33 posts / 0 new
Last post
brentp
brentp's picture
Kaisai No Genri

Good morning,

I have a question on Kasai no Genri.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaisai_no_genri

Per the above link on wikipedia, it says that it was used by Goju-ryu masters, with no mention of use by any other styles (aside from the portion about the meaning of angles from Kenwa Mabuni).

Can anyone elaborate on why this references only Goju-ryu? It seems odd that this would not apply to other karate styles; it seems to me that it’s not just Goju-ryu karate-ka training realistic bunkai but that other styles make use of these principles too.

The only reason I can think of is that maybe the wikipedia contribution was written by a Goju-ryu practitioner – though I would have thought others would have corrected it by now if that was the case.

Any feed-back, and other sources of reference on this topic would be appreciated.

Thanks,

Brent

Wastelander
Wastelander's picture

Kaisai no Genri was first named and published, as far as I'm aware, by Toguchi Seikichi Sensei, who was a master of Goju-Ryu. For this reason, it is attributed to Goju-Ryu. The guidelines, themselves, are present in other material arts, although they may not necessarily be named "kaisai no genri," and there may be more or less guidelines, depending on the system. The general concept--that there are guidelines to follow for the application of kata--is certainly not proprietary to Goju-Ryu.

Dash3
Dash3's picture

Those sound somewhat familiar - can anyone on this forum tell me where I might have heard similar rules for interpretation of kata before?

Ok, now what about the seventh advanced rule - (paraphrased) when the kata touches your body, you would be touching your opponent. Do you apply this rule? If so, can you provide an example?

Regards.

Dale

Wastelander
Wastelander's picture

Dash3 wrote:

Those sound somewhat familiar - can anyone on this forum tell me where I might have heard similar rules for interpretation of kata before?

Ok, now what about the seventh advanced rule - (paraphrased) when the kata touches your body, you would be touching your opponent. Do you apply this rule? If so, can you provide an example?

Regards.

Dale

I believe that Iain has referenced these rules, before, in articles and podcasts. Additionally, they come up periodically in articles from others, including myself. As for that rule, yes, we do apply that in our dojo--not always, but it is certainly a consideration. A simple example would be the nami-gaeshi "sweeps" in Naihanchi, which are generally done in such a way that your foot touches just above your knee, telling you where to kick your opponent. Other considerations would be situations where one hand touches the other, potentially indicating a wrist or finger lock.

Marc
Marc's picture

Does somebody have a link to a japanese original version of the rules online?  

Dash3
Dash3's picture

Wastelander wrote:

I believe that Iain has referenced these rules, before, in articles and podcasts. Additionally, they come up periodically in articles from others, including myself. 

Don't forget books, Noah. Sorry it wasn't clear that I was taking the p##s as these rules or versions very much like them come up ALL THE TIME on this forum...

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Dash3 wrote:
Those sound somewhat familiar - can anyone on this forum tell me where I might have heard similar rules for interpretation of kata before?

Wastelander wrote:
I believe that Iain has referenced these rules, before, in articles and podcasts.

I’ve not referenced that specific set (I’m not that familiar with them) but I have a similar set of guidelines constructed from the sayings of the past masters and my own approach.

I think Kris Wilder and Lawrence Kane make use of similar rules in “The Way of Kata” too. Great book, but it’s a while since I read it and I can’t lay my hands on it at the moment to double check. This office is even more upside down than normal due to getting a nursery ready for the arrival of my daughter.

Having read that set, I find myself in full agreement with “Hosoku joko - Advanced rules”, with the possible exception of number 7.

7 - Touching your own body in kata indicates that you are touching part of your opponent. In the absence of a partner to practice with, where the kata touches your own body, you would be touching or holding part of the opponent's body.

Dash3 wrote:
Ok, now what about the seventh advanced rule - (paraphrased) when the kata touches your body, you would be touching your opponent. Do you apply this rule? If so, can you provide an example?

It’s badly worded. If they mean “when one of your arms is close to your body in the kata, then you are controlling some part of the enemy’s body” then I’d agree with that. As an example, the hiki-te on the side of my body will be pulling on part of the enemy. And if my arm was across my chest it could be pushing the enemy’s arm out of the way (”a crane folding its wings” in the bubishi). So no problem with that.

However, if what they mean is “when you are touching a specific part of your body in kata then you are attacking the exact same part of your enemy’s body in application” then I disagree. That would effectively mean kata is an exercise in kicking the s##t out of yourself while none on the motions would be applied “as is” i.e. “in the kata we hit ourselves in the crotch, but in reality you’d be hitting your enemy there.” It’s too pythonesque to be taken seriously.

So it depends on what they mean, and it’s not clear from how it is written.

Wastelander wrote:
A simple example would be the nami-gaeshi "sweeps" in Naihanchi, which are generally done in such a way that your foot touches just above your knee, telling you where to kick your opponent.

I think that’s more of a stylistic shift. If we look at Motobu do the kata, we can see the foot comes in front; so that kata motion would be applied as shown. Other versions tap the knee, but I would suggest this is for aesthetics as opposed to a deliberate way to communicate a target. After all, the target remains clear in Motobu’s non-touching version. We don’t side kick or front kick or own knees in any other kata either. So perhaps it is better to say “In Naihanchi we tap in the inside of the knee with our kick (for aesthetics), but in application we are kicking the enemy’s knee” as opposed to saying “in the kata we are tapping the inside of our knee which is TELLING us to kick the enemy there”. The second way is implying a “rule” that I don’t think exists.

Wastelander wrote:
Other considerations would be situations where one hand touches the other, potentially indicating a wrist or finger lock.

That I can get on-board with because such locks often require the hands to touch in kata (even though the enemy’s hand may be between our own hands in application). The centre lock in Shotokan’s Bassai-Dai before the side kick jumps to mind. However, I don’t think that’s an example of “Rule 7” in effect (or at least not the second interpretation of it) because that’s simply how such locks would look when performed solo.

If they do mean “hands close to you are normally controlling some part of the enemy” then I think we see that everywhere in kata. It’s mechanically advantageous to have your hands close to you when controlling the enemy. Arms close = stronger / Arms extended = weaker. So that’s simple enough.

If they mean “touching a specific place on your own body means you are attacking the same specific place on your enemy” then I don’t buy that practically or historically. I’d struggle to come up with any examples of that; and that’s probably because there are no examples of that.

To discuss some of the other rules …

Of the three basic rules of “Shuyo san gensoko”, I don’t agree with the first two at all.

The first rule is in direct contradiction with what Mabuni said about angles, and it even contradicts Rule 6 of “Hosoku joko - Advanced rules”. After all the embusen is made up of the angles; so it’s contradictory to say angles matter, but the embusen does not.

It would be better expressed as “understand what the embusen truly represents”. It’s probably the “clarification” on the linked Wikipedia page that is the issue i.e. “The shape of the embusen has no bearing on the meaning of the techniques in the kata.” If memory serves, when Kris Wilder and Lawrence Kane explore this rule in their Way of Kata book, they don’t go that way. They are clear you should not be “deceived by the embusen” into thinking that the enemy is attaching from the side (totally agree with that); but the example they give (as I recall) has the karateka shifting to the side so the angle is still used and definitely does have a bearing on the meaning.

The second rule is also questionable. We can defend going forward (crashing, pressing, jamming, etc), indeed, to do so is often better than defending going backward. We can also attack while retreating too as we yield to a direct strong force. We also have loads of attacks where the enemy is pulled down or forward; and that requires a backward shift. I can think of dozens of combative methods / bunkai examples that run in direct opposition to that “rule”. So I’d dismiss that one.

Number 3 is, to my mind, incomplete and potentially misleading:

3 - “There is only one opponent and he is in front of you. Turning to face a new direction while performing the kata does not mean you are turning to face a new opponent.”

The enemy should be in front of you … but you should not be in front of him (#1). The angle represents the position you have taken relative to him ( #2). Points #1 and #2 are vital and are missing from the way the third rule is expressed. This “taking an angle” / tactical positioning is a vital part of understanding the combative function of kata.

While it’s true that there are no simultaneous blocking of strikes from two or more different enemies in kata, and it is also true that you are not turning to face a new enemy when changing angle, the way the rule is expressed only gives half the picture.

So I’m not impressed with “Shuyo san gensoko” - as they are expalined on the linked Wikipedia page - at all. “Hosoku joko” is much better. I agree with it all; with the exception of the ambiguously written number 7.

One think to keep in mind with any set of such “rules” is that the kata were not designed by committee. They were made by different people, in different locations, at different points in history. They did not all get together and agree as universal set of rules for constructing kata prior to doing so.

There will be lots of commonality / synergy in approach due to the commonality of conflict and the inherent nature of creating a solo form; but there will also be minor divergences in approach.

When I wrote my books “Karate’s grappling methods” (16 years ago) and “Bunaki Jutsu” (14 years ago) I wrote about “The Rules of Bunkai”. I would not do that now because I realise it confuses people and makes them expect a hard and fast universal approach across all kata and all systems (it’s a “rule” after all and rules need to be followed). If I were to rewrite the books now, I would substitute the word “rules” with “guidelines”. I feel that it more accurate and less confusing for people.

I would suggest we need to be approach all sets of “rules” relating to bunkai as guidelines and not as laws that held true for all kata irrespective of creator, time period and geographic location. Guidelines are massively useful because there is a lot of inherent commonality in that way all kata are constructed. However, expecting there to be “rules / laws” that definitively govern all kata is problematic.

All the best,

Iain

Gavin J Poffley
Gavin J Poffley's picture

Interesting that you mention the need for "guidelines" as opposed to "rules" here, as the meaning of the terms 原理  "genri" and 原則 "gensoku" are actually closer to the English "principle/s" rather than "rule/s". The difference being that "genri" refers to a broader "theoretical" hypothesis or principle, where "gensoku" is more of an applied point of principle. If the person who coined this term wanted to present them as a set of hard and fast rules then he would probably have used another word such as 規則 "kisoku" (rule or regulation) or 鉄則 "tessoku" (Literally and "iron clad rule").

So I agree that the content is somewhat mixed (might be translation errors of course, alas I cannot track down an original copy to check) but the language used seems to couch it more as something to work with and explore rather than preaching a rigid gospel.

Dash3
Dash3's picture

Iain Abernethy wrote:

The first rule is in direct contradiction with what Mabuni said about angles, and it even contradicts Rule 6 of “Hosoku joko - Advanced rules”. After all the embusen is made up of the angles; so it’s contradictory to say angles matter, but the embusen does not.

It would be better expressed as “understand what the embusen truly represents”. It’s probably the “clarification” on the linked Wikipedia page that is the issue i.e. “The shape of the embusen has no bearing on the meaning of the techniques in the kata.” If memory serves, when Kris Wilder and Lawrence Kane explore this rule in their Way of Kata book, they don’t go that way. They are clear you should not be “deceived by the embusen” into thinking that the enemy is attaching from the side (totally agree with that); but the example they give (as I recall) has the karateka shifting to the side so the angle is still used and definitely does have a bearing on the meaning.

On first read, I also thought there was a contradiction, but now I wonder if it's not just another poorly worded explanation and that what was meant was that the total embusen isn't meant to look like a kanji or other symbol or have any significance other than being the sum of the individual movements made and angles taken.

Agree with you on the other two. As for seven, I've heard that from multiple sources which is why I asked. It seems that if that were the rule, it is inconsistently applied.

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Gavin J Poffley wrote:
Interesting that you mention the need for "guidelines" as opposed to "rules" here, as the meaning of the terms 原理  "genri" and 原則 "gensoku" are actually closer to the English "principle/s" rather than "rule/s". The difference being that "genri" refers to a broader "theoretical" hypothesis or principle, where "gensoku" is more of an applied point of principle. If the person who coined this term wanted to present them as a set of hard and fast rules then he would probably have used another word such as 規則 "kisoku" (rule or regulation) or 鉄則 "tessoku" (Literally and "iron clad rule").

So I agree that the content is somewhat mixed (might be translation errors of course, alas I cannot track down an original copy to check) but the language used seems to couch it more as something to work with and explore rather than preaching a rigid gospel.

Brilliant! That’s really useful to know. There’s a reason that “lost in translation” is phrase :-)

All the best,

Iain

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Dash3 wrote:
On first read, I also thought there was a contradiction, but now I wonder if it's not just another poorly worded explanation and that what was meant was that the total embusen isn't meant to look like a kanji or other symbol or have any significance other than being the sum of the individual movements made and angles taken.

It’s probably just the way the writer of that page has interpreted it. It is the phrase “the shape of the embusen has no bearing on the meaning of the techniques in the kata” that messes it up. If that’s not part of the original, but is instead a personal “clarification” written by the person who wrote the Wikipedia page, then there is no intrinsic contradiction. As I say, if you read it the way Kris and Lawrence do – don’t be deceived into thinking of the embusen as being the line that the enemy is attacking from – then the contradiction disappears.

All the best,

Iain

Dash3
Dash3's picture

Iain Abernethy wrote:
As I say, if you read it the way Kris and Lawrence do – don’t be deceived into thinking of the embusen as being the line that the enemy is attacking from – then the contradiction disappears.

You know my "to read" list is long and getting longer, but I'll move this one up on my priority list. When I took my first karate lesson as a little sprog, I had no idea it would involve so much reading and academic studying in addition to the physical studying. Suppose that's the case with trying to advance in any physical endeavor, though...

brentp
brentp's picture

Some great information here - thanks for the clarifications and info!

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Dash3 wrote:
You know my "to read" list is long and getting longer, but I'll move this one up on my priority list.

Well worth doing! “The Way of Kata” is a great book.

All the best,

Iain

Zach Zinn
Zach Zinn's picture

I've never asked Kris about this specifically, but the embusen thing is an interesting question to me.

I'd like to go further into this, as i've had this conversation on embusen on other boards and never really came to a conclusion. So i'm gonna poke a little at a sacred cow for the purposes of my own learning.

In my experience, to evaluate Goju Ryu kata I think you can pretty much do it without regard to the embusen, you can do the kata in a straight line with no repetitions and kind of get the gist of things, angles are pretty much implied by the techniques and just depend on where you stand to the opponent. Now, there are some kata where the turns definitely imply throws, evasions and similar, but the direction you end up pointing afterwards is negligible.

There are things people will point out as exceptions, such as the beginning of Geki Sai, but that isn't telling you (by my understanding at least, my interpetation of stuff i've learned from Kris - not his words) "turn this way", it's telling you "put your center on the opponent immediately and attack".

I do not understand what practical  combative information is conveyed by embusen lines, there are basically three directions you can be standing at relative to an opponent in front of you, and techniques should probably work for all or most of them. Maybe the odd technique for some where the opponent is behind you, but again if you use these rules, you largely avoid interprations like that as well.

I have to say, in my time in Goju Ryu, I have found the emubsen to pretty much be irrelevant to bunkai strategy.

Far as the "hands touching" rule, one example of this would be the first move of Saifa, there is a lot you can do with it, but for sure you are not simply stacking your hands at your sides as you move your fist across your body:) One important part of what it is showing is that your hand crosses your centerline, and by extension, it also crosses the opponents centerline in the various ways you use the technique.

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Zach Zinn wrote:
I do not understand what practical combative information is conveyed by embusen lines ....

The original linked Wikipedia page puts it this way:

6, Angles in kata are very important. The angle to which you turn represents the angle which you must take relative to the opponent for the technique to work. It does not represent turning to face a new opponent.

I don’t have the direct source for that (ordered his books as a result of this thread), but that is attributed to Seikichi Toguchi.

I agree with the sentiment fully … although I think Mabuni explains it best:

http://seinenkai.com/articles/swift/swift-tidbits1.html

Wisdom from the Past: Tidbits on Kata Applications from Pre-War Karate Books Part One By Joe Swift wrote:
"The meaning of the directions in kata is not well understood, and frequently mistakes are made in the interpretation of kata movements. In extreme cases, it is sometimes heard that "this kata moves in 8 directions so it is designed for fighting 8 opponents" or some such nonsense. I would like to specifically address this issue now.

Looking at the enbusen for Pinan Nidan, one can see that karate kata move in all directions, forward and back, left and right. When interpreting kata, one must not get too caught up in these directions. For example, do not fall into the trap of thinking that just because a kata begins to the left that the opponent is always attacking from the left. There are two ways of looking at this:

1 - The kata is defending against an attack from the left.

2 - Angle to the left against a frontal attack.

At first glance, both of these look alright. However, looking at only number (1), the meaning of the kata becomes narrow, and the kata, which in reality must be applied freely in any situation, becomes awfully meagre in its application.

Looking at an actual example, the 5 Pinan kata all start to the left, and then repeat the same series of techniques to the right. Looking at interpretation (1), the opponent must always attack from the left, and while fighting that opponent, another opponent comes from behind so the defender turns to fight that opponent. This type of interpretation is highly unreasonable.

Looking at interpretation number (2) however, the 5 Pinan kata show us that against an attack from the front we can evade either left or right to put ourselves in the most advantageous position to defend ourselves.” - Extract from Karatedo Nyumon by Kenwa Mabuni

Again, I’m fully with Mabuni on this.

Zach Zinn wrote:
I do not understand what practical combative information is conveyed by embusen lines, there are basically three directions you can be standing at relative to an opponent in front of you, and techniques should probably work for all or most of them. Maybe the odd technique for some where the opponent is behind you, but again if you use these rules, you largely avoid interprations like that as well.

I think you may be overthinking it from what you describe.

As human beings, everything about is us designed to go forwards i.e. our limbs move most powerfully and efficiently in that direction, our eyes are in the front of our head, etc. Therefore, if we are standing in directly front of our enemy we are in their optimum “line of fire”. So we don’t want to be there. Conversely, we do want the enemy to be on our optimum line of fire. This leads to a very simple, but powerful, tactical consideration:

Never be in front of your enemy, but always have the enemy in front of you.

Getting these angles has all kinds of advantages i.e. we can strike directly and efficiently whereas the enemy’s possibilities to attack are limited. Additionally, we can also gain a mechanical advantage because our enemy’s limb is directly in front of us, but that same limb is out to the side as far as the enemy is concerned. It can also put us in a more stable position relative to the enemy too i.e. if we are positioned like a capital “T” then, if the enemy is the horizontal line and we are the vertical line, we are very stable relative to them, but they are very unstable relative to us. And on and on. In short, being at an angle to the enemy, while they are directly in front of us, is tactically advantageous.

If you have two people, then the relative angle between those two people is obvious. If you only have one person – such as in solo kata – how do you convey the angle relative to the enemy that the technique is going to be applied at?

There is only one thing there (you), so there is only one thing you can demonstrate the angle relative to (you). These numerous shifts in angles – to demonstrate the angle you should be at relative to the enemy on that particular sequence – is what largely makes up the embusen. So that would be the practical combative information that is conveyed by embusen lines. It tells us what angle we are at relative to the enemy.

Many think that the angle of the kata shows were the enemy is relative to you (i.e. they are in front, to your side, to the rear, etc)? That’s not it. It’s the other way around. The enemy should be in front of you (i.e. on your optimum “attack line”), but, through the angles, the kata is telling you what angle you should be at relative to the enemy i.e.

A kata move where you move sideways =You are to the enemy’s side, but they are in front of you (or to put it another way, you are off their optimum attack line by 90 degrees, while they are still on yours).

A kata move where you move to forty-five degrees = You are at forty-five degrees to the enemy, but they are in front of you (you are off their optimum attack line by 45 degrees, while they are still on yours).

A kata move where you turn behind = You are behind the enemy, but they are in front of you (you are off their optimum attack line by 180 degrees, while they are still on yours).

Once again, we know that getting to angle is hugely advantageous … and yet when many look at kata we have everything happening on straight lines i.e. “the enemy attacks you from 45 degrees and you turn to face him, so you are now head on”. This common view has the enemy being the smart one (attacking from angles) and us being forever dumb by always remaining in front of the enemy!

The common view of angles in kata acts as if the past masters never once considered that moving off line was a good idea! You will, however, note that Mabuni called such a view of kata angles “nonsense” and said that view was “highly unreasonable”.

This is actually a very simple but powerful guide when it comes to understanding kata. In my case, I worked this out through logic. I knew angles were important in combat, and there are lots of angles in kata. I started to consider that the angles were telling me the angle to be at relative to my enemy (as opposed to the angle the enemy was at relative to me) and it was like a light had been switched on! To mix metaphors, it is a key that opens a lot of doors!

I wrote about this “rule” (should have been “guideline”) in my first two books without ever knowing that Mabuni (and Seikichi Toguchi) had said the same thing. I discovered it logically, not historically. When I first realised that there was historical backing for this idea too (Mabuni's writing), then I literally punched the air with an “I knew I was right!” :-)

Seeing as the “Kaisai no genri” we are discussing in this thread come from the Goju line, here are some examples of it in action.

The opening move of Gekisaidai-Ichi takes place at a 90-degree angle; so according to Kenwa Mabuni and Seikichi Toguchi (and logic) that means we should be to the side of the enemy. I demo that at 2:33 in the video below and explain that is what the angle is telling us. I end up away from the enemy’s free hand, I gain a mechanical advantage for my limb manipulation, I am off the enemy’s “attack line”, but they are on mine such that I am perfectly positioned to go in with the next punch. The angle of the kata contains this vital information and ensures optimum effect. It would be nowhere near are effective if I remained in front.

As another example, from the same video we have the end motions of Gekisaidai-Ni taking place at 45 degrees; so according to Kenwa Mabuni and Seikichi Toguchi (and logic) that means we should be 45 degrees relative to the enemy.  I demo this at 5:29 in the video. As before, it should be obvious that 45 degrees is indeed the optimum angle to perform this motion at when it comes to limiting the enemy’s attacking options while increasing my own. I am off the enemy’s line, but they’re are on mine, and I have good control of the enemy’s lead arm. If I was straight on, it would not be as effective. It also would not be as effective, in this instance, if I was 90 degrees because I’d either lose control of the enemy’s arm by being further away from it, or I’d have to use some muscle and drag it with me. 45 degrees is the most efficient angle for this method; so that’s what the kata shows it at.

As I said in the above post, I wish I’d used the word “guidelines” for this kind of thing because “rules” imply a hard and fast universal law that comes from “kata by committee”. See last two paragraphs of above post for more on that:

http://www.iainabernethy.co.uk/comment/11382#comment-11382

There are some techniques that require a turn (like the takedown at 4:25 in the above video) so in that case the motion is not communicating an angle, but it is part of the technique. We also have the fact that dojo are only so big, so we often have turns half way through the kata to avoid crashing into walls. Again, that’s not communicating an angle, but a consideration of available space. We therefore have to look at the motion within context of the kata to determine if a change in direction is communicating angle of attack, the use of rotational force, or the need to avoid running into a wall. One thing was can be sure of though is that we are never “turning to face a new attacker”.

When I’m exploring a kata, I always start with the idea the angle of the motion in the kata is the angle relative to the enemy. That, along with arm motion and stance (bodyweight shift), are the generally the three key bits of information needed to reveal what is going on.

I hope that helps.

All the best,

Iain

Stevenson
Stevenson's picture

Hi Iain,

I just wanted to quickly comment on rule No.7 which you didn't agree with.

I've often thought about it and maybe (just maybe) there is something to it. Before I studied prmiarily GoJu I also studied some of the Shotokan kata such as Bassai Dai. In the opening move in Bassai Dai before studying its applications with you, I took the opening to be grabbing an extended limb with both hands and pulling the opponent off balance, then a figure of 4 lock and the leg coming up pointedly to up to your own to mean putting it behind your opponents for a take down (a fairly standard follow on from a figure of 4). You teach it as your momentum carrying through to take the opponent off balance, which is just as good.

There are other instances in the Goju katas that make sense in the context of that "rule" or guideline. I'm thinking of some moves in Seyunchin and Sepai in particular. They seem strange unless interpretted with it mind, and often they get changed to something that makes a bit more sense.

I think it's worth thinking about when examining a kata where a move might seem a little odd, since it is not an unreasonable thing to put in kata if you were trying to record it.....strike, grab, contact this bit of the body when you do this move etc.....

....Oh and btw, I learnt these rules from Kris Wilder in "Way of Kata..." A seminal book in awakening a depper interest in traditional karate for me.

Zach Zinn
Zach Zinn's picture

Iain Abernethy wrote:

"I think you may be overthinking it from what you describe.

As human beings, everything about is us designed to go forwards i.e. our limbs move most powerfully and efficiently in that direction, our eyes are in the front of our head, etc. Therefore, if we are standing in directly front of our enemy we are in their optimum “line of fire”. So we don’t want to be there. Conversely, we do want the enemy to be on our optimum line of fire. This leads to a very simple, but powerful, tactical consideration:

Never be in front of your enemy, but always have the enemy in front of you.

I wrote a bunch earlier, it was too convoluted, so I started over.  I don't' entertain any weird ideas about embusen meaning multiple opponents, people standing in certain places etc...don't worry about that.

the above rule actually covers how to use angles, so why would I need the embusen for that? If you are saying that the turns in kata often demonstrate the simple rule above, then that makes sense I suppose, but again..there doesn't seem to be much specificity there, since it can all be encapsulated in asimple rule.

 In my training with Kris (by far my biggest Goju Ryu bunkai influence), I felt like rules such as the ones you mention above were implicit in nearly everything we did, so I never really felt the need to "look" at the embusen in Gojju Ryu kata for how to use angles. So for me, this Kasai rule for Goju Ryu kata has always been quite literal - the embusen isn't for combative information, but for Kata organization. You get off his centerline, put yours on him, and go, hopefully all at the same time:) - if the above rule is followed, you find a bunch of permutations of most kata technique that are functional.

Your video (great btw) is very close to my understanding of the kata, and what I directly learned.. which didn't come with any explicit explanations of the embusen meanings (that I can remember at least, it's been a while for somethign like Gekisai), so it seems possible that there is more than one way to understand this rule, and still end with similar results. You also gave me some new stuff to play with:)

Does that make any sense?

steveablack
steveablack's picture

Hi all,

Interesting post. What can be confusing, I find, is when you discover how a particular kata has altered with time, e.g. in Bassai Dai. The step forward with hands clenched in the begining was originally a jump. So which version should we look at? Also with Tekki Shodan; some styles bring the open hands up to the face then fold back down in front of the groin, while others don't, they just bring their hands together after bowing; therefore missing part of a possible application. Which is right?

Comments...?  

Th0mas
Th0mas's picture

One of the strengths of kata as a tool to record combatative lessons is that, unlike the written word, pictures and you tube, it has a physical element. 

The movement, form and transition is recorded and practiced ( in solo kata form) as a series of physical movements. I think that there is an argument to suggest that from a visualisation and "muscle memory" perspective this makes it a better alternative than the other visual mediums.

As everything else is practiced in the kata motion, why would you not also include the angles of attack as well.. In the form of the embusen?

Zach Zinn
Zach Zinn's picture

Th0mas wrote:
One of the strengths of kata as a tool to record combatative lessons is that, unlike the written word, pictures and you tube, it has a physical element. 

The movement, form and transition is recorded and practiced ( in solo kata form) as a series of physical movements. I think that there is an argument to suggest that from a visualisation and "muscle memory" perspective this makes it a better alternative than the other visual mediums.

As everything else is practiced in the kata motion, why would you not also include the angles of attack as well.. In the form of the embusen?

How many angles of attack are there for someone standing in front of you? My point is, Iain's rule above (don't be in his line of fire, put him in yours) is a  nearly universal combative rule..you could almost even stretch it to apply to some throws, it certainly applies to pretty much any "entry" type Karate technique. So to me, instructions from the embusen seem kind of superflous, as I already know that rule. What information other than that rule can be conveyed by embusen lines? Why would Karateka not already understand this in the first place?

Along these lines, I remember from the Toguchi book mentioned, he was of the belief that Goju Ryu kata started out as two-man application, probably kind of an obvious thing, but truly - if one learns the individual waza and applications and uses them, then they already knows the angles implicitly, and as such, there does not seem to be anything extra conveyed by the embusen lines. So that's my interpretation of the rule..embusen simply isn't a big deal for how I understand kata...even though I know this contradicts other rules - by most people's reading. Again if i'm missing something that the embusen lines can convey that isn't already implicit ("hey man, don't stand in the way of punches", i'd be interested to know, but i'm wondering if it's just down to slightly different training methods and ways of viewing Kata.

I'm just poking at a scared cow here because I think the answer will ultimately be a good one;) I know the rules of Kasai, and have followed Iain and others stuff avidly for years, i'm just curious to know if people think there is more to the angles demonstrated in kata than stuff that is sort of implicit in functional techniques already (such as Iain's first move of Gekisai example).  And if so, what are some good examples?

Maybe what the question boils down to:

Do people take the angle of techniques, and the angle of the embusen to be the same thing? To me there are places where the kata says "turn here", "get offline here", but nothing more detailed than that, as an instruction like "90 degree angle" gets a little too prescriptive for my understanding.

Sorry if that's confusing!

EDIT:

I actually busted out my old copy of Okinawan Goju Ryu II, Advanced techniques of Shorei Kan Karate by Seikichi Toguchi (can't believe I could find it!), so i'll reproduce what he says in it about embusen lines:

"In the rule of embusen, stepping patterns are designed to be symmetrical. For example, three steps forward are countered with three steps backward, one step left is balanced with one step right, and so on.

Also, in order to keep kata concise, the ancient people limited the numbers of unsoku (footsteps at a time). Normally, in Okinawan Kata, we find the maximum number of unsoku is three.

In short, movements in kata are regulated and artificially designed. The first rule of shuyo san gensoku is saying that these moevments have nothing to do with real fighting situations."

Later on of course he mentions people mistakenly thinking that embusen indicates attackers from different directions etc.

Th0mas
Th0mas's picture

Hi Zach

I think there isn't much more to the enbusen, than enforcement through repetition of the angles of attack. Although I am sure aspects of the enbusen are the result of aesthetics.

However there is more to the triple movement. Three techniques in a line translates into two transitions covering both left and right side. 

Also you may be looking at kata from your own perspective, someone who has a degree of experience and years of training under your belt. If you look at kata as an instructor lead training plan, then learning how to engage an opponent by moving off their attack line, should be something you should practice right from the start of your training as a beginner. 

Zach Zinn
Zach Zinn's picture

Yeah, that is a good point. I'm wondering if enough years of training have made me think certain things are kind of common sense, that maybe at one time were not such common sense. Part of the reason I am interested in the question is that I am an instructor, and this question definitely has an impact on teaching kata.

On the repetitions thing, I have found this to be  true as well, but I do wonder sometimes if we are stretching a bit by "finding" meanings in reptitions..etiher way, I guess it doesn't matter.  

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Hi Zach,

I’m pleased that was of some use.

Zach Zinn wrote:
the above rule actually covers how to use angles, so why would I need the embusen for that?

You are confusing me here. The embusen is a result of the angles. They can’t be separated.

Are you confusing embusen and kiten? The embusen in the “floor pattern of the whole kata”. The kiten is the start / finish spot utilised in some styles (i.e. the kata must start and finish on the same place; the “kiten” is that place).

The embusen is therefore made up of the angles. The angles in the kata determine what the embusen is. So any rule / guideline of angles is also a rule / guideline about the embusen and vice versa.

Zach Zinn wrote:
My point is, Iain's rule above (don't be in his line of fire, put him in yours) is a nearly universal combative rule ... So to me, instructions from the embusen seem kind of superfluous, as I already know that rule. What information other than that rule can be conveyed by embusen lines? Why would Karateka not already understand this in the first place?

The rule I put forth (“keep him on your attack line, but be off his”) does not convey THE angle. It’s just makes the overarching point that A angle is helpful.

I could be off by 45 degrees, 90 degrees, or 180 degrees (or thereabouts). If the angle is unknown – i.e. I know I’m not in front of him, but I have no idea where he is relative to me – then the optimum positioning for the method being demonstrated is lost. The embusen / angle gives us that information so we know where the enemy is, relative to us, for the methods being shown. That’s why it’s not superfluous. The rule I put forth is the generic statement that angles are good (a broad principle); the embusen of the kata tells us the specific angle for the method in question (how the broad principle is enacted in this specific example). That’s important information.

I talk about this in the above post:

http://iainabernethy.co.uk/content/kaisai-no-genri#comment-11401

The brief summery is that the angle in the kata tells us at what angle we are relative to the enemy i.e. in line, at 45 degrees, to the side, or behind. Without that information the solo kata would be a lot more confusing due to the lost information (which would have all kata being done in one long straight line). We’d be forever asking, “where is the other guy when I do this?”. The embusen / angle tells us where they are when we perform any given motion.

I hope that better explains my thinking?

All the best,

Iain

steveablack
steveablack's picture

Hi Iain 

Just to clarify please. The angle you take relative to your attacker; i.e. Heian Nidan opening move to the left, are you on his left side (him looking forward) or your left as you look at him? There are examples i've seen that depict both. Just trying to understand the language of Kata.

Many thanks 

Steve

Zach Zinn
Zach Zinn's picture

Thanks Iain, it does explain what you mean,

Iain Abernethy wrote:
I could be off by 45 degrees, 90 degrees, or 180 degrees (or thereabouts). If the angle is unknown – i.e. I know I’m not in front of him, but I have no idea where he is relative to me – then the optimum positioning for the method being demonstrated is lost. The embusen / angle gives us that information so we know where the enemy is, relative to us, for the methods being shown. That’s why it’s not superfluous. The rule I put forth is the generic statement that angles are good (a broad principle); the embusen of the kata tells us the specific angle for the method in question (how the broad principle is enacted in this specific example). That’s important information.

This makes sense, but brings me to a question:

Many techniques in kata seem to be functional without need of a specific angle ("fault tolerant" as I understand it), so do you think this information shown by the embusen is simply showing the optimum version of the technique..without neccessarily excluding other uses?

For instance the opening move of Gekisai works great if you are "offline" - which could be 30,  45 or 90..90 would be a  lot of distance for some people's Goju Ryu it seems like. You can even utlize the technique as an 'inside' version without much of an angle at all, might not be ideal, but it certainly serves a function that way. So in your way of seeing things, is the version with the specific angle presented by kata kind of the "first order" version, with others you might find being variations? If that's the case, then I think I get it and my confusion is cleared up:)

In my personal examination of kata, I guess I have just never much thought about the specific angle, basically I feel like for Goju kata (I don't know many Shorin kata too well any more, and never examined their bunkai much) the footwork for each  technique usually explains what to do with the opponent standing in front of you, and works at a few different angles..but maybe that's close to the same thing you are saying, expressed in a different way?

Trying to get a handle on this for when I hit your Pinans Seminar..

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Hi Steve,

steveablack wrote:
Just to clarify please. The angle you take relative to your attacker; i.e. Heian Nidan opening move to the left, are you on his left side (him looking forward) or your left as you look at him?

I’d think in terms of angles as opposed to left / right; that gets confusing because his left is your right, etc. It makes it complicated to explain what’s what. We also need to remember that people move a lot in a fight so how we get to the angle is never set (i.e. “step this way”); we just need to get to the angle (i.e. “however you do it, be at this angle”).

The opening move of Heian Nidan moves to the side at a 90-degree angle; so we should be to the enemy’s side (or off their attack line by 90 degrees if you prefer) when performing that motion. This video looks at that specifically and talks about angles quite a bit.

It’s a very simple concept but my experience is that people tend to overthink it as well as getting derailed by pre-existing “the enemy attacks from the side” conditioning.

Very easy to get across in person, but not so easy in text. I nevertheless hope this is of some use?

All the best,

Iain

steveablack
steveablack's picture

Thanks Iain, that helps!

Cheers 

Steve

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Hi Zach,

Zach Zinn wrote:
This makes sense, but brings me to a question:

Many techniques in kata seem to be functional without need of a specific angle ("fault tolerant" as I understand it), so do you think this information shown by the embusen is simply showing the optimum version of the technique … without necessarily excluding other uses?

That’s pretty much how I see it, but I would add that we should not seek to do a “knowingly flawed version” as a legitimate alternative.

We aim for the optimum, always mindful that in combat we may not get the optimum. Optimum can fall to good. Workable falls to unworkable. So if the kata show 90 degrees, then we try to get to 90 degrees. If we make 50 degrees, then that’s still better than being online. However, if we ignore the angle of the kata and practise the motion in line, then we get smashed in the face if the hand techniques are not able to compensate for our poor tactical positioning.

“Fault Tolerant” is a good phrase. If we aim for the optimum, then any one element can be off and the method will still work. If we cut out a certain part – in this case the angle – then the others have to pick up the slack and that makes the whole thing less fault tolerant.

Zach Zinn wrote:
90 would be a lot of distance for some people's Goju Ryu it seems like.

It’s a small pivot because we are always very close in kata applications (because that is the nature of civilian self-protection). There is the tiniest of differences, timewise and distance wise, between a 90-degree pivot and anything more acute.

If there is a big gap, then we are “on the outside of the circle” so moving to 90-degrees would then be a long way to go around the circumference. However, when we are close, the radius of that circle is reduced and hence getting to that angle only requires a small movement. On the Gekisaidai-Ni examples in the above video (opening and closing motions) my feet are only shifting a relatively small amount.

Zach Zinn wrote:
So in your way of seeing things, is the version with the specific angle presented by kata kind of the "first order" version, with others you might find being variations?

Not really. As above, the angle is never ignored. To me, any bunkai which ignored the angle would be illegitimate. That’s because it is ignoring “data” (choosing to totally overlook the angle) and it is not in accord with what the past masters told us about the structure of the kata i.e. the angles count.

Mabuni is very clear on this and he was regarded as being “without equal” when it came to understanding kata. He was also well versed in both “Shuri-te” and “Naha-te” kata, as is evidenced by the kata in Shito-Ryu and even the name of his system. “Shito” (糸東) coming from first kanji character from the names of his two main teachers, Itosu (糸州) and Higaonna (東恩納).

Higaonna was Miyagi’s teacher, and Mabuni and Miyagi were good friends. Indeed, Mabuni was known to cover classes for Miyagi. The “rule of angles” is explained by Mabuni as a universal idea; he does not say it only applies a given group of kata. So, for me, I apply this rule to all kata because I believe there is a strong historical precedent for doing so … and, more importantly, it works.

Zach Zinn wrote:
In my personal examination of kata, I guess I have just never much thought about the specific angle, basically I feel like for Goju kata (I don't know many Shorin kata too well any more, and never examined their bunkai much) the footwork for each technique usually explains what to do with the opponent standing in front of you, and works at a few different angles … but maybe that's close to the same thing you are saying, expressed in a different way?

As per the above, I don’t think there is a Naha-te / Shuri-te split on this. I think the rule of angles apples to all kata of all styles.

In the page on “Kaisai no genre” linked to at the start of this thread, we have Rule 6 of the “Hosoku joko” saying:

“Angles in kata are very important. The angle to which you turn represents the angle which you must take relative to the opponent for the technique to work. It does not represent turning to face a new opponent.”

That’s from a “Goju perspective”, and it’s exactly as I perceive it too.

I also don’t feel it’s to do with footwork, because that will be determined by the situation. The kata cannot record the required footwork because it’s an unknown i.e. the direction of the enemy’s movement is unknown by the kata.

If the kata performs a move to the side, then that’s telling us to be to the side … but how we get there if the enemy is static will be different from in the are advancing, which will also be different if they are retreating, which will also be different if they are moving to the left, which will also be different if they are moving to the right, which will also be different if they are circling clockwise, which will also be different if they are circling anti-clockwise, and so on.

The kata simply tells us, “do whatever you need to get to this angle, and then you’re in the optimum position for this technique”. Specific footwork will only be applicable in specific situations. However, the angle – however we assume it – is universal.

Zach Zinn wrote:
Trying to get a handle on this for when I hit your Pinans Seminar.

I’m looking forward to seeing you again. It’s been a while!

It’s way easier to get across in person, and because I apply this “rule” to every single kata motion that is performed at an angle, people leave seminars with loads of examples of the principle in action. Whether you choose to make this part of your karate or not, I’m confident that at the event I will be able to explain how it fits within my take on karate to your satisfaction (i.e. you’ll fully understand my thinking, irrespective of whether you agree with it or not).

As always, in explaining how I think, I am not telling people how they should think. Other people have other views and it works for them. Personally though, I am firmly committed to the idea that the angles of kata tell us the angle we are in relation to the enemy. I hope this thread helps get across, at least to some degree, why that’s the case. I appreciate you helping me explain this as thoroughly as I can.

All the best,

Iain

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

steveablack wrote:
Thanks Iain, that helps!

Great! Video is easier to follow than text I find. I’m pleased that helped.

All the best,

Iain

Zach Zinn
Zach Zinn's picture

Thanks Iain, pretty sure I get what you're saying now, I think my misunderstanding was just down to being used to a different set of terminology and such.

Pages