5 posts / 0 new
Last post
Wastelander
Wastelander's picture
Naihanchi Nidan/Sandan Counter-Locks

Hello, everyone,

This week, we decided to revisit some joint locking applications we have shown, before, for Naihanchi Nidan and Naihanchi Sandan, with a specific focus on how they can actually be used to counter each other. Obviously, having to counter joint locks is not the most common situation for self protection, but it does show up, here and there, in the kata.

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Nice video Noah!

Wastelander wrote:
Obviously, having to counter joint locks is not the most common situation for self protection, but it does show up, here and there, in the kata.

I agree with both points. One thing that knowing counters does is help educate you about the “points of escape” such that you can practise maintaining the initiative if the enemy attempts escape through education (less likely), brute force or dumb luck. It also makes you “wriggly” by giving examples of avoiding force and finding the cracks in the enemy’s attempts to control (whether using what would be recognised as a formal lock or not). Definitely useful supplementary or “second tier” practise, so its appearance in kata is perhaps to be expected. It can also be argued that Naihanchi Nidan and Sandan are katas of that nature – i.e. supplementary kata to the core Naihanchi Shodan – so such information can reasonably be expected to be found within those kata.

All the best,

Iain

Wastelander
Wastelander's picture

I completely agree--it is easy to learn how to apply a joint lock and say you know it, even after working it against resistance, but learning specific counters really highlights the weak points and movements to pay attention to in order to keep the technique in place. We do this with some other movements in kata, as well, such as the turning hammerfist in Pinan Sandan defending an armbar, and the spinning hammerfist in Kusanku Dai defending a kote-gaeshi or shiho-nage. As I said, it doesn't come up A LOT, but it does appear in kata, and I think it's a very useful study.

The three Naihanchi kata, and their origins/purpose, are often argued about, but I agree that Nidan and Sandan are explorations of the material illustrated in Shodan. There are those who believe all three Naihanchi were originally one long kata, but there is no evidence to support that except one Western karateka making the claim and people just citing him, later. Indeed, looking at the lineages which contain the kata would suggest that Naihanchi Shodan is decidedly older than the other two, even if people can't agree on who made them. Naihanchi Shodan exists in Shuri-Te and Tomari-Te systems at least as far back as students of Sakugawa, while Naihanchi Nidan doesn't start to show up until Matsumura's students, and Sandan doesn't start to show up until Itosu's students. To me, the second and third "levels" of Naihanchi are part of an ongoing study of how the principles shown in the original can be applied in a variety of ways.

One interesting illustation I have of that is the dropping elbow in Naihanchi Nidan, thanks to my exploration of KishimotoDi. Tachimura no Naihanchi has the same supported elbow strike that you see in every version of Naihanchi Shodan, but doesn't pull to the "stacked hands" position afterward. Despite this, one of the applications that is classically taught for that movement in KishimotoDi is an armbar, using the elbow to apply pressure to the opponent's elbow, while trapping their wrist. In KishimotoDi's second kata, Nidanbu, which it is known was made to be a "help kata," for use in exploring variations in movements between Naihanchi, Passai, and Kusanku (the three koryu kata of KishimotoDi), the same elbow strike is performed, but the performer steps into the technique, rather than twisting into it, and rolls the elbow downward, very reminiscent of the way the elbow is rolled over and dropped in Naihanchi Nidan. KishimotoDi applies this, also, as an armbar, but with an emphasis on forcing the opponent downward--pretty much the same armbar that the head of my organization, Nakazato Minoru, likes to teach as an application for Naihanchi Nidan's downward elbow. I see this as two different styles exploring the same variation in two different ways, which is really interesting, to me.

Marc
Marc's picture

What a great observation that these two types of locks counter one another. If one of those locks is not applied decisively or precisely enough, the counter lock might even come up "by accident" just because it flows almost naturally from the instinctive resisting force of the opponent who does not want to be locked.

I like Waza Wednesday. I'm learning something every week. :)

So thank you and take care,

Marc  

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Thanks for the post Noah. Lots of interesting information there.

Wastelander wrote:
There are those who believe all three Naihanchi were originally one long kata, but there is no evidence to support that except one Western karateka making the claim and people just citing him, later …

Unfounded speculation + the internet + time = “historical fact” :-)

I’ve lots count of the number of people who have told they were all once one kata. As you say, the evidence does not suggest that.

The “evidence” for the claim is largely that the second two kata start from differing positions to the first i.e. hand in fists as opposed to open and overlapped. These standard “ready positions” are said to represent where the cuts where made in breaking the kata in to three. There’s no evidence to support the claim though.  A better explanation is that the “ready position” of the first form (hands overlapped) is a combative motion and that, having shown it once, there is no need to repeat it in the kata that were created at a later date to show variations and alterative expressions.

It’s always interesting to hypothesise about these things. However, there are, and will forever be, some gaps in our knowledge when it comes to the history of the kata and we need to accept that rather than trying to impose a certainty that is not there. In the absence of certainty, we are wise to go with the hypothesis with the most evidence for it and that requires the least assumptions.

As you point out, the time line suggests that there was originally one Naihanchi (what we now call Shodan) and that two other variants were developed later. I am not aware of one single historical reference to them being one kata. Considering the popularity of the kata, that would be a remarkable oversight on the part of the past masters. As well as having to make the assumption of such a wide-ranging oversight, if people are of the view all three kata were originally one, they need to explain why the first third of the form was taught under the name “Naihanchi” (no suffix)  and the remaining parts were not “revealed” until later … AND why there is not one single reference to them being linked together as one kata when the other parts were finally “revealed”. It’s does not seem at all plausible.

Although we can’t be certain, Ockham’s Razor tells us that the idea Nidan and Sandan were developed later is by far the strongest position.

I also think an analysis of the three kata supports this idea too. Your video being a good example of that.

All the best,

Iain