended for civilian self-defense against an untrained attacker. It is not developed to the level appropriate for entering grappling competitions against grappling specialists.

Any ground grappling in that might have existed in traditional karate would have been minimal and rudimentary.

When the Japanese adopted Karate (i.e. Shotokan) the grappling aspects were significantly de-emphasized in favor of striking. The official Shotokan syllabus has a few throws, but those are practiced (when they are practiced) through drilling rather than through live practice.

A large percentage of Japanese karate schools worldwide practice very little, if any, grappling. A large percentage does not mean all.

Wado Ryu is a Japanese style founded by a practitioner of Karate and Jujutsu, and thus has always contained grappling. (In fact, it was originally named Shinshu Wadoryu Karate-Jujutsu). This is mostly stand-up grappling, not ground grappling.

You can provoke arguments among many karateka by raising the question of whether Shotokan is traditional or not, sport-oriented or not, self-defense-oriented or not.

Different karateka have very different ideas about what the meaning of kata and the correct applications of the techniques in kata are. Some will refer to those with different ideas on those subjects as flat out wrong or suggest that their understanding of the kata is lacking.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

BTW - with all the arguments about what it means for grappling to be inherent in kata and the value of finding new applications in kata, I'm disappointed that no one has responded to a hopefully relevant post I made yesterday: Shotokan for self defence. Page 16 MartialTalk.Com - Friendly Martial Arts Forum Community

You guys don't have to argue with Hanzou all the time. You could argue with me instead. I guess nobody cares enough to tell me why my ideas are stupid. *sniff*

 

[Mephisto]

Yeah ... that's not what K-man (or anyone else that I've noticed) said. The comments about Hanzou's "inferior" training mostly is carrying over from arguments in numerous other threads about the effectiveness of karate, the existence of any form of grappling in karate, and the usefulness of kata in general.

Part of what's making this thread contentious is that some people are settled into a determination to prove the other guy wrong and are reading each other's posts in whatever way will support that argument.

Let's see if I can summarize some points which shouldn't be controversial.

Traditional Okinawan karate contained and contains a significant amount of stand-up grappling (throws, sweeps, joint locks). This grappling is integrated with the striking and is primarily intended for civilian self-defense against an untrained attacker. It is not developed to the level appropriate for entering grappling competitions against grappling specialists.

Any ground grappling in that might have existed in traditional karate would have been minimal and rudimentary.

When the Japanese adopted Karate (i.e. Shotokan) the grappling aspects were significantly de-emphasized in favor of striking. The official Shotokan syllabus has a few throws, but those are practiced (when they are practiced) through drilling rather than through live practice.

A large percentage of Japanese karate schools worldwide practice very little, if any, grappling. A large percentage does not mean all.

Wado Ryu is a Japanese style founded by a practitioner of Karate and Jujutsu, and thus has always contained grappling. (In fact, it was originally named Shinshu Wadoryu Karate-Jujutsu). This is mostly stand-up grappling, not ground grappling.

You can provoke arguments among many karateka by raising the question of whether Shotokan is traditional or not, sport-oriented or not, self-defense-oriented or not.

Different karateka have very different ideas about what the meaning of kata and the correct applications of the techniques in kata are. Some will refer to those with different ideas on those subjects as flat out wrong or suggest that their understanding of the kata is lacking.

Well there's this: Drose427: "
No, I'm saying most Karate schools teach basic grappling as part of Bunkai to teach students how to escape, get back up, or submit. Yours didnt, but many many others do both on this forum and not and have since Funakoshi was training. "
The above post seems to reference ground fighting because Drose specifies "get back up" as part of the grappling taught in "most karate schools". Others seemed to agree and support that ground grappling at a basic level is a commonality among karate practitioners. However, some confusion may have arisen as grappling and ground fighting can entail vary different skills. So for future reference on all parts there is a need to clarify if ground fighting is meant when grappling becomes a topic of argument. It seems though that ground fighting is not common in karate and that is now agreed despite what Drose and others may have said or inferred.

I don't think anyone has issues with karate specifically. The point IMO is to recognize where your arts specialty applies and where your art has limitations. When practitioners think there art has the answer for everything dispute can arise. Some arts are more all inclusive than others but the more complex an art the less refinement they have in any given area. Many karate systems may have weapons training but i'd argue that a filipino system would offer better and more specialized weapons training because that is the specialty of most filipino systems. However, karate will provide more specialized striking compared to the filipino systems. As am FMA practitioner I realize the specialty and shortcomings of my art. Some FMA guys will still insist that FMA has it all and won't concede that karate may provide superior striking training in some or many schools. The same seems to be true with karate. Some guys don't seem to be willing to simply concede that other arts are better for a certain skill.

 

[Hanzou]

So who is he and what are his credentials?

What a surprise! "Some limited ground grappling did exist in classical karate but it was never a focus or specialty." Yep, I can live with that. By the way, no one has mentioned that ground fighting is common. As to no evidence of ground fighting ... I suppose Karate being just striking is so effective that we never end up on the ground. Right, that makes sense. So let's be realistic and say that the objective for most martial artists ,in other than competition, is to get up from the ground as soon as practical. Oh yes, he said that too didn't he?

Unless your assailant just happened to wrestle or play American football in High School (which for Americans is a very real possibility, since those are the two most popular scholastic sports in the US for males). In that case your ability to get back to your feet is greatly diminished, since it was supposedly only designed to fight off "untrained" people.

 

[Drose427]

BTW - with all the arguments about what it means for grappling to be inherent in kata and the value of finding new applications in kata, I'm disappointed that no one has responded to a hopefully relevant post I made yesterday: Shotokan for self defence. Page 16 MartialTalk.Com - Friendly Martial Arts Forum Community

You guys don't have to argue with Hanzou all the time. You could argue with me instead. I guess nobody cares enough to tell me why my ideas are stupid. *sniff*

I actually used that post as reference talking to one of my MMA friends lol

He actively trains in his college Chun do Kwan TKD, wit his MMA training and we were talking to one of his gym buddies who wondered about forms training Vs non for training.

Both are valid, just different methods Of learning the same material! Just like any other subject, people learn best different ways and as a result we have different training methods

you brought up a good point in that not everyone can visualize and for many that becomes an issue with forms training. Especially in schools that don't put emphasize on teaching students how to draw from Kata and drill, drill, drill.

As for arguing with you instead, we could but I believe you've already said you believed moves could be adapted and applied by others so it'd have to be just for fun

Well there's this: Drose427: "

No, I'm saying most Karate schools teach basic grappling as part of Bunkai to teach students how to escape, get back up, or submit. Yours didnt, but many many others do both on this forum and not and have since Funakoshi was training. "
The above post seems to reference ground fighting because Drose specifies "get back up" as part of the grappling taught in "most karate schools". Others seemed to agree and support that ground grappling at a basic level is a commonality among karate practitioners. However, some confusion may have arisen as grappling and ground fighting can entail vary different skills. So for future reference on all parts there is a need to clarify if ground fighting is meant when grappling becomes a topic of argument. It seems though that ground fighting is not common in karate and that is now agreed despite what Drose and others may have said or inferred.

I don't think anyone has issues with karate specifically. The point IMO is to recognize where your arts specialty applies and where your art has limitations. When practitioners think there art has the answer for everything dispute can arise. Some arts are more all inclusive than others but the more complex an art the less refinement they have in any given area. Many karate systems may have weapons training but i'd argue that a filipino system would offer better and more specialized weapons training because that is the specialty of most filipino systems. However, karate will provide more specialized striking compared to the filipino systems. As am FMA practitioner I realize the specialty and shortcomings of my art. Some FMA guys will still insist that FMA has it all and won't concede that karate may provide superior striking training in some or many schools. The same seems to be true with karate. Some guys don't seem to be willing to simply concede that other arts are better for a certain skill.

Me and the others have been speaking in regards to Bunkai the entire time. Which is very different than actively live wrestling. This is where one of the big points of confusion seems to lie In A disconnect between training the bunkai, and full on submission wrestling. The latter, we have all admitted is much harder to find than the former.

Secondly, no karaetka here has said BJJ was inferior in anyway. We've recommended it as the best ground fighting option you can find within this thread.

 

[Hanzou]

one who was time and time again not understood the concept of Bunkai or how it relates to forms.

When a shodan can't understand that, it brings up questions of how well they understand Karate

If you're taking apart kata the way they were clearly intended to be taken apart, I have no issue with bunkai. The only point when I have issue with bunkai is when people take it into directions it was clearly never intended to be taken into. Such as saying that Tekki Shodan is a ground fighting form.

Of course, I don't have a very high opinion of kata in the first place.

 

[Drose427]

If you're taking apart kata the way they were clearly intended to be taken apart, I have no issue with bunkai. The only point when I have issue with bunkai is when people take it into directions it was clearly never intended to be taken into. Such as saying that Tekki Shodan is a ground fighting form.

Of course, I don't have a very high opinion of kata in the first place.

Nobody claimed tekki shodan as a form was a ground fighting for other than yourself

Again, there isn't an intended interpretation of forms. Not understanding that is why people question your opinion and knowledge of Karate.


.

 

[Hanzou]

Nobody claimed tekki shodan as a form was a ground fighting for other than yourself

The beginning of that clip is exactly the movement Ando is doing from his back..

If you need it broken down:

The knees tightening and hands crossing and coming up then down, which is a common variation....exactly like ando did. You clip he simply doesnt bring his hands as high

Considering he walks you through the form both standing and from guard the same way as when he was standing, its pretty clear he got it from that form.....and yes, because the rest of us dont record everything we teach we must not teach it!

Also, he "dabbled" in BJJ according to his website, and used a move he learned from a karate kata...but he was on his back so i guess your point is its only karate if he's standing?

You did.

Again, there isn't an intended interpretation of forms. Not understanding that is why people question your opinion and knowledge of Karate.

I disagree. There's an intended purpose for every form. Tekki Shodan for example is clearly designed for close quarter fighting against multiple opponents in a limited space. The movements of the kata itself support that interpretation.

Here's the Japanese/JKA Tekki Shodan bunkai, which frankly makes more sense than some of the more liberal interpretations of the kata;

Starts at 7:06

In the end, nothing about Tekki Shodan supports the notion that its for ground fighting.

 

[Drose427]

You did.




I disagree. There's an intended purpose for every form. Tekki Shodan for example is clearly designed for close quarter fighting against multiple opponents in a limited space. The movements of the kata itself support that interpretation.

Here's the Japanese/JKA Tekki Shodan bunkai, which frankly makes more sense than some of the more liberal interpretations of the kata;

Starts at 7:06

In the end, nothing about Tekki Shodan supports the notion that its for ground fighting.

Again, nobody other than you have said tekki shodan was meant for ground fighting.

since the beginning of karate, Bunkai has has different "groups". Literal, Hidden, and True.

The most basic movement in any for is block to the down and punch.

When teaching a new student, that's how we explain it.

But it's actually a takedown And zero changes need to be made.

Earlier I gave an example of how a punch/block into a hidden fist chamber was in the beginning of Pinan odan.

Again, to those learning the form, that's the movement.

But it's a gi choke, again with no change in technique. The punch/block lines your hands up perfectly to grab the collar.

Forms have never been as black\white as "a punch is a punch" or having a specific Intention with highly specific moves.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

you brought up a good point in that not everyone can visualize and for many that becomes an issue with forms training. Especially in schools that don't put emphasize on teaching students how to draw from Kata and drill, drill, drill.

As for arguing with you instead, we could but I believe you've already said you believed moves could be adapted and applied by others so it'd have to be just for fun

Any comment on my assertion that the movements of the kata were fundamentally not the same as the movements of the demonstrated bunkai?

Again, there isn't an intended interpretation of forms.
Not understanding that is why people question your opinion and knowledge of Karate.

Interesting assertion, and one that provokes some questions:

Did the creators of the kata not have a specific idea of what the movements of the kata were meant to represent?

If the movements were intended to represent generalized movement patterns that could represent a variety of different techniques as interpreted by the practitioner rather than a set, specific function, then does the exact sequence of those movements in the kata matter (as some insist they do)? If so, why?

How close does a movement in the kata have to be to its intended application in order to gain any benefit in skill for the intended application? For example, in the bunkai video by Mr. Ando, do you feel you could improve your skill in the demonstrated ground-fighting applications by practicing the kata with those applications in mind?

Should performance of a kata look different depending on what applications you are visualizing as you practice it? For example, if the practitioner intends a given movement to be a throw, should it look different than if he intends it to be a block? If not, why not?

 

[Drose427]

Any comment on my assertion that the movements of the kata were fundamentally not the same as the movements of the demonstrated bunkai?



Interesting assertion, and one that provokes some questions:

Did the creators of the kata not have a specific idea of what the movements of the kata were meant to represent?

If the movements were intended to represent generalized movement patterns that could represent a variety of different techniques as interpreted by the practitioner rather than a set, specific function, then does the exact sequence of those movements in the kata matter (as some insist they do)? If so, why?

How close does a movement in the kata have to be to its intended application in order to gain any benefit in skill for the intended application? For example, in the bunkai video by Mr. Ando, do you feel you could improve your skill in the demonstrated ground-fighting applications by practicing the kata with those applications in mind?

Should performance of a kata look different depending on what applications you are visualizing as you practice it? For example, if the practitioner intends a given movement to be a throw, should it look different than if he intends it to be a block? If not, why not?

I believe the movement he was intending as using was more of the opening to shodan than the first moves. I.e. the prepping for chumbee, as in the knees come together (from standing you lift onto your toes) and the hands come up(in most styles. Some they come steaught up, some they come out from the face abit such as our where they go just out from your brow before coming back down, and some schools don't raise the hands at all). I could also be wrong with An do video. Such is why I've tried to walk through other forms grounder bunko where I could not find video. I.e. Gi choke in our form Pina odan. Not as street applicable as Samoan from the thesis someone else showed, but the gi choke takes virtually no change in technique. It'so actually simpler from the ground because the block\punch isn't really necessary. The wrap for it provides better coverage while also allowing you to crash or control the head and get you hands near the collar. Where as standing, the hands aren't both there without sliding in farther.

as for your other questions:

I'm sure the was some idea but more so on the individual techniques.

I.e. Pina odan. the literal movement in the hidden fist chamber is a called a setup move. When teahcing its a simple side block, punch. Done with a partner, these first 3 moves are easily seen as a choke on a single opponent.

The next 3 moves are the same thing mirrored to the other side.

It's unlikely that they accidentally put in a gi choke, even if the movement equating to the actual choke is considered a set up move. Did they intend this choke to be used from your back? I can't say. But it can be done fairly easily without a huge warp of the movement.

I would say the literal interpretations are important for learning proper waist, technique, targeting, angles, in many schools cases conditioning i.e. if a series of attacks is done from a deep stance in your school not shortchanging helps build considerable muscle. Many moves in forms done out of order will throw off your angles and positioning. This is where I believe it's important to do forms with other people. Sometimes a student won't understand why being a little out of position is important, but they do when I can step in and show them that out of position they may still be in range to get hit, their opponent may be out of range, or they may have no leverage.

Imo, one of the most important is learning simple combinations and bunkai. At white belt, student have specific things for SD. At gold belt we tell students to start looking at forms As a way of easing them into understanding how to adapt forms. If they learn a move as a basic block to the down then punch, it's far simpler for them to understand how that is then a takedown and now they understand the technique of it. Students go from learning to use the block-step in- punch, to then seeing how it's a takedown.

This question is one of opinion moreso than fact. While I don't feel that a move in forms needs to exactly the same, the mechanics should be Or should be very close. Keecho IL boo and the Block to the down punch is a good example. As a takedown, tends to look a little different then the form. But the block, stepping in and deep for the trip is nearly the same lower body movement.

In the form it's very distinct whereas in bunks it isn't as pretty, but the positioning and body mechanics are the nearly same. With the takedown method putting more emphasis on a deep stance and being hip to hip if you choose to do it on the outside. But then, it doesn't look as much like the form. Although the actual trip is very similar. I'd if it's been posted here but Aberethy did a good video on this exact application.


For me, performance of Kata as you are describing is training the whole Kata either by myself or with an instructor or fellow student. For this, I would say no For the simple fact that aside from minor adaption it'd be bad for me to change a move completely from what I was taught during forms at a tourney or test.They'd wanna see the form as its taught, not bunkai.

As bunkai, you should be drilling it as however you intend the move to be. Take the previous takedown example. In forms, a very distinct block to the down followed by a very distinct punch to the solar plexus.

As a takedown in bunkai, I'm more likely to push in with more of boxing style block and jab while i step my leg into position behind theirs for the trip. I personally now prefer to block and go for the collargrab/elbow while going for the trip, but the trip itself remains the same.

As a brief disclaimer, your last two questions are more opinion than anything. I personally have been able to apply bunkai from taken from Kata and adapt them if need be as easily as when I was learning the very straightforward way back in boxing.

This is not everyone and makes it difficult to say if forms should or should be a certain way.

Imo, when you limit something to only being used "this way" or being specifically "this" you affect your students ability to change or adapt in in various situations thus affecting their ability to grow as a martial artist and find a fighting style best suited to them.

I.e and examples for grappling would be saying you could only run an omoplata from guard, or could only run a headlock in wrestling if you chained it from a Cowboy. When obviously you could run it from a failed Peterson or roll or found the position in general scrambling