Hi,
Iain (basically) said we should always question the purpose of an exercise and check with the goal we have. So I was compiling my thoughts about the 3K approach, like kihon for self purpose (as it is often done), kata for self purpose (as it is often done) and that partner-kata-like kumite (my description of it due to the unnecessary formality in every move), when I stumbled upon Karate-Do Kyohan's chapter about kumite which is introduced with a sentence saying "kumite is a kind of kata" and "regarding to <ni sente nashi> the first hand always defends and the second hand always counters", which gave me one of the last pieces.
Here are all the pieces I found so far, in historical order, with the sources
- Itosu focusses on physical education [his well-known letter]
- Funakoshi takes that approach and adds the Budo component, otherwise the jutsu is just "teaching some form of homicide" (sic) [The Heart of Karate-Do, Egami]
- He only teaches kata at first, sometimes letting his students repeat a kata 100 times during a lesson while "dozing" in a corner [forgot which book it was, but that description stuck]
- People still liked to fight each other for fun, using karate, which made him mad [Shotokan Myths]
- He added the 1 inch distance paradigm [Shotokan Myths] and (first?) kumite katas were developed [Karate-Do Kyohan], then replaced by 5/3/1-step kumite by Otsuka and Konishi because there was no such thing as randori [McCarthy in an interview with Jesse Enkamp]
- 5/3/1-step takes elements from Kendo and Ju-{Do,J(i)utsu} due to the martial arts background of those two persons [McCarthy, Abernethy], but they don't really apply to Karate [Abernethy]. The wrong distance for example is already shown in Karate-Do Kyohan pictures (e.g. Oi-Zuki vs Shuto-Uke defense with crossing arms - but removing the Shuto arm would result in a huge gap between the fist and the target)
- Motobu says that using one hand for defence and one for the counter is no real bujutsu (and that Funakoshi basically has no clue and that Itosu's modified stance makes Naihanchi weak) [My Art of Karate, McCarthy]
- [Karate Kumite, Lind] describes a circle with interdependencies between Kata, Kihon, Kumite (actually based on sentences from Karate-Do Kyohan): Kihon is taken from Kata to teach Kata, but also used to teach Kumite (that is done in 100% perfect kihon style, not in a practical style, which e.g. results in the unused hikite hand) and then, the "knowledge from Kumite is applied to Kata" (sic), which results in the bunkai we know from the JKA line of teachers
- [Shotokan Myths] explains that the bunkai was always strange, but chosen on purpose to exactly match the moves of the kata due to fear that people would change the kata otherwise; a thought also stated in the kumite chapter of Karate-Do Kyohan. Also for other reasons, like it was done for us western people (we were asking too many questions and apparently japanese people are not used to give complicated answers - the author's words, not mine)
What a ride. It explains so much: how the jutsu got lost in Shotokan so early but on purpose (there is more about it in Shotokan Myths, like e.g. in addition to teaching kata as PE, Funakoshi needed Kano as sponsor and came up with the "kata starts and ends with defence" paradigm which was then transferred into more katas and even other styles. And it resulted in adding value to the Budo world of that time, without competing with it - bye bye, grappling and weapons.). It also explains how it stays abandoned later: after WW2 karate-do practicioners emphasized the defensive nature again and that it is a kind of sport, which was the slingshot maneuver for that sports evolution after the 1950ies.
As sports karate eventually evolved into WKF/olympic sparring and kata (and actually all other formats in existence today), we not only have a break with the practical application but also with the modern kind of kumite - which makes Iain say that 5/3/1-step training makes you better in 5/3/1-step only. (I concur.)
Just leaving these thoughts here, without trying to rate the historic approach. As a karate sandbox and from a historical point of view the 3K design actually even makes sense, though personally I prefer the practical approach (thanks for [Bunkai-Jutsu] and all the other practical sources).
I want karate students to know what they are doing and noticed that a lot of trainers don't explain the background enough, which was one reason for compiling all these pieces. Do you have any additions or corrections?
I did not really have a question while writing all that but there are two things I am curious about now:
- How did training in Okinawa look like before 1900? Was it a combination of bunkai/randori/kata/"fitness"? It seems so weird to drop everything and only keep kata and PE.
- Is the 5/3/1-step also taught in Wado-ryu? As it seems the founder came up with the concept while he was in Shotokan, it somehow seems logical, but on the other hand they added the jutsu back and I don't see that this "the 3K influence each other" idea works under these circumstances. Or is there staged bunkai too and only the practical karateka really put the jutsu back?
But does the trainers themselves know the background enough?
And the ones that are absolute sure they know, does they really know?
Every time I try to have these kinds of conversation, I always start by saying "This is just the best explanation I got so far, it makes sense to my experience.", but most practitioners dislike studying, despise reading and attack, sometimes aggressively, anything that challenges whatever they been taught is the "real karate".....anyway....dogmatism sucks.....
What is becoming evident on the subject of 3K karate for me is that:
- Kihon as most places practice was formatted for the army needs, teaches everybody the same thing at once, in formation, with a series of well defined commands.
- Kata was kept as a connection to the traditions, everybody says it's the "fundamentals of karate" and at the same time have no confidence in it's usefulness (what ever it may be they think it is). Or, if we take Motobu's vs. Shotokan as a example, kata was successful as the more "marketable" characteristic of karate.
- Contemporary kumite is, if Jesse Enkamp is right, the only topic that seams to be well defined with sources, it was adapted from Savate rule set to fit kendo and judo esthetics as a "modern" Japanese combat sport.
With regard to #1, I highly recommend that you pick up a few additional books for your research:
These works provide some great references to the way martial arts were practiced on Okinawa prior to the modernization of the early 1900s.
Every time someone makes a book list in here, it's a new expensive Amazon.com shopping list in my future hahahahha