22 posts / 0 new
Last post
Leigh Simms
Leigh Simms's picture
Moments of doubt

Hi all, I would like some help with my current research and would be grateful if you could share with me any arguments or points you have heard from fellow karate-ka (or martial arts) that have made you doubt or reconsider that the practical bunkai approach is in line with the original intentions of kata? Leigh

Wastelander
Wastelander's picture

I have never been given a solid enough reason to doubt that practical application was what kata were intended to pass down. Now, I have certainly been given examples that indicate that an application or approach is not in-line with Okinawan methodologies--that isn't to say that the techniques don't work, from a practical perspective, just that they don't necessarily fit with the fighting methods used on Okinawa.

Mark B
Mark B's picture

I don't know about the original intentions, but one thing I feel very strongly about (and I may have mentioned this before) is that those who have experienced violence KNOW that anything other than the simplest, most direct option is primed to fail. I do think that in studying Bunkai the responses to Habitual acts of physical violence have become over complicated (mine included) in an attempt to create and maintain interest. The reality is that violence today and violence then would have been very similar, and the need to create the quickest, simplest resolution (in a physical sense) would have been sought. To this end I think individuals at the time of the creation of Kata, and therefore the applications they favoured would have been the absolute simplest option available. Creating an interested audience would not have been a consideration.

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Leigh Simms wrote:
I would like some help with my current research and would be grateful if you could share with me any arguments or points you have heard from fellow karate-ka (or martial arts) that have made you doubt or reconsider that the practical bunkai approach is in line with the original intentions of kata?

For most, I would suggest the journey is the other way around i.e. the congruity and functionality of pragmatic bunkai is what leads us to adopting it. We don’t start with a position of “belief” and then have evidence come forth that results in any doubt.

I would say it is the “other camp” that works from that position. Evidence makes them doubt that the carefully planned, attacking from the compass points “bunkai” is truly what kata is about. The practical and historical evidence only leads one way.

We have considered the arguments – from both sides – and that’s why we are here with no doubt. We have healthy disagreements about the details, but we are all firmly of the view kata is about practically dealing with real world violence.

I wonder if this forum will give you what you need based on the fact that the majority here have little doubt that the practical bunkai approach is the way to go? Noah’s and Mark’s above posts are in line with mine and likely to be typical.

You make get better data by visiting are more 3K based online group and asking them why they don’t subscribe to the practical bunkai approach? They will have the doubts you’re looking for.

I’m sure those doubts will be based on lack of research, misunderstandings, over investment in 3K thinking to the point where they are no longer objective, an inability to question an authority that simply told them otherwise (without objective evidence) or simply a healthy and legitimate interest in other aspects of karate (art, sport, fitness, etc) such that looking at kata from a pragmatic perspective is not relevant and hence not meaningfully conisdered. However, they will be legitimate doubts.

I think asking for doubt here is a little like asking astrophysicists what causes them to wonder if the sun rotates around the earth. They may have thought that once (i.e. as children) but their study of astrophysics has removed that doubt.

All the best,

Iain

PS This old article discussed alternative views and burden of proof: https://www.iainabernethy.co.uk/article/occams-hurdled-katana-logic-kata-application

Leigh Simms
Leigh Simms's picture

Hi all,

I have tried visiting 3K based groups (online and in person) over the years but struggled to come across any arguments that, as you have pointed out, are not based on lack of research, misunderstandings or over investment. I do realise that by asking this question here I am basically preaching to the choir.

I think my question could have been worded better. I think it is true to say that the evidence (historical, functional and logical) leads to a position of "practical kata bunkai". Having reviewed the historical, logical and pragmatic evidence, a lot I must admit came from Iain at the start, my views on kata bunkai changed. Therefore, I definitely concur that the view I have today is not based on "belief" or "faith" and I suspect most on here share a similar journey of reviewing the evidence available and reaching a conclusion in accordance with the said evidence.

If anyone has come across an argument in favour of 3K-style Bunkai or the "motion approach", that Iain has not dealt with in the Ockam's Katana podcast, I would like to hear about it. 

Kind regards

Leigh

Mark B
Mark B's picture

Hi all One thing I will add to this conversation. Before I started practicing Karate I "socialised" with people who were quite willing to involve themselves in violent, or potentially violent situations. Upon meeting the woman who became my wife I gradually disassociated myself from my previous life. I found that I needed something to focus on, somewhere to channel my energies. I decided to join a karate club. Right from the outset I wanted karate for self defence only, sports and competition was of no interest to me. I think I had been training for two or three years when I found myself out with my wife in a very busy town centre bar. Nothing occurred, however, in standing in this quite cramped environment it occurred to me that my karate was virtually useless if it "kicked off". In fact it became apparent to me that I would do better to adopt my methods which I had used in my previous life. That was an important moment for me. It was at this time that I began to search for an alternative karate approach. It was either that or quit karate, as it was not fit for purpose. Fortunately a training partner had read one of Iains articles in one of the karate magazines, which piqued my interest, and just in the nick of time demonstrated that karate could in fact tick the boxes for my requirements. I think for many 3k practitioners they have never had to find out that their approach is not effective in response to the habitual acts of physical violence, nor is it effective in the kinds of scenarios and terrains where violence often takes place. One hopes of course that individuals never have to find out the hard way what works, and what doesn't, but I think for most people until they are placed in a compromising situation they will be more than happy to trust what they're being taught.

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Leigh Simms wrote:
If anyone has come across an argument in favour of 3K-style Bunkai or the "motion approach", that Iain has not dealt with in the Ockam's Katana podcast, I would like to hear about it.

Me too! In the podcast I point out that the burden of proof (from a logical perspective) lies with those making the claim. If 3K-Style Bunkai has any practical validity – as is sometimes claimed for it – then I’d genuinely like to hear the proposed evidence for that. Such discussions are useful for everyone I think.

One of the problems I see in mainstream culture at the moment is the valuing of “balance” over facts and evidence. A “balanced view” has become desirable; but what that really means is we are putting truth and falsehood on the same level. No one is “wrong” anymore because their legitimate “right to have an opinion” is twisted to, “Pointing out I am objectively wrong is at attack on my rights to an opinion!” This obviously bleeds through to martial arts. Saying, “I am right because I have a right to be right” is logically and, I would say, morally vacuous. It would be way better if people got used to backing up claims made with objective evidence and logical argument.

A lot of my inspiration for articles and podcasts comes from seeing a poorly made claim, or seeing a claim put forth and accepted without any objective evidence at all. I therefore have to state the claim made before arguing against it. However, even that is not good enough for some as I’m frequently emailed to be told I have an “duty” to state both sides of the argument in a posative way for the “balanced view”. It’s not my job to argue for things I know to be false; that’s the job of those who are of the view that such things are not false. And I wish they’d do their duty, state their case objectively (not just make an unsupported claim) and join the debate. Karate can only benefit from that.

Would it be fair to restate your question as follows?

What is the best argument you have / or have heard made against the “practical bunkai approach”?

I feel most regulars here will state, “I’ve not heard a good argument against it”, but if anyone who does not subscribe to that approach would like to share here (or point to where the case has been made elsewhere) then I think that would be really useful.

All the best,

Iain

Kevin73
Kevin73's picture

I know others on here are more experienced and have done more research.  But, to sum up what I have come across that are in opposition to the practical application camp basically boils down to, "Because I said so...".

They are stuck in tradition that their sensei was told by their sensei this is all the application is.  Their application is based on a block/punch/kick mentality set up from an artificial sport sparring distance.  Things don't change because of tradition, and that is it.

As my instructor has often said, "Tradition is often a euphemism for laziness".

karate10
karate10's picture

We have an old saying here in the States: "Theres more than one way to go to Kansas"......I learned my bunkai from my Shihan on several ways to do things, but Its also good to do your homework on the side during your free time to see videos on the net or book reading to give you a solid idea. Never settle for one bunkai, but continue to grow and learn more variations. I guess that is the reason why I'm a big fan of Mr. Abernethy's work on YouTube and Facebook =)

Gerald

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

And the winner for best quote of 2016 goes to Kevin’s sensei for:

Kevin73 wrote:
"Tradition is often a euphemism for laziness".

Love it! Pure genius. I'm having that :-)

All the best,

Iain

Marc
Marc's picture

Leigh Simms wrote:

Hi all, I would like some help with my current research and would be grateful if you could share with me any arguments or points you have heard from fellow karate-ka (or martial arts) that have made you doubt or reconsider that the practical bunkai approach is in line with the original intentions of kata? Leigh

"Practical bunkai approach not in line with the original intentions of kata?"

No, that has never been suggested in any of the discussions I had about kata and its use for self-defence.

So far, 3K proponents I have argued with, have either shown no interest in the original intentions of kata whatsoever, or have acknowledged that katas originally had been recordings of Okinawan fighting systems but that that would have no relevance today (for them and their training). Some saw self-defence as a nice-to-have add-on to their current training regime.

I am also under the impression that many Shotokan people are completely ignorant of Shoto (i.e. Gichin Funakoshi) and his teaching methods (Kyohan) which explicitly include kumite in the form of practical bunkai - despite the reference to his person in their proudly held style name.

So I could imagine an argument about the practical bunkai approach not being in line with the way karate has been taught by the JKA instructors who were sent to Europe, the US and other places.

But I never came across people who doubted that the original intention of kata was practical self-defence. So I can not supply any arguments from that side. (Although I could try and make some up. But what would be the point in that?)

Take care

Marc

Wastelander
Wastelander's picture

Well, if we are tweaking the inital question a bit, then I would say that the most "reasonable" explanation I have been given for the legitimacy of 3K-style bunkai came from the chief instructor of my former dojo--the Sensei of my Sensei, although I trained with him directly a couple times a week, as well. He came up in the "blood and guts" era of Western karate, and is of the "simple is best" mindset when it comes to bunkai. He claims to have used 3K-style kata applications in actual fights and self defense situations. Now, I wasn't there, but it's certainly possible. Even though I can't stand that type of bunkai anymore, I can admit that some of them will work fine--a high block followed by a punch, for example, can indeed successfully defend against an attack and respond. With that in mind, I would say that he is right some of the time, but there are plenty of 3K-style applications that simply do not work in real life. On top of that, the 3K approach to having multiple attackers in the kata, and having the "spidey sense" to know when you're being attacked, is highly impractical.

Marc
Marc's picture

Leigh, could you perhaps clarify a bit whether you are looking for arguments against the practical bunkai approach as such or against the original intention of kata, and why you are seeking such arguments?  

Leigh Simms
Leigh Simms's picture

Thank you for your inputs so far! 

Noah, I've heard similar points of view put forward too. But I often wonder if those who participated in the "blood and guts" era were tough people anyway that were always going to do well in a physical altercation due to their natural disposition to be involved in a rough and tough hobby to begin with.

Marc, my original question was asked to find out:

1) if anyone has heard any convincing arguments against the practical bunkai; and

2) to see if anyone has heard any convincing arguments against the view that the original intention of kata was for practical self-defence. 

I think it may be best, as per Iain's suggestion above, to focus on part 1) of my question in this thread. 

The reason for asking is that I genuinely haven't heard any convincing logical or historical arguments against the practical approach. I have recently being discussing "confirmation bias" and realised that I havent come across any disconfirming evidence in respect to my view of bunkai. This surprises me, as I still see a lot of 3K bunkai being practiced at present (although I do see the huge impact that Iain and others have made already).

Leigh

Dod
Dod's picture

Leigh, I seem to remember reading about a book around 5 or more years ago which argued that kata did not contain practical applications and it was basically a waste of time looking for them. Rather it was more for general training. I tried finding it on google but no luck as yet. That would be interesting for your research. 

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Dod wrote:
Leigh, I seem to remember reading about a book around 5 or more years ago which argued that kata did not contain practical applications and it was basically a waste of time looking for them.

I’ve heard similar things from certain folk. Allow me to translate …

“Please don’t look at the alternative view, because if you do the practical and logical failings of what we do will be undeniable.”

As Leigh mentioned above, confirmation bias can be a problem. So we need to look at the evidence and thinking that those with alternative views put forward. Of course, that does not mean we need we have to accept what they put forward as having any legitimacy, but we should reject if from an informed position and not as a result of close-mindedness.

What we see here is an encouragement to reject without looking; which tells you how confident they are in the position they hold.

From our position, I would want people to look in great detail at what we put forth, because I think it speaks strongly and definitively for itself.

The truth is proved to be the truth by questioning; which is why only falsehoods fear questioning.

All the best,

Iain

dhogsette
dhogsette's picture

I have not heard any arguments against practical bunkai that have been "convincing to me," though the claims were, somehow, convincing to those using them. (I think that might be a useful distinction for you to make as you develop your research.) In my circles, some of the more old-school folks are "traditionalists" in the sense that what they do follows exactly what Nagamine shows in his book. If you do anything that looks different or is not described in the book, then it is not Matsubayashi... So, their big argument is that when you do practical bunkai, you are "changing the kata."

Of course, that is totally unconvincing to me (and folks in this forum) because we understand the difference between performing the formal, stylistically determined movements of a kata vs. applying those motions in a combative situation. But, to many of these folks, any deviation from "the book" or from what they've been taught as "authentic" is necessarily wrong or should not be explored. Thus, they remain in the 3K model in which kata is totally separate from kumite and self-defense. Interestingly, last summer during a training trip to Okinawa, I asked Tamaki sensei about Nagamine's book. Tamaki sensei is featured in the book and was part of its original writing and production, being one of Nagamine's senior students. Tamaki sensei chuckled and said the book  (The Essence of Okinawan Karate-do) is a basic primer that only scratches the surface of what Nagamine thought and taught. He noted that we should all use our imaginations and our own research to determine and develop applications from the kata. So, all these folks who follow the book to the very letter have painted themselves into a corner, missing the deeper parts of the iceberg underneath the water because they are focusing too much on the little bit floating above water. ... 

Sometimes in my own training and with students, I do something quite heretical: I'll perform the kata as per stylistic requirements, and then I'll perform it in "bunkai mode" in which my movements are done as if I'm actually fighting/grappling with a real person. Stances vary, form of the techniques vary, embusen all messed up, timing is totally different... Now, this is clearly "changing the kata," but I'm careful to clarify to students (and myself when training solo) that this is NOT the kata as practiced in our system. Rather, it is a drill or exercise to bridge the gap between kata and application. I would NEVER advocate this practice as necessary, and I don't publicize this practice (actually, this is the very first time I'm publicly discussing this practice) mainly because it would probably cause such a firestorm of controversy in my system. But, I think it is a logical outworking of the principle that kata is directly related to application. 

Anyway, this is a bit off topic. In my experience, the rationale for not doing practical bunkai is that it "changes the kata" too much. I don't buy that rationale, but it does seem very convincing to those who hold it, to those who see themselves as magistrates protecting the purity of the karate handed down to them. 

Hope that helps a bit. 

Best,

David 

Marc
Marc's picture

Leigh Simms wrote:

Marc, my original question was asked to find out:

1) if anyone has heard any convincing arguments against the practical bunkai; and

2) to see if anyone has heard any convincing arguments against the view that the original intention of kata was for practical self-defence.

I think it may be best, as per Iain's suggestion above, to focus on part 1) of my question in this thread.

To part 1) I have not yet heard any convincing arguments against practical bunkai. It would probably be good for your research to also collect arguments that are not convincing, but that critics of practical bunkai believe in. Albeit, I haven't heard any of those either. In my experience, people who don't like practical bunkai for whatever reason tend to avoid a discussion about it that involves arguments.

To part 2) I have not yet heard any arguments against the historical intention of kata as self-defence systems either. In my experience, people who use kata only in competition sports or as physical exercise either concede the history of kata but don't care, or they just don't care to think about it at all.

Leigh Simms wrote:

I have recently being discussing "confirmation bias" and realised that I havent come across any disconfirming evidence in respect to my view of bunkai. This surprises me, as I still see a lot of 3K bunkai being practiced at present [...].

Questioning your own confirmation bias is a good thing to do. It is important to be aware of how we like to seek ever more arguments that support our own convictions. Trying to be open to arguments that question our convictions is a healthy thing in my opinion.

The scientific approach would be to propose a model and ways to validate (positively or negatively) that model at the same time.

The fact that you actively seek arguments against your own position is quite honourable, I think. Please let us know if you come across any.

The thing with 3K karate is not so much about arguing against practical bunkai as such. It's more about not wanting to leave a well known training regime, mainly because people came to like what they did so far and feel at home with it. That is not necessarily a bad thing, by the way. It's only bad if they think that what they do is in fact self-defence training and they sell it as if it was.

Zach Zinn
Zach Zinn's picture

For me "original intentions" is  a bit of an odd thing. While I recognize that some of the forerunners of Karate were highly gifted pragmatists, certainly it wasn't all of them.

You can read Musashi and hear about Samurai in Meiji-era Japan who did non-functional martial arts.

So, the first question is whether or or not we are doing something with our art that fits what we want out of it. The second question is whether or not our art is actually designed to do what we want.

If we can answer both "yes", then really the question of "oriingal intent" is for folklorists and cultural preservation people, IMO. Karate is  a living art, and authenticity happens in the doing.

Certainly, it's considered true that Karate was meant as a civilian defense orirented system, if you are getting that when you train, it's working as advertised, so to speak.

JWT
JWT's picture

I don't think I've ever heard a good argument against training in practical bunkai. I have however heard (not from the the classical karate crowd) good arguments against continuing to train / teach the kata once the useful paired training material has been gleaned from the source physical template.   

All the best  

John

Zach Zinn
Zach Zinn's picture

I have actually heard something akin to arguments against practical bunkai, everything from "that's too violent" to some variation of "that's not what's traditionally taught". The second one usually comes from Karateka who are really focused on lineage and some kind of abstract art "preservation". The first I've often heard from less practically inclined AIkidoka and similar who feel that there is  some appropraite "less violent" response to violent situations.

On the Kata question JWT brought up, I have also heard this argument about ceasing kata from non-Karateka, but I think it is flawed. Typically these non-Karateka have some method that stands in for kata of learning and honing body mechanics, so their preference is really down to not wanting to do a pattern, and not understanding that a big part of kata is the study and learning of body mechanics.

I think that naturally the longer one trains the more one pairs down their solo kata practice, it becomes more about "maintenance" and occasional solo exploration. However, you can see a huge difference in Karateka who have done kihon and kata in their beginning and intermediate stage (in the practical sense, not the "do this rote exercise" sense), and those that have not, and you can feel it when working with them, in my experience. It is likely that one could learn the same mechanics in another way, but seeing as Karate is taught with Kata as the pedagogical centerpiece, there's really no point in trying to reinvent the wheel.

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

JWT wrote:
I have however heard (not from the the classical karate crowd) good arguments against continuing to train / teach the kata once the useful paired training material has been gleaned from the source physical template.

Zach Zinn wrote:
I have also heard this argument about ceasing kata from non-Karateka, but I think it is flawed. Typically these non-Karateka have some method that stands in for kata of learning and honing body mechanics, so their preference is really down to not wanting to do a pattern, and not understanding that a big part of kata is the study and learning of body mechanics.

I think that naturally the longer one trains the more one pairs down their solo kata practice, it becomes more about "maintenance" and occasional solo exploration. However, you can see a huge difference in Karateka who have done kihon and kata in their beginning and intermediate stage (in the practical sense, not the "do this rote exercise" sense), and those that have not, and you can feel it when working with them, in my experience. It is likely that one could learn the same mechanics in another way, but seeing as Karate is taught with Kata as the pedagogical centerpiece, there's really no point in trying to reinvent the wheel.

I agree that kata is a great way to help develop solid body mechanics in solo training. As Rory Miller observed, “When I look at [karate] kata and kihon, they have possibly the best body mechanics for infighting that I've seen... then they choose to test it at sparring range, where it sucks.  Or, worse, point contact range where it sucks AND it screws up everybody's sense of distance and time.”

The other advantage of kata is that it can provide continuity of information through the generations. Done right, it encapsulates to core concepts and principles of a system. Throw away the kata, and you could lose that.

The best argument for still doing kata “post-bunkai” is one of mental intent. Whenever you practise you have to make compromises in the name of safety. We therefore practise hurting people in a way where no one gets hurt. From a purely practical standpoint, this means that everything was done “wrong”.

It’s ethically right that we don’t cause real damage to our training partners, but an inevitable consequence of that is we run the risk of training 100% of the time with the “safety on” and that can cause issues.

We can solve that problem to some degree with pad-work for strikes (i.e we can hit with full intent), but how do we crank necks, twist joints, etc. will full intent to correct the “ever present safety flaw” of partner work? The solution must be add in the intent, but remove the partner i.e. do kata.

Of course, kata has the problem of not having a body there … but as part of the mix kata gives us a chance to mentally visualise the methods while repeating the motion with full intent (scientifically proven to be very effective in increasing performance). The partner work gives us the feel of a real body (an obvious must-have), but if you don’t address the “ever present safety flaw” you have an issue that can be problematic i.e. you always do it “wrong” and never practice a vital component of “right”.

So I would say we need kata as a supplementary way of refining body mechanics in solo-training, as a methods of ensuring continuity information, and as a means to practise with full mental intent, in a way that is safe and ethically sound, and that will plug an often unforeseen issue with the ever-present “I don’t want this to do actual damage” thinking of partner training.

If kata did not exist, we would need to reinvent it.

All the best,

Iain