Forgive me if this questions sounds ignorant, or if it has already been posed.

I have been thinking about karate a lot lately, mainly because there ain't a lot happening here at work!

What I want to know is, there are different version of the same kata, like bassai dai for instance. The version I learn in GKR is different to the version I learn training with Mick.

Why is that, and is one more technically correct than the other?

Just wondering

I think it comes from the kata being passed down from teacher to student and to their student and so on by repeating the pattern instead of having unambiguously written instructions.

Some of the bunkai has no doubt changed as well due to forgetfulness, or it's been overlooked, or assumed as time went on.

Gichin Funakoshi even said that kata does change, and should change over time, and the way he did kata in his later years was different from the way he did it when he was younger.

In my opinion, one version of a kata can claim to be more technically correct than another if it can be demonstrated that the founder of that particular style did the kata that particular way, and the reasons for him doing it that way.

I think all kata, when done well, shows a dedication and mastery of the techniques included in that kata by the person doing the kata, and because of that, I think all versions of a kata can be considered valid training tools.

Now get back to work!

There are a zillion different versions of Bassai Dai (or any other kata for that matter). The important question is 'Why?'.

In the past, in Okinawa, there wasn't the standardisation that modern karate organisations strive for. So there was naturally more variation in practice of kata. My own belief is that it is the principles that the kata demonstrate that are the most important aspect of a kata. So if a kata movement can be done in 2 slightly different ways, which both embody the relevant principle, then neither one is more correct than the other. Each may be suggestive of particular bunkai. But that still doesn't make one more correct than the other - the bunkai are merely examples of the principle, it is the principle which is being trained in the kata. It is only when you modify the kata to the extent that it no longer embodies the principles that the kata has lost its real essence.

In more modern times (ie. 20th century) kata have been modified to make them more athletic, more demonstrative, more dynamic and basically more appealing to watch or practice (if you don't understand the principles & bunkai that is). Funakoshi deliberately modified the kata he taught so that they became a dynamic exercise in mastering an arbitrary perfection of form. This 'perfection' was arbitrary as Funakoshi quite clearly stated that the purpose was the perfection of character, not the improvement of self-defence skills. My suspicion is that he was also deliberately making it harder to see the relevant principles and hence harder to extrapolate any useful bunkai.

Hope that makes sense.

Mike

So Funakoshi did not apply kata as a tool for applying karate at all? Maybe he didn't know them himself?

Is this an indicator that Shotokan kata is invalid as a combat practice tool?

That is my understanding of how he taught, yes. That may not be the way that he taught when he first started in Japan in the early 1920's. But it does seem to be the ethos he was promoting by the 30's.



There is much conjecture about that. I don't consider myself qualified to comment. However, it is certain that he knew more and better than has survived into the modern Shotokan - this can be said with certainty as he demonstrates a couple of bits of (non-Shotokan) bunkai in one of his earlier books.



I think there is truth in that statement, yes. Not to say that the movements themselves are all completely without value. But they have been modified in a manner that generally makes them less practical. And some movements have been modified to the point that they no longer express the self-defence principles that the original movements embodied. And, of course, the movements may be spot on but if the practitioner has not been taught how to properly understand them then the movements themselves will be of little use.

Mike

Funakoshi taught PE Karate to school children in Okinawa for many years. His teacher, Itosu, was concerned for the safety of the children and many changes were made to disguise the original targets. Training became focused on exercise rather than the applications, and kata was the main vehicle. It was a training tool in that sense; it provided great exercise for the students who could all train as a group making it easier for the teacher who did not need specialised knowledge. Much like today, instructors showed how and then counted out the steps in the kata.

As a school teacher and family man, funakoshi had little spare time and there is no record of him, that I am aware of, having taught adult students in a private dojo on Okinawa. When he moved to Japan in search of a better life style he did teach young adults at Universities in Tokyo. Some of those students returned to their home towns and opened dojo(s) that Funakoshi visited.

My first 18 years of karate were spent in studying the karate taught by one such dojo. The kata practised there were the 20 kata Funakoshi taught in the early days before the Shotokan syllabus was established and published in 1935. Here in Australia, we were never taught applications and sparring was the main application of karate. However when I began to research and trace the Shotokan kata from the latest JKA models through to non-JKA styles and Shotokai kata, the early kata that I had learned became very helpful to me in extrapolating applications from kata.

As I traced the kata back it became obvious that many of the modifications made were done so with no regard for applications and it would be easy to consider that the JKA instructors had no idea of same and were more concerned with achieving a certain 'style', with function regarded as kumite in the modern sense of sparring. Shotokan instructors that teach applications have obviously created their own with many starting off with what George Dillman originally taught in his pressure point perspective.

I finally traced back as far as the kata that had been taught to Funakoshi and others by Itosu, the true father of modern karate. I was able to see the close similarity between what I had first learned in non-JKA karate to its source. In many ways I found I had come full circle as T. S. Elliot remarked, but with a much better understanding od the kata than ever before.

It is the principles of karate that are found in kata and the practise of kata today is contrary to these principles. Feet flat on the floor, snapshot movement, wrong target areas, focus on nonsense blocking at chudan height, etc. Long low stances that impede mobility and gymnastic manouveres that would get one badly injured in the real world are rewarded heavily in competition.

I trained in Shotokan kata for 32 years and today I don't practise a single one. I do teach some Shitoryu, Gojuryu and Ruieryu kata for competition purposes only but I won't teach stances such as Kokutsu dachi, Kiba dachi, Sochin dachi and Hangetsu dachi from Shotokan as they are useless in karate application. I am not against those that practise Shotokan as we all come to our own truths and I certainly took long enough
And my opinion is based on my research and experience and is naturally different to others as it should be.

There are many many strong karate in Shotokan but I don't believe that their kata training is at all helpful in applying karate techniques. Kata and kumite in Shotokan are two separate disciplines with two different sets of kihon and few if any areas where the two ever meet. The early kata has enhanced our kumite training and our early kata is a training tool for karate andnot an end in itself.

Cheers,
Boz

*Slips on flame retardent jacket*
Stances such as the ones you named above are not useless in application. As a stance is a transitory movement regarding the end of a stance gives the wrong impression of what it's all about. A stance directs force in a given direction - whether that's pushing, pulling, sinking or a variation on a theme. We have an exercise with our students, we ask one of them to get into a stance, whilst their partner walks around them pushing and pulling them in various directions to find out where they are strongest and where they are weakest. It soon becomes apparent that kokutsu dachi is good for pulling, zenkutsudachi is good for pushing/ exploding forward, kibadachi is good for sinking the bodyweight etc. We do not fight in the stances as such, instead we learn to utilise the principles of a stance in order to manipulate and make the most of the mechanics of the human body. Keeping low is also not a bad thing to train, as it minimises the target area (I agree that overly long and low stances which prevent easy movement are stupid and unnessary outside of exercise purpises).

It's interesting to note that Funakoshi Gichin promoted the use of longer stances for beginners and more natural stances for advanced karateka. I believe this is about training the body to the maximum, so that you can do it, and then later on changing this so that the principles one has discovered can be used without incorporating an extended stance. It's also a good idea to train beyond what one would ever have to need, so that when adrenaline is flowing and the fine motor skills go to pot we still have a good power and range of skills.

As for blocking at chudan height. That's if you believe they are blocks. However I think that this completely ignores the use of the hikite hand. I am more of the theory that there are no blocks in kata. For starters I don't think people need to be told that it's not a good idea to be hit - this should be elementary to everyone. Secondly it really is not a good idea to block and then strike. Instead make the block a strike, or learn to be able to do both together.. never give the opponent the chance to get another hit in. So instead I like to think of the Uke technqiues (which translates as to receive, not to block) as applications within themselves; whether that be joint manipulation, a throw, or a strike. In the same way if one looks at a chudan punch, but then take into account that there is a hikite hand available should you want to use it, well suddenly they could well be a jodan puncn into the opponent's face, which you have brought down to a chudan level. It's hard for them to retaliate from there!

There are pictures out there of Funakoshi doing what looks like oyo, for example in his Tote Jutsu book.

I think the main problem was that the young men in the Japanese Universities had little interest in kata. They just wanted to fight. Perhaps because they ignored the kata he had no real desire to pass on the bunkai. Or perhaps by that time he had little interest in fighting and really just wanted to work on the "Perfection of Character"?

I am biased but I do not think that Shotokan is invalid as a combat practice tool. I do believe however that some schools teach it that way.

Hi Angela,

no need for even a vest

Oh I don't know! My house is pretty cold at the moment, I've lost all feeling in my nose.



I totally agree there is a lot of exercise reasoning behind Shotokan karate. After all Funakoshi embraced karate as way to improve mind and body. However although Shotokan has gone to the extremes of movement the original meanings are still there, just somewhat harder to extrapolate from the exaggerated movements. Some schools have taken this to the extreme and are in fact risking lifelong damage to their bodies because of the way they are distorting them in ways they were never meant to work. The way we train is that good body mechanics should not be compromised for the sake of a stance. We then work the best we can from that premise. The one thing I would agree on is kibadachi. I hate that stance, and if I had my way would replace it with shikodachi. As far as I am concenred kibadachi places undue tension
on the ankles, but then again I have real problems with ankle mobility because of the arthritis in them.

I think a lot of people don't realise that the over-exaggerated long and low stances weren't actually brought in by Funakoshi Gichin, but were actually implemented by Yoshitaka (Gigo). All the early pictures of Funakoshi senior see him in a more natural stances, as employed by the Okinawan karate styles.



It might well be true. I'll be the first to admit that Shotokan has a lot of crud out there, and a lot of people are still trying to punch at the end of the movement. In fact on another forum I had a debate with someone over this, where they were trying to maintain that contact was made right near the full extention of the punch. Sometimes when I chat with other Shotokan people I am frustrated by the ignorance on display - these are the people that give the art a bad name.

The best way to test the punch in my opinion is with a partner, and some ether-foam. Pads absorb too much force, but ether-foam leaves little room for debate.




The only block we train outside of pre-arranged kumite is the soft block, even then if performed correctly it has a lot of stopping power. With good aim the puncher's arm can be completely numbed. I still think that the only way you would want to lower your guard and stick it on your hip is because there is something in it, so that the attacker cannot hit you. Whether this is then assisting a strike by poviding a pull in against an outgoing strike, or trapping in order to create a base for a lever so that you can bar / break / dislocate a limb.


Upward block? It could be a strike to the neck or an arm break, it can also be a choke, or a strike through the chin/throat. Most people hit with the classic haymaker, an upward block would be useless as a block against this.



Jion is punches to the throat... or maybe it's something completely different. People see an arm go out they automatically assume punch.... there is more than 1 way to skin a cat.

I'd also agree with Bob's take on this. If you want to sink low use shikodachi - you can sink lower than in kibadachi plus its quicker and easier to get there. Kibadachi is simply a pointless bastardisation of Naihanchidachi, which has little to do with sinking low. Tell your instructor kibadachi is bad for your ankles so you're doing shikodachi from now on:-)

Mike

LOL. I actually said something similar a few weeks back. I am not really picked up on my kibadachi because they are aware of my problems, but when I am instructing I need to be able to approximate the stance to pass on to the students. I hate naihanchi dachi more than I hate kibadachi though, because the slight inturn of the feet, and the narrower stance is agony.

Well if its any consolation I'm boiling alive in the heat

However although Shotokan has gone to the extremes of movement the original meanings are still there, just somewhat harder to extrapolate from the exaggerated movements. .. snipped for brevity.



I think a lot of people don't realise that the over-exaggerated long and low stances weren't actually brought in by Funakoshi Gichin, but were actually implemented by Yoshitaka (Gigo). All the early pictures of Funakoshi senior see him in a more natural stances, as employed by the Okinawan karate styles.



I'll be the first to admit that Shotokan has a lot of crud out there, and a lot of people are still trying to punch at the end of the movement. In fact on another forum I had a debate with someone over this, where they were trying to maintain that contact was made right near the full extention of the punch. Sometimes when I chat with other Shotokan people I am frustrated by the ignorance on display - these are the people that give the art a bad name.



The best way to test the punch in my opinion is with a partner, and some ether-foam. Pads absorb too much force, but ether-foam leaves little room for debate.



The only block we train outside of pre-arranged kumite is the soft block, even then if performed correctly it has a lot of stopping power. With good aim the puncher's arm can be completely numbed. I still think that the only way you would want to lower your guard and stick it on your hip is because there is something in it, so that the attacker cannot hit you. Whether this is then assisting a strike by poviding a pull in against an outgoing strike, or trapping in order to create a base for a lever so that you can bar / break / dislocate a limb.




Upward block? It could be a strike to the neck or an arm break, it can also be a choke, or a strike through the chin/throat. Most people hit with the classic haymaker, an upward block would be useless as a block against this.




Perhaps but karate is firstly striking and if you saw old style Jion you would see why.. before you can apply a lock or a throw, it is best to hit hard and weaken the attacker. Applying locks and throws to an uncompliant opponent requires a lot more skill than the average karateka has. karate is about toride (grappling) in the end as the idea is not to do any more damage than necessary.
I'm enjoying the discussion, thank you,
Boz

Hi Angela,

Try it without turning your toes in. Many of us do it that way. The pidgeon toes business is a nonsense IMO.
When you turn to the left or the right 45o you will find yourself in a natural fighting stance. If you apply the techniques from Tekki with less exaggeration you should find some sensible applications.

Cheers,
Boz

I agree, and this is why we look at BAR (Body Alarm Reaction) in my dojo. A set up technique to induce BAR is a great way to aid success in the following techniques. In fact the very first move of Tekki (Naihanchi) demonstrates this beautifully, with the swift hand cross before coming in for the big swiping hand. This can be used as a distraction across the face before hitting the back of the neck, and would also aid manoeuvring the opponent. I don’t really go for jodan punches, preferring to keep to the maxim, “Hard Weapon Soft Target; Soft Weapon, Hard Target”. If I’m going for the head I’d prefer to use a palm heel strike, or something similar.

Hi Angela,
Jusy looking at your omment re Tekki, can you see my point that the stance is of no use in the application?

I don't disagree with your comments on self defense preferences but again if I may point out, where does Shotokan kata and associated stances come into that equation? Ruieryu kata employs palm heel strikes to the face and natural movements such as step and slide and momentum punching. You seem to have a lot of good ideas but the wrong kata. Punching to the head is natural to us mad males

Cheers,
Bob

That is just one application, and lowering the weight is always good practice for unbalancing the attacker whilst rooting one's self. I see a lot of people follwing their opponent to the floor by bending their back; this not only brings the face closer to the attcker but also creates an off-balancing as soon as the head goes past the hips.

My point was that I agree that striking an opponent can set up further attacks, and in fact the BAR does not even have to be hard or powerful, just shocking. I don't think a punch to the head is the best way to do it... although it may feel "natural" for you males the fact is that it is still bone on bone, and you risk injuring yourself as well at the person you are striking. This is where training comes in - to train a new set of instincts, rather than the alpha male ones, and rather than reacting to emotions such as anger. A lot of people find the old haymaker a natural punch, but we teach our white belts to deal with them and once you know how, it's easy because the punch is easy to spot, takes the long route round and is not hard to avoid, or jam... the most natural attack is not always the best.

If you feel the need to strike jodan I think the throat would be a much better target.

Hi Angela,

Lots of things are situational and not always black and white. Opinions are formed by experience and the best experience is your own and not someone else's. Good talking to you,

Boz

I agree.

But training in martial arts *hopefully* helps us to adapt situations to how we are strongest. Only in the dojo will we have the calmness of mind to study situations and flinch responses in depth and if necesary drill an entirely new set of instinctive reponses. This state of mind will then hopefully be somewhat transferred into real encounters with violence.

Perhaps it's my age or perhaps it's my training but I am a lot calmer than I used to be and no longer flare so easily in the face of provocation... I think before I react. This means I pretty much completely avoid violent confrontations because I talk it down instead of reacting in an offensive manner.

I *hope* to have no more dealings with violence in the future, so hopefully the only experience I will have are old experiences, dojo experience, and other people's experiences. We'll see...

Hi Angela,

I'm being picky I realise but....

You can't teach yourself new instinctive responses. You can train in conditioned reflexes, which are different from hard-wired instinctive reflexes. There is an important distinction between the two.

Mike

It comes down to semantics... you got my point, yah?

I got your point, but its not semantics. There really is a difference.

Mike

Yeah I know there's a difference.. by instinctive I meant naturally occuring at that time.. ok which is not "instinctive", but you knew, and I knew, what I actually meant. Bad choice of words at the time, I was tired and in a hurry to get to bed

But yes, conditioned response, in which one reacts spontaneously and automatically without thinking to certain stimuli.. not a million miles away from instinctive reaction really - except it is a response we have (hopefully) trained hard to achieve and may well in fact try and overlay our instinctive responses; or at the very least build on them to improve our chances of success.