A Bunkai revolution?

[bushido_man96]

Bunkai is one of the most prominent areas of Karate that I have been exposed to since I joined the KarateForums a little over a year ago. It may be hard for some of you to believe, but I had never heard of the term before I joined here. Fear not, however! Once I learned of the existence of bunkai, I endeavored to find out more about it. I have, and really haven't been disappointed.

What I have learned has been mostly through the readings of Iain Abernethey, who seems to be the leading proponent of what he refers to as "Applied Karate." I have also stumbled upon some other stylists who seem to fall into this category as well, inlcuding Stuart Paul Anslow, who has done similar research in the art of Taekwon-Do, which I have found to be very helpful, being a TKD guy myself.

It appears that there are some practitioners of Isshin Kempo that are in the same mode as the two men listed above. Apparently, there were some practitioners who decided to delve deeper into the forms of the style, in order to extract the self-defense interpretations of the style. William S. Russel was one who began exploring his art in this way (he founded Isshin Kempo in 1970), and seems to be a forerunner to the work that Abernethey and Anslow did for their styles.

Do you think that delving into such intricate levels of bunkai is beginning to re-emerge in many to the "traditional" arts of which forms are a major part of the curriculum? Is the bunkai a legitimate translation of the forms we study, or is it a more recent product of extensive analysation of katas, saying, "oh, yeah, this could be this, and it could work"???

What is everyone's opinion on this? Either way, I think that bunkai is a good thing. I don't think it is detrimental in anyway to training. It is good to let the creative juices mix it up from time to time.

[cross]

The bunkai i have personally trained and have been exposed to via the internet has not left a good impression in my mind.

It all sounds great in theory, looks good and seems to work well against non-resisting opponents. However it lacks alot of important elements that would make it applicable in real situations.

For the most part, the applications are overcomplicated sequences of techniques that are used to defend against fairly uncommon attacks, or attacks that are only seen within the system your practicing. They often rely on the last technique invoking a particular reaction from the opponent for the next to be effective, which is a problem within itself when you take into account the unpredictability of violent confrontations.

Not to mention most techniques you see being sold has bunkai already exist in various other arts like bjj/judo etc. Im not going to get into who was doing the technique first, but one training method is clearly more practical than the other, in my opinion anyway.

[lordtariel]

Some of the bunkai that I have learned deal with simple incoming strikes and responses, others are so complicated that I don't know if I would ever use them. The only way to see if it's effective is to try them out in a sparring environment. A couple of the techniques work for me, and some seem overly complicated when a simpler technique would do better.

[ps1]

Do you think that delving into such intricate levels of bunkai is beginning to re-emerge in many to the "traditional" arts of which forms are a major part of the curriculum? Is the bunkai a legitimate translation of the forms we study, or is it a more recent product of extensive analysation of katas, saying, "oh, yeah, this could be this, and it could work"???

I wouldn't be surprised if some of what we see and do today with bunkai is "legitimate." By legitimate I mean that it's what the creator of that kata was thinking when they made it. However, so much time has passed since they were created and the type of violence we deal with now is vastly different. I believe that much of what we see and do is probably not what the original intent was. I don't think that's a bad thing. A martial art that does not evolve is virtually useless (self defense wise).

I'm still shocked at how many schools do not practice bunkai in any way. It's hard for me to understand why they teach kata if they do not teach what kata is. That seems like a waste of time.

For the most part, the applications are overcomplicated sequences of techniques that are used to defend against fairly uncommon attacks, or attacks that are only seen within the system your practicing. They often rely on the last technique invoking a particular reaction from the opponent for the next to be effective, which is a problem within itself when you take into account the unpredictability of violent confrontations.

I understand where you're coming from here. I've seen, and have myself, gotten a little carried away while playing around with bunkai. There have been times that my training partner and I had to take a step back and say, "that looked really cool...but it was also totally ridiculous."

When I teach bunkai I attempt to make each movement a complete defense. Kind of like lego blocks. Each step should be interchangable with any point of any other kata. If it's not, it's too complicated.

For example: Gedan Barrai (low defend) could be a block. It could also be a hammer fist to the groin. The prepatory motion could be an inside block or perry with a strike.

Those can all flow easily into another technique with minimal necessary reactions by the attacker. They all leave you prepared for another strike and so on. So I accept all three as credible. There are others, but I'm using my abridged version. This is how I attempt to keep from getting into the realm that cross pointed out.

[Shorin Ryuu]

I think bunkai as a whole is too exaggerated and overly complicated. People focus on making advanced-looking meanings (which was the original phrase used, "imi" in Japanese) rather than truly concentrating on basics, other than lip service. As a result, you have this modern infusion of meanings that only "work" if you change the movements dramatically, which largely makes doing the kata pointless if you aren't going to fight in the same manner in which you train. It is far better for you to become advanced at punching, blocking, and kicking than to collect "advanced" meanings behind kata.

The recent grappling craze results in all these traditional karate practitioners now discovering a thousand and one grappling techniques within their kata. Grappling exists in karate, but it is far simpler (and in some ways, more effective) than what most people come up with. Grappling in karate is not judo, aikido, or anything else. It is karate's version of quick grappling used if the situation warrants it. Furthermore, the mainstay of karate is striking, blocking, and kicking, so grappling plays far less of a role in a kata's meaning than what most people come up with.

Because people have lost the ability to attack using simple techniques with devastating power, they turn to some fictional notion of hidden advanced techniques. This added emphasis then makes it impossible to achieve that devastating power because they are focused on something else, believing basics as just something to go through before they learn the "real stuff". It is a vicious cycle that I sadly feel many karateka are trapped in.

Because of all the above, I don't believe that "in the old days, the masters faced different kinds of attacks so their original meanings for the kata are largely outdated". When it comes down to it, the overall gross way a person punches, kicks, or blocks has been fairly standard throughout human history. Weapons are a different case, but only if you're talking about firearms. The meanings are just as relevant today as they were back then, primarily because they were simple. Because their techniques were strong, they could be simple. Because they were simple, they were effective.

[Elky]

I'm not a big fan of "the bunkai revolution". I think karateka should be taught throws, restraints, joint manipulations etc without having to "justify" these techniques by wedging them into kata.

Judo is karate. Jiujutsu is karate. Your techniques are limited only by what your instructor knows enough to teach you.

I like the stuff that Ian Abernethy teaches, but I think some of the connections to kata are a little tenuous. I don't really mind that, but I think the moves justify themselves by their effectiveness, they don't need to be "in the kata".

[GOM]

In the 70's there was a craze for Kumite. 80's it was performance kata. 90's it was bunkai.

My club was guilty of trying to find an answer to every move found in modern day karate kata. We did all kinds of locks, throws, pressure point striking, gouges etc. We were looking for answers but only coming up with more questions.

These days, I see many karate clubs/styles/associations trying to come up with bunkai/applications for modern karate kata. Unfortunately modern karate kata have changed dramatically over the years making it almost impossible to see the original move. If you can't see the original move, how the hell are you going to make an appropriate application to it?

As with Shorin Ryuu, my club is now more interested in effective striking, blocking, and kicking. We still do joint locks, but only a few that we truly feel comfortable doing.

In karate kata, there are moves for training with a partner, moves for application purposes, and there are moves purely for show. Finding a teacher who can explain which moves mean which, is half the battle.

[stoneheart]

Bunkai is important, but I do agree many seem to be backwards engineering something into the kata that the inventors probably did not intend to begin with. You could still end up with something very useful, but I'd be hesitant to claim it was 'in the kata' all along.

I AM a big fan of cross-training. If you're a karate man, be sure to take some jiu-jitsu as well.

[bushido_man96]

Lots of great replies so far.

I think that some of the concepts that kata enthusiasts come up with for their bunkai are creative, and some of it can be useful. As many have said here, simple is better. Getting too flashy will be a bad thing.

If it wasn't there to begin with, who cares? If it can cause practitioners to explore things more, and put different twists on things, it can help to expand their training. The main thing is to make sure that it stays reasonable.

I think that Abernethey has gotten on the right track, by applying his bunkai teachings into what he has referred to as "Kata based sparring." In this scenario, you won't be bound by what move has to follow what. Instead, you take what is given you, and attempt to apply your defenses as you go. The bunkai practice will help to ingrain the muscle memory, so that you can then focus on what works better when the heat is on. Non-resisting opponents are the key to this part of the training.

I will admit, I have done forms for 14 years, and have never done any bunkai. So, I have been looking into it. It makes me think more about my forms and training. I don't overlook the simple things, either. At times, a punch is just a punch, and a block is just a block. However, you can take these functional movements, and add to them, depending on what is available to you from the opponent.

[GOM]

Trying to create your own bunkai for particular moves without a teacher or mentor guidance is sure to create a bigger problem.