11 posts / 0 new
Last post
dhogsette
dhogsette's picture
Chicken Beak Technique in Gojushiho

Hello,

Here is another short sequence from my Chinese New Year Gojushiho demonstration. Here, I'm looking at a possible wrist-release application for the chicken beak technique, as performed in the Matsubayashi version of the kata. I was never too fond of the using that technique to block kicks (would probably break the fingers or damage the wrist) or to strike joints or the bicep or soft spot behind the collar bone (though I suppose those could work if you developed enough finger strength, but in a real confrontation, targeting such small areas with the finger tips seems unlikely with an adrenalin dump...). I've found the circular motion and clinching the fingers to be an effective way to release a wrist grab. Anyway, it's nothing fancy, but I think it's practical. Any other views on how to apply this technique would be much appreciated. 

Best,

David 

Marc
Marc's picture

Hi David, thanks for the idea of a wrist release as an option for that technique. Never thought of it that way. The motion would certainly be applicable in that manner. Also the two consecutive down and up variations of the technique can be seen as alternatives depending on different ways the wrist has been grabbed (high, low, same-side, cross).

What it does not explain is why the author of the kata chose this special and quite unusual fingers-together shape to demonstrate the priciples of wrist release when a regular open hand woud have sufficed.

Again, thanks for posting these videos of your demonstration. It's easy to follow and presented with a touch of humor. I'm sure it was a success. :)  

Wastelander
Wastelander's picture

Ah, yes, the famous Gojushiho bird-beak movement--a quirky movement that most people like to pretend isn't there :P. The application you show here is perfectly reasonable, but I think Marc is right in that it doesn't address the hand formation. Of course, the hand formation isn't generally the most important component of any application, and can be changed to suit whatever situation you might be in at the time. That said, I would like to put forward a couple ideas.

One way of looking at the "shorthand" of kata is from the perspective that touching your body indicates where you are attacking your opponent's body--this can be seen in the nami-gaeshi of Naihanchi, or the "supported blocks" of various other kata, for example. In this instance, the fingers are touching each other, indicating that you could be attacking your opponent's fingers. This movement does work quite well as a finger lock, so that could certainly be the case. I'm not saying that it is, necessarily, but it could be.

Another way of looking at it is to say that the hand formation guides the movement. The simplest way of looking at this is from a clinching situation, where you can "swim" around your opponent's arm. Grapplers and clinchwork specialists often use hand formations similar to the "chicken head" or "crane head" formations found in kata in order to facilitate these swimming motions, because they fit around their opponent's limbs. Personally, this is my preferred approach to looking at this movement in Gojushiho, but again, that's just me.

Finally, you can look at the simple, straight-forward striking applications for the movement. It can strike with the "beak" both downward and upward, and can also strike with the back of the "head" coming across. That doesn't necessarily mean that you need to try to do all three, of course, but they are all present in the movement. Now, it's been meantioned that you need to have a lot of finger strength for these, but I haven't found that to be the case if you strike the way Ryan Parker Sensei suggests, here. Additonally, you can get surprisingly accurate with this when you have a hold of your opponent, as the hikite implies. I've been able to dig my thumb into the underside of the chin or into the suprasternal notch in this manner fairly easily, and I can sneak in strikes with the back of the wrist fairly easily, as well. Granted, this has all been in sparring/randori-type exchanges, rather than real life, and it's not a fight-ender, but it's a nice tool to have.

dhogsette
dhogsette's picture

Hello,

Marc, yes, I didn't explain the hand formation per se (this was more of a demo than an instructional context). In working this application, I find that the hand structure can be effective for snaking around the wrist or arm, as Noah mentioned. The tension created by the position helps strengthen the movement and make the circular motions more effective. I don't know if that is the original purpose, but I do note that is a benefit of that hand position. It seems to aid in making the small circle movements. 

I know some people can use that hand position as a strike. But as I mention in my opening blurb, I don't find that effective, but some people can do it well. My fingers are not strong enough for that kind of strike, and I don't do hand/finger strengthening as I've seen some people advocate (striking pebbles or rice bags and such with the clinched fingers). I think strikes to soft targets with the clinched fingers could work, but you need great control and fine motor skills to hit the eye just so, or the throat or neck with the small surface of the clinched fingers. I think in a real situation, that is unlikely or at least very difficult. I'd rather use an ear slap and then grab the head and push my thumbs in his eye instead of trying for the beak strike to the eye. So, I don't like such explanations, but I don't discount them completely, as some people may train to perform them accurately. 

Also, I've worked blocking and striking using the bent wrist formed by the chicken beak position, and it can be a block that winds up nicely for a downward palm-heel strike: you can pop the guy's arm up and to the side with the curved part of the wrist in the chicken beak position, and then smash down on his face, nose, or collar bone with the palm-heel strike. These can be effective, but the motion is not what is depicted in the kata (at least as I perform it). 

So, thus far, it seems to me the wrist release, using the snaking motion augmented by the chicken beak shape is a viable and practical application. I'm certainly open for other possibilities!

Best,

David 

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Marc wrote:
What it does not explain is why the author of the kata chose this special and quite unusual fingers-together shape to demonstrate the principles of wrist release when a regular open hand would have sufficed.

One possibility is that a less formal hand position, indicative of the “snaking motion” David discusses, was what the creator of the kata included i.e. fingers all loosely pointing in the direction of the movement, and not in a formal “chicken beak”.

That’s essentially what Noah describes here:

Wastelander wrote:
Grapplers and clinchwork specialists often use hand formations similar to the "chicken head" or "crane head" formations found in kata in order to facilitate these swimming motions, because they fit around their opponent's limbs.

As kata gets “formalised” over time – a process all kata have been through – we see the hand position “neatened”; while at the same time less thought is given to the application of the movement. We then have the situation where the new exacting hand position is considered fundamental by later generations … after all it’s pretty quirky so it must be the key point of the movement? It could instead be that it was just a relaxed open-hand originally, in-keeping with the snaking directional movement, and not the formal chicken beak of today.

If that was the case – and it’s certainly very plausible – then it could be a mistake to focus in on the hand position and we’d be better looking at the totality of the sequence i.e. let the sequence define the exact hand position; as opposed to letting the hand position define the sequence. I think that’s what David has done. So we could put forth the view that the application does not explain the exact hand position because the exact hand position was not there originally and is explained by subsequent formalisation.

All the best,

Iain

Kevin73
Kevin73's picture

I like that explanation on the movement.  When I first watched it, it reminded me of a hand formation that is similar in Uechi-Ryu.  I don't know the formal name of it, but the fingers are kept together and folded at about a 90 degree angle and the thumb anchors it on the index finger.  Application I saw was using it to strike with downward in the spot behind the clavicle bone.

Marc
Marc's picture

Iain Abernethy wrote:

Marc wrote:
What it does not explain is why the author of the kata chose this special and quite unusual fingers-together shape to demonstrate the principles of wrist release when a regular open hand would have sufficed.

One possibility is that a less formal hand position, indicative of the “snaking motion” David discusses, was what the creator of the kata included i.e. fingers all loosely pointing in the direction of the movement, and not in a formal “chicken beak”.

As kata gets “formalised” over time – a process all kata have been through – we see the hand position “neatened”; while at the same time less thought is given to the application of the movement. We then have the situation where the new exacting hand position is considered fundamental by later generations … after all it’s pretty quirky so it must be the key point of the movement? It could instead be that it was just a relaxed open-hand originally, in-keeping with the snaking directional movement, and not the formal chicken beak of today.

If that was the case – and it’s certainly very plausible – then it could be a mistake to focus in on the hand position and we’d be better looking at the totality of the sequence i.e. let the sequence define the exact hand position; as opposed to letting the hand position define the sequence. I think that’s what David has done. So we could put forth the view that the application does not explain the exact hand position because the exact hand position was not there originally and is explained by subsequent formalisation.

I feel we might be on the right track here. It makes all the more sense when whe compare the chicken beak sequence with the corresponding sequence in other versions of Gojushiho.

Namely in Shotokan the chicken beak appears in one version of Gojushiho after two combinations of gyaku-gedan-nukite and uraken (just to give them a name for reference) and before mae-geri and the gedan-barai turn. In its other version of Gojushiho we have the sequence of two combinations of gyaku-jodan-shuto-uchi (from outside) and jodan-shuto-uchi (from inside) which correspond to the nukite/uraken combinations, then a gyaku-uchi-uke (in-to-out), then mae-geri, hiza-geri and the gedan-barai turn.

When we compare these, the down and up chicken beak (right hand) corresponds to the gyaku-uchi-uke (right hand).

Now, when we follow the paths of the right hand/arm in both versions they indeed appear similar. Just try to do your uchi-uke with chicken beak hand formation or your chicken beak sequence with closed fists, and you'll see.

So the idea that the right hand at this point in the kata is supposed to sneak through limbs in some sort of close grappling looks quite appealing to me. I will certainly go and experiment with it.

Compare many more versions of Gojushiho as performed by a member of this forum:

Also read Mike's forum post for reference of the many versions presented in his video:

http://iainabernethy.co.uk/content/gojushiho

Take care everybody

Marc

dhogsette
dhogsette's picture

Iain Abernethy wrote:

As kata gets “formalised” over time – a process all kata have been through – we see the hand position “neatened”; while at the same time less thought is given to the application of the movement. We then have the situation where the new exacting hand position is considered fundamental by later generations … after all it’s pretty quirky so it must be the key point of the movement? It could instead be that it was just a relaxed open-hand originally, in-keeping with the snaking directional movement, and not the formal chicken beak of today.

If that was the case – and it’s certainly very plausible – then it could be a mistake to focus in on the hand position and we’d be better looking at the totality of the sequence i.e. let the sequence define the exact hand position; as opposed to letting the hand position define the sequence. I think that’s what David has done. So we could put forth the view that the application does not explain the exact hand position because the exact hand position was not there originally and is explained by subsequent formalisation.

I really like and appreciate this principle, noting how formalization of kata may affect our interpretations of them. That makes great sense to me. However, I can just hear some of my traditionalist friends and superiors (in rank) having a fit about that. "Who are you to question the formalization of the kata? You are only a such and such Dan...you can't question that or dismiss it as formalization! You need more guidance and direction by higher ranking people in the organization before making such claims. Our founder performed and taught the kata that way for a reason; who are you to question that?" Sigh... I'm just curious, have you encountered resistance to the notion that formalization of certain postures and positions may actually mask or obscure original intention of the movement? How do you address such resistance? (I hope I'm not opening up an ugly can of worms or picking at a scab, but I sometimes encounter that sort of reaction--one main reason I feel I've found a home here, as people are free to question and pursue ideas w/out unreasonable pushback. I'm sincerely interested in strategies for addressing this kind of negative reaction. And, thanks for creating and maintaining such an open and supportive, yet intellectually honest and martially responsible, forum!)

Best,

David

Wastelander
Wastelander's picture

dhogsette wrote:

Iain Abernethy wrote:

As kata gets “formalised” over time – a process all kata have been through – we see the hand position “neatened”; while at the same time less thought is given to the application of the movement. We then have the situation where the new exacting hand position is considered fundamental by later generations … after all it’s pretty quirky so it must be the key point of the movement? It could instead be that it was just a relaxed open-hand originally, in-keeping with the snaking directional movement, and not the formal chicken beak of today.

If that was the case – and it’s certainly very plausible – then it could be a mistake to focus in on the hand position and we’d be better looking at the totality of the sequence i.e. let the sequence define the exact hand position; as opposed to letting the hand position define the sequence. I think that’s what David has done. So we could put forth the view that the application does not explain the exact hand position because the exact hand position was not there originally and is explained by subsequent formalisation.

I really like and appreciate this principle, noting how formalization of kata may affect our interpretations of them. That makes great sense to me. However, I can just hear some of my traditionalist friends and superiors (in rank) having a fit about that. "Who are you to question the formalization of the kata? You are only a such and such Dan...you can't question that or dismiss it as formalization! You need more guidance and direction by higher ranking people in the organization before making such claims. Our founder performed and taught the kata that way for a reason; who are you to question that?" Sigh... I'm just curious, have you encountered resistance to the notion that formalization of certain postures and positions may actually mask or obscure original intention of the movement? How do you address such resistance? (I hope I'm not opening up an ugly can of worms or picking at a scab, but I sometimes encounter that sort of reaction--one main reason I feel I've found a home here, as people are free to question and pursue ideas w/out unreasonable pushback. I'm sincerely interested in strategies for addressing this kind of negative reaction. And, thanks for creating and maintaining such an open and supportive, yet intellectually honest and martially responsible, forum!)

Best,

David

Since Iain isn't beholden to an overseeing organization that enforces standard formalization, I doubt he has to deal with this all that much, although I can't speak to his experience, of course. I know I have come across it in the organization I am a part of, and I think there is a definite "idol worship" component involved. People want to believe that their Sensei is/was infallable, and so they want to do everything exactly the way their Sensei does/did so they can one day become just as infallable. Questioning how something is done is the same as questioning that infallability and, as with most strongly held beliefs, the typical response to this is anger.

I haven't really found much of a way around this, except to get support from as high up as you can, which isn't always possible. I am lucky in that my Sensei does things a little differently, because his Sensei does things a bit differently, because his Sensei (the head of the organization) believes that--and I quote: "Small difference not important. Big picture important." Of course, not everyone is willing to accept this statement. He constantly says that things are flexible, and can be changed to fit you and your opponent, but most people don't listen. They want a "correct" answer to parrot when teaching or debating whether someone else is doing things the right way or not. The idea that everyone's karate can be different and still correct doesn't fit into that mindset.

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Marc wrote:
I feel we might be on the right track here. It makes all the more sense when we compare the chicken beak sequence with the corresponding sequence in other versions of Gojushiho ... So the idea that the right hand at this point in the kata is supposed to sneak through limbs in some sort of close grappling looks quite appealing to me. I will certainly go and experiment with it.

That’s always a useful part of the process. If the formal “chicken beak” was vital and there from the beginning, then we could expect to see it in all versions. Looking at other versions of the form is a little like looking at a familiar object from a different angle. It helps us better understand the totality.

dhogsette wrote:
have you encountered resistance to the notion that formalization of certain postures and positions may actually mask or obscure original intention of the movement? How do you address such resistance?

I have. In the first instance have pointed out that formalisation is an undeniable part of karate history. It has some benefits in giving a fixed datum to aspire toward in solo performance and that can greatly increase body awareness, muscle control and quality of movement. However, lots of this formalisation was done at a time where bunkai was no longer widely practised. I don’t think it ever greatly obscures the intent, but it does need to be considered. I have an exercise I sometimes do at seminars called “400 years of karate history in 30 mins”. Essentially I get people to create mini-kata which we then put through the historical wringer i.e. teach it without bunkai, have differing styles develop, formalise it, etc. When people try to decode the final kata they get to check their bunkai with the creator … and it’s never far off despite the changes that kata may have undergone. Anyhow, back on point …

I would explain that formalisation happened, and that historical fact is neither “friend” nor “foe”. No one is saying that it makes the kata less valuable, that it means the kata is flawed, or that the kata needs to be altered from its current version. We just need to acknowledge it has been formaised in order to best understand them. If that puts them at ease, we can then discuss the fact of the matter. If it does not, and they are arguing from a defensive, dogmatic or denialist position, then I’d write the conversation off as pointless. No one is going to gain from it and no good can come from it.

Wastelander wrote:
Since Iain isn't beholden to an overseeing organization that enforces standard formalization, I doubt he has to deal with this all that much, although I can't speak to his experience, of course …

In the early days I was very lucky to have teachers who always treated their students as thinking adults. High technical standards, giving it your all in intense sessions, etc were non-negotiable. Thinking for yourself, training with other people, bringing knowledge into the group, etc were never seen as “blasphemy” though and were in fact actively encouraged. Being raised that way, I would not have it any other way. I have therefore sought out subsequent instruction that is in keeping with that mind-set. I would not be part of a group that sought to keep me in perpetual infancy. Peter Consterdine 9th dan – one of my teachers and head of both the World and British Combat Association – states that, “As soon as you try to build walls around people, the first thing they want to do is climb them”. That thinking is one of the reasons why the BCA is one of the biggest groups in the UK, while the more totalitarian organisations are shrinking in size and number.

Back to the formalisation of kata, all the kata I do are exactly as I was taught them. I’ve not tweaked them in any way at all because I see no reason to. I acknowledge they are formalised and standardised versions of the kata, but I don’t think that causes any issues.

Wastelander wrote:
"Small difference not important. Big picture important." Of course, not everyone is willing to accept this statement. He constantly says that things are flexible, and can be changed to fit you and your opponent, but most people don't listen. They want a "correct" answer to parrot when teaching or debating whether someone else is doing things the right way or not. The idea that everyone's karate can be different and still correct doesn't fit into that mindset.

That’s a healthy attitude and, perhaps paradoxically, a very traditional one. The notion that there is one, unchanging, ever correct, right way for everyone is not something we see echoed in the traditional literature. Progress and individualism are a vital part of true traditional karate.

All the best,

Iain

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

dhogsette wrote:
one main reason I feel I've found a home here, as people are free to question and pursue ideas w/out unreasonable pushback … thanks for creating and maintaining such an open and supportive, yet intellectually honest and martially responsible, forum!

You are welcome! Very proud to be the host of this forum! We were lucky in that from day one a “tone” was established that has continued to attract the right people and put off trolls. Some great people that together provide a great resource for our community.

All the best,

Iain