The following is quoted from a shotokan website found
here:
Quote function not used to for space reasons.

-----------------------
Similar to the practice of kihon, the number of individual kata practiced and the manner in which they are performed varies widely from style to style. Furthermore, as with virtually everything else in karate, the number of kata and the way each is done can also vary within the same style depending on who's doing the teaching and what organization they represent (if any). That being said, most (though certainly not all) Shotokan style organizations recognize twenty-six kata as being a part of the curriculum. These kata are drawn from numerous sources, and in many cases versions of kata practiced in Shotokan are also practiced in other styles. While examining each of the kata contained in the Shotokan syllabus is beyond the scope of this text, it is useful to consider how these kata are typically dealt with.

Independent of the style one is practicing, it is often possible to classify the study of kata into one of two distinct approaches. One of these approaches treats the study of kata as a performance art while the other approach assumes that each of the movements catalogued in the kata has some application to a "real-world" situation. Like everything else, the approach, or combination of approaches, taken in any particular club depends on the teacher at that club.

The most common approach is to emphasize the performance aspect of kata with little attention devoted to the application aspect. However, many feel that this emphasis of what is often called "form over function" eliminates opportunities to improve the effectiveness of the art as a tool for self-defense. On the other hand, focusing on function to the point of totally neglecting form could make training so dangerous that no one would want to participate. Though every instructor will have their own opinion that may or may not agree with mine, I personally feel that the best existing solution rests not with adopting one of the extreme positions, but by implementing an approach that is somewhere in the middle.

------------------------------------
end quote.

Interesting points.
26 kata? wow. Im sure that represents a pool to choose from depending on the schools preference, but still!

The problem with emphasisng performance of kata at the expense of application has been discussed a lot here and elsewhere, but this is the first mention I have heard of the reverse. By overemphasisng the application aspect is a key element of kata lost? Does it matter if a technique is incorrect as long as it is still effective in context? If so, have we changed the basis of a kata, and is this a bad thing given change can be improvement?

All I seem to know about kata is its a lot more complicated than I ever imagined.

Many schools probably use all 26 through their syllabi. The question this raises is whether you would have time to practice them all for both form and function? Or would you take the middle road and know how to do them all, be able to perform a small number well and practice application from a small number?

In some cases the form has been changed so much from the original that we could only guess what the function was, and some instead invent applications to fit the current form. Is this wrong?

On the other hand I suppose you could focus totally on function and ignore the form. I don't agree that it would make training so dangerous that nobody would want to participate, though the article did say "could" not "would". But would you not also be losing something from doing that?


Mick

Will ponder on that one...



If kata is a storehouse of sd applications, then getting the long form of the technique right would matter because otherwise the "proper" execution of the technique may be lost? It probably wouldn't matter if it was correct but worked, if you were talking only one person's performance of a kata, but if we all used our own version of the technique, the entire kata would be even more lost than they are now... I think.



Is this a bad thing given change can be a degradation?
Will ponder that one a while too...



Funny, that's all I know too!



I reckon that would be ideal... specially if everyone focussed on a different few so none were ever lost. I find the ones I perform best are the ones from which I have been shown the most applications anyway. These are also my favourite kata.



Why has the form changed so much from the original? If the function has been lost, and new applications invented, and they work, then it could be wrong in an historical sense, or could be right in a functionality sense... or right or wrong in any other number of ways...

You two are making my brain hurt.


-- Nooms

Form and function are equally important. Changes are fine if the teacher understands the purpose of the form and function of the kata. One would expect that teachers of a particular 'style' have the necessary knowledge and experience to have made the changes made. If they haven't then the students are left chasing needles in haystacks.

When one learns Matsumura Passai and then compares it to modern Bassai Dai, it immediately becomes obvious that the 'evolution' of the kata leads modern day practitioners, like us, to draw false conclusions about how to perform and apply certain techniques of karate within the kata.

The common applications taught to Bassai Dai are based on a mutated form. Modified techniques viz chudan blocks that were once jodan strikes are now being applied as blocks against non-existent or fanciful attacks, etc. Most of the time the catch cry is 'if it works then its okay' but usually it only works with a compliant partner attacking with 'dead' (not deadly ) kata-type attacks, eg extended punch.

Chojun Miyagi (Goju founder) had a sensible opinion about this issue as he recommended retaining classical kata without change, and creating new kata for the PE and Sporting (competition) aspects. In a sense that is where I ended up with the karate I teach. As far as danger goes, inexperienced instructors who do not understand the content they teach are the real danger. Partners are mismatched and expected to perform futile exercises that have no sensible purpose.

Students are risking their long term health when techniques are taught incorrectly and then practised repetitively flat out. I often read about the great basics taught by some eclectic styles but the ones I've had come to me are held back by their lack of proper biomechanics. An instructor needs to be able to control a class.. young teenagers and low kyu students placed in charge of classes obviously don't understand the dangers they face from litigation nor troublemakers that may drop in from the streets.


Boz

There is also the situation where whole sets of techniques are not taught, reducing everything to basics. The students then try to apply techniques from a kata and figure out applications but are missing a great many pieces of the puzzle.

This is evident when e.g. modern forms of Bassai Dai are presumed to begin with a series of blocks against attacks from different directions, defending numerous attacks with no retaliation.

Further, when all the drills and exercises are done in a linear fashion then other concepts are missed and students are then heard to say that such-and-such won't work for them because they aren't strong enough because they've only been taught to defend an attack head-on instead of parrying, redirecting, blending and other concepts to use footwork and leverage to overcome and control brute force attacks.


Mick

so is there any benefit at all from repetitious basics?
or would it be more beneficial to simply practice a minimal amount, and the rest of the basics practiced in kata, or would that lead to confusion?

It all depends on what your objectives are. Of course there will be benefit in repetitious basics - you will get fine-looking basics. But will you break your wrist hitting something solid if you've only ever practiced punching air?

A common choice of practice methods is to first train any given technique while static, then train it while moving, then train it while moving in a freeform manner.
i.e. kihon practice without movement -> kihon practice with movement -> partnered combinations -> kumite

It is generally accepted I think that basics in kata is the same as basics standing in lines. But application does not (necessarily) adhere strictly and exactly to the action of the basics. Why would this be?


Mick

Everyone must still be pondering this...

OK so we know that in kata when we punch the other hand is retracted to the side, as is often done the same in basics. Looking at it objectively does it not seem in some ways a tad foolish to pull the hand right back like that? What if the punch you threw with the other hand is successfully blocked, wouldn't you be left wide open for a counter strike?


Mick

I was always told that the reason for pulling the resting hand so far back was that if there is an attacker behind you, it can double as an elbow strike.
Of course I may have been misinformed..... I`d be interested to hear people`s views on this topic.

some moves in some katas are for that particular purpose

take the round elbow in cat stance sequence of seiunchin

aparantly the elbow 'strike' is used to remove a grab/hold and the returning hand is used to 'elbow' the perosn holding you from behind.
also the drop into cat stance is meant to be used as a hip thrust at the same time.

useful i guess. unless the person holding you is bigger than you which is likely to be the case...

Even in a multiple attacker scenario, you can only strike effectively at one target at a time. If you try to strike at two targets simultaneously then the effectiveness of both strikes is reduced.

The situation might arise where you are restrained by one person so that another can hit, but in that case it may be possible to use the person holding you for support while e.g. kicking at the other.


Mick

The elbow strike sequence only shows half the picture. One response for being held in a rear bearhug is to strike backward with the head, thrust out the buttocks and elbow to create some space and loosen the hold to the point where an escape can be made. The following move (second last movement in the sequence) can be applied as a followup to that response in escaping and then controlling your attacker.


Mick

I'm pretty sure that the fist returning to the ready position is indicative of hikite - seizing and controlling an opponent - i.e. using a grabbing technique to pull your opponent onto the strike.

Great subject Mick,

A lot of kihon today has been taken from the kata,which in itself seems sensible enough.. but what if the kata has been modified somewhat for looks and ease of teaching? What sort of impact might that have? Watching any of the Hollywood tye MA movies would lead a novice to believe that MA defend themselves in the same manner that they perform kata.

Modern karateka try to invent applications for kata techniques and to give some unexplained practises some meaning and credibility. However with no instruction or information from those in the line of direct transmission.. even if they were lucky in their guesses they have no way of confirming anything they recreate.

The 'hikite' action has had all sorts of meaning applied, i.e. the single hand being retracted to the hip. Kata translates as form and that term is a big clue in this instance. Is it necessary to have both arms involved in punching? Can a person be pulled onto a punch successfully? What would be the benefit ?

Cheers,
Boz

Matt started it


Yes... though it does not seem unreasonable to practice kihon the way it is done in kata. But then where does that leave us when it comes time to apply the techniques in practice?

Punches are always delivered from the hip and the returning hand brought to the hip in preparation for the next technique, this is the form. But if you look at it another way this means that your hands are not in any sort of guard so you are left open as well as adding time to each technique without any significant gain in terms of power. It also leads to distinct separation of techniques - to block followed by counter routines - which means the countering technique might be not initiated until after the block of the first attack, by which time a second attack can already have been launched and you find you've got nothing with which to defend it?


And often the application is performed against karate attacks? When we know that it was not intended for that purpose because there is enough historical documentation to support the position of it being for defence against acts of violence rather than other karateka.

I suppose a small amount could be gleaned from training in another MA but this takes time since if you don't know exactly what you're looking for you can't pick and choose. And if you do pick and choose you risk missing pieces which may be crucial elements.

What can be done?



Many people explain it as a mechanical piston-like action - one arm retracting assists the other in punching - though Arakaki disagrees with this because the body is not a rigid object.

Also you have commonly the situation where the person punching is in some form of stance which is stronger in the direction along the line of the punch. Kuzushi (breaking balance) requires that you direct energy at an angle to the line of force. So you could seize a punch and pull, but the position of their body means they are likely placed to immediately oppose the pull thereby reducing the effectiveness of such an action. In addition, being seized can trigger an immediate response (reflex) to oppose the grab by retracting the seized limb. This then can become a situation of strength vs strength which is only useful if you are the stronger, and not something which can be universally relied upon.

What we have (as you say) is the hand being retracted to the hip as the form. It is not possible to attack two targets simultaneously although different targets can be attacked in rapid succession. So one hand is used to attack and the other is withdrawn. Logic would dictate that it is unwise to place the hand in such an inconvenient position for defence.


Mick

Off topic for a sec here - but are you saying cross training is counterproductive to self defence? Why? It would appear to me the majority of assault situations these days end in wrestling and/or ground fighting, and since Tuite all but seems to have vanished from modern karate (apologies if incorrect - my limited observation) where is one supposed to learn these techniques? Are they represented in Kata?

Wouldnt comparing two styles hilight strengths and weakneses of both, and allow you to perhaps eventually adapt techniques suited for your own abilities/physique?

Absolutely.

I'm not saying crosstraining is counter productive (provided the art is complementary rather than contradictory).

To use my own example I began jujutsu and trained from white belt which meant following the progression of techniques from the beginning, rather than speculating that there are locks and throws in kata and proceeding to find a teacher just to learn those elements.

An example would be if you learnt just how to execute a particular throw. You might miss learning how to apply it into a particular attack(s), miss learning what opening strikes may be available as a distraction while also leading nicely into the setup for the throw. And you might interpret e.g. every 180º turn in kata as being that throw.

Rather by practicing the 2 arts separately you might find elements of one naturally integrate themselves into the other - you might be in a sparring situation and find yourself in a position where you realise you are on the verge of taking a grip to execute a throw of your opponent who is blissfully unaware of the action you were about to take.


Mick

mmmkay.....but I cant see when anyone be able to do that (miss "following the progression of techniques from the beginning"), unless they joined a completely different style that let them keep their grade...and I havent come across any of them, and wouldnt want to really.

Ah yes. I should have clarified, I was thinking along the lines of you could find a teacher and take private lessons to just learn what you wanted to learn.


Mick

How would you know what it was you wanted to learn if you didnt know the style?

I know I wanna learn to play with sticks and do sword katas without even knowing which styles cover it, if that makes sense.

you just want to do the cool stuff

Hehehe... oh no, you found me out!

You would have to start with a vague idea of what you wanted to learn. For example you learn / read / hear that there are jointlocks and throws in kata but you are not taught them in your current club. So you would go looking for a club that does teach this, whether it be another karate club or a jujutsu or aikido school.

So you walk in there and say you want to learn locks and throws. That's about as vague and unspecific as you can get. But any good school will have a properly qualified teacher and whether you sign up for regular classes or private lessons he will quickly be able to determine what you know already.

Then as you begin learning you also learn more about what you don't know and so can refine your focus on what you want to learn.

Does that make sense?


Mick

Yup.
But I cant see an instructor agreeing to teach you something without putting it in context of the style as a whole. Wouldn't they think you were missing the point?

Well certainly if you join a club and partake of the regular classes you would get the same teachings as any other student. But if you learnt on the basis of private lessons they may be more inclined to teach you within the parameters you defined, especially since you're paying for it.


Mick

Do many clubs offer private lessons?
I think the only time Ive had one was when I was the only one who turned up

for $50 an hour i know a kung fu school that offers private tuition

Not bad price wise.
What do you learn you couldnt in a normal class?
If you could afford it would that be the way to go?

never tried it myself
but im pretty sure its up to the student as to what you learn

ive heard of students learning whole forms that are not part of the curriculum for tournaments or demonstration purposes though

i can look into it and let you know if you like

Geez who ever said it was "sunny Brisbane"?

If the subject of a private lesson is not guided by what the student wants, then there is no point to it. If you paid for a tutor then you would specify what you want help with. How is private MA lessons any different?


Mick

A private lesson could just be an easier way of being taught by an instructor without having every other person in the class as well. A solo class, where the instructors full attention is on you and only you.

Susan I have sent you a message

Trying this for the first time so bear with me, but returning to the original thread of kata and bunkai, about the best explanation I've seen offered is that in Essential Shorinjiryu Karatedo by Hisataka, in the chapter on Kata. I'm not sure I totally agree with it, but he attempts to explain 5 levels of bunkai study of which the study of function is only the first level and begins once the form part is reasonably understood. Hisataka seems to be respected among his Japanese brethren, but his lineage is somewhat obscure.

Some additional considerations are the attitudes and perceptions of practitioners that can be induced by performance of the kata or are needed for an adequate performance of it. Bassai-dai and Seiunchin are excellent examples.

Bassai-dai is supposed to mean something like storming the fortress (or castle). Overcoming a fortress is done in one of two ways. You beseige it and settle back waiting until those behind the walls give in, or you attack it with total commitment until every square inch is brought under control - not just the outer wall and gate, and main hall, but the tower and keep (including Japanese equivalents). A castle can't be half-stormed, it is strong, persistent action that is required, through every phase of the attack. Bassai-dai is a long kata where nearly every move is performed strongly, either fast and strong or slow and strong, but it is the persistence of the strength that is the key to its performance. Determination, persistence, doggedness can all be developed or utilised in and for this kata.

Seiunchin contains a quiet expression of the irresistable force/immovable object dilemma so beloved of western mechanical philosophy, and so is an ideal follow-up to the persistence expressed in Bassai-dai, but as it's late I'll leave that for another day (or night) if anyone is interested.

I cant see any correlation between Passai and seiunchin.

Saifa and Seiunchin yes.. Passai, no..

Could you explain more please?

JohnT
Interesting concept. Might have to read a few times......

And heres me thinking that all that back stance in Passai was for getting up narrow castle corridors.

At least I know for sure that Hangetsu is all about fighting on ships.

dont forget naifanchi for those times you get attacked in a canoe

kayak!

{whiskeyonesix clears throat} cough, cough - Excuse me!
Can anyone explain about Hangetsu? I`ve only ever seen it performed once or twice - most of my instructors having grounded out round about Bassai dai.

The first person to kiai "KAYAK" doing naifanchi will find themself volunteering for having applications demonstrated on their person!


Mick

its a kata for fat slow old men to perform badly in the veterens division at tourney's. Nice loud kiai's (try not to dribble from any oriface at the same time) make up for distanct lack of technique.

Its was originally designed for fighting on boats.......

Or possibly used instead of sanchin in shotokan clubs.

GKR practice two versions of Hangetsu..

Both are a bit crap.

Rancer said Hangetsu
its a kata for fat slow old men to perform badly in the veterens division at tourney's. Nice loud kiai's (try not to dribble from any oriface at the same time) make up for distanct lack of technique.

At last a kata perfect for me

Make sure you develop some festering B.O first..

Rancer, its not so much a correlation between Bassai and Seiunchin but I've found that these katas to be the best examples of learning a mind set from the kata, either when you are practising it or when you watching a capable performance of them.

Having watched members of other styles and clubs perform Seiunchin, there's one constant among all the differing versions, which is the slow and strong performance of the opening moves, except for a slightly faster kake-uke just before the spear thrust. When settled in your sumo stance, simply fix your focus on nothing will shift you - hence being the immovable object. When stepping forward in the sumo stance and when slowly thrusting the spear hand shift your mind set to being the irresistable force - nothing will stop you.

Another constancy among various styles with respect to bunkai of Seiunchin is that it contains defensive moves to being grabbed around the neck, torso or the arms. To someone grabbing you aggressively the only response must be decisive and immediate and you must handle them back - dodging and weaving as you might with a punch, kick or attempted grab is likely not an option. So you are left with two strategies - anything they try will not shift you, and anything you do will work.

The interesting thing about Seiunchin is the way this attitudinal/emotive lesson is right up front. And like all kata it is a lesson learned by practsising the kata.

Just to confuse the issue, I've read previously about Seiunchin being performed with Sai, or with a short and long sword. I've seen Bassai performed with a bo, Kankudai with kama. There's a school of thought that all kata have weapons basis as well as empty hand - both for performance of the weapon and defence against it.

If Shakespeare was a martial artist, he would have written "there are more things in kata, Horatio than are dreamt of in your philosophy".

It does not confuse the issue. Karate kata may be performed with weapons in hand, but it does not make them weapons kata. Such a school of thought is wrong, IMO.

The basic principles where perhaps a defence is presented against a thrusting strike attack such as a straight punch can be applied to a stabbing attack. Where a defence against a curved attack is presented such as a swinging punch it can be applied also to a slashing attack. And so on...

The movement of the body behind the attack is more dependent on the nature of the attack than the weapon employed.

Some of the applications presented with karate kata against weapons is downright foolish. There is a sequence in Kanku Sho which I have heard told is seizing a bo, wresting it from the opponent and striking them with it. Such an attempt would be more likely though to result in being cracked over the head, being placed in a jointlock, thrown to the ground and then being struck again as a finishing move. All this being done to the defender rather than the opponent, who still holds their bo and is now the victor.


Mick

Sounds like ths Empi jump bunkai I was told: attacker has a bo; you grab it with both hands, jump up, spin around, wrest the weapon from his hands and land in kokutso datch with said bo pointing at attackers head.

Yeah, right!

Come on over and we'll try it Although having said that there is a disarming technique which is similar. But it's more a case of having them let go because they have to rather than doing a snatch.


Mick

Mick, re reply of 17/12, a very good summary of a useful approach to understanding and practising kata - how is the attack coming at you rather than what is coming at you. This very much the "Library" interpretation espoused by segments of JKA - particularly Kanazawa if memory serves. My use of the word "confusing" was rather loose, and aimed at those struggling with the form/function dichotomy. As for whether the kata then become weapons kata - don't know - it's simply another interpretation.

I guess one of the big problems with kata is that students want to know what a move does because its helps visualisation of their performance, something the kata champions maintain is more than useful. Providing them with something meaningful to students is not always easy, but then again, part of the practise and understanding of kata is self-learning exercise.

Having been fascinated with bo's:1/4-staffs for a long while my own research into empty-hand defense against these (if you have no alternative) reveals a common thread. If grabbing the staff, grab it near the centre with both hands, preferably near the hands of the attacker. Follow immediately with a circular twist of your arms at least a half turn, leading to their forearms becoming crossed, and then pull or push into or away from the assailant. This will only break the assailant's control of the bo, they may still be holding it, and you may still need to apply a finishing technique, likely a strike of some kind. If you can pick such a move in kankusho, or empi (as have been mentioned in this thread) or other kata, then maybe you have an application understood.

Cheers
JohnT