Okinawan Bunkai fact or fiction

[kensei]

For years I have read how Okinawan Karate does bunkai properly and that they know bunkai better than Japanese style Karate....then I came across this....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDgCs3N8jeA...seems to me that the instructor is saying several times that they never were taught Kata bunkai by Miyagi, just Kata...kata and more Kata......

[MasterPain]

Couldn't tell you, but I know Taika Oyata did a lot of work with kata application.

Keep in mind that Miyagi is on of the people who brought karate to Japan and worked with others to create what is now Japanese Karate, so it isn't really Okinawan anymore.

[kensei]

Couldn't tell you, but I know Taika Oyata did a lot of work with kata application.

Keep in mind that Miyagi is on of the people who brought karate to Japan and worked with others to create what is now Japanese Karate, so it isn't really Okinawan anymore.

I found the interview very interesting, hard to understand at times but this is one of Miyagi's students saying they never learned Bunkai and such.

I think that alone is worth considering.

[sensei8]

Are either of you suggesting that Japanese karate has no bunkai in their kata/curriculum? That's so sad, if that's true. If so, then imho, Japanese kata is akin to the old saying..."swimming on dry land"; useless.

If kata is taught, yet, no applications are taught, it would be best if they didn't even try to teach kata because they've not even a minimum of an idea concerning kata. And if Miyagi's students didn't learn Bunkai, then I don't know what they learnt, but, imho, it wasn't kata and it wasn't karate.

[Wastelander]

I can't watch the video you linked to, since I'm at work right now, but I remember hearing about someone saying that they never learned kata bunkai from Miyagi. This is interesting to me, because I recently read an interview with another Miyagi student that included old photos of his training, in which you can clearly see them practicing bunkai. The same interview alluded to practicing bunkai, but didn't call it such. In addition, Toguchi Seikichi explains in one of his books that Miyagi taught him kata application and outlines the rules for breaking down kata. I think that part of the problem of discussing these things is that the Okinawans didn't call it bunkai (ti-chi-ki, or just ti, was more common if I remember correctly), so they may very well have been teaching bunkai and calling it something else (or not calling it anything at all) and teaching it differently than we would expect. From what I have read about the way training was conducted back then, explanations were not often given, so it was up to the student to connect the techniques they were working to the kata they came from.

Did any one karate master know all the applications to all of their kata? With the possible exception of Sakugawa Kanga, I doubt it. There is just too much to learn in kata to truly know every application to every movement of more than a couple of kata, and so when people start learning more and more kata they are bound to miss out on some of the applications.

We know from several accounts of various Okinawan masters that bunkai was most certainly taught, and was an integral part of their training, but the amount of bunkai knowledge varied from teacher to teacher, as one would expect. As I understand it, some of those karate masters of old simply admitted that they didn't know an application to a movement and let that be the end of it (Chibana once said that Itosu admitted to not knowing applications for everything and so he just didn't teach any applications for those movements) while others sought to learn the applications that they didn't know by cross-training and experimenting (Motobu and Mabuni went this route). If being able to apply your kata is important to you, then you will find a way to learn practical applications for it. I think that Itosu was more concerned with being able to teach a wide array of kata to fit a wide array of people in the hopes of growing karate, and so he was less concerned with learning and teaching applications for every single movement, figuring that dedicated students would cross-train and experiment enough to fill in the gaps for themselves.

ETA: Regarding Japanese vs. Okinawan karate and the prevalence of kata bunkai, I believe that many branches of Japanese karate do neglect kata application because it doesn't fit with their concept of "do". Some people in the Japanese karate community certain do practice practical kata application, but it seems to be the exception rather than the rule.

[sensei8]

I can't watch the video you linked to, since I'm at work right now, but I remember hearing about someone saying that they never learned kata bunkai from Miyagi. This is interesting to me, because I recently read an interview with another Miyagi student that included old photos of his training, in which you can clearly see them practicing bunkai. The same interview alluded to practicing bunkai, but didn't call it such. In addition, Toguchi Seikichi explains in one of his books that Miyagi taught him kata application and outlines the rules for breaking down kata. I think that part of the problem of discussing these things is that the Okinawans didn't call it bunkai (ti-chi-ki, or just ti, was more common if I remember correctly), so they may very well have been teaching bunkai and calling it something else (or not calling it anything at all) and teaching it differently than we would expect. From what I have read about the way training was conducted back then, explanations were not often given, so it was up to the student to connect the techniques they were working to the kata they came from.

Did any one karate master know all the applications to all of their kata? With the possible exception of Sakugawa Kanga, I doubt it. There is just too much to learn in kata to truly know every application to every movement of more than a couple of kata, and so when people start learning more and more kata they are bound to miss out on some of the applications.

We know from several accounts of various Okinawan masters that bunkai was most certainly taught, and was an integral part of their training, but the amount of bunkai knowledge varied from teacher to teacher, as one would expect. As I understand it, some of those karate masters of old simply admitted that they didn't know an application to a movement and let that be the end of it (Chibana once said that Itosu admitted to not knowing applications for everything and so he just didn't teach any applications for those movements) while others sought to learn the applications that they didn't know by cross-training and experimenting (Motobu and Mabuni went this route). If being able to apply your kata is important to you, then you will find a way to learn practical applications for it. I think that Itosu was more concerned with being able to teach a wide array of kata to fit a wide array of people in the hopes of growing karate, and so he was less concerned with learning and teaching applications for every single movement, figuring that dedicated students would cross-train and experiment enough to fill in the gaps for themselves.

ETA: Regarding Japanese vs. Okinawan karate and the prevalence of kata bunkai, I believe that many branches of Japanese karate do neglect kata application because it doesn't fit with their concept of "do". Some people in the Japanese karate community certain do practice practical kata application, but it seems to be the exception rather than the rule.

A very solid post!!

[bassaiguy]

I think that some of the problem as it relates to Japanese karate is that the terminology of bunkai/oyo was not commonly used in the early days even though the practice was seemingly part of early Japanese karate. For example, in Karate-do Kyohan, Funakoshi states that kumite is really the application of kata techniques. I'm paraphrasing because I'm at work and don't have the text in front of me, but what he is referring to is ippon kumite and yakusoku kumite. He also gives little hints in the text such as in his commentary to the instructions for Jion where he states that the kata should be 'particularly studied for fighting' or words to that effect. I think kata analysis was "lost" in the 40s because of the war and the 50s & 60s because of the emphasis on competition to enhance the prestige of various karate groups over one another (JKA vs FAJKO, for example), but I don't think it was ever divorced from karate totally in the way that some critics seem to say.

[brickshooter]

IMHO there are many levels of Bunkai. After all, it's just the teaching of applications. There is nothing grandios about it. The JKA etc did teach it. But from a Kumite point of view. They did not go into great details in non-competiton techniques. Why? Because all of the torch bearers were Ex Kumite champions. To say that Japanese Karate did not teach Bunkai is untrue. It's just not on the same level of sophistication as Okinawan Karate.

[Dobbersky]

What's strange is, this issue is only apparent in Classical and Traditional Karate and Kata, whereas Ashihara & Enshin Karate Kata tend be taught Bunkai & Oyo hand-in- hand with learning the actual Kata.

Good thread and some awesome responses