4 posts / 0 new
Last post
dhogsette
dhogsette's picture
Pinan Nidan/Heian Shodan Opening Sequence as Defense against Haymaker Punch

Hello,

It seems to me that Pinan Shodan/Heian Nidan offers at least two possible ways of dealing with a sucker punch or the classic haymaker punch. In this video, we examine one possible application of the opening sequence to deal with this kind of wild punch. We also explore the step punch movement as a possible neck crank application and the following pivot into low block as a way to respond if the neck crank application fails.

Best,

David

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Thanks for sharing Dave! I always like bunkai with options and that consider the enemy’s possible reactions. Thanks for posting!

All the best,

Iain

dhogsette
dhogsette's picture

Thanks Iain! Encounters are messy--even as free sparring and kata-based sparring reveal--and I can't imagine the past masters thinking all their techniques and tactics worked all the time. Seems reasonable that the kata constructors would at least think about possible failures and counters by the enemy and devised follow-up trachniques. I don't have any evidence for that, other than a conclusion based upon reasonable assumptions: if kata were designed to deal with civilian self-defense and actual violence, and if actual physical altercations are messy and things often go wrong, then it follows that the kata designers built elements into the kata to deal with those failures. I'm curious, have you or anyone on this forum encountered more concrete evidence that kata offers responses to failed techniques or counter moves from the enemy?

Best,

David

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

dhogsette wrote:
have you or anyone on this forum encountered more concrete evidence that kata offers responses to failed techniques or counter moves from the enemy?

I’m not aware of any pieces of writing specifically related to that, but I think we can nevertheless be very confident that this is the case. Firstly, it’s a fundamental requirement of combat. It’s therefore infinitely more likely it was considered than it was not. As you say:

dhogsette wrote:
I can't imagine the past masters thinking all their techniques and tactics worked all the time. Seems reasonable that the kata constructors would at least think about possible failures and counters by the enemy and devised follow-up techniques.

Secondly, this entirely reasonably hypothesis is consistently confirmed when we analyse the kata. When was ask, “What would happen if this move fails?”, we normally find an answer a few movements away.

For this not to be the case, we would need the creators of our kata – all creators of all kata – to be operating on the outlandish assumption that techniques never fail … and, despite that, all of kata when analysed could have follow ups superimposed onto them (Hypothesis A).

It’s far more likely that the self-evident fact that techniques fail was understood, recorded in the kata, and we are seeing that when we analyse them (Hypothesis B).

There is much writing about how the kata, when applied, must adapt to circumstances; so they were definitely aware of the fluid nature of combat. “Hypothesis A” therefore fails at the first hurdle because one of the assumptions on which it is based can be shown to be false.

I’m not aware of anything that specifically says, “The kata contain follow ups should a given method fail”, but everything we do know, the nature of kata, and logical analysis presents a very convincing case.

All the best,

Iain