22 posts / 0 new
Last post
Cataphract
Cataphract's picture
The origin of kata

Hello! :-)

Here are some ideas that I'd like to discuss. I don't believe in historicity as some kind of fetish. Every bunkai that works is valid bunkai. Speculating and comparing is fun though, and could lead to different perspectives and new (or old) bunkai.

The second form "24 steps" (二十四步) in this video displays some striking similarities to Naihanchi - the sideways action, cross stepping, stomping and some of the hand patterns. 二十四步 is pronounced Nijushiho in Japanese. The colloquial Hokkien pronunciation used to be nn̄g-cha̍p-sì with a rasping h sound. Sounds a little something like Naihanchi to me. The video's description hints at a connection to Five Ancestors Fist, which in turn influenced Karate.

I find some degree of connection plausible.

Roots of Shotokan by Joe Swift sums up what people have written about Naihanchi's/Tekki's origin.

Cataphract
Cataphract's picture

Ok, another one. Seisan/Hangetsu is said to be derived from the "four gates"/zimen (四门) form. I think that is true. Some variant of that form is taught in most Fujianese boxing styles directly after Sanchin. There is lots of reference material on YouTube.

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

Cataphract wrote:
The second form "24 steps" (二十四步) in this video displays some striking similarities to Naihanchi - the sideways action, cross stepping, stomping and some of the hand patterns.

The form does go in a straight line, but it is forward and back (like some versions of sanchin) and not side to side. The hands spend most of the time mirroring one another, which is not something we find in Naihanchi. There is some stomping, but it’s not down in a way that resembles the “returning wave kick” of Naihanchi. I’m therefore not seeing an meaningful similarities. The two forms are different in direction, order of technique, and indeed nature of technique.

Cataphract wrote:
二十四步 is pronounced Nijushiho in Japanese. The colloquial Hokkien pronunciation used to be nn̄g-cha̍p-sì with a rasping h sound. Sounds a little something like Naihanchi to me. The video's description hints at a connection to Five Ancestors Fist, which in turn influenced Karate.

I don’t think we can make connections based on similarities of pronunciation, especially when we are moving across languages and pronunciations. It also need remembered that we have no firm idea of what “Naihanchi” means because it has always been written in katakana (characters with sound and no meaning) and while it is possible to substitute kanji to make the “right” sounds and guess at a meaning (as some do), you run into the problem of changing pronunciations over time i.e. is “Naihanchi” a local pronunciation of a word that was originally pronounced quite differently?  We are also making the assumption that modern and older pronunciations are the same … whereas we know this is rarely the case.

Cataphract wrote:
The video's description hints at a connection to Five Ancestors Fist, which in turn influenced Karate.

They are clear that the history of the form is very unclear though: “The history of these styles is quite confusing with different branches claiming very different histories”

Cataphract wrote:
I find some degree of connection plausible.

The forms seem very different to me. I’d also caution against positing a connection purely on the similar sounding names for the reasons stated above. Homonyms (especially across languages) does not imply that they are the words are cognate.

All the best,

Iain

Cataphract
Cataphract's picture

Hi Iain,

it's hard to argue with that. It's perfectly reasonable if you don't buy my theory. But still it is the closest thing to Naihanchi in China that I've seen so far.

Iain Abernethy wrote:
The form does go in a straight line, but it is forward and back (like some versions of sanchin) and not side to side.

But what is forward and what is sideways in a kata? Is it determined by the direction of your toes, eyes or movement of center of mass? More importantly, where is the focus of your interest?

Motobu Choki said: "Twisting to the left or right from the Naifuanchin stance will give you the stance used in a real confrontation. Twisting ones way of thinking about Naifuanchin left and right, the various meanings in each movement of the kata will also become clear."

Naihanchi goes forward and backward according to Motobu. That is what I see the second person in the video doing, standing in a slightly oblique horse stance. He is not in a perfect kiba dachi but close.

Also compare this video. The Half Hill/Half Crane style was mentioned as a possible origin of Naihanchi in the article I linked to earlier. Fighting to your sides from kiba dachi seems to be common in older Crane associated systems. That stance is not that far from Sanchin/Hangetsu dachi either. It's more or less a continuum.

Incidently boxing pioneer Daniel Mendoza fought in kiba dachi.

Iain Abernethy wrote:
We are also making the assumption that modern and older pronunciations are the same … whereas we know this is rarely the case.

That was taken into account. The romanization is in Pe̍h-ōe-jī which should represent 19th century everyday spoken language. Whatever the meaning of "Naihanchi" was, if there are no technical similarities visible, that video is of no use to Karate anyway.

Iain Abernethy wrote:
The forms seem very different to me.

That's true of course. What really got me was the cross step at the beginning, the symmetry and the gedan barai, kagi tsuki combinations after turning (1:29, 1:40). Naihanchi would have branched off of a cousin form some 150 years ago. So again, being sceptical is fine. It's just a theory.

PS: I admit there is no returning wave kick, while some styles in Fujian have it, e.g. some Nan Luohan traditions. I was referring to the stomps before heiden uke and after kagi tsuki.

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Thanks for the reply. Good points, well made.

Cataphract wrote:
But what is forward and what is sideways in a kata? Is it determined by the direction of your toes, eyes or movement of center of mass? More importantly, where is the focus of your interest?

Fair point. I would define it as where you move from relative to the datum set by your start position. “Forward” is not a direction in the same way “north” is. Forward is relative to the original orientation. The from you shared starts looking forward and then moves in that direction. Naihanchi, on the other hand, starts looking forward but then moves sideways from that position.

Cataphract wrote:
Motobu Choki said: "Twisting to the left or right from the Naifuanchin stance will give you the stance used in a real confrontation. Twisting ones way of thinking about Naifuanchin left and right, the various meanings in each movement of the kata will also become clear."

He did say that and it is a very important point when to comes to understanding the bunkai of the kata.

Cataphract wrote:
Naihanchi goes forward and backward according to Motobu.

I think that’s a stretch. The kata clearly goes sideways and Motobu’s point is that we are sideways on to the enemy when applying the kata.

Cataphract wrote:
That was taken into account. The romanization is in Pe̍h-ōe-jī which should represent 19th century everyday spoken language. Whatever the meaning of "Naihanchi" was, if there are no technical similarities visible, that video is of no use to Karate anyway.

Apologies for not making myself clear. My point was we don’t know what the original pronunciation of “naihanchi” was. All we have to work with is the pronunciation of the name of the kata from a point in Okinawan history were the original meaning of the name was forgotten. We also don’t know from where the kata originated and therefore we can’t even make an educated guess … and even if we did know where the kata originated, it could easily be that the dialect had shifted over time. We can’t make a phonic comparison without knowing the original production of “naihanchi” and to do that we’d need to know when and where the kata originated and was first named … and if we try to work out when and where the kata originated from the name then we get caught in a logical loop i.e. to know B need to know A, but we can only know A if we know B.

We therefore can’t tie similar sounding names back to the origins of the kata, because we don’t know how the original name sounded … we just have the Okinawan pronunciation from later on in history. Does that make more sense?

Cataphract wrote:
Naihanchi would have branched off of a cousin form some 150 years ago. So again, being sceptical is fine. It's just a theory.

I would say it is more of a hypothesis … and they are always good to discuss and debate. It helps us learn and navigate these topics. That’s why I appreciate you posting and engaging in the related discussion.

All the best,

Iain

Cataphract
Cataphract's picture
Iain Abernethy wrote:
I would define it as where you move from relative to the datum set by your start position.

That's possible, but the four shuto uke in Heian shodan and nidan have different directions, for example. Yet my interpretation is the same for shodan and nidan.

Iain Abernethy wrote:
Does that make more sense?

Yeah, got it. :-)

Iain Abernethy wrote:
I would say it is more of a hypothesis …

Agreed, a connection to the form 24 in the video is very hypothetical. The theory is that this way of fighting from horse stance is close in spirit to the original creator of Naihanchi, forming the backdrop for an interpretation.

Motobu's style was pre Itosu and his opinion on stances was:

Zenkutsu and Kokutsu, are also inferior stances, hindering the free movement work of the legs. In My Karate the same stance work used in both kata and kumite, and is like the stance of Naifanchi.

And regarding Tomari no Naihanchi:

Mr. Fukuhara said that it is the case that “The foot should be raised forcefully, such as if pulling it out from the mud of a rice field.” Motobu Chōki disliked this kind of “thud, thud” footwork.

Thud, thud is exactly what we see in the referenced kung fu videos. Tomari te is arguably old school.

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Cataphract wrote:
That's possible, but the four shuto uke in Heian shodan and nidan have different directions, for example. Yet my interpretation is the same for shodan and nidan.

I interpret the angles as having significance. In line with what Mabuni said on the issue of angles:

https://iainabernethy.co.uk/comment/5745#comment-5745

Iain Abernethy wrote:
I would say it is more of a hypothesis …

Cataphract wrote:
Agreed, a connection to the form 24 in the video is very hypothetical. The theory is that this way of fighting from horse stance is close in spirit to the original creator of Naihanchi, forming the backdrop for an interpretation.

I meant in the scientific sense. A hypothesis is suggested as an explanation; and when it has been robustly tested and found to be solid it is elevated to the level of theory. Despite the everyday use of the word a “theory” is not “just a theory” … it’s been robustly tested.

Therefore, when you said it was “just a theory”, I suggested it was more of a hypothesis because there is not sufficient evidence to lend it the robustness that a theory requires. You have put forth a hypothesis. I don’t think the claim of a link between the form shown and Naihanchi has enough evidence to support it (as expressed in above posts).

The thudding of the foot is not enough to link the two forms together. As already discussed, the stomping does not resemble the returning wave kick of Naihanchi … so, at best, all you have is a dissimilar motion with a common thud (in one of the versions) when the foot hits the floor. That’s nowhere near enough to put toward a claim of common origin. Lots of forms stamp the foot on the floor (Seipai for example). It’s all very circumstantial and I fear you are staring with a conclusion and looking for anything that would appear to support the conclusion; no matter how tenuous.

We should work the other way around. Start with an open mind and see where the evidence leads us. In this case, there is not the evidence to support the claim.

The forms are quite different, the linguistic claims on the name do not stand up to close examination, and the stamping of the foot is way too commonplace to be of any significance.

There’s not the evidence to support the claim. I therefore feel the logical thing to do is therefore accept the claim can currently not be asserted unless stronger evidence comes forward.

All the best,

Iain

Cataphract
Cataphract's picture
Iain Abernethy wrote:
I interpret the angles as having significance. In line with what Mabuni said on the issue of angles:

I can make sense of the 270° turn right before 2x2 shuto uke in Heian nidan and shodan. But I don't see any significance of the direction you looked in the beginning there. Maybe there is and I don't get it.

Iain Abernethy wrote:
The thudding of the foot is not enough to link the two forms together. As already discussed, the stomping does not resemble the returning wave kick of Naihanchi …

That was given to misunderstanding. I didn't mean namae gaeshi/returning wave kick. I stomp from kosa dachi into haiden uke and into uchi uke respectively.

Iain Abernethy wrote:
I meant in the scientific sense.

Of course. I understood it that way. I am also aware this is quite likely a bad case of apophenia and confirmation bias.

Thank you for your patience and input.

My personal takeaway is this. The frame of reference of the architects of kata was vastly different from mine. Probably closer in spirit to the old and obscure boxing system from Fujian. (Of which more and more surface on the internet fortunately.) Which is pretty weird for me with my preconceived notions of fighting. So far I've already changed my concept of kiba dachi which as I take it improved my understanding.

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Iain Abernethy wrote:
I interpret the angles as having significance. In line with what Mabuni said on the issue of angles:

Cataphract wrote:
I can make sense of the 270° turn right before 2x2 shuto uke in Heian nidan and shodan. But I don't see any significance of the direction you looked in the beginning there. Maybe there is and I don't get it.

My take is that the direction we start in defines “forward”, and therefore anything done at 45 degrees from that line should be applied at a 45-degree angle in relation to the enemy; as per Mabuni’s advice. When taking an angle we want to keep the enemy in front of us, but we do not want to be in front of the enemy. We also want to move toward any limb we have controlled or have tactile awareness of; and away from any limb the enemy has free.

Putting all this together, my take on the 45-degree shutos is that the back hand is controlling the enemy’s arm while the Shuto strikes the neck. We do this at an angle so we are away from the free arm. There are four Shutos because the enemy has two arms, and we can be to the inside or outside of the controlled arm (2 arms X 2 possibilities = 4 Shutos).

Easier to show and explain in person than in text, but I hope that gets across my thinking.

Motobu seems to be mirroring Mabuni’s take on angles in the aforementioned “twisting left and right” quote.

Iain Abernethy wrote:
The thudding of the foot is not enough to link the two forms together. As already discussed, the stomping does not resemble the returning wave kick of Naihanchi …

Cataphract wrote:
That was given to misunderstanding. I didn't mean namae gaeshi/returning wave kick. I stomp from kosa dachi into haiden uke and into uchi uke respectively.

I’m with you. Thanks for clarifying.

Cataphract wrote:
Of course. I understood it that way. I am also aware this is quite likely a bad case of apophenia and confirmation bias.

It seems that way to me … but it’s nevertheless useful to fully explore a hypothesis before deciding if it has legs. That’s why I enjoy conversations like this. The information gets unpacked and both sides explored with challenge and counter challenge. Makes of interesting threads!

Cataphract wrote:
Thank you for your patience and input.

Thank you for post and the discussion!

Cataphract wrote:
So far I've already changed my concept of kiba dachi which as I take it improved my understanding.

That sounds interesting. Could you expand on that? How do you see kiba dachi now and how did you see it in the past?

All the best,

Iain

Cataphract
Cataphract's picture

Iain Abernethy wrote:
There are four Shutos because the enemy has two arms, and we can be to the inside or outside of the controlled arm (2 arms X 2 possibilities = 4 Shutos).

There are applications for double shuto.

For example grab hand and chop neck. Opponent blocks with other hand. That's intended. Catch blocking hand, pin both hands down on top of each other, chamber and chop to neck from the other side.

I don't believe that's what Heian shodan/nidan means. I find this pattern from Heian nidan straight forward and useful:

Let's say an attacker tries to punch you. You sidestep in order to evade the brunt of his force, turn towards him shifting into kokutsu dachi. That leaves you in a dominant angle facing his side. Hit his extended arm with a shuto, guiding it on its path in front of you. Now step with your rear leg behind him, hitting his upper body with another shuto. Thus you trip him up with a scissoring action.

With the first shuto you roll with the incoming attack, adding your force to his in order to over extend and destabilise him.

I have split the four shutos into 2x2 because of the mirror symmetry. Symmetry and repetition to me is like an exclamation mark: This is important, you want learn it on both sides. If there is an obvious split, there is likely cohesion in what remains.

What happens when you do a 270° turn?

  • Assume the attacker is standing in front of you. After you turn he is on your left. Bad.
  • He is on your left. After you turn he is in your back. Very bad.
  • He is to your right. After you turn he is facing you. Maybe you can use your momentum for a spinning backfist or shuto. Good luck.
  • He is in your back, you turn and suddenly you are facing his left side. Good!

Could also be a simple hip toss though.

Iain Abernethy wrote:
Could you expand on that? How do you see kiba dachi now and how did you see it in the past?

From zenkutsu/kokutsu dachi you can throw powerful left/right combinations. That is what you see in the movies and kumite and boxing matches. Heian/Pinan emphasize that. I thought of kiba dachi mainly as a form of lower body conditioning, transitional stance and set up for takedowns. Accordingly I used to think of Naihanchi as an enigma more or less open to interpretation.

Somehow Motobu thought of it as the only stance. Modern Crane forms seem to favor cat stance, but those Chinese in the videos launch all sorts of strange maneuvers from horse stance. They use it for fighting. I take Naihanchi much more literally now. That's an entirely different beast. Jion also makes more sense. You're really supposed to punch someone at the end of Jion.

Incidentally it reminds me of an old VHS that I once saw. Jesse Glover had his students training such punches. A lot. Like that

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Cataphract wrote:
What happens when you do a 270° turn?

Assume the attacker is standing in front of you. After you turn he is on your left. Bad.

He is on your left. After you turn he is in your back. Very bad.

He is to your right. After you turn he is facing you. Maybe you can use your momentum for a spinning backfist or shuto. Good luck.

He is in your back, you turn and suddenly you are facing his left side. Good!

I see the turn as simply being a consequence of dojo only being so big. After as certain point, it makes sense to go back the other way to avoid running into walls. It’s the 45-degree angle that matters. The “linking step” is simply moving between two unrelated sequences (I this case the nukite and the first shuto).  

I think it’s clear that the foot motion is a “linking step”, and not application based, because to link to the first two shotos we the step you discuss (turn with the back foot), but for the second set we move the front foot 90-degrees. If the step was important to the application, we’d expect to see that reflected in the kata i.e. rear foot step present on both sides … and it’s not. What is present on both is the 45-degree angle.

Other approaches to kata are available, but I feel my take is consistent with the kata (both sides), the guidance from Mabuni on the meaning of angles, and it is functional.

There are obviously other valid ways to view the sequence, but I hope I’ve explained why I take the view I do.

I’m with you as regards to horse stance and I too see it as being a pragmatic position (when correctly applied) and not just for leg conditioning, etc.

All the best,

Iain

Cataphract
Cataphract's picture

270° is excessive. Why not 90° and be done with it? The kata could be rearranged to get rid of the big turns altogether. Did they want you to do a pirouette for aesthetic reasons?

Turning is an important skill for wrestlers and judoka. I'm reluctant to dismiss that turn as purely utilitarian.

It is not necessary for a shuto of course. Your explanation of the sequence makes sense to me.

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Cataphract wrote:
270° is excessive. Why not 90° and be done with it? The kata could be rearranged to get rid of the big turns altogether. Did they want you to do a pirouette for aesthetic reasons?

To get to the angle needed for the first Shuto (45 degrees, and facing the other way because dojo are only so big - 90 degrees in Shotokan) the simplest way to do it is move my back foot across a few feet. That gives a “big” turn in terms to the angle rotated when arbitrarily measured, but it’s the most efficient way to do it and results in the smallest overall movement. It’s the simplest way to move from a right nukite to left shuto at the 45 degree angle. Any other way and you’d need to take two much bigger steps.

We don’t a “pirouette” there at all. You want turn around because training spaces are only so big, and you have these two unrelated methods to link together in the kata. They made the move in the most efficient way possible.

It’s also worth remembering that the kata does not actually have us move 270 degrees. We don’t do a 180 (spin right round) and then move another 90 degrees. That would be the “pirouette” you allude to. We just move the back foot across a couple of feet (in terms of angle; 45 degree or 90 degrees if we are Shotokan) and turn our heads. That’s it. 180 agrees of that it just turning the head i.e. no foot movemnet at all.

It’s only 270 degrees in terms of the direction of movement if we see ourselves at the centre of a fixed 360 degree “compass”. There is no 270 degree turn though.

Cataphract wrote:
Turning is an important skill for wrestlers and judoka. I'm reluctant to dismiss that turn as purely utilitarian.

And karateka too! And there are turns in kata that are defiantly functional (on throws etc). However, at the moment we are talking about one specific example.

The turn is defiantly not part of the technique in my view for the aforementioned reasons:

Iain Abernethy wrote:
I see the turn as simply being a consequence of dojo only being so big. After as certain point, it makes sense to go back the other way to avoid running into walls. It’s the 45-degree angle that matters. The “linking step” is simply moving between two unrelated sequences (I this case the nukite and the first shuto). 

I think it’s clear that the foot motion is a “linking step”, and not application based, because to link to the first two shotos we the step you discuss (turn with the back foot), but for the second set we move the front foot 90-degrees. If the step was important to the application, we’d expect to see that reflected in the kata i.e. rear foot step present on both sides … and it’s not. What is present on both is the 45-degree angle.

There are turns that matter, but I don’t think that’s the case here.

Cataphract wrote:
It is not necessary for a shuto of course. Your explanation of the sequence makes sense to me.

I agree. If it was necessary, we’d see it done on both sides … but that does not mean all turns in all kata are “linking steps”. For example the turning “lover block” midway through Pinan Godan looks very much like a hip wheel throw. So there the turn is important. To know if it is a “linking step” or key part of the movement the step needs to be viewed in the context of the kata under examination. So for this sequence, when viewed in context, I see it being the angles being important, not the turn.

I hope that helps clarify my thinking.

All the best,

Iain

Cataphract
Cataphract's picture
Iain Abernethy wrote:
It’s only 270 degrees in terms of the direction of movement if we see ourselves at the centre of a fixed 360 degree “compass”. There is no 270 degree turn though.

I sweep a 3/4 circle - hips, shoulders and everything. It feels like a pirouette. It is the same body mechanics as in a spinning backfist etc. so there is at least some training value for that. An interesting thing about that turn is that your center of attention shifts farther to the back when compared to where it was with the preceeding technique, at an effective 90° angle.

Apart from not letting you crash into an imaginary wall, the turns have the property that every turn in heian/pinan has your gaze sweeping the center of the embusen. Maybe there is some meaning or it is just a learning aid. I've devised a variaton of heian nidan without long turns and without that property. No problem.

Also at least in Shotokan the angling is (im sticking with the 270) 270°, 45°, 135°, 45° or long, short, long, short adding to the overall symmetry of that sequence.

On the other hand a single shuto to the neck will work, so all this is an extra at best.

Iain Abernethy wrote:
For example the turning “lover block” midway through Pinan Godan looks very much like a hip wheel throw.

Apropos heian godan, I have a hypothesis for that. You see a palm slapping crescent kick in many unrelated kung fu forms, and every single time it is directly preceeded by a 180° turn. Also heian godan, bassai dai and most dramatically unsu. I think at its core it is always the same technique and that turn is essential to it.

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Cataphract wrote:
I sweep a 3/4 circle - hips, shoulders and everything. It feels like a pirouette.

We are almost certainly taking at crossed purposes here. If you do indeed doing a 3/4 circle, then you are doing a version of the kata that is radically different from any I have ever seen.

Most styles move 1/8 of a circle. As far as I am aware, Shotokan has the biggest movement, and they only do 1/4 of a circle.

If we describe the front of the kata as 12 (like a clock face), then the back foot moves anti-clockwise from the direction of 6, to the direction of 3 … which is 1/4 of a circle.

3/4 of a circle would have us move from 6 to 3 clockwise (past 9 and 12 and then to 3)… and that would be a very inefficient way to tie those two pieces of the kata together … it would be a pirouette … but I’m betting you don’t do that. If you did, then that it’s a version of the Pinan / Heians that is well outside the mainstream.

I thinking what is happening is that I am talking of the actual angle moved, and you are thinking of them as marks on the floor that we turn to.The alternate is that you are thinking about what your head does, and not what your body does. Either way, I am 100% certain you don’t run 270 degrees, but you turn 90 degrees, contraclockwise, with the back foot.

I hope that helps clarify.

All the best,

Iain

Cataphract
Cataphract's picture

Ha, now I see. :-D Yes, the back foot is set at a 90° angle. But it also becomes the front foot. So after setting the foot the whole body from head to toe has to spin in place 270° counterclockwise, in order to catch up with the foot and stand in proper kokutsu dachi.

I'm talking about Shotokan, btw.

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Cataphract wrote:
Ha, now I see. :-D Yes, the back foot is set at a 90° angle. But it also becomes the front foot. So after setting the foot the whole body from head to toe has to spin in place 270° counter clockwise, in order to catch up with the foot and stand in proper kokutsu dachi. I'm talking about Shotokan, btw.

I don’t agree there is a 270-degree spin in the way in the way you describe. It’s a 90-degree counter clockwise turn as I see it. The head only moves “270” because you are shifting your look from “old front foot” to “new front foot” … as your body makes the 90-degree counter clockwise turn.

The conversation is starting to spin a little too through and we are probably getting wide of the mark :-) We’ve certainly moved along way off the initial topic.

You may disagree, but, to me, the way the kata makes the motion – however you describe it in geometric terms – is the most efficient way to link those two movements together. It does not strike me as unnecessarily flamboyant as it seemed you were originally suggesting:

Cataphract wrote:
270° is excessive. Why not 90° and be done with it? The kata could be rearranged to get rid of the big turns altogether. Did they want you to do a pirouette for aesthetic reasons?

My answer to your question is that it is 90-degrees. I’m not sure what 90-degrees would mean to you – because we seem to view / describe the angles differently – but the bottom line is I don’t see any “pirouette” there.  It’s just the most efficient way from Point A to Point B.

I also don’t see the foot motion as significant (because it is not repeated) and hence it is the angle that matters; as Mabuni told us.

We may, perhaps ironically, end up going around and around in circles due to the different way we view the motion. However, I do think we’ve provided enough information for us to respectively understand our differing viewpoints. I also think we have shared enough for other readers to understand too.

Thanks for the initial thread and fleshing it out as we have. The thread has over 500 reads so people have certainly been reading. Thank you!

All the best,

Iain

Cataphract
Cataphract's picture
Iain Abernethy wrote:
The conversation is starting to spin a little too through and we are probably getting wide of the mark :-) We’ve certainly moved along way off the initial topic.
Iain Abernethy wrote:
It does not strike me as unnecessarily flamboyant as it seemed you were originally suggesting:

Yes, it is remarkable how the same step can look different to different people. As I said before, I don't believe in the one true bunkai, as long as it works.

The irony is that this thread was intended to look at possible links back to China, which means anything but heian/pinan. So if anyone cares to share her or his thoughts, I'm interested.

Marc
Marc's picture

Cataphract wrote:

The second form "24 steps" (二十四步) in this video displays some striking similarities to Naihanchi - the sideways action, cross stepping, stomping and some of the hand patterns.

I have no knowledge of Southern Shaolin style, but boy, does the guy in the video look tense. A magnesium defficiancy perhaps. Just kidding.   ;-)

Anyway, I can see no striking resemblence to Naihanchi/Tekki kata. The cross stepping at the start bears some resemblence to the beginning of Naihanchi. But we find similar cross steps in Gojushiho, Wankan, Hangetsu, Bassai Sho. So not a big clue. And the hand techniques are very different from Naihanchi. I don't see how they could be related, sorry.

Marc
Marc's picture

Cataphract wrote:

What happens when you do a 270° turn?

  • Assume the attacker is standing in front of you. After you turn he is on your left. Bad.
  • He is on your left. After you turn he is in your back. Very bad.
  • He is to your right. After you turn he is facing you. Maybe you can use your momentum for a spinning backfist or shuto. Good luck.
  • He is in your back, you turn and suddenly you are facing his left side. Good!

If we want to use that turn in a meaningful way, then we certainly should not assume an attacker standing put in front, to either side or behind us, and us simply turning to face another direction. (If the attacker would not be in front of us we'd just turn to face them.) Instead we would apply the turn after we made contact with the attacker. That would result in some kind of throw or takedown.

Cataphract wrote:

Could also be a simple hip toss though.

Something like that, yes.

But as Iain said, the turn might simply a reorientation within the kata, so we wouldn't have more than three steps in each direction. Thus the kata fits into our backyard.

Cataphract
Cataphract's picture

Marc wrote:
Instead we would apply the turn after we made contact with the attacker. That would result in some kind of throw or takedown.

Or maybe him with us, as in Bas Ruttens get behind and choke? Something anti-grappling, as in there's no first strike.

But something different that's been troubling me lately. This looks good and is on topic. Almost too good. The Kojo family kata, three of which were supposedly created in Kumemura and the other three in the Kojo dojo in Fuzhou.

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

In my role as moderator can I step in here and say this thread is becoming way off topic. While it’s OK to discuss related issues, we need to be careful not to keep adding in new issues or changing subjects.

The thread was originally about possible Naihanchi origins, and there was then the related topic of angles in kata (which did drift a little into the Pinans). We are now in danger of discussing another set of kata and “no first attack”. They need their own threads.

Rule 6 of the forum: https://www.iainabernethy.co.uk/site-rules

I think it could be time to wrap this one up?

All the best,

Iain