Hi Folks,
It was suggested to me recently, that the "moving the hands into the ready position" move just after the bow at the beginning of all kata, is actually a block in itself.
Can anyone clarify or possible expand on this?

Hi Wombat

I believe the GKR version is that it is symbolic of protecting the groin. I think that's in one of the videos (perhaps basics).

However, i was originally told that it was symbolic of protecting your samurai sword as it is worn at your waist. Hence the left over right, your left hand is grabbing/blocking your opponent as he tries to grab your sword, and your right hand goes underneath and draws your own sword.

Perhaps one of the more learned karate ka could throw some light on this one.

cheers

andyG

This is how Gogen Yamaguchi explains it in his book.

The reason you cross both hands in front is so that you cover the groin area from a sudden attack. At the same time you are showing your opponant that you will not attack suddenly. This was also the ettiquette of the samurai. The samurai would take off a katana from their waste and change it to the right hand showing that there would not be a cowardly act such as slashing the opponant without notice. The hand which is crossed has to be your dominant arm.


Rocket

...but there are quite a few kata where the move after the bow is somewhat different.
How far do you go with application - do we start thinking of the bow as a head butt?

WE do our bowing differently from the gkr bow. As we bring our feet into misubi datchi we also bring our hands in with our palms facing out, the left first then the right. Then we scoop them up and over and back down so that our palms are facing in, then we place our hands by our sides and bow. We do have self defence applications to this move and they are quite effective.

rocket

P.S. I hope you understand my explanation, I find it a struggle to put things into writing sometimes.

I'm not sure whether that's likely Matt. If that were true, the head butt would have to be considered a response to an earlier attack... Or a first strike, which goes against the "self-defence" aspect in karate. Would this work outside of karate though? Maybe in something like Tae-Kwon-Do or Kung-Fu?

I was joking
But my question was serious - is there really application to be seen in every single facet of a kata or are we taking it too far here?
Rocket says yes, and tells me there is application to be found in their bow in (be interested to hear Rod). How about the start of Naifanchi shodan however - feet together - knees bent (depending on school), right hand fist in front of you with left hand open on tthe side (man - it IS hard to describe a position isnt it...). To my novice mind it appears like if anything this starting 'ready' position is halfway through an application.

I see very little correlation between karate and wearing a katana sorry. So to suggest that the hands when bowing have anything to do with removing the katana is in my opinion a load of crap. You certainly wouldn't remove your katana before combat anyway....so let's just drop that line of thought....

Kancho did describe the hands coming across groin level as protection in one of the old videos so whoever said that is correct as far as GKR goes.

Not all schools return to heiko dachi after bowing anyway and not all bypass the groin after bowing. I'm not able to make an accurate comment as to why though.

Interested to hear more thoughts though...

JC

Here's Funakoshi in the opening sequence of Naifanchi - slightly different version to as described above.

Make of this position what you will....

From what ive read, the first moves in a kata are there for a reason! ie maybe an attack has begun, and the move rocket describes as his style is in fact breaking a grip, that has taken place on his hands lapels etc
GKR version has the hands crossing at the front of the groin area, i cant see a grip being broken, unless as the hands x at speed you are thumping there hands together? so it may be, that the guarding the groin thing is a more likley thing to do, and maybe we were left with that because the powers to be didnt understand what the original intention was???.
The bow must have been added at a much later date before you start a kata as some sign of respect for what you are about to do, bercause you wouldnt shake someones hand and then try to maim them in a real fight would you.
The no first strike in karate, just means to me that you should not be the first to start a fight, physically or verbally, if someone is in your face spitting and snarling at you, that is the first attack, then you can kick there but lol.
I dont think the head but thing is too way off line, at all, someone has grabbed your wrists(tut tut) you break the grip ala rockets style, then apply a bow/headbut to the opponents nose, blood everywhere, eyes streaming with water, depends what mood you are in finnish them off or go home and make dad a cuppa.
he he
Sam

When I said that we have application for the bow, I didnt mean the actual bit where you bend over and bow. What I meant was when we finish a kata before we bow we have a bit that leads to the bow where we cover the groin with both hands with palms facing out then they scoop up and over and back down to the groin again with the palms facing toward you just like the photo of funokoshi. The application is breaking somebodies grip, like Sam said.

I think I'm going to have to give up posting, its getting to hard to describe karate moves in writing, I am terrible at it, it really frustrates me.

Rocket

SOK Rocket
I think we knew what u meant , i just bought in the bow bit, cos i dont think its too silly at all, not in a street fight anyways, i think if you want you can make stuff out of any move, i love trying the moves on dad
Sam

Re the picture Mat

"Now what was it that bloke said about sea shells?", "OOhh i wish i hadnt eaten that curry"

Sam

Re: the standard opening (not Naifanchi) where the forearms cross at the wrist and then go back towards the sides of the body:

One wrist is grabbed in a same side wrist grab (eg. left wrist grabbed by attacker's right hand).
Draw your left hand across your body. At the same time move your right hand in the opposite direction, over the left, to grab the attacker's wrist. You have a combined push and pull movement - the left hand pulls out of the grab while the right hand pushes the attacker's arm away. Now you've switched - you're grabbing the attacker's right wrist with your right hand. In reality you need to move your body to a position of advantage so that you end up to the attacker's right side having jerked them off-balance.

I believe that every yoi (ready) position in every kata that I practice has a practical application.

Mike

If karate has no correlation to wearing a katana, why do we adopt seiza using right knee, then left knee? The explanation i was given was that with katana worn on the left side (for drawing by the right hand), if you knelt left knee first, you would show your weapons to your "compatriot" who you were about to sit and speak with. This would be considered an insult or challenge.

Given that some karate styles teach weapons (bo, tonfa etc), is it too far fetched to consider that some of the actions we undertake in karate have been derived from, or because of, carrying weapons, and therefore possibly a katana?

My interpretation of the post by Rocket quoting Gogen Yamaguchi indicates removing the katana in it's scabbard from the obi (?) and holding it in your dominant hand (scabbard and all)as a mark of respect, indicating that you were not going to attack. Not that you are disarming yourself before combat.

Assumption time. Given that i won't bow to a person who attacks me as i walk down the street, i would just go straight for a technique, can i assume that the bow is only used in the dojo? If it is used only in the dojo, can we assume it is used as mark of respect? Can we then assume that any action between performing the bow and resuming the 'ready' position (yoi) is also simply a mark of respect? Therefore a symbolic removal of the katana from the obi is possible after bowing, but before commencing the kata.



This is how GKR pass comment on the rei and yoi. Who is to say how other styles explain the same thing?

Pardon my response, but when someone says drop something, i generally can't I'm just trying to keep an open mind.

cheers

andyG

The way of adopting seiza probably stems from the time when Karate was adopted by the Japanese rather than reflecting an older Okinawan way of doing things. In my view anyway. Either way, if there is any reference to the fact that you may be wearing a sword in kata, it will be a practical reference rather than one of somehow indicating respect. Most of the ritual around Japanese weapons traditions stem from practical considerations, I don't see why it would be different for Karate.



I disagree. What is the 'ready' position? In what way does it make you ready? Basically, it just doesn't.

Far more pertinent to interpret it as a technique as far as I can see. IMO the practical aspect of the kata begins as soon as you finish your bow. Every movement from that point forward has practical application.

Mike

Hi All,

In Japan, it is polite to bow to those one meets. Other nations have other customs such as shaking hands in the west, and rubbing noses in the NZ Maori culture. The crossing of the arms and the adoption of the parallel stance in some Shuri Te (for want of a better term) derivative systems puts one into a neutral stance. It can be interpreted as the defender begins in a most vulnerable position. Not every style crosses their arms and even those that do, may do it differently. As Mike F. has posted, it is possible to use the crossing of the arms to teach some jujitsu type responses to being seized by one or both wrists. In other kata there are other types of salutations that may be interpreted or utilised to teach responses to prescribed attacks.

I think we need to know the history of karate before attributing Samurai rituals to karate kata. Japanese Karate has been heavily influenced by the customs and rituals of Japanese Martial Arts as in the kneeling Rei and so forth. There are no Sword kata in karate unless a group has added one from elsewhere to their syllabus. The weapons used in Kobudo tended to be items found around the home or workplace that one could turn into weapon-usable objects. It is still unclear which influenced which. Some believe that karate movements are based on weaponry while others believe the opposite is true. In any case, what really matters is that one needs to apply common sense to their training and focus on what one can do themselves as a karate practitioner.

The internet is a great resource because every man and his dog can present information they heard from their instructor, read in a book, got off a video or DVD or found on a web site or forum somewhere. The trouble now is who to believe! Many peple have instructors that are just students themselves or only at Shodan level. Some of these are passing on what their own poorly trained and under-educated (in karate terms) 'sensei' have passed on to them. Others are prolific readers and have attended a few seminars with someone that knows and pass on what they have learned or remembered, thus beginning another round of Chinese Whispers. How much one can learn this way depends on their current level of comprehension which depends on their own background and experience. Its best to put information to a little test of your own.. what experience and training has the person had that is passing on the information? Who did they train under and for how long? How do they react when asked about how they came by this information? It might save yourself a whole lot of heartache in the future.

Cheers,
Boz

I used the term 'ready' position as the stance is the same as when you are called to line up during class. You line up and stand in haichi dachi (sp?) to show your readiness to train. When you perfrom a kata, you are in haichi dachi, you bow, and then, for a really basic description, you resume the haichi dachi position. As this is the same position as when being ready to train, it would indicate you are ready to perform the kata.

I acknowledge that the traditions of Japan have 'infilitrated' into many aspects of karate, and modified karate to what we see today. With that in mind, my thoughts are:

Is it possible that the Japanese samurai learnt 'original' karate, but then made changes to karate to allow for their wearing of weapons?

Before the Japanese influence, did the Okinawans (sp?) bow before doing kata? If not, what was the first move?

Note: this post is based on my limited exposure to karate (2-3 years). perhaps i need to study for a couple of decades before putting my thoughts out in the open.


cheers

andyG

Hi Andy



I understand where the ready position comes from, and I acknowledge that most people use the term when doing that posture in kata. But I don't think it gets you ready for anything, unless perhaps its a good kicking. After all, you're stood in a neutral position face on to your opponent with your arms by your sides - effective waving your genitals at the opponent and asking him to wallop them.



I think we can rule that out. By the time Karate was introduced into Japan sword wearing had been banned for over 50 years.



I can't give a solid answer to that. I suspect there was not one uniform answer.



Not at all, there's nothing wrong in airing your thoughts. Its a good way to learn and to stimulate other people into thinking. But its important to differentiate between facts and conjecture. As Boz pointed out, its easy for games of chinese whispers to begin and suddenly one person's wild idea has become another person's 'fact'. Its been happening for years in martial arts and its still happening. I have heard many outlandish things in my time which are clearly and demonstrably just wrong. And I'm by no means an expert on Karate or its history, I feel I've barely scratched the surface. So when I talk about it I do try to differentiate between what I regard as fact and my opinion. And I'm always happy to discuss why something falls into one category or the other - I wouldn't wish to pass off my own opinions as facts.

Personally I think the current topic is definitely a useful one for discussion.

Mike

Hi

I realise that we ( or is that I ) have taken this thread a little of the original topic, but i have found that it is indeed a thought provoking topic (or perhaps the digressions have become so). I find that i have several thoughts / ideas drifting around my head at the moment, but before i air them in public I need to consider some of the ideas raised during the post.

I think that I have to consider the history of Karate a little more and have been searching the net for valid information. I have found some information on the GKR SA site ( http://www.gkrsa.com.au/pages/history_of_karate%20part1.htm ) plus other places, but I wonder if some of the more experienced karate-ka could comment on the validity of the information on that site, or perhaps direct me to another site or resource?

cheers

andyG

Hi Andy

I wouldn't take much note of that account. While there is some truth in it there are also glaring inacurracies and much that simply cannot be verified historically.

It is difficult to find decent literature on the subject. I think inevitably one has to study a number of different sources, not all of which will agree. Ultimately, where historically verifiable facts are hard to come by, you have to draw your own conclusions. However, some good sources of historical information spring to mind....

Gichin Funakoshi's 'Karate-do: My Way of Life' is a must-read, although even that has the odd inaccuracy in it, and he does have an agenda which skews the history that he paints. But it still is an excellent insight into Funakoshi’s times.

Mark Bishops ‘Okinawan Karate’ is quite heavy, with lots of details on particular lineages, but contains lots of interesting anecdotal information.

And anything that describes the Meiji Restoration will give you an insight into the changes that affected Japanese society on the late 19th and early 2th centuries – changes and attitudes which inevitably affected Japanese martial arts and Karate.

Of course there are lots of other useful sources of information too, this is just what sprang to mind.

Mike

It's interesting isn't it. Certainly in the sword drawing arts from Japan there is a recognition that the left knee will momentarily reach the ground prior to the right and ideally they will reach the ground together. This in part is related to the need to properly clear your hakama in order to reach seiza. In addition there is no reference to turning your body away from the person you are being seated with in seiza and in fact it is good etiquette to act as a neutral to that person, thereby giving them no false feeling of overt humility or signs of aggression. As such, in the Japanese swording drawing arts at least, you enter seiza while remaining facing naturally to the "front".



There are others here who are more experienced with kobudo to answer that question, though the samurai class and the peasant class are not the same. "Karate was for peasants" - hehe might be a topic for another thread!



There are a few ways to hold a katana to show that you are neutral. One is to hold the katanain your right, in it's saya (scabbard), with your hand placed roughly at the kurigata (the little knob where the cord is held to the scabbard). The blade would face to your rear. Though can I suggest that you would not necessarily move to seiza from this position. It is more common to be seated in seiza prior to removing your katana. Certainly when being seated in seiza with your katana alerady removed you would hold it in your left hand with your thumb securing the tsuba to prevent the katana from leaving its the saya unexpectedly. Now THAT would be disrespectful!




I say again....I do not see a relation between karate and wearing a katana.

JC

Oh you're just baiting me now JC. I'm no expert in kobudo, but one thing I do know - Karate was not for peasants. The Okinawan fighting arts were practiced primarily by the Shizoku - ie. the nobility. There were many levels of nobility, some more 'noble' than others as it were. It is only after the Meiji Restoration, and in particular after the introduction of Itosu's school Karate in 1908 (or thereabouts), that the commoners got involved in any sophisticated martial arts training. Prior to that it is unlikely that any of the shizoku karate teachers would teach commoners, and besides the peasants were too busy eaking out a living. The only reason that you may see historical reference to poor people training in Karate is because they were the descendants of the nobility. As with any feudal system, population growth ultimately spelled disaster for the nobility - too little land and too many people to share it with. Follow that up with the Meiji Restoration, when many nobility lost their income and had few skills to make money with, and you can quickly get an impoverished nobility. It doesn't help that the Satsuma clan were bleeding Okinawa dry for several hundred years.

So in short, the people who spent considerable time training in Karate prior to the 20th century were what the Japanese would have regarded as of samurai class. The peasants were too busy growing rice to keep the samurai fed.

Mike

I was learning Jitte earlier this morning, and a move in it is very similar to yoi. feet in heiko dachi, and arms cross in front as they do in yoi. unfortunately i dont know the bunkai to this move yet. If anybody does though i think it will be transferrable to the opening yoi move in the kata as well

Graham

...... As regards to what most people think of as being Samurai.
I agree, but thinking along these lines have given rise to several karate myths including the one about Empty-handed combat being used again armoured Horsemen.
Whilst this may have happened in the past, we probably shouldn`t take it as being gospel.
But I think people look at kata and they`ll always find something different in it.

I'm sure there were occasions when a samurai would have been unhorsed and lost his sword thus requiring him to engage in empty-handed combat against armoured horsemen?

While I have said that slightly tongue-in-cheek there is a school (which name escapes me for the moment) which has a tradition of including unarmed defences against the sword in their system.


Mick