31 posts / 0 new
Last post
Marc
Marc's picture
Wanted: Application for 3x Morote-Uke in Heian/Pinan Yondan

Hi all,

I am struggling to find an application for the 3 consecutive morote-ude-uke techniques in Heian/Pinan Yondan.

I know there are many good applications out there for morote-ude-uke but my question is specifically about the sequence of 3. I follow the idea that the sequence of 3 represents the 2 transitions: Left to right, and right to left.

That means that the we are actually looking for an application of one morote-ude-uke followed by stepping forward into a second morote-ude-uke. Now that could be because the application requires both or that the second one is a fail-safe for the most likely way in which the first one might fail.

In the version I practice (Shotokan) the morote-ude-uke are executed at chudan level and in kokutsu-dachi, and the steps are straight forward (not at an angle).

I would love my application to follow as many bunkai "rules" as possible. Here are some that spring to mind:

a) The angle is important (here: straight forward from first to second).

b) Both hands are working.

c) The stance shows how to manipulate the mutual center of gravity (here: pull in).

d) The action happens halfway through (here: between throwing both arms out to one side, then bringing them back in with on hand touching the elbow of the other), in front of our body where we are strongest.

e) A sequence of 3 of the same technique means there are 2 transitions (L to R and R to L).

f) We are keeping the enemy in front of us (i.e. the belly buttons always "looks" at the opponent).

If you have more "rules" that help you in coming up with a plausible bunkai, please provide those "rules" as well.

I have found good applications for most of the other moves of the Pinan/Heian series, including the single morote-ude-uke. But so far I could not find anything convincing for the 2 transitions in Yondan.

Any ideas?

Thanks and take care

Marc  

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Hi Marc,

The key issue would seem to be explaining why the morote-ude-ukes are presented as a set of three. As far as I am aware, there is nothing from the past mastes clearly stating why things are in threes, so we are left with logical thinking. As I see it, there are two plausible reasons why things are in threes:

1) To show the transition on both sides i.e. left to right, and right to left.

2) Most people are right handed, so the most probable scenario is shown twice.

There are other theories, but I find them far from than convincing.  One I would reject is “heart influence” i.e. “the heart tilts slightly such that most of it is on the left side of the body, and hence the meridians on that side of the body are more susceptible to blows.” There’s nothing to support the idea that the unproven “substance” of chi is more vulnerable on the “heart side” as it flows through the unproven meridians due to an undemonstrated link with the heart. I’m happy to bin that one.

The other commonly expressed position, that I would also reject, are appeals to numerology i.e. some asserted connection to philosophy or religion.  At the risk of stating the blindingly obvious, every third number divides by three. You can therefore point to all kinds of alleged connections with three or multiples of three i.e. the Three Pure ones of Toaism, the Sanxing of Chinese Folk religion, the three Marks of Existence in Buddhism, and so on. There is no evidence at all to support such connections away from the common number.

Just because we can point to two things, that both originate in the East, that also happen to have the number three attached to them, it does not follow that they have the number three attached to them for the same reason. You’d need additional evidence to show that.

It would be like me saying that there are three periods in ice hockey because of the holy trinity in Christianity. Both have a number three attached to them – and both are popular in the North America – but that is not enough to prove a connection or infer causality.

As I see it, there are only the two theories stated above that are plausible. Both work for the sequence in Yodan. For those unsure what is being discussed, it is the motions shown from 50 seconds to 55 seconds in the video below:

 

A couple of simple application for the motion itself:

Core Bunkai 1

The arm that ends up across the chest “hammer fists” the enemy’s arm down, or grabs the clothing and pulls on the arm down. Both result in a closed fist position across the chest. Now the path is clear, the “blocking” front arm strikes into the neck.

Core Bunkai 2

The enemy has grabbed your clothing. The arm that ends up across the chest hammer-fists the enemy’s arm to disrupt their posture (and maybe the thought process) such that their body is turned slightly. The “blocking” arm strikes into the neck. This also provides a “wedge” that makes it hard for the enemy to hit you, if the forearm is left in contact with the neck with the elbow pointing toward the enemy’s chest. You can then follow up from there.

Both of these will work with the plausible “theories of three”.

1) To show the transition on both sides i.e. left to right, and right to left.

Core Bunkai 1: If the enemy manages to cover the strike with the other hand, we can switch and remove the “new obstacle” in the same way we removed the original one.

Core Bunkai 2: As above. However, if the enemy maintains their original grip they will end up with their free arm pushed down into their tethered one … which will allow you to strike freely with your free hand.

I don’t have any videos online showing these, but this one for shuto-uke is very similar to what I’m suggesting in the first instance. It would be pretty much the same of the enemy had grabbed too; as per the second instance.

 

So with that, we have the left to right, and the right to left. And that would be one plausible reason for the three motions.

The other possibility is:

2) Most people are right handed, so the most probable scenario is shown twice.

The kata shows two with the left foot forward, and one with the right foot forward. Most people are right handed (70% to 95% depending on the study to look at).

Core Bunkai 1: Assuming you are right handed, you will most likely have your left-foot forward and be striking with your right-hand. The enemy will therefore be likely to stop those right-handed punches with their left-hand; so that is the arm you will need to clear most often … and that could be why the kata shows that version twice; because it is the most likely scenario i.e. “drill this method on both sides, but be sure to appreciate there is a 70% to 95% chance it will be on this side in application.”

Core Bunkai 2: There is a 70% to 95% chance the enemy is right-handed, so they are more likely to grab with their left-hand, so they can punch with their right-hand. The kata shows the most probable variation twice (grabbed with the left-hand) and the less likely variation once (grabbed with the right-hand). Again, the kata is saying, “drill this method on both sides, but be sure to appreciate there is a 70% to 95% chance it will be on this side in application.”

Of the two plausible explanations available to us – and accepting that both offer solid explications of what we observe – my preference is fall on the side of the two transitions as the favoured explanation for this sequence i.e. “L to R, and R to L: three motions to show the transition on both sides”

Marc wrote:
I have found good applications for most of the other moves of the Pinan/Heian series, including the single morote-ude-uke. But so far I could not find anything convincing for the 2 transitions in Yondan.

I hope the above is of some value. Always easier to show in person, but I hope I’ve made my thinking clear enough to be followed.

All the best,

Iain

Marc
Marc's picture

Hi Iain,

thanks for the recap of possible (and impossible) meanings of the sequences of three.

And of course for your suggestions for the application of the morote-ude-uke.

Iain Abernethy wrote:

Core Bunkai 1

The arm that ends up across the chest “hammer fists” the enemy’s arm down, or grabs the clothing and pulls on the arm down. Both result in a closed fist position across the chest. Now the path is clear, the “blocking” front arm strikes into the neck.

If I under stand that correctly, it would basically be the same as the shuto-uke application where my right hand slaps their left arm out of the way from the outside and then my left hand/forearm strikes them into the neck/temple. But instead of slapping I would be grabbing their arm/clothing.

I agree that both shuto-uke and morote-ude-uke are very similar techniques and could therefore have similar applications.

Iain Abernethy wrote:

Core Bunkai 2

The enemy has grabbed your clothing. The arm that ends up across the chest hammer-fists the enemy’s arm to disrupt their posture (and maybe the thought process) such that their body is turned slightly. The “blocking” arm strikes into the neck. This also provides a “wedge” that makes it hard for the enemy to hit you, if the forearm is left in contact with the neck with the elbow pointing toward the enemy’s chest. You can then follow up from there.

I think I know what you mean, but it's a bit difficult for me to visualise. Are you hammer-fisting and striking from their outside or across your chest from their inside? - Both are possible, of course.

I would like to suggest a third core application:

Core Bunkai 3

From clinching distance with the enemy, especially when the enemy tries to grab or strike low (groin/uppercut), let's say with their left hand: My right forearm blocks their attacking left arm and slides underneath and back up behind their shoulder into a hammer lock, while at the same time my left elbow/forearm strikes their chest and then my left forearm slides up to the left side of their neck to assist the hammerlock by pressing down their head. The kokutsu-dachi assists the hammerlock even more by pulling the mutual center of gravity close to my body. It also helps to angle off a bit so we turn a bit to the left when applying the hammerlock on their left arm.

That would be my favourite application for the single morote-ude-uke because it works so well (at least for me).

Iain Abernethy wrote:

1) To show the transition on both sides i.e. left to right, and right to left.

Core Bunkai 1: If the enemy manages to cover the strike with the other hand, we can switch and remove the “new obstacle” in the same way we removed the original one.

I can see that. It is much like in the shuto-uke drill you posted above.

Iain Abernethy wrote:

Core Bunkai 2: As above. However, if the enemy maintains their original grip they will end up with their free arm pushed down into their tethered one … which will allow you to strike freely with your free hand.

I'm sorry, I fail to visualise that. :(

Iain Abernethy wrote:

2) Most people are right handed, so the most probable scenario is shown twice.

The kata shows two with the left foot forward, and one with the right foot forward. Most people are right handed (70% to 95% depending on the study to look at).

Sure, that would be another possible explanation for the sequence of three.

Iain Abernethy wrote:

Of the two plausible explanations available to us – and accepting that both offer solid explications of what we observe – my preference is fall on the side of the two transitions as the favoured explanation for this sequence i.e. “L to R, and R to L: three motions to show the transition on both sides”

As I wrote in my original post, I support the theorie that the sequence of three means that we should look at the two transitions. My reasoning for this, as opposed to the "most people are right-handed" theorie, is that throughout the heian katas we see some 3x-seqs but not for all techniques.

If, for example, we take the beginning of Heian Sandan (uchi-ude-uke / 2x kosa-uke), we could see it as a defence against a one-handed lapel grab. Once to the left (left hand grab) and once to the right (right hand grab). Since right-handed attackers are more likely to grab with their left to facilitate a punch with their right, we should train that side more often. So the kata should include the left side twice, if we followed that logic. But we don't see that. - Some techniques in the Heians are even shown only once. What would that mean with respect to handedness?

Also, in Heian Yondan, we see morote-ude-uke once as a single technique (right foot forward) and once as a 3x-seq (left-right-left). So overall left and right side are balanced within the kata, which does not support the handedness theorie. The transition theorie, however, make sense if the two occurences have different applications. One application for the single technique, and another for the transition of two.

Iain Abernethy wrote:

I hope the above is of some value. Always easier to show in person, but I hope I’ve made my thinking clear enough to be followed.

Yes, thank you. I'm looking forward to train with you again in September in Meckenheim. Maybe we can exchange some bunkai ideas in person then.

All the best,

Marc

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Iain Abernethy wrote:
Core Bunkai 2: As above. However, if the enemy maintains their original grip they will end up with their free arm pushed down into their tethered one … which will allow you to strike freely with your free hand.

Marc wrote:
I'm sorry, I fail to visualise that. :(

Never easy without out photos or video :-) It’s pretty much the same as the shuto-uke pass when the strike is blocked, but because the enemy has hold of you with one hand (the gripping hand) their blocking hand will get pushed into it. Their arms will be crossed together, under the control of one of their arms, so you can hit them freely with the other one.  

Some quick pics taken just now in the office that may help:

A – The initial one done off a left-handed grip. My attempted strike was covered.

B – Slide my arm under and redirect inline with the direction of force the enemy is applying.

C – Continue the motion so the path is opened up.

D – Strike on the opposite side. Notice how the enemy’s arms are tied up (“free arm pushed down into their tethered one”). In that instant, my right arm can strike freely.

This is the left to right transition.

As regards some of the other points around the “handedness” theory, I think you need to look at the context of each sequence. The angle tells us the angle we should move to in relation to the enemy. So, when the angles are introduced, you can only go left or right (and which one will be determined by the enemy). So, it’s perhaps unsurprising the motions done to the angles are in twos, because it’s the angle that is primarily being communicated (you move left or right). It’s the motions done on the centre that are often uneven, so we could say that probability is being communicated in the absence on the angle. When things are in ones, it can be because only one side applies i.e. if you are behind the enemy you can grab them with either hand, so you do so with the strongest one (assumed to be the right one). There would be no point in gripping with the weaker one.  

There’s a lot to it, and I don’t think we can look for a universal rule to apply to every motion in every kata (they were not all made by a single person or by a committee). I think we need to look at the movement itself and the context in which it is shown i.e. why is this specific sequence uneven?

Sometimes the “transitions theory” would seem to be in effect. Other times the “probability theory”. Sometimes both. Sometimes you even see a motion done three times in one styles version, but only once in another version … so it could be the style with the three wanted to do the movement on both sides in the kata, but they had to get back to the starting position to continue the flow of the kata (so 1 move becomes 3 … originally right, left added in, need to get back to right to continue the kata). Maybe a specific kata was meant to be done on both sides such that “imbalances” cancel out. I don’t think we can point to one rule that covers all kata and works in all specific instances.

One of my big “bunkai regrets” is using the word “rule” in my first two books. It infers a uniformity and a central authority that is not there. The kata were made by different people, in different places, and at different times. They naturally will have had different ideas about the way forms should be constructed. A better way to expresses it would have been “keys” or “guidelines”. We can apply them to specific kata sequences and see if that yields results. Some things will be universal due to the nature of kata and combat – stances showing the shift in bodyweight for example – but I think would be hard pressed to find one rule of three and apply it to all the kata there is. The fact Naihanchi / Tekki is symmetrical would rule such a thing out immediately.

Back to the specific example we are discussing now, I think both “transitions” and “probabilities” work as explanations.

All the best,

Iain

shujika
shujika's picture

The 3 motions, are 3 "different" situations (obviously).and motions. Each contains different "footwork" (and hand motion) use/application. They shouldn't be considered as being "the same thing, done 3 times". . 

Marc
Marc's picture

Iain Abernethy wrote:

Iain Abernethy wrote:
Core Bunkai 2: As above. However, if the enemy maintains their original grip they will end up with their free arm pushed down into their tethered one … which will allow you to strike freely with your free hand.

Some quick pics taken just now in the office that may help:

Thanks very much for the pictures, now even I can visualise it. ;-)

That seems to be a nice and solid interpretation, making use of the transition.

Iain Abernethy wrote:

As regards some of the other points around the “handedness” theory, I think you need to look at the context of each sequence.

That's true and you raise some good points in your post.

Iain Abernethy wrote:

When things are in ones, it can be because only one side applies i.e. if you are behind the enemy you can grab them with either hand, so you do so with the strongest one (assumed to be the right one). There would be no point in gripping with the weaker one.

I completely agree with that. There are some situations, like a double grab, a bear hug, or a two-handed choke, that are not "sided". You would just "do your thing" with your strong side.

It might also be that the application is so clear and simple that there would be no need to include both sides to train them. If, for example, a kata would include a straight punch to the face, like a jab, you would really only need one instance of that technique in the kata. Everybody would get it immediately the first time and understand that, of course, you could also punch them with the other hand.

Iain Abernethy wrote:

There’s a lot to it, and I don’t think we can look for a universal rule to apply to every motion in every kata (they were not all made by a single person or by a committee).

That's true, and the word "rules" maybe was a misnomer. Maybe "clues", "possible keys" or "encoding/decoding principle" would be more appropriate.

However, in the case discussed here, we're not looking at "every kata", but at Heian Yondan specifically. And Heian Yondan is part of the Heian/Pinan series, as created by one person, namely (allegedly) Itosu. It therefore does make sense to assume a coherent coding system, in which triples would be there to convey a certain meaning throughout the entire Heian/Pinan series. It is essentially one kata, split in five for convenience.

I would not suggest that every bunkai principle does universally hold for each and every kata. As you say, they come from different sources.

Iain Abernethy wrote:

Sometimes the “transitions theory” would seem to be in effect. Other times the “probability theory”. Sometimes both. Sometimes you even see a motion done three times in one styles version, but only once in another version … so it could be the style with the three wanted to do the movement on both sides in the kata, but they had to get back to the starting position to continue the flow of the kata (so 1 move becomes 3 … originally right, left added in, need to get back to right to continue the kata). Maybe a specific kata was meant to be done on both sides such that “imbalances” cancel out.

Point taken.

Thanks for this discussion and all the valuable food for thought.

Take care,  

Marc

Marc
Marc's picture

shujika wrote:

The 3 motions, are 3 "different" situations (obviously).and motions. Each contains different "footwork" (and hand motion) use/application.

If I understand what you are saying correctly, you see these different types of footwork:

1) Stepping out of the 45° angle into the straigt line with a left kokutsu-dachi.

2) Stepping straight forward into a right kokutsu-dachi.

3) Stepping straight forward into a left kokutsu-dachi.

I do not see three different types of hand motion, however. Could you please explain how they are different?

shujika wrote:

They shouldn't be considered as being "the same thing, done 3 times". .

If you see them as three different techniques, it makes sense to expect three different applications/principles.

Do you have suggestions as to which applications or principles we can derive from the three techniques?

Thanks, and take care,

Marc

Marc
Marc's picture

Contemplating further on the sequence, I realised that there's another possibility:

Instead of two transitions (L>R and R>L), we could take the next technique after the triple into consideration: It could be one left morote-ude-uke followed by a right morote-ude-uke, and one left morote-ude-uke followed by the next technique where you change the stance into zenkutsu-dachi reach out with your hands and pull them down into a hiza-geri.

So, maybe two alternative follow-ups for whatever we try to do with the left morote-uke?

Just brainstorming here...

Any other ideas for that sequence?  

shujika
shujika's picture

The "first" motion, is a forward "step" into a a forward stance (zenkutsudachi) from a natural/ready stance. The second is a forward step (from zenkutsudachi) into another forward stance. The third is (again) from the opposite forward stance to another. Each progression covers a different amount of distance (measure it, it's pretty obvious). Just observing it from a distancing perspective, the hand motions utilized are irrelevant (as is evident by the different ways the kata is practiced between systems). Each movement requires different dynamics to achieve the individual actions.

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Marc wrote:
Thanks very much for the pictures, now even I can visualise it. ;-)

I’m pleased that helped. I was thinking of alternative way to describe it when Becky suggested we could just put her phone on the shelf, record it, and then screen shot the key bits. A elegant solution :-)

Marc wrote:
That's true, and the word "rules" maybe was a misnomer. Maybe "clues", "possible keys" or "encoding/decoding principle" would be more appropriate.

Oh, I do like that! "Encoding/decoding principle" is a winner! Yes! That’s exactly the phrase I should have used … and may well use going forward ;-) Awesome!

Marc wrote:
However, in the case discussed here, we're not looking at "every kata", but at Heian Yondan specifically. And Heian Yondan is part of the Heian/Pinan series, as created by one person, namely (allegedly) Itosu. It therefore does make sense to assume a coherent coding system, in which triples would be there to convey a certain meaning throughout the entire Heian/Pinan series. It is essentially one kata, split in five for convenience.

Good point.  We should expect to see a uniformity through the series, and it may be that uniformity is also found in the kata the Pinan / Heian series draw from too.

All the best,

Iain

PS Thanks for kicking off the tread! In one day it has had over 1600 reads, so it is obviously a topic people find of interest!

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

shujika wrote:
The "first" motion, is a forward "step" into a forward stance (zenkutsudachi) from a natural/ready stance. The second is a forward step (from zenkutsudachi) into another forward stance. The third is (again) from the opposite forward stance to another. Each progression covers a different amount of distance.

That’s not what we see in the kata under discussion. In Heian Yodan it is a sequence consisting of three back stances and it does not start from the ready position.

shujika wrote:
Just observing it from a distancing perspective, the hand motions utilized are irrelevant (as is evident by the different ways the kata is practiced between systems).

I don’t think we can ever divorce one half of the body from the other when we are looking at the function of the whole.

It’s also worth pointing out that stances vary between systems too. For example, in Shito-Ryu they use cat-stance for the same sequence.

From a functional perspective, the arm-position and bodyweight position are common i.e. one arm across the chest, one arm up, fists closed, back leg bent, etc. Those are the things needed for the technique to work. The stylistic nuances are not significant functionally, and are far less than the natural variations that would occur in the free flow of combat i.e. differences in height, direction of movement, floor surface, etc will all see variations manifest. As Funakoshi said, “Always perform the kata exactly, combat is another matter”.

Putting all of this together, I don’t think we can say that practising variations in distancing is what is happening on this sequence of three morote-ude-ukes.

Away from kata, we have three-step sparring. Could that be what you are making reference to?

To me, three step sparring is both dysfunctional and impractical and should be dropped from karate training. While some argue it teaches timing and distancing, I would say that it teaches the wrong timing and the wrong distancing. It’s a martial dead end because the practise develops no functional skill in either self-protection or fighting.

Three step sparring was the karate’s attempt to ape the drills of judo (see judo’s nage no kata). In judo drills you get the timing and core movement twice before completing the throw on the third motion. It works in judo because the timing and distancing of the drill is the same for the actual application of the throw. It does not work in karate’s three-steps because the nature, timing and distancing of the drill are totally at odds with live application.  

Three step sparring is what happened when the karateka of the 1930s and 1940s made a bad job at trying to copy judo’s drills. It’s not a traditional practise in the true sense, and I don’t think we can retroactively infer anything onto the kata from the practise.

All the best,

Iain

Marc
Marc's picture

shujika wrote:

The "first" motion, is a forward "step" into a a forward stance (zenkutsudachi) from a natural/ready stance. The second is a forward step (from zenkutsudachi) into another forward stance. The third is (again) from the opposite forward stance to another.

I feel we have different katas in mind. The sequence I was asking about is the one as seen below from 0:43 to 0:48. Maybe including the next move (until 0:50). In this video the stances are filmed from the side so they are easier to see.

https://youtu.be/L5HMe-wNsCs?t=43

 

(@Iain: Yes the video is "unlisted" on youtube, but it's mine, so it can be embedded.)

All the best,

Marc

Marc
Marc's picture

Iain Abernethy wrote:

I was thinking of alternative way to describe it when Becky suggested we could just put her phone on the shelf, record it, and then screen shot the key bits. A elegant solution :-)

Thanks Becky! :)

Iain Abernethy wrote:

Oh, I do like that! "Encoding/decoding principle" is a winner! Yes! That’s exactly the phrase I should have used … and may well use going forward ;-) Awesome!

I'm glad you like it. Although "encoding/decoding principle" is a bit cumbersome and technical. But we could shorten it to "codec", a term that works well in computer science (see "codec" in Wikipedia). So maybe "bunkai codec" or simply "bunkai principle"?

All the best,

Marc

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Marc wrote:
I'm glad you like it. Although "encoding/decoding principle" is a bit cumbersome and technical. But we could shorten it to "codec", a term that works well in computer science (see "codec" in Wikipedia). So maybe "bunkai codec" or simply "bunkai principle"?

That works too! I like “bunkai codec”. It has a nice ring to it :-)

All the best,

Iain

MykeB
MykeB's picture

Marc, "Same" kata and sequence, different variations. For instance, in Matsubayashiryu, those are front stance/zenkutsudachi. Still ice cream, just French vanilla instead of regular vanilla. Edit:and I didn't pick up the post for a quote. Apologies, it has been a while.

Marc
Marc's picture

MykeB wrote:
"Same" kata and sequence, different variations. For instance, in Matsubayashiryu, those are front stance/zenkutsudachi.

I looked up the Matsubayashi Ryu version, and it does indeed have zenkutsu-dachi instead of kokutsu-dachi. Still the question is: Do you have any ideas as to why they are in a triple? What is the application of the two transitions (if that's what it is)?

Les Bubka
Les Bubka's picture

Hi all

In our system we have three steps in Zenkutsu, for me all of them have different progresive application. One as a takedown, next as a cover and strike third one as a joint lock. When I do them I try to use them as a remedy for the previous fail one. 

I like the Iain's approach and it doeas makea lot of sense.

As my English might be not very clear, clip below :) (Edit: I just noticed that clip shows only two options so I added another clip)

 

and here

 

Kind regards
 
Les
Marc
Marc's picture

Les Bubka wrote:

In our system we have three steps in Zenkutsu, for me all of them have different progresive application. One as a takedown, next as a cover and strike third one as a joint lock. When I do them I try to use them as a remedy for the previous fail one.

Hi Les,

yes, I see how the various applications would explain the triple, especially as fall-backs if the first attempt failed.

Also thanks for posting your videos, which, of course, I was already familiar with. :)

All the best,

Marc

Marc
Marc's picture

Hey guys,

I found another possible application for the triple of morote-uchi-ude-uke in Heian/Pinan Yondan:

The alignment of the arms and hands is a pretty good match for a kata-juji-shime ("shoulder-cross-strangle").

Let's look at left forward. The left hand is at about neck height and a bit forward, just as if grabbing the lapel very high up at the neck, almost at the shoulder blade. The right hand is a bit lower, close to our left elbow, again perfect for grabbing the lapel of the other side of the jacket. Now we turn our body left forward, and thus pull with our right hand and push with our left. If we now twist our left forarm we get a nice strangle (pressure on the carotid artery).

Can you picture it? - Here's a video that explains the strangle and how to position the hands.

 

Of course we would be doing it standing upright. Which brings us to the stance being used. In the version I practice (Shotokan) we do it in kokutsu-dachi. This means we're lowering our body and pull the opponent into our center (lower hand). But other versions do it in zenkutsu-dachi, as we have seen. This could mean that they emphasise the pushing forward (upper hand) over the pulling in (lower hand hand).

Now what about the triples?

I see them as transitions from a left forward strangle into a right forward strangle. The reason for it being that the opponent's natural response would be to try and turn out of the strangle (i.e. working against our pulling lower hand) and push the strangling arm (our upper arm) down and away from their neck. When this happens we let them have it. We slide our upper hand down along the lapel to about elbow height. We also let go of our grip of the lower hand and immediately re-grab high into their lapel. Now we have effectively reversed the strangle hold. The opponent's turning out of the strangle on the one side has them turn into the strangle on the other side. Because they move backwards trying to pull out, we have to step forward to maintain the distance.

A bit like you can see in this video. It shows the reversal of the hold. Only, the strangled guy is not resisting.

 

A nice variation of how to set up the strangle hold can be seen in this video.

 

And then we have the transition from the third morote-uchi-ude-uke into the double head-grab (or whatever you want to see in this) and the knee strike. This certainly is our failsafe option if we can not successfully set up the strangle hold. Could also be interpreted as a double hand forward choke, if you're so inclined.

I tried the kata-juji-shime idea yesterday in the dojo, and it worked just fine.

What do you think?

Take care,

Marc

Les Bubka
Les Bubka's picture

Marc wrote:

The alignment of the arms and hands is a pretty good match for a kata-juji-shime ("shoulder-cross-strangle").

Hi Marc 

Sure it works, I personally use age uke as kata-juji-shime,but I can see how it would work,

Nice work 

Kind regards

Les

Marc
Marc's picture

Les Bubka wrote:

I personally use age uke as kata-juji-shime

Yes, I can see how age-uke would work in that way, too.

tesla_pasta
tesla_pasta's picture

Lots of great material here! I’ve seen some northern shaolin guys show a similar move as a foot sweep (the two ‘punching’ hands are grabbing the opponents collar/lapel/arm/waist depending on situation). In the case of the 3 repeated Morote-uke, I’ve always interpreted it as 3 different variation on the foot Sweep. In particular, I say this section shows (Judo names incoming) O-Soto-Gari, O-Uchi-Gari, and Ko-Soto-Gake. In Karate terms, these would all be variations on “toppling a fan” as described by Funakoshi, Just with different foot positions. I’ll link relevant videos later.

Marc
Marc's picture

tesla_pasta wrote:

(the two ‘punching’ hands are grabbing the opponents collar/lapel/arm/waist depending on situation). In the case of the 3 repeated Morote-uke, I’ve always interpreted it as 3 different variation on the foot Sweep. In particular, I say this section shows (Judo names incoming) O-Soto-Gari, O-Uchi-Gari, and Ko-Soto-Gake.

Interesting, thanks for the idea.

I can see how the hand position of morote-uchi-ude-uke resembles the judo style grabbing of sleeve/lapel.

All three types of foot reap require us to push the opponent's upper body to bend backwards and turn a bit, instead of pulling them into us. A zenkutsu-dachi would therefore be the appropriate stance to codify that in the kata. As we have seen, there are styles that do use that stance in this sequence.

What I don't really see is the different footwork of the three different reaps, especially for ko-soto-gake, which would be closer to the nami-gaeshi ("returning wave" kick) as we see it in Tekki/Naihanchi.

All the best,

Marc

tesla_pasta
tesla_pasta's picture

Yeah, that’s the biggest mismatch. I’ve made the assumption that the footwork was ‘standardized’ in the 20th century as part of the introduction into school curriculum. Another very similar interpretation I’ve heard is that the repeated technique represents that this is a technique that you may use multiple times in a row if the first attempt fails. So, if they step over the initial trip attempt, you try again on their other leg as they’re likely off-balance from avoiding the first one. This exact sort of “3 in a row sweep” appears in some Northern Mantis forms, and I’ve heard this reasoning used to explain the repetition by mantis practitioners. I think this explaination better fits the form, but I use the “3 different throws” explainatin as an excuse to include a wider variety of takedowns in the curriculum. O-Soto-Gari is fantastic and is definitely in Karate according to funakoshi, but I find that the other footsweeps are much easier to hit on experienced grapplers.

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Marc wrote:
The alignment of the arms and hands is a pretty good match for a kata-juji-shime ("shoulder-cross-strangle").

I can too. However, it does not ring as true to me as the striking interpretations. My reasoning being that the katas are based upon civilian self-protection; not martial duelling (Itosu, Motobu, Itoman, et al).

I would have reservations about applying a front strangle, where the enemy’s head is up, in self-protection. Both of the enemy’s arms are free – when mine are busy and still –  in a position where the enemy can get their hands to my head. In the time it takes for the strangle to take effect (i.e. induce unconsciousness, so around 5 seconds or so), the enemy could, blind me by driving their thumbs into my eyes, deafen and drop me by slapping both my ears, or even kill me by crushing the throat. My hands are too still for too long.

To my way of thinking, two-handed-front-strangles in an upright position – such that the enemy can get their hands to very vulnerable areas – is not a good fit for the self-protection context. It could work, but there are better options. It can also see how it fits the kata, but, again, I think there are better options.

This video below looks at a standing front strangle I taught in my dojo. In the video I say the motion is “head-block-esque”, but I am also clear I don’t think it is the application for age-uke and that the method is for game play, as opposed to self-protection. I still think it is worth learning though.

 

This is a preference thing for me. I can see how it fits the kata and I can see how it works. So, it’s not “wrong” in my eyes. It’s just that I would put standing-front-strangles firmly in the “game play” category, and therefore I’d personally not include it in my bunkai because of the limitations of such methods in self-protection.  I still think we should practise such methods as part of our wider martial education.

All the best,

Iain

Marc
Marc's picture

Iain Abernethy wrote:

To my way of thinking, two-handed-front-strangles in an upright position – such that the enemy can get their hands to very vulnerable areas – is not a good fit for the self-protection context. It could work, but there are better options. It can also see how it fits the kata, but, again, I think there are better options.

That's a very good point.

Also the strangle relies on grabbing the opponent's clothing, which would make it the one exception from all other applications I found for the Heian/Pinan series so far.

So I will reconsider and my search for possible applications for the triple continues...

Thanks to everybody for your replies so far. All your ideas and suggestions are very much appreciated.

Marc

Marc
Marc's picture

I would like to briefly describe the context of the morote-uchi-ude-uke triple in Heian/Pinan Yondan within the entire Heian/Pinan kata series, as I see it.

The Heian/Pinan kata series is a compilation of methods and principles. As a whole it basically is one single kata. But for convenience and for didactical reasons it made sense to split it into five manageable parts. Interestingly, the parts are not simply named "ichi, ni, san, shi, go" (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) but "shodan, nidan, sandan, yondan, godan" (level 1, level 2, level 3, level 4, level 5). This suggests that they are ordered in a meaningful way. The parts somehow represent five steps in learning the methods and principles.

Sure, we can find lots of different plausible applications for most techniques within all of the five kata parts. But it would make sense to group them by certain criteria. Many techniques can be used against a big hook punch. But within the overall context of the kata series it would make sense to put all the possible methods to deal with a hook punch in one place instead of scattering them over the entire series.

Iain's article "The Pinan / Heian Series as a Fighting System", convinced me that the five levels refer to a) the fighting distance and b) the skills required.

At the current point of my research I would suggest that the Heian/Pinan kata parts represent the following levels:

#1 Shodan: Methods/principles of dealing with round and straight attacks or grabbing attempts. The attacker is closing in but neither the attacker nor the defender has established contact at this point. Probability high, skill level low.

#2 Nidan: Basic methods/principles of controlling the attackers limbs in order to facilitate striking and or takedowns. At this point the attacker and the defender have established contact but are not entangled (i.e. not clinching). Probability medium, skill level low.

#3 Sandan: Methods/principles of close in grappling to mess up the attackers posture and taking control as well as more takedowns. At this level the attacker and defender are in some sort of entanglement (i.e. clinch/headlock/etc.). Probability medium, skill level medium.

#4 Yondan: More grappling methods. Especially principles of dealing with wrist grabs (which the attacker uses to defend against close-in attacks from the defender like grabbing the groin, gouging the eyes, etc.). Probability low, skill level medium.

#5 Godan: More methods of different kinds. Grappling, locks, throws, takedowns.  This is a bonus toolbox. Cool tricks, if the opportunity presents itself and you can pull them off. Probability low, skill level high.

Now back to the sequence in question: I'm trying to find a plausible application that fits within this overall layout.

All applications that have been suggested in this discussion do match this requirement.

All the best,

Marc  

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Marc wrote:
I would like to briefly describe the context of the morote-uchi-ude-uke triple in Heian/Pinan Yondan within the entire Heian/Pinan kata series, as I see it.

Great post! For me, any worthwhile approach to bunkai must have underlying themes that bring it all together. We should not see kata as a random collection of techniques.

Marc wrote:
The Heian/Pinan kata series is a compilation of methods and principles. As a whole it basically is one single kata. But for convenience and for didactical reasons it made sense to split it into five manageable parts. Interestingly, the parts are not simply named "ichi, ni, san, shi, go" (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) but "shodan, nidan, sandan, yondan, godan" (level 1, level 2, level 3, level 4, level 5). This suggests that they are ordered in a meaningful way. The parts somehow represent five steps in learning the methods and principles.

Totally agree with that and I like how you have expressed it.

Marc wrote:
it would make sense to group them by certain criteria.

Totally. It is logical to assume the structure of the kata matters.

Marc wrote:
Many techniques can be used against a big hook punch. But within the overall context of the kata series it would make sense to put all the possible methods to deal with a hook punch in one place instead of scattering them over the entire series.

I diverge with you a little here. While I agree there must be an order, I think we need to let the kata tell us what that order is. We don’t need to bunch every version of a method in one place.

When beginners start training, they learn basic kicks, basic punches, etc. They don’t learn all the punches before learning their first kick. A kata could be constructed by teaching a primary, basic method for dealing with a hook first (alongside the other primary methods) and then later on alternatives could be taught. So, a “learning order” could see hook punch defences interspersed throughout the kata series, but there is still a definite order there.

Marc wrote:
#4 Yondan: More grappling methods. Especially principles of dealing with wrist grabs (which the attacker uses to defend against close-in attacks from the defender like grabbing the groin, gouging the eyes, etc.). Probability low, skill level medium. .

Marc wrote:
Now back to the sequence in question: I'm trying to find a plausible application that fits within this overall layout.

All applications that have been suggested in this discussion do match this requirement.

As I see it, this leaves you with two options:

1 – Keep searching for an application that fits your beliefs around the order within the Pinan / Heian series.

2 – Consider that your beliefs on the order within the Pinan / Heian series maybe incorrect and amend accordingly.

If you get either of the above in place, your overall take on the Pinan / Heian series will click into place. There will be a definite system there.

My own take on the underlying order is that the order in the Pinan / Heian series is the “learning order”. I also have the view that the first three kata represent the core of the system, with Yodan and Godan being the “masterclass” and “the stuff that’s left”. Essentially, this takes the form of alternatives to the core methods (which sometimes take a little more skill) and methods we can use should the core methods fail. This fits the kata, and there may be some tenuous historical support for it.

Hisateru Miyagi – a student of Itosu; who was the creator of the Pinan series – stated that when he was training with Itosu, in the early 1900, Itosu focused heavily on the first three Pinan kata and rarely taught the other two. There are many possible reasons why this may have been the case, but the idea that the first three represented the core of the system would be a strong contender. There is no point moving onto the “masterclass” and the alternatives if the core methods are still lacking.

So, for me, the morote-ukes of Yodan are a closed fist alterative to the core shuto-ukes introduced in Level 1. You see the shuto-ukes in Kushanku and Passai, and these kata would seem to have been a strong influence on the Pinan system. You don’t see the set of three morote-ukes in the older kata. I therefore feel there is a case that they are Itosu’s variation on core shuto-ukes. From a bunkai perspective, this is where the hand is tethered as opposed to being free (as per the photos in preceding post). The right location for them would therefore be Level 4 where the variations are located. It therefore all fits together for me.

My take on the morote-ukes does not fit with your take on the Pinans because you see Yodan (Level 4) as being “More grappling methods. Especially principles of dealing with wrist grabs.” It does fit with mine though because I see Yodan and Godan as being the “masterclass and alternatives”.

Marc wrote:
I'm trying to find a plausible application that fits within this overall layout.

All applications that have been suggested in this discussion do match this requirement.

If you can’t find an application to fit your overarching view of the underlying order, then it may be appropriate to return to your overarching view and ask what you are basing it on?

If you find that “missing link” then all is good. If you can’t, then maybe you are too wedded to an arbitrary take on the order?

All the best,

Iain

Marc
Marc's picture

Iain Abernethy wrote:

Marc wrote:
Many techniques can be used against a big hook punch. But within the overall context of the kata series it would make sense to put all the possible methods to deal with a hook punch in one place instead of scattering them over the entire series.

I diverge with you a little here. While I agree there must be an order, I think we need to let the kata tell us what that order is. We don’t need to bunch every version of a method in one place.

True that. It was meant more as an example of how one could order a kata. In analysing the different katas (not only the Pinans/Heians) I found several different approaches of how they are structured.

To me it seems that the Pinans/Heians are ordered by distance of engagement from punching range to close-in clinching range. These are covered in the first three parts. The last two parts present some additional material (we could call them special cases or bonus tools).

Iain Abernethy wrote:
When beginners start training, they learn basic kicks, basic punches, etc. They don’t learn all the punches before learning their first kick. A kata could be constructed by teaching a primary, basic method for dealing with a hook first (alongside the other primary methods) and then later on alternatives could be taught. So, a “learning order” could see hook punch defences interspersed throughout the kata series, but there is still a definite order there.

Certainly. Pareto's princple would be a sensible approach to structure teaching self-defence. First learn the 20% of methods that work for 80% of cases. Then continue to learn more (refined) methods to get closer to 100%.

Iain Abernethy wrote:
Marc wrote:
#4 Yondan: More grappling methods. Especially principles of dealing with wrist grabs (which the attacker uses to defend against close-in attacks from the defender like grabbing the groin, gouging the eyes, etc.). Probability low, skill level medium. .

Marc wrote:
Now back to the sequence in question: I'm trying to find a plausible application that fits within this overall layout.

All applications that have been suggested in this discussion do match this requirement.

As I see it, this leaves you with two options:

1 – Keep searching for an application that fits your beliefs around the order within the Pinan / Heian series.

2 – Consider that your beliefs on the order within the Pinan / Heian series maybe incorrect and amend accordingly.

If you get either of the above in place, your overall take on the Pinan / Heian series will click into place. There will be a definite system there.

I am certainly not fixated on the layout I described above, and would refrain from calling it "beliefs". It is merely a working theory I use at the current point in my research.

So far it served me quite well in finding plausible applications but there are still some sequences that I'm not happy with.

So I'm considering both options, continue exploring possible layouts and applications, and hope that at some point it "will click into place" for me.

Iain Abernethy wrote:
My own take on the underlying order is that the order in the Pinan / Heian series is the “learning order”. I also have the view that the first three kata represent the core of the system, with Yodan and Godan being the “masterclass” and “the stuff that’s left”. Essentially, this takes the form of alternatives to the core methods (which sometimes take a little more skill) and methods we can use should the core methods fail.

So I might be on the right track, since our ideas about how the Heians/Pinans are structured are not that far apart.

Iain Abernethy wrote:
So, for me, the morote-ukes of Yodan are a closed fist alterative to the core shuto-ukes introduced in Level 1. You see the shuto-ukes in Kushanku and Passai, and these kata would seem to have been a strong influence on the Pinan system. You don’t see the set of three morote-ukes in the older kata.

That's an excellent observation. Itosu did not only compile his favourite methods but also added some things that he felt were a good extension of the system.

Iain Abernethy wrote:
I therefore feel there is a case that they are Itosu’s variation on core shuto-ukes. From a bunkai perspective, this is where the hand is tethered as opposed to being free (as per the photos in preceding post). The right location for them would therefore be Level 4 where the variations are located. It therefore all fits together for me.

Yes, that makes sense.

Iain Abernethy wrote:
My take on the morote-ukes does not fit with your take on the Pinans because you see Yodan (Level 4) as being “More grappling methods. Especially principles of dealing with wrist grabs.” It does fit with mine though because I see Yodan and Godan as being the “masterclass and alternatives”.

As I said, my take is not carved in stone. And your application does fit the layout I described, because it would be dealing with thethered or entangled limbs.

Iain Abernethy wrote:
If you can’t find an application to fit your overarching view of the underlying order, then it may be appropriate to return to your overarching view and ask what you are basing it on?

If you find that “missing link” then all is good. If you can’t, then maybe you are too wedded to an arbitrary take on the order?

Oh, I'm still very open for any suggestions that explain the applications and the overall order of that kata parts.

Thanks for this interesting discussion. I very much appreciate all the input.

All the best,

Marc

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Marc wrote:
Certainly. Pareto's princple would be a sensible approach to structure teaching self-defence. First learn the 20% of methods that work for 80% of cases. Then continue to learn more (refined) methods to get closer to 100%.

That’s an excellent way to express it! The “80/20 rule” was a mantra for some of the managers at the company where I used to work, but I’d never considered attaching it to self-defence. I like it!

As Marc MacYoung says (paraphrased), “If you focus on what happens most of the time, you will be able to deal with most of what happens”.

Marc wrote:
I am certainly not fixated on the layout I described above, and would refrain from calling it "beliefs". It is merely a working theory I use at the current point in my research.

Semantics are always an issue in these discussions. To me, in this context, the word “theory” is stronger that the world “belief”. A theory explains all the evidence, explains things with a very high degree of accuracy, and can effectively operate as a “demonstrable truth”. I would define a belief as a personal position or viewpoint. I get where you are coming from though as beliefs can be thought of as being more strongly held (i.e. religious belief) whereas a theory (in the scientific sense) is always up for review. I appreciate the clarification and apologise if the terms used incorrectly inferred you were fixated on the model. An open mind is something of a prerequisite for bunkai research, so I know that’s not the case.

Marc wrote:
So far it served me quite well in finding plausible applications but there are still some sequences that I'm not happy with.

It does strike me as a good model and, as mentioned in the last post, I think that seeking the “core order” is the key to any strong approach.

Marc wrote:
So I might be on the right track, since our ideas about how the Heians/Pinans are structured are not that far apart.

“Great minds think alike, though fools seldom differ.” :-)

That’s why discussions like this are so useful. Laying out positions and dissecting the details with fellow researchers helps ensure we are more likely to be in category one and not category two.

Plenty of people who agree on “3K formal attacks along the cardinal and intercardinal directions” too. But the fact we here describe, dissect and debate our thinking makes holding arbitrary positions impossible.

So, I agree we are on the right track and I appreciate your help in ensuring that.

Marc wrote:
Thanks for this interesting discussion. I very much appreciate all the input.

You too!

All the best,

Iain

Marc
Marc's picture

Iain Abernethy wrote:

Marc wrote:
I am certainly not fixated on the layout I described above, and would refrain from calling it "beliefs". It is merely a working theory I use at the current point in my research.

Semantics are always an issue in these discussions. To me, in this context, the word “theory” is stronger that the world “belief”. A theory explains all the evidence, explains things with a very high degree of accuracy, and can effectively operate as a “demonstrable truth”. I would define a belief as a personal position or viewpoint. I get where you are coming from though as beliefs can be thought of as being more strongly held (i.e. religious belief) whereas a theory (in the scientific sense) is always up for review.

The expression I should have used is "working hypothesis". Anyway, it is an idea of how things might be that is based on available data and that enables me to produce plausible results but is open to be falsified.

Back to the various explanations of the triple of morote-uchi-ude-uke, all of the applications suggested in this thread are matching the sequence and fit within the framework, the hypothesis. They're all good and I will go and further explore all of them.

It's just, I'm still searching for the explanation that gives me this "Aha!" moment. Like when you are wondering about the jump sequence in Heian/Pinan Godan and then for the first time you see a seoi-nage and ... another piece of the puzzle just "klicks into place".

So, everybody please keep your suggestions coming...

Thanks,

Marc