Yes, bizzare is what i first thought of that one years ago I can remember my instructor saying it was jumping on the stick or something!! I still dont get the x block to the side if thats the case.. leads to a very powerfull re-inforced block. Perhaps a leap to the weopon holders arms then wrist/arm manipulation considering the block. Hmmm, good point. edit; You know, when i do it i just consider it a dissarm then a neck strike. My club only does bunkai for basic movements, they seem to rely on sparring for everything... ticks me off no end, i guess thats why i dont like the plethora of movements for everything under the sun, i feel it has lost many clubs will to endeavor with the apps for Kata..
but if you didn't interpret in your own way, you'd still be jumping around while people kicked you in the face So it's good to interpret. Stops bruises
But thats giving the opponent time to move, then you have failed before you have landed. This is how these different interpretations came about, too many what ifs and not enough killa instinct
I quite like the interpretation of the jump in heian godan as jumping onto a prone opponent and applying a collar-choke (hence the crossed arms). I think it was Mr Abernethy who said that most jumps should be interpreted as stamping on a downed opponent. Sounds fair to me.
Heian godan has th jump. Hey, talking about heian sandan he considers the crescent or stomp (depends on club, we did crescent for years now we do stomp lol) as a sweep.. Wow, really pushing the mileage on the movement there isnt he. Do this, perform heian sandan with a stomp, it powers up the following block/strike tremendously... Which reminds me of another important point, the timing of Kata performance is essential to bring out the true intention of movements. This itch, nee, sun, for each little move has also robbed many (my club included) of much value of movements within the Kata.
No - that's why we train different interpretations in the dojo. You find the one that works best for you and use that. Or if that one doesn't work, you use another. Having a concrete idea of what a technique may or may not be is just as limiting as the potential what ifing
I hope im not coming across as "ï know better". Its just my little opinions, and am quite thankfull for being involved in this conversation. Yes, we are not all the same and there are options for movements, but just not all of them i dont think. Personally when i consider apps, i think of fighting a powerfully built fellow, like a UFC type, in all reality that limits possibilities somewhat.. And for keeps, not just someone we should restrain either. If its not that serious then the fight could/should have been avoided in someway beforehand.
Not at all! It's just nice to get stuck in to a debate on here after so long away! Hope I'm not either
Personally im looking for a restraint tech on non life threatening situations. I consider opening up with the fists etc only a serious situation therefor power and destructive techs needed. That is why i train Karate. This also limits techs down. Power generation is key, not abundance of options, otherwise i would train Japanese jujitsu or something for restraint/controll etc. In my personal opinion all these apps are too flambuoyant. Place an aggresive powerfully built man in hypo attack mode in front of him for some of these apps.. In reality we have a matter of seconds, not 3-4 techs before weve done damage..
Just a couple of comments, not at you, but because of your quote. My take on kata is that it is an assemblage of movements that may resemble actual techniques taken from technique-driven arts such as jujitsu, akijitsu, kenpo, etc., but those movements, in the kata, are not necessarily the techniques they resemble. Kata is a personal study method. It is structured so that you can work it by yourself to understand balance and power generation. You can also pull pieces of it out and work them with a partner as techniques. You can take techniques from other self defense arts and find the same principles, and in some cases, the same techinques in your kata. If each technique in the kata had one, or several definative applications, and only those applications, you could exhaust the potential of your kata in a relatively short time. You also would only know what you were taught and would be bound, by definition, to the applications taught. Kata may contain techniques, maybe, but it evokes the use of power, and imagery, and potential. it is much more than a string of techniques or a series of power generation exercises. By the by, the kick at the end of Goju seisan is often swung back strongly with partial retraction (heel not pulled to thigh) as might be used in a reap. So a sweep in the Shorin versions is not out of the question. The jump in Heian Godan is, I think, an addition, and is not usually shown as in say the Matsubayashi version of Pinan Godan. Instead of jumping, if you grab the bad guy''s head and twist him down to the left, you can kneel on his chest and choke him out with the crossed hands. By that sdame token, a jump in kata can indicate a throw. Funakoshi's students were basically all well trained in Jujitsu and were throughly familiar with throwing. This may be why the kata was changed. FWIW
Hi Guys, Sorry for starting the thread then buggering off - damn work! Some thoughtful responses here though. In answer to your initial question Llama - i.e. what exactly confuses me about the clip? - Well I think this is the best way I can put it: I have always been taught that uppermost in the practice of kata are the principles of correct movement - not necessarily the reason for doing the movement per-se. Why, because correct movement can be trained and instilled into the body’s memory, whereas it is impossible to train "techniques" for every potential scenario. In my group, the practice of kata is explained with the use of "Kaisetsu" (or as is sometimes described “physical commentary”) where movements are “realised” with the use of techniques against an opponent - exactly as they appear in the kata. If we take the crescent kick in Seishan for example, I would be more tempted to demonstrate this as a kick to an opponent’s side (as they were trying to pull /restrain your your arm/hand), as I see the retraction of the kick into the original starting position (and therefore the relation of the hips to your opponent and centre of mass etc) as an important part of the movement. Whether it’s wrong or right, or for that matter, works in every given reality, is not the overriding priority imo. The main thing is to realise the potential of the movement behind the technique first and foremost, with a view to installing intent into our movement - exactly as it appears in the kata. If we take Mr Abernethy's approach at this stage, it changes the dynamics of the kata fundamentally imo. His movement /centre of mass /hip positioning has completely changed from how it is performed in the solo kata. Whilst they may well represent interesting options for pair work practice, with this approach, you might as well practice these techniques in complete isolation from solo kata and therefore ultimately do away with solo kata practice entirely. In my little mind, it's all about movement, correct movement and as soon as you start to move away from the form of the kata you are eroding this process. Gary
But what is the original bunkai? People talk about 'going back to goju' but frankly I've seen some appaling Goju Ryu bunkai. It depends on the particular school and teacher IME. I think there are pros and cons to the 'anything goes' approach. Keeping an open mind and engaging in your own exploration and discovery is an extremely valuable tool, again IME. I think a good argument can be made that this is the original bunkai, or rather that this is what the kata originators intended us to do. The trick is to keep your feet firmly on the ground. This is what many fail to do. Or alternatively they come up with good techniques but their link with the kata that they are supposedly bunkai are, is quite tenuous. There are also pros and cons to only practising the applications (and methods) that your sensei taught you. You can certainly stand up and say that you're doing only what your sensei taught you was effective. But at the same time your training is limited to only what your sensei knew. Martial arts could not have grown and developed in the first place if everyone took that approach. Mike
I'm unconvinced TBH. Crescent kick was historically taught in karate. It just wasn't necessarily a high kick, but it did move on an inwards crescent. Crescent kicks aren't really flamboyant anyway. A nice head high side kick, now that would have been flamboyant. Also, all kicks in karate were originally low (so I suppose potentially unbalancing). But ultimately I suppose my gripe is that I don't really see the point in practising modern kata then doing bunkai that fundamentally changes the mechanic and explaining that as 'getting back to the original intent'. I think it better to either: a) do your modern kata and do bunkai that corresponds to the modern mechanic, or b) study some older kata and do bunkai that corresponds to them. Either way there should be a relationship between the kata and the bunkai. This is all rather pedantic of course. Its understood in our system that when you kick in kata it primarily means your doing a kick. The fact that you're almost invariably doing a front kick in the kata doesn't mean that you must always do a front kick in application. But I would expect there to be one (or more) primary application(s) that involve a front kick. Similarly with a crescent kick. You might be able to usefully combine the associated hand movements with a different kick, but I would expect there to be a primary application that involved a crescent kick. Mike
quote- "But what is the origional Bunkaï" Thats a good question, that should be common knowledge, for better or for worse. I should know it, my instructor should know it, and his before him etc. Even if its outdated whatever. However, i do now see how it becomes a learning tool to go through different apps. You know what, i think im just ticked off it isnt at the forefront of training, perhaps it once was. Like Basics then Kata with apps that get more complex as the Katas do, and then the student may begin to spar with this knowledge learnt. I would say the demand of the day is self-defense, so unfortunately clubs allow students to spar basically from day one!! Over time this has eroded away Kata/bunkai training. To the point where we hire the best performer of it to learn what we should know. Thats what "traditional" should mean for m/arts, something set in stone, no guesswork. I hereby declare Abernaithy a freestyle karateka LOL.. edit; i should also admit that the club i train at is hosting Aberneithy in march, and im not impressed with the fact that we have to do something like that to get what we already should have. Yes hes a leader in his field of expertise etc pfff so what have i put my time into if its some kind of free for all when it comes to apps to something as basic as kata!! Something i believe should be set in stone, if ya dont like it- join a freestyle lol.. just my pigheaded opinion lol. I'll leave this conversation to the more experienced peoples now
@ Griffin I doubt that it was every wholly set in stone. IMO kata is to teach principles not specific techniques. Of course, specific techniques can - and should - be derived from those principles. Its interesting you say "I would say the demand of the day is self-defense, so unfortunately clubs allow students to spar basically from day one". To me, that would be an argument to study kata & bunkai from day one, not sparring. Sparring is primarily for fun & sport, not self-defence (although of course it has some lessons that can be applied to self-defence. Don't be too disheartened that kata & bunkai are not the cornerstone of your training, or that your senseis are not experts in this area. Few are. That they are willing to get Mr Abernathy or others in to teach this subject matter is to their credit - they are at least honest and open minded enough to acknowledge that they don't know everything, and that their students can benefit from training with others. Many teachers actively discourage their students from training elsewhere, or deny that any approaches other than their own have value. And finally, when you train with Mr A, don't judge the whole subject matter by one teacher. You may like some of what he does and dislike other bits. Listen to what he says, consider it carefully and make your own mind up. Then, when opportunity permits, train with other bunkai specialists (for want of a better term). Ultimately you must make your own mind up about what works and what doesn't. Mike
This may be a stupid question, but I know very little about Mr Abernethy. Where does he get his information from? I was told he did Wado, but he seems to do Bunkai from other styles too. Is he graded in Shotokan or Goju? Does he invent his own Bunkai, or did his teacher teach him?
Really? Iv'e got to say that whilst I see merit in getting instructors in from other Martial Arts or even Karate styles - to help broaden students outlook of Budo as a whole - I wouldn't be that chuffed if my instructor felt the need to bring in someone else to plug the gaps in his knowledge, in the very art I was paying him to teach me. Gary
Yes, But they are Wado guys So its not so much filling the gaps, more about perfecting/polishing what is already there. Gary
