9 posts / 0 new
Last post
css1971
css1971's picture
How significant is the first movement in a kata

For the older katas rather than perhaps the pinans/heians or other recent ones, how significant is the first move (or the "salutation" if there is one) to the rest of the kata? Or, put another way is there a relationship between the opening of the kata and the body of the kata?

Marc
Marc's picture

There probably is no one answer that fits all kata.

Most kata seem to share a certain way of encoding the fighting principles they contain (angles, open/closed hands, etc.). However, the sequential order of the techniques in the kata might follow various concepts:

  1. from common to unusual attacks
  2. from long to no distance
  3. grouping by attack techniques (punches, wristgrabs, label grabs, bear hugs, ...)
  4. grouping by counter techniques (block-punch, locks, holds, throws, wrenches, ...)
  5. pairing of attacks and counters
  6. ... to be continued ...

 

I would therefore suggest to analyse (bunkai) how the kata is structured as a whole and then deduct how the first move fits in.

Which kata did you have in mind specifically, when you said "older katas"?

css1971
css1971's picture

"Which kata did you have in mind specifically, when you said "older katas"?"

It was just a thought I had that started with Kushanku/Kanku-Dai and continued with Passai/Bassai-Dai and then Rohai. All of them have characteristic "salutation" movements. In each case I'm convinced that the salutation has specific meaning, what I'm not sure about is how that relates to the rest of the kata once you're past the first couple of movements which deal with the "salutation".

I mean is it just a case of "well we had to start somewhere" or was there a general "theme" in mind. I realise it's likely to be different for every kata but they've clearly used rules when encoding the kata.

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

css1971 wrote:
For the older katas rather than perhaps the pinans/heians or other recent ones, how significant is the first move (or the "salutation" if there is one) to the rest of the kata? Or, put another way is there a relationship between the opening of the kata and the body of the kata?

Good question! I’ll be interested to see what everyone feels about this.

I think you often see a “learning order” inherent in the structure of kata i.e. when you’ve learnt to apply move 1, you then learn move 2, and that will get you ready for move 3, and so on. You can definitely see that throughout the Pinan / Heian Series, in Kushanku / Kanku-Dai, etc.

However, I think it would be a mistake to disproportionately emphasise the importance of the first move. It’s not some vital “key move” with all the others simply being in support of it. It’s the first motion learnt in the overall lesson plan that is the system encapsulated by the kata, so it is related to all other moves. However, its status as the first move learnt does not give it supreme importance within that system.

I don’t see a stark distinction between the Pinan / Heian Series and the other kata in terms of their structure.

All the best,

Iain

karate10
karate10's picture

All majority of the Katas begins with defense and so on and so forth, but kata should be performed with: knowledge, technique, focus, accuracy, good breath control, speed, and power, so that over time the kata is done without even thinking about the movements.  When the student must use his kata movements in a real self-defense situation, it should be as if he walks into a dark room and turns on the light switch without even thinking about it. "Mushin"(No mind) should come to mind.

Paul_D
Paul_D's picture

karate10 wrote:
All majority of the Katas begins with defense
That would depend on your interpretation of the movement surely?

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

karate10 wrote:
All majority of the Katas begins with defense ...

Paul_D wrote:
That would depend on your interpretation of the movement surely?

I’d agree that it would depend on how you see the kata … and it would also depend on your definition of “defence”.

If a women was to strike a man who had just threatened rape I would say that the strike was defensive i.e. a way to prevent the unprovoked violence of others. However, if the exact same strike was used by the potential rapist to facilitate his attack then it is obviously not defensive. It’s not the method but the motivation that determines whether a given motion is defensive or not.

Karate ethics would dictate that all techniques are “defensive” (even when delivered in an aggressive, proactive and decisive way; as practicality dictates) because the karateka should never be the architect of the violence. This past masters were pretty clear on this distinction:

“When faced with someone who disrupts the peace or who will do one harm, one is as a warrior in battle, and so it only stands to reason that one should seize the initiative and pre-empt the enemy’s use of violence. Such action in no way goes against the precept of ‘no first attack’ …the expression ‘karate ni sente nashi’ [no first attack in karate] should be properly understood to mean that the karateka must never take a hostile attitude, or be the cause of a violent incident; he or she should always have the virtues of calmness, prudence and humility in dealing with others.” – Kenwa Mabuni

“There is a saying ‘no first attack in karate’ …To be sure, it is not the budo [martial art] spirit to train for the purpose of striking others without good reason. I assume that you already understand that in karate one's primary goal must be the training of mind and body… But when a situation can't be avoided and the enemy is intent on doing you serious harm, you must fight ferociously. When one does fight, taking control of the enemy is vital, and one must take that control with the very first move. Therefore, in a fight one must attack first. It is very important to remember this.” – Choki Motobu

"When there are no avenues of escape or one is caught even before any attempt to escape can be made, then for the first time the use of self-defense techniques should be considered. Even at times like these, do not show any intention of attacking, but first let the attacker become careless. At that time attack him concentrating one's whole strength in one blow to a vital point and in the moment of surprise, escape and seek shelter and help." – Gichin Funakoshi

You’ll notice how all of the above are clear on “attack with technique” (method) is a vital part of an “ethical defence” (motivation). It’s not the nature technique that defines if it is defensive or not; but instead it is the motivation of the person applying the technique.

A karateka should never be the instigator and cause of the violence, and in that since every single karate / kata motion is “defensive”. However, when faced with the unprovoked, unavoidable violence of others, then the karateka must act proactively, explosively and dominate from the off until escape is possible (as quite rightly expressed by the three masters above). So while all we do is morally and ethically defensive, the actually application must not be “defensive” in mind-set or action.

This recent podcast expands on this issue for those who would like to listen to it:

http://www.iainabernethy.co.uk/content/requirements-moral-healthy-and-effective-approach-violence-podcast

All the best,

Iain

mike23
mike23's picture

When one defends a fort there is a lot of offense going on. You have to repel the attacker. It's not always blocking, it's attacking the offender. You have the right to be left alone and no one has the right to touch your body. You have every right to repel an attack with offensive techniques to protect your "fort".

Marc
Marc's picture

css1971 wrote:

"Which kata did you have in mind specifically, when you said "older katas"?"

It was just a thought I had that started with Kushanku/Kanku-Dai and continued with Passai/Bassai-Dai and then Rohai. All of them have characteristic "salutation" movements. In each case I'm convinced that the salutation has specific meaning, what I'm not sure about is how that relates to the rest of the kata once you're past the first couple of movements which deal with the "salutation".

I mean is it just a case of "well we had to start somewhere" or was there a general "theme" in mind. I realise it's likely to be different for every kata but they've clearly used rules when encoding the kata.

As for Kanku-Dai, I think Iain sums it up great in a flow drill video of his:

The first move (raise hands) is a stylised flinch reaction. Kind of a default move, if you will. If you don't know what's coming at you, raise your hand, protect your head and rush in. And what do you do then? Well, it depends on the situation. Are you inside, outside, have you been grabbed? The kata then tells you how to flow on from different situations.

Also, the kata groups the techniques, e.g. for elbow manipulation. As Iain explains in the video and his post, the kata provides a learning order for the student. Basic stuff first, variations and sophisticated stuff later.

So Kanku-Dai is not a case of "well we had to start somewhere" but a case of "let's start with a default move" and it introduces the basic strategy as well: protect your had, begin to dominate, do not let go until he drops. The first move can even stop the confrontation alltogether if applied like shown in this video by Russell Stutely:

So much for "every kata starts with a defensive technique." Well, as said above, of course it is defensive in that it is used for defensive purposes, but it it's not simply a block, and it is certainly not about watching the sky ("kanku") as the sun rises. cool

All the best, Marc