7 posts / 0 new
Last post
Nimrod Nir
Nimrod Nir's picture
Kenwa Mabuni - bunkai genius or not?

Hi guys, 

After my first "warm-up" comment, here comes my first post :) 

While going through previous forum posts, I stumbled upon this interesting one: http://www.iainabernethy.co.uk/content/historical-kata-application.

In it was a link referring to a section of Kenwa Mabuni's book, Goshin Karate Kempo, which explores the bunkai of Seienchin kata: http://isshin-concentration.blogspot.co.il/2013/07/a-look-at-kata-applic...

Coming from a Shitoryu background, I immediately recognized the illustrated bunkai as the infamous 3K "kihon" bunkai, which I have been taught as the "primary" (and only) bunkai for Seiencin. For those not familiar with the kata as practiced by Shitoryu, here it is (0:50-3:00). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9j9epxemFc

Also for reference, in the same video are also the infamous 'kihon" bunkai (8:06-15:50), which is almost exactly the way I have been taught them (with only slight insignificant variations, e.g. a closed fist at the end of the first bunkai instead of a nukite, deviating from the kata motion, but more in line with Mabuni's #3 illustration).

I was surprised to see that Mabuni's illustrated bunkai closley resembles the "kihon" bunkai I have been taught, which I find flawed almost in every way possible. In Mabuni's "defense", his illustrations does not present the unrealistic distance, the lunging attacks or the overly compliant and static uke (being static drawings). So these flaws can be assigned to his later students. However, the illustrations do present many flaws, which seem to contradict almost every bukai principle: e.g. first bunkai (#1 - #3) shows a pre-arranged attack sequence; almost none of the techniques seem to end the confrontation; Tori always stays in the line of fire instead of going out while keeping uke on his line of fire; some of the applications are totally unrealistic (like #9 - #10 catching the kick with this weird hand position while waiting to grab the punch to the face, before kicking the groin); some of them does not resemble the kata motions (#11 - #12) etc. Even worse, some of Mabuni's own principles are not being followed (where are the angles relative to the opponent in his illustrations?)

So, what is going on here?

I know that Karate teaching approach changed during the 1930's while bringing Karate from Okinawa to the Universities in Japan and incorporating the Do concept instead of the "savage" Jutsu approach. I also get that this is what the people wanted to learn back then, and that the teachers supplied the demand of the time. Still, I would expect better professional integrity from someone who was proclaimed as an expert karate technician and bunkai genius, and at least not to betray his core principles or to sell them short.  

Kenwa Mabuni wrote:
"The karate that has been introduced to Tokyo is actually just a part of the whole. The fact that those who have learnt karate there feel it only consists of kicks and punches, and that throws and locks are only to be found in judo or jujutsu, can only be put down to a lack of understanding… Those who are thinking of the future of karate should have an open mind and strive to study the complete art.” – Kenwa Mabuni, 1938

How can he say that, with implied pointing at Funakoshi's teaching in Tokyo (which, by the way, did include throws and locks, at least as shown in Karatedo Kyohan), while presenting really flawed bunkai in his book, without any throws or locks? Looks like the karate that has been introduced to Osaka was actually a smaller part of the whole (Mabuni taught in Osaka).

And how come there are no good bunkai books from the previous "golden age" in Okinawa? Didn't they have print during the 1910's? 

So, again, what is going on here? I came up with a few possible ideas:

1. Making a living: Mabuni wanted to make a living and sell his book. The people wanted that kind of "crap", so he delivered, while privately being disgusted by himself and the Karate that he promoted (or mlidly content).

2. Distorted historical image: Our modern perception of Mabuni is distorted. This is the actual bunkai he practiced. Perhaps compared to his contemporaries he was considered a bunkai genius, but compared with today's standards he was a very mediocre bunkai analyst. He would certainly not be considered a master today. 

3. Secret karate society: Mabuni was a secret karate guardian, keeping the "real" dangerous stuff hidden and only teaching it to his most loyal disciples, while teaching the useless "crap" to the general public and low level, untrustworthy students. He and his posse sure had a good laugh the day the book was published. (This is a very unlikely scenario, especially in light of Mabuni's own son, Kenei, keeping the "crap teaching" going on, until finally I was taught it. If this was somehow possible, he should have come out clean years ago, when applied karate woke up and "raised the curtain".)

So, which one is it? Perhaps a different idea? maybe a mixture of several ideas?

Please share your thoughts.

Cheers,

Nimrod

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Hi Nimrod,

One of the problems we have when it comes to textual sources is the economics of publishing. There were no books on karate before there was an audience to make those books financially viable. The audience at the time was a “3K” audience because that is the karate that was popular and being promoted. The books are useful for the references to the previous version of karate (Mabuni proves quite a few), but the books don’t show that version of karate. They show the karate of that time.

Interestingly, after my first few books, I was pushed to write a “Karate 101” book by a publisher because that was felt to be the biggest audience. It’s not something I would ever do, but publishers are, quite rightly, interested in sales above all else. It’s a tough enough business as it is. The best part of 20 year later and bunkai is way more “mainstream”, but at that time I was writing for a very niche audience. Mabuni and others will have faced similar pressures.  

One telling example of this is Funakoshi’s introduction to the revised edition of Karate-Do Kyohan. In the 1950s version, it is clear he is not 100% happy with the karate of that time:

“As a result of the social disorder that followed the end of World War Two, the karate world was dispersed, as were many other things. Quite apart from the decline in the level of technique during these times …”

He then continues to also critique the spiritual state of karate believing it to be in a worse state than when he first introduced karate to Japan. He continues:

“Although one might claim such changes are only the natural result of the expansion of karate-do, it is not evident that one should view such a result with rejoicing rather than with some misgiving.”

That book was still published as his “Master Text” though. The following line from Karate-Do: My Way of Life is also key:

“Time change, the world changes, and obviously the martial arts must change too. The karate that high school students practise today is not the same karate that was practised even are recently as ten years ago, and it is a long way indeed from the karate I learned when I was a child in Okinawa”.

The bottom line is there were no books recording the older version of karate that interests us most. There are books that refer to it, but primarily show the karate of the 1930s. There are also later books that comment on the 50 years of change. We therefore need to view each book, and the information presented, as being primarily a reflection of the karate of that time. Therefore, it is the references to the karate of the past that are of most use to us.

All the best,

Iain

Wastelander
Wastelander's picture

I'm in agreement with Iain, although I will point out that Mabuni did have a couple joint locks and takedowns in his book. It's not much, of course, but at least it is something.

Nimrod Nir
Nimrod Nir's picture

Wastelander wrote:
I'm in agreement with Iain, although I will point out that Mabuni did have a couple joint locks and takedowns in his book. It's not much, of course, but at least it is something.

Thank you for your contribution, Noah. I was actually aware of Mabuni's much better breakdown of the bunkai of Seipai (for which you kindly provided the photos), Including the famous armbar / armbar-counter / counter-armbar-counter sequence, which is brilliant indeed. Iain covered it in one of his videos: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-MTdH6Pi6o&t=5s.

Fortunately, I also have been taught that bit as "kihon" bunkai, so not all of Mabuni's "formal" heritage was "crap" after all.

I intentionally left that out of my post for the sake of the argument, and wondered if someone would bring that up, so 2 points for you :)

Furthermore, Mabuni's "crappy" breakdown of Seienchin also includes at least one lock (the bunkai for the last bit of the kata, illustration #19), and the "kihon" bunkai for Seienchin also includes at least two throws. But I also intentionally let these "slip" from my post.

It is still puzzling however, how Mabuni managed to publish a solid book such as the Seipai one, and in the same time period to publish a much lesser quality bunkai (in my opinion) for a different kata (Seienchin), as part of another book. I guess the Seipai book was a lot more in depth and thorough, in comparison with the Goshin Karate Kempo book, which according to its name had more to do with self-defense in general and less with specific kata bunkai.

Wastelander
Wastelander's picture

Well, Seipai no Kenkyu had plenty of 3K-style applications in it, too. Honestly, I tend to suspect that Mabuni was trying to introduce just a few examples of the depth of kata to people who weren't familiar with it. While I can't say that is the case, for certain, it does seem reasonable, especially in light of some anecdotal evidence that I have. One of our students in California has only recently begun training with us, in the past two years, after about 13 years in another style where he was not taught practical kata application. He has told me that he spent a couple years on his own, trying to figure out applications by looking it up online, but it didn't make sense to him because it didn't fit the template he had spent over a decade learning for bunkai, even though he was trying to learn better material. He is hardly the first person to have told me something like that, as well. When people start looking into practical application, but already have preconceived notions of how kata are supposed to be applied, they can be overwhelmed, and have difficulty seeing the connection between the application shown and the movements of the kata.

Nimrod Nir
Nimrod Nir's picture

wastelander wrote:
Well, Seipai no Kenkyu had plenty of 3K-style applications in it, too.

I agree of course. However, as I mentioned I feel that it contains at least some workable and sound principle-based bunkai.

wastelander wrote:
When people start looking into practical application, but already have preconceived notions of how kata are supposed to be applied, they can be overwhelmed, and have difficulty seeing the connection between the application shown and the movements of the kata.

My experience is totally different. Having been training for well over 20 years before first being exposed to consistent (non-sporadic) practical bunkai, for me everything immediately "clicked into place". The kata motions were already there, and it all seemed very natural and logical (at last). The feeling of my fellow practitioners (the ones who expressed willingness to be exposed to practical bunkai) were similar, according to them (and they also have been training for well over 20 years before I first broke it down for them). Also younger members of my club, who have been training for 12+ years, found it very natural and logical. So I guess it is an individual thing.

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Wastelander wrote:
When people start looking into practical application, but already have preconceived notions of how kata are supposed to be applied, they can be overwhelmed, and have difficulty seeing the connection between the application shown and the movements of the kata.

Than happens a lot! I vividly recall spending 20 minutes trying to get a 7th dan to use shuto-uke as a trap and strike (back hand clears limb, lead hand hits) and he could not get it! His 8th kyu uke got it instantly, but he was so conditioned to think of it a “block” against an oi-zuki that it was frying his brain to think otherwise! He eventually gave up telling me it was “too complicated” :-)

The failure to understand the kata template will shift with the variables of combat is also a common stumbling block. There are quotes from Itosu, Funakoshi, Mabuni, Motobu, Otuka, etc all making clear how the process should work, but the conditioned mindset of “3K karate” can lead to a fixation on the technical minutiae of the kata example, while the big picture of instinctive adherence to combative principle in free-flowing combat is entirely missed.

Nimrod Nir wrote:
for me everything immediately "clicked into place". The kata motions were already there, and it all seemed very natural and logical (at last).

That happens a lot too! The body “knows” it, and you just need to give a context for the kata to take over do its thing.

Nimrod Nir wrote:
So I guess it is an individual thing.

I’d agree. I’ve seen lots of both.

All the best,

Iain