22 posts / 0 new
Last post
Joseph O'Neill
Joseph O'Neill's picture
Using the same technique in multiple kata

Good Afternoon all,

Just a question out of interest, when working through bunkai for various kata, I will typically "write" the same moves in different kata as the same technique - i.e. every manjiuke I see I tend to consider as being Funakoshi's Yaridama - spear throw - unless the proceeding techniques make it such that this would be an impossible technique to acheive.

Does anyone else do this, or do people try and come up with a unique application for each kata? For Manji-uke it appears in shotokan in Heian Godan, Jion, Jitte, kanku sho, and gankaku just off of the top of my head, and I think I'd struggle to think up an unique application each time it (or any other specific technique) cropped up.

Thanks in advance for your thoughts,

Joe.

P.S. Long time listener, first time caller, really appreciate all the stuff everyone on here posts, and thanks Iain for the great forum to steal peoples ide- I mean be inspired from...

deltabluesman
deltabluesman's picture

Hi Joe,

I think it's a good starting point.  When I am working out the bunkai for a kata, I will often use known techniques as "placeholders."  You can then go back and study the kata closely to see whether it makes sense for that technique to be there. 

Manji-uke can serve multiple functions.  Here are a few links to Iain's youtube channel to give you ideas:  counterattack for a lapel grab (ex:  https://youtu.be/47LbO7k_cRE?t=141) or counter to a kick (ex:  https://youtu.be/C-sg3g9D4hU).  There are other possibilities (e.g., set up for shoulder throw).

It's an art, not a science, but there are some ways to judge whether you're on the right track with kata bunkai.  A kata's techniques should make sense when viewed together.  For example, it makes sense that Jion would teach manji-uke as a counter to a lapel grab.  That bunkai sequence is an excellent complement to the age uke sequence that is recorded earlier in the kata:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZx9RJyX9f4&t=4s.  This becomes clearer when they're put together:  https://youtu.be/47LbO7k_cRE?t=139.

Once you have a "working theory" of the kata's bunkai, you can continue refining it over time.  Each time you discover a new possible application for a motion, you can go back and compare it with your existing placeholders.  Subject each technique to intense criticism to see whether it makes sense.

In case it's helpful, here's an older thread where we touch on some similar concepts:  https://iainabernethy.co.uk/comment/14084#comment-14084

Of course, it's worth pointing out that if you do have different applications for each kata move, those applications have to be trained individually.  For example, training manji-uke as a counter to a lapel grab will not give you the timing and speed you need to use manji-uke as a counter to a kick.  Even though they look similar in the solo kata, the applications are much different.  

Just my two cents.  Great post. 

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

I think this is a really interesting topic and there are lots of nuanced points related to it.

We need to appreciate the standardisation that happened within groups / styles as the kata were collected together. For example, we tend to think of “Shotokan kata”; whereas, in truth, what we have are a group of disparate kata that have been collected together under the banner of Shotokan. The kata don’t belong to the style, nor do they originate from the style. The kata have just been collected together, after that fact, into the style. Therefore, what were originally similar, but different, motions in unconnected kata have become the exact same motion because of style-based standardisation.

The kata were created by different people, in different locations, at different points in history. Jitte had a motion that had one arm low and straight, with the other arm high and bent. Chinto / Gankaku also had such a motion. So do loads of other kata. There are many techniques that make use of such an arm motion. The nuances of the original movement, and the context within any given kata, would clearly show what is happening … and then modern styles came into being. We suddenly have large number of kata being collected together, standardised, and taught without bunkai.

With the advent of styles, similar motions are standardised such that we no longer have the different and nuanced arm up / arm down positions across the kata, instead we have Shotokan’s manji-uke applied to all those similar movement in all the kata now practiced within Shotokan … which is different to Shito-Ryu’s manji-uke which has been applied to all those similar movement in all the kata now practiced within Shito-Ryu, and so on.

It can help to know that a modern style based “same” is not a “true same”. “Same” in a modern style derived kata really points to an historical “similar” when analysing the kata from a functional perspective.  

I would therefore see it as a mistake to assume one single function for all of those similar movements on the basis on modern stylistic standardisation. Additionally, to do so would be to ignore the context of the kata. What came before the moment? What came after it? What is the overall sequence showing? What angle is the movement at? Do other versions of the kata show a nuance that could be relevant?

Joseph O'Neill wrote:
do people try and come up with a unique application for each kata?

Not unique, because the kata were created separately. It’s entirely possible there is plenty of cross over due to the independent solutions (the functional systems that birthed the kata) being shaped by the common problem of non-consensual criminal violence.   

I’d not assume across the piece uniformity, nor would I assume uniqueness in every case.

Standardisation means a loss of nuance in action, but the nuance in context remains. We therefore need to look at the core motion as presented within the wider context of that kata.

In summary:

1) Modern style-based uniformity points to historical similarity.

2) The core action remains intact.

3) The nuance of the kata remains intact.

4) When comparing kata, common motion does not automatically mean common application.

5) Conversely, seeking uniqueness in every case is also problematic because although the kata originate from many different sources, they do so in response to a common problem.

6) To understand what any given kata motion is showing, we need to look at the core motion withing the wider context of the kata whilst appreciating the kata is a self-contained unit.

7) The standardisation of the kata, and their collection into style collections (i.e. “Shotokan kata”), is relatively recent and therefore should not be part of our thinking – deliberately or unintentionally – when seeking to understand that kata functionally or historically.

I hope that adds something to the conversation.

All the best,

Iain

PS

Joseph O'Neill wrote:
P.S. Long time listener, first time caller, really appreciate all the stuff everyone on here posts, and thanks Iain for the great forum to steal peoples ide- I mean be inspired from...

Welcome! Thanks for starting off a thread on an interesting topic! You can’t steal that which is freely given :-) We are all here to learn and share.

Joseph O'Neill
Joseph O'Neill's picture

Good Morning both,

Thank you for the replies, glad this is a subject that might prompt some conversation.

Iain Abernethy wrote:

For example, we tend to think of “Shotokan kata”; whereas, in truth, what we have are a group of disparate kata that have been collected together under the banner of Shotokan.

I absolutely agree with this point - I only mentioned Shotokan as that's the style I currently practice, and so the kata set which I receive the most direct instruction in. Personally I've reduced the number of Kata I explore in depth from Shotokan's 24, to Funakoshi's original 15 to allow some more indepth study, and I quite often review other "styles" solo forms to see if there's subtleties which make application clearer.

deltabluesman wrote:

When I am working out the bunkai for a kata, I will often use known techniques as "placeholders."  You can then go back and study the kata closely to see whether it makes sense for that technique to be there. 

...

Once you have a "working theory" of the kata's bunkai, you can continue refining it over time.  Each time you discover a new possible application for a motion, you can go back and compare it with your existing placeholders.  Subject each technique to intense criticism to see whether it makes sense.

This is a great point, I'm relatively early on in developing my own applications, so will be continually reviewing after trying things against different opponents, so I will probably organically end-up doing this, but I hadn't really considered having a placeholder that I've decided is definitely there temporarily, which is a great idea.

deltabluesman wrote:

For example, training manji-uke as a counter to a lapel grab will not give you the timing and speed you need to use manji-uke as a counter to a kick.  Even though they look similar in the solo kata, the applications are much different. 

Iain Abernethy wrote:

Jitte had a motion that had one arm low and straight, with the other arm high and bent. Chinto / Gankaku also had such a motion. So do loads of other kata. There are many techniques that make use of such an arm motion. The nuances of the original movement, and the context within any given kata, would clearly show what is happening 

My original reasoning for seeing all of a techniuqe (particularly moves like Manji-uke) as being the same reason is actually a video by Jesse Enkamp following his China trip ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HNEBaJv3PA&t=778s - start from around 2:00 for the section in question) where he discusses the opposite of what Iain has mentioned - multiple solo expressions of a single technique in different forms in the kata.

On one hand I agree with Iain that different originators may have had different preferences in their delivery of techniques which may have looked similar, on the other hand I like Jesse's view that the same technique can be demonstrated in multiple ways.

Iain Abernethy wrote:

Additionally, to do so would be to ignore the context of the kata. What came before the moment? What came after it?

Joseph O'Neill wrote:

unless the proceeding techniques make it such that this would be an impossible technique to acheive.

I do try to consider the preceeding techniques when decoding the kata for myself, I think what I'm doing is what deltabluesman has mentioned above, in using my preferred techniques more as placeholders with a "just about works" transition while I figure things out - although possibly not conciously until today.

Iain Abernethy wrote:

In summary:

...

2) The core action remains intact.

3) The nuance of the kata remains intact.

4) When comparing kata, common motion does not automatically mean common application.

...

6) To understand what any given kata motion is showing, we need to look at the core motion withing the wider context of the kata whilst appreciating the kata is a self-contained unit.

Regarding these, and hopefuly not misunderstanding them - a point I thought of after I posted is that in Gankaku, I don't see the Manji-uke in crane stance as being a Yaridama, I very much agree with Iain's assessment that it's likely limb and head control with the stance representing a hizageri strike. The position and the stance don't lend themselves to it, so I guess my original:

Joseph O'Neill wrote:

i.e. every manjiuke I see I tend to consider as being Funakoshi's Yaridama - spear throw 

Was a slightly misleading generalisation.

Thanks again for the great replies, it will really help!

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Hi Joseph,

Joseph O'Neill wrote:
Thank you for the replies, glad this is a subject that might prompt some conversation.

You’re most welcome! Thanks for kicking it off!

Iain Abernethy wrote:
For example, we tend to think of “Shotokan kata”; whereas, in truth, what we have are a group of disparate kata that have been collected together under the banner of Shotokan.

Joseph O'Neill wrote:
I absolutely agree with this point - I only mentioned Shotokan as that's the style I currently practice, and so the kata set which I receive the most direct instruction in.

I only mentioned Shotokan as an example too. The same is true of all other styles as well and there is nothing unique about Shotokan in this regard. I also used Shito-Ryu as an example in the 4th paragraph, so I hope it is clear that I’m not saying this is a Shotokan specific issue. All styles standardise … because they would not be a style if they didn’t :-)

Joseph O'Neill wrote:
My original reasoning for seeing all of a techniuqe (particularly moves like Manji-uke) as being the same reason is actually a video by Jesse Enkamp following his China trip ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HNEBaJv3PA&t=778s - start from around 2:00 for the section in question) where he discusses the opposite of what Iain has mentioned - multiple solo expressions of a single technique in different forms in the kata.

There are two different points here and I think we need to be careful not to conflate the two.

1) The comparison of common motions within the standardised kata of modern styles.

2) The alternate physical expression of common methods across individual kata from an historical perspective.

To date, we have been discussing the first point; not the second one. We have been discussing how standardised motions, withing a given style, do not necessarily have the same application; nor does each one need a unique application.

Jesse’s point is different (the 2nd one). He’s discussing how similar applications were expressed differently across a range of individual kata at the time of their creation.

Both points apply to the kata as we have them today, but they are not the same point, nor are they in any way mutually exclusive.

You used manji-uke found across a range of Shotokan kata as an example. The group of kata you raised have undergone standardisation which results in similar movements becoming the same, and that has a bearing on how we should view those movements i.e. “same now” does not mean the “same at the time of creation”, it’s more likely that is means “similar”.

Jesse is talking about the different originators of individual kata expressing techniques and concepts slightly differently. The two different points are therefore referring to two different points in history. Both apply to the kata we have today. Both points require us to look at the core motion, withing the wider context of the kata in question, whilst appreciating the kata is a self-contained unit.

Does that help clarify?

All the best,

Iain

Wastelander
Wastelander's picture

I definitely think that, if you have an application for a given posture that you like and know works for you, then you can use it as your go-to application for that posture in just about any instance of it in kata, if you so desire. As Iain points out, though, the kata have generally been homogenized within the styles they have been collected into, so the posture you are analyzing in one kata may have been different enough that you would have chosen a different application, had you seen its intended form. Context clues within the kata, both in the overall theme of the kata and in the techniques immediately before and following the posture, can help you determine what may fit best. I will say, though, that it is possible, in some cases, for the homogenization of techniques to have left you with a sequence you are just unhappy with--something that doesn't work in a practical sense, unless you modify some piece of it. That could just be because you haven't figured out the best way to apply it, or it could be because the sequence was changed too much, but it's up to you to determine what to do with that.

On the flipside of this, I do find that some kata were meant to go together, or have at least gone together for long enough that they thematically connect with each other as a cohesive system. Goju-Ryu, for example, has some very cohesive sets, since several of the kata were built around Sanchin in the first place. In Shuri-Te lineages, I do believe that, historically, Naihanchi, Passai, and Kusanku were a cohesive set, but they have drifted apart over time in most styles. Some versions still have some cross-over, but not to the level I see in KishimotoDi, for example.

Zach Zinn
Zach Zinn's picture

To continue on Noah's theme:

In Goju Ryu kata (from my perspective, obviously )a lot of stuff is variations on the same technique, really variations on the same principle.

So, if you distilled it Goju Ryu would probably be 20 total "techniques" or something, with a huge amount of tactial variation provided by different kata. As an example, Suparinpei has "advanced" applications of the hiki-uke, kick, elbow sequence from Gekisai, but they are exrepssions of the same principle; you can see this simply by observing the motions. Sanseiryu (as another example) has another variation on this same theme. The preceding and following moves can certainly affect the technique in question, but the principles transfer smoothly throughout kata. With a few exceptions most movements have identifiable "versions" in other kata.

I think there is more physical uniformity in Goju Ryu kata syllabus than in Shorin kata, and it makes answering this question a little simpler, though i'm sure some Gojuka would disagree. Shorin Ryu kata are much more unique individually. This makes sense given that Shorin Ryu is older, and comes from a more diverse range of sources than Goju Ryu. So generally, If I am doing a Shorin kata (I only do a couple these days - Naihanchin and Wansu), I view them as pretty unique, elements of transference or techniques happen, but less frequently by far than with Goju kata.

From my perspective, many Shorin kata need their own unique "lexicon", whereas Goju kata have a shared lexicon. Doesn't mean Shorin kata don't ultimately utilize the same principles (of course they do), but the epxression in kata can be different enough between kata that it requires interpretation.

Joseph O'Neill
Joseph O'Neill's picture

Hi Everyone,

Thanks so much for the responses, it's given me a lot to think about!

Iain Abernethy wrote:
We have been discussing how standardised motions, withing a given style, do not necessarily have the same application; nor does each one need a unique application.

Jesse’s point is different (the 2nd one). He’s discussing how similar applications were expressed differently across a range of individual kata at the time of their creation.

Iain Abernethy wrote:
Jesse is talking about the different originators of individual kata expressing techniques and concepts slightly differently. The two different points are therefore referring to two different points in history. Both apply to the kata we have today. Both points require us to look at the core motion, withing the wider context of the kata in question, whilst appreciating the kata is a self-contained unit.

This is a better understanding of what Jesse was saying, I think - I think I have misunderstood it as "in different lineages we see the same technique applied in different ways," and applied that to the standardised modern versions as "in different kata we see the same technique so it must be the same application."

Iain Abernethy wrote:

Does that help clarify?

Massively!

Wastelander wrote:
I do find that some kata were meant to go together, or have at least gone together for long enough that they thematically connect with each other as a cohesive system. Goju-Ryu, for example, has some very cohesive sets, since several of the kata were built around Sanchin in the first place.

I think this was also part of my thinking, when looking at the kata I'm exploring, we have the pinan/heian set, and they share or have elements derived from Bassai, Kanku, possibly Tekki, so it makes sense to me that if Itosu was breaking down Kanku into the Pinans, for example, it's likely the Majiuke in Heian Godan will share an application with the Manjiuke in Kanku. Obviously this wouldn't necessarily apply to gankaku/jion/jitte, and I think I've extended the line of thinking too far to encompass other kata.

Zach Zinn wrote:
So, if you distilled it Goju Ryu would probably be 20 total "techniques" or something, with a huge amount of tactial variation provided by different kata

I really like this point, and it makes a lot of sense to me both on a personal level, and an historical one. Obviously we have Bruce Lee's "Fear the man who practices one kick a thousand times," but also the Funakoshi quote: "A student well versed in even one technique will naturally see corresponding points in other techniques. A upper level punch, a lower punch, a front punch and a reverse punch are all essentially the same. Looking over thirty-odd kata, he should be able to see that they are essentially variations on just a handful.”

I'd definitely rather just learn a handful of techniques and be quite competent at them - applying them differently based on different situations depending on the tactical "theme" of the kata as you've said.

Zach Zinn wrote:
From my perspective, many Shorin kata need their own unique "lexicon", whereas Goju kata have a shared lexicon

From this point and the above one, do you think there's any value in creating our own lexicon for the kata that we are exploring, and then fitting those techniques into what we decide is the tatical overview of the kata we're fitting it in - provided of course that it is not completely out of left field (i.e. "I kick his knee to drop him to the ground, strike to the head, then haul him back up to throw him using yaridama because there's a manjiuke next in the kata!)

Some really good info from everyone here, to cliff note it for me and make sure I'm understanding:

- Techniques in different kata may be the same if there's a shared lineage, but because techniques are expressed similarly in two kata in a modern "style," does not mean they have the same application due to forced standardization.

- Different solo expressions which share a resemblance may have the same application due to preferences or differences in their historical origins (the Jesse Enkamp point).

- Solo techniques can be the same in different kata, applied from a different tactical standpoint, depending on the tactical "theme" of a kata.

- There's nothing wrong with limiting the number of techniques we use (such as Zach Zinn's point) and using the kata as a tactical flow chart to identify how we are applying them.

If I've missed a point you've made, please let me know!

Thanks again,

Joe.

Heath White
Heath White's picture

I will just add one point I have not seen made so far in this (very useful) discussion.  

3K karate is often criticized for misinterpreting their forms, using a small handful of techniques (punch, block, kick) to yield implausible attacks and applications.  The whole modern bunkai movement is resisting this error.  So if you start off with a different, or slightly larger, handful of techniques, and come up with implausible attacks and applications, you haven't really made progress.  Maybe you are no longer stuck with punch/block/kick.  But the basic error is the same.

I think there is tremendous value in saying "I don't know" what some particular movement in a form does.  (This is what a lot of 3K folks refuse to say.)  There are a number of places in various forms where I don't know an application I am really comfortable with.  Maybe I have some "placeholder" application in mind, but there is a little mental asterisk next to it, where I continue to look for something that fits better.

I am not trying to say that anyone on here is peddling bad applications.  Just that we shoudn't be embarrassed to say we don't know what something does.  You don't have to have a complete analysis of a given form.  Admitting ignorance is the first step to learning anything.

As far as particular applications go, like several people have said, I think context clues are important.  For example, the "high blocks" in (some versions of) Passai I would say are blocks, because they are followed by uppercut strikes.  Whereas the "high blocks" at the end of Pinan Shodan/Heian Nidan are strikes, because they are at the end of sequences.   

For manji-uke in particular, I think the footwork matters a lot.  There is a version where you stand still and snatch upward; a version where you step through; a version where you step into a kosa-dachi; and a version where you stand in manji-gamae and then pivot into another manji-gamae.  Probably there is more than one application in there.  The snatching version (Bassai; Heian Godan) I would read as either a takedown using a groin snatch, or a defense against a kick.  The pivoting version I think is kata guruma.  The other two ...  I don't know!

Zach Zinn
Zach Zinn's picture

Joseph O'neill said:

"I really like this point, and it makes a lot of sense to me both on a personal level, and an historical one. Obviously we have Bruce Lee's "Fear the man who practices one kick a thousand times," but also the Funakoshi quote: "A student well versed in even one technique will naturally see corresponding points in other techniques. A upper level punch, a lower punch, a front punch and a reverse punch are all essentially the same. Looking over thirty-odd kata, he should be able to see that they are essentially variations on just a handful.”

I'd definitely rather just learn a handful of techniques and be quite competent at them - applying them differently based on different situations depending on the tactical "theme" of the kata as you've said."

Yes, simplicity is a prerequisite for effectiveness of martial arts. This is one of the problems with doing things like teaching lots of "defenses" for different things. On a basic level it is something you have to do - Here's how to get out of a headlock, here's how to  stop yourself getting kneed int he clinch etc..The problem is that (I think especially for new students) we can create the idea that we are taking discrete "defenses" or techniques and applying them to "attacks"..which is a bit too forebrained to be much good, and martial arts on this level remain cerebal - not visceral, which is what they need to be in application.

Definitely I think that whatever the system, deeply knowing a few combative principles, then explanding outwards to things that are more on our periphery is the way to go. So, from my perspective it is better to look at Kata that way than it is to look at it as a collection of explanatory defenses to attacks, etc., though that's an ok starting point.

deltabluesman
deltabluesman's picture

This has become a very interesting and useful discussion.  I'd like to add a few comments, because I think we're touching upon some important nuances of the bunkai process that don't often see much daylight.  First, let me acknowledge that there are different views on the purpose and value of kata, and my own views may be on the fringe.  For the sake of comparison, I'll try to quickly catalogue a few of the different approaches I've heard:

Kata as Motion Training:  I have met many karateka who believe that the primary function of kata is to instill good habits of motion.  In their view, we do kata first and foremost as a way to train ourselves to move well.  The idea is that there is something special about traditional karate kata and that if you practice them enough, you'll improve as a fighter (as a byproduct of training those motions).  There are other variations on this theme (e.g., we study kata to improve our focus).  I disagree with this school of thought for multiple reasons (and it's been discussed on other parts of the website), but it's important to flag that this view is out there.   

***

Kata as a Technique Collection:  This school of thought is very common among bunkai-oriented martial artists.  Simply put, it's the view that kata serve as collections of techniques:  no more, no less.  Bunkai exists so we can mine those kata for new fighting methods.  We may have kata that we don't fully understand, but the idea is that if we continue practicing them, we'll hopefully understand their purpose at some point in the future (and then be able to apply them).  I would argue that this approach doesn't go far enough.

***

Kata as a Fighting System:  This school of thought attaches a higher burden to kata.  My views fall within this category.  As I see it, a kata is valuable because it records the core elements of a complete fighting system.  Yes, there are some nuances to this, but that's the general idea.  It's not enough to ask:  "What's the function of this particular motion?"  Instead, we have to push ourselves to go further and ask:  "How does this function connect with the rest of the kata?  Why was this function preserved in the kata?  How can I build on this motion to make myself more effective?"  This is an ongoing, difficult process.

***

Kata for Historical Interest/Aesthetic Interest:  I mention this fourth school of thought only to be thorough.  This would be the view that a kata is only valuable primarily because it has historical value or value as a kind of performance art.

***

In my opinion, karateka who train for self-protection should do the best they can to push their bunkai into the "kata as a fighting system" category.  It isn't necessary to have a perfect or complete understanding of the bunkai in order to do this:  we just need a collection of reliable, pragmatic bunkai that work well together, and we need to start training those motions regularly against resistance.

If we train kata that we don't know the applications for, we're pretty much in the same boat as the "kata as motion training" camp.  We're practicing without any understanding of the purpose of the movement.  We're in the dark (metaphorically speaking).  That's fine if we're doing it for artistic or historical purposes, but I'd argue that it's not useful for self-protection purposes.

If we have bunkai for the kata but we don't understand why those techniques were selected for the kata, we're not being as effective as we could be with our training time.  We're going to have a harder time unpacking the principles of the kata into a full fighting system 

To illustrate my point, let me give an example from my own bookshelf.  I have a martial arts book that contains a semi-random collection of Kenpo techniques.  They're described in great detail, and they'll show you dozens of ways to escape from bear hugs and wrist grabs and other attacks, but there's no discussion of how to put them together or of general principles behind the art.  On the same shelf, I have a book published by a champion grappler.  This book also contains techniques, but those techniques are carefully selected to illustrate an entire system of ground grappling (with its own internal logic).  They're put in order so you know what's important to study and why it's important.

Of course, with karate kata we don't have the master's textbook, so we have to fill in the details.  But I would argue that close, careful study of an individual kata can get you close enough to a working understanding of the kata's fighting system.  So when I talk about placeholders, I'm only talking about them in this wider context of the kata and its support skills serving as a fighting system.

Let me wrap up with a more concrete example.  We've mentioned the possibility that some kata motions record kata guruma.  If I were to find kata guruma in my kata bunkai, I would follow this sort of process:

• Kata guruma is a big, powerful throw.  It's not something that you can easily pull off against a resisting enemy.  Why is this throw located in this kata?  What does that tell me about the creator's intent?

• Are there other techniques in this kata that will get me into a position where I can use kata guruma?  Are there other techniques I can use if I go for kata guruma and it fails?

• What physical attributes and skills do I need to reliably pull off kata guruma against resistance?

• Is there a simpler application I could use instead of kata guruma?

And so on.  Obviously, kata guruma is a part of the karate syllabus, and we do see it in certain kata.  We see one variation of it at the end of Kanku Dai.  But I would argue that this is very telling, because it's at the end of a very complex and long kata.  It makes sense that it would be there as a "capstone" move for the advanced students who had learned everything else.  Once we figure this out, we know that there's no rush to learn kata guruma. 

Of course, there are plenty of disclaimers that should be attached to this.  This is just a generic overview of part of my approach, and I realize that specific karate styles/lineages may have important differences.  But I do think it's helpful background when trying to answer the question of how to apply similar motions that are found in different kata.  The key is to look at context and to focus on how that specific application fits within the broader "story" of the kata.  

My two cents.  And of course, this is my own "working theory" of the kata bunkai process, so I'm entirely willing to correct it/revise it if needed.

Zach Zinn
Zach Zinn's picture

Ideally the "motion training" and "fighting system" things should be the same category, from my perspective. The Kata teach both applications and how to physically do the applications for maximum effect....provided there has been minimal drift towards the "aesthetics" thing in how it's taught. Some of the hardest punches I've ever felt were also the ugliest and weirdest looking, by typical standards of martial arts aesthetics.

So if someone is doing the "motion training" thing without the combative part, they are basing the efficacy of the motions on something other than combat. This does happen of course, but hopefuly -how- people are taught to do kata is directly related to how they do the applications and involves the same physical principle, though of course it will never be exact.

"Kata as a Technique Collection:  This school of thought is very common among bunkai-oriented martial artists.  Simply put, it's the view that kata serve as collections of techniques:  no more, no less.  Bunkai exists so we can mine those kata for new fighting methods.  We may have kata that we don't fully understand, but the idea is that if we continue practicing them, we'll hopefully understand their purpose at some point in the future (and then be able to apply them).  I would argue that this approach doesn't go far enough."

I agree that it does not go far enough. It can be a reasonably effective approach to kata, but in my experience there is a demonstrable difference in the technique of people in forms-based arts for whom the form is integrated with the way they move combatively, and those who see it as simply a technique repository.

deltabluesman
deltabluesman's picture

Yes, I agree completely with what you're saying.  I'm struggling to find the best way to label it, but the kata as motion training view is only a problem when the motions are studied separately from the application.  I imagine it's pretty uncommon on this forum, but I do know several karate schools who take this view.  (Sometimes they call it "doing your homework" and argue that you practice the kata motions because there's some kind of carry-over effect to all of your other fighting.  For example, that the manji uke posture teaches good body mechanics, so by practicing that motion in the kata, we'll improve our overall fighting mechanics.) 

It's my belief (and I know others have made this point before) that a motion's effectiveness depends entirely on what it's being used for.     

Zach Zinn
Zach Zinn's picture

deltabluesman wrote:

Yes, I agree completely with what you're saying.  I'm struggling to find the best way to label it, but the kata as motion training view is only a problem when the motions are studied separately from the application.  I imagine it's pretty uncommon on this forum, but I do know several karate schools who take this view.  (Sometimes they call it "doing your homework" and argue that you practice the kata motions because there's some kind of carry-over effect to all of your other fighting.  For example, that the manji uke posture teaches good body mechanics, so by practicing that motion in the kata, we'll improve our overall fighting mechanics.) 

It's my belief (and I know others have made this point before) that a motion's effectiveness depends entirely on what it's being used for.     

Well, I think they are right -if and only if- the manji uke is understood in the first place. If it's not understood, or very vaguley understood, there is no chance for good body mechanics, because you don't know what the bodymechanics are meant to do in the first place. I get what you are talking about though. Frankly I tend to see that most with schools that are very light on application and are looking to justify the curriculum being so heavily invested in just rote aping of a teachers movement.

Sounds harsh I know, but I've been there for sure.

The other end is not good either though - the idea that there is no combative utility in solo kata practice at all - like the category of "just a collection of techniques". Rather, the combative utility of the solo practice is informed by how it connects to everything else. Does that make sense? I've seent he term "holistic" used before, Kata should function holistically, being connected to various other parts of training, making a whole.

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Hi All,

Utterly loving this thread! Lots of really interesting viewpoints and great information. I really enjoyed reading these! Thank you!

Joseph O'Neill wrote:
I think this was also part of my thinking, when looking at the kata I'm exploring, we have the pinan/heian set, and they share or have elements derived from Bassai, Kanku, possibly Tekki, so it makes sense to me that if Itosu was breaking down Kanku into the Pinans, for example, it's likely the Majiuke in Heian Godan will share an application with the Manjiuke in Kanku. Obviously this wouldn't necessarily apply to gankaku/jion/jitte, and I think I've extended the line of thinking too far to encompass other kata.

Great point! Where we know of a historical connection between kata, it is reasonable to assume common application of common movement. If we are comparing those kata as practised within a given modern style, then the standardisation will also have been common too. In the absence of any historical connection, we should not assume common application on the basis of modern standardisation alone.

I love how you’ve expressed that Joe. It’s a great point and I like how you’ve captured and expressed it.

deltabluesman wrote:
kata as motion training view is only a problem when the motions are studied separately from the application.  I imagine it's pretty uncommon on this forum, but I do know several karate schools who take this view.  (Sometimes they call it "doing your homework" and argue that you practice the kata motions because there's some kind of carry-over effect to all of your other fighting.  For example, that the manji uke posture teaches good body mechanics, so by practicing that motion in the kata, we'll improve our overall fighting mechanics.)

Zach Zinn wrote:
Well, I think they are right -if and only if- the manji uke is understood in the first place. If it's not understood, or very vaguley understood, there is no chance for good body mechanics, because you don't know what the bodymechanics are meant to do in the first place.

Another great point. Motion divorced from application is meaningless because there is no objective measure of “good”. An arbitrary or aesthetic “good” will not yield comparative function by default; although there are often claims that it will through some unidentified and unexplained mechanism. I did a podcast on this a few years ago:

https://iainabernethy.co.uk/content/occams-hurdled-katana-podcast

As regards Joe’s summations:

Joseph O'Neill wrote:
Techniques in different kata may be the same if there's a shared lineage, but because techniques are expressed similarly in two kata in a modern "style," does not mean they have the same application due to forced standardization.

100%. You’ve expressed that point far more succinctly than I managed to.

Joseph O'Neill wrote:
Different solo expressions which share a resemblance may have the same application due to preferences or differences in their historical origins (the Jesse Enkamp point).

I agree. The kata may give a single example of a method, but it’s not about the specific example but the wider principles the example illustrates. The kata were created by different people at different points in history (not by committee), but there is the common problem of non-consensual criminal violence. It’s therefore inevitable that we will see different examples of common concepts across the various kata.

Joseph O'Neill wrote:
Solo techniques can be the same in different kata, applied from a different tactical standpoint, depending on the tactical "theme" of a kata.

I’d clarify this one and say the function of the specific motion can be determined by the context of the SEQUANCE, not the kata as a whole. Because of the majority of the kata were created to stand alone, they don’t have unique tactical considerations. There is the common problem of non-consensual criminal violence, so we therefore have common goals, strategies and tactics. We will have different examples (the techniques), but I’d be careful of stating kata have a unique “tactical theme.”

We sometimes hear that in modern karate when people think of a single kata as being part of the modern style; and is hence ascribed a specific purpose. Historically, the kata is a stand-alone summation of a holistic combative method.

3K Thinking: “Kanku-Dai is part of the Shotokan style of karate”.

Bunkai Thinking: “Kanku-Dai is the Shotokan version of the form created by Tode Sakugawa to encapsulate the combative system taught to him by the Chinese martial artist Kushanku”.

3K thinking views the kata as being part of the style. Bunkai thinking sees the kata as a style. The kata are therefore not partial in their scope, but holistic and wide-ranging.

https://iainabernethy.co.uk/content/how-kata-records-style

Joseph O'Neill wrote:
There's nothing wrong with limiting the number of techniques we use (such as Zach Zinn's point) and using the kata as a tactical flow chart to identify how we are applying them.

It’s vital we explore the “narrative” of the kata so we can see the learning order as well as the way all the methods integrate combatively. When people see kata as a “bag of tricks” it is low level learning. They have the individual “strands”, but they aren’t seeing the tapestry. When they see how the various strands interconnect, they are then able to see the system the kata records.

As regards the number of techniques, it’s worth remembering that was the historical way. It’s the principles illustrated by the techniques that matter. You need to internalise the principles and make them habitual. In that way you will fight in accord with those principles in the ever changing, unpredictable world of combat.

Each kata is stand alone and in the past, according to Funakoshi, the most knowledgeable karateka would know two or three kata, but they studied “narrow and deep” as opposed to “wide and shallow”. He also said that “all kata are interrelated” and “once you have completely mastered one technique, you will realise its close relation to other techniques.” It’s the principles that matter.

All the best,

Iain

Joseph O'Neill
Joseph O'Neill's picture

Hi Everyone,

Again, there's been some great and really helpful points made here that have really helped my thinking.

Heath White wrote:
So if you start off with a different, or slightly larger, handful of techniques, and come up with implausible attacks and applications, you haven't really made progress.  Maybe you are no longer stuck with punch/block/kick.  But the basic error is the same

I don't think I've been doing this - I try to decode the bunkai as a flow through the techniques (not always linearly - there are places where I think we can skip back, or where some techniques are alternative options which can both be applied from the preceeding technique), rather than writing an isolated yaridama just because there's a manjiuke.

Heath White wrote:
I think there is tremendous value in saying "I don't know"

...

(W)e shoudn't be embarrassed to say we don't know what something does.  You don't have to have a complete analysis of a given form.  Admitting ignorance is the first step to learning anything.

I absolutely agree. There are kata where I have applications for a handful of the techniques in mind, but no formalised application for a kata as a whole because there are techniques I don't understand and I can't therefore connect the ones I have ideas for. Heian Yondan is one of these for me - just one I struggle to unpack. In these instances I will use applications from others as placeholders while I work through it (some of which may remain long-term if they fit).

Zach Zinn wrote:
Definitely I think that whatever the system, deeply knowing a few combative principles, then explanding outwards to things that are more on our periphery is the way to go. So, from my perspective it is better to look at Kata that way than it is to look at it as a collection of explanatory defenses to attacks, etc

I like this, and I think I've done it subconciously - none of my bunkai are "if this happens I do this," most are "This is the technique, and it can be applied from here (i.e. preceeding technique), here, or here. I can then link it to (next technique), or even (jump back to earlier, simpler technique)."

deltabluesman wrote:
Kata guruma is a big, powerful throw.  It's not something that you can easily pull off against a resisting enemy.  Why is this throw located in this kata?  What does that tell me about the creator's intent?

...

And so on.  Obviously, kata guruma is a part of the karate syllabus, and we do see it in certain kata.  We see one variation of it at the end of Kanku Dai.  But I would argue that this is very telling, because it's at the end of a very complex and long kata.  It makes sense that it would be there as a "capstone" move for the advanced students who had learned everything else.  Once we figure this out, we know that there's no rush to learn kata guruma.

Iain makes this point in the article about Chinto/Gankaku, where it starts with very simple techniques (essentially a flinch response), and develops into more complex applications. It is definitely something I have tried to apply, for example in Heian Sandan, I develop from Byobudaoshi - a relatively simple throw - to more complex throws such as koshiguruma, but I tend to see Sandan as hip-throwing due both to the positions/stances in it, and the position of it in the Heian system - saving more complex (imo) throws like yaridama and seionage for the later kata where I think they appear.

With regard to the approaches to kata, I definitely ascribe to the view that they are a complete fighting system in themselves (with some broken into sub-sets - the Heians being the most obvious example and I use a similar progression to Iain's of Striking-Takedowns-Throws-Masterclass(es), but I like wastelander's point above about the shared principles of the Goju kata having fallen out of Sanchin).

We then have "ancilliary" kata which can add to the main kata in some instances - for example Bassai Dai being the primary fighting system, and Bassai Sho being almost like an appendix to provide additional information or alternative principles to round out the fighter's education. It can also be that additional kata show responses to an opponent who obfuscates our attempts to apply the main form - my example for this is I use Tekki shodan as a clinch fighting form, because I think it works thematically, the techniques all work at that range, the stance and position is appropriate, and I like clinch fighting using it, it works for me.

When I then look at Tekki Nidan, there are some decent grappling techniques that can be used if the opponent breaks our clinch or we tie up wrong - for example if they overhook one arm, to break out of the clinch, we can underhook the other to have a double under hook (or if we find ourselves in this position to start with), and use the first technique to break their balance up and use an upper body throw to take them down, with the first step having utility as a sweep to faciliate this if needed.

This "ancilliary kata" view is just a musing of mine, there's no real basis in fact that I'm aware of it's just how I like to view them.

I think the problem with the Kata as a collection of Techniques view is that they don't need to exist if they're just a collection of individual techniques, as the "kata" would just need to be a line work representation of the body movement (like the solo uchi-komi we sometimes do as a warm up where I do Judo, or like simple shadow boxing drills of 1-4 movements), divorced from any other technique because the context wouldn't be important which it is.

Obviously kata are a collection of techniques, but not individual techniques and this I think is the important distinction.

I don't know if this is seperate to the conversation being had, but to ensure that there is cohesion in the arrangement of the techniques in kata I fully flowchart the kata as I work through it, showing where techniques link forward and back, explaining situations at the side in which I might need to transition to the next technique (i.e. "opponent jams this strike, so I pull it down bringing him off balance to facilitate X, if that fails or if he instead moves back, I can then do Y").

Does anyone else have any methods to ensure there is a sensible flow through the kata and the application is suitable, or do most people just remember these things?

Thanks again for all the responses, it's of great benefit to my thinking process! Joe.

Zach Zinn
Zach Zinn's picture

Worth mentioning here, there are traditional martial arts that already have "collections of techniques" without forms. traditional Jujutsu is one example, it's usually taught as a list of two man sets, and there is no solo form practice, only some fundamental movements. Most modern systems seem to essentially do the same thing. It's actually interesting to examine the "flaws" that pop up in systems like this as opposed to the flaws that pop up in form-based arts.

Wastelander
Wastelander's picture

Joseph O'Neill wrote:
I think the problem with the Kata as a collection of Techniques view is that they don't need to exist if they're just a collection of individual techniques, as the "kata" would just need to be a line work representation of the body movement (like the solo uchi-komi we sometimes do as a warm up where I do Judo, or like simple shadow boxing drills of 1-4 movements), divorced from any other technique because the context wouldn't be important which it is.

Obviously kata are a collection of techniques, but not individual techniques and this I think is the important distinction.

I don't know if this is seperate to the conversation being had, but to ensure that there is cohesion in the arrangement of the techniques in kata I fully flowchart the kata as I work through it, showing where techniques link forward and back, explaining situations at the side in which I might need to transition to the next technique (i.e. "opponent jams this strike, so I pull it down bringing him off balance to facilitate X, if that fails or if he instead moves back, I can then do Y").

Does anyone else have any methods to ensure there is a sensible flow through the kata and the application is suitable, or do most people just remember these things?

I would add that, in addition to being a difference between a "collection" and a "system," there is a difference between a "system" and a "theme," when it comes to the arrangement of techniques in kata, and insisting on any one of the three can be potentially limiting to one's study, as opposed to considering the possibilities of all three.

Collection: When looking at kata as a collection of techniques, with no requirement to be connected to each other in any way, we have the freedom to look at each movement, posture, and sequence in isolation, with no concern for fitting into a cohesive system or overall theme. This means that we can more thoroughly explore the combative potential of the human body, and this can be seen as the "easiest" method of bunkai (as a process), as there are no real criteria beyond whether or not the application fits the movement and works against attacks with intent.

System: When considering a kata as a combative system, the assumption can be made that the kata will cover a variety of situations, which may or may not be connected, but the goal would be to address a wide array of methods to provide the practitioner a holistic skillset for combat. This gives us a broad-spectrum but interconnected approach to bunkai (as a process), because we know that the applications we are working with should be able to deal with many different acts of violence, as well as potential responses from the opponent. This is more difficult than addressing kata as a collection when it comes to bunkai (as a process), because you have several more criteria to consider for each application you are working out, but it can also be easier, in a way, because you have a more structured framework, and can rule out applications that obviously do not fit within that framework.

Theme: Seeing kata as having a theme, they can be either a collection or a system, but there is generally a requirement that all of the techniques in that collection or system share a common method, goal, or trigger. This distills the kata down to a very small selection of potential applications, and provides a laser focus on a specific intent. This is, IMO, the most difficult of the three when it comes to bunkai (as a process), because you no longer have the freedom to explore within or without a framework, as every application you come up with must fit the theme of the kata, and thanks to the standardization and modification of kata over time, that can be very difficult to do.

Now, I also happen to believe that it is pretty likely that there have been kata created with all three intents. As we've already discussed, kata were created by different people, in different places, and in different times, and there is no universal lexicon or formula for their use. We can say with almost absolute certainty that the techniques within the kata are partner drills that represent fighting methods (with a handful of exceptions), but we can't say what the creator's intent with those techniques and their organization/representation in the kata was, for the most part. Some kata may have simply been collections of techniques that the creator liked, with no particular connection to each other, and are only a "system" if it is worked together with other collections from that creator, and that system is likely lost by now, if those kata were scattered, altered, or forgotten. Some kata may have been created specifically to be their own systems--either to represent the creator's own system, or a system or sub-system they learned from someone else--and we certainly have statements from past masters that indicate this was the case, at least fairly often. Some kata may have been created specifically to follow a theme, and everything in them is meant to achieve the same overall goal, which then means that, like collections, these kata are really only a "system" when combined with other kata that have other themes.

To say that every kata must be just one of those three can really limit your exploration of the kata. You may have a preference, and teach that way as your primary curriculum, of course, but that doesn't preclude you from evaluating the kata from other perspectives. One of the great things about kata is that it can provide you with an incredibly deep and diverse source of material to work with, depending on how many ways you choose to look at it.

As to the flowchart idea; I have definitely played with it, but I find that every time I go to diagram it on paper/screen, I get frustrated by how many interconnected lines and boxes I'm going to need, lol. It's easy for me to make all the connections in my head, and explain them logically, but once I start trying to put it on paper, it's not my thing :P

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Joseph O'Neill wrote:
I don't know if this is seperate to the conversation being had, but to ensure that there is cohesion in the arrangement of the techniques in kata I fully flowchart the kata as I work through it …

I think it’s related because it’s central to the topic of discussion. The kata hanging together as a coherent whole is one of the strongest signs that a given view of the kata is correct. If a given interpretation of a standardised movement fits within the wider context of the kata, then it’s a very good interpretation. If it’s not connecting with the wider kata, then it’s probably wrong.

No decent teacher would ever present material along these lines:

TEACHER: “This is how we thrown a punch”

STUDENT: “Awesome! What if his arm gets in the way?”

TEACHER: “Here is how we escape from a headlock”

STUDENT: “OK, but I still want to know what to do if the punch hasn’t got a clear path?”

TEACHER: “If he grabs both lapels do this”

STUDENT: “You do know that techniques fail very regularly in combat, right?”

TEACHER: “Here is how to kick”

STUNDET: “FFS! I’m out!”

If we accept that a good teacher would structure their material, and would cover all probable “what ifs”, it naturally follows that the kata that encapsulate their teaching – whether created by the teacher or the student – would also have to follow that structure and cover the probable “what ifs”.

TEACHER: “This is how we thrown a punch”

STUDENT: “Awesome! What if his arm gets in the way?”

TEACHER: “There’s a number of ways to clear it depending on the which direction the arm is moving, but here are a couple of key ones.”

STUDENT: “Cool! What striking options do I have from each clearance?”

TEACHER: “Loads! Here are some good examples though.”

The kata that encapsulates this teaching would therefore include the initial strike, the example clearances, and the example follow ups.

An analysis of a kata that demonstrated such a narrative / flow would be a good analysis.

An “interpretation” of kata that went punch, head lock escape, lapel grab escape (as per the first dialogue above) is either the result of a terrible teacher, and an unthinking student, creating a terrible kata, which somehow got passed on through the generations, and was then correctly interpreted … OR it is the incorrect interpretation of a good kata which originally reflected coherent teaching. Occam’s Razor should have us favour the second possibility – because it’s the one with the least assumptions – as the most likely scenario.

In short, any interpretation which lacks a narrative and flow is almost certainly a faulty interpretation. It’s is also undeniably poor from a combative standpoint. Conversely, any interpretation which has a clear narrative and flow is far more likely to be right historically. More importantly, it is also much more useful from a combative standpoint.

Two of my friends (one from Germany and one from Switzerland) have been working for some time on drawing out the “flow chart” for the three Tekki / Naihanchi kata. It’s a massively impressive project which clearly demonstrates the full system those kata represent. They hope to publish it one day and I think it will be a big hit. It’s not so much the techniques they show that make the project so impressive, but all the lines that connect all the techniques. The combative narrative / flow is clearly illustrated, and it is in a different league to the “bag of tricks bunkai” that we sometimes see.

All the best,

Iain

Joseph O'Neill
Joseph O'Neill's picture

Thanks for the reply Iain!

Iain Abernethy wrote:

Two of my friends (one from Germany and one from Switzerland) have been working for some time on drawing out the “flow chart” for the three Tekki / Naihanchi kata. It’s a massively impressive project which clearly demonstrates the full system those kata represent. They hope to publish it one day and I think it will be a big hit. It’s not so much the techniques they show that make the project so impressive, but all the lines that connect all the techniques. The combative narrative / flow is clearly illustrated, and it is in a different league to the “bag of tricks bunkai” that we sometimes see.

This is what got me to start doing this when I look through applications - I can't remember if it was a podcast or seminar where you mentioned it, but as a fairly analytical guy the drawn out/written out flow charts click with me a lot, plus it's about the only way I can plot loops back to earlier techniques. A great idea which I've gratefully borrowed from your friends!

EDIT: Sorry wastelander, missed your reply

wastelander wrote:

As to the flowchart idea; I have definitely played with it, but I find that every time I go to diagram it on paper/screen, I get frustrated by how many interconnected lines and boxes I'm going to need, lol. It's easy for me to make all the connections in my head, and explain them logically, but once I start trying to put it on paper, it's not my thing

Different strokes for different folks, I suppose - I find it difficult to keep all that information tucked in my head - I need it written in some form or another and I use different lines to represent forward/back/options etc. It's probably incomprehensible to anyone but me!

Zach Zinn
Zach Zinn's picture

So a big part of this question is strategic vs. tactical thinking. Kata as an assortment of "techniques" (or bag of tricks) can go in a direction where the collection of tactics ends up violating the basic strategy. For instance a Kata made up of mostly hold escapes or joint locks runs counter to the entire strategy of Karate, arguably counter to a sane strategy for civilian self defense overall. Though I can see that maybe specialized forms might exist in some systems for this, Karate kata are not designed like that.

So context is everything, Kata do contain escapes, throws, locks etc., but they are "glued" to the strategy of quick incapacitation and escape. A collection of techniques that are not suited to this ("groundfighting Naihanchin" as one example I can think of, no offense to anyone who sees it as valid, I don't) are likely diverging strongly from the "intent" of the kata strategically (even if the indviidual tactics are valid)..as much as we can know it.

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Zach Zinn wrote:
So context is everything, Kata do contain escapes, throws, locks etc., but they are "glued" to the strategy of quick incapacitation and escape. A collection of techniques that are not suited to this ("ground fighting Naihanchin" as one example I can think of, no offense to anyone who sees it as valid, I don't) are likely diverging strongly from the "intent" of the kata strategically (even if the individual tactics are valid)..as much as we can know it.

Great summation! The goal determines the strategy, determines the tactics, determines the selection of techniques. In addition to ensuring strategic congruence, I think good bunkai will also show tactical congruence i.e. there is an underlying plan integrating the methods contained, which will, of course, be in line with the overarching strategy.

In the “bag of tricks” approach, we often fail to see the presence of any coherent tactics guiding the application of the kata methods (i.e. it’s all “do this” and no thought to “what if”). Any combative method lacking clear tactics is obviously seriously flawed. Therefore, any interpretation of kata which lacks tactics is likewise flawed and certainly wide of the mark.

All the best,

Iain