15 posts / 0 new
Last post
Dale Parker
Dale Parker's picture
Bunkai throwing, grappling, and sweeping

I'm just curious, it seems like a lot of people are moving to always having every bunkai envolve some kind of throw, grapple, or sweep.

While I think there are many valid such techniques in Karate Kata, hidden from the casual observer, I think people are overlooking that sometimes things are simple, such as a block and a punch, but not just any punch, a punch performed from the core, with proper rotation, trajectory, and momentum in order to end the scenario.  This can also be for all of our strikes and kicks.

Are we over analysing?

Wastelander
Wastelander's picture

I don't think any of the Okinawan masters needed kata to codify a simple punch to the face--I think they all had that pretty well down. To me, kata contain material for when a simple punch to the face doesn't cut it. Now, I do think that striking is the primary tool in kata, but kata uses limb control and joint locks to facilitate that, as well as teaching throws to quickly put an attacker on the floor. This also provides us with varying levels of force.

It's also important to note that most of the people who learned karate, before Itosu's modernization/popularization of it, were nobility. Families of royal descent studied martial arts mostly for the art and study of movement, since they didn't really need them for fighting. Some nobles were ambassadors to China, Siam, Indonesia, Japan, etc., and got to learn martial arts from those nations during their travels, which impacted how they approached their Okinawan martial arts. Many nobles acted as royal guards, security forces, and police officers, who had to not only be able to kill someone quickly, but also be able to control, restrain, and arrest someone without seriously injuring them. Each of these ways of life will result in a very different focus in kata.

There also may simply be a filtering of what we see online. It's easier to figure out simple striking applications than it is to figure out applications that incorporate limb control, joint locks, throws, etc. For that reason, I suspect many people don't bother sharing those simpler applications. I know my Sensei and I don't usually post videos online of that kind of thing, even though we train it at our dojo.

Dillon
Dillon's picture

I think that in the context of civilian self defense (particularly if we're dealing with some kind of counter-ambush scenario), positioning, kuzushi, limb control, etc., are all integral parts of a "simple punch." The information in the kata can be a guide to how to get to a safe angle while controlling their movement and disrupting their ability to either attack or defend, which buys you the time, position, and discretion to be able to apply that punch (or other strike) in a manner that is truly disabling. 

css1971
css1971's picture

I'm with Noah. You don't need kata for kicks and punches. You don't even need kata for throws and locks either. There are lots of martial arts which don't use kata but teach these things.

Where kata comes into it's own is showing "what do I do?" sequences. You do this then this then this. The sequences teach strategy, tactics and principles.

So having said that. I think you're correct. The uchi-uke in Pinan Shoda/Heian Nidan: "block" -> kick -> punch. "Block" hooks uke's arm & turns him away off line. He can't attack you immediately. Kick takes his knee to the ground: He's disabled. Punch to the back of the neck ends the fight.

Which is exactly what Dillon said, now I read his post.

You could of course use them rote exactly as they are and it's probably the best for beginners to do so, but I think that's missing the real point of karate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloom%27s_taxonomy

Dod
Dod's picture

"Are we over analysing?"

I think it is an important and recurring point for discussion.  An application can be ineffective if it is too complicated or imaginative,   just as it can be because of an over-simplistic superficial study of a kata move.

Strikes are certainly included,  however,  they tend to be accompanied by something important that may be more or less subtle like a body shift, initial distraction,  unbalancing or grab.  Or they work particularly well after the preceding kata move.  Therefore,  as far as strikes in Kata are concerned the lesson is what is accompanying or enhancing its effectiveness.

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Dale Parker wrote:
I'm just curious, it seems like a lot of people are moving to always having every bunkai involve some kind of throw, grapple, or sweep

That can be an issue. Civilian self-protection (the problem kata addresses) does not reward needless complexity and striking is definitely the preferred methodology due to its simplicity, etc.

If you watch 5:00 onward from the video below, you will be given a good explanation as to why that’s the case. This is from Peter Consterdine and Geoff Thompson’s video “Grappling – The Last Resort”.

We need to know how to grapple, but it’s not something we do through choice.

https://youtu.be/NxgrFGQ7AQI?t=5m

This is reflected in by Gichin Funakoshi is Karate-Do Kyohan:

“In karate, hitting, thrusting, and kicking are not the only methods, throwing techniques and pressure against joints are included … all these techniques should be studied referring to basic kata … Never forget that the essence of karate is found in finishing with a single blow. Great care must be taken, not to be defeated, by being overly concerned with applying a throw or a joint lock.”

So needlessly seeking complex grappling is both impractical (for the objective of self-protection) and not in keeping with the nature of karate.

Dale Parker wrote:
… Are we over analysing?

My general take on things is that we “under-analyse”. To my way of thinking, good bunkai must be able to explain why the kata motion is exactly as it is. People often ignore huge parts of the movement. For example, the opening motion of Pinan Godan is most frequently explained as a “block” to the side … but this ignores the stance, the hand on the hip, why the arm comes in before it goes out, why are we at the angle we are at, etc, etc.

Einstein said, “It can scarcely be denied that the supreme goal of all theory is to make the irreducible basic elements as simple and as few as possible without having to surrender the adequate representation of a single datum of experience.”

This is often paraphrased to, “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler.”

I think that’s good advice for karate too. Any “explanation” that ignores whole swathes of a motion is obviously inadequate. Any bunkai that will not function in the real world is likewise inadequate.

Many of the “blocks” in kata simply do not work as blocks; but once stripped of their modern terminology (See Mabuni’s “Seipai no Kenkyu Goshin Jutsu Hiden Karate Kenpo”) and looked at afresh, we can see they are highly functional in other ways.

Dale Parker wrote:
While I think there are many valid such techniques in Karate Kata, hidden from the casual observer, I think people are overlooking that sometimes things are simple, such as a block and a punch, but not just any punch, a punch performed from the core, with proper rotation, trajectory, and momentum in order to end the scenario.  This can also be for all of our strikes and kicks.

Good technique is a must. I worry about the groups and individuals who forget the need to have good basics and go “bunkai daft”. Karate works best when it is the result of sound body mechanics combined with combative function. Lose the combative function and we have nothing but pretty looking motions (much of modern karate is like this). Lose the body mechanics and we have motions that are largely impotent when they could be devastating (a worrying trend amongst those who throw the baby out with the bathwater when seeking practicality … and failing to find it as a result).

Line work is boring. Endlessly correcting minor motions in kata is likewise boring. When isolated from a wider training methodology, they are of little value and hence I can see why people mistakenly dump these things. However, when done as part of a wider training methods, with the aim being true combative function, I feel they have a vital role to play. Without them, there is no way to reach the higher levels of function.

I was once part of a conversation between myself, Dave Hazard and Peter Consterdine. Dave likened kihon and good solo-kata to the foundations of a building. If you don’t have a strong foundation, you can’t build upward.

Dave also stressed that the foundations of a building, although vital to the heath and stability of that building, are not the directly usable bit. We don’t live in the foundations. We use the bits built on the foundations. I’ve never see the foundations of my home. I’ve never been in them. At the moment I am using a room built on those foundations. While I don’t “use” the foundations directly, the usable bit depends upon them.

Some modern karateka ignore the foundations and try to build up immediately. The result is a system that becomes unstable at higher levels of function (due to the complete lack of sound body mechanics). Other modern karateka (most of them) spend all their time building strong foundations, but never put the usable bit on the top of that. To quote Dave Hazard again, “We should be building skyscrapers on those foundations … but most don’t even build bungalows”.

Sound body mechanics are a must, but they must also be applicable to real world scenarios. A formal lunging punch with good mechanics is practically useless unless it is understood how the motion is to be applied i.e. hiki-te  controlling the enemy’s limb, “stance” moving bodyweight forward, angle in kata showing the line of entry / tactical positioning, etc.

If that punch is delivered in accordance with the kata’s methodology, then it will be highly effective. If the same punch is delivered independent of the kata’s methodology (i.e. I just lunge in at my enemy, with my hand on my hip for no reason, and then “freeze” and the end of the motion … as we frequently see in one-steps etc) then the motion will be highly dangerous and ineffective.

It is the combination of efficient body mechanics being applied in a sound combative way that makes it all work; one without the other is useless.

We should not needlessly over complicate, nor should we simplify to the point of inadequacy. To paraphrase Einstein again, “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler.”

All the best,

Iain

Dale Parker
Dale Parker's picture

All good responses, my only comment is a generalization of "How do I", maybe kata do that, but in Iaido, the waza, for the Ryu I follow, are specifically taken from real life encounters, so I've been taught.

If we apply that to Karate waza, and kata, I would think the reliance on grappling is exactly what Iain suggest, a last resort.

So I'm curious as to whether we can break karate kata into new classifications, ones that were created to train, and ones that were reflections of actual engagements to train.

I think it is safe to say all Taikyoku/Kihon, and Pinan/Heian, definately were created to train.

There is another aspect as well, one beyond fighting. Mabuni Kenzo Soke once told me kata is the original Sudoku, it keeps the mind clear even into old age.

Sensei Russell ...
Sensei Russell Bianca's picture

Great discussion and many valid and helpful points made in this thread. Thanks to all!

-Russell

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Dale Parker wrote:
I think it is safe to say all Taikyoku/Kihon, and Pinan/Heian, definitely were created to train.

The Taikyoku were definitely created as kata for use in the modern paradigm i.e. learning a kata for the sake of learning a kata.

While it’s a commonly held view that the Pinan series were created for school children, there is absolutely nothing to support that claim. This has been discussed at length several times here and, as yet, nothing has been put forward to back up the idea that the Pinan kata were created for children and hence have no direct combative function. Plenty has been put forward to counter that.

Here is one such post from four years ago:

http://iainabernethy.co.uk/comment/2053#comment-2053

Here is another from two years ago:

http://iainabernethy.co.uk/comment/7512#comment-7512

Those threads point to the fact that the kata were taught to adults before Itosu introduced karate to schools, and that other kata were also taught in the school system (but no one states they were just for kids). There is also Funakoshi making 100% clear the series have a self-protection purpose in Karate-Do Kyohan.

While they were taught to kids that is a long way from saying they were designed for that purpose, especially when we have plenty of evidence to say that’s not the case.

In the first of the above linked posts, I used the following analogy:

“Yes they were taught to children, but that does not mean they were created for that purpose … especially when we have the creator’s student’s making direct reference to their combative function and teaching these kata to adults.

When my boys run around the garden playing with their toy guns that does not mean guns were created to keep children fit. Nor does it mean that the soldiers of today are adapting a children’s game for use in war. The combative function came first, and the toys and games were adopted from that. I feel it’s exactly the same with the Pinans: The combative function came first and their use in children’s education was an offshoot of that.

Aside from all the historical bits and pieces, I feel the kata themselves give strong evidence of combative function and not physical education. If they were only created for physical education use in schools, then Itosu did a very bad job.”

There’s also my “There’s nothing peaceful about the Pinans” article which touches on a few of these issues:

http://www.iainabernethy.co.uk/article/there-nothing-peaceful-about-pinans

By coincidence, I put the image below on Facebook this week.

All the best,

Iain

clouviere
clouviere's picture

All good responses, my only comment is a generalization of "How do I", maybe kata do that, but in Iaido, the waza, for the Ryu I follow, are specifically taken from real life encounters, so I've been taught.

...

So I'm curious as to whether we can break karate kata into new classifications, ones that were created to train, and ones that were reflections of actual engagements to train.

I think what you are experiencing in this view is the real issue of having a technology in your hands and assuming because you don't know why it was created, that it was created wrong.  We have kata and we have no direct connection to the purpose so we assume it has none, or it doesn't do what we see other technology do.  Yes, there are other systems of teaching that do things differently, but that does not inherrently mean that kata were not designed for the same purpose.  I think Patrick McCarthy's reseach and logic show that "one" of the many reasons that Kata were created is to provide training, reflections and research into actual engagements.  It isn't hard to see.  Take a sequence, insert any of the basic human habitual acts of physical violence and you'll find that more times than not the sequence in question is a valid response to an actual engagment.  And with a little effort, not over analysis, you'll find the ones that work for you better than the others.  It's not over analysis, it's analysis.  

The Kata, as a teaching technology, is near second to none.  The problem is not the Kata, curt as that might be, it's the teacher or the student.  The technology works.  And benefits more from over analysis than from less.

"If we apply that to Karate waza, and kata, I would think the reliance on grappling is exactly what Iain suggest, a last resort."

I would disagree, I don't think reliance on grappling is a last resort.  And I think that our propensity to find "grappling" applications is more indicative of an inherent understanding of the fact that the first combatant to hit the ground loses the violence altercation.  Years ago I read the following: http://www.amazon.com/Report-Fights-Ground-MUSCLE-Beginning-ebook/dp/B00..., and learned much from it.  If the research of the author is to be believed, it makes since that humans will seek to put their opponent on the ground.  Apologies for the spoiler, but the author found that 95% of the time, the first combatant to go to the ground, lost the fight.  So, it stands to reason if my self-defense or combative seqenunce includes putting my opponent on the ground while staying on my feet, than I increase my odds of survival dramatically.  To echo Noah's statement about humans basically understanding hitting to the face, I think we also basically understand that being on the ground isn't good and puts a person at a serious disadvantage.  I don't think we are "relying" on grappling, I think we instictually understand that strategically, throwing someone to the ground is the best end goal if I can't knock him out or hit a vital location.  It's the best plan B.  Which goes back to one of the many goals of Kata, teaching options.

At the end of the day, Kata is the text book.  And as the text book, as a fully functioning technology, it includes everything you need on the subject of combat between two humans.  It includes all the things you need to know if you are going to train for your protection and the protection of others.  That includes more information than anyone can actually teach you.  So you must open the book and read it.  Open yourself up to the technology.  Analyse it.

All of that said however, it's YOUR text book.  If you don't agree with how I read or interpret it.  That's awesome.  That's the point actually.  You must find in it your strategy.  If your strategy does not include grappling or throwing, that's fine. That's the great thing about the text book.  We can find our own strategy.

Chris

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Hi Chris,

clouviere wrote:
I would disagree, I don't think reliance on grappling is a last resort. And I think that our propensity to find "grappling" applications is more indicative of an inherent understanding of the fact that the first combatant to hit the ground loses the violence altercation.

Striking is a far simpler and effective way to put someone on the ground though.

clouviere wrote:
the author found that 95% of the time, the first combatant to go to the ground, lost the fight.  So, it stands to reason if my self-defence or combative sequence includes putting my opponent on the ground while staying on my feet, than I increase my odds of survival dramatically.

People who are thrown down tend to get back up. People who are knocked down / out tend to stay down. Even if we look at combat sports like the UFC:

How many fights were ended with a throw?

How many were ended with a strike?

There is obviously a lot more that fall into the second category.

I’m sure it is true that the first person to hit the ground loses most often, but we can’t ignore what put them there. Nor should we assume it was always grappling. A solid punch to the head would be far more likely.

It also worth noting that it is rare for a throw to work so cleanly that the thrower remains on his feet. We see both going to the floor far more often. The thrower can capitalise on that because the throw often leaves them in an advantageous position, but that takes time … whereas a strike will put them out before the hit the ground. Getting a good position and capitalising on it is great for one-on-one; not so great in civilian self-protection.

clouviere wrote:
I think we also basically understand that being on the ground isn't good and puts a person at a serious disadvantage.

I totally agree. Which is one of the reason I want we want to avoid grappling if we can and why we always give striking the priority.

clouviere wrote:
It's the best plan B

I get what you are saying here, but I would say that it’s much further down the list than that.

Plan A – Have a positive lifestyle that does not bring you into contact with violent people and situations.

Plan B – Be aware so that if you should encounter such as person or situation you can avoid totally avoid it.

Plan C - If a situation is starting to develop around you, then escape.

Plan D – If you can’t immediately escape, try to defuse / deescalate using appropriate methods.

Plan E – If getting physical can’t be avoided, the use deception and a pre-emptive strike to facilitate escape.

Plan F – If pre-emption is not possible, then move and strike. Do not get tied to a single enemy.

Plan G – If you do get gripped, then don’t “counter grapple” but instead try to free yourself from the grip.

Plan H – If you can’t escape the grip, then you have no option but to utilise grappling skills. Even now, this should be primarily to facilitate strikes.

Plan I – If you can’t immediately land strikes from within the grapple, then take the any opportunities to throw, lock, etc that are presented. Do all you can to avoid going to the ground.

Plan J – If you do go to the ground, fight your way back to your feet as quickly as possible.

Plan K – If you can’t get up, then use grappling skills to facilitate strikes.

Plan L – If strikes are not immediately possible, then take the opportunities for strangles, locks, etc that are presented.

NOTE: While engaged in Plans H to L you are tied up with one person, so you are in BIG trouble if there is more than one person.

While the above could be more detailed and it’s not exhaustive, we can see that grappling is never something we choose to do (we are forced to do it) and that we want to stop doing it as soon as possible.

We can also see that the more we are forced to grapple, the worse the situation is getting. I therefore think the term “the last resort” is entirely accurate. It’s what we do when everything else has failed and we can’t immediately do anything else.

I always say that grappling is to the self-defence focused martial artist was crash landing is to the airline pilot. It’s something both need to be able to do should the worst happen, but it’s never something they chose to do … and that would make it a last resort.

clouviere wrote:
I think what you are experiencing in this view is the real issue of having a technology in your hands and assuming because you don't know why it was created, that it was created wrong.  We have kata and we have no direct connection to the purpose so we assume it has none, or it doesn't do what we see other technology do.

That is a good analogy! I’m reminded of the line from comedian Harry Hill:

“I have a computer but I don’t think I’m getting the most out of it. What I do is turn the contrast and brightness way up on the monitor and use it as a lamp”.

I can certainly think of similar approaches to kata that never realise just what kata is capable of.

All the best,

Iain

Dale Parker
Dale Parker's picture

I like all the contributions to the thread, it was meant to provoke thought.

My only comment is Iain, would it hurt you to use Japanese fonts?

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Dale Parker wrote:
My only comment is Iain, would it hurt you to use Japanese fonts?

I think my constitution could take it :-) Let’s see … 平安型 … nope that didn’t hurt a bit!

Is there something you feel was missing from the above by not using Japanese kanji?

Seeing as most will understand “Pinan” and may not recognise “平安” I prefer to stuck with the English rendering … as you have yourself. Am I missing something or have I caused confusion through sticking with convention?

All the best,

Iain

Dale Parker
Dale Parker's picture

It's not the Kanji, you have that correct, but the Image you posted with the Funakoshi Quote, it looks like a Mincho font, which is very Chinese, not Japanese.

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Dale Parker wrote:
It's not the Kanji, you have that correct, but the Image you posted with the Funakoshi Quote, it looks like a Mincho font, which is very Chinese, not Japanese.

I’m with you! :-) Same characters I always use for “Pinan”, but they change a little as the “font” changes in my photo editing software. I’m not able to draw them myself, and I’m sure people got the message OK.

All the best,

Iain