Who looks for bunkai?

[sensei8]

What I teach my students, and what the SKKA require to teach, are two different things. The SKKA has a set of 3 required Bunkai for each and every movement found in said Kata, and they are staunch proponents of Oyo. This is fine because any "tool" has to have a starting methodology to it.

What I strongly teach my students is to NOT look at what the SKKA core has provided as the end of any means, as students tend to do; the gospel truth from the Governing Body. Albeit, to look at each and every Bunkai way beyond what the SKKA has given us as a starting point, because that's what the SKKA is giving them, a starting point of reference.

The literal or the developed or the practical of Bunkai are not to be the bondage of its possibility. For every challenge is opportunity, and with every opportunity comes learning. This, to me, is the summation of 'why' is to the summation of 'because' of any approach to Bunkai.

We don't believe, therefore we don't teach the literal because to us, the word "block" isn't what we do, which is we receive. To us literal proponents haven't matured away from the illusion that literal Bunkai offers.

To each their own!! I respect that!!

Edited August 24, 2018 by sensei8

[OneKickWonder]

What I teach my students, and what the SKKA require to teach, are two different things. The SKKA has a set of 3 required Bunkai for each and every movement found in said Kata, and they are staunch proponents of Oyo. This is fine because any "tool" has to have a starting methodology to it.

What I strongly teach my students is to NOT look at what the SKKA core has provided as the end of any means, as students tend to do; the gospel truth form the Governing Body. Albeit, to look at each and every Bunkai way beyond what the SKKA has given us as a starting point, because that's what the SKKA is giving them, a starting point of reference.

The literal or the developed or the practical of Bunkai are not to be the bondage of its possibility. Fr every challenge is opportunity, and with every opportunity comes learning. This, to me, is the summation of 'why' is to the summation of 'because' if any approach to Bunkai.

We don't believe, therefore we don't teach the literal because to us, the word "block" isn't what we do, which is we receive. To us literal proponents haven't matured away from the illusion that literal Bunkai offers.

To each their own!! I respect that!!

At this point, if I were there in person, I would bow to you, and mean it.

[Wastelander]

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.

As MatsuShinshii points out, these are demonstrations for teaching/illustration purposes--they are simplified and "cleaned up" so they are easier to see, understand, and begin to practice--but they are not examples of the full training process used to make them applicable. We generally do start people learning techniques against simple attacks, which are often straight punches. From there, we have them drill those techniques against a variety of different attacks, from grabs, to shoves, to haymakers, and more. Additionally, we have them drill the techniques from a number of different platform drills, so they get used to entering into the techniques from various different positions, points of contact, and directions of movement. Then, we get into kakedameshi and randori, where they have to find ways to enter into the techniques in the midst of the chaos of striking and grappling with a resisting partner. Without a process like this, you will never get from the demonstration/example to a point where you can actually use it.

As for whether the kata teach techniques or principles, the answer is "yes," but I think it is a mistake to suggest that the kata were originally developed to record principles, with the exception of a few kata, like Sanchin. Principles are expressed through techniques, and techniques only work because of the principles behind them, so they go hand-in-hand. The majority of koryu kata contain VAST amounts of information, and I think that to suggest the creators of the kata intentionally formulated a perfect representation of all of those concepts is to attribute supernatural foresight and understanding to those who, while skilled and knowledgeable, were still human. The kata were created by connecting proven fighting techniques together, in a logical sequence, for practice without a partner. Those techniques are the embodiment and physical representation of a number of principles and concepts, just by virtue of how techniques work. Those principles and concepts can then be used to reinterpret the movements and postures of kata, because in solo kata you have no true physical points of reference for what those movements and postures are being used for, so you have the freedom to explore options beyond the intended techniques/examples.

[Chunmonchek]

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.

Why?

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. 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'.

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

To the above Bold.

1. I believe the the originators/masters were far from useless fighters. To the contrary I would guess that they were fighters first, and teachers later. And some were better fighters than teachers, and vice versa.

2. Training kata and it's principles and applications is merely the pedagogy and lingua franca of the martial arts. To progress from the training methodology to actual application requires pressure testing in the dojo (and sometimes out, for some) so that one replaces the untrained "deer in the headlights, OMG just shat my pants" reaction with a measured martial response.

The rub is how do you get there from here...

[Fat Cobra]

It is all about the how and the why.

Kihon katas teach you the how. This is "an exercise of habit" (Kaicho Allan Amor's words) where the student learns proper foot work, stance work, hand work, posture.--the principles. In Ryukyu Kempo we call this structural integrity and coring.

Advanced katas (we call them Kuzushi Katas) introduce the why. What is behind the meaning of the movements? We introduce the concept, that we call, weight lead into our movements. We learn bunkai for different movements but also learn that more can be interpreted, so as not to be restrictive with the application.

There does need to be bunkai associated with different kata movements, at least for us, because we claim to be a life protection art. However, as one progresses in knowledge and understanding, the interpretation of bunkai for a particular kata movement can change, and we are ok with that. Each person will make the bunkai his or her own. In the end...in real life...all that matters is that what you did worked.

[OneKickWonder]

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.

As MatsuShinshii points out, these are demonstrations for teaching/illustration purposes--they are simplified and "cleaned up" so they are easier to see, understand, and begin to practice--but they are not examples of the full training process used to make them applicable.

I fully understand that. I myself am an advocate of the cooperative demo as a means of illustrating an idea without anyone getting hurt. You'll get no disagreement from me on that point.

But when I suggested earlier in this thread kata should not be taken literally as combat applications, but rather a set of principles, I was told in no uncertain terms that I was wrong, and the applications are literal.

So the question remains. Should we take kata literally or not?

[sensei8]

So the question remains. Should we take kata literally or not?

Yes!!

Why??

It's part of the methodology, and the starting point of the syllabus/curriculum. Any system has to have a starting point to be considered as well as for it to grow.

However, the effectiveness must be harshly tested thoroughly and without any ambiguity whatsoever.

Imho.

[OneKickWonder]

So the question remains. Should we take kata literally or not?

Yes!!

Why??

It's part of the methodology, and the starting point of the syllabus/curriculum. Any system has to have a starting point to be considered as well as for it to grow.

However, the effectiveness must be harshly tested thoroughly and without any ambiguity whatsoever.

Imho.

How? I can practice blocking a mid section front kick and countering with a punch as many times as I like. Then tell myself I've proven that application to be effective. Then it all falls apart the first time a real attacker kicks from a different angle or throws a punch first or is stronger and faster than me.

If we take kata literally, we can't possibly test their effectiveness. Kata is orderly, violence is not.

[sensei8]

So the question remains. Should we take kata literally or not?

Yes!!

Why??

It's part of the methodology, and the starting point of the syllabus/curriculum. Any system has to have a starting point to be considered as well as for it to grow.

However, the effectiveness must be harshly tested thoroughly and without any ambiguity whatsoever.

Imho.

How? I can practice blocking a mid section front kick and countering with a punch as many times as I like. Then tell myself I've proven that application to be effective. Then it all falls apart the first time a real attacker kicks from a different angle or throws a punch first or is stronger and faster than me.

If we take kata literally, we can't possibly test their effectiveness. Kata is orderly, violence is not.

How??

Resistive training!!!!!

Just short of killing/injuring/maiming ones dojo mate. Yes, Kata is orderly, and that's good; wouldn't want it any other way.

If one doesn't take Kata literal, then there's no real reason to take Bunkai literal, nor is there any real reason to take the MA literal, and in that end, there's no real reason to shadow the doors of any MA school!!

Do you drill off what's in Kata?? Those drills are literal assumptions, at best. Oyo is the exclamation point of Bunkai, just as Kata is the exclamation point of Kihon and/or Kumite, and vice versa.

What one drills in the dojo should be no different against an attacker.

[OneKickWonder]

So the question remains. Should we take kata literally or not?

Yes!!

Why??

It's part of the methodology, and the starting point of the syllabus/curriculum. Any system has to have a starting point to be considered as well as for it to grow.

However, the effectiveness must be harshly tested thoroughly and without any ambiguity whatsoever.

Imho.

How? I can practice blocking a mid section front kick and countering with a punch as many times as I like. Then tell myself I've proven that application to be effective. Then it all falls apart the first time a real attacker kicks from a different angle or throws a punch first or is stronger and faster than me.

If we take kata literally, we can't possibly test their effectiveness. Kata is orderly, violence is not.

How??

Resistive training!!!!!

Just short of killing/injuring/maiming ones dojo mate. Yes, Kata is orderly, and that's good; wouldn't want it any other way.

If one doesn't take Kata literal, then there's no real reason to take Bunkai literal, nor is there any real reason to take the MA literal, and in that end, there's no real reason to shadow the doors of any MA school!!

Do you drill off what's in Kata?? Those drills are literal assumptions, at best. Oyo is the exclamation point of Bunkai, just as Kata is the exclamation point of Kihon and/or Kumite, and vice versa.

What one drills in the dojo should be no different against an attacker.

Resistive training when both partners know exactly what is going to happen is just like pushups or weight training. You will become very good at performing a specific action. If that specific action happens to be called for in the first couple of seconds of an attack, great.

I think perhaps I've misunderstood traditional martial all this time. I assumed there was real life practical value in it as a combat system. Thank you for helping me to see my error. I'm sure traditional styles can be practical, if approached with an open mind, but I now understand that we are expected to just have blind faith that somebody else has already done all the testing, so we don't need to, and should bow to the senior grade and say yes sir and go home happy that if we get mugged on the way home, it will be OK, because our mugger will stand at arms length, bow to us, drop into a formal stance, then throw a straight punch, so we'll all know exactly what to do.