8 posts / 0 new
Last post
chao2
chao2's picture
Bunkai karate difference from mainstream Karate

Hi Im new to these forums and amazed of how supportive this community is and everything it has accomplished so far. So here is my question that has been bugging me for a while. If we had to make a list all of  punches, throws, joint locks,kicks, and other techniques found in kata bunkai how much different would karate look from mainstream traditonal karate styles? 

Marc
Marc's picture

Hi, I understand your question as being about the shape of techniques, i.e. the way the moves are performed.

I think we don't really need to make lists of all the punches, throws, joint locks, kicks and other techniques, because that's exactly what we have the kata for. Kata are the actual lists. Kata were designed as a tool to remember and solo train all of these techniques and the principles behind them.

Therefore, I feel that kata bunkai based karate (in the sense of self defense) would actually look quite a lot like the kata. Because bunkai ("analysis") is the decoding of the combat principles encoded in kata.

Since the shape of karate techniques has been heavily influenced by sports competitions and the athletic aspects required to win a tournament, I would guess, some differences in shape would be:

Shorter stances and lower kicks.

Fewer slow-motion moves or dramatic pauses in kata.

Fewer non-kata techniques like ura-mawashi-geri.

Partner engagement at shorter distances.

Of course in partner training we always have to take care not to injure our partner, so the moves must often be abbreviated (pull your punch). But in solo training (kata) we can go follow through with full speed and commitment (kime).

Just my initial thoughts. Welcome to the forum.

Marc  

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

chao2 wrote:
Hi Im new to these forums and amazed of how supportive this community is and everything it has accomplished so far.

Welcome! Yeah we have a great bunch of folks that contribute here and I find it a great resource and learning opportunity.

chao2 wrote:
If we had to make a list all of  punches, throws, joint locks, kicks, and other techniques found in kata bunkai how much different would karate look from mainstream traditonal karate styles?

Listing things would be difficult. Especially if you take a principle based approach; which I feel we should. We therefore don’t seek to learn “X number of locks”, but we instead seek to learn the principles of locking that give rise to all locks. This article explains that in more depth if people are interested:

http://www.iainabernethy.co.uk/article/four-stages-kata-practise

As regards to how different it would look, it would depend upon what you are looking at. Kata would look the same; kumite would look very different. It’s also not so much what it looks like, but what you do with it.

By way of analogy, let’s say I went to the bookstore and bought two identical copies of the same recipe book. I then give those books to two friends. The first friend put the book on the shelf and never reads it. The second friend take the book into the kitchen and works through every recipe. They can eventually cook all dishes with ease, and they can even improvise to make new dishes.

If I asked them to show me the books again, they will look exactly the same. They both own the exact same book. What it different is what they have done with that book. A similar situation exists with kata.

If you were to see the kata of a karateka that practised bunkai, and the kata of the karateka who didn’t practise bunkai there would be little difference.  However, one has studied the kata, and one has “left it on the shelf”.

We bunkai types desire to be “martial chefs”; as opposed to being someone who owns a unread recipe book.

Mark's post above also holds true. Because the aim is primarily civilian self-protection, the mode of practise will reflect that and techniques and training methods not appropriate that environment will not be included.

All the best,

Iain

Marc
Marc's picture

Iain Abernethy wrote:

By way of analogy, let’s say I went to the bookstore and bought two identical copies of the same recipe book. I then give those books to two friends. The first friend put the book on the shelf and never reads it. The second friend take the book into the kitchen and works through every recipe. They can eventually cook all dishes with ease, and they can even improvise to make new dishes.

If I asked them to show me the books again, they will look exactly the same. They both own the exact same book. What it different is what they have done with that book. A similar situation exists with kata.

If you were to see the kata of a karateka that practised bunkai, and the kata of the karateka who didn’t practise bunkai there would be little difference.  However, one has studied the kata, and one has “left it on the shelf”.

Iain, that's a great analogy. smiley

I would even take it a bit further and say that the recipe book used by the chef all the time might even have some stains and written comments/alterations. It would still be the same book though.

Anyone who'd take it off the shelf would be able to read the original information in it.

But you would also be able to see which recipes the chef preferred (more stains) or improved on according to his/her taste (comments/alterations). This is where differences in cooking style become manifest in the book. Hence the variations in kata from style to style.

As Funakoshi said in Kyohan: "... it goes without saying that variations in expression are characteristic of each individual." And in his 20th precept: "Always work on thinking and producing new ideas and improvements!"

Take care

Marc

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Marc wrote:
I would even take it a bit further and say that the recipe book used by the chef all the time might even have some stains and written comments/alterations. It would still be the same book though.

Anyone who'd take it off the shelf would be able to read the original information in it.

But you would also be able to see which recipes the chef preferred (more stains) or improved on according to his/her taste (comments/alterations). This is where differences in cooking style become manifest in the book. Hence the variations in kata from style to style.

I like it! Yes indeed, a used book may have some “notes in the margins” :-) An unused book could also end up with a page or two missing, and no one would ever know because the recipe was never followed.

All the best,

Iain

JWT
JWT's picture

I once signed out one of the volumes of Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire from the library at St Andrews University in order to check up on a reference in a more modern book. The volume I took out had been printed in the first decade of the 19th century and was almost 200 years old. It had been signed out by about seven people in that time going by the stamps in the front. To check my passage I had to cut the pages of the book as they were all uncut, that volume had never actually been properly studied or read. There are perhaps parallels with some kata. They are collected and look good on the shelf, but they are never really used for that which they may have been intended.

John Titchen

Ian H
Ian H's picture

Mainstream "modern traditional" karate tends to have a lot more techniques for jumping over, or ducking under, Samurai swords.  

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Ian H wrote:
Mainstream "modern traditional" karate tends to have a lot more techniques for jumping over, or ducking under, Samurai swords.

http://www.iainabernethy.co.uk/article/occams-hurdled-katana-logic-kata-...