Entrance to the Barn Dojo....

Saturday, November 23, 2013

A Mawashi-uke to you too!

Starting position of
mawashi technique
at the end of Seipai.
I’ve read a lot of discussion on the Internet recently about mawashi-uke and neko-ashi dachi. Some of this has been couched in questions about the possible origins of Goju kata—a subject that opens up endless bandying about of theory based on little more than observation, interpretation, or personal bias. Some of this, of course, is prompted by individuals promoting their own lineage or traditions, but there’s little actual evidence to go on other than the perceived similarity of appearances.
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.
The mawashi-uke is actually not as ubiquitous as it would seem, outside Goju-ryu training kata, like Geki-sai dai ichi, Geki-sai dai ni, Gekiha, or some of the other training subjects practiced in various Goju-ryu schools. A kind of mawashi-uke occurs at the end of Saifa, but it’s not the same as the one we find at the end of Seisan kata. There is no mawashi-uke in Seiunchin or Shisochin or Sanseiru, though there are open hand techniques and we see circular movements. Is the mawashi-uke in the middle of Kururunfa the same as the end technique of Saifa or is it more like the end technique of Seipai?
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.


13 comments:

  1. Sensei, What would you say about the 2 sequential Mawashi Uke in Suparinpei? Why is the first one Big and the second one small?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hey, 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

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hi, Sensei,
    I 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

    ReplyDelete
  4. 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.
    Giles

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous4:05 PM

    A little off topic but I wanted to share this article with you, it looks at sanchin kata's wrestling roots:

    http://voices.yahoo.com/the-grappling-roots-sanchin-kata-12295620.html?cat=5

    ReplyDelete
  6. 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.

    On 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?

    ReplyDelete
  7. 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.

    One 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.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Sensei,

    Hope 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.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Hi Mike,
    Yes, 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.

    ReplyDelete
  10. What about at the end of Geki 2

    ReplyDelete
  11. Is 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.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. lol 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

      Delete
  12. Abe,
    Because 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"?

    ReplyDelete