Cayuga Karate

I have significant doubts that when the current group of karate schools (styles, systems, etc) came into existence between 1900 and 1950, that there was meaningful empty hand bunkai taught for the vast majority of kata sequences. I am not arguing that no bunkai was taught. Nor am I arguing that all bunkai taught is ineffective. On the contrary, I strongly believe that many schools have passed down meaningful applications for some number of movements from their kata. However, I find it difficult to overlook the remarkable disconnect between kata and application in virtually all karate schools today. What I mean by this is that while there may be some good application for some movements, most of the sequences of kata are just completely overlooked. What we often find is that there is really quite a large percentage of kata sequences that either are not practiced with application, or the applications simply don't map to the way fighting typically unfolds. It's poor bunkai. When we do find good applications, we also often find that they include only a small piece of the actual kata. Or we find that the application is quite different than the movements in the kata. Good bunkai often requires signficant changes and additions. It's my opinion that across a broad range of bunkai practiced in traditional karate schools, there are all sorts of deficiencies. One doesn't have to look much further than the standard "attack" to observe a fundamental disconnect between kata application and the way way humans generally fight. As any MMA student with the most limited of training can recognize, attackers don't charge in and freeze in fixed (often long) stances with a hand at the hip, and a strike to the torso (aka solar plexus). Any fighter, with the most mimimal of training, would likely not step forward in a long stance, but rather instead choose to shuffle forward with his feet under him. He would likely not freeze in place with one arm out, but choose instead to be be mobile, and retract an arm immediately after striking. He would likely not choose to have the heel of his rear foot firmly on the ground but choose instead to have his weight on the ball of his foot, enhancing his mobility. He would likely not keep one hand on his hip but choose instead to protect his head with it. He would likely not punch to the torso, but choose instead to attack the head and neck. He would likely not limit his attack to a single strike, but rather choose instead to have second and third strike combinations ready to be thrown in an instant. Plain and simple, if one is training to deal with realistic attacks, the standard "karate" attack doesn't fit the requirements all that well. If the ultimate goal of a specific "bunkai" (application) is to improve self-defense, then we should all recognize that to a significant degree, bunkai designed for single torso strike lunge punches are designed to defend against a very unlikely attack. Many would agree that this may not be optimal training for self defense. Now I am not arguing that karate systems should throw out the old applications, the old ways of training, simply because they don't map to modern fighting. Instructors have many options in how to effectively train their students. In considering bad bunkai, and unlikely attacks, we should also consider the benefits of training with these lunge strikes. I would argue that while the benefit to fighting may be debatable, the benefit to training is clear. A key aspect of this strike is the combination of its power with its predictability. The very nature of this predictability can play an important role in any teacher's effort to reduce injuries. Students can practice these strikes and the defenses against them with enormous intensity, (speed and power), without risking serious injury. If you have large numbers of students, without protective headgear, and choose to have them regularly throw full power, full speed hooks at their partners' heads, you shouldn't be surprised when a serious injury occurs. I argue that we should recognize the benefits of this kind of practice. But I also argue that we should all recognize that these lunge punch movements, and many of the bunkai applications used against them are not modeled on the way fighting actually occurs. And perhaps most important, I argue that we all should recognize that effective training designed to prepare students for actual fighting requires students to train against more realistic attacks. It's not that training against lunge punches is not optimal. It's that training extensively against lunge punches to the torso, without corresponding training against more realistic attacks is simply not an very effective way to train for self defense. I would be remiss if I didn't share my thoughts on odd way in which some defend this whole concept of poor bunkai. It's a surprisingly prevalent attitude. You have likely read it on this forum. Many will argue that it is up to the student to develop his own bunkai. In this alternate universe, the teacher provides the basics, the principles, and the kata, and the student applies the basics and principles himself, to the kata. Bunkai is a task done by the student, not the teacher. I have had the great fortune to have had exposure to a great range of systems in my 36 years in the arts including: a wide range of karate systems, a smattering of Chinese systems, PMA, Indonesian arts, Muay Thai, Japanese grappling arts (judo, jujitsu, aikido, aikijutsu), Western boxing, kendo, naginata and fencing. And in my 54 years of living, I have had the opportunity to observe numerous kinds of physical human activities that include instruction and training, in all sorts of sports, music, dance, arts, cooking, etc. And what I have found only rarely is this concept of: "It's the teacher's job to show the student X (kata) and Y (basics/principles) and it's the student's job to figure out how to put the two together." That's not to say that there is not a concept of creativity in much of what we do. But when a beginner with no experience is shown kata, after kata, in often incredible detail. And then the student is told that he can use these motions to protect himself against a vicious attack from a large aggressive attacker, but it is up to the student, not the teacher, to figure out how to do it. In other fighting arts, this is just about unheard of. Now that is, in large part, because so many fighting systems, outside of Chinese and Okinawan systems, don't have long complex kata. Where kata exists (Judo, Aikido, Kendo, Iaido), they are often short and often appear, even to the novice, to have an obvious and direct translation to application. And this is often the case. The two (kata and application) go hand in hand, from the beginning. This just isn't so with the old Chinese kata practiced in karate where in many schools, the practice of kata is fundamentally divorced from the practice of useful application. Students are expected to train in a kata for years before "earning" the priviledge of being shown application. I don't expect to change anyone's mind with this post, but if I were able to get someone to reconsider something they have seen or learned, this would be it. It is very strange to expect students to be given very detailed instruction on each specific movement in a kata. But when it comes to the often very complex way in which those movements can be used for self-defense, combinations that might help save their lives, that, they are supposed to figure out for themselves. This whole notion is just bizarre. I think that when we find instructors that teach this concept, we should anticipate that they may do so, in part, out of simple ignorance. Instructors often want to appear to students as authorities in their arts. And as a result there can be a reluctance to admit what they don't know. What is a teacher to do, when after coming up in a system that didn't teach much bunkai, is asked by a student what a movement could be used for? Perhaps there are responses that gracefully deflect the question. One Oyata student has written "when I ask my teacher what a movemnent means, he often says "what do you think?"" One of Itosu's students, Gusukuma (Shiroma) is said to have taught that some movements have no meaning. Itosu himself wrote in one of his ten lessons of tote (in one translation) that students themselves must figure out which movements are for improved health (qigong-like) and which are for fighting. I would argue that we should consider that this entire challenge of poor bunkai is not some new development. Rather we should consider that the poor bunkai (or absence of bunkai) that we see today is either reflective of what came before, or perhaps even an improvement. Students weren't taught applications, and in the absence of such instruction, they have tried to do the best they could do, taking basics, applying them to kata, and often coming up with what today we call poor bunkai. When looking for explanations for poor bunkai, this, I believe is the root of the problem. There is another aspect of this problem. There is a school of thought that there really is this great bunkai, but it is secret, and available only to those that train a really long time. This argument is used to support the notion that the Okinawans didn't teach the Japanese the old secrets, and both the Okinawans and the Japanese certainly didn't teach the American invaders the "good stuff". I imagine there is some truth to this, that there are some movements in kata that have applications that were passed down, and you have to earn those. But I also expect mostly that this is just a canard. It's just so remarkably easy to say, "Oh, we have bunkai in our system, but it is secret and I can't show you." Discussions like this hit a wall. I say "I don't believe you have a meaningful application for sequence X in kata Y. You respond "I do but I can't show you. It's just unfortunate that my teacher doesn't permit this, because I could prove you are wrong." I doubt it. I argue, as I stated above, that many systems have some reasonably effective bunkai for some movements for some kata, and maybe even a kata or two where they have pretty complete bunkai. But when you look at all of their kata, many sequences, probably most, will have either no bunkai or poor bunkai. Those who have read some of my other posts might recognize that I am not bashing kata as being of limited value. Kata practice is my life's work, so please don't think I am criticizing kata. Rather, the reason I argue there is so much bad bunkai is a natural extension to my argument that kata probably weren't designed for empty hand fighting. If I am correct and that is the case, I argue that we should be very grateful that at least some kata sequences lend themselves so readily to effective empty hand fighting. (Good bunkai) Once more of us begin to accept the notion that bunkai may not have been handed down with the kata, we can consider the potential reasons. If we explore the assumption that maybe it is because there never really was any, then maybe, just maybe, some of us might choose to begin to reconsider the answer to the question that I see at the very core of this issue. We can update that question with the following addition:

Ueshiro wrote: I would argue that the order is substantially different, and below I will compare the two. I would assume that the Matsubayashi Wikipedia page would have the correct order of kata. Fukyukata 1 and 2 Pinan 1 through 5 Naihanchi 1 through 3 Ananku Wankan Rohai Wanshu Passai Gojushiho Chinto Kusanku What I think is quite obvious from this order is that at the beginning, we have ten "beginner" kata of relatively short duration (less than 20 seconds each). In the middle we have four kata of "medium duration" (typically around 25 seconds) and finally, at the end, we have four kata of "longer duration" (30 to 45 seconds). We are fortunate to have video that documents that way kata was practiced 50 years ago before the era of pauses and numerous slow movements that makes measuring kata length more complicated. We can start with the video of Nagamine's senior students from, I believe, the early 60s. It could have been earlier. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2drhrqqp_E This video documents Nagamine's students performing the two Fukyukata, the five Pinan, and the three Naihanchi, and all of which are done in less than 20 seconds. There is also video of Nagamine performing Wanshu at a bit over 20 seconds. Passai is truncated, showing only 18 seconds, but is missing approximately the first 15 seconds. Chinto takes about 30 seconds and Kusanku 45 seconds. We have video of an old version of Wankan that is done in around 25 seconds. (More modern versions, especially those of Nagamine when he is quite old, typically take longer) We have an early version of Anaku at about 25 seconds. We also have video of Gojushiho (same video) taking about 45 seconds. I'm not sure there is old footage of Rohai. Measuring the duration of this kata is complicated by the number of slow movements it contains. (opening, and forward walking steps). But I believe most would concur that its length would put it in the group of four "medium duration" kata, rather than the group of four "long duration" kata. To summarize, the order of the Matsubayashi kata, could be viewed as categorized by length of kata with 10 short kata in the beginning, followed by four medium length kata, and ending with four long kata. I think this order makes a lot of sense. However, it is not a universal formula that Okinawans used in teaching their kata. One only has to compare this methodology to Shito Ryu, which intermixes longer and shorter kata throughout the curriculum. For Shito Ryu, this has an intrinsic logic as I will discuss later. In the link below, I have a table that compares the order of kata from four different systems of Shito Ryu that descend from Kenei Mabuni (Shito Kai), Kenzo Mabuni (Seito Shito Ryu), Itosu Kai (descends from Ryusho Sakagami), Kuniba Kai, (descends from Kosei Kuniba) and Hayashi Ha Shito Ryu (descends from Teruo Hayashi). In addition, I compare this order to the order that Matsubayashi kata are taught. https://picasaweb.google.com/106395288566490397177/Discard?authkey=Gv1sRgCODh_JKso4HJkAE#5722022527643630354 While opinions will certainly vary, I think many would concur that the Shito Ryu order cannot be said to follow the Matsubayashi order, for the simple reason that the various Shito Ryu lineages have significant variations between them. There are a couple of other points are also worth noting. Many Shito Ryu systems, if not most, have abandoned the practice of Naihanchi Nidan and Sandan, two kata taught early in the Matsubayashi system. Second, Passai (Bassai Dai) and Kusanku (Dai) come fairly early in the curriculum, pretty universally before Wanshu. Some Shito systems have the equivalent of one or two Fukyugata kata, but this is inconsistent. When looking at the respective orders of these two systems, it is clear that Pinan (designed as beginner kata) are at the beginning, and Chinto and Gojushiho come much later at higher ranks. And we can also see it is common to find Shito Ryu systems with both Rohai and Matsukaze (Wankan) in the middle. An important point that has yet to be addressed in this discussion to data relates to how many times a student might practice a kata, before another is introduced. This issue, in my opinion, is fundamental to the entire concept of "order". The relative order is, in my view, relatively unimportant. Rather, how long a student is expected to practice a given kata before moving on to another is, in my opinion, the key question, at least if there is an expectation that along with kata, the student is expected to develop proficiency in applying the movements for self defense. Funakoshi tells us of his experience learning the three Naihanchi from Itosu. He had been training with Azato at the time for a number of years, and still, it took three years each to learn the Naihanchi. In Shito Ryu, one would likely 25 or 30 kata by the time one gets to black belt, often after training for four years. These comparitive training regimens (Mabuni, circa 1930, versus Itosu, circa 1880), in my opinion, have little in common. We are faced with this whole predicament for a simple reason. By the early 20th century, it became the norm for old masters to acquire more kata, and include all that they had learned into their curriculum. Funakoshi pushed back on this, and Otsuka did as well. Mabuni certainly didn't. The historical records shows that Kyan learned seven kata from six masters. He passed them all on. It appears that Nagamine learned from Kyan, (or his students) Chinto, Kusanku, and Gojushiho. His system includes Passai, Anaku and Wanshu, but these are distinctly different from the versions of those kata practiced by other Kyan students, so I imagine (without consulting the history) that he learned them elsewhere. In his studies, he also learned Pinan, Naihanchi, Rohai and Wankan. Apparently he at least consulted with Miyagi, who designed Fukyukata 2 and Nagamine himself designed Fukykata 1. Like Kyan, he would wind up with a broad collection from numerous sources. And the order in which they are taught appears, all things being equal, to reflect the length of the kata. Mabuni was the ultimate kata collector. He clearly wanted to preserve any of the old kata he could find. He viewed them as historical treasures. The systems that descend from him, as a result, today contain 40, 50, even 60 kata. And the order in which they are taught is not based on length. That is not to say that length is not a factor. We find, of course, that Pinan are at the beginning (Mabuni, was, after all, an Itosu student), and longer kata like Chinto, Gojushiho as well as Suparenpei, are at the end. However, there are many relatively short kata that are taught long after a number of longer kata. For example, one can see above that Kusanku and Passai are taught fairly early on. I am not aware of anything Mabuni may have written regarding kata order. In the absence of clear evidence to the contrary, I speculate that the order in Mabuni systems reflects a attempt to "cover the bases". There is mostly Shuri-te, early on, but by brown belt, one typically sees a Naha-te kata, Tomari-te kata (Rohai and Wankan) and a Mabuni kata (usually Juroku). Many systems include Niseishi (Nijushiho) soon after, giving some coverage to the Aragaki curriculum. At Shodan, Naha-te kata become more prevalent. I have reviewed this information, above, because I believe it has value for the broader karate community. Many students have experience in a single system, and it is quite natural to imagine that other systems probably have similar attributes. Regarding kata, especially in its relation to developing fighting skills, one key attribute is the specific kata they learn. Another is how long they train in one before another is introduced. Another, is collectively the order in which they are learned. These three aspects of kata training are inextricably intertwined within each system. And while each system will have, to some degree, its own logic as to how their kata are taught, this logic does not necessarily carry over to other systems. The Shito Ryu approach to kata, in my view, is fundamentally at odds with the way kata were taught in the late 1800s. I would also argue the way Shito Ryu teaches kata today precludes most students from ever gaining any skill necessary to utilize kata movements for effective fighting. The Matsubayashi approach, on the other hand, is, in my opinion, much more in accordance with the old way that kata was taught. Compared to Shito Ryu, there are just so many fewer kata. I don't think the evidence shows that the order they are taught in, between the two systems, "closely resembles" one another. But more important, the Shito Ryu approach to kata is just fundamentally different, in my view, than the Matsubayshi approach, that any such comparison is a stretch. -------- The information from the table above comes from the following sites: Shito Kai http://www.shitoryu.org/main_frm.htm (under Skills, then Grading) http://shitokai.com/pdf/Shitokai-Syllabuses/SyllabusBinder.pdf Seito Shito Ryu (This is a list of authorized kata, by time training, for tournaments.) http://www.seitoshitoryu.com/data/vancouver_taikai_2011_rulebook_100926.pdf Itosu Kai http://roninscotland.4t.com/photo3.html Kuniba Kai http://www.kunibakai.org/Kata%20Shokai.htm Hayashi Ha (Descends from Teruo Hayashi) No link - The information is based on my experience

Sojobu wrote: I don't imagine that anything I write will in any way convince you that you are supporting the very points we have made above, but your argument here, in my opinion, fully supports the notion that the order of kata are not inherent, but indeed quite subjective. If I understand you correctly, Otsuka was taught a series of kata that included Bassai, Rohai, Wanshu, Jitte, Jion and Niseishi. These kata apparently were once part of his curriculum. In fact, they appear to be routinely practiced by numerous Wado systems around the world. It his later years, Otsuka's order of kata, a "work in progress", changed such that Otsuka dropped six kata from his curriculum. This, by the way, appears to be much like Funakoshi, who in the master text, included only 15 kata that he had been taught, excluding a number that he known at the time. Otsuka not only made decisions about the order of kata, but also chose to drop quite a number of kata that his students wanted to continue to practice. Now I may be mistaken in my interpretation of your statements. It may be that Otsuka never had these kata as part of his system, but knew them and recorded them, and after his death, his students then added them to the curriculum. However, whether it happened one way, or the other is irrelevant. What is relevant is that appears to be no recorded order that these six kata were to be taught in, at least from Otsuka. This, to a remarkable degree, illustrates the point we have been making that the order of these kata is indeed quite subjective. In Wado Ryu, in a strict sense, there can be no inherent order for how these kata are taught, since they were supposed to have been dropped from the system. In scores, if not hundreds of dojos that descend from Otsuka, there are six kata in which there was not passed down in an order to teach them. And you write further, that if Otsuka had his way, even more kata might have been dropped. I believe many might find your evidence compelling. It fully supports the concept that there is no inherent order to the kata that were handed down. In actuality, it seems that once a master teaches a kata, even one that he eventually will not want to be practiced in his system, there is no turning back. It will survive. And when and where it will be taught will likely be at the whim of the teacher of a dojo, since there is clearly no guidance from above regarding when to teach it. -Cayuga Karate [/u]

Ueshirokarate wrote: I am not sure that your point regarding the order of kata taught in Matsubayashi Shorin Ryu and Shito Ryu is necessarily accurate. Perhaps you could provide the order of Matsubayashi kata taught in your system so I could make a relatively informed comparison. Most of my 36 years in karate have been in Shito Ryu and I have had the great fortune to train under teachers in Hayashi-ha, Seito Shito Ryu, Itosukai, and Shitokai. My current rank comes from a long term Shukokai teacher. I would like to contrast common orders of Shito Ryu kata with your Matsubayashi system. I think there are substantial differences. Once I have the order of kata taught in your dojo, I can better address this issue of "difficulty" regarding order. I don't see much evidence supporting this concept. -Cayuga Karate

Sojobo wrote: . Congratulations on a long career in Wado. I am sure you have insight that outsiders such as myself do not. You make the case that there is assuredly a logic that Otsuka used in deciding the order of how kata were to be taught in his system. However, that does not refute the points Dobbersky, Shadowspawn and I have made above. We have pointed out that there is no obvious order in which kata should be taught and that each founder of a system, especially those that learned kata from different masters, as Otsuka did, had to devise an order themselves. The choices made in determining those orders were, to some extent, subjective. Nobody has argued there was no logic in these decisions. I don't believe any of us believe that. What I find interesting in when I looking at the order of the kata in Wado Ryu that you have provided above, I find information in support of the points made by Dobbersky, Shadowspawn and myself. I believe the evidence is pretty clear that Otsuka learned kata, from among others, Mabuni and Funakoshi. And when one looks at the order of kata taught in systems that descend from these teachers, one finds that Chinto and Kusanku are typically taught after Jitte and Bassai Dai. But Otsuka chose to introduce them in a different order where Bassai and Jitte are introduced after Kusanku and Chinto. Again, the key point is that there is really no inherent logic for masters to rely on when determining the order kata are introduced, and that we should expect different masters, therefore to come up with different orders based on subjective considerations. This discussion began when Dobbersky wrote the following: I believe that your statement above supports this view. To which I responded: And I added the obvious point that even within specific systems, such as Wado, we should anticipate that the order of the kata taught will likely vary to some extent across different teachers in different schools, despite the specified sequence handed down by Otsuka. I thank you for your response where you quoted Otsuka. Any original source is greatly appreciated. But being new to Wado, I was hoping for a bit more information, if it is available. You provided Otsuka's direction on the sequence of Pinan, Kushanku, Naihanchi, Seishan and Chinto. This set of kata, appears from some Google queries, to be taught prior to a student achieving Shodan, and likely taught prior to a student testing for Nidan. I was hoping you could also provide Otsuka's direction on the remainder of the kata in Wado Ryu, those taught after this set, specifically Wanshu, Bassai, Jitte, Jion, Niseishi and Rohai. It would be very interesting to know what Otsuka's thoughts were on how long students would typically train before being introduced to each of these additional kata generally not taught prior to Shodan. Thank you for whatever information you can provide. -Cayuga Karate

Dobbersky wrote: I mentioned above that we should expect to see karateka make efforts to try to ensure that their training improves their fighting capabilities. For some, this includes new training patterns and new kata that map more closely to the way that fights unfold. Two man fighting sequences such as Jissen help to accomplish this. And some Ashihara kata (such as Kihon 3) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i87VT-Vo7H8 are also attempts at this. I really like these sequences. It is my perspective that the emphasis on full contact in Kyokushin is as good a training mechanism (despite the associated injuries that come with this training), as any in karate. I believe that these kinds of efforts are, in part, a result of many karate students being dissatisfied with the emphasis on traditional kata, which often, are not handed down with any meaningful fighting applications. You have well-summarized this entire challenge with your statement: I believe you have captured my arguments here quite well, but you have missed an important point. I would argue that the Okinawans would not have used short non-bladed pole-arms in defense of their tribute ships, but would have opted for the common military weapon of a bladed polearm, perhaps 20% longer than the jo. I believe you might concur, that if you put a short, maneuverable bladed weapon in the hands of a sailor, and train him extensively such that he can quickly charge and thrust in a long stance with arm movements that are near indistinguishable from a lunge punch, this would be an even more valid, and effective attack than an identical attack with the jo. And perhaps more important, if you had two are three sailors surround a pirate, and do this attack, simultaneously, that there would be a very high probability that the pirate would, in an instant, be mortally wounded or killed. Melee fighting aboard a ship is not limited to single sailors against single enemies, rather, it also, and likely primarily, consists of multiple sailors, at any given time, executing attacks in teams. -Cayuga Karate

Sojobo wrote: And Ueshirokarate wrote I am reluctant to get into a contest of definitions of terms, especially over what many might consider to be a fairly trivial point. But the choices the old masters have made I believe is worthy of full debate so I will discuss this further. First, I want to make clear that I have not attempted to argue that Otsuka or Nagamine didn't think long and hard about the appropriate order in which kata were introduced in their own systems. Of course they did. They each had a certain logic in developing their systems. The point of my statement, rather, is that if one looks at where specific kata are introduced across systems, you tend to find surprising variety. For example, in Wado Ryu, Kushanku can be introduced at Brown belt. In some Matsuybashi schools, it is taught later. In many Shito Ryu and Shotokan schools, Jitte and Bassai Dai are brown belt kata. That is not so in Wado. It is reserved for higher rank. In Shotokan and Matsubayashi, the three Naihanchi are all taught, generally, after the Pinan. However in many Shito Ryu schools, Naihanchi Nidan and Sandan are not taught until much later. In fact in my many years of training across numerous Shito systems, I have to date never really seen Nidan and Sandan practiced, though I recognize in Kuniba systems that these are still practiced. When we look back at the origins of our many systems today, what we find is that different founders have chosen to introduce (or require for testing) kata at different points in a students training. It is my conjecture, that by and large they kept their own councils when making these decisions. There was no committee meetings in these systems that led to these decisions. That is what I have tried to describe using the term "arbitrary", which, according to dictionary.com has as its first meaning "subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion." What I did not intend to imply was another definition of "arbitrary", namely, "capricious; unreasonable; unsupported". This is actually the opposite of how I was using the term. I can appreciate that my use of the term was misleading. Perhaps a better term is a synonym for this use of arbitrary that does not have the negative connotations. "subjective" is probably a term that also accurately describes my point. Let me expound further. It is important to note that when it comes to the order of kata, the old masters are not the only ones that have a say in how and when kata are taught. Individual teachers also have a key role in that framework. So when we look within specific systems, we should anticipate that there may also be some variability in the introduction of various kata. For example, a quick web search reveals that not all Wado systems introduce (or require for testing) kata in the same order. This Wado Ryu web site shows Kushanku required for Green to Brown belt, and Naihanchi required at brown belt. http://winterpast-nc.com/Karate_Programs/Wado_Ryu_System_Syllabus.htm This Wado Ryu web site shows Naihanchi before Kushanku. http://www.wado-ryu-karate.com/Wado_Kata.html This Wadokai web site shows Passai at 3rd kyu (not found in other Wado sites) http://www.shudokankarate.org/belt-ranks-testing-requirements The same variability can be found across different Matsubayashi dojos. This Matsubayashi website shows that the brown belt curriculum includes: Wankan, Rohai, Passai, Chinto and Kusanku. http://www.vashorinryu.com/curriculum.html This Matsubayashi website shows that brownbelts learn Ananku, and not Rohai. Also, in this school, Kusanku is part of the Sandan curriculum. http://www.oocities.org/matsubayashiryu/kata.html The important point here is that these kata have been accumulated by specific masters through their studies with other masters, often more than one (as in the case of both Otsuka and Nagamine). The kata they were taught by these various masters did not come with "green belt" labels, or "brown belt" labels, or "second dan" labels. If we go back only 120 years, karateka only learned a few kata. Funakoshi and Motobu have stated that. Some history points to Higashionna only teaching four kata. Fast forward to the 1920s and 1930s and suddenly, masters have 12 kata (Goju Ryu), 15 (Wado), 18 Matsubayashi, 27 (shotokan) up to 50+ (Shito Ryu). As best as the old masters have attempted to introduce them in some sensible order, there is no escaping that the masters have had to make somewhat arbitrary decisions, often based on how much they like a specific kata, or how well they might be able to use movements for fighting, or how well it teaches specific skill they want their students to learn, or any number of other factors. These kata were not handed down with specific orders. Each founder of a style often had to create their own, especially if they learned kata from different sources. And today we find that those orders can continue to evolve, to some degree, over time. We can even see that within specific schools. While I don't intend to delve into the immense complexity of some Japanese systems of Budo, I am aware of some sword systems where it is claimed that the techniques, and the order in which they are introduced, have been handed down that way for hundreds of years. The modern systems of karate, are of much more recent vintage. And they are still evolving, often quite rapidly. Each teacher of each school must often rely on his own council, on what is the best method to teach his students. When one considers the definition of "arbitrary" above (subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion), or perhaps the better term "subjective", I believe these concepts fairly accurate describe what many system founders, and what many individual karate school owners generally do in deciding what is in the best interests of their students. I hope this clarifies my point. -Cayuga Karate

Dobbersky wrote: I think any order of kata is, to some extent, arbitrary. The history appears pretty clear, that 100 years ago and earlier, a person might only 3, or at most 5 kata. The way in which we practice kata today, with so many, is a relatively recent innovation. We shouldn't expect any conformity across various systems on the order in which kata are introduced. Goju systems that descend from Miyagi and Higaonna never have had Pinan as a component in their curriculum. Systems that descend from Itosu did have Pinan, as Itosu adopted those (with whatever modifications and additions he made) for beginners, in place of Naihanchi. Kyan never taught Pinan, but some of his students learned them elsewhere, and added them to the kata they learned from Kyan. Nagamine studied under Arakaki, who, in addition to being a Kyan student, also studied under Itosu students, where he would have learned Pinan. Zenryo Shimbukuro did not teach Pinan, but his son Zenpo trained under Nakama, a student of Itosu, from whom he learned Pinan kata. Kyan's student Eizo Shimabukuro trained under Chibana, a student of Itosu. Perhaps he learned his Pinan from Chibana. Funakoshi changed the order of Pinan, because he believed that Pinan Nidan was easier to learn than than Pinan shodan. I would argue there is merit in that position. I look at kata differently. I see kata of different lengths. I don't see beginner kata, or intermediate kata or advanced kata. I see short kata, medium length kata and long kata. Sometime about 80 or 90 years ago, the concept of rank, that had become a fundamental component of Japanese martial arts, was introduced to the Okinawan karate teachers. The kyu and dan ranks, formalized, in part, for Judo schools, were cloned for Okinawan karate systems. The primary mechanism for rank advancement in Okinawan and Japanese karate schools, was kata, which had long been the core component of Okinawan karate. It was this systemization, designed in large part for karate being introduced into secondary and collegiate school systems, that drove this need to formalize the rank level at which kata was taught. Different teachers chose different sequences. An interesting challenge was what to do with Naihanchi, which had once been a beginner kata. For example, some systems, like Shito Ryu, saved Naihanchi for later rank. Okinawan Kempo, kept it at an early rank. However, there has never been any agreement, across styles, about what should be taught when. This makes for interesting challenges in tournaments where some schools may gain an edge by teaching longer kata to less senior kyu grades. One reason we can never expect full standarization is that there is a wide variety of kata taught across the many different types of systems world-wide. We have Ryuei-ryu, Uechi-ryu, Chito-ryu, Genseiryu, and Bugeikan ( each of which practices a range of kata that are different from those common kata found in systems that descend from Itosu (Shotokan, Wado Ryu, Shito Ryu, etc.) We really shouldn't expect to find any common order. -Cayuga Karate

shadowspawn: Thank you for reading my long post and maintaining an open mind. Please remember that I am open to any request for any sequence for any kata. So if you, or anyone else out there has something that has stumped them, some movement that just appears not to have been designed for empty hand fighting, this might be a good opportunity to look at that movement in another light. Thanks again. -Cayuga Karate

Karate Forum members: Following is a quite long post. I hope some may find some interest. I am a die-hard kata enthusiast, and I am fortunate to have my own school, where I spend most of my time teaching my students applications from kata for empty hand self-defense. I have long believed that Okinawan kata contain a number of movements that map quite well to effective empty hand fighting patterns. However, I also believe, quite strongly, that much that is in kata doesn't map all that well to self-defense. There are lots of forward moving sequences, three or four steps forward, that, in my opinion, don't map to the way most fights unfold. A bigger guy is punching at your head. He comes at you, he's only a short distance away. To use many of these longer forward moving sequences requires the opponent to be retreating. Now some may argue that these forward sequences are not to be taken literally, that you take a little bit out of them, and use that short snippet. I don't want to argue that this perspective is wrong, since all efforts to bring the kata to life, to apply sequences to fighting, are worthy efforts. But I find this approach incomplete. When I look at many of the sequences in kata, I find there is just too little to use for effective self-defense. When I compare sequences in Okinawan kata to wing chun, kali, kempo, Muay Thai, and other arts, I often find a distinct lack of counter-attacks. In Kempo, it is common to have three or four counters. The same holds true in some of these other arts. I believe these other arts frequently provide barrages of counter movements, and I believe those kinds of patterns are required for self defense. I really don’t buy, at all, into the whole one strike philosophy of fighting. I teach my students that it is a good way to get seriously hurt. I like to compare the complex combinations in these other arts to a number of kata sequences where there are many sequences with one hand movement (block or strike) per stance. It is my belief that there is just not enough striking in these sequences to make it effective. So what do many karateka do? They add stuff. They add more strikes, they add locks, they add takedowns. They add lots of movements not found in the kata. Again, I applaud their efforts. We kata enthusiasts are all seeking ways to give the kata meaning. Many of us are simply unsatisfied having a whole slew of kata to practice as a dance, unmoored from application. Many of us train in karate, in part or in large part, to improve our fighting skills, and we don't want to be bogged down with dances that have no fighting value. We seek meaning for the movements. What I find interesting is that there are a surprising number of accounts, that state that 75 years ago, and earlier, when Kyan, Miyagi, Mabuni, Funakoshi, and many others, were teaching kata to their students, it doesn’t seem as though there was all that much bunkai passed down with the kata. I will concur that there is not a lot of hard evidence on this, but I believe there are some reasonably reliable accounts out there that support this. We only have to look at the recollection of Nagamine, who writes of Motobu's reputation as someone who did pass down application for his Naihanchi kata. It seems this was out of the ordinary. Most of us have come to terms with the likelihood that bunkai was never a big part of what Funakoshi taught. I have come to believe that Funakoshi’s teaching method was likely modeled on how he was taught, and also likely how his peers also taught in his day. Today, people point to karateka like Oyata, for evidence that the kata were handed down with bunkai. However, I am not sure this is historically accurate. Oyata famously began his studies with two men from whom he learned ti and kobudo. He did not learn his kata until he trained later with Nakamura. I don't believe that other Nakamura senior students teach Oyata's applications. (Odo, Kise, and Higa). I would argue that if Nakamura taught common bunkai to his students, they all would do the same bunkai. However, I do not believe this to be the case. Now many here, and elsewhere, will argue that kata are textbooks of fighting application. Many will argue that if you are taught basic fighting concepts, you will learn to find your own application. This is likely what Oyata has done. And there are some quite innovative efforts being done by many, some shared with broader communities. Perhaps the best example is Abernethy's work. There are a number of others. Often, what we find is that some karateka has a strong background in other arts, and applies principles of those arts to the kata to develop useful fighting applications. Again, these are worthy efforts. We kata enthusiasts all benefit from their work. However, if my statements above, are correct, that the old masters didn't hand down much in the way of application, and much of the application practiced today is of fairly recent vintage, then the thread topic has, in my opinion, significant relevance. I have taken a very different approach. Six years ago, I stumbled upon something, quite by accident. It was a true case of serendipity. And this, in my view, fortuitous series of events, has led me down a very, very different path. Before sharing my idea here, it is important to note that I felt it an absolute necessary to look back at the historical record, for clues as to whether what I was finding made any sense. I was, in essence, looking for historical validation of the question: Kata, what is it all for? Quite interestingly, as most of you probably know, there is a very meager historical record. There are so few texts that it doesn't take a huge investment in time to review it fairly thoroughly. There are very few primary sources, but for we Anglos, we are so fortunate to have much translated to English. What do we find? Funakoshi has several texts, each with a bit of history. Nagamine has a couple, each with a bit of history. Bishop did great work in interviewing many leading figures back 30 years ago. Miyagi left us with a bit. Motobu has a couple of texts with a bit of history. Morio Higaonna wrote a text. Kinjo sought out old masters for their oral histories. Miyazato has a text. There is an interesting text from Matsuo. Hokama has a history. McCarthy has published some helpful information. George Alexander has a text. Richard Kim has published. John Sells has a text. There are also a number of good periodicals that have short historical essays. It's not a very extensive historical record. However, we should all recognize, that although there isn't very much detail, what we do have gives us some fairly clear information. 1. Karate was taught in secret. 2. Much comes from Chinese sources. 3. Kata appear to be pretty much Chinese in origin. Now this is not to say that these sources don't argue that Karate is an Okinawan art. That's pretty much agreed to. One needs only to look collectively at what was practiced as karate, 100 years ago: the makiwara training, hoju undo weight training, the practice of kobudo with Okinawan implements, and the specific blend of kata practiced, to recognize that this was indeed an Okinawan art. The old masters are pretty uniform here in their opinion. However, the meager historical record supports three key assumptions. 1. Some of the kata taught in Okinawa were learned by Okinawans visiting China (Higaonna, Nakaima, Uechi, and others all learned in China) 2. Chinese persons, in Okinawa, taught combative arts, including kata 3. Funakoshi, in his 1922 text Karate Jutsu, and 1934 text Karate-Do Kyohan, names five Chinese individuals, by name, as having taught Okinawans. One was a Chinese sailor, and four were described as military attaches. If you haven't before seen this information, or fully considered it, I would urge you all to think about this when attempting to answer the question "Kata, what is it all for?" Why did Chinese military authorities teach the Okinawans kata? I believe if some of you fully consider the implications of this question, then you might just be willing to consider looking at kata in a different light. This question leads naturally to others. Two are, in my opinion, essential questions that need to be fully considered. 1. Why were these Chinese military authorities in Okinawa? 2. What was the nature of the relationship of Okinawa and China, such that these military authorities traveled to Okinawa? Fortunately, regarding these issues, there is a historical record to consult. Okinawa traded regularly with China. For much of a 500 year period, Chinese trading convoys of several ships sailed to Okinawa every other year, and Okinawan trading convoys traveled to China in the alternate years. For much of that 500 year period, piracy off the coast of China was a major menace to ships of all kinds travelling to and from China. In the 1800's it was particularly problematic, so much so, that it was not uncommon for the Chinese to bring a separate ship of navy men to ensure safe passage through the pirate-infested waters. The historical records provides clear guidance regarding the questions above. Chinese military authorities traveled to Okinawa every other year (at least in the 1800s) to protect the trading missions, especially in the perilous waters off the coast of China. What is also documented, but less so, is the weapons that the Chinese used in naval combat. We all know in the west, that prior to the advent of automated firearms, that pirates and sailors fought hand to hand with bladed weapons. These included sabers, and especially cutlasses, which were shorter, and more maneuverable, a necessity in the melee combat of a pirate assault on a maritime vessel. We might speculate that the Chinese would also have chosen short, bladed weapons. Some of us have seen Taichi and other Chinese arts using a short sword. However, the documentation indicates that the Chinese, and the sailors, fought with spears. Now just because the word "spear" is contained in the literature, we should not jump to conclusions and imagine that spear designs optimized for land warfare would necessarily be the same for naval combat. Long polearms are used in land formations when the enemy is in a single direction. These long polearms are also useful by infantry against cavalry (mounted and in chariots), and by cavalry against infantry. They provide range, which is needed in both applications. If, on the other hand, we consider how the west used short maneuverable bladed weapons for naval combat, we should conclude that the Chinese would have readily recognized the advantages of a short weapon. So when the historical literature describes the weapon of choice as being a spear, we should think of a short, maneuverable spear, one that could be held at the end (for maximum range), and swung like a baseball or cricket bat, across the body as necessary. Such a spear would be no longer than the height of the sailor, and quite possibly a few inches shorter. Assuming that the Chinese used this length of polearm, we can also assume that the military authorities tasked with protecting their ships were quite skilled in the use of these weapons. We can assume that they would have trained their sailors in fighting methods using these kinds of weapons. Returning to the question at hand, when we read in Funakoshi's 80 and 90 year old texts that Chinese military authorities taught Okinawans combative arts, we should ask a simple question. Why? Why did Chinese military authorities teach kata to Okinawans? The standard answer has always been an assumption. There has been an assumption, a speculation, that these Chinese military authorities must have wanted the Okinawans to be better able to protect themselves from the rough and tumble life in Shuri and Naha and Tomari. The implicit assumption is that these leading members of the Ryukyu aristocracy needed to be able to protect themselves from the thieves and scoundrels that preyed on them in town and country. These Okinawans had been deprived of the swords, so they needed to be able to fend off those blackguards with their fists. That is the speculation, the assumption that has been handed down. These military personal, who, without question, were authorized by their government, to teach these Okinawans combative arts, did so for the sole reason of giving these Okinawans skills to fight off ruffians and scallywags as they went about their business in the rough and tumble Ryukyu kingdom. I don't know about some of you, but the more I think about this (and I have thought long and hard about it) the more preposterous it seems. On the one hand, we have Okinawans who are literally in dire need of the very best military capabilities needed to protect their precious cargo, and personnel, on the perilous journey to China, where there was a known gauntlet of skilled pirates that might have to be confronted on a voyage. On the other hand, we have visiting military authorities, highly capable in training their sailors to defend their ships at sea, with short bladed weapons, who come to Okinawa every two years for a sixth month trading mission. These navy men, quite skilled in the spear arts used to fight off pirate attacks, had official approval from the government of the Chinese emperor to train Okinawans in combative arts. Yet, they opted not teach the Okinawans how to defend their ships, something the Okinawans would value very, very highly. Rather, rather, instead, they chose only to teach the Okinawans how to ward off thugs in dangerous streets of Naha. Again, the more I think of this, the increasing far-fetched, it seems. I have had the good fortune to have come to see this issue in a quite different light. I see the Chinese had a problem that needed to be address. Let me clarify this a bit. First, I would argue that Chinese government officials would have clearly recognized the need for the Okinawans to have successful trading missions to China. This trade relationship was, after all, a two way street. For the relationship to be successful, both the Chinese, and the Okinawans, had to be successful in getting past the pirate threat. I would argue that the Chinese would have wanted to help the Okinawans, as best they could. But as I noted above, the Chinese would have had a problem that required them to address. We need to recognize that the fighting systems that the Chinese military had developed for naval combat would have been considered highly sensitive, and that Chinese military personnel would have been under strict orders to do everything possible to protect those secrets. All efforts would have to have been taken to keep these systems secret. When we look at the meager historical record on the development of karate in Okinawa, what is the single-most clear attribute that we find? That it was practiced in the utmost of secrecy. And that is just what we would expect had the Chinese military authorities taught the Okinawans military systems, to be used in protecting their ships at sea. So let's for a moment imagine that the Chinese military officials, authorized to train Okinawa's to maximize the likelihood that their ships could successful get past the pirate menace, taught the Okinawans how to use short spears in combat. And they would be tasked with teaching the Okinawans in such a way that the art remained secret, so that those watching wouldn't be able to understand just what was going on. How could they do this, teach the art and keep it secret. This is a question with an astoundingly easy answer. There is an absolutely foolproof, surefire, guaranteed, no-chance-of-failure method, one that has withstood the test of time. If you simply remove the pole-arm from your hands, and make a few subtle changes, voila, the latent spear art becomes near invisible. What are those simple changes? First, you add pauses and occasional slow movements throughout. Second, you have students close their hands in some movements, and reorient those closed hands so it appears they are physically striking with a fist. Finally, you make sure the direction of your opponent isn't telegraphed. You have the students frequently look in a direction that the attacker is not. What happens when you make those modest changes? Voila, the spear art magically disappears. It is fully cloaked, camouflaged, and masked. It is hidden, yet in plain sight. The question, above asks Kata, what is it all for? A better question is: Why did Chinese military authorities teach empty hand kata, in complete secrecy, to senior members of the Okinawan aristocracy? It's the same question, just with a few pertinent details added. Now I believe that I can predict the inherent, reflexive reaction of many of you to this information. There will be disbelief, pure and utter disbelief. For many of you, what I have said to you simply cannot be true. This information cannot be correct. And some of you might want to respond with all sorts of objections. You'll want to question my grasp of history, or perhaps want to craft clever replies about the very foolhardiness of looking at kata this way. But before you type out that critique, I request a simple favor. To those of you that object to the very premise of this discussion, I ask you to consider, just for a fleeting moment, what if I am correct, what if these old kata had a very different purpose. What if they were designed to enable sailors to train in view of all (at port, for example) with movements that improved their spearfighting skills, yet kept the actual fighting concepts hidden? Let’s take this momentary consideration a few steps further. Consider that for reasons of accident, and serendipity a 54 year old karate enthusiast, who began a lifelong practice of this art some 36 years, after 30 years of training, happened upon just the right set of circumstances that led him to consider kata in this very different light. Imagine, just for the moment, he's correct. Consider it, again, just for a moment. He's got a bad knee, a torn meniscus, and kata practice isn't all that good for it. His memory is certainly not what it once was. But he is determined to share his ideas with a broad community. In support of that effort, he has taken the time to evaluate all the movements in over 100 examples of Okinawan kata, of potential Chinese origin, that can be found on YouTube. And through extensive trial and error (heavy on the error) he has found that every one of those movements, every one of these multi-step sequences, can be used to propel a short polearm, often with remarkable complexity and utility. And finally, recognize that if he comes here to this forum that you enjoy reading and posting on, and invites questions about what he has learned, that you have a choice. You can try to argue him down, and hope to persuade others that what he says can't be correct. You can argue he has no "proof", you can raise all manner of issues with his introduction. But you could also consider an alternative. You could ask him about how specific kata movements can be used to propel the spear. He has offered to demonstrate to any poster how any kata sequence can be used to propel a short polearm. And all he requests is that you ask. I am offering to extend my findings in a virtual dojo, a dojo in the full sense of the meaning, where people come to the dojo and respect one another. And if something is unclear and requires clarification that a simple polite question be asked. I would like to share here some of what I have learned here on this forum. I have made reasonable efforts to document the historical record online, and I will share that record with you all. But, importantly, I am open to any request from any poster, for any kata sequence, as to how one uses empty hand kata movements to effectively propel a short pole-arm. It is not a trivial effort for me to practice the movements so that they are performed with reasonable competence and fidelity to the kata in question. To film the sequence, to edit it in a way that compares it to the empty hand sequence, and to post this online. It's a bit of work. And I am asking for no compensation for this. Many of you love your art to such an extent that you go to surprising lengths to share it. The same is true for me. You all should note that I recognize that though I have learned much on this road of discovery, I am but a distance into this wonderful journey. My discovery began 6 years ago, but only really gained steam in 2008. Since then I have spent considerable energy learning the movements of well over 100 kata, and then working them such that can be used to propel a weapon in useful ways. Yet for each small discovery I make, I fully recognize the daunting task ahead I have ahead. I know that there are just too many kata for me to ever develop the deep rich understanding of not just the movements, but of the nuances of how to use the movements in actual fighting. I am not deterred. This is my life's work, and while I can probably never be fully satisfied with what I have learned, I can say that I am fairly content with what I have learned to date. 100+ kata has been a long slog, but it has been a path of delightful discovery. I recently made this offer of sharing, to other martial arts forums. My current project is the kata Kusanku, in all its many variations. I will share my video of that effort with this forum as well. As I said above, the task ahead of me is not trivial. I hope to, over time, despite my age and injuries, provide these concepts to a wide community. Coming to forums and offering you to come into my virtual dojo is one of the ways I hope to accomplish that goal. And in light of that, I ask that you again, just for the moment, consider just the slight possibility that I may be correct. We can have a productive, informed dialogue, where I provide lots of information supporting my claims. I would like those ready to flame me to understand that I don't really have the time or inclination to debate nuances of my ideas, with posters whose only interest is to take random potshots at my theory and have no interest whatsoever in it. I come, rather, in hopes that perhaps some of you just might be interested in how specific movements of specific kata could be used to propel a polearm. Those questions would be most welcome. I don't expect to provide convincing information for many, if not most of you. I have gone to the forums in the past, and my experience has been fairly consistent. I find that those with the most experience in karate, those who have invested the most, practiced the most, thought about the nuances of kata as empty hand fighting the most, have the greatest difficulty even considering this new concept to be even worthy of discussion. I am not here for those experienced karateka that have all the answers they are looking for. In the martial arts there are many paths, and I have great respect for those who have found their way. I have found mine and am not looking for others. My life is too full with this passion. But again, I come here in the hopes that maybe, just maybe, there might be a few young karateka who haven't spent their lives in pursuit of a belief that these kata must have been designed for empty hand fighting. Maybe these karateka go to a schools where application isn't taught at all, and they seek answers to this question - Kata, what is it all about?. I just might have an answer for some of these karateka. They may look at the evidence I provide, and find it compelling, so much so, that they incorporate it into their training, and maybe take it to a tournament, just for fun. Maybe it will provide a key to more enjoyment of these strange dances we call kata. And maybe, they will accept that while some of these peculiar kata movements do translate seamlessly into surprisingly effective empty hand fighting combinations, perhaps, after all, it shouldn't be any surprise that not all of these movements are going to work in an empty hand environment. If they truly were designed for armed military use, we should be indeed grateful that we can reuse so many of the movements in effective empty hand fighting. With this knowledge, some may come to recognize that these kata are still good to practice, at least because, with a short stick in one's hand, they can be surprisingly effective. And perhaps the link to the old and nearly lost Chinese ways of maritime defense might be enjoyable to practice, regardless of their benefit in actual fighting. To those who have read all this, thank you. To those who would like more information, I am eager to share. Name your kata, name your sequence. You just might be surprised at how the movements propel a short spear. -Cayuga Karate

It should be noted that 100 years or so ago, that kata themselves were called styles (by Choki Motobu and Yabu Kentsu) and that a number of the old masters of that day didn't even like the notion of referring to the the systems taught by different karate-ka as styles. In Japan, there were literally hundreds of sword and spear arts. They each had names. When the Japanese integrated the Okinawan empty hand arts into the education system, one of the requirements was that each system be named. That was the Japanese way. The Okinawan arts emerged from secrecy in the early 1900s. They were passed down father to eldest son. Also from the Chinese to the Okinawans. But the whole notion of a karate, having been passed down in secrecy, means that our current notion of "styles" simply doesn't apply. It is true that there were likely specific kata practiced in different geographical areas. Tomari and Naha were ports. Shuri was the capital. Each may indeed have had its own specific kata. But as Funakoshi noted, it was common to practice only a few. The modern set of styles really bears no relation to the way karate was passed down in the 1800s and prior. We can trace the origins of current styles back to about 50 to 100 years ago, Prior to that, they really didn't exist, and if not for the Japanese requirement that their new Okinawan fight art have styles, we probably would not have the proliferation of styles that we have today. -Cayuga Karate

My responses to Zaine’s post are below: I do agree that this movement that we call nukite is likely very old, centuries old. It is in a number of forms that descend from a shipwrecked Chinese named Kusanku, who passed them down in the mid-to-late 1700s. There is a reason he taught nukite and other movements to Okinawans. He was a military authority, and so was likely to be familiar with a broad range of combative arts, some of which may have been developed hundreds of years earlier. Nukite exists not only in Kusanku and Pinan Shodan, but also Pinan Sandan, as well as various versions of Gojushiho and Seinchin (and probably other kata as well). One thing is certain. There is no historical record we can trace back to show what applications Kusanku taught the Okinawans he trained. The same is true regarding the Chinese person who is believed to have taught Itosu the Channan precursors of the Pinan. The origin of Seinchin is even in doubt. And we have no clue who brought Gojushiho to Okinawa. However, even if we did have these records, there is certainly no record of when these movements were devised, by whom, and especially why. This is due, in large part, to the iron-clad secrecy in which these combative arts were handed down. When it comes to these old Chinese forms, we have but two things. One is the kata themselves. In addition to the kata, we have speculation about what the movements mean. That's it. Anyone who says that they have certain knowledge that along with the kata, specific applications were handed down, is simply not telling the truth. Every application of every movement in these old Chinese kata is nothing more than an assumption. If a key goal of training in kata is to develop better fighting, then the practice of applications (commonly called bunkai) is essential. There are applications that can lead to better fighting, and there are applications that appear to have little in common with fighting. There is a broad range in between. Your teacher, and many others, speculate that these nukite movements are, or must be, fingertip strikes to the abdomen. This is an assumption. Anyone can make any claim they want. The question is to what extent this is useful in fighting. There are other assumptions regarding how to use nukite including a number of ways that this movement can be used that do not involve fingertip strikes to the torso. We kind of have a "he said", "she said" scenario. I claim that this movement, to be effective, takes many, many years of finger conditioning. You say it doesn't. You have the ability to provide evidence. You could you post a video say, of sparring between you and a larger person, say 25% heavier, where you hit them in the torso with your fingertips, and achieve some desired result. I think this kind of proof would go a long way to convincing the martial arts community that this strike makes any sense. I would imagine the probability of an attacker having a shirt on is quite high. If you cannot see the rib cage, it is incredibly difficult to accurately strike between the ribs. In a fight with a moving, clothed opponent, the chances of striking a rib, with your fingers, are very high, and without incredible conditioning, this would likely do more damage to the person doing the strike than receiving it. The nukite in Pinan Shodan comes at the end of a "directional sequence" where one takes three (or four depending on how you count) steps forward, three of which have shuto movements. The real issue here, in my opinion, is why this sequence of movements was passed down. How would one use the entire direction in a way that was effective in an empty handed fight. The nukite to the abdomen is just a piece of the whole. For a number of systems that do practice bunkai, an attacker steps backwards while striking to the abdomen, while the defender, steps forward blocking, and finally, charging forward with a finger strike straight strike to the abdomen. In the link below, there are three segments of bunkai. The first is Pinan Shodan applications practiced by a Shorin Ryu system of the Chibana lineage (nukite directional sequence from :05 to :09). The second is Heian Nidan applications practiced by Shotokan group (nukite directional sequence from :33 to :37). The third is a presentation of Kusanku applications by a Matsubayashi group. (which contains a shuto sequence from 1:08 to 1:12 and a Nukite at 1:40.) http://youtu.be/zwWj29CY180 The fighting scenarios that these systems portray in their applications of Pinan shodan/Kusanku movements are, to be blunt, not realistic. Fights don't develop this way. Period. In general, attackers attack. And when they need to retreat, they retreat. However, it is far-fetched to believe that an attacker is likely to retreat in set stances while punching simultaneously punching to the abdomen. But for a moment, let's ignore the full directional sequences that end in nukite and look just at specific technique of nukite to the abdomen. Anyone who trains in a striking oriented system where head strikes are permitted, knows that having one hand at your hip and one hand at the opponent's abdomen is a foolish idea since your head is just completely exposed. In actual fights, a trained fighter literally prays for this kind of scenario, and would be eager to take the opportunity to hit an opponent several times in his woefully unprotected jaw/nose/neck/temple. Here’s a UFC 2011 knockout highlight. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NsjY3ur9iw In this clip there are a whole bunch of examples of why it is fundamentally essential to protect your head. The applications shown in the kata above do not map to this kind of fighting. Yet this kind of fighting is often fairly representative of fighting in general. Here’s a clip of a fight of a big guy, with little skill attacking a smaller guy, and universally, he strikes to the head. People argue often about the benefits of training in MMA, or TMA. But one thing we should all recognize is that if something works, with relatively little training, then someone will exploit it in MMA competitions. Regarding nukite, in the era pre-MMA, you couldn't make that argument. Boxers were big gloves around wrapped fists, and therefore are incapable of finger strikes. MMA gloves, on the other hand, fully permit finger strikes to the abdomen. If they worked, they would be used. And in lots of MMA, fighters are of relatively equal weights. In fact, there are heavier fighters and they don't choose to use them against lighter fighters. That statement, of course, depends on the technique. Many, if not most students come to karate in large part to learn to fight better. That's a major, if not the major goal. A teacher should try, as best they can, to meet these needs, over time. If a teacher shows a student a movement that, a. has a very low probablity of achieving the desired result, and b. can seriously injure the fingers of the student, and 3. leaves the student's head wide open to punishing counterattack, AND the teacher tell the students this is a useful technique in a real fight, then I would say that that teacher is incredibly close minded. That teacher has, it seems, taken lessons from another teacher, and without question, passed them on as useful. There has been no attempt to apply simple logic to the movement in question. The teacher is blindly passing on foolish ideas despite the obvious evidence that finger strikes to the abdomen, with one hand at the hip, is simply a rediculously foolish idea to pass on to students who come to learn how to better defend themselves. Anyone who wants to argue otherwise, should provide evidence, and not just rhetoric. In the age of UFC, and all sorts of full-contact venues, there is plenty of evidence to the contrary. These techniques are not used because they don't work. -Cayuga Karate

I imagine you might be talking about the nukite that appears in both Pinan Shodan and Sandan. If your teacher really believes that these techniques can be done to the torso, then he just may be lacking in some basic common sense. I won't argue that it is impossible for a person, after perhaps a decade, maybe two, of intensive finger training, may be able to use a finger strike to the torso to neutralize a larger attacker. Maybe it can be. But just because a movement could "theoretically" have some utility after a couple of decades of intensive training, doesn't make a movement that makes any sense for the vast karate community that practices it. Against a larger aggressive attacker, the notion that a karate teacher would train his students to hit the person in the abdomen with their fingers is foolish. There is no polite way of saying it. That doesn't make the technique in the kata foolish. The kata survived, because they likely were useful. But the notion that the "use" of the movement is a finger strike to the abdomen is McDojo karate. That being said, you claimed you had issues in remembering kata. Is Pinan Shodan one of the kata you are challenged in retaining? -Cayuga Karate

Sensei8 wrote: I suppose it depends on one's experience in a system. I find that to truly demonstrate something effectively, one has to practice it extensively, especially if it has any kind of grappling in it. And if there is grappling in it, and the attacker at least mildly resists (especially if he is larger), it needs yet more training. My experience is that most students never have the opportunity in the dojo to develop this kind of capability with movements not formally practiced in the dojo. My experience is that for those with not too many years training, asking them for their ideas is typically not all that productive. Yet I have heard of this approach in a number of schools, including one with a senior Okinawan teacher in the U.S. While this may not be the case in the example at hand in Sensei8's dojo, I find this to be a cop-out, an excuse not to show something, often likely because nothing has been passed down to the teacher for this movement, and the movement does not appear to readily translate itself into fighting. Compared to that Okinawan teacher, mentioned above, who will answer a question of application with a question, "Well what do YOU think??", I would go a different route with a student. I would say: 1. I've never been shown anything at all (This is the case with about 90% of the movements in kata) or, 2. I can show you something that I have been shown by a teacher, or found on video, however, I don't believe this movement would work against a larger attacker in an actual fight. (This is the case for the bunkai I have been taught and seen through extensive youtube searches. This amounts to perhaps 30% of kata movements that I know.) 3. Here's something I have developed that may have some applicability against a larger attacker. (These movements account for about 5% of the kata movements I have been taught, but since I only teach a few kata, accounts for over half of the movements in kata I teach. only then: 4. If you have something you have developed, I would be most interested in seeing it. -Cayuga Karate

You mentioned you are a Shito Ryu student. What specific kata are you expected to learn that you are having trouble with, and what branch of Shito Ryu do you do? (Shito-kai, Seito Shito Ryu, Shukokai, Hayashi-ha, Motobu-ha). I began my training in Shito Ryu 35 years ago, have taught for many, and may be able to offer some advice.