11 posts / 0 new
Last post
diadicic
diadicic's picture
Kata angle question

Hello all,

This thought has probably been brought up before,  but I like to discuss this with people and hear their views,  for me personally this seems to Aid in my learning process.

Here is a question that I've been pondering for a while. Oddly enough this has not been brought up in my circle. Why do kata’s turn to the left or right instead of just facing forward and turning your body to the left or right to demonstrate the angle in use?   For example in Pinan Shodan, instead of turning and facing to the left to execute your first move, why not pull your right foot back and execute the posture to the front, then changing feet putting your left back and bringing your right foot forward to execute the right side and so on?  

 My thought is that the kata has no way of knowing how you're going to get into a left or right stance just that you should go to the left or right depending on how you have to execute the movement.  The other thing I feel is important are the transitions between movements because some of those transitions show how to get around an opponent and possibly indicate throws trips and use of power etc..  At least this is what I have attained so far. The more I question, the more research I do, the more I seem to learn. Let me know how you think about it.

Dom

Zach Zinn
Zach Zinn's picture

Rules of Kaisai - "do not be deceived by the enbusen". The angles and turning are not without meaning, but the overall shape of the enbusen is not a combative thing,

Chris R
Chris R's picture

I'd add that (using your pinan shodan example), stepping your right foot back and turning is not quite the same movement as stepping directly sideways. The kata shows the movement as it should be applied, which is applying force and moving to either side (or as close as is possible in application), not stepping back and then turning.

The embusen also shows us how to move around in relation to the other person into different transitions. Not just by showing you the angle by turning, but by showing you the actual physical steps to get there.

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Hi Dom,

diadicic wrote:
Why do kata’s turn to the left or right instead of just facing forward and turning your body to the left or right to demonstrate the angle in use?

Because that would not show the angle. There are many techniques where we rotate our body in order to get mass into the method. If the kata did everything on a straight line, it would be impossible to know what was tactical (positioning relative to the enemy) and what was technical (rotating into the technique). The clear use of angles to donate positioning relative to the enemy makes things clear; so that is why the kata are structured that way.

It’s well established in the literature (Mabuni, Motobu, Toguchi, etc) and I personally believe it to be one of the most powerful keys to being able to understand what the kata is showing.

diadicic wrote:
My thought is that the kata has no way of knowing how you're going to get into a left or right stance just that you should go to the left or right depending on how you have to execute the movement.

Exactly. Combat has innumerable variables. The kata does not show how to get to the given angle, because it’s can’t possibly know ahead of time i.e. the relative movement of the combatants, the surrounding environment, what has happened in the preceding moment, etc. So, the kata shows the angel to be at (linked with the preceding sequence of the kata; which may be unrelated) but not the specific motion required to get to that angle, because the kata can’t possibly know what that would be.

I hope that helps.

All the best,

Iain

betherslarry
betherslarry's picture

Greetings Chris!!

I have been studying Heian Shodan for the past 52 years.  I have been searching for bunkai for the past 40 plus years and have discovered something of a code to the kata.  The step left in Heian Shodan tells you that the attack is coming from your opponent's right side.  This allows you to also address the attack from the front.  The step indicates you should "get off the X" by stepping to the 11:00 o'clock position (your opponent is always at your 12:00 o'clock) to avoid the attack.  The stack position can be used to deflect the attack and at the same time punch to the tip of the 11th rib (Liver 13 for the TCM crowd).  This will cause the opponent to bend over slightly and the punch is delivered as at strike to the carotid sinus and a "neck ring throw".  Check it out and lemme know what you think.  The downward "block" can be used as a hammer fist strike to L 13.

Larry G. Bethers

Professor, 8th Dan

Chow Hoon Goshin Jjitsu

Kenneth Poulsen
Kenneth Poulsen's picture

Greetings all!

This is my opinion on the angling move in Heian Shodan.

 

I spent 4 weeks of hard bunkai work and analyzing on this one technique - and it became the start of my ongoing "Bunkai-phase" on the old techniques from the Katas, from before Karate was named Empty Hands. I have just had a quiet and solitary 1-year celebration for myself recently on this ongoing work.

The question if you should step right or step left in the opening sequence of Heian Shodan, is (imho) depending on your opponent using his Left or Right hand to grab on to your shoulder/upper arm, in the conflict you are having with him, as seen in the short video above.

Heian Shodan shows, that the opponent is using his left hand in the first move.

That is if you use a ToriTe (Translation: Escape/Release) version of the Bunkai, strictly following Itosu Anko Sensei’s rule of "releasing hand" from his 10 Precepts, as I have come to understand it in the last year.

You would do the Entering/Connecting phase by grabbing his wrist, and slightly lowering your weight, releasing your knee from their lock, and tucking your pelvis in under you to "connect" him to your structure, and enabling you to use Back-pressure instead of only using brute force.

Then you would use the first hip-rotation as the Countering phase along with the forward Weight shift from the Senkutzu dachi and pushing your Hikete arm slightly forward opening up - ready to receive and pulling upwards on the elbow,

You would use the Second part of the hip rotation as the Release part along with pulling downwards with your left hand and securing his elbow with your Hikete. (Btw: I seem to recall, that Hikete literaly means something like "Pulling or Pushing hand"?)

Countering as I understand it is NOT you getting "in there and doing some damage to your opponent" when we are talking about these old techniques from before Karate was understood as Empty hand - it is in Traditional karate though! It is actually the other way round, where you are countering your opponents possibility for doing damage to you. (Notice where his "dangerous" shoulder is, when I do my Release - and imagine his possibility for hitting me with that unchecked hand at that point in time).

This is seen from 0:40 in this short video. (Or more correctly - it is the Gedan Uke that I show - I did not know any better at that time. If you want to use the Gedan barrai, then you would use an underhand grip as the "enter" phase instead)

(No wonder they only did Oral explanations of these techniques back then according to the 10 precepts "There are may oral instructions to this" - it took me all the above describing a simple Gedan barai in the Old ToriTe style)

The next move in Heian Shodan according to my observations is to rotate your Hikete hand so the the fingers are pointing up, while starting to step forward, while maintaining the grip on his wrist, and then simply push his elbow forward using your right Tsuki hand, while at the same time pulling backwards with your left Hikete arm in the direction of your hip (like doing a normal Tsuki, but with shorter distance between your fists), and you throw him. This is the Finishing move for that "Conflict".

Please use caution when doing this throw - it is surprisingly hard and effective (and I speak from a painfull personal experience as UKE, before I knew how hard this throw actually was when being done full speed).

I would also like to appologize for not grabbing his elbow directly on the Entering phase in the video in the sequence about the Uchi uke - again, I did not know any better at the time the video was made. At least I got the Entering phase on the "sister-technique" for Uchi Uke somewhat correct, when I did the Morotte Uke .

I hope this gives you my take on the often asked "angle" question in relation to the Heian katas.

(@Dom: The Transitions in the Katas are according to my observations not "showing how to get around an opponent", they are actually the exact opposite, when using these old techniques - they show how to bring an opponent around you - or more precisely, how to move with an opponent beside you, while he is "unstructured/walking on glass" as a consequence of the Countering - and bringing him into a position where you can safely do a Releasing and Finishing technique).

Kind regards, respectfully

Kenneth

Kenneth Poulsen
Kenneth Poulsen's picture

Greetings all,

I do not seem to be able to edit my last post - it is locked somehow?

I wanted to change the video to a shorter one about the gedan uke alone, that also showed the stepping into the Finishing technique (whithout actually doing the throw). But I can upload it here instead.

(Gedan barai is possible, just turn your grip 180 degree around on the Entering step in the technique).

Kind regards

Kenneth

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Hi Kenneth,

Kenneth Poulsen wrote:
I do not seem to be able to edit my last post - it is locked somehow?

You need to click on the tab in the bottom right corner. I’m not sure why it is not displaying for you. You can’t delete posts, but you can edit them.

All the best,

Iain

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

HI All,

Kenneth Poulsen wrote:
That is if you use a ToriTe (Translation: Escape/Release) version of the Bunkai, strictly following Itosu Anko Sensei’s rule of "releasing hand" from his 10 Precepts, as I have come to understand it in the last year.

You would do the Entering/Connecting phase by grabbing his wrist …

Just to add an alternative view here. Itosu’s 6th precept does indeed state:

“Enter, counter, withdraw is the rule for torite.”

The translation I commissioned can be found here:

https://iainabernethy.co.uk/article/10-precepts-anko-itosu

Worth mentioning that I had to pay top dollar for a specialist translator because Itosu’s document is not in modern Japanese. The first translators I approached declined to do it because they did not feel they could translate it accurately.  

Furthermore, the trouble we can sometimes have, when moving from one language to another, is subtleties in the original can get lost. The English word “enter” is therefore an approximation of what the original text stated.

I’m informed by professional translators that the text Itosu used – which is translated to “enter” – has connotations of forceful action (i.e. barging / penetrating / invading). This is obviously lost in translation because there is no direct equivalent in English. A more neutral “enter” is therefore felt to be the closest we can get.

I’m also informed that the sentiment of the precept, when read in the original language, infers an initial forceful action. I therefore don’t think “connecting” would be an accurate expression of Itosu’s precept. The act of grabbing the enemy’s wrist would not fit with the forceful action Itosu is describing.  I understand the precept to mean something akin to:

To release grips (torite) seize the initiative and do damage (“enter”), release the grip (“counter”) and then escape (“withdraw”).

This to me is solid self-protection advice because grips are every difficult to release unless the enemy is distracted, disoriented or in pain. At seminars I call this, “being the angry cat” i.e. be viscous and relentless such that you become something the enemy loses all desire to hold onto.

I therefore interpret that precept differently based on what two professional translators have independently told me about the text. I also feel that that understanding is more fitting with my preferences and experiences combatively.

All the best,

Iain

Kenneth Poulsen
Kenneth Poulsen's picture

Greetings all, (And Osu Sensei Iain)

I totally agree on the difficulty of translating the old Kanji's - and I have a deep respect, that you paid to get them re-translated (and the difficulties and work in finding someone, who actually felt they could do it!)

I have read and watched (many times) your post about the 10 precepts, and they have given me much insight. I would also politely point at the work done by Andreas Quast on these precepts as well - specifically in these two papers (First paper is about the 6'th precept, second paper is about the 1'st precept and Translation challenges in general):

http://ryukyu-bugei.com/?p=2178

First of all, as I don’t trust anyone I tried to re-interpret the original text again:

#6. Practice each of the skills of karate repeatedly. Attentively devote yourself to the meaning of each individual technique and make sure to apply them according to all possible circumstances. In addition, there are the methods of entering, receiving, releasing, and seizing. To these there are many oral instructions.

The above is his translation (if I read his article correctly), and the popular Google-translation for this would be:

#6. Practice each of the techniques of karate repeatedly, the use of which is passed by word of mouth. Learn the explanations well, and decide when and in what manner to apply them when needed. Enter, counter, release is the rule of releasing hand (torite).

In this next article he writes about some of these exact Translation difficulties, of which I see at least four different difficulties:

1. The direct translation from the old Kanjies (ie. Understanding and interpreting these Kanjies as precisely as possible by "a translator of today")

2. When you try to directly make sence of these original translations without "considering any circumstances, intentions, or anything else of the era and topic"

3. When you try to "re-interpret" to account for the above - and inadvertantly will "frame" the translations into a given mindset - in this example an Okinawan Karate Masters framwork.

4. Finally when you try to frame them in practical applications.

Andreas Quast actually did a translation of the 1'st precept, which in its original (raw) translation supports the patterns I am working through - but which in their "Re-translation" to accomodate for point 2 above actually supports the understanding you speak about in the post above, as I read it?

This I find very interesting - not in a question of being right or wrong, but in the difficulties in translating these old Kanjies. I have added both the Raw and the Re-translated texts beneith

http://ryukyu-bugei.com/?p=6045

Very well. Let’s re-examine it. I will spare you the original text in Japanese, but the following is the translation of it, as good as possible:

"Karate is not merely limited to train physical education, but also strengthens the intent to formally consecrate one’s own body and life at any time, without regret, loyal and courageously for ruler and parents. One should never bear the intention to wage a fight against an adversary. Therefore, should the unlikely event (or emergency) occur that one encounters a thief, burglar, or robber, or an otherwise lawless person, thou shalt as much as possible avoid striking. The quintessence should be, by word of honor, to never injure human beings by means of one’s fists and feet."

The following paraphrase resorted to the scholarly assessment of the text by an Okinawan karate master (sorry, I don’t share my sources in this blog post):

"Karate does not only serve the purpose of physical education of individual private persons, in fact not at all. In case that serious affairs should befall lord and parents in the times ahead, it means to take upon oneself the moral duty to consecrate oneself without hesitation and at any time, without even sparing one’s own body and life, with justice and courage, for the progress of society and empire. Therefore, it is by no means intended to fight against one enemy. Because this being the case, in the unlikely event that you are attacked by a thief, burglar, or robber, or an otherwise lawless person, whenever practicable you should act towards bringing to bear your everyday training, skillfully handle the situation well, and put him to flight. Never intend to harm a person by punches or kicks. This is the true spirit of karate and it is what you want to deeply engrave on your heart."

My points with the above writing is not to disagree with your assesment and understanding (well, perhaps a little politely disagreement for the sake of the discussion in this thread ;-) ...), but more to politely point out the possibility, that there could be several meanings to the above - all depending on the Timeperiod, situation and Frameset they are seen through?

My biggest obstacle in this year long work with these old techniques has actually been my "Karate-mindset", that time and time again got me to revert to try finding the next continuing technique in Punches, Kicks and Blocks, and into the "doing damage" thinking you so precisely describes above. Not that this is bad, I totally agree on your Self-defence thinking and frameset ... It was just that each time I managed to look outside this "box" or frameset, then another technique - or a logic following up for a given technique revealed itself.

It was and is like looking at a white and black Yin/Yang symbol - on a white background, and trying to see the white part of this symbol, without actually "knowing in advance" that it was there?

In these Corona times I must try to convice my Wife to work with me to try and film one of the Heian katas in its entirety using these release-techniques, and also getting her to do a couple of the older techniques that they seem to be built from to show the difference (Enter, Release, Counter in the Older katas, instead of Enter, Counter Release in the Heian katas)?

I hope it will be OK not to do the Throws or the Hard locks in these videos, and to do the techniques slow - I hope, that it would be understood as intended, if I continue to the throw without a grip on her elbow and wrist - or without doing the techniques in full speed?. (She is not trained in any way in any Martial arts, and we only have a wooden floor in our living-room - so until I find a training partner who is used to working with similar techniques, this is as good as I can get it to be, and I politely hope this is OK?).

With the kindest and politest greetings

Kenneth

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

 Hi Kenneth,

Kenneth Poulsen wrote:
I totally agree on the difficulty of translating the old Kanji's - and I have a deep respect, that you paid to get them re-translated (and the difficulties and work in finding someone, who actually felt they could do it!)

I did this precisely because of the potential biases you mention in your post. A martial artist could introduce their own understating consciously or unconsciously. Therefore, my commissioned translation was done by a language specialist with no knowledge of martial arts. The “second opinion” I got was from another professional translator, who did have extensive martial arts knowledge, but crucially also has the specialist knowledge needed for older texts.

I don’t have the personal knowledge to test the veracity of their guidance, but I have no reason to doubt it. I can look at this logically and through the lens of my combative experience through.

The translation itself could be either right or wrong:

1) If it is right (“enter” infers a forceful action), then Itosu’s guidance on escaping grips is sound and in line with my personal experience the experience of many others I know. I would therefore deem Itosu’s advice to be good.

2) If the translation is wrong (“enter” refers a passive connection of limbs) then Itosu’s guidance on escaping grips is not sound, in my view, and counter to my personal experience the experience of many others I know. I would therefore deem Itosu’s advice to be poor and would not follow it.

My training and outlook is therefore based primarily on combinative utility. A professional translator – who is not a martial artist and who is entirely unaware of my personal position – translated the text in a way that reflects my position. I therefore feel comfortable in my belief that Itosu knew what he was doing, and I can use the quote in suggesting the approach to grips I employ was the same as Itosu’s.

Away from Itosu, we can see a forceful approach taken to dealing with grips throughout the literature. For example, Article 16 of the Bubishi deals specifically with grappling and escapes:

“When being strangled, counter by slapping the ears or attacking the ribs”

“If an adversary grabs your legs, slap the ears with both hands”

“If someone grabs your clothing, attack them with your knee”

And so on.

Article 29 (the 48 self-defence diagrams) continues in a similar way. The language is poetic, but it shows hair pulls, neck cranks, ear slaps, groin grabs, eye strikes, etc all in direct response to grabs.

We can also look at the writings of other masters too to see the idea of forcefully seizing the initiative being expressed. For example:

“In a real confrontation, more than anything else one should strike to the face first, as this is most effective.” – Motobu

“When a situation can't be avoided and the enemy is intent on doing you serious harm, you must fight ferociously. When one does fight, taking control of the enemy is vital, and one must take that control with the very first move.” –Motobu

When we put all of this together, I feel seeing “enter” as forceful action is the stronger position. We have:

1) An independent, valid and confirmed translation that suggests that was the intent (accepting translations are difficult and differing ones do exist).

2) We have a wider set of literature supporting the idea that seizing the initiative with forceful action was deemed key, and that this was a well-documented approach to dealing with grips.

3) We have the repeated experience that dealing with grips by directly attacking the grip is less effective than attacking the person gripping such that the ability and desire to maintain the grip is diminished / removed.

I accept others hold differing options. I am solely seeking to express my own view, and the reasons for it, so people can weigh up all the differing viewpoints and reach the conclusion they feel is most likely to be the correct one historically and combatively.

Kenneth Poulsen wrote:
My points with the above writing is not to disagree with your assesment and understanding (well, perhaps a little politely disagreement for the sake of the discussion in this thread ;-) ...), but more to politely point out the possibility, that there could be several meanings to the above - all depending on the Timeperiod, situation and Frameset they are seen through?

I full appreciate your motivation and it’s very much in accord with my own. I appreciate you carefully articulating your position and I hope this thread, and the differing viewpoints within, is useful to readers when formulation their own conclusions.

All the best,

Iain