Kata footwork

Hi PASmith,

PASmith wrote:

Having just watched Iain's "angles" video I was contemplating how the feet move in kata. And something bugs me about it. In many instances the opposite foot to the one that moves in kata is the one that actually moves (or does most of the movement) in application.

I’ll do my best to explain my thinking on why I feel that is the right way to do things.

PASmith wrote:

That sort of footwork could actually be the one in the kata.

It could be lots of other things too though. What actual footwork you use will ultimately depend upon where the enemy is, your relative motion to one another, and what positions your feet are in at the time. It’s not the footwork in kata that determines how we move but the actual situation. The kata gives us an angle and a position (stance), but how we assume that angle and position will depend on the circumstances. There are innumerable potential variations so the kata does not dictate “you must move this way”, it simply tells us were to move to.

PASmith wrote:

There's no reason why the kata couldn't start with the right foot stepping out and to the right as you turn to the left and that would be more in keeping with a more practical approach to bunkai.

In that specific instance, yes. But in any other instance it would be incorrect. I don’t see the kata as giving specific footwork instructions because it can’t possibly know what footwork is valid in the specific instance the karateka will find themselves. If the enemy was reeling to their right from a right-handed shot (and I had hold of their left arm in order to make the opening for that shot) then the footwork as it appears in the kata would be the right one.

When teaching I tend to give initial examples that deliberately utilise another foot motion from what is shown in the kata so the student understands it is not specifics the kata is showing but generalities. This way they better appreciate that the kata is saying, “get to this angle in whatever way is appropriate in that instance” as opposed to “you must move your feet like this whether it is relevant to the situation or not”.

PASmith wrote:

It seems to me that a change in footwork, to adopt a good angle, is more the norm for Iain 's sort of practical bunkai rather than keeping the footwork from the kata (the head wrench takedown that follows the lunge punch is an exception).

When it comes to assuming the initial position, absolutely! The situation dictates; not the kata. Whatever I need to do to get the best angle is right. This seems to me to be the only practical way to do things and it’s inline with that the old masters told us (Mabuni and Motobu with regards to angles specifically, and almost all the others in emphasising principle over the specific when it comes to the very variable world of application). Kata is a map; not the territory.

PASmith wrote:

Am I wrong that that the footwork in kata actually gets used more than I realise?

From my perspective, I would say you are wrong because the footwork in kata is used MUCH LESS that you may realise. Sometimes the footwork is linking two entirely unrelated motions together (i.e. it is just joining them up for the purpose of the kata) in what I call “linking steps” and these obviously have no practical purpose (as with the footwork that links the four knife hands together). Other times, it’s just to get you facing the right angle so you understand the angle you should be at in application. The exact way you get there depends upon circumstance so the kata does not try to dictate that.

The footwork in kata is not a mandatory instruction anymore than any other piece of kata is. I therefore feel it’s a mistake to think that we “fight with kata” and, as I say in the clips, it’s better to think that we “fight with the information in kata”. The angle and position are the key pieces of information. The way of getting there is variable and hence the kata does not attempt to give “you must do” instructions in that regard.

PASmith wrote:

I'm usually fully on board with Iain's take on bunkai but this discrepancy bothers me.

Unsurprisingly it does not bother me as I don’t see it as a discrepancy :-) It would be if I were suggesting the kata was giving mandatory instructions on footwork. I don’t see it that way however and the right footwork in one situation will be incorrect in another situation. The kata therefore does not attempt to “know the unknowable” and simple states, “This angle, this position, get there in whatever way is appropriate”.

It’s also important not to confuse footwork that links the various pieces of bunkai together as being instructions on footwork. The kata is a series of individual methods. When you separate the individual from the whole, the footwork you may be fixating on disappears. It’s a little like thinking, “How can I use the hammer when it’s in the tool box”. The answer is that you can’t, but we know that the tool box is simply what we use to keep the tools together. To use the tools we take them out of the box and use whatever ones are needed for the job in hand.

Likewise with kata motions: we separate the motion from the kata and assume the angle and position it is demonstrated at. That very act of separation removes the “footwork” in kata. I don’t paint walls, turn screws and hammer nails with the actual tool box. Likewise I don’t use the solo kata – and the footwork needed to hold it together – but the information within it … and the steps in kata ensure I understand the angle to be adopted, but not the way to adopt that angle, because that is unknowable and determined by circumstance.

I’ve never said that I’m the final word on bunkai and it’s OK if people don’t like this aspect of how I do things. For me, however, it makes perfect sense and I feel it is pragmatic and totally in line with what previous generation told us about kata. I therefore don’t see it as an unconsidered discrepancy, but a carefully considered part of how I approach bunkai. I simply don’t see that kata is giving us “must do” instructions on footwork for the reasons stated.

I hope that helps explain my thinking.

All the best,

Iain

Thanks for the lengthy reply Iain. Really appreciate it given how busy you are. It certainly clarifies things. And makes sense too. I knew you'd have some in-depth thinking on this. :)

I think the discrepency I feel is to do with the utility of the motions as a whole. Very often the hand positions and motions stay very true to the kata "form". I don't see that with the foot motions (as much). As mentioned it seems to me that when things do change from form to function it is more often than not the foot movements that change. Which given that you feel the kata foot movements are , for the most part, not really conveying important information beyond "angle to adopt towards opponent" makes complete sense.

Iain Abernethy wrote:

In that specific instance, yes. But in any other instance it would be incorrect.

I think what I'm getting at is a feeling that the footwork would remain more linked to practicality and more related to application if it was more like your "pencil/pin compass" type of movement than what is currently in kata. And therefore I'm suprised that isn't the dominant type of turn used in kata. I'm trying to say that if the footwork changed it would be practical more often. Given that pivoting round your front foot is much more "useful" in a fight than pivoting round on your back foot. I wonder what kata would look like if every turn that used the rear foot as a pivot was changed to a (seemingly more useful) front foot pivot?

Great topic P A Smith, and I really enjoyed Iains explanation of his point of view.

I think the focus on backfoot pivoting in kata is due to the range we often find ourselves in before we turn in kata (close) and the grappling/locking application involved in many of the turns, moving your body away from the opponents with torque seems to me to be a very sensible footwork model.

On saying that and moving away from application, I personally feel the 'modern' kata have been formalised to a degree and sometimes it's difficult to be accurate with specific Bunkai - but thats half the fun of it!

Principle led aplication is not concerned with minor details, as said the situation dictates the resppnce often - getting the job done is the goal.

PASmith wrote:

Thanks for the lengthy reply Iain.

You’re welcome. It’s an important tissue and I have to confess to being quite happy with the reply :-) I feel it communicates my thinking pretty well. Whether people agree with it or not, it’s good to have something like that I can refer people to the next time the issue comes up.

PASmith wrote:

I wonder what kata would look like if every turn that used the rear foot as a pivot was changed to a (seemingly more useful) front foot pivot?

Whatever way you move into a given position, you’ll find that you have to introduce “non-combative linking steps” to maintain the angles, the order and the general structure of the totality of the kata. And you’d get people asking the same question of, “Why do the feet move this way when pivoting on the rear foot would be the best way in situation X?”

Trying to alter the stepping is an interesting exercise actually as it leads, at least for me it did, to the conclusion that they way the kata is currently structured is the simplest and most logical way to do so.

All the best,

Iain (off to throw some weights around then enjoy a little of the sunshine :-)

There are probably specific reasons for the choice of footwork. Iain has already noted that he finds the footwork to be the simplest and most logical way to structure the kata.

From studying some kung fu I have learned that the Northern styles' forms often cover a lot of ground, but that the Southern styles' forms are often more compact. This is sometimes explained as being due to the geography of the regions of China where the styles were developed - sweeping plains vs mountainous areas. So, when the Pinan/Heian kata were developed it may be that the available space for training also went into the development of the footwork. Afterall, the Pinan/Heian kata are pretty compact. These kata all cover just about the same floor space and so could all be performed indoors or outdoors in a small yard.

From a more pratical side, the footwork of the kata may also contain information related to the movement of body weight and control of one's center of gravity during the technique. I think Iain touched on that in a previous video clip too. We may not be bound to the exact footwork in the kata, but for the techniques to work in practice we do need to know where our body weight should be going and how not to over-extend and lose our balance. I believe the footwork in the kata help very much in this regard and the choice of footwork may also have been to most effectively teach this aspect of the movements.

Stan

Regarding foot work, one possible method comes to mind. In talking to some of the old time masters, one of them made the comment that a number of traditional kata ( as well as different styles of martial arts) used the footwork in kata to hide/teach kyusho jitsu points.

It is said that kungfu styles like northern/seven star praying mantis focus on the liver meridian, and have thereby modified their footwork along the acupuncture/nerve points of that particular meridian.

It is also said that two of the gojuryu katas: kururunfa and suparenpai, were origianlly joined together. And that one way of finding the original kata is to obtain a footwork diagram of the two katas and superimpose them at possible juncture points where one kata ends and the second one would likely continue.

Another point is that using the  the footwork diagrams overlaying an acupuncture chart, it may give you some idea as to what targets a particular kata specializes in. That the specific block, punch or kick used at that time is the method of striking you would use at that specific kyusho point.

Quickly going back to what was said earlier by PA Smith

PA Smith wrote:

There's no reason why the kata couldn't start with the right foot stepping out and to the right as you turn to the left and that would be more in keeping with a more practical approach to bunkai.

If you look at some of the Shito and Shorin Ryu kata, you will see that some of then do infact move back rather than forward during the first movements of most Pinan Kata (Including the one in question above). In fact I have actually seen Pinan Nidan done with a shuffle back on the first move before the stepping punch (I have seen it online so it is out there to be refound).  I agree with Iain and see the Kata showing us where to move and how to get there is dependant on the situation (With different schools and styles picking one version of moving to the side), A bit like how we see differences in hand movements like Shuto, Nukite etc....(Same principles applied in different ways).

Here is a link to a great article by Joe Swift. It includes a translation of the bit in Kenwa Mabuni’s Karate-Do Nyumon book where he explains that the angles in kata are best understood as the angles we assume, as opposed to the angle the enemy is at (see “kata and directions”):

http://seinenkai.com/articles/swift/swift-tidbits1.html

Interesting to note that Mabuni states that the common way of viewing kata (attacks from set angles) is “highly unreasonable”, and that certain kata being for fighting a set number of enemies is “nonsense”. It is unfortunate that the unreasonable and nonsensical views that Mabuni warns us against are now accepted as being correct by the majority of karateka.

All the best,

Iain

Just as an aside, do we agree with the basic premise that was the start of this view?

Namely that footwork pivoting round the front foot is a far more common and useful form of footwork than pivoting around a static backfoot? Or is there no real difference?

If I get a vote, I would say there is no real difference. It depends on the context and my intention doesn't it?

For example you could say that in most turns in the kata (certainly in the heian/Pinan series) there is a pivot off the static back-foot rather than off the front. Implying an application that requires an off balancing body shift to provide mechanical advantage (a la the head wrench takedown that follows the lunge punch) - which is a pivot off the back foot

or

I may decide, once I have hold of my opponents arm to apply an arm-bar whist turning (a la move 4-5 in Bassai Dai) - which is the pivot off the front foot but a similar type of application as the first example..

In fact whether it is a pivot off the front or the back, the feet tend to have to shift a little in either case.... 

PASmith wrote:

Namely that footwork pivoting round the front foot is a far more common and useful form of footwork than pivoting around a static backfoot? Or is there no real difference?

I would say that it depends entirely upon what the method being employed is and what the circumstances are. I can think of plenty of effective motions for both and have to stay with “it depends”.

All the best,

Iain

Ah right. Cool. So it seems my initial feeling of a discrepency between the footwork in kata and bunkai is probably down to a lack of exposure to a wide range of methods. Still great to hear Iain's take on it though.