Too much bunkai?

[MatsuShinshii]

Let me explain an example from last night. We did Kihon Kata for the benefit of the white belt.

Now, steps 9 and 17 are 270 degree turns with a Gedan Barai. Last night we ran through the kata once, then explored this turn, as a throw. So your assailant would get grabbed with both hands and taken down. The hand movements in the kata are not 'grabbing', your body weight and centre is designed only for yourself at that moment, so obviously it's quite different when you chuck someone about a bit! We did it, it was fun and I ended up on the deck a few times yes!

But then we just whistled through the kata once more and I couldn't help feeling the white belt chap was even more unsure about hand position in that movement.

I do talk to my Sensei, he's really approachable and open and I know it's difficult getting a lesson across to so many different students, who are all at different stages. I'm not moaning, I think I'm just curious to see if this 'kata way' / 'real world way' thing exists everywhere.

A few things;

1. I have been taught that a fist is just a closed hand. It could be a strike, a grab or any other adaptation that works.

The thing to remember is we are taught the applications and techniques as they were passed down from the founder. This means that the original quan or the founder had a sequence of applications/techniques that were utilized to answer a specific scenario/attack. This is Bunkai.

There are three stages of learning. Bunkai (the pre-arranged responses to a specific attack sequence), Bunseki (the self discovery of the applications and possible responses to any given attack) and Oyo (which is applying these in real world drills to discover its effectiveness).

The reason I bring this up is you mentioned a throw. Depending on the Kata this could very well be a throw (this is the Tegumi back ground of Karate) or it could be an off balancing, block or strike. You need to delve deeper with your Sensei and ask if this was passed down and why it doesn't seem to flow naturally. However remember that the techniques were (I'll used the word disguised but this doesn't do it justice) utilized to preserve the individual responses. It may flow and make sense and some may not. The reason for this is, just like the Quan, they are individual responses/applications that were melded together as an unwritten account. The old Okinawan masters did not make written accounts of these techniques but rather put them together so they would be preserved and remembered.

It is also possible that what he was showing you was what he discovered during the Bunseki stage of his learning. If it works in real world applications then it satisfies the requirements of passing on to his students.

We should never be so rigid as to think there is only one way. This is why there are three stages. The first stage is to open your eyes and to teach you what the techniques/applications are in the Kata. The second stage is for the student to explore the possibilities of the applications and then in the third stage find out if they hold up in real world applications and if they are effective. This accomplishes a few things... one it gets the student thinking so that they start to develop and look outside of the set applications and two it gives a broader base of tools to deal with a multitude of scenarios, thus making us more well rounded.

2. Hand position is a relative term. This is primarily focused on in strict Japanese styles more so than traditional Okinawan styles. Remember that no one throws a punch the same way. So if you are blocking ten different people the punch will come at you at ten different angles and at ten different heights.

Again rigidity can be a good thing for a beginner to teach the proper way to execute, however and again no two people are going to attack you the same way.

As you grow and develop you begin to forge your own "style" if you will, in that you may throw a back hand at a different angle, with a faster twist, etc. etc. The reason for this is every one is built differently and we all have to overcome our own personal challenges and short comings. You may be stronger, I may be faster. How we perfect our strengths is how we over come our deficiencies.

The way we do this is by figuring out how to capitalize on our strengths and take our weaknesses out of the picture. If you are confined to only one way to do something you may never achieve your potential because you are limited by rigid norms.

I don't know what your grade is but as you reach the Yudansha grades this will be explained to you by your teacher.

3. As your training progresses and if your teacher is teaching you the "real" Bunkai and not a made up Bunkai, you will find that Kata and real world meld very well, especially when you start discovering ways to utilize the applications to combat scenarios not covered within the founders methods.

Remember as generations advance so does the methodology of fighting. The founders faced off with a particular fighting methodology that is similar, not similar or completely different than today. This is why we have three stages so you can not only learn the true applications and develop a greater understanding of the art but also to meet the new challenges of today's methodology.

Hope this helps.

[MatsuShinshii]

This thread and perhaps the OP’s point in general is what seem to be giving Karate a bad reputation in the world of martial art imo.

I truly believe that most instructors teach kata and bunkai with all good intentions but in reality what they end up transmitting is quite poor, and wouldn’t work from both a kata or real world perspective. It’s the reverse of being the sum of its parts – as it destroys both.

The problem, as I see it comes when you take an Eastern approach to teaching (namely a Kata based pedagogy), and try to Westernise it – because it feels familiar and therefore more comfortable.

This seems to have happened with Kata and the west’s insatiable demand to attach ‘bunkai’ to every part of it. What this gives rise to imo is bunkai for the sake of bunkai – when in fact there is no need.

Whilst I would agree that there is value in understanding potential applications (within reason), I think if you look too far beyond the basic movement of the kata, there is a risk you overlook the more important aspects to the kata’s raison d’être. To this extent I believe ones overriding priority should be to learn the kata well from a performance perspective (ie solo).

An example would be Naihanchi kata (from a Wado perspective anyway). The primary reason this is trained is to develop internal core strength and explosive energy using short range techniques. The best way to do this is to repetitively and correctly practice the kata in its solo form.

The outputs from this kata practice can then be honed against a partner as a separate exercise – but the kata is what gets you to that point in the first place.

If you shortcut the kata and jump straight to the application your body will not have become conditioned enough / have the core attributes ready to use.

First embrace the Kata, then diverge from the kata and lastly discard the kata.

K.

I agree with some of your view points but you mentioned Niahanchi (Naifanchi) kata.

IMHO this is the last Kata you should tell anyone that they should ignore or not put importance into it's Bunkai. This is, again IMHO, one of the most important Kata there are in the fact that you CAN actually utilize the applications to fight.

Most Bunkai teach you scenarios of applications that you can put together during Kumite. Naifanchi is pretty much a text of a multitude of applications to teach you how to fight.

Please read about Motobu's history. This is one of the only Kata that he trained in and he utilized what he learned by taking on thugs to test the validity of the applications of this (these) kata.

I understand what you are trying to say, or at least I think I do. I too feel that the true bunkai have either been lost to some styles or made up bunkai have been substituted in their place.

Having said this I feel you are projecting that Bunkai is of less importance than practicing solo Kata. I personally feel that both are of equal importance.

Yes you should practice Kata diligently every day so that the movements, body mechanics are ingrained into you so that you are able to develop true power and to learn how applications can flow together. However to ignore the TRUE applications is to never truly understand the Kata itself and to ignore the lessons they have to teach us.

This is IMO the sole reason modern instructors have injected Tuidi (Tuite), Tegumi and Kyusho as a separate curriculum in class, because they have no idea that it is all contained within the Kata itself.

Kata is basically the history and log book of all applications within ones art. It teaches us the foundational art of Ti'Gwa or some say Muay Boran (Siam Boxing), Tegumi, Tuidi and Chin Na (Qin Na), Kyusho and the different Quan Fa that the founders learned and utilized to develop their art.

If you remove Bunkai, you remove all understanding and what you end up with is a modern style of Karate that has to import Judo, Ju Jutsu and other arts to combat scenarios that are already apart of the art itself.

I will not say that pulling from other arts is bad, but needing to pull from other arts because you were never taught or because you do not understand or worse refuse to learn the Bunkai is why the true art is in decline.

If you were never taught to true applications of the Kata or your instructor injected his own Bunkai then I can see your point. However if one is learning the true Bunkai and developing through the three stages, your statements are IMO way off base.

Just my 2 cents on the subject.

[Kusotare]

I agree with some of your view points but you mentioned Niahanchi (Naifanchi) kata.

IMHO this is the last Kata you should tell anyone that they should ignore or not put importance into it's Bunkai. This is, again IMHO, one of the most important Kata there are in the fact that you CAN actually utilize the applications to fight.

Mostt Bunkai teach you scenarios of applications that you can put together during Kumite. Naifanchi is pretty much a text of a multitude of applications to teach you how to fight.

Please read about Motobu's history. This is one of the only Kata that he trained in and he utilized what he learned by taking on thugs to test the validity of the applications of this (these) kata.

I'm reasonably well versed on Motobu's history and my core art (Wado-ryu) was very much influenced by Otsuka's study of Naihanchi through, amongst others Motobu Choki.

Otsuka is known to have written that he thought Naihanchi was a 'very deep kata'.

My understanding of what he means here is that it goes well beyond the 'omote' or external form / appearance of the kata, but rather what it teaches in terms of utilising ones body to generate core strength through principles of correct balance, stability, posture, breathing, alignment, connectivity etc. etc.

These ethereal qualities far are less obvious and as a result very hard to transmit - but it is this I feel Otsuka means by 'deep'.

I understand what you are trying to say, or at least I think I do. I too feel that the true bunkai have either been lost to some styles or made up bunkai have been substituted in their place.

Having said this I feel you are projecting that Bunkai is of less importance than practicing solo Kata. I personally feel that both are of equal importance.

I would agree that learning how to uilise kata in a more holistic way is key, however my point is that it is there is a process involved and that by putting Bunkai before solo kata is a bit like putting the cart before the horse.

If you remove Bunkai, you remove all understanding and what you end up with is a modern style of Karate that has to import Judo, Ju Jutsu and other arts to combat scenarios that are already apart of the art itself.

But isn't that what the likes of Mr Abernethy and others are doing anyway? Don't get me wrong, I enjoy Mr Abernethy's work -although I am at odds with it in many ways.

... However if one is learning the true Bunkai and developing through the three stages, your statements are IMO way off base.

Kata based systems (and this is not exclusive to martial arts) - work on the process of Shu, Ha, Ri.

Shu - Embrace the Kata

Ha - Diverge from the kata

Ri - Discard the kata.

My understanding of the process is that whilst it isn't by any means a strict chronological one, it does depend heavily on the student having a firm grasp of each stage.

I see the divergence stage taking what you have engrained within your body through solo practice and then applying it to multiple combative scenarios through (amongst other things) the process of Bunkai.

I then see the completion (discarding the kata) as having arrived at the ability to apply independent of the confines of both kata and or bunkai.

Whilst these stages may not be strictly chronological they are sequential [edit] albeit, that in order to progress from one to another there are frequent overlaps imo.

This is why I WOULD put the practice of solo kata before bunkai, in sequential terms, but not necessarily in terms of overall importance.

k.

[catlike]

His curriculum and your skill set might dictate what he thinks you need. My instructor explains that there can be many interpretations to the same move depending on level of experience, skill, athleticism, and the situations you come across in a real fight. One move might look like a block to a junior karate-ka, but later the same move might be a throw to a more advance person. Also different styles will have variations on the same move due to the distance that the particular style fights at for instance. I have trained in Shotokan and Shorin Ryu many of the katas are very similar but the bunkai that I have been taught can be somewhat to very different between the two.

Love it, thanks - that's actually very motivational.

[wildbourgman]

Kusotare, I think this divergence in theory that we have might go all the way back to the time when karate went from Okinawa to Japan, but it probably began way earlier. In my view the Japanese seem to revere the art in martial arts and the Okinawan people were practicing for survival. To go further that thought, the Japanese were a more warlike people and they held a high esteem for the honored ceremonial aspects of things would be considered morbid to people that were on the opposite side of the sword.

In my view the Okinawans were the exact opposite, they didn't find art in war, they had to hide the self defense aspect of their training within their art. If you look at some of the ritual dances that are performed in Okinawa you can see this. How many martial arts were designed by oppressed people and then hidden from the oppressor in the form or art. The Japanese had nothing to hide so they had the luxury of seeing it a different way.

I try to take things back to the base and work from there, so I don't think that putting bunkai before kata is putting the cart before the horse at all. What do you think came first? Do you think someone went out and started performing martial arts moves or someone got in a fight and decided that he needed to get better at fighting? My thought is that someone needed to get better at fighting, so they practiced fighting techniques, then they decided to connect the techniques in what would be a sequence that made sence to them and that became kata. So why would we teach it in a different way than it happened for real?

I've seen what we are talking about first hand. In the Shotokan dojos I've been to you learn the techniques, the kata, and then maybe the bunkai. A lot of focus is on the art of the kata. In the Shorin training I've seen you learn the techniques and then bunkai and kata together, where the focus is more on the martial aspects of the art.

To go back to my first comments I think the difference between the Okinawan history and the Japanese history actually show it self in the divergence between Japanese and Okinawan styles of karate. Okinawan karate and bunkai would be considered dirty fighting where as Japanese karate seems to look a lot more like something with clear rules of engagement. I also think that's why the Founder of Wado Ryu blended his style (because something was missing), that's something I'm sure you know more about than me. That may also be the reason that MMA is hurting some karate styles and why Okinawan styles are more relevant now then they were 40 years ago.

[MatsuShinshii]

Kata based systems (and this is not exclusive to martial arts) - work on the process of Shu, Ha, Ri.

Shu - Embrace the Kata

Ha - Diverge from the kata

Ri - Discard the kata.

My understanding of the process is that whilst it isn't by any means a strict chronological one, it does depend heavily on the student having a firm grasp of each stage.

I see the divergence stage taking what you have engrained within your body through solo practice and then applying it to multiple combative scenarios through (amongst other things) the process of Bunkai.

I then see the completion (discarding the kata) as having arrived at the ability to apply independent of the confines of both kata and or bunkai.

Whilst these stages may not be strictly chronological they are sequential [edit] albeit, that in order to progress from one to another there are frequent overlaps imo.

This is why I WOULD put the practice of solo kata before bunkai, in sequential terms, but not necessarily in terms of overall importance.

k.

I understand where you are coming from and understand your view point. You have valid points.

[Wastelander]

I think Kusotare's point is not that kata were created before their applications, but that they should be taught in their solo form before their applications are taught? That is a pedagogical opinion, so we are bound to have people on different sides of that issue, and they can all have quite valid points. There are benefits to learning strictly the solo performance of kata before ever learning applications, just as there are benefits to learning applications before ever even seeing the solo performance of the kata, and everything in between. Honestly, I tend to think that arguing over the best teaching method in this situation is a bit silly, because I have found that no method works for every student. Some students learn better by focusing just on solo kata, while others learn better by focusing on bunkai, and everything in between. I am of the opinion that we should teach to the student, not expect the student to learn the way we want them to. Now, I know that is not the Eastern/Asian way of teaching, but I am not Eastern/Asian, and just because I practice and teach an Okinawan art does not mean I have to teach it in that manner.

[Kusotare]

I think Kusotare's point is not that kata were created before their applications, but that they should be taught in their solo form before their applications are taught? That is a pedagogical opinion, so we are bound to have people on different sides of that issue, and they can all have quite valid points. There are benefits to learning strictly the solo performance of kata before ever learning applications, just as there are benefits to learning applications before ever even seeing the solo performance of the kata, and everything in between. Honestly, I tend to think that arguing over the best teaching method in this situation is a bit silly, because I have found that no method works for every student. Some students learn better by focusing just on solo kata, while others learn better by focusing on bunkai, and everything in between. I am of the opinion that we should teach to the student, not expect the student to learn the way we want them to. Now, I know that is not the Eastern/Asian way of teaching, but I am not Eastern/Asian, and just because I practice and teach an Okinawan art does not mean I have to teach it in that manner.

I'm not sure it is silly to debate such things as actually it gets to the nub of the matter imo.

I get that we are not Asian (or at least I am not) and therefore it is very hard for us to learn this way - when our cultural coding is so different.

This thread however is about whether there is too much emphasis on 'bunkai' and at what stage a student should be introduced to it.

To an extent, said emphasis has perhaps swung too far the other way, as a result of the pedagogical divide between the two cultures - and that isn't a silly thing to consider - I think it is a question all students of Asian martial arts should take into consideration when studying.

K.

[Kusotare]

Regarding Naihanchi kata...

A short clip from a seminar in the Ukraine by Nukina sensei.

He explains, at least from a Wado perspective, why Naihanchi is so important.

Nukina sensei uses an expression - 'the invisible stuff is far more important than the visible stuff'

K.

[wildbourgman]

Wastelander, I agree with you on the fact that no single method of teaching works for every student, but in most dojo's you will have every student taught the same so that's why this topic of discussion is not silly. That's just a matter of available time and the teaching style of the instructor. When you have a full dojo and an hour of class time twice a week teaching to every students needs is just not practical all the time.

Now whether or not the chicken came before the egg part of the discussion was just me analyzing and stereotyping why some styles might have different views on how to handle what we are talking about. I wasn't advocating the best teaching style necessarily, except for the part where my experience has shown me schools that taught no bunkai at all, which I think is very bad for traditional martial arts.

Also I love focusing on solo kata, but not if its just a dance, it has to be tied with techniques that the karate-ka can visualize, now that's where the sequence of how bunkai is taught comes in. It's debatable and that's why these forums are so nice.