Bunkai. The word that fills half the karate forums on the net; the other half is filled with mindless drivel. Probably half of the first half is too. But what is it that we are trying to explain?

Kata that has been passed down through the years, with a change here, a mistake there, a bit forgotten and a bit added on. We then try to "reverse engineer" the possible applications. Tough job at best; maybe impossible to extract the real, original intent when you can't be sure you're examining the real, original kata.

With that in mind, assuming the kata we are trying to disect is as true to the originator's intent, to pull the applications from it surely we must try to think what the movements were trying to show and teach before we can understand them?

Were they intended as X move is to Y attack with Z outcome, or X move can be used in A, B, C & D ways for E, F & G outcome? Single moves with single applications or multiple applications? Also, if X move has say, 3 techniques in it, do they have to be used in a certain order or way exactly as in the kata, or were they designed to be interchangable and fluid for different senarios? We've all heard "a block is a strike is a throw" etc etc, but is it that simple?


The thing on my mind at the moment is this: if the moves in kata were designed to have multiple applications (which I believe they were), would the creator maybe have stylised them to some degree? The mechanics of some techniques are almost identical and to show all options in a kata would maybe be a waste of time and needlessly lengthen it. Maybe the kata creator would exagerate, over emphasise, or stylise a technique that has multiple applications - a kind of either/or approach open to interpretaion and circumstance of use.

So when we try to look at a kata move and derive a use for it, it may not instantly be apparent that it's one thing or another, as it was designed to show a movement with multiple uses?


Then again, maybe my Granny had balls and was really my Grandad?


Sorry for rambling - I thought typing that out would make it clearer, but I think I've just confused myself more. Anyone any idea what I'm trying to say?

Any thoughts?

I agree. Wholeheartedly in fact.

Mike

It doesn't help when movements are arbitrarily changed though. It also makes it very unclear when students aren't familiar with basic escape and restraining techniques. You find then that instructors resort to inventing things that require an attacker to pose in a certain way for their application to have any chance of working.

You can soon find yourself with a situation where people who are idolised within an organisation are spouting rubbish but the students lap it up because of who it's coming from. As a result they can close their minds to other ideas and even attack those who suggest workable alternatives.


Mick