 |
| Starting position of mawashi technique at the end of Seipai. |
And this is what has always interested me in discussions of this
sort—they are all based on appearances, and appearances, as we all know, can be
deceiving. For example: Some would suggest that Saifa kata and Seisan kata must
have similar origins because they both end in neko-ashi (cat stance) with a
kind of mawashi-uke. Others, however, would suggest that Saifa was a kata that
came not from Higashionna sensei but from Miyagi sensei, because Kyoda sensei
didn’t teach Saifa. Some suggest that the Okinawan katas came originally from
China because we can find similar postures—cat stance with what looks like the
ending hand positions of mawashi-uke--in various Chinese systems, or
vice-versa. What really needs to be compared, however, are the applications—the
bunkai, if you will—of the various postures.
 |
| Final mawashi position at the end of Saifa. |
 |
| Starting position of mawashi technique at the end of Saifa. |
My point is that it’s difficult, if not misleading, to only
compare appearances, when any perceived similarity in appearance is clearly
secondary to how a technique is meant to be applied. (This, of course, raises a whole other question--that is, the question of how a technique is meant to be applied, based on its occurrence within the structure and sequence of a particular kata, and how it could be applied, based on one's own creative imaginings.) It’s a martial art, after
all, not a dance performance. A number of years ago, there was an article
published—and it received widespread notice and still does to this day—that
attempted to classify the Goju-ryu classical kata according to their
appearances. Did they end in cat stance or horse stance? Were they symmetrical
or asymmetrical? But if we are going to study the relationships between the different kata of
Goju-ryu, we should be studying the bunkai of the
techniques in kata, not their
outward appearances. The mawashi at the end of Saifa is meant to capture and
twist the head of the opponent—to break the neck (colloquially) or traumatize the spinal cord, if you will. The ending mawashi-like technique of Seipai is intended to do the same thing. So is the
mawashi in the middle of Kururunfa. And the one at the end of Seisan.
They are all used for the same purpose, but they are situation specific, so they
look a little different. My suggestion: Put kata in its place. It’s a useful
method to remember the form of technique and perhaps to study the thematic
nature of certain movements or techniques. But put the emphasis back on bunkai,
on the study of application. Comparing techniques based solely on appearance is
a bit problematic to say the least.
 |
| Although this position in Seiunchin kata and the position above from Saifa kata may look similar, the bunkai is very different. |
Sensei, What would you say about the 2 sequential Mawashi Uke in Suparinpei? Why is the first one Big and the second one small?
ReplyDeleteHey, Cris. How's training going? Haven't heard from you in a while. Good question--the two sequential mawashi techniques. I'm assuming you mean the four doubled sequences of mawashi techniques at the beginning of the kata, and not the three single but separate mawashi techniques towards the middle of the kata!? I say this because in either case they are not "attached" to a bunkai in the same way that techniques are put together in the other classical katas. So? So it's hard to say how they are used. They're sort of like the "basic" techniques that occur at the beginning of some of the other katas--Shisochin, Sanseiru, Seisan--in sequences of threes. But the movement--a mawashi followed by another mawashi-like movement in the opposite direction followed by a grab and flat open palm--is found in other katas, like at the end of Seipai or in the middle of Kururunfa. But these techniques are a bit harder to see. Next time we get a chance to spend some time training together we'll take a look at it. Sorry if this sounds cryptic, but it's really hard to put into words. All the best, Giles
ReplyDeleteHi, Sensei,
ReplyDeleteI can see the Kururrunfa reference but the Seipai finish is unclear to me... nevertheless I'm sure it will be a swift lesson once on the mat.
September till now are really busy times for a commercial dojo so not much time for the things we want to do, we did however manage to have a nice seminar In Kimo Senseis honor since he could not make it to Miami. im rather Proud of this since it was my first time running one and everyone left happy.
Any how, Good topic. keep them coming! Happy Thanksgiving to you!
C
Thanks, Cris. I wish people would discuss these things more--technique and bunkai. I get a lot of "hits" on the blog site, but not a lot of comments. So I appreciate hearing from you. Hope you and the family have a good Thanksgiving.
ReplyDeleteGiles
A little off topic but I wanted to share this article with you, it looks at sanchin kata's wrestling roots:
ReplyDeletehttp://voices.yahoo.com/the-grappling-roots-sanchin-kata-12295620.html?cat=5
Thanks for the interesting read. Not off topic at all. The mawashi is certainly grappling...as is much of Goju. While I don't know whether I would subscribe to the notion that Sanchin was designed for the purposes you point out, I would certainly not disagree with the applicability and usefulness of using it that way. The integrity of this Sanchin arm position is seen throughout Goju, as well as the use of "punching past" the body, and the legs. Curious though: Why all the video references to Tom Hill's applications? My problem is that though very imaginative, his applications don't really follow kata movement and often ignore or miss altogether the lessons inherent in the kata movements themselves. In fact, he often seems to go far afield to find applications that could be found in the Goju katas themselves. And some of his applications would only work on very compliant students in the dojo, lacking a sense of reality or for that matter logic in some cases.
ReplyDeleteOn another note, I'm curious about the wide variety of interests covered in your posts--wing chun, t'ai chi, kung fu, goju, etc. And why anonymous?
It seems that many teachers have at least sniffed out and explored the idea that Goju As a fighting system is much more than kicks and punches. the difficulty does seem to be in the "Textual Interpretation" as it is with many ancient texts. we have all hear a story or two about a pius old priest faithfully copying old texts... IMO this is not unlike Kata. the trouble is that not everyone has these meticulous trait and so what we get is distorted material and interpretations.
ReplyDeleteOne thing that I have learned as of late is that much of what I believed was attacking or defending a arm or leg was actually going to the head or neck, Mawashi Uke in particular. if its at the end of a kata... its the end of the individual. so if by "wrestling" we refer to wrestling with hair and chin then i find Anonymous' articles entirely accurate.
Sensei,
ReplyDeleteHope all is well. I see your point relative to over interpreting the type of motions versus their context in the kata and principles of bunkai. I often wonder whether all the roots of Goju had similar expressions of literal techniques in Kata. Like you say, some kata are set up with significantly more repetition of basic movements, like Suparanpe, maybe portions of Shisochin. I wonder about how the different roots of Goju may have varied from more explicit techniques depicted in kata, to those that are more basic. Feeding Crane kata are all basic movements for the most part. In training with Sifu Liu last month, we did kata a bunch and he corrected a bunch of points "saying you must make this more beautiful", "do it this way it looks better", sort of a different idea. Sure this could be just a focus at that moment, like one of the main points of Feeding Crane kata is to demonstrate to the public, show something powerful, show thunder power etc. I guess this is easy if student/teacher connections are strong and the lineage clean. Is the bunkai/kata connection more of a Okinawan idea? Who knows.
Hi Mike,
ReplyDeleteYes, I have often wondered the same thing. When you are working closely with a teacher, it's easy enough to just study technique and the myriad ways it can be applied, or, alternatively, the specific way it is applied. I have seen a number of kung fu systems where their forms seem to be simply a collection of techniques. I don't know whether Goju is unique in showing katas that are composed of actual specific bunkai. It does make me wonder if that's an Okinawan thing. Is it the same for Uechi kata and Shorin kata? I wish I knew. All I know is that it works for Goju kata. In the long run, however, maybe it's all the same; that is, after you have learned the bunkai, the real study of Goju begins with a study of variations, practicing how to connect the techniques in different ways, beginning with one entry technique and grafting on a controlling/bridging technique from another part of the same kata or a different kata altogether and a different finishing technique. So in the long run maybe it's all the same.
What about at the end of Geki 2
ReplyDeleteIs it Abe or is it Mr. Nice? Anyway, I try not to use anything from training subjects like the Gekisai kata in any explanation of Goju. The training subjects were made much later and their purpose, as far as illustrating the principles of the classical subjects, are certainly suspect. So, to me, if you're intent is to explain bunkai using the principles illustrated in the classical katas, the training subjects don't count.
ReplyDeletelol its abe, abenice was a nickname given to me back in my football days. Anyway, I thank you for your reply and i enjoyed your article, i must say i am surprised you dont get more comments! Question, why do you believe the Gekisai kata are suspect? . Acquiring minds want to know! lol
DeleteAbe,
ReplyDeleteBecause they were made much later as either unification kata (with Shorin) and/or for introduction to school boys. As such they don't demonstrate the same principles in their formats or structures as the classical subjects, that by all accounts came originally from China, though the training subjects do have a couple of techniques, understandably, taken from the classical subjects. But I've talked about this elsewhere. What were your answers to my questions in answer to your comments on "Off With Their Heads"? Lineage? Location? What you "figured out"?
Great and that i have a dandy present: How Much Should House Renovations Cost split level house remodel
ReplyDelete