35 posts / 0 new
Last post
DaveB
DaveB's picture
Historical Kata Application

Victor Smith sensei posted these articles on his blog. 

The first references an articicle by Shito ryu teacher Fumio Demura on the application of kata through kakushite: hidden hand. 

http://isshin-concentration.blogspot.com/2013/07/kakushite-hidden-hand.html

The second article looks at a section of Kenwa Mabuni's book Goshin karate kempo. 

http://isshin-concentration.blogspot.com/2013/07/a-look-at-kata-applicat...

Dale Parker
Dale Parker's picture

There is an error in the commentary of the second link.

It indicates Funakoshi was Mabuni's senior.  This is not true, Mabuni was Funakoshi's Senior.

Mabuni was granted a master license and the position of soke from Itosu when Itosu died.  Funakoshi never attained Master level or license from Itosu.

Just sayin.

DaveB
DaveB's picture

Furtothermore Funakoshi was taught to block with his face and that getting kicked in the groin was the fastest way to win a fight. Don't judge; Times were tough back then! :-D

What I found particularly interesting about Mabuni's applications is that rather than emulating jujitsu, the gist seems to be creating openings to strike the opponent, more in line with the Chinese quan fa that is the arts origin. 

Actually Dale, you raise some interesting points: Did the karate masters Funakoshi grew up with issue "Master Licences"? Clearly Itosu did eventually and as the modern Shorin ryu dojo's came into existence under an increasingly Japanified. modern Okinawa they obviously took on such things, but was that always the practice? Did Matsumura give Itosu a license?

The other thought I had was about what Funakoshi told your teacher about Azato? Itosu got famous, but Funakoshi's writings suggest that his actual teacher was Azato. He goes as far as to call him the greatest Karateka in Okinawa in one book...?

 

Dale Parker
Dale Parker's picture

To my knowledge, yes, Matsumura gave Itosu a scroll, that essentially made him the Soke of his teachings.  

Itosu gave Mabuni one that made him Soke of his teachings, if that is the same scroll I do not know.  

Mabuni gave Shihan licenses to a handfull of his students, of which were his two sons, and Ryusho Sakagami.  He also gave Sakagami the Itosu lineage scroll and Sokeship.

Of interesting note, Mabuni and Miyagi cross signed licenses for Shihan, and Yudansha, ie, Mabuni signed Goju Ryu certificates with Miyagi, and Miyagi signed Shito Ryu certificates with Mabuni.  

As for Azato, I really don't know much about him.

I do know that Funakoshi, once in Japan, only taught the first 15 or so kata that would make it into the Shotokan play book, and that he sent his senior students to learn more advanced kata from Mabuni, those "advanced" kata, rounded out the Shotokan play book.

For reference please see:  http://www.shitokai.net/pdf/mabuni.pdf 

ky0han
ky0han's picture

Hi,

here is an awful lot of politics on display, so I maybe should shed some light on a few statements.

Dale Parker wrote:
It indicates Funakoshi was Mabuni's senior.  This is not true, Mabuni was Funakoshi's Senior.

Funakoshi was born in 1868, Mabuni was born in 1889. How in the world could Mabuni be senior to Funakoshi. The respect of age weights more in the japanese/ryukyuan culture than a certain skill level. Lets asume that both Funakoshi and Mabuni started training at an age of 12 years and that both trained fairly regular under Itosu until his passing in 1915. That would mean Funakoshi spend 35 years training under Itosu and Mabuni spend only 14 years training under Itosu. Both had other teachers too.

Dale Parker wrote:
Mabuni was granted a master license and the position of soke from Itosu when Itosu died. Funakoshi never attained Master level or license from Itosu.

I don't know about all that licensing stuff back in the days. Soke is also a Japanese title and I doubt that the Okinawans used that either. Funakoshi succeeded the Asato line, he was his main teacher. He never got a license from Asato nor any other teacher. The first teaching title for him was granted by the Butokukai in the 1930s if I remember correctly.

Dale Parker wrote:
Matsumura gave Itosu a scroll, that essentially made him the Soke of his teachings.

That can not be true. Itosu spend a rather short time under the tutelage of Matsumura. Both Motobu and Funakoshi are saying that Asato was the one that inherited the Matsumura line and that Itosu was the successor of Gusukuma of Tomari. That explains the high number of Tomari Te Kata in Itosus repertoire.

As far as I know Matsumura gave two scrolls (machimoto) away one to Hanashiro Chomo and one to Kuwae Ryosei.

Dale Parker wrote:
I do know that Funakoshi, once in Japan, only taught the first 15 or so kata that would make it into the Shotokan play book, and that he sent his senior students to learn more advanced kata from Mabuni, those "advanced" kata, rounded out the Shotokan play book.

That point is also very exaggerated. It is true that he send some of his students to Mabuni to learn from him. But not every other Kata outside that 15 came from Mabuni. Funakoshi not only taught the 15 Kata he choose for his system he definitely taught others also.

Just saying.

Regards Holger

Dale Parker
Dale Parker's picture

Kyohan wrote:
Funakoshi was born in 1868, Mabuni was born in 1889. How in the world could Mabuni be senior to Funakoshi. The respect of age weights more in the japanese/ryukyuan culture than a certain skill level. Lets asume that both Funakoshi and Mabuni started training at an age of 12 years and that both trained fairly regular under Itosu until his passing in 1915. That would mean Funakoshi spend 35 years training under Itosu and Mabuni spend only 14 years training under Itosu. Both had other teachers too.

I see absolutely no politics in that.

It is a fact that Funakoshi was Junior to Mabuni in the Itosu dojo.

Soke Kenzo Mabuni told me this directly, and he knew both men.  I trust him to be honest on this.

While you obviously have a great deal of knowledge on the subject, you will never get around the fact that I support that, maybe I am too set in my ways.  

Please review Tsunami Production's "Shito-Ryu Karate-The Island Of Budo."

It also claims that.

http://www.worldbudokan.com/Articles/ShitoRyu.htm

The link above also supports all I wrote except for the Matsumura part.

In the following article it states Funakoshi learned Pinan kata from Mabuni.  If this is true, and we have no reason to believe it is not true, that would make Mabuni Funakoshi's Senpai.

http://www.karatebyjesse.com/legends-of-karate-mabuni-kenwa-and-his-shito-ryu-pt-4/

It also shows a picture with Mabuni seated, while Funakoshi is older, in these traditional photos, the senior instructor is always seated.  If this is not the case please let me know, as I've been told this is a tradition that goes very far back into chinese origins.

I will retract my statement on Matsumura as I currently cannot find the supporting document I had for that assertion.

Another good read on Funakoshi is here: http://www.24fightingchickens.com/2006/01/29/funakoshi-man-vs-myth/

I'm not really interested in arguing who taught who, I was merely passing on information I've been given.  

There is also a lot of information to support what I wrote on the internet and in books, apparently not books on Shotokan.  In my opinion, books on Shotokan support Shotokan.

I feel its also very clear that Mabuni had a great deal of influence on Funakoshi, and his senior students.

DaveB
DaveB's picture

I have to say, everything I have read matches Holger's interpretation of history. Furthermore every other source I've encountered suggests that it was not a need for advanced kata (assuming that phrase has any real meaning, kanku dai is usually sighted as the most advanced and Chinto must be up there too), but simply that without an interest in deep study and being instead distracted by sparring, the young students of the Shotokan were happy to collect pattern after pattern against Funakoshi's counsel. 

The overall feeling I get of this period was of Funakoshi promoting Itosu's New program of popular karate, a program different to what he had grown up with under Azato, that fit into a young post samurai era Japan and that became even less martially focused after the war. Where Mabuni grew up in this new way of karate it stands to reason that he would be a better reference for the New range of kata. 

That being said, I was not there so every alternative is worth consideration. However being reminded that GF was not a Master of Itosu's teaching is a bit pointless if it doesn't explain what he didn't learn in 40 + years of training with his two main masters as well as others.

That Mabuni taught most of the kata beyond the original 15 is not new information. All that the linked article makes clear is that the two men were friends who respected one another.

Dale Parker
Dale Parker's picture

DaveB wrote:

What I found particularly interesting about Mabuni's applications is that rather than emulating jujitsu, the gist seems to be creating openings to strike the opponent, more in line with the Chinese quan fa that is the arts origin. 

I very much agree with this.  It is why I often disagree with the interpretations of bunkai on this site.  Just my opinions though.

ky0han
ky0han's picture

Hi Dale,

Dale Parker wrote:
I see absolutely no politics in that. Soke Kenzo Mabuni told me this directly, and he knew both men.  I trust him to be honest on this.

He has his reasons to claim what he does. (Politics, Shito Ryu had a crucial influence on Shotokan so you be better off training in Shito Ryu)

Dale Parker wrote:
While you obviously have a great deal of knowledge on the subject, you will never get around the fact that I support that, maybe I am too set in my ways.

Simply because something is written over and over again doesn't make it true. That shows that everybody is just copying (stealing?) from everbody without refering to the source. I don't want to convince you. I just don't want your statements to be uncommented. Everyone shoud be able to make up their own minds.

Dale Parker wrote:
In the following article it states Funakoshi learned Pinan kata from Mabuni. If this is true, and we have no reason to believe it is not true, that would make Mabuni Funakoshi's Senpai.

It is not entirely clear were Funakohis learned the Pinans. My bet is directly from Itosu because it is said that he taught them in school in 1916. The other theory is that he learned the Pinan from Mabuni as late as in 1917/1918 in that Karate Research Club both men were members at. Mabuni was never the Sempai of Funakoshi. That is impossible due to the fact that Funakoshi startet Karate more than 20 years prior to Mabuni which makes him the Sempai.

Dale Parker wrote:
It also shows a picture with Mabuni seated, while Funakoshi is older, in these traditional photos, the senior instructor is always seated.  If this is not the case please let me know, as I've been told this is a tradition that goes very far back into chinese origins.

I knew that this picture would come up so I consulted Henning Wittwer for background information. According to his information this photo was taken at an occasion were Mabuni was invited to visit the Keio University Karate Club. So he was the guest there and the guest always sits on the place of honor. It is the same like in families. The father that usualy sits on that place of honor gives it up for the guest. Funakoshi is the eldest on this picture with the most martial experience.

Dale Parker wrote:
I feel its also very clear that Mabuni had a great deal of influence on Funakoshi, and his senior students.

As I said that influence exists but it is way to exaggerated in my eyes due to that political reasons.

I will post a list of Kata that were taught at the above mentioned Keio Club later that day. I am not at home so I can't get a grip on my books.

I hope that relativizes some of your statements to give a more objective prospective on that subject.

Regards Holger

Dale Parker
Dale Parker's picture

It sure does.  

I will remain stalwart on my position that Mabuni was Funakoshi's Senpai, as Soke Kenzo Mabuni told me this.  His actual comments were, "When uncle Funakoshi would visit, he used Senpai to address my father."

Maybe he was just being polite, but it is no secret that Mabuni was often referred to as Itosu's senior student, and that he conducted most of the teaching when Itosu could not due to his age.

Age is a contributing factor to the Senpai/Kohai relationship, but not always.

As for your comments, I agree, to the fact that we need to keep an open view.  From my point of view, Shotokan is the most widely spread style of Karate, as such, it is often considered doctrine, and infallible.  I believe that it is fallible, and in many cases, other styles, and their teachers influences and teachings have been over looked.  Particularly with Mabuni, Motobu, and Kyan.  You state that just because something is written over and over, does not make it true.  I completely agree to this, and use it as my point, Shotokan information is written over and over, and people default to it.  That does not mean it is correct.

While I'm on the subject of Shotokan being the defacto style.  One thing that Iain does, and many others here, that I do not like, is when demonstrating bunkai, they often say something like "The standard Shotokan/Shito Ryu bunkai is this", when infact it is not the Shito-Ryu bunkai, since I spent personal time with Soke Kenzo Mabuni at various times in my adult life learning bukai from him, and other Shito Ryu masters, and Hanshi Miki, it bothers me, but that is my own personal opinion.  Just an after thought.

D

ky0han
ky0han's picture

Hi Dale,

Dale Parker wrote:
His actual comments were, "When uncle Funakoshi would visit, he used Senpai to address my father."

Thats very interesting.

Dale Parker wrote:
Maybe he was just being polite, but it is no secret that Mabuni was often referred to as Itosu's senior student, and that he conducted most of the teaching when Itosu could not due to his age.

He surely was one of Itosus senior students and I have no doubt about that and the fact that he conducted the teaching representing Itosu during his absence. But there are other even more senior students too that trained longer with Itosu. Hanashiro and Yabu for example helped Itosu developing the concepts for teaching large classes of students.

Dale Parker wrote:
As for your comments, I agree, to the fact that we need to keep an open view.  From my point of view, Shotokan is the most widely spread style of Karate, as such, it is often considered doctrine, and infallible.  I believe that it is fallible, and in many cases, other styles, and their teachers influences and teachings have been over looked.  Particularly with Mabuni, Motobu, and Kyan.  You state that just because something is written over and over, does not make it true.  I completely agree to this, and use it as my point, Shotokan information is written over and over, and people default to it.  That does not mean it is correct.

Sad but true. It is really hard to come by very good literature on Karate and its history. That is not specific to Shotokan but a general problem. Funakoshi had many teachers and he was a member in a Karate Research Society were he compared and exchanged knowledge with other likeminded men and that all helped him to develop his own take on things. Mabuni certainly had his role in that and he was at good terms with Funakoshi but he never was "The Founder of Shotokan" as the article you posted suggests.

Dale Parker wrote:
While I'm on the subject of Shotokan being the defacto style.  One thing that Iain does, and many others here, that I do not like, is when demonstrating bunkai, they often say something like "The standard Shotokan/Shito Ryu bunkai is this", when infact it is not the Shito-Ryu bunkai, since I spent personal time with Soke Kenzo Mabuni at various times in my adult life learning bukai from him, and other Shito Ryu masters, and Hanshi Miki, it bothers me, but that is my own personal opinion.

I never heard Iain saying that this or that is the standard bunkai. I always hear him saying that this or that is often taught but that it makes no sense in a certain context. The next thing to bear in mind is that there is no "the Shotokan Ryu" or "the Shito Ryu". You always have to ask for who is the teacher. As for Shotokan you simply can not throw an Asai Tetsuhiko, a Kase Taiji and a Harada Mitsusuke into one cup. I think the same holds true for the different teachers of Shito Ryu and other Ryuha.

Regards Holger

Mark B
Mark B's picture

Hi all

Regarding the statement that suggests Iain is one who says the standard Shotokan Bunkai is this etc. As one who has studied Iains work for a good few years now I can say I've never heard that said.  In fact Iain is one who does not study his Kata looking for historical application.  He says as much on Bunkai Jutsu volume 5 - Chinto. 

What Iain does is present his Bunkai from his core ''style'' which is Wado.  He then shows style variations where differences occur with other styles kata performance to show the variation on a theme. 

My own application for the opening sequence of Passai is virtually identical to the Bubishis ''General holds a seal/stamp''. I came up with the application before I noticed it in the Bubishi. Does that make it an Historical application?

Dale Parker
Dale Parker's picture

Hmm, I'm starting think this is the forum of politically correct contemporary discussions of non-biased Shotokan applications.

Fine, I'll retract my comment on Iain saying Shotokan/Shito-Ryu ...

But would it hurt you Iain to slam Kyokushin Kai and Ryuei Ryu once in awhile?

Mark B
Mark B's picture

Hi Dale,

Why retract. You're entitled to your view. I'm merely pointing out my observations of someone I've known a while. 

I welcome a different point of view and you're right in saying things are often a bit PC.

Why would you want Iain or anyone else to get stuck into a particular style of Karate.  What would be the point.? It achieves nothing and the style in question is hardly going to be mortally wounded.

I've never done any Shotokan, by the way. 

ky0han
ky0han's picture

Hi gents,

as promised the list of Kata demonstrated by members of the Keio University Karate Club in 1934. The reason for this was the 10 year anniversary of the club that was founded in 1924 (first University Karate Club ever). So here it goes:

Naifanchi Shodan, Nidan, Sandan, Jitte, Jion, Jiin, Chinto, Seishan, Gojushiho Jo and Ge (Dai and Sho), Passai Dai and Sho, Wankan, Kushanku Dai and Sho, Wanshu, Nijushiho, Sanchin, Rohai, Ippyakureihachi (Suparinpei), Sochin, Chinte, Tensho, Unshu, Sushi no Kon, Sakugawa no Kon and Kanyo no Sai. The five Pinan-Gata were also part of another demonstration held on this occasion. (My sources are both books authored and published by Henning Wittwer)

As you can notice Funakoshi also taught weapons on form of Bo-Gata and Sai-Gata and certain Kumite forms.

I just read that Nakayama Masatoshi founding member of the JKA told in an interview which is printed in Karate Masters Vol 1 was visiting Mabuni together with Funakoshi to learn Nijushiho and Gojushiho. Nakayama started training at the Takushoku University in 1932 and left for China in 1937 so that must have happened in between those 5 years or after his return to Japan in 1946. The demonstration of the members of the Keio University Club was held in 1934 so maybe it was shortly before that demo or Funakoshi did this with members of the Keio Club too on a few occasions. But again I guess most of the Kata he knew he directly learned from his teachers Asato and Itosu and some he might have picked up during the days of the Karate Research Society and later on in exchange with Mabuni.

Regards Holger

JWT
JWT's picture

I think it is easy to get too wrapped up in politics and positions.

I called an instructor with over a decade less experience than me Sensei the other day.  Why?  I was calling out to him in front of a whole class in a lesson he was leading at his club where I was helping.   To me to use any other title would be disrespectful.   

If I go to a big 'closed' Shotokan association event I line up with the junior Dan grades because the last Shotokan Dan grade I was awarded a long long time ago was a Nidan.  If I go to an 'all style' event hosted by the same association I will line up in the most senior position as the head of my own system.

I thought it was pretty clear from surviving sources that Funakoshi was more Azato's student than Itosu's even though he cross trained with both, just as Azato was more Matsumura's student than Itosu (who was so far as I recall initially rejected and only returned later to learn some applications).  As such it is perfectly natural, depending on what lineage you are following, to see Funakoshi as senior to Mabuni or visa versa.  Funakoshi was a senior student of a senior student of Matsumura, Mabuni a senior student of a junior student of Matsumura.  It Funakoshi went to learn a different approach as cross training from Mabuni after Itosu's death then I'd expect Funakoshi to call Mabuni sensei or senpai  while in that environment.  Context and etiquette are important.  This isn't a 'who's biggest' competition - we have two different Karateka of overlapping lineages. I don't see seniority as clear cut, to me it is contextual.

Funakoshi learning new Kata from Mabuni or anyone else does not elevate one above the other in my eyes.  Funakoshi had more than enough high quality material for several effective fighting systems in his Kata repertoire.  What he didn't have was enough variety to occupy and entertain young people who were not learning or being taught karate in any real depth due to its (in the Shotokan) changed focus.

DaveB
DaveB's picture

Does anyone have any thoughts on applications/philosophies presented in the above articles?

How do they stack up to a modern pragmatists view? Do differences between these and modern concepts invalidate the New, considering this is coming straight from the horses mouth, so to speak?

JWT
JWT's picture

DaveB wrote:

Does anyone have any thoughts on applications/philosophies presented in the above articles?

How do they stack up to a modern pragmatists view? Do differences between these and modern concepts invalidate the New, considering this is coming straight from the horses mouth, so to speak?

Hi Dave

How do they stack up?  I'll be brutally honest and say that a lot of the 'old' applications I see demonstrated in photographs or drawings belong in the dojo, they don't cut it in real life. 

This doesn't particularly surprise me since despite heresay and myths with very few exceptions I doubt any of the most experienced Okinawan martial arts masters of the nineteenth and early twentieth century had any more real self defence experience than your average karateka today, furthermore they had probably seen fewer real incidents requiring physical self defence than any average karateka today (who at least sees such stuff on the news or on youtube cctv footage), nor did they have the ability to pressure test their repertoires.   Of those that did fight in self defence we don't know whether it was their karate technique  that got them out of the situation or simply flinching and hitting hard because they were  strong; brawling naturally like professional boxers in anger at a weigh in, or like the highly trained martial artists experiencing HAOV and verbal abuse at close quarters at one of my Sim Days for the first time.   If we take Iain as an example: he's a well trained experienced martial artist, but even if he forgot all his skills in the pressure of the moment you'd probably place strong bets on a strong lad like him coming out on top with shielding his head naturally and hitting hard - why should Motobu or Itosu be any different?

As such it doesn't matter to me whether the bunkai or concept came from the horses mouth or not, it's whether it is applicable in the context for which I wish to train that  is my primary concern.  If I put together an application for a single technique from a kata that is different to a known and stated application from the founder of a style, or even the creator of a kata, that does not invalidate my application.  Effectiveness is what validates or invalidates an application or concept, besides which the technique came before the form (ie the person took it  from another form, we'd have to go back a long time to find a new movement invented from experience) so my applicaton is simply likely to be an older (and possibly more genuine) interpretation.

john titchen

DaveB
DaveB's picture

All of which begs the question, why kata?

Why use a template of dubious martial value to create drills for self defence? Why not simply begin with the HAOV and devise effective practical drills based solely on a modern understanding of violence and effective use of the body? Or better still just train Kappap or some other modern combative system?

I'm sure this has been asked and answered and I don't mean to be a pedant, but disregarding the historical perspective is a view that I don't really understand. Feel free to link to a previous answer.   

Is this view the consesnsus among members?

JWT
JWT's picture

DaveB wrote:

All of which begs the question, why kata?

Why use a template of dubious martial value to create drills for self defence? Why not simply begin with the HAOV and devise effective practical drills based solely on a modern understanding of violence and effective use of the body? Or better still just train Kappap or some other modern combative system?

I'm sure this has been asked and answered and I don't mean to be a pedant, but disregarding the historical perspective is a view that I don't really understand. Feel free to link to a previous answer.   

Is this view the consesnsus among members?

Hi Dave

I'm not sure what you mean by 'disregarding the historical perspective'.  Just because a past Karateka said and believed one thing does not mean that those who have followed on should be constrained to saying or believing the same thing.  We are all humans, we are all fallible, we are all capable of learning and growing from our training and experiences.  I have a great respect for the Karate instructors of the past, but that should not mean that I should ignore what current karate instructors can and have learned in an environment where there are more minds and bodies studying martial arts of every flavour, with access to far more information and training knowledge than those who went before us ever had.  I think a lot of this comes down to whether you think Karate should be 'fixed' or whether you accept that Karate has changed from generation to generation in most lineages and that to continue that process is no less traditional than staying fixed in a method of training one instructor switched to at the end of their karate journey. I expressed my views on tradition a long time ago and Iain was kind enough to make them the lead article in the first edition of Jissen:

http://www.d-a-r-t.org.uk/karate/JissenTradition.html

I started with the Kata, because that's where I came from.  

I then took HAOV and tested kata movements against them, and against redundancies for failures to come up with bunkai drills.  While I still continued to research kata as a personal area of interest, and to help relate what I did to other karateka, I had a sufficient solid system of drills for my students to limit the number of Kata I was teaching them and to drill Kata bunkai and kihon padwork alonside the Kata.  Over time a fair number of drills were ditched or modified because either better pressure testing methods showed other methods, or because of multiple different approaches to the same problem did not make combative sense, or because some things did not fit holistically with others.

When I decided to reorder my syllabus to prioritise the most common HAOV first, it made a nonsense of the Kata order as I had it, so I stopped teaching the solo Kata to my own students (while still teaching Kata and bunkai to other groups to relate what I had learned to their pedagogy).

In recent months I have begun teaching my own Kata as a regular light warmup and warm down exercise.  These are simply some of our drills strung together in an order and priority similar to the syllabus but with a few extra tips and principles tucked inside.  I've done this because in training we can dot around the syllabus, depending on who is present, so a simple exercise like this helps ensure that if the student wants to drill at home they are less likely to miss things I consider to be important.  It's not completely necessary because the student can just open the syllabus, but it does allow me to observe a student's biomechanics away from the pads and partners.

john titchen

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Hi Dave,

DaveB wrote:
All of which begs the question, why kata?

Kata is not a mandatory requirement, but I personally see huge value in it. Here is a link to a recent post I wrote on the value of kata and why it is a key part of my martial practise:

http://iainabernethy.co.uk/content/kata-combat#comment-6252

DaveB wrote:
Why use a template of dubious martial value to create drills for self defence? Why not simply begin with the HAOV and devise effective practical drills based solely on a modern understanding of violence and effective use of the body? Or better still just train Kappap or some other modern combative system?

I think we need to note that there are generally two ways in which kata / bunkai is approached; and I think your concerns – which are totally legitimate – relate to the first approach:

Approach 1 – The student does not get taught applications; they are told to study the kata for themselves in order to unlock the information within.

In this approach, it is entirely possible that the template is “dubious” … but it could also be totally useless, or mind-blowing useful depending upon the ability of the student to understand kata. I would, however, say that if the student is able to analyse kata that effectively, with no solid instruction from the instructor, then it’s really the student who should be teaching the class!

Approach 2 – The student is taught functional applications by the instructor as a fundamental part of what they do. They are also given instruction in the underlying principles. The student does not need to “work out” what the applications are, because the instructor will tell them unequivocally. The applications taught are effective and logical and hence the applications (and the kata used to record / support them) are of great value.

In Approach 2 the student will be taught drills which deal with the reality of violence and are in accord with effective body motion. Everything taught will be effective; and hence it will be in line with any other effective system. They are not being told, “work it out for yourself because I don’t know”.

My students don’t need to “decode” kata: they know unequivocally and without any doubt what the applications of those forms are. They know others may have other takes on these forms; but they know with 100% certainty what those forms mean to us. They also learn how to view kata in the right context, and therefore they eventually become able to reanalyse kata for themselves (a process built into our grading system). However, the crucial difference is that when students who have been through “Approach 2” are analyzing kata they are doing so from an educated position and are not searching in the dark as an “Approach 1” student would be.

In my own study of kata and self-protection  – with the guidance of good teachers – I quickly came to the conclusion that kata provided a very effective solution to civilian violence. Had I not came to that conclusion, I would have dumped kata in a heartbeat (as I have done with many other things I have learnt along the way). The more I learnt, the more I liked them and saw value in them. To me, kata presented a logical, functional and highly pragmatic way of structuring training. It would therefore be madness to abandon them. My students also see the value in the way kata is taught to them and therefore also regard the kata, and the drills that they spawned, to be invaluable to us.

The point is I can see why those running with “Approach 1” could see kata as being of dubious value; but for those running with “Approach 2” the kata are a vital part of training.

One other key thing to keep in mind is that we do have enough historical information on the kata to know that they were designed to deal with civilian violence. We therefore know that hundreds of years ago our forbearers created kata to record their solution to the reality of violence. So when you say, “Why not simply begin with the HAOV and devise effective practical drills based solely on a modern understanding of violence and effective use of the body?” it worth remembering that that is exactly what the creators of the kata did hundreds of years ago. It’s through that process that kata came into being. Personally, I’d like to avoid starting from the beginning again. Through kata – when approached in the right way – we can gain access to great information that works well. We can be “dwarfs standing on the shoulders of giants” as opposed to dwarfs aspiring to be giants.

The kata, in my view, are only of dubious value when the understanding of them is also dubious. A competent instructor will ensure that’s not the case. A less competent instructor can’t provide examples or guidance and hence it becomes, “work it out alone” and that is undoubtedly problematic.

All the best,

Iain

Black Tiger
Black Tiger's picture

Awesome

So one of the most popular Styles and The most Iconic KarateKa in Modern Karate has "issues" regards "Qualifications" to teach.

It also backs up why various KarateKa Like Ohtsuka Sensei and Oyama Sosai went and trained with other Masters after training with Funakoshi Sensei for a period of time.

For me It doesn't matter, Without Funakoshi Sensei I would not be enjoying the art(s) I practice and the millions of Karateka around the would would probably be doing Wrestling or Boxing or something. Even Muay Thai and Kick boxing has to thank Karate for its pilgramage across the world

DaveB
DaveB's picture

John, thanks for your patience and your detailed answer, I will look over the article you linked in due course. 

Ultimately it seems you have come to the same conclusion as I, I.e. If the history is not that important then niether is the kata: a perfectly reasonable proposition IMO. 

My own interest lies in the various strategies embodied in kata, thus historical ideas of application serve as a fairly potent guide, however like yourself I have to frame what went before within the context of the world today and whatever lessons were passed on historically cannot be seen as absolute as we do not have their full context.

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Hi Ken,

Black Tiger wrote:
So one of the most popular Styles and The most Iconic KarateKa in Modern Karate has "issues" regards "qualifications" to teach.

Could you clarify what you mean here? I’ve searched the page and can’t see anyone discussing qualifications? Who has “issues” and what are those issues?

In my post (and I’m far from being iconic if it was my post you were referring to: I did however write the post that touches on competence to teach) I was simply saying “work it out for yourself” is not teaching. Why would anyone want to go to an instructor to be told, “I have no idea; you need to work it out for yourself with no help from me”?

As instructors, we should all keep learning so we are better able to serve our students. If instructors want to teach kata application, then they should learn about it and teach it competently – just as they should with everything lease they teach – as opposed to not learning about it and telling the student to get on with it alone. I think that’s pretty straight forward isn’t it?

I’m also not talking about qualifications, but competence. Qualifications are something awarded by an external source (and there can in some cases be political and financial considerations in addition to consideration of ability): Competence is what we acquire for ourselves and our students. Qualifications are relative. Competence is mandatory. Instructors don’t need to be qualified to teach bunkai, but they do need to be competent to teach it. Would you agree with that?

Could you clarify what you are driving at please? Apologies in advance if I’ve picked you up incorrectly.

All the best,

Iain

Mark B
Mark B's picture

Hi all,

I think most agree that practicing application from kata against Oi-zuki from ten feet or Mawashigeri Jodan is flawed as these are not the type of situations you would likely find yourself in if faced by an untrained assailant(s).

So we begin by considering more realistic scenario.

This in itself can be flawed.  I have seen Bunkai presentations on this forum where the stimulus appears to be a realistic one but in fact it is as flawed as any Mawashigeri etc. The reason is often distance, intensity and a lack of understanding of predictable response. Sometimes there is a desire to make a kata sequence fit a given scenario when it was plainly never intended to be applied that way. 

The next point is when people who don't understand violence and Bunkai then create defensive responses that are far too intricate or reliant on a perfect set of circumstances.

Bunkai should be simple, brutal and direct aiming to end a physical conflict as quickly and efficiently as possible. 

So to summarise I think kata practice done right is an extremely effective way of practicing defensive applications and principles.  The danger is when instructors teach Bunkai for ''real'' conflict without realising how manic real violence is, they work or applications that simply wouldn't work, regardless of how realistic the idea might appear working at learning speed. 

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

DaveB wrote:
… I have to frame what went before within the context of the world today and whatever lessons were passed on historically cannot be seen as absolute as we do not have their full context.

I think that is true, but I’ll add a couple of thoughts to clarify how I see that.

Firstly, when it comes to civilian violence, I don’t think today’s world is radically different from the world of a couple of hundred years ago. Sure there are some differences (modern laws, modern weapons, etc), but things are generally the same when it comes to physical violence i.e. we still have the exact same bodies, brains, nervous systems and emotions, such that the vast majority of what is in kata remains entirely relevant to today.

Secondly, as regards what has been passed on historically, I think we need to judge each piece of information in its own correct historical context. As an example, the idea of a person using a kata to defeat 8 opponents, who attack at exactly the right time and in the right way, has been passed onto us from history. We do, however, know that there was no sign of this “tradition” until the last few decades, and when this was starting to become fashionable it was specifically said to be “ridiculous” by those who had experienced karate before that point in history (i.e. Mabuni). Mabuni was clear that the angle in kata represents the angle we take relative to the enemy, as opposed to the angle we are attacked from. Motobu also reflected this when discussing Naihanchi kata.

So with regards to “defending against 8 people” we have something that can be viewed as being both “historically correct” (recently and in relation to “modern karate”) and “historically incorrect” (in relation to older practises). Conversely, the idea that the angle represents the angle we take in relation to the enemy is “historically incorrect” (in relation to “modern karate”) and “historically correct” (in relation to older practises). Each method is “historically correct” for it time in history. When karate was practise primarily as a functioning system it was “angle in relation to the enemy” that was the dominant view. When karate was practise primarily as a methods of physical exercise and character development it was “angle of attack” that was the dominant view. We modern day pragmatists need to stick with the views from the time in history that shared our goals.

To make things simpler still, when we look at the same information from a practical perspective, we can see that “angle of attack” is pragmatically incorrect; whereas angle we shift to is pragmatically correct. The point is pragmatism is more effective yardstick by which to judge value.

Quite a bit of what has been passed on historically is of vial importance when it comes to understanding kata; but we need to separate the wheat from the chaff. We do this by also analysing the information pragmatically (and rejecting what does not hold up), and viewing each piece of information in its own historical context (i.e. take into consideration at what point in karate’s development was it said or practised).

I always say that there are two key mistakes people make about the past masters: Mistake one is thinking that they knew everything and were infallible (a bad habit among traditional martial artists). Mistake two is thinking that they knew nothing and were idiots (a bad habit among modern martial artists). The same can be said of the information passed on from history. Some of it is valuable and some of it is not. We can’t take it as being always correct, or always wanting. As Dave said, there are no absolutes. Each thing needs judged on its own merits. We need to assess it practically and against historical context to decide what it truly tells us. I think that when we do this a pretty coherent picture is passed on to us from the past that has lots of relevance to the here and now.

All the best,

Iain

PS Liking this thread! :-)

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Mark B wrote:
So to summarise I think kata practice done right is an extremely effective way of practicing defensive applications and principles.  The danger is when instructors teach Bunkai for ''real'' conflict without realising how manic real violence is, they work or applications that simply wouldn't work, regardless of how realistic the idea might appear working at learning speed.

Totally agree with that. If people only have experience of “dojo violence” there is a bad habit of extrapolating that all violence must be that way. I think we can see this problem in “modern oizuki from ten feet bunkai”. The generation that fostered that practise were largely a generation that focused on karate vs karate combat. Kata was not meant for that – it was meant for civilian self-protection (Itosu, Motobu, etc) – and we can see the “stretched logic” that results in trying to bash that square peg into that round hole. I think another area where we see this is people mistaking the dynamics and nature of one-on-one combat sports to be a mirror of what is required for self-protection. People don’t appreciate the differences, because they don’t know there is a difference.

If we are to understand kata, we need to grasp the problem that kata is the solution to. Thinking that kata is meant to address any form of “duelling” (or mistaking duelling to be one and the same as civilian violence) is a common problem.

All the best,

Iain

JWT
JWT's picture

DaveB wrote:

John, thanks for your patience and your detailed answer, I will look over the article you linked in due course. 

Ultimately it seems you have come to the same conclusion as I, I.e. If the history is not that important then niether is the kata: a perfectly reasonable proposition IMO. 

HI Dave, I think you've misunderstood me.

I am extremely interested in the history.  In my past life I trained as a historian, completed a PhD in medieval history, taught history at university and at secondary school, and I view the skills I developed then as integral to my approach to karate and self protection now.  I would however differentiate between studying and learning from the history to give insights into practice and to feel a connection with the past, and 'living in the past' or 'repeating history'.  

My regular students do not, as such, perform or learn the solo forms that i learned in my formative years as a Shotokan Karateka.  My more senior grades do learn my slight variation on the Heian forms and Empi (which are a cross essentially between how I learned them, how I apply them, and how the forms are explained and demonstrated in the older edition of Karate Do Kyohan) alongside the Pinan Flow System (PFS) which is a more gritty close quarter pressure tested progression from the Heian Flow System (HFS) of 2004.  This is done because I think it is important for them to know their 'roots'.  Why those Kata?  Because those are the kata I chose to particularly focus upon and study in depth.  I am aware that some people might splutter over my choice as to what to include and what to omit, but the more I look at different Kata the more I see overlaps with (to me) too much made of variations and exaggerations of what are essentially the same movements and principles.

Does this  mean the Kata is not important?  No.  The vast majority of the material we practise has evolved from our study of the Kata and the results as we have systematically assessed it under pressure.  The end result of this is that our current drills, both in content and order, differ enough from the ancestor kata that (for us) practicing those kata would be nonsensical.  To me this is where different (but clearly related) kata have come from in the past, and so I see nothing 'revolutionary' or disrespectful or non traditional in our approach.

Hope that helps!

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

JWT wrote:
I would however differentiate between studying and learning from the history to give insights into practice and to feel a connection with the past, and 'living in the past' or 'repeating history'.

Well put! I think that's a great summation of how a pragmatist should view kata; as distinct from how a pure historian would.

JWT wrote:
The end result of this is that our current drills, both in content and order, differ enough from the ancestor kata that (for us) practicing those kata would be nonsensical. To me this is where different (but clearly related) kata have come from in the past, and so I see nothing 'revolutionary' or disrespectful or non traditional in our approach.

Totally agree. You've essentially done what Itosu and others did when creating their kata. The past masters are likely to see what you have done as being entirely traditional. It's only the "modern traditionalists" that may take umbrage.

All the best,

Iain

JWT
JWT's picture

Iain Abernethy wrote:

Well put! I think that's a great summation of how a pragmatist should view kata; as distinct from how a pure historian would.

Thanks.

Iain Abernethy wrote:

Totally agree. You've essentially done what Itosu and others did when creating their kata. The past masters are likely to see what you have done as being entirely traditional. It's only the "modern traditionalists" that may take umbrage.

Indeed.  I would stress that my doing this does not mean (in my eyes) that the original starting point Kata are useless or worse than my current method.  That attitude viewed logically would mean that any person in any style would view every other style as inferior.  What we have is different methods, a divergence brought about as a result of different approaches.

Iain Abernethy wrote:

Approach 1 – The student does not get taught applications; they are told to study the kata for themselves in order to unlock the information within.

In this approach, it is entirely possible that the template is “dubious” … but it could also be totally useless, or mind-blowing useful depending upon the ability of the student to understand kata. I would, however, say that if the student is able to analyse kata that effectively, with no solid instruction from the instructor, then it’s really the student who should be teaching the class!

Approach 2 – The student is taught functional applications by the instructor as a fundamental part of what they do. They are also given instruction in the underlying principles. The student does not need to “work out” what the applications are, because the instructor will tell them unequivocally. The applications taught are effective and logical and hence the applications (and the kata used to record / support them) are of great value.

I was essentially taught in my early years in Approach 1.  It is a very common approach, particularly amongst associations that are focused predominantly on self development through sport, hard exercise and perseverence rather than self defence.  I am certain it is the way my main karate instructors  were taught too.  As a result of my desire to seek answers I took up cross training and research early on, and inspired by Funakoshi's descriptions of Azato's Karate, engaged in just under a decade of solid cross training in Aikido after gaining my Shodan (stopping only when I moved away from that particular dojo).  This and other areas of interest and research led me to where I am now.  By the time I came across karate instructors who were teaching according to approach 2 I was already doing it myself.

I personally teach according to Approach 2, because I feel that doing otherwise would be a waste of what I have learned, and that by providing a 'leg up' to my students they have a starting point from which they can achieve greater things than me.

john

DaveB
DaveB's picture

Gentlemen, thanks for your responses. 

Iain, I completely understand where you are coming from and I must point out that my comments about kata being of dubious martial value were based on my understanding of John's points where he suggests the past masters of Okinawa were as limited in experience as the average modern karateka. 

In fact that whole line of questioning was only really applicable to John and those who have a similar view: that historical application should offer no constraints on how we choose to apply kata. 

I can't say I disagree. As was pointed out, adapting forms and training to one's own understanding of what is effective self defence is not only the true traditional way, it is a teachers responsibility born out of the trust given to him/her by the students (providing the teacher is offering self defence and not just light exercise and social benefits).

In essence though my question to all was what do you do when you find the masters old in direct contradiction of your modern ideas of kata or individual applications?

I refer back to Motobu's illustrations of kata that depict the creation of striking opportunities. For some these kinds of simple strike based techniques are a different paradigm to their own view of application; there's not a takedown or choke in sight in the drawings. If these are not your idea of good application then are we simply making up a new art, or was Motobu wrong? 

At least that's what I was trying to get at.  

If I understand you (John and Iain) correctly, you simply exercise your right as pragmatists to disagree where you can see better options.

Pages