15 posts / 0 new
Last post
css1971
css1971's picture
Discrete "combative units" in Karate kata

I don't think this concept will come across as anything new to those on this forum but I thought I'd put some ideas down.

I've been investigating some of the origins of karate techniques, in particular the influence of Chinese Kung-Fu on karate.

It's often said that some of karate originates from Kung-fu or this or that kata originates from White Crane kung fu but really it's not entirely clear how one culture or the other influences karate, what exactly is it that comes from the external culture? Stances, ways of punching? Philosophy etc? I'm going to put the point that over and above the importation of entire kata, it's discrete "combative units" which are taken from one or another sources. A "combative unit" being the consecutive sequence of kata movements which gives rise to an application.

There has been a concept of kata as an almost stream of consciousness continuing sequence of individual combative movements, that is largely how they were taught historically in karate classes and how I understood them for a long time, but as a tool it doesn't hold water.

Patrick McCarthy has done an enormous amount of research on the origins of kata and came to the conclusion that they began as paired drills of techniques, attacks and defences. The defence part of which were assembled together into forms for better memorisation and time and space efficient practice. I now view this as a highly likely explanation and have some direct evidence for this sort of methodology for kata.

The key evidence for me is Iain's manji-uki application for which I consider the fit between the movements and the application to be far too good to be chance. One of the nice things about manji-uke is the highly characteristic body shape. It's very unusual and easy to identify making it a good probe. In fact I recall having seen exactly this shape in many martial arts films, used arbitrarily of course. In particular the manji-uke shape is definitely present in kung-fu and therefore will be present in Chinese kung-fu forms.

With the internet and youtube it has become easy to find examples of forms, indeed there are some channels with hundreds of videos of kung-fu forms. https://www.youtube.com/user/shemmati10yt being a notable example.

After having viewed many of the forms uploaded to youtube I hit upon an example of the manji-uke shape in one of the videos. In fact it's quite popular, but the particular one I'm referring to is this (tong bei quan), at 1 minute 15 seconds through to 3 minutes 10 seconds:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21vZz4beFv8&t=1m15s

Approximately: manji-uke followed by rotating jump into shiko-dachi with downward strike, and then double punch.

Beyond the point that the Shaolin monks clearly have no better applications than those which have been historically present in karate (Despite seeming to have information that it's related to defence against a kick). Visually, the sequence has a remarkable similarity to the manji-uke sequence found in Passai/Bassai. It is almost identical visually with minor stylistic variations and the application of the sequence matches the application of the sequence in Bassai perfectly. i.e. The Bassai sequence was lifted completely and as a discrete "combative unit" from the kung-fu form (if not this specific one, then another very similar).

Overlapping and overloading

It's certainly possible for there to be overlapping applications, and double/multiple applications for sequences, but I don't think they were the primary use, they are happy coincidences and one of the side effects and benefits of the bunkai process if they're then tested and found useful.

Progression and variation

Progression in kata as demonstrated by Iain's analysis methodology whereby if X fails then progress to Y does *appear* to be a feature of the combative units... This is something I'm still looking at and I'm not totally clear on yet, the following sequences in the kung-fu form are sufficiently different from the Bassai ones that i'm not sure they match, there are similarities. If they don't then progression may only be a feature of kata or Bassai may have enhanced or expanded progression.

Size of a combative unit

How big is an application/combative unit then? Obviously it's impossible to generalise. The Bassai example is at least 3 distinct movements and possibly substantially larger if the follow on movements in the kung-fu forms also match.

Conclusion

So it's pretty clear then that karate kata and Kung-fu forms are both made up of discrete chained "combative units" representing applications, that can be extracted whole and used elsewhere. It's also clear that stylistic differences are relatively minor even between kung-fu and karate never mind between styles within the respective martial arts. The information is relatively intact.

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

What an awesome post! Lots to think about there! Thanks for sharing.

All the best,

Iain

Wastelander
Wastelander's picture

I certainly agree with your general thoughts. Kata did come from paired training drills, which are represented by set sequences of movements, which were assembled in a logical fashion, and can be found to have more than one application.

I would disagree that stylistic differences are minor. In fact, I suspect those stylistic differences are integrally connected to the fact that sequences in kata can be used for more than one thing, which can be quite distinctly different. Different people created different kata with different methodologies, so while they may contain similar movements, they may be intended to be used in a drastically different way. Of course, we won't know for sure what was intended unless it was written down or successfully passed down through the teaching lineage. I tend to think of kata as being, at least partially, written in shorthand. The trouble is that not everyone used the same shorthand! We have guidelines for kata bunkai from various masters, but not all the guidelines apply in all cases, for all kata.

For example, one kata may have been assembled in a logical fashion from a teaching perspective--you have learned this technique, so now you will be able to do this technique, etc. That is drastically different from a kata that was assembled in a logical fashion from a fighting progression perspective, as you mention. Neither approach is wrong, but assuming one or the other can lead to vastly different conclusions.

Kevin73
Kevin73's picture

Unless, you study a style that the founder is still alive and explain exactly what the intent was and application(s) of the movements on a form/kata, it is all guesswork.

I agree that they started as two person drills.  The reason that they have multiple applications per movement is easy enough to explain when looking at "basic movements".  Take for example, the simple block/punch sequence that we see over and over.  When done in the air, it is easy enough but what are we picturing?  Through practice with another person, we can now see a right punch, left punch, inside of the punch, outside of the punch.  We now have 4 applications (minimum) for that one simple set of moves.

Now, we take into account that some of those "movements" weren't really blocks.  If we change our distancing, we now have hammerfist strikes to attack our attacker.  We now have another set of applications for the same set of moves.

Other things are the same way.  BUT, what I think has happened in some styles and katas is that moves were altered to fit a SPECIFIC application and it limits other usages.  Other times, just as in the chinese forms, they moves were NOT application based moves, but conceptual movements that were altered to fit an application and now the other information is lost.  Other sections in chinese forms were done for chi kung purposes and for health reasons that were built into the forms and then changed to try and fit some application when there was none.

Add all of this together, and we get a whole lot of stuff that may or may not be what was intended because we are all just guessing as to what the original intent was.

css1971
css1971's picture

Wastelander wrote:

I would disagree that stylistic differences are minor. In fact, I suspect those stylistic differences are integrally connected to the fact that sequences in kata can be used for more than one thing, which can be quite distinctly different.

I take that point, but the logical conclusion of a paired drills concept is that the forms originally would have recorded one primary application per sequence. We certainly have "overloaded" the original meanings of the movements with additional applications (which would seem to be a deliberate benefit of bunkai) but, and I think this is something which is absolutely crucial in karate as a tool, you can also look across several styles versions of a kata to see the modifications that are made stylistically to the kata. It's the next best thing to having a "clean" unaltered kata to work with.

It's the concept of averaging in digital signal processing. You can extract a signal (real information) from noise (random rubbish) by averaging the signal. The randomness cancels itself out because the variations are sometimes large and sometimes small, and the signal adds to and reinforces itself because it's constant. Looking at many styles of a kata is doing the same thing.

I definitely wouldn't throw away additional/overloaded applications for a kata, if they work, they add to the richness of karate over and above that which was imported from elsewhere.

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Kevin73 wrote:
Unless, you study a style that the founder is still alive and explain exactly what the intent was and application(s) of the movements on a form/kata, it is all guesswork.

This raises a few things for me. The first thing I would say is that it’s not just guesswork. We have the kata themselves, we have a significant about of historical information defining the nature of kata, and we understand the nature of civilian conflict. We can therefore put forth informed, educated, and eminently workable applications.

While it’s true that the founders of the kata are not here to be asked directly, I don’t think that relegates all efforts to guesswork. No one alive today was alive at the Battle of Hastings, but based on the information we do have, we have a pretty good idea of what happened. So we can apply historical methods to the kata to gain a sound understanding of them.

I also think the analogy of the scientific methods holds up too. In science, a theory is deemed to have value when it can explain all the data, attempts have been made to falsity it, and it can make sound predictions about future events. In every day speech, people often use the term “it’s just a theory” to imply something may not have any legitimacy. However, the Theory of Gravity is a theory and stepping off a roof and saying “it’s just a theory” won’t stop you falling.

While we are not 100% certain about the true nature of gravity – and no one was around when that force came into being – our understanding of the Theory of Gravity has enabled us to put men on the moon. No one just guessed how to make a rocket and then guessed when and how to launch it. We did research and as a result we gained a very good understanding of gravity.

In kata application I think we can apply a similar approach:

1) Our applications must be able to explain all the data (i.e. all part of the kata motion must be explained and add something to the application).

2) The application must not be at variance with what the historical record tells us about the nature and design of kata.

3) The application must be able to make predictions i.e. it must work when applied.

If the kata application can do the above, then it is a good application. We are not just “guessing”, but applying a rigorous approach of research, study and testing to produce something very useful to us.

I also think that we need to remember that – as pragmatists living in the modern day – “historical authenticity” is not the defining measure. Instead, effectiveness in application should be.

The applications I teach for the Pinan kata (for example) may not be the applications Itosu had in mind when he created them. However, the applications I teach for those forms are logical, functional, they fit the kata, and they don’t contradict any information we do have. Above all else, the kata and the applications I practice and teach have proved to be a very useful way to impart skills to me and mine.

What I can therefore say with full certainty is that I know with 100% accuracy what the applications for those kata are … for us. Others may have other applications, but me and mine KNOW what the application are. We practise them every session. We don’t guess at what they are; we know what they are.

My process of analysing kata has lead me to an approach which I find to be highly fictional and enjoyable. Had it not, I would have dumped kata as I have dumped other forms of practise I have found to be limited value (formal one step sparring for example).

Kevin73 wrote:
Other times, just as in the chinese forms, they moves were NOT application based moves, but conceptual movements that were altered to fit an application and now the other information is lost.  Other sections in chinese forms were done for chi kung purposes and for health reasons that were built into the forms and then changed to try and fit some application when there was none.

I am unaware of anything that states that there are “conceptual movements” in the kata. I know it’s a commonly recited viewpoint, but where is the evidence to support it? There is, conversely, a huge amount of stuff that makes clear that the motions of kata were designed to be directly applied in civilian self-protection.

My position, based on all the evidence I have seen, is that ALL kata were created to have direct combative applications. The later stuff about certain motions being devoid of all combative function but nonetheless being exercises for “balance”, “to strengthen legs”, “to practise coordination”, etc. is largely a way of avoiding saying “I don’t know” when pressured to explain what a motion is for. We therefore should not take these statements as fact.

It’s the same when people say thinks like “the start of Kushanku is a circle to signify the oneness of the universe” or “the hand position at the start of Jion is to covey the restraint a martial artist must possess” i.e. the fist being covered by the other hand. There is nothing to support these very dubious “explanations” and plenty to show they are contrary to what we do know about that kata.

I also don’t buy into the idea that motions in kata were there to have “chi kung” or health benefits. Again there is nothing to support that, and I’m always left asking where the deliberate stretches, press-ups, squats, etc are in kata if that was the case? If anyone were to make a “health kata” today it would look nothing like the kata we do have.

To be sure, kata does have health benefits, but they were not created for that purpose. I can punch the bag and that will make me fit and healthy, but it does not follow that punches were created to make me fit and healthy … it’s just the opposite in fact: punches, and kata, were created to make other people unfit and unhealthy!

Kevin73 wrote:
Add all of this together, and we get a whole lot of stuff that may or may not be what was intended because we are all just guessing as to what the original intent was.

As above, I would say we are not “guessing” because that infers picking something out of the air. I could “guess” and say that the Norman invasion of Britain was successful because of their use of Panzer Tanks, ninja warriors and laser guns. If someone were to suggest I was wrong, me saying, “if you weren’t there, you don’t know, so it’s all guesswork” would not be an adequate rebuttal. They could point to all the information we do have (written sources, archaeology, etc) and put forth a counter argument that, although it may not have all the details nailed down, it would nevertheless be solid.

I also think that we need to get to a place where we see our modern day applications (which are firmly based on the historical info we do have) as being every bit as valid as those of the past. We are not an “historical re-enactment society” but modern day martial artists. Function is the only really valid measure and therefore we need to advance to a place where we are comfortable and confident enough to say that, for us, our applications are THE applications.

All the best,

Iain

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

css1971 wrote:
It's the concept of averaging in digital signal processing. You can extract a signal (real information) from noise (random rubbish) by averaging the signal. The randomness cancels itself out because the variations are sometimes large and sometimes small, and the signal adds to and reinforces itself because it's constant. Looking at many styles of a kata is doing the same thing.

Totally agree and I love that way of expressing it! Those at the seminar know I use blind men and elephants to convey a similar idea :-)

Five blind men go to experience an elephant for the first time. The first one feels the trunk and concludes that elephants are like snakes. The second one feels the tail and concludes that elephants are like a frayed piece of rope. The third one feels a leg and concludes that elephants are like tree trunks. The fourth one feels the side and concludes that elephants are like walls. The fifth one feels all around the elephant and concludes that elephants are like elephants.

The point is that what the first four men experienced was the truth; from a given perspective. However they got stuck in the details and the “big truth” was only experienced when all those perspectives were combined. I think it’s similar with style variations of kata.

All the best,

Iain

akisdad
akisdad's picture

Without knowing much more about Itosu than the facts that he was very good at decking people and that he devised the pinan kata for school children, I can't but believe that if he was approched by an eager student who said, 'Is it for this sensei?' Thump, thump, thud, thud, 'Ow, howway man, you don't need to be so rough', that his answer wouldn't have been, 'Well, it is now.'

My sensei, Ameur Bensaoud, encourages us to come up with our own applications, as what works for a fifty-year-old bloke who weighs 80 kilos, probably doesn't work for a 15-year-old girl who weighs about 50. Since bunkai is analysis, rather than prescription, surely the context of the initial conditions is important. We've got about six ways that the gendan barai in Heian Shodan can be used  in response to six different ways that the fight can start. All of them have the potential for leaving the bad guy on the ground, so I think they're all correct.

css1971
css1971's picture

Kevin73 wrote:

Unless, you study a style that the founder is still alive and explain exactly what the intent was and application(s) of the movements on a form/kata, it is all guesswork.

[snip]

Add all of this together, and we get a whole lot of stuff that may or may not be what was intended because we are all just guessing as to what the original intent was.

This is my second attempt at this post, my 3 year old ate the first one.

I agree there have been a lot of changes to kata, but we also have some handed down rule sets and we have some tools we can use to change guesswork into deduction. It's still going to be archeology but we can make meaningful statements about the way things were based on the way they are just now. We're never going to be 100% sure, but science for example is never 100% sure either, it all comes with "levels of confidence".

First of all, if you are searching for a set of keys across the whole of the USA you have a big problem. If you're sure you can limit the search to your house, you only have a small problem, and when you are searching you start with the most restricted area and only expand as you have to.

   * There is a rule set from Chojun Miyagi which he either created or more likely was passed down to him for decoding kata. Called "Kaisai no genri" it was published by Lawrence Kane and Kris Wilder in Way of Kata. Primarily Goju based but there's reason to believe the rules should work for all kata, and because they imported White Crane kata whole, for kung-fu forms also.

      * There's an additional implication here, and that is that kung-fu form encoding is the same or very similar to karate kata encoding.

   * Iain has a similar rule set in Bunkai Jutsu I think based on Kaisai no genri, but expanded and clarified.

   * Patrick McCarthy's two person attack/defence drill concept has strong implications for the way any kata would have been structured, There would basically have to be a start and end point for each primary application/defensive drill with maybe a little overlap where an arm/leg/stance was used in the next, but fundamentally they would have to be chained together.

      * The evidence of apparent "chunking" of bits of chinese forms imported as a unit into kata pretty strongly supports this mechanism. The primary application is a chunk of kata/form sequence and the gross movements look remarkably similar in both kata and form.

   * We have many styles and have multiple versions of the same kata, you can see the stylistic variations in the movements between the styles, and the commonality between them as well.

   * There are also "marker" movements, like Manji-uke which are highly distinctive and easy to spot across kata and even across martial arts. Even better if the primary application is known and the sequence it's in can be marked with start and end points.

      * In addition to "marker" movements, there are also things that can *only* be one thing. I'd put Noah's distinctive Shima throw in Kusanku into that category... but obviously only when you know what it is.    

So you can start to put together a picture of how kata were structured with chains of chunked primary applications "coded" as movement sequences, then overloaded with additional stylistic applications which possibly overlap multiple primary ones. If we can fill in start and end points for primary applications eventually we'll figure out the whole thing. The good thing about this is like jigaw puzzles, they are most difficult at the start.

css1971
css1971's picture

akisdad wrote:

All of them have the potential for leaving the bad guy on the ground, so I think they're all correct.

Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't classify them as correct and incorrect. I think "primary" and "additional" or maybe "stylistic" variations would be more appropriate since there's no gedan barai at the start of pinan nidan. If something works against a resisting opponent then it's real and the principles are more important than a 1, 2, 3 application.

Kevin73
Kevin73's picture

A "Hypothesis", which is basis of the scientific method is nothing more than an "educated guess" at how things work. (http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/project_hypothesis.s...)  At least that was the way it was described to me in college when I took my Chemistry classes and majored in Psychology.  You are correct that we use data to build the "guess" as accurate as possible, but it is still a guess.

I never said that applications that fit into the kata and are effective are an issue.  I merely pointed out that they may or may not be what the founder had in mind.  For example, the following quote by Tsuyoshi Chitose “Our teachers did not give us a clear explanation of the kata from old times. I must find the features and meaning of each form by my own study and effort, by repeating the exercises of form through training.”  He basically says the same point, we dont' know what the original applications were.  We can find very effective usages for the kata and you are right that is more important.  But, I also think it's important to state that these are our own interpretations based on "X,Y znd Z".

As to the idea that movements in certain chinese forms are conceptual in nature and not application drive.  Since most agree that "karate" as it was practiced on Okinawa was heavily influenced by the southern chinese arts, let's look at a couple more famous ones.

First, Wing Chun's first form "Sil Lum Tao" (various spellings) it shows various hand positions and ideas for applications, but they are not "applications" in and of themselves like we see in karate. ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ltM2IOofjI )

Hung Gar has the 12 bridges in the forms that are concepts of how to bridge an opponent's guard.  They may or may not have an application tied to them in a form, but it is a reference as to the concept.

In addressing kung fu forms having sections for health and not application.  If we go back to Hung Gar's example, the beginning of their first kata "taming the tiger" starts with some dynamic tension movements as chi gung.  They are both a health and concept in nature, as you will recognize the movements as reference points for their bridging techniques. ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gW1pcIzSZho )

Here is a lesser known branch of Hung Gar called "Ha Say Fu" as taught by Sifu Wing Lam.  It is from the "snake form".  If you look to about the 35 second mark, you see him perform a side to side motion with his hands.  These movements have no application, but are in the form to train linkage through the whole body in moving. ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Vb0GSRsp20 )

Lastly, if we look at karate's own "Sanchin" kata.  It was practiced for both body development and also the concepts of body usage.  Also, using the movements, you can derive applications from it's concepts but it is not application based like other forms/katas.

 

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Hi Kevin,

Thanks for the follow up post. Regardless of whether we ultimately agree or disagree, this thread is bringing up lots of really interesting things. I appreciate it.

Kevin73 wrote:
A "Hypothesis", which is basis of the scientific method is nothing more than an "educated guess" at how things work. (http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/project_hypothesis.s...)  At least that was the way it was described to me in college when I took my Chemistry classes and majored in Psychology.  You are correct that we use data to build the "guess" as accurate as possible, but it is still a guess.

It’s not still a guess. I also think you may be confusing hypotheses with theories? In my previous post I was taking about “theories”. We start with an “educated guess” (which is very different from a simple “guess”), but it evolves from there to become a theory:

“A group of hypotheses comes together to form a conceptual framework. As sufficient data and evidence are gathered to support a hypothesis, it becomes a working hypothesis, which is a milestone on the way to becoming a theory. Though hypotheses and theories are often confused, theories are the result of a tested hypothesis. While hypotheses are ideas, theories explain the findings of the testing of those ideas.”

http://www.livescience.com/21490-what-is-a-scientific-hypothesis-definition-of-hypothesis.html

As I mentioned in the previous post, we don’t just guess. We develop initial ideas – based on all we know about kata, bunkai and civilian conflict (the “educated guess”) – and then form a “conceptual framework”. We then test it and come to firm, workable, testable conclusions. It is a solid logical process and a long way from simply guessing. On the page you linked to, it is also clear that the next stage is testing and verification / nulification.

A guess is an uneducated one off event that is based on nothing (unlike the “educated guess”) and that is, crucially, never examined further in an attempt to verify or nullify. I therefore remain firm in my view that the study of bunkai is not simply “guesswork”,  but instead a carefully considered process, and hence the comparison with the scientific method remains a valid one.

Kevin73 wrote:
I merely pointed out that they may or may not be what the founder had in mind.  For example, the following quote by Tsuyoshi Chitose “Our teachers did not give us a clear explanation of the kata from old times. I must find the features and meaning of each form by my own study and effort, by repeating the exercises of form through training.”  He basically says the same point, we dont' know what the original applications were.  We can find very effective usages for the kata and you are right that is more important.  But, I also think it's important to state that these are our own interpretations based on "X,Y znd Z".

Yes, but it was the inference that this process was “guesswork” that I questioned:

Iain Abernethy wrote:
I also think the analogy of the scientific methods holds up too. In science, a theory is deemed to have value when it can explain all the data, attempts have been made to falsity it, and it can make sound predictions about future events. In every day speech, people often use the term “it’s just a theory” to imply something may not have any legitimacy. However, the Theory of Gravity is a theory and stepping off a roof and saying “it’s just a theory” won’t stop you falling.

While we are not 100% certain about the true nature of gravity – and no one was around when that force came into being – our understanding of the Theory of Gravity has enabled us to put men on the moon. No one just guessed how to make a rocket and then guessed when and how to launch it. We did research and as a result we gained a very good understanding of gravity …

… The applications I teach for the Pinan kata (for example) may not be the applications Itosu had in mind when he created them. However, the applications I teach for those forms are logical, functional, they fit the kata, and they don’t contradict any information we do have. Above all else, the kata and the applications I practice and teach have proved to be a very useful way to impart skills to me and mine.

What I can therefore say with full certainty is that I know with 100% accuracy what the applications for those kata are … for us. Others may have other applications, but me and mine KNOW what the application are. We practise them every session. We don’t guess at what they are; we know what they are.

I have a working theory of kata application. It’s not simply “guesswork” but a process that has produced something I see as very solid, logical and functional.

Kevin73 wrote:
As to the idea that movements in certain chinese forms are conceptual in nature and not application drive.  Since most agree that "karate" as it was practiced on Okinawa was heavily influenced by the southern chinese arts, let's look at a couple more famous ones.

In these examples, what historic evidence can be put forth to support the hypothesis that those forms (in whole or part) were originally created to have non-combative “health benefits”? That there never was an original combative function? I’d suggest that these modern assertions are an overlay or promotion of secondary function like the bagwork analogy I gave in the last post:

Iain Abernethy wrote:
I also don’t buy into the idea that motions in kata were there to have “chi kung” or health benefits. Again there is nothing to support that, and I’m always left asking where the deliberate stretches, press-ups, squats, etc are in kata if that was the case? If anyone were to make a “health kata” today it would look nothing like the kata we do have.

To be sure, kata does have health benefits, but they were not created for that purpose. I can punch the bag and that will make me fit and healthy, but it does not follow that punches were created to make me fit and healthy … it’s just the opposite in fact: punches, and kata, were created to make other people unfit and unhealthy!

I’m not saying pre-existing forms can’t be practised (or tweaked) for these secondary benefits. What I am saying is that, as a martial art, we should be looking for martial applications. It strikes me as illogical – and an easy copout – to do otherwise. We are also strongly encouraged to avoid the modern assumption of “non-combative” motions in forms by previous generations:

Individual training [forms] is mainly practised in those institutions, but the applied aspect of techniques learnt is ignored …Striving for nice-looking movements without practical use and absence of fighting spirit are at the bottom of it. In this way we shall lose little by little all the heritage of our ancestors who brilliantly used all methods and techniques in combat.” - Liu Jin Sheng, 1936 (Instructor’s Manual for Police Academy of Zhejiang Province)

As we can see, he is very clear that all motions in Chinese systems should, and always did, have a practical use; but his contemporaries are ignoring that fact and hence the applications are being lost in favour of an emphasis on “nice looking movements” (a very similar thing was happening to karate around the same time of course).

Today we have kata done as art, as a competitive sport and as a form of exercise. But it does not follow the motions is kata were created for artistic, competitive and health reasons. In some quarters the kata may have tweaked to better fit the needs of art (dramatic pauses), sport (exaggerated athletic motions) and health (deeper stances, emphasis on breathing and posture as ends in themselves), but I would say that does not override or eliminate the true purpose of direct application in combat.

As always, people need to look at the evidence for themselves and make their own conclusions. In my case, I would put “defences” against contrived and formal karate “attacks” in the same box as conceptual motions and non-combative health based motions i.e. there is no evidence to support that being the original function of kata, and plenty to support the idea that martial arts are martial … and as such all motions have combative functions. The modern non-combative “explanations” are simply ways to avoid having to pursue a deeper understanding of kata. In following that path I feel we do karate and kata a disservice.

All the best,

Iain

css1971
css1971's picture

Kevin73 wrote:
You are correct that we use data to build the "guess" as accurate as possible, but it is still a guess.

I'm not going to disagree with you _if that's how you define guesswork_ then, in science we use statistics to produce confidence levels that our guess is a good model for reality. (That's way overkill for karate). But once you do have a model which is well tested you can use it to make further predictions and further guesswork about reality. I call that deduction rather than guesswork.

There's no certainty in anything, 100% is an abstract concept. Newtonian physics are an approximation for the physical world around us, it predicts reality with 99.999999% accuracy, but you have to go to general relativity and quantum mechanics for the rest. It's pretty good as a guess though.

Kevin73 wrote:

He basically says the same point, we dont' know what the original applications were.  We can find very effective usages for the kata and you are right that is more important.  But, I also think it's important to state that these are our own interpretations based on "X,Y znd Z".

With forms based systems where the attack wasn't recorded this is about the best you can ever get. However you're still stating something about reality based on some premises. That's how all knowledge works.

The more "coincidences" between kata and application the higher the confidence that it matches the original application. It might still be something else of course. I'm going to use the manji-uke example again because it's so unlikely.  The coincidence that the left arm happens to guide the leg to the side, the coincidence that the right arm hooks it and lifts, the coincidence of the foot placement, the coincidence the following gedan barai and cresent kick would dump the uke, the coincidence that the shuto-barai would twist the knee. Even if you have say a 50% chance of each individual component of the application being random, the overall chance that 0.5 * 0.5 * 0.5 * 0.5 * 0.5 = 0.03 (I've probably oversimplified the statistics) or ~3% chance the match between a useful application and kata is just random.

~97% indicates a high confidence that's the original application. Life's rarely that nice, more chance and less certainty. If it were 50/50 then there may be several equally good candidates,

Kevin73 wrote:

As to the idea that movements in certain chinese forms are conceptual in nature and not application drive.  Since most agree that "karate" as it was practiced on Okinawa was heavily influenced by the southern chinese arts, let's look at a couple more famous ones.

[snip]

Lastly, if we look at karate's own "Sanchin" kata.  It was practiced for both body development and also the concepts of body usage.  Also, using the movements, you can derive applications from it's concepts but it is not application based like other forms/katas.

Yes it's possible, even likely that there are sections of kata which are "corrupt" or encoded in a different way, or simply aren't kata as we know it. However that's no reason to stop and throw your hands up. Maybe something will come along later which makes all clear. It's like doing data retrieval from damaged files or old manuscripts. Archeology.

p.s. I'm now convinced that Sanchin is actually katafied sanbon kumite, so yes I understand your point that we don't know the original intent of any particular kata. People are generally rational though.

Kevin73
Kevin73's picture

Iain,

I enjoy good discussion as well.  It's one nice thing is that we can disagree but still be respectful and discuss our opinions.

I think we may be getting stuck on "semantics", and disagreeing on seperate issues and think we are discussing the same issue.  As I understand your point, you have done systematic research into HAPV and have applications based on hands on research and application and have workable applications for you and your students that use the motions of the kata.  These applications make sense both from a workable standpoint, and from a "karate filter" standpoint as to what the goal of karate is.  I agree 100% with you on what you have done and that the applications fit those criteria.  My point is slightly different, and that is just simply, we DO NOT know if your applications are the ones originally intended or not.  It has nothing to do with the other criteria we just talked about as to being workable and your students knowing the applications you have for them.  For the record, I am in the same camp as you.  It doesn't matter what the original intent was if we don't know it, do we have something workable to help us now that can be taught, replicated and passed on to the next generation.  But, like Chojun Miyagi said, "Studying karate nowadays is like walking in the dark without a lantern. We have to grope our way in the dark."

As to health vs. combat applications.  I pointed those out already.  Not every style does it that way, nor does every form in kung fu contain those elements.  The dynamic tension "sets" at the beginning of some forms were done for health reasons, much like Sanchin kata.  I gave the example of Hung Gar's Taming the Tiger form.  You do sets of dynamic tension with the hands to the front and to the side both single handed and double handed.  You can try and find application to it, but it was for developing internal power/chi gung sets etc. I should also add in, which I didn't before, that when I say "health" I dont' mean just exercise like the example you gave of working on a heavy bag.  It is the eastern idea of "health" which includes developing "internal power" through chi gung.  This information came from students of Ark Wong (5 family style) and James Woo that taught in LA's Chinatown in the 50's and onward.  Also, Wing Chun's forms are very conceptual in nature and not application based like we see in karate, think of Goju Ryu's "Tensho Kata", it is conceptual in nature and not an application based kata.

I often think of the movie "The Little Mermaid" when she brings him a fork and he calls it something else and says it's for fluffing your hair.  Yes, you can use it for that purpose and it would work, but that is not the original purpose of a fork.

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Hi Kevin,

Great last post and I think that ties things up pretty neatly :-) It seems you are also right that we are largely on the same page with regards to kata application, although we may define things a little differently.

Kevin73 wrote:
As I understand your point, you have done systematic research into HAPV and have applications based on hands on research and application and have workable applications for you and your students that use the motions of the kata.

“Habitual acts of physical violence” are not really where I’m personally coming from. I see kata as being more proactive. The nature of civilian conflict is obviously a huge part of any functioning approach, but as part of that I tend to avoid “If he attacks with this, you do that” because it’s too reactive for my tastes. If people look at the “The Pinan / Heian Series” DVDs they can see the bunkai drills my students learn up to 3rd kyu. One thing to note is that almost all of it is dominating and proactive, with the only “reactions” being the nullification of anything the enemy tries to do to protect themselves. On the Beyond Bunkai DVD, people can see some of the reactive stuff, but again it’s more generic “cover and crash” in order to reassert dominance to in turn facilitate escape; as opposed to specific actions taken in response to specific actions from the enemy.

Nullifying common attacks is an important skill of course, but I feel that skill set it very much a backup should the primary methods fail. Basically I want to avoid the “interchange” of a fight and hence the focus is on my actions as opposed to my reactions to the enemy’s actions. I definitely see kata working the same way.

Peter Consterdine (one of my main teachers) sums it up when he once said in an interview:

“I learned many years ago on the doors is that if you let a conflict turn into a fight, you’re in a high risk strategy. You simply don’t know how good a fighter your opponent is and how unlucky you may be or lucky he may be – a fight is just a lottery. What I know from years of experience is that you have to stop it ever getting to a fight!”

Marc MacYoung has observed what I do and he made the following observation:

“I've seen what Iain teaches, it's not about 'fighting' and a whole lot more of it is about twisting and breaking some yob ASAP. Which is good”

As has been discussed, there are defiantly many effective alternate theories to my own – so I’m not critiquing those who take an alternate position and make that work effectively for them and theirs – but because I have touched on my personal methodology in this thread, I felt the need to make that clarification so readers understand where I’m coming from.

Kevin73 wrote:
As to health vs. combat applications.  I pointed those out already.  Not every style does it that way, nor does every form in kung fu contain those elements.  The dynamic tension "sets" at the beginning of some forms were done for health reasons, much like Sanchin kata.  I gave the example of Hung Gar's Taming the Tiger form.  You do sets of dynamic tension with the hands to the front and to the side both single handed and double handed.  You can try and find application to it, but it was for developing internal power/chi gung sets etc. I should also add in, which I didn't before, that when I say "health" I dont' mean just exercise like the example you gave of working on a heavy bag.  It is the eastern idea of "health" which includes developing "internal power" through chi gung.  This information came from students of Ark Wong (5 family style) and James Woo that taught in LA's Chinatown in the 50's and onward.  Also, Wing Chun's forms are very conceptual in nature and not application based like we see in karate, think of Goju Ryu's "Tensho Kata", it is conceptual in nature and not an application based kata.

We do differ here as my take would be that all those sources, while eminent and well respected, come from the modern era. As per the previous post, the position I would take is that the non-combative explanations given for motions are “modern overlay” and we would be better served looking for martial applications.

I also don’t go with the idea that Tensho and Sanchin are purely conceptual in nature. Sure, they succinctly encapsulate many of the core principles, but I feel those principles are encapsulated within combative motions. I recall training Tensho with Chris Rowen (a student of Gogen Yamaguchi) and he taught a whole host of offensive and defensive techniques and drills associated with Tensho (lots of painful, hard-hitting close-range shots). As with Sanchin, the breathing, body alignment, etc elements were emphasised too, but it was never suggested that those “secondary elements” meant there was not a primary marital application … just the opposite in fact; the two went very much hand in hand.

Kevin73 wrote:
I often think of the movie "The Little Mermaid" when she brings him a fork and he calls it something else and says it's for fluffing your hair.  Yes, you can use it for that purpose and it would work, but that is not the original purpose of a fork.

Nice analogy! I like that a lot :-)

Where we differ today, if I may steal your analogy and run with it, is that when brought the “dingle-hopper” we know it’s an eating utensil because of all the information we have from the past. When we try to eat with the “dingle-hopper” we will quickly find there is one very obvious way to use it i.e. piercing food in order to transfer it to the mouth. We may also note that it can be used to pierce the skin of sausages so they don’t explode when cooked, we can use it to whisk things with, etc. People may disagree what the primary original use was, but we are not going to be far off the mark then the “dingle-hopper” is understood as part of a wider body of knowledge and then put to the test.

In the cartoon Scuttle gets it wrong because he knows nothing about the purpose of a fork, so he takes a wild guess.

Back to kata, we do know that they were designed for used in civilian self-protection (Itosu, Motobu, Funakoshi, etc), we know what the angles mean (Mabuni, Motobu), we know what the hand on the hip is doing (Miyagi, Funakoshi), and so on. With all that supporting knowledge, when we look at the kata we are not guessing (as Scuttle did) but viewing the kata from a defined perspective.

I will post the clip below, otherwise those who’ve not seen the movie will the totally lost!

All the best,

Iain