Who looks for bunkai?

[MatsuShinshii]

Onekickwonder,

Although I understand your thought process I disagree with it.

Being shown the applications opens the students mind and give understanding. You do not stop learning once you’ve been shown Tichiki. If fact the opposite is true. We teach what we call the founders applications, literal translation applications and developed applications.

You learn the founders applications first, which we are taught are the applications passed down from the founder. Then once those have been learned we teach what we call literal translation applications. These are literally the punch, kick, block scenarios that you see being taught in most Dojo. This give the student a better understanding of what they represent and on a generic rudimentary level what it can also represent. After months of going through these individually and in two person drills and after becoming somewhat second nature, the student is then shown what we call developed applications or what most call practical applications. We teach them a few scenarios to get the mind of the student engaged and then have them look for other possibilities with two rules in mind; they must be efficient and effective and they must have the potential to end the fight.

The student is not stuck in a rut. It’s the opposite. It opens the mind to possibilities and gives a deeper understanding of their art and the Kata’s within the art. The student can then realize how one Kata can be an entire art.

And to answer your question about what if there is no application... the founders did not throw fluff into the Kata. Every movement represents something. If your instructor does not know what a particular movement or series of movements represents find someone who does or trace the origins to where the Kata came from and see what their applications are.

What westerners call Bunkai, is the key to understanding your art. Without this knowledge it’s just random punches, kicks, and what most perceive as blocks. Basically an orchestrated dance of techniques.

This worries me if it's true, because it means that masters of bygone times were as useless in a fight as any of modern times.

I'm afraid I've missed your point. Why exactly would they be useless in a fight? The founders applications (Tichiki) are what created the Kata. The Kata is made from individual or sequenced applications that had been perfected and battle proven.

If you are speaking of what we call literal translations of the Kata this is not the true applications. This is merely to teach the student proper timing, body mechanics, balance and how to utilize the basic foundation that every art teaches.

Maybe I confused you in telling you that we teach this after the founders applications. Most teach basic first so I could understand if this is the source of confusion. We actually teach them the founders first so that their foundation is in the true meaning so as not to create bad habits or misinformation of what the Kata contains and represents.

Please clarify your statement so I can answer it if I have not already done so.

If the applications are meant to be taken at face value, then this suggests that the person that made it up expects us to believe that genuine violence follows a nice predictable pattern.

No it does not. Each (founders) movement or sequence of movements may have 1 or 20 (just to use a round average) applications that it represents. This harkens back to the argument that all you need is Kumite.

The point is within each Kata (keep in mind that one Kata was literally an art and all the arts techniques and applications were contained within) there are 100's or even 1000's of techniques and applications. Kumite comes from Kata because Kata is the art itself. You are limited by what you can learn in Kumite and will only accumulate so many techniques were as the Kata teaches you to look outside of the box of punch, kick, block and give you an understanding of all of the other elements that make up your art. These elements are efficient and battle tested.

It does not. It assumes that you can tell someone that 'when your attacker throws a straight punch with his right hand towards your head from arms length away at this angle while his other hand does nothing and there are no weapons involved and you see it coming, then you can easily block it like this then punch him in the torso and end the fight instantly'.

Again you are speaking of the most generic and basic understanding of the Kata, the whole punch, block and kick understanding.

Having said that if you understand the Kata and what it is telling you, the most basic techniques can end the fight.

Lets take a simple strike in the Kata (Any strike, it really doesn't matter). The Kata tells us where to strike and how to strike correctly, as long as your teacher or his did not change or alter it. The study of Kata goes well beyond the foundational basics that beginners are taught. If you understand the elements that make up your art and understand how to extract them from the Kata so that you can study them you would realize that the Kata is vast with knowledge of combat effectiveness. This is why you can study a single Kata for 10 years and not have scratched the surface.

I really, really hope that wasn't what the creators of kata / forms really were trying to tell us.

Again I'm not totally sure of where you are coming from but I believe I have addressed this. If not please clarify.

To further clarify my statements above; I spoke of the elements of your art.

In my art the elements are as follows; 1. Atemi (percussive impact) - these are strikes, punches and kicks. Tuidi (Qin Na) - This is locks, chokes, traps, joint locks, breaks, submissive hold, grappling or laymens terms controlling the opponents body by manipulating it to induce pain and discomfort. Chibudi (Kyusho or Dim Mak) - vital area targeting. Muto (Tegumi) - this is throws, takedowns, sweeps and off balancing techniques. Chi'gwa (ground fighting) - fighting from the ground in order to get back to your feet. Not to be mistaken with MMA or Jujutsu.

These come from various sources such as Ti (Di, Ti'gwa), Jiao Li, Qin Na, Dim Mak, Muay Boran, etc.

Some Kata were passed down to the founders and others were created from lessons learned studying under different arts.

The key to it is if you look to old (ancient) arts you will find that the art was housed in one or two Kata (Hsing). If this is true, and I believe it to be based on my experiences, then you can understand how the Kata is anything but limiting. Its vast in its secrets and the knowledge contained within.

If you have never had an instructor teach you the true applications it's hard to imagine but it goes far, far beyond just basic punches, strikes, kicks and blocks. Oh and you find out there is no such thing as a block in terms of the definition used today.

Hope that helps.

[OneKickWonder]

Onekickwonder,

Although I understand your thought process I disagree with it.

Being shown the applications opens the students mind and give understanding. You do not stop learning once you’ve been shown Tichiki. If fact the opposite is true. We teach what we call the founders applications, literal translation applications and developed applications.

You learn the founders applications first, which we are taught are the applications passed down from the founder. Then once those have been learned we teach what we call literal translation applications. These are literally the punch, kick, block scenarios that you see being taught in most Dojo. This give the student a better understanding of what they represent and on a generic rudimentary level what it can also represent. After months of going through these individually and in two person drills and after becoming somewhat second nature, the student is then shown what we call developed applications or what most call practical applications. We teach them a few scenarios to get the mind of the student engaged and then have them look for other possibilities with two rules in mind; they must be efficient and effective and they must have the potential to end the fight.

The student is not stuck in a rut. It’s the opposite. It opens the mind to possibilities and gives a deeper understanding of their art and the Kata’s within the art. The student can then realize how one Kata can be an entire art.

And to answer your question about what if there is no application... the founders did not throw fluff into the Kata. Every movement represents something. If your instructor does not know what a particular movement or series of movements represents find someone who does or trace the origins to where the Kata came from and see what their applications are.

What westerners call Bunkai, is the key to understanding your art. Without this knowledge it’s just random punches, kicks, and what most perceive as blocks. Basically an orchestrated dance of techniques.

This worries me if it's true, because it means that masters of bygone times were as useless in a fight as any of modern times.

I'm afraid I've missed your point. Why exactly would they be useless in a fight? The founders applications (Tichiki) are what created the Kata. The Kata is made from individual or sequenced applications that had been perfected and battle proven.

If you are speaking of what we call literal translations of the Kata this is not the true applications. This is merely to teach the student proper timing, body mechanics, balance and how to utilize the basic foundation that every art teaches.

Maybe I confused you in telling you that we teach this after the founders applications. Most teach basic first so I could understand if this is the source of confusion. We actually teach them the founders first so that their foundation is in the true meaning so as not to create bad habits or misinformation of what the Kata contains and represents.

Please clarify your statement so I can answer it if I have not already done so.

If the applications are meant to be taken at face value, then this suggests that the person that made it up expects us to believe that genuine violence follows a nice predictable pattern.

No it does not. Each (founders) movement or sequence of movements may have 1 or 20 (just to use a round average) applications that it represents. This harkens back to the argument that all you need is Kumite.

The point is within each Kata (keep in mind that one Kata was literally an art and all the arts techniques and applications were contained within) there are 100's or even 1000's of techniques and applications. Kumite comes from Kata because Kata is the art itself. You are limited by what you can learn in Kumite and will only accumulate so many techniques were as the Kata teaches you to look outside of the box of punch, kick, block and give you an understanding of all of the other elements that make up your art. These elements are efficient and battle tested.

It does not. It assumes that you can tell someone that 'when your attacker throws a straight punch with his right hand towards your head from arms length away at this angle while his other hand does nothing and there are no weapons involved and you see it coming, then you can easily block it like this then punch him in the torso and end the fight instantly'.

Again you are speaking of the most generic and basic understanding of the Kata, the whole punch, block and kick understanding.

Having said that if you understand the Kata and what it is telling you, the most basic techniques can end the fight.

Lets take a simple strike in the Kata (Any strike, it really doesn't matter). The Kata tells us where to strike and how to strike correctly, as long as your teacher or his did not change or alter it. The study of Kata goes well beyond the foundational basics that beginners are taught. If you understand the elements that make up your art and understand how to extract them from the Kata so that you can study them you would realize that the Kata is vast with knowledge of combat effectiveness. This is why you can study a single Kata for 10 years and not have scratched the surface.

I really, really hope that wasn't what the creators of kata / forms really were trying to tell us.

Again I'm not totally sure of where you are coming from but I believe I have addressed this. If not please clarify.

To further clarify my statements above; I spoke of the elements of your art.

In my art the elements are as follows; 1. Atemi (percussive impact) - these are strikes, punches and kicks. Tuidi (Qin Na) - This is locks, chokes, traps, joint locks, breaks, submissive hold, grappling or laymens terms controlling the opponents body by manipulating it to induce pain and discomfort. Chibudi (Kyusho or Dim Mak) - vital area targeting. Muto (Tegumi) - this is throws, takedowns, sweeps and off balancing techniques. Chi'gwa (ground fighting) - fighting from the ground in order to get back to your feet. Not to be mistaken with MMA or Jujutsu.

These come from various sources such as Ti (Di, Ti'gwa), Jiao Li, Qin Na, Dim Mak, Muay Boran, etc.

Some Kata were passed down to the founders and others were created from lessons learned studying under different arts.

The key to it is if you look to old (ancient) arts you will find that the art was housed in one or two Kata (Hsing). If this is true, and I believe it to be based on my experiences, then you can understand how the Kata is anything but limiting. Its vast in its secrets and the knowledge contained within.

If you have never had an instructor teach you the true applications it's hard to imagine but it goes far, far beyond just basic punches, strikes, kicks and blocks. Oh and you find out there is no such thing as a block in terms of the definition used today.

Hope that helps.

I have a feeling that you and I actually agree. Except what you are calling applications, I'm calling principles. What I mean by that is principles of moment, principles of body mechanics, principles of balance and the shifting of weight etc. In this sense, I'd agree, that the application is literal. Where we'd disagree is if you were saying that each move is literally what we see in the form. A high block against an unrealistic straight punch, a really awkward block from a terribly awkward and unstable cross stance etc. On that one, I was once told that the awful sideways block from a cross stance in passai is a backfist strike. If that's the case, I don't want it. It can't work. You'd never choose a weak position over many stronger ones. Yer that same awkward position happens naturally when you receive a certain takedown, and if you catch that takedown early enough, you can save and counter it using the very awkward move that appears in passai. Perhaps there are other applications. But the principles taught serve to resist the takedown just long enough to regain a strong stance from a weak off balance one you'd be in at the moment your opponent gets the lock on for throw.

[MatsuShinshii]

I have a feeling that you and I actually agree. Except what you are calling applications, I'm calling principles. What I mean by that is principles of moment, principles of body mechanics, principles of balance and the shifting of weight etc. In this sense, I'd agree, that the application is literal. Where we'd disagree is if you were saying that each move is literally what we see in the form. A high block against an unrealistic straight punch, a really awkward block from a terribly awkward and unstable cross stance etc.

Yes the principles that you learn are valuable. However what I am saying is that the movements in the Kata are not what you think they are on face value, but some are. Can they be a punch, strike, kick, block? Yes they can and sometimes are. Can they be a throw, vital strike, submissive hold, etc.? Yes they can and sometimes are.

As stated blocks are not blocks. As you learn and then start to research and develop applications you realize first off that (using your example) Jodan Uke is not a block. It is a strike, a redirection, trap, throw, etc. but it is not a block. Can it be? Absolutely. But this is not what it represents in the Kata.

On that one, I was once told that the awful sideways block from a cross stance in passai is a backfist strike. If that's the case, I don't want it. It can't work. You'd never choose a weak position over many stronger ones. Yer that same awkward position happens naturally when you receive a certain takedown, and if you catch that takedown early enough, you can save and counter it using the very awkward move that appears in passai. Perhaps there are other applications. But the principles taught serve to resist the takedown just long enough to regain a strong stance from a weak off balance one you'd be in at the moment your opponent gets the lock on for throw.

Yes some techniques can be what we call Muto (Tegumi) and are takedowns, throws, sweeps and off balancing techniques.

Maybe I should further clarify my arts definitions so you can understand where I am coming from;

Founders applications - these are the applications that have been handed down from the founder (not necessarily your arts founder) that are combat tested and proven techniques that the Kata was created to house in order to pass down to new generations. Supposedly these are un-altered. In a few cases, and after researching, I know this is not true. However these are the applications that my teacher told me that his and his teacher passed down to him.

Developed applications (practical applications) - this is where we show the student what we and others have found a technique to represent that meets the two rules (must be efficient and must have the potential to end the fight). This is also were the student gets to do their own research and study the movements to find possibilities beyond what they have been shown. This is were a student grows and develops an analytic mind and expands their understanding of the Kata and the art.

Literal translation applications - this is the literal punch, block, kick, and strike that the Kata resembles. This is the most basic form of understanding. Having said that this does have it's merits in terms of teaching the student. For one the student learns how to move correctly (body shifting) and also learns to execute techniques (albeit basic) correctly (body mechanics) and they learn to breath correctly so that once these come together the student learns how to generate power in motion in a given posture.

You can pick from any of these three and point to it and say "that's Kata". However all three are correct translations of the Kata. On the most basic form you have the literal translation and with these techniques you can fight. Just look at modern kumite as an example. On the more advanced form you have the founders techniques. Simple, effective and deadly (with the true understanding). On a similar advanced level you have the developed applications or what most call practical applications. This is where we get to add even more applications to our repertoire and in the process gain an even further understanding of combat methodology.

In our art we teach the founders applications first, then the literal for reasons I explained then the developed. This all is continuous and not dictated by a grade or belt color. White belts begin to learn Pinan Shodan and with it the founders applications. It is a progressive process but by the time they are Sankyu they have a deep understanding of that basic Kata and have studied, researched and developed their own idea's. By the time they are Shodan they have a deep understanding of the basic Kata and are able to better understand the more advanced Kata as they are taught to them.

So basically NO what you see is not the true translation of the Kata and YES it is. Confused? Hopefully not. I hope this clears things up but I must admit I'm rushing as I have a class getting ready to start.

If it's still not clear I'll try to clarify more tomorrow.

[MatsuShinshii]

Maybe Wastelander can jump in here. He has a very good understanding of applications. Maybe he can clarify the mud.

[username19853]

I choose to train Matsubayashi because the body mechanics, stances, hikite, Everything about the style makes sense to me.

Your concerns used to be my concerns too and I changed lots of styles and schools till i found the teacher i wanted inside Hokama sensei organization.

the point you missing is that Matsubayashi-ryu is A Karate-DO , this was the vision Nagamine sensei had for his style . you never see somebody say Matsubayashi-ryu karate-jutsu.

I guess I was missing that point! Thank you for helping me see the answer to my question. Again, I apologize if I came across as disrespectful. Although I still love matsubayashi, this does not change my concerns. LOL. Seriously though, thank you for your patience!

[Wastelander]

Let me see if I can distill this, a bit

When most (not all, but most) karateka are taught "bunkai," they are taught something like this:

That is what MatsuShinshii is referring to as "literal" applications. If you were taught to call a movement a "block," you probably just use it to block. If you were taught to call a movement a "punch," you probably just use it to punch. Etc. The vast majority of this is modernization and simplification--it is a teaching tool, but it is not what the movements were intended to be used for, and in my opinion it mostly just leads to confusion.

Then you have more old-style applications, like this:

This would be along the lines of what MatsuShinshii is calling "the founder's applications." They may or may not be the "original" intended applications of the kata, but nonetheless they fit the kata movements exactly and embody the principles of the art. The entire movement in the kata is important, rather than just the final posture.

Then you have techniques that are based on the kata, but come from an individual's study of the movements and adjustment to fit their body and preferences, rather like this:

This would be what MatsuShinshii is referring to as "developed" or "practical applications." For some people, these may just be the "founder's applications" they were taught, but adjusted slightly to fit them better. For others, these may be completely different, because the karateka has a different background, build, physical limitations, etc., that inform their interpretation of the movements in the kata.

-----------------------------------------------

Now, as for Okinawans teaching effective applications, not just the "literal applications," there are plenty that do, and there are plenty that don't. Even on Okinawa, there are a LOT of people doing karate just for the enjoyment or health benefits, and they don't care in the slightest about the practical side of it. This leads to them teaching either the "literal applications," or sometimes no applications, at all, even within the same styles/organizations. For example:

At a training camp for our organization a couple years ago, the head of our organization (Nakazato Minoru) taught an application for the "elbow wing" movements in Pinan Sandan that was a combined elbow wrench and takedown.

At the same training camp, but a year later, one of the 8th dans from Okinawa came out, and when asked about that move, said it was for blocking straight punches to the body with your hands in your pockets.

So, in the same organization, two instructors with decades upon decades of experience gave drastically different types of applications. Now, I will say that even the head of our organization has been simplifying and toning-down his applications over the past few years, at least when he teaches Westerners, which is a bit sad, but even so, he's teaching it. It's up to the individual to train the techniques effectively.

[MatsuShinshii]

I knew you would have examples to show visually and the computer skills to put them on a post.

I appreciate you jumping in and saving my technologically stupid self. It helps to have the visuals as I was struggling to do as good of a job of trying to explain it.

Your help and knowledge, as always, is much appreciated.

Thank you.

[OneKickWonder]

Let me see if I can distill this, a bit

When most (not all, but most) karateka are taught "bunkai," they are taught something like this:

That is what MatsuShinshii is referring to as "literal" applications. If you were taught to call a movement a "block," you probably just use it to block. If you were taught to call a movement a "punch," you probably just use it to punch. Etc. The vast majority of this is modernization and simplification--it is a teaching tool, but it is not what the movements were intended to be used for, and in my opinion it mostly just leads to confusion.

Then you have more old-style applications, like this:

This would be along the lines of what MatsuShinshii is calling "the founder's applications." They may or may not be the "original" intended applications of the kata, but nonetheless they fit the kata movements exactly and embody the principles of the art. The entire movement in the kata is important, rather than just the final posture.

Then you have techniques that are based on the kata, but come from an individual's study of the movements and adjustment to fit their body and preferences, rather like this:

This would be what MatsuShinshii is referring to as "developed" or "practical applications." For some people, these may just be the "founder's applications" they were taught, but adjusted slightly to fit them better. For others, these may be completely different, because the karateka has a different background, build, physical limitations, etc., that inform their interpretation of the movements in the kata.

-----------------------------------------------

Now, as for Okinawans teaching effective applications, not just the "literal applications," there are plenty that do, and there are plenty that don't. Even on Okinawa, there are a LOT of people doing karate just for the enjoyment or health benefits, and they don't care in the slightest about the practical side of it. This leads to them teaching either the "literal applications," or sometimes no applications, at all, even within the same styles/organizations. For example:

At a training camp for our organization a couple years ago, the head of our organization (Nakazato Minoru) taught an application for the "elbow wing" movements in Pinan Sandan that was a combined elbow wrench and takedown.

At the same training camp, but a year later, one of the 8th dans from Okinawa came out, and when asked about that move, said it was for blocking straight punches to the body with your hands in your pockets.

So, in the same organization, two instructors with decades upon decades of experience gave drastically different types of applications. Now, I will say that even the head of our organization has been simplifying and toning-down his applications over the past few years, at least when he teaches Westerners, which is a bit sad, but even so, he's teaching it. It's up to the individual to train the techniques effectively.

This is very informative and insightful. Many thanks for sharing.

What this does for me personally, is to reinforce my belief that kata / forms are about teaching principles rather than literal applications. Based on this fine contribution alone, I present 2 reasons for my conclusion.

1. In each of the videos shown, the 'attack' was far too orderly. It was completely unrealistic. But even if someone were to attack in a slow and predictable way, you'd have to be pretty skilled to pull off the techniques shown. Some of those joint manipulations only work if you get them pretty much bang on accurate. Quite difficult to do in the chaos of reality. Yet in that chaos, there may be moments where perhaps midway through a struggle, you happen to get that lock on or see that opportunity to strike. Therefore the principles are sound, but the application, which I see as a predefined assembly of principles, is unrealistic. It is like learning to build a house, then being given a piece of land and asked to build a house on it. If you break it down to principles of lay foundations, build walls, add plumbing and electrics etc, it's going to be fine. But try to build a specific area house to a specific design it's only going to work if by pure chance the plot perfectly suits the design.

2. As you've said, even very experienced teachers can't agree on the application. These are guys that have dedicated a lifetime to the study of an art in intricate detail. Yet they have perfectly valid but radically conflicting views on applications. I know the elbow wing thing you refer to. I've heard it represents having your hands tied and a pole slotted through your arms, as if being taken prisoner, and you are escaping. I've heard they are blocks from when you are caught off guard with hands by sides, but when I went to aikido I saw the exact same move being used in a disarm technique. The aikido version making more sense to me than any other explanation I've heard or seen, but that doesn't mean it's exclusively correct or even what the creator of the form had in mind.

[MatsuShinshii]

Let me see if I can distill this, a bit

When most (not all, but most) karateka are taught "bunkai," they are taught something like this:

That is what MatsuShinshii is referring to as "literal" applications. If you were taught to call a movement a "block," you probably just use it to block. If you were taught to call a movement a "punch," you probably just use it to punch. Etc. The vast majority of this is modernization and simplification--it is a teaching tool, but it is not what the movements were intended to be used for, and in my opinion it mostly just leads to confusion.

Then you have more old-style applications, like this:

This would be along the lines of what MatsuShinshii is calling "the founder's applications." They may or may not be the "original" intended applications of the kata, but nonetheless they fit the kata movements exactly and embody the principles of the art. The entire movement in the kata is important, rather than just the final posture.

Then you have techniques that are based on the kata, but come from an individual's study of the movements and adjustment to fit their body and preferences, rather like this:

This would be what MatsuShinshii is referring to as "developed" or "practical applications." For some people, these may just be the "founder's applications" they were taught, but adjusted slightly to fit them better. For others, these may be completely different, because the karateka has a different background, build, physical limitations, etc., that inform their interpretation of the movements in the kata.

-----------------------------------------------

Now, as for Okinawans teaching effective applications, not just the "literal applications," there are plenty that do, and there are plenty that don't. Even on Okinawa, there are a LOT of people doing karate just for the enjoyment or health benefits, and they don't care in the slightest about the practical side of it. This leads to them teaching either the "literal applications," or sometimes no applications, at all, even within the same styles/organizations. For example:

At a training camp for our organization a couple years ago, the head of our organization (Nakazato Minoru) taught an application for the "elbow wing" movements in Pinan Sandan that was a combined elbow wrench and takedown.

At the same training camp, but a year later, one of the 8th dans from Okinawa came out, and when asked about that move, said it was for blocking straight punches to the body with your hands in your pockets.

So, in the same organization, two instructors with decades upon decades of experience gave drastically different types of applications. Now, I will say that even the head of our organization has been simplifying and toning-down his applications over the past few years, at least when he teaches Westerners, which is a bit sad, but even so, he's teaching it. It's up to the individual to train the techniques effectively.

This is very informative and insightful. Many thanks for sharing.

What this does for me personally, is to reinforce my belief that kata / forms are about teaching principles rather than literal applications. Based on this fine contribution alone, I present 2 reasons for my conclusion.

1. In each of the videos shown, the 'attack' was far too orderly. It was completely unrealistic. But even if someone were to attack in a slow and predictable way, you'd have to be pretty skilled to pull off the techniques shown. Some of those joint manipulations only work if you get them pretty much bang on accurate. Quite difficult to do in the chaos of reality. Yet in that chaos, there may be moments where perhaps midway through a struggle, you happen to get that lock on or see that opportunity to strike. Therefore the principles are sound, but the application, which I see as a predefined assembly of principles, is unrealistic. It is like learning to build a house, then being given a piece of land and asked to build a house on it. If you break it down to principles of lay foundations, build walls, add plumbing and electrics etc, it's going to be fine. But try to build a specific area house to a specific design it's only going to work if by pure chance the plot perfectly suits the design.

2. As you've said, even very experienced teachers can't agree on the application. These are guys that have dedicated a lifetime to the study of an art in intricate detail. Yet they have perfectly valid but radically conflicting views on applications. I know the elbow wing thing you refer to. I've heard it represents having your hands tied and a pole slotted through your arms, as if being taken prisoner, and you are escaping. I've heard they are blocks from when you are caught off guard with hands by sides, but when I went to aikido I saw the exact same move being used in a disarm technique. The aikido version making more sense to me than any other explanation I've heard or seen, but that doesn't mean it's exclusively correct or even what the creator of the form had in mind.

To answer to your number 1 reason... Your looking at a demonstration for the purpose of teaching others. What you do not see, at least in the way we teach and learn, is the steady progression of training. The techniques have to work, no matter of looks, in real life and as such are pressure tested.

No, not every student will use all of the applications because some will not work for them in a stress situation.

In terms of what we call the founders applications, they are simple, effective and very efficient. They do not have 40 movements to end the fight. Typically there are only a few movements and they are natural not forced.

In terms of your number 2 reason... I think you need to re-read the post.

There are many variations and although no one can with absolute certainty that this or that application came from the founder one thing holds true, if it works use it, if it doesn't don't waste your time.

You can choose to study the Kata or not. In the end it's your journey and your decision. My focus has been to study the Kata because IMHO it's a treasure trove of techniques and applications that you would not be able to pick up no matter how much you trained in Kumite. It gives you the well-roundedness that studying modern day Karate does not. It teaches you other ways outside of the typical and gives you more choices than just Kihon.

But to each their own.

[OneKickWonder]

Let me see if I can distill this, a bit

When most (not all, but most) karateka are taught "bunkai," they are taught something like this:

That is what MatsuShinshii is referring to as "literal" applications. If you were taught to call a movement a "block," you probably just use it to block. If you were taught to call a movement a "punch," you probably just use it to punch. Etc. The vast majority of this is modernization and simplification--it is a teaching tool, but it is not what the movements were intended to be used for, and in my opinion it mostly just leads to confusion.

Then you have more old-style applications, like this:

This would be along the lines of what MatsuShinshii is calling "the founder's applications." They may or may not be the "original" intended applications of the kata, but nonetheless they fit the kata movements exactly and embody the principles of the art. The entire movement in the kata is important, rather than just the final posture.

Then you have techniques that are based on the kata, but come from an individual's study of the movements and adjustment to fit their body and preferences, rather like this:

This would be what MatsuShinshii is referring to as "developed" or "practical applications." For some people, these may just be the "founder's applications" they were taught, but adjusted slightly to fit them better. For others, these may be completely different, because the karateka has a different background, build, physical limitations, etc., that inform their interpretation of the movements in the kata.

-----------------------------------------------

Now, as for Okinawans teaching effective applications, not just the "literal applications," there are plenty that do, and there are plenty that don't. Even on Okinawa, there are a LOT of people doing karate just for the enjoyment or health benefits, and they don't care in the slightest about the practical side of it. This leads to them teaching either the "literal applications," or sometimes no applications, at all, even within the same styles/organizations. For example:

At a training camp for our organization a couple years ago, the head of our organization (Nakazato Minoru) taught an application for the "elbow wing" movements in Pinan Sandan that was a combined elbow wrench and takedown.

At the same training camp, but a year later, one of the 8th dans from Okinawa came out, and when asked about that move, said it was for blocking straight punches to the body with your hands in your pockets.

So, in the same organization, two instructors with decades upon decades of experience gave drastically different types of applications. Now, I will say that even the head of our organization has been simplifying and toning-down his applications over the past few years, at least when he teaches Westerners, which is a bit sad, but even so, he's teaching it. It's up to the individual to train the techniques effectively.

This is very informative and insightful. Many thanks for sharing.

What this does for me personally, is to reinforce my belief that kata / forms are about teaching principles rather than literal applications. Based on this fine contribution alone, I present 2 reasons for my conclusion.

1. In each of the videos shown, the 'attack' was far too orderly. It was completely unrealistic. But even if someone were to attack in a slow and predictable way, you'd have to be pretty skilled to pull off the techniques shown. Some of those joint manipulations only work if you get them pretty much bang on accurate. Quite difficult to do in the chaos of reality. Yet in that chaos, there may be moments where perhaps midway through a struggle, you happen to get that lock on or see that opportunity to strike. Therefore the principles are sound, but the application, which I see as a predefined assembly of principles, is unrealistic. It is like learning to build a house, then being given a piece of land and asked to build a house on it. If you break it down to principles of lay foundations, build walls, add plumbing and electrics etc, it's going to be fine. But try to build a specific area house to a specific design it's only going to work if by pure chance the plot perfectly suits the design.

2. As you've said, even very experienced teachers can't agree on the application. These are guys that have dedicated a lifetime to the study of an art in intricate detail. Yet they have perfectly valid but radically conflicting views on applications. I know the elbow wing thing you refer to. I've heard it represents having your hands tied and a pole slotted through your arms, as if being taken prisoner, and you are escaping. I've heard they are blocks from when you are caught off guard with hands by sides, but when I went to aikido I saw the exact same move being used in a disarm technique. The aikido version making more sense to me than any other explanation I've heard or seen, but that doesn't mean it's exclusively correct or even what the creator of the form had in mind.

To answer to your number 1 reason... Your looking at a demonstration for the purpose of teaching others. What you do not see, at least in the way we teach and learn, is the steady progression of training. The techniques have to work, no matter of looks, in real life and as such are pressure tested.

No, not every student will use all of the applications because some will not work for them in a stress situation.

In terms of what we call the founders applications, they are simple, effective and very efficient. They do not have 40 movements to end the fight. Typically there are only a few movements and they are natural not forced.

In terms of your number 2 reason... I think you need to re-read the post.

There are many variations and although no one can with absolute certainty that this or that application came from the founder one thing holds true, if it works use it, if it doesn't don't waste your time.

You can choose to study the Kata or not. In the end it's your journey and your decision. My focus has been to study the Kata because IMHO it's a treasure trove of techniques and applications that you would not be able to pick up no matter how much you trained in Kumite. It gives you the well-roundedness that studying modern day Karate does not. It teaches you other ways outside of the typical and gives you more choices than just Kihon.

But to each their own.

I'm not sure if you misunderstand my point.

I'm not for one second dismissing kata. Quite the contrary. I see it as perhaps THE most efficient way to convey the core principles of a system. It's like poetry. There are poems about the horrors of war. There is no way they can tell the whole story. There are entire libraries that can't even do that, but they can convey the seed of imagination needed to reconstruct a situation in our mind.

I know beyond doubt that the principles are practical. I find myself applying them regularly in free sparring, which is the closest we can get to fighting without actually really fighting.

But what I've never seen, ever, either in training or in a rowdy nightclub when things go awry, is someone pulling off a kata technique exactly as per form, against resistance. I've seen and done the old apply this shift of weight to recover the balance after nearly being floored, or the apply this cross block from an awkward stance to block a kick that would otherwise get through. All principles drilled in forms. But never ever, even once, seen anything where I can say ah yes, that was clearly the 7th move from pyung ahn sah dan for example.