Saifa 2-person drill - Bryson Keenan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4YeTu-4QxM
 |
| Opening move of Saifa |
I heard this and I thought, "Wow, that's great...absolutely correct." But then he doesn't go any further!? He doesn't take the next logical step; that is, when my hand touches my own hand or elbow or forearm or wrist, the kata is showing me how and where I am touching the opponent. The kata is a learning tool and a teaching tool. It is an aid to memory. When your left open hand closes around the right fist at the beginning of Saifa, the kata is telling you where you grab the opponent's hand.
Now it seems in the video that the presenter is doing something to this effect. However, he simply pulls away from the opponent's grab. Without controlling the opponent, you are left back at square one. The idea one should strive for in figuring out bunkai is only to give the opponent one attack, the first attack--Karate ni sente nashi. The presenter in this video pulls away and then has to block again with the left. If the first technique is, however, over top of the opponent's elbow, one can see that the left hand reaches over for the head--which has been brought down by the attack over the elbow--and the following right attack is a forearm to the back of the opponent's neck. Done. Why would I want to allow the opponent multiple attacks...just so I can do some flashy continuous bunkai???
Hi Mr Hopkins,
ReplyDeleteThat presenter would be ME... ;-)
I am not sure whether you watched any further than the technique you are questioning (?), or whether you were maybe watching it with no sound (?), but the very point of the piece to which you refer was that we SHOULDN'T/DON'T pull away. The very next part of the clip shows that... The point of the drill is that we DON'T allow the opponent multiple attack opportunities, but rather continue to attack until one of those attacks 'sticks'. The point of the drill is also not to continue aimlessly through the moves of the kata for the drills sake. The key to this, and all of the related drills, is that the sequence of the kata gives us the 'what if'. E.g. I strike; what it he blocks? Well, that is dealt with by the next move in the sequence. Do also understand that the clip was pulled from a 3-hour seminar. You'll see a 'wipe' as 54 seconds or so after the first explanation of grabbing the opponent. The 'pull away' directly afterwards wasn't directly afterwards at all; it was cut in there. The next part has the grab/cotrol etc. I'd ask you to have another look, past the part you have issue with. Again, remembering it is just parts of a bigger whole. Lastly, this and its related drills from the other Gojuryu kata are anything but 'flashy'... ;-)
Cheers,
Bryson Keenan
Oh, and yes. Really. ;-)
ReplyDeleteHey Mr. Keenan,
ReplyDeleteFinally a legitimate conversation. Sometimes I wonder if there's anyone out there really thinking about kata and bunkai. Please forgive me if my tone came off as provocative or disrespectful--though my intention is always to provoke discussion, I just haven't seen much real discussion on the internet.
I did watch the whole video. I guess my disagreement comes with the underlying notion that kata is constructed to show, as you say, "what if" scenarios. I don't believe that's the case. I believe the katas were constructed of combinations or sequences of entry techniques, controlling techniques and finishing techniques. If your counterattack is blocked or dealt with somehow then certainly you change to another technique. But this sort of continuous bunkai of the classical subjects may come from how the Toguchi school does its training subject bunkai--Gekisai sho, etc. When Taira sensei does this to classical subjects, he misses things like the throw in Seipai when you turn 270 degrees. In Taira sensei's bunkai to this move in Seipai, his double fisted attack is blocked by the opponent and then he spins completely around, turning his back, to attack again. This, I believe, is an example of misinterpreting a kata because you are applying this idea of a continuous bunkai or as you put it imagining the kata shows "what if" scenarios.
Anyway, please understand that I am not questioning your skill or Taira sensei's. I am questioning a particular way of analyzing kata and doing bunkai. But honest, heartfelt, open, and respectful discussion is the most important thing, so that we can all advance the art. Thanks for writing back.
With respects,
Giles Hopkins
Mr. Hopkins,
ReplyDeleteThank you very much for addressing my response. Please do understand that Taira Sensei's drills are not a 'set' pattern; the ones you have likely seen on youtube etc. are parts of a greater whole. And they are (very) open to criticism, review and indeed to change. The constant - the common point of reference - is the kata. If we find that a particular bunkai interpretation doesn't 'work', we go back to the kata and try again! Neither Taira Sensei, nor the other members of the Okinawa Gojuryu Karatedo Kenkyukai, think that we have all the answers. Otherwise we wouldn't need to have a 'kenkyukai' at all, now would we...?! ;-) It is of course your prerogative to disagree with the premise behind Taira Sensei's drills. All I can say in response is that the majority of the principles seem to hold true through the entire Gojuryu kata series; the premise of the drills seem to 'work', regardless of the kata. We would expect them not to work if the theory was flawed. BTW, the 'what if' premise is key, but not the ONLY key... And by 'what if', we don't mean 'what if he throws a punch, 'what if he throws a kick', 'what if he does snake kung fu on us', etc... It is more like 'I am going to hit him; what if he puts a hand up (either to block or punch'. In most cases, if you have done the previous technique properly, you can deal with that with the next move of the sequence. In all of the kata. Yes, really... ;-) Also, don't think that 'renzoku bunkai' is all that we do. This is only one part of our broader training paradigm. We also teach individual techniques and short sequences from the kata, from particular points of entry, as you have described. I particularly like your Sepai explanation in your previous blog post; that interpretation is one I use myself. But I can't as easily 'write off' the 'arm-bar', though. It is the interpretation that Miyazato Sensei taught Taira Sensei; I can only assume that it was the interpretation passed to Miyazato Sensei from Miyagi Sensei (?). Who am I to argue? ;-) That being said, however, our dojo kun directs us to further research, so that's what we do. One day we might have it right, but, until then, we continue that research... ;-)
Mr. Keenan,
ReplyDeleteYour response brings up two points for me. One: You say, the premise of the drills seems to work, regardless of the kata...and that we would expect it not to work if the theory was flawed. The theory here is that the kata shows a "what if" response. But what it seems to look like to me is that the person is responding in a certain way to make it work. The movements on both sides--attacker and defender--are prescribed. If the opponent frustrates your initial response in a different way you can't just do the next move or continuous bunkai--at least that's my guess. Secondly: This way of looking at kata and bunkai is not really principle based, not based on the idea that the techniques in kata are teaching principles of movement. The idea of continuous bunkai for kata is, it seems to me, at least from the many instances of videos I have seen, ignores some of the principles of movement that, I believe, the kata is there to teach us. This kind of kata analysis looks flashy—especially if it is well-choreographed with a partner. But interpreting kata as one long, continuous fight against a single opponent tends to ignore the significance of the turns, stepping, and directional changes of kata. It also tends to undermine the principle, mentioned earlier, of moving in such a way as to allow the opponent only the one initial attack. What it seems to emphasize is the block-punch approach to karate since each attack is blocked and countered, and each counter-attack is blocked as well. Sorry to be so long-winded.
In the spirit of study,
Giles Hopkins
"Your response brings up two points for me. One: You say, the premise of the drills seems to work, regardless of the kata...and that we would expect it not to work if the theory was flawed. The theory here is that the kata shows a "what if" response. But what it seems to look like to me is that the person is responding in a certain way to make it work."
ReplyDeleteIt might well seem that way if you look at these clips in isolation. Rest assured, there is NO set response to these drills. There is no 'other side' of the drill for the uke. There is only the kata sequence for the person practicing the drill. The uke can respond as freely as they like. If, in the opening moves of Saifa, for example, I am controlling their left arm with my left hand and throwing my right hand to their head, they are free NOT to block that strike. The consequence is that they get hit in the head. The 'drill' then ends. The 'what it' in this case is 'what if they DO block that strike?' I don't WANT them to block the strike; I want to hit them in the head ;-) I don't WANT the 'drill' to continue... The point of the exercise is that, if he puts his hand up, now I have THAT hand, and can go on with what for me is a predetermined follow-up move (without having to think about it in a split-second encounter), while he hopefully gets hit in the head again... ;-)
" The movements on both sides--attacker and defender--are prescribed."
Again, no they are not. These drills have NO prescribed moves for the uke.
"If the opponent frustrates your initial response in a different way you can't just do the next move or continuous bunkai--at least that's my guess."
ReplyDeleteAnd here's where it gets interesting. The point of the 'sequence' of the kata appears to us to be that it elicits particular responses in the opponent that will indeed be handled by the next move in the kata. And the opponent attempting to frustrate your intent is the very purpose of the research in this regard. The question we are constantly asking while we move from one part of the sequence to the next is 'can we deal with an alternate response with the subsequent technique?'. The more we play with this theory, the more we find it DOES apply.
'Secondly: This way of looking at kata and bunkai is not really principle based, not based on the idea that the techniques in kata are teaching principles of movement.'
I'd probably argue that these principles are taught in other related practices and summarised or catalogued in the kata...
"The idea of continuous bunkai for kata is, it seems to me, at least from the many instances of videos I have seen, ignores some of the principles of movement that, I believe, the kata is there to teach us. This kind of kata analysis looks flashy—especially if it is well-choreographed with a partner."
Again, there is a BIG difference between Taira Sensei's 'continuous' bunkai and the 'consecutive' bunkai you might have seen in other schools. There is no choreography for the uke...
"But interpreting kata as one long, continuous fight against a single opponent tends to ignore the significance of the turns, stepping, and directional changes of kata. It also tends to undermine the principle, mentioned earlier, of moving in such a way as to allow the opponent only the one initial attack.'
ReplyDeleteAs I have tried to explain, 1. the kata is NOT interpreted as one long, continuous fight. The aim is to end the fight at the first available opportunity. The drill only continues if that opportunity is thwarted. And the actual engagement doesn't need to start at the beginning point of the kata. And at a number of points, if the kata response is thwarted, we can switch to another kata. A handful of youtube clips do no a system make... ;-)
'What it seems to emphasize is the block-punch approach to karate since each attack is blocked and countered, and each counter-attack is blocked as well.'
On the contrary. The practice emphasises pressing the engagement and finishing the fight immediately. The continuous bunkai drill is merely one of many tools to enable us to experiment with the unpredictability of response of the opponent. I would relish the opportunity to have you 'feel' it first hand; 'seeing' it, doesn't do it justice... ;-)
" Sorry to be so long-winded."
No problem; I am annoying the conversation!
Regards,
Bryson
Oh, and one more thing... ;-)
ReplyDeleteRegarding the other principles contained in the kata, these ARE addressed (open/close, close/open, push/pull, angling, weight transfer, etc.) in the drills. In fact it is these very principles that MAKE the drills 'work'...
Oops; my second-to-last post should have read "I am ENJOYING the conversation..."!!!
ReplyDeleteI really need to turn off the auto-correct function...!
;-)
Hi Mr. Keenan,
ReplyDeleteTo give Taira sensei his due, I will grant you that this method of training kata/bunkai is useful to practice reflexive responses in the event that one's initial counter is blocked or frustrated. We train the same idea by looking at variations within a kata and between different katas. However, and not to belabor the point or go round in circles (because words are a poor substitute for actually being able to see something on the dojo floor), but after watching this video clip of Taira sensei (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhGDa9OV8yU) using Seipai kata, not continuously, but in combinations, it better illustrates what I was trying to say about missing some of the principles of movement that, I believe, the kata is teaching. In a nutshell, the kata shows turns and directional changes, I believe, to demonstrate how to step off line--it may be angular movement or lateral movement, etc. When you do the techniques--however you interpret the hand movements--standing directly in front of the attacker, you are ignoring the lessons of the pattern of the kata. Consequently (my earlier point), you are not applying a very important principle--to move off line. For instance, I would argue that the opening move of Seipai shows this 90 degree off-line movement with the attacker coming in with a right punch from the west. If you apply this notion to the study of kata and bunkai--that the kata shows how to step off the centerline or, putting it another way, the attack is coming from the direction (not necessarily the front) from which you have moved your center--then it will sometimes very significantly alter how you interpret techniques. For example, in the move in the middle of Seipai where you are in cat stance with what looks like a left closed-hand chest block and a right upper hooking punch...if the attack is coming from the east and you are side stepping, this has placed you a bit to the side of the attacker. If then, you drop the arms and make the "jump," your right arm has come down on the opponent's left punch and moving forward you have hooked the arm with your left hooking punch or forearm attacking his head. By next, pivoting, the opponent's head is brought down and the arm lifted, thus using the 270 degree turn to throw the opponent. Why else would you use such a turn in kata? Surely it makes more sense than to turn one's back on the opponent. Hope that's not ridiculously confusing in words.
Regards,
Giles
Oh, on the subject of Saifa. Instead of coming up against the opponent's left elbow with your right elbow, why not bring your whole right forearm down over the opponent's elbow, thereby forcing him and his head down with no opportunity to block anything. Then instead of your left hand coming over to grab his left arm, you grab the head. Then, with the grab, pulling the attacker as you drop back into shiko dachi, the target for your right attack (and a more lethal one) is the back of the opponent's neck. I think most all of Goju classical kata show these very lethal counters.
ReplyDeleteRegards,
Giles
Hi Giles,
ReplyDeleteAs I think I've tried to say a number of times now, Taira Sensei's method is a research method. The things that you might see on one or another youtube video grab are experimental and experiential. They are not definitive curriculum items. They are not dogmatic "this is the answer" or "this is THE bunkai" interpretations. The continuous bunkai drill is a TOOL; a means rather than an end. As I have also said, the more we practice the method, the more we find that it 'works', regardless of the kata to which it is applied. And, because there is no set response from the uke, we find that individual waza and combinations of waza still work almost regardless of the response. It isn't so much that it doesn't matter what the uke does, it is more that we have limited the uke's responses through the application of the waza in the first place. If you can't 'see' it, I'd encourage you to 'feel' it. You would be most welcome at any Kenkyukai seminar
Regards,
Bryson