Personal bunkai

Personally, I think all of the bunkai should be for honing skills in real life violent situations. Some more directly than others but if it's not teaching a real aplication, or a set of principles you can use, what is it?

As for making up your own kata, I would have to ask what is it that you think is missing from your existing system?

I remember having a high grade 10th Dan Okinawan master over a few years back and he was showing us a new kata that his father had put together. I asked him what he felt was missing from the original Goju kata to warrant adding in a new one. He didn't really get what I was on about and I was left with a pretty certain feeling that his dad just made one up because he could. It was different, but as far as I could tell (or be told) it didn't really add any new learnings in at all.

Gavin Mulholland wrote:

Personally, I think all of the bunkai should be for honing skills in real life violent situations. Some more directly than others but if it's not teaching a real aplication, or a set of principles you can use, what is it?

As for making up your own kata, I would have to ask what is it that you think is missing from your existing system?

Fair points Gavin. I agree that all bunkai should be for honing skills in real life violent situations. I just see it that with more than two or three kata we are left with too many options. We work on the principle that it is better to have two or three techniques that work for us, than twenty or thirtly that work against us. We aim to 'own' a very few techniques and back them up with a few more 'rainy day' ones. We also acknowledge that we will have our own preferences and that what works for one may not necessarily work for another.

For me it's not so much a case of what's missing from existing kata as what's there that I'll never use.

Lee Richardson wrote:

Assuming that no one single kata exactly fits your needs wouldn't it make sense to create your own kata? Mark Carroll, on one of his DVDs, states that, in his opinion, a kata is someone else's fighting system and that we should be training our own.

An interesting question! Just some general points before addressing the specifics of the question.

The question I would ask people to consider is what do you make your own system / kata from? You need to have a knowledgebase in order to be able to drawn on that knowledgebase. It’s through practising other people’s systems that that we learn and can make things our own.

Gary Chamberlain made a good point around this recently in another thread:

http://iainabernethy.co.uk/content/less-more#comment-1957

Gary Chamberlain wrote:

I feel like a bloke who's spent a lifetime collecting a garage full of tools, then moved to a smaller house and had to carefully select which ones were worth taking.

I've chucked out loads of stuff, some of it learnt (bought) years ago and never used.  I now keep the bare essentials sharpened and ready to go. Works for me. I still run a store though so others can make their own choices.

It’s the last line that is key here. The way I see it is that we learn what is passed onto us and then draw from that the stuff that we feel works best for us.

This is a process actually encouraged by Itosu in his 1908 letter: “Learn the explanations of every technique well, and decide when and in what manner to apply them when needed.” So we learn what each motion is for, but we decide how and when we personally would make use of them.

What works well for one body type many not work well for another so there does need to be an element of selecting a personal system from the wider knowledge pool. However, if we practice that alone, karate will be dead in a few generations:

Karateka 1 has 100 techniques that work well for him and he teaches them all to Karateka 2.

Karateka 2 only likes 10 of them and so he jettisons the other 90 and only teaches those 10 to Karateka 3.

Karateka 3 only likes 1 of those 10 and shows that 1 to Karateka 4.

Karateka 4 does not like that technique and all knowledge is lost.

So I do feel there is a need to pass on all potentially effective methods so subsequent generations draw from the full set. To do otherwise, and to only go with what works well for us, is to deny methods to subsequent generations that may be ideally suited to them. So even if a given method is not suited to us personally, we still need to ensure we are capable of teaching it effectively.

So, having framed all that, back to the original question: I see a strong need to avoid creating kata for personal use alone and ignoring the founding kata from which that personal one is drawn. To do so will kill karate and denies students the same option.

However, if a person intends to keep training and teaching the other kata too, and is simply creating a supplementary personal kata for their own practise of their favoured methods, then I can see no problem with that.

For me personally I think it adds little though as the key place to practise favoured methods is with partners; which is after all how we find out that those methods suit us in the first place. Also if I am keeping on top of the “core kata” as part of my wider responsibility to karate and those who come after me, then they will cover the solo form element so to create another form would seem to be needless duplication.

If it works for others and does not lead to them denying information to their students then I feel that’s fine. It could also be OK for those with no intention of teaching either. However, if everyone took a “personal view” karate would not last long.

Interesting to explore this and I look forward to reading the thoughts of others.

All the best,

Iain

Hi Lee,

I see now where you are coming from and it is a good question.

I guess given the closing ranges of the first four Goju kata I probably do have one or two favourites (some tried and tested, others less so) techniques from each. So a couple of favourite entry and impact, a couple of escapes and a couple of grappling techniques.

I think when you look at that it ties in nicely with Gary's comments quoted above.

Iain Abernethy wrote:

I do feel there is a need to pass on all potentially effective methods so subsequent generations draw from the full set. To do otherwise, and to only go with what works well for us, is to deny methods to subsequent generations that may be ideally suited to them. So even if a given method is not suited to us personally, we still need to ensure we are capable of teaching it effectively.

However, if a person intends to keep training and teaching the other kata too, and is simply creating a supplementary personal kata for their own practise of their favoured methods, then I can see no problem with that.

Iain

That's where I was going Iain. I'm not suggesting denying anyone other kata or imposing this theoretical personal kata on them, just practising it for private study and use in addition. I don't imagine it as being composed of 'all new, never seen before' stuff. After all there's an awful lot of duplication across kata already. As for practicing the techniques - as they are likely to be found in other, 'official' ,kata it really shouldn't matter where they came from.

I use the IAIDO format not full blown kata to train specifics like tai sabaki tenkan etc. not covered in traditional kata .All are geared to ITOSU's "enter do damage escape" and are comprised of at most 3 moves with an emphasis on detail. .All start from a natural posture centered around teaching your body to move in the 8 prime directions easily and fluidly.All can be done with or without a partner there is 12 in all and are not considered kata but side bars to the kata.

As for creating new kata I see it as a lot of effort expended for something you not likely to be happy with in the long run .

vic

VIC wrote:

As for creating new kata I see it as a lot of effort expended for something you not likely to be happy with in the long run .

Why wouldn't you be happy with a kata that you'd created yourself, for your own benefit?

am i right in thinking that kata are generally recordings of others fighting styles or combat systems rather than one’s own? 

As far as I know this is true for the large majority if not all kata.

I would actually quite like to have the ability to create my own kata, but feel that a massive level of understanding of both the existing kata and combat itself is needed. Which I dont have. But if i am right in my thinking above then to have a accurate and unbaised recording of 'my unique style' then shouldn't someone else really do this for me?

But then on the other hand going through the process of creating a kata could help me further understand the existing kata (if done properly of course). so maybe as a 'simple' exercise, rather than an ongoing thing... good question! :-)

@ LEE because at some point down the road you are going to step back and take a long hard non self involved look at it and say "was I really that naive"

vic

VIC wrote:

@ LEE because at some point down the road you are going to step back and take a long hard non self involved look at it and say "was I really that naive"

vic

I've PMed VIC about this, but to keep the debate going - is it naive (and perhaps self-involved) to create a kata tailored to one's own needs, preferences and abilities? Does anyone honestly believe that they would (and, more importantly, could) use each and every technique from every kata they know? In my OP I stated that I wasn't suggesting abandoning existing kata, simply creating a personal one.

I don't envisage this kata as comprising all new techniques, but rather hand picked ones from the other kata you know. There's already an awful lot of cross-over between kata. Very few of them have anything unique to offer, and even then it's only a part of what makes them up. In my (imaginary) 'Frankenstein's Monster' kata I would include techniques and principles that suit me that I found elsewhere. Aesthetics and novelty wouldn't be concerns.

Could the concern be that many consider kata to be somehow sacred? Are we not worthy enough to come up with our own? If the old masters had access to the information that we enjoy would their kata be different? Does anyone claim that their ryu's kata have remained unaltered over the years?

I think if you view the kata as a set of techniques, then stringing some of your favourites into a sequence would make some sense. And you could call it a kata.

However, I think the kata are much more about aluding to areas in which you should be studying/training and as far as I can see, they are all covered already.

I have tried to think of areas where there might be something new (I know there isn't) but I was thinking about the cage and the only thing I could come up with was using the cage to get up of off the floor. But that is far too specific for a kata and besides, it can already covered in the context of escaping kata such as Saifa.

I'm not sure what my own kata could point towards that hasn't already done better.

Lee Richardson wrote:

Assuming that no one single kata exactly fits your needs wouldn't it make sense to create your own kata?

Depends on the definition of kata you choose to adopt. I consider katas not just a collection of techniques, but an encoded mean of trasmission of knowledge that covers a lot more than the techniques themselves. With this definition in mind, I would not attempt to create my own kata, since I strongly believe that my understanding of that "code" is still very limited. Yes, I could slap together a few of my favourite techniques, but that would be just what I said: a collection of techniques slapped together, not a real kata. It would look like one of those pseudo-katas you see at exibitions of "artistic kata": not a monologue, but a series of disconnected words. The fact that I would pick the techniques by their combative effectiveness instead of how cool they look like wouldn't change the terms of the problem. Attempting to create a kata without the same cultural background of those who created them when katas were the only way to preserve martial knowledge would be like attempting to write your own novel knowing only half the alphabet. Of course, if you are REALLY smart, you can also create your own "alphabet" (your own code). But then, if you're that smart, you can also come up with a new name other than "kata" to call your creation

Besides, there are a lot of good fighting systems that don't rely on katas or forms, you don't really need to create a new kata to record your favourite techniques or even your complete fighting method.

If you beleive in the value of 'specificity' in training as the basis for all neurological habit-forming (e.g. the development of 'muscle memory') then I would say that it is not only desirable, but is in fact essential to eventually make up your own patterns to practice.

To me, spontaneity of application is the adaptation of well-learned past experience to new circumstance.  i.e. You 'recognize' (i.e. identify or discern)  an 'opening' (i.e. the split-second OPPORTUNITY to apply mechanic x-y or z), and you 'automatically' (i.e. very quickly but still subject to consccious thought)  DISCRIMINATE (i.e. select) a 'response' (i.e. an appropriate, positionally-based ATTACKING ACTION, not necessarily a REACTION to a specific motion by the threat). Then (and only then) do you attempt execution.

With practice, this 'OODA' process SEEMS to come 'naturally', 'automatically', 'unconsciously' or whatever word you might use.  But as the application of a 'learned' response, imy belief is that such mental-action can only ever be what I call 'second' nature, not natural. i.e. it is the application of something that you know SO well that it SEEMS autonomous.  But in reality, there is still an element of cognition at play.  At least, that is how I would describe it, not being a psychologist.

So, developing this 'second nature' (I believe) comes from two things:  one, the repetition of HIGHLY specific motion applications (derived from whatever source), and then (and just as importantly) two, a lot of UNCHOREOGRAPHED free-action training focused on the application of said motions in an 'alive' resisting context where  adaptaion to spontaneous stimuli is critical for success.

This can be illustarted very easily with punching as an example, although you can really draw examples from any combative activity.  It is very easy for a person to learn the mechanics of a 'proper' jab and cross. It is just as easy, with good coaching, for that person to dvelop accuracy and power by working said combination on the mitts.  They can develop accuracy of anatomical taregting by trade-sparring in you-go, I-go type fashion, back and forth.  BUT... we all know that LANDING that solid jab cross in a dynamic situation is a lot more than that.  SUch latter lessons-- lessons in technical ADAPTATION, mental and emotional pressure, resistance, distancing, etc. can only be learned in free action states where you practice to do THOSE things.  Same with a double-leg, an uchi-mata, an uraken- gyaku-tsuki combo, whatever-- learning 'how to do it' (even really, really well) is not the same thing as 'actually doing it' IN CONTEXT, or even in a good simulation of context with a resisting opponent.

So, personally, if I were planning on betting my self-protection farm on my habituated kata motions, I would want to have a specific understanding of what each motion 'meant' application-wise, and then I would want to train those SPECIFIC applications much, much (much) more (as a percentage of training time) than I spent practicing the 'generalized' non-specific / non-applied  motions of the form.  If you think about it, almost any benefit that can be said to be offered by the latter method of practice (solo forms) is available via the former method, if you choose to view it that way.

Personally, anything I have ever learned to do well I have learned through repeated practice focused on the execution of that skill in all of it's nuanced glory, first slowly, and then at speed, but NOT in a generalized way.  Anything I have ever learned to APPLY QUICKLY however, (meaning in a dynamic, unpredicatable context) I have practiced doing just that in that environment.  And of course various drills can bridge that gap.  SWINGING a baseball/ cricket bat or golf club is a generalized motion.  ***HITTING*** A PITCHED BALL (at all), or better yet-- hitting it where you want it to go-- is another matter all together.  Or, put another way:  you can't adapt fluidly BETWEEN structures (techniques, positions, or skills) if you have no really well-habituated places to go.

PS:  In the effort of full disclosure: I have abandoned the practice of inherited forms in favor of my own 'made-up' training patterns for the reasons I mention.  That's not saying anyone else needs to, that's just the path I have committed to now for awhile, with both good and bad (and sometimes surprising) results.   If nothing else:  making up and teaching your own forms can give you a deeper appreciation for what you have inherited, along with some new ways of understanding it's strnegths and limitiations, if you ultimately determine that method is qualitatively 'better' in helping you to get what you want out of your training.

Our form motions are non-generalized.  But what I tell students is that each is simply a "body picture".  Like a picture of say,  a cow:  the picture doesn't teach you about cows-- to learn about cows, you would need to go out to a field and study them for a long time.  But the picture gives you a representation that is illustrative of ONE cow.   So the picture can FACILITATE a study of cows, by allowing you to go out to a field and not walk up to a horse by mistake.   But never lose sight of the fact that, whether your training patterns are inherited or made-up, the motion in the forms is NOT the thing.  It's simply AN expression of the thing, and the 'actual' thing is much, much bigger than that single representation. 

Good question.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQqq3e03EBQ

Excellent clip Gary. That about sums it up for me.

What I mean is, it's YOUR training.

I run a club and in a class of mixed abilities I haven't got time to debate - they just crack on and do as directed.  But in their OWN training they've got to show a bit of initiative and sharpen their own tools.  If some find that easier in kata form, power to them.  Others might prefer to hone their skills on a bag, power to them as well.  The point is, they're working things out for themselves, not just taking their brains out and having me spoon feed them.

As a branch chief I have a responsibility to teach the Enshin kata in the way the chief instructor requires.  If I couldn't stick to that agreement I'd resign and do my own thing.   But for my own training I do what works best for ME.

Gary