The First Principle...in no particular order: or, a basic primer on kata analysis

"If there is no first attack in karate, look for the block or uke at the beginning of each combination or sequence of moves."


Seisan block and attack
that begins all three bunkai
sequences only this is on
the opposite side.
 

I read someone once--a very senior karate practitioner--who said that Seisan kata showed 13 kamae postures. What does that even mean? I assume by kamae postures he meant "ready positions," which implies to me that these techniques were viewed not as uke or receiving techniques or for that matter application techniques at all!!! Well, what the heck?! But perhaps that's a rant for another day.

For me, each kata (of the classical subjects in Goju-ryu) is composed of combinations or sequences of moves. Not counting repetitions, therefore, Saifa has five combinations. Seiunchin also has five combinations. But Sanseiru only has three combinations, though it does show some variation within them. Seipai, on the other hand has seven. Most of these combinations begin with a block or uke and simultaneous attack, followed by a bridging or controlling technique, and ending with a finishing technique or techniques. In Seisan, each of the combinations begins with a sweeping semi-circular right-hand block and a left open-hand palm strike. At the beginning of Seipai kata, we see a left open hand block and right open-hand attack with the controlling or bridging technique being the left step forward and the left hand clasping the right hand. The finishing technique comes with the drop into horse stance. It is, of course, obvious that Seipai kata begins with a bunkai combination, whereas Seisan begins with basic punches and other techniques that appear later in the kata as part of actual bunkai sequences, as if the creators of Seisan were suggesting that it was important to practice these individual techniques on their own prior to applying them in bunkai.

Bridge technique in
the first sequence
of Seipai kata.

Since each of these combinations begins with a distinct receiving technique, block, or uke, if you will, there are a fairly limited number of ways Goju uses to "block" an opponent's attack, and that is perhaps as it should be. But because of stepping shown in kata and directional changes, each uke should leave the defender in a relatively safe position, with the attacker unlikely to be able to easily launch a second attack before the defender can move in to control or bridge the distance.

But the first step is to study the receiving techniques--how to move, how to step, how to block. I remember talking to a good friend in Okinawa once. We were looking at a book with a formal portrait of Miyagi Chojun sensei. He pointed to the inscription in kanji underneath the picture and said it was very important since these were the words of Miyagi sensei. When I asked him what it said, he said, "Don't get hit..."

..

The Principles of Bunkai or Kata Analysis

I came across a video recently discussing the "principles" of Goju blocking techniques. It made some good points, and it got me to thinking that few karate practitioners seem to discuss principles at all, or if they do they only give the most cursory acknowledgement to the notion, as if the principles themselves were so obvious and so universally practiced that they didn't warrant any discussion. But I don't think that's the case. I think that most karate practitioners don't think about principles at all, or, if pressed, would only mouth what had been posted on the dojo wall in framed kanji or repeated training mantras. "Karate Ni Sente Nashi" or "There is no first attack in karate," for example. Now certainly there's nothing wrong with these words of wisdom--not what I'm suggesting at all--but principles, it seems to me, should inform, or be the basis of, how one analyzes kata.  Our practice, it seems to me, should be more about practicing and reinforcing principles of movement and self-defense. The moves in kata are merely the vehicles by which we practice those principles. So here's my preliminary list of "principles" that one should use to analyze kata--that is, to do bunkai:

• If there is no first attack in karate, look for the block or uke at the beginning of each combination or sequence of moves. Now some may say that that in itself is an assumption--that katas are composed of combinations or sequences. But this seems to be borne out. Often, these "blocks" are done simultaneously with an attack or "bridging" technique with the other hand. In any case, the block (uke) or receiving technique together with the controlling or bridging technique, along with proper stepping, should leave the defender in such a position that the attacker does not have a second chance to attack. Caveat: This is not necessarily true of the opening sequences of threes, such as the three punches in Seisan or the three nukites in Shisochin. These are basics.
• Much of the stepping--particularly in the initial "uke"--indicates how the defender steps off line and consequently the direction from which the opponent's attack comes. The principle here, followed in almost all cases, is that the attacker is attacking one's centerline and the defender is stepping off the centerline to avoid the attack. This is safer and makes blocking easier. In analyzing kata (or looking for bunkai), how you step off line with the initial block should show you the direction from which the attacker is attacking. You should have moved your center off line. The kata shows these steps and movements in a variety of ways and along various angles--stepping to the front tangent (northeast or northwest), stepping off 90 degrees (to the west or east), stepping back at an angle (to the southwest or southeast), and stepping directly back (to the south).
• Block the hands, protect against an elbow, but attack the head. The attacking techniques of Goju-ryu always seem to go for the head or neck of the opponent. It's generally much deadlier than simple punch-kick responses. Even middle-level punches are often at this level only because the opponent's head has been brought down. Even the fairly ubiquitous mawashi-uke is mostly used against the opponent's head and neck when we see it in kata.
• Since Goju-ryu is a system of self-defense, when one employs a technique correctly it should seem effortless. This is, of course, facilitated by turning and moving off line. If a bunkai seems to require too much strength or depend on seemingly too much speed, it's probably not right. Obviously you need to practice and learn techniques, but if a technique (the bunkai that you think you've found) doesn't seem to work and your response is, "It'll work but you just have to get faster or stronger," then go back to the drawing board. 
• Speaking of combinations: In Goju-ryu katas, entry techniques and controlling techniques are followed by finishing techniques, but the finishing technique may sometimes only be tacked on to the second combination or sequence. Additionally, once you have found the combination or sequence of techniques, the movements within the sequences should be continuous and uninterrupted. No gaps.
• To find and to properly understand the techniques, it is important to see how the attacker would respond to each of the defender's techniques. In other words, if the defender blocks the attacker's punch and then kicks to his knee or groin, it is often important to "see" the response--that the attacker's head is thereby brought down--in order to understand the techniques that follow it. In some cases, this may be difficult to actually demonstrate on a friend or training partner, as some techniques are particularly violent--especially ones which involve grabbing and twisting the head.
• Don't look at the final position (meaning the still photograph of a position one might see in an instructional manual) to explain a technique. The real explanation needs to incorporate the movement of "getting there" from the previous position. The circular block one employs may end up in the down (gedan) position, but it may cross one's centerline (what the attacker is attacking) in the upper or middle level.
• Do the move in bunkai, against a partner, exactly how it occurs in kata. This should include any steps or directional changes. If kata, it may be assumed, is the means that karate teachers chose to preserve and remember technique, then all of the keys for learning how to apply those techniques are in the kata themselves. Nothing is really hidden. It's just that sometimes we don't know what we are looking at.

Those are some of the basic principles of kata analysis or bunkai. Of course, not everyone is of the same opinion. Then again, many people that I've seen don't seem to base their bunkai on any principles. Then there are whole schools of Goju-ryu where the bunkai doesn't look anything like the kata. What's that all about?

Anyway, there's nothing really new here--I mentioned most of these in articles in the Journal of Asian Martial Arts--sadly no longer publishing, though still available in back issues.

So that's about all I have to say on the subject--or at least that's it in a nutshell. Any questions?

Best regards,
(I have to go train....this blogging stuff takes up too much time.)
 Giles

Shisochin...what four?

Hokama book

Many years ago, in a country far, far away...I'm thinking of this because I saw a discussion of Shisochin recently...Anyway, at the time I was sitting in Matayoshi Shinpo sensei's dojo with a number of other students from the States, when Hokama Tetsuhiro sensei came by. Not so unusual, I suppose, since he had trained kobudo with Matayoshi sensei. This was just after he had written his first book on the history of Okinawan karate. He had a stack of books with him, which he brought in, very generously autographed, and gave to us. I think we actually bought them, but it was certainly worth it. The pictures are great, though I still can't read it!

Later, on a walk back after visting the Shuri museum with him and Matayoshi sensei, we had an opportunity to ask Hokama sensei about the meanings of the different Goju-ryu kata names, among other things. I wish we had been savy enough to ask more meaningful questions, but we were relatively young in age and experience. Anyway, I remember Hokama sensei saying that he believed Shisochin got its name form the four-direction palm strikes, since there were four of these techniques and they were done first to the south, then to the north, then west, and finally to the east.

A plausible explanation, I suppose, but I have since come to think that the kata was called Shisochin (four direction fighting) because it shows responses to attacks from four directions--from the front, the back, and the sides. Certainly most of the other classical kata of Goju-ryu show a variety of ways to respond to attacks from the front and sides, but Shisochin seems to me to show a response to an attack from the rear--not such a common scenario in Goju-ryu, I think--though I don't subscribe to the idea that the over-the-shoulder "punch" is an attack to the rear. Rather, I believe, the movement of the arms simply shows a release from a rear bear hug attempting to pin the defender's arms to his sides. The dropping motion of the body along with the rear thrust of the hips facilitates this release. The counter-attack, however, is in the turn around into the final position. The upper left arm of the defender's release grabs the attacker's head on the turn around, while the defender's right hand drops, first attacking the groin and then bringing the attacker's left arm up while bringing the attacker's head down with the left arm. The final position is in cat stance (neko-ashi) to show that the knee is brought up into the attacker's head or face. The end. Of course, I could be wrong.

The interesting thing, however, is that this bunkai or analysis of kata takes into consideration not just some aspects of the moves in kata but all of them--the hands, the feet, the body, the directional changes, etc. I hate it when someone calls it bunkai and it doesn't match the kata?! Call it something else. Flights of fancy (or experimentation) are fun and even often instructive, but if kata is a tool to remember how to do techniques, then bunkai should show how those same techniques are applied, shouldn't it?

Something similar to Shisochin technique just before the turn from the Bubishi.

Not the dreaded arm bar!?

Once and a while I'll come across a video link that someone sends me. Like this one:
TOM HILLS DOJO - GOJU RYU - SEPAI KATA FIGHTING BUNKAI - ARM BAR 2 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yklICqKH4c

The dreaded arm bar! What's wrong with that? To begin with, who initiates with a front kick?

But suppose they do. What's the purpose of the left hand tucked under the elbow of the right arm as it blocks the kick? Then he says, " Let's assume that he's not going to punch me...but he's going to grab my right arm." Now there's a pretty convincing assumption! And not just with one hand to deal with a potential threat but a grab with two hands. The way to get free of this two-handed grab--what the kata presumably shows--is to use the support of that left hand under the elbow to wrench this around in a circle and back up to kata position. Seriously? The whole operation is unrealistic--takes too much time and too much strength. Would any of this work against a non-compliant opponent? And why wouldn't the grabber let go immediately?

The next step is to apply the dreaded arm bar. After switching to a grab of the grabber's wrist, the defender steps around, punches the head with a hooking punch for good measure, and then locks the opponent's right arm up. (If I'm able to attack the head of a seriously threatening opponent, why would I go on to attack a single arm?) In the meantime the opponent has been good enough--and good natured enough to play along--not to punch the defender in the head with his left hand, or to simply flex the right arm by dropping the elbow to nullify the arm bar. And, while we're on the subject of bunkai (to analyze kata), Mr. Hill employs "chin na (qinna)"..."all the way from China," we are told. Is the Goju technique that we are supposedly applying somehow insufficient? The last part is to step back around and slap the attacker in the groin.

Now, from what I've seen, this is a fairly widespread interpretation of these moves in kata--dare we say, the standard bunkai interpretation. But for a million reasons--some of which I have already implied--it seems completely unsatisfying. How did this come about? Is it because it's safer? Sometimes I think that all of these bunkais were developed so that very brutal and dangerous techniques could still be practiced in partner drills in the dojo. Afterall, it would not be very helpful to injure one's training partners, always going after an opponent's head.

Seipai kata

But that said, what about this? Perhaps the first "block" of a kick is not a low block of a kick but a punch. The left hand blocks and the right hand punches. This brings the opponent's head down. Then...maybe the grab of the opponent's wrist is a grab of the attacker's head, which has already been brought down as a reaction to the block and punch. Now I can step around and put the dreaded arm bar around his neck, driving up against his windpipe with the left forearm and pulling the head down with the right. Then, finally, I can grab the chin, pivot, and twist the head off. Afterall, if I'm being attacked, let's assume that it's a lethal attack, intending to inflict grave bodily harm, otherwise I'm going to walk away from the encounter altogether...as fast as I can. But remember: Don't try this at home...or in the dojo apparently!?

Saifa bunkai...really?

Watch this:

Saifa 2-person drill - Bryson Keenan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4YeTu-4QxM

Opening move of Saifa

I don't know whether this is just based on Taira sensei's ideas or whether the person presenting the seminar has taken some of Taira sensei's ideas and run with them. Anyway, he says at the beginning something to the effect that when one of your hands touches your other hand--as it does in the opening sequence of Saifa--that it really means you are touching your opponent. I think he says: "...with a hand on my hand, usually we're touching the opponent rather than us."

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???

The question is....

"The nail that sticks up gets pounded down." --ancient Japanese folk wisdom.

I was wondering the other day what it would be like if Socrates had practiced karate. A simple stonecutter known throughout ancient Athens for his knowledge of martial arts. Of course, Socrates would not have taught martial arts in the traditional manner that we have come to associate with almost anything Eastern. We watch, we imitate, and we progress through the ranks, most of the time rarely questioning anything. Socrates, I fear, may have been different. This was the man, afterall, who was sentenced to death, to drink hemlock, for corrupting the youth of Athens. And what did he do? He taught them to question tradition, to question the way things had always been done, and he did it by asking questions himself. What would he have said about the karate that we so diligently accept--without question--from our revered teachers.

Socrates: Why do you chamber your punches? Isn't it slower? And if true speed comes from relaxation, why are so many karate people so tense? Why do they seem to hold punches locked out in some pretense of strength when a really fast and strong punch is relaxed until the moment of impact and then immediately relaxes again?

Student: But appearances are important aren't they?

Socrates: Do I really need to answer that? Not to change the subject, but why are there turns in kata? I mean, if you're doing it for yourself or even if you're demonstrating for someone else, why would you turn around unless the turn itself has meaning--that is, unless the turn actually shows you how to step off line?

Student: Didn't they turn around when they ran out of room?

Socrates: Didn't they train outside? And speaking of techniques, if some techniques seem quite a bit more lethal than others, don't you think it possible that the katas are composed of combinations of techniques--that is, the sequences begin with a block or receiving technique (uke) and end with the opponent down?

Student: But karate training will teach me "the one punch kill," won't it? I mean, if any one of my techniques will kill, then how is kata anything more than a collection of individual and unrelated techniques?

Socrates: Do you really think your one punch can disable an opponent that's not standing there like a makiwara post? Are you really that naive? And how long will it take you to train that killer punch? And you'll be how old then? And speaking of punches, why all the punches to the chest, not a very lethal technique is it? Isn't it more logical that the punches are really to the opponent's head and you should back up in the sequence of moves to figure out how you got the opponent's head down to chest level? And speaking of hidden techniques...why all the cat stances? I mean what good is a cat stance if not to allow you to knee kick off the front leg? Really, isn't it possible that all the supposed down side kicks in Goju-ryu are really knee kicks?

Student: Is that why we train with the iron geta?

Socrates: Did you ever try to do a front kick with one on? And speaking of strength training, shouldn't a viable system of self-defense be most efficacious for people who may most need it? That is, should you be able to use your self-defense when you are old and least likely to be able to defend yourself with strength and speed? Then logically, shouldn't sound technique require little physical strength to apply it effectively?

Student: Do you mean the study of koshi and spinal rotation rather than meeting all attacks head on?

Socrates: Speaking of head on, is it logical at the beginning of Sanseiru to step back and block a kick? Aren't you bringing your head down, inviting the attacker to punch you in the head after you block his kick? Is it even logical for someone to initiate an attack with a kick? Why would you move to put yourself in danger of a second attack? Is it possible that something else is going on here? And in Seipai, with its 270 degree turn, why would you turn your back on the opponent as some well-known teachers do, when they attack with a double punch, its blocked, and they turn almost all the way around to attack again? Isn't it more logical to suppose that you are not actually turning your back on the opponent but throwing him?

Obviously this could go on and on. The heretic Socrates was told that he could "take it all back," in a manner of speaking, or he could drink hemlock. It's strange to me that someone asking questions--whether it was 2500 years ago or today--could so upset the powers that be that they could be viewed as heretics spewing blasphemy, but that is the nature of the beast. We don't tend to question what we are doing, and if we do, we often don't ask the right questions. I think true learning only occurs when we ask questions--that is, when we question what we do. Of course, there are often answers, but some answers are better than others.

Forgotten Bunkai or lost bunkai?

Seiunchin kata

"If you look back, the thing that strikes you, if you've got any sensitivity, is that extinction is the most common phenomena. Extinction is always driven by environmental change. Environmental change is always driven by climate change." --Richard Leakey

I was reading the newspaper a couple of days ago and I came across an Associated Press story quoting professor and anthropologist Richard Leakey. It struck me how appropriate this might be when thinking about bunkai and what may have befallen karate in the 20th century. I have often wondered--and been alternately perplexed and exasperated--about the different schools/kans of Goju-ryu and how there are noticeable differences in their kata. Why, if they all studied under Miyagi Chojun sensei or even, in some cases, under Higashionna sensei? Some people have suggested that the katas differ because the teachers are emphasizing different bunkai. But if a kata is meant to aid memory--that is, if the kata itself is a memory aid so that one doesn't forget the bunkai, it doesn't really make sense to change the kata. Rather, I've come to believe, though admittedly on scant evidence, that the different ways of doing some of the katas--there are exceptions--were different ways of doing the same bunkai. But all of that's perhaps neither here nor there.

Seiunchin elbow technique

What Richard Leakey's quote really suggests to me is how quickly things can be lost. I have had four students train with me--out of many, many others--but four who have trained with me long enough to really understand most all of what I was trying to teach them--that is, to intellectually understand not only the katas and the bunkais, but the principles and reasons behind them--that is supposing I know any of this myself, which of course is not the point either. But three of those four people aren't teaching and the fourth one has one student. Now I have taught some of this to others, but they only have a partial understanding of it. My point is--and I don't mean this in any arrogant or egotistical way, as if I had all the answers or as if I was the only one who knew anything--but if this is at all typical of what went on in Okinawa in the turbulent 20th century, how quickly can an understanding of a system like Goju-ryu, for example, be lost?

Seiunchin elbow bunkai

If, as Richard Leakey suggests, extinction is more the norm and preservation the exception, could this be what happened to an understanding of karate in the 20th century? Certainly we have the forms/katas, but the wide disparity in bunkai--in the analysis of kata--suggests to me that perhaps something has been lost. Perhaps true understanding has been lost. Or principles. Or bunkai. The "environmental change" that Leakey refers to in this case would be the atmosphere in pre-WWII Japan. Read the notes of the 1936 gathering of karate masters and how discussion turns to de-emphasizing the martial or lethal nature of karate and turns to stressing physical fitness for the public. The climate and the environment was changing and this may have driven karate to change as well. It may not have died off. It may not be a case of extinction, but it is very likely that something may have been "lost," left to the archaeologists to recover, to piece together from the scant evidence we have, the bones. But it's a guess in any case, isn't it?

Kata themes again?!?

"Seisan seems to be a thematic exploration of the 'sun and moon block.' But one of the problems here is that the Higa dojo (Shodokan) seems to be the only school of Okinawan Goju-ryu that even does the sun and moon block in Seisan kata."

I actually said that. It was a blog post on kata themes. Not that it's wrong, but I was thinking no one who practices Goju outside of Higa lineage/Shodokan people is even familiar with the "sun and moon block." Most of the other schools, I believe, do this short series of palm strikes to the opponent's face--one hand going up to attack as the other hand comes down to block. This is right after the three punches at the beginning of the kata. Now, either of these techniques is very good and effective. But if you're looking for theme, I thought at the time, the "sun and moon block," at least in variation, occurs in some form throughout the rest of the kata. So thematically, the kata becomes a study in the variations on how one can apply the "sun and moon block."

The other block/attack.

The funny thing is that one can look at the "other" block the same way--it too occurs again and again throughout the kata--not so much in variation, but it does occur repeatedly.

So, as has always seemed the case and is a lesson in itself, the structure of Goju katas seems to put basic or thematic techniques, occuring in threes, at the beginning of the katas.

The interesting thing to me is just that implication when one is analyzing or trying to understand kata and its applications--that we should look carefully at the opening techniques. One teacher may put the emphasis on one technique and another teacher may put the emphasis on another.

Again, however, the problem this suggests or the question that begs to be asked--and I'm sure I've brought it up in many other places--is that if you accept this way of looking at the structure of kata, is the principle the same for all of the other katas? That is, are all of the katas of the Goju system structured the same way, with basic or thematic techniques occuring at the beginning, usually in series of three moves? If it differs and some katas don't follow that pattern, does that mean they are from a different source?
Take Sanseiru, for example, which is really the point of this whole ramble, not to give too much away. Sanseiru begins with what looks like three double arm positions, like Sanchin, each with a slow "punch." So if this way of looking at the structure of kata--with opening basic or theme techniques repeated three times--is correct, what does it tell us about the other techniques in Sanseiru, particularly the ones where we see something similar to these arm positions, like in the middle section of the kata? That's the question. How could what appears to be a double kamae position be all that important or basic or thematic?

Middle section block/kick.

Well, if you work backwards from the technique as it occurs in the middle section--turning into a left single arm closed-fist block followed by a kick and then a right elbow--we have arm positions that look pretty similar to the opening double kamae. Now if you apply the principle that turns in kata are used to indicate how one steps off line to avoid and block the opponent's attack, what we now have with this first block on the turn around is an outside block of the opponent's left punch (he's stepping in from the west) with the defender's right forearm and a trapping block with the left arm. The defender's right arm comes to the outside while the left arm is on the inside of the opponent's punch. We now have the double kamae that we see at the beginning of the kata. (This, of course, all happens very quickly in application.) If pressure is applied here, it has the effect of turning the opponent towards you for the kick. (Almost an involuntary movement to avoid the pain.) If done correctly, it's quite uncomfortable for the attacker.

First move in changing gate block.

We see this bent arm blocking position followed by a punch in the last sequence of the kata also, though this "changing gate" block may also only occur in the Higa/Shodokan version of the kata.

Well, anyway, that may be a bit cryptic to describe in words, but that's my latest thoughts on themes in kata. Hope it helps. It would be a lot easier to explain if I had a picture of it, which I don't....but kata and bunkai should really be taught in person, shouldn't they?! What the heck are blogs for anyway?

Kata anyone?

Why is it that some people who practice karate regard kata as some sort of mystical experience? They seem to invest these movements with a spiritual significance, as if they are doing some pagan dance under a full moon to charm the karate gods. And I'm not referring to training itself, but kata. Certainly training--whether it's rock climbing or running or biking or yoga or any number of other training regimens--can feel as though it's somehow spiritual. Who knows, maybe it's the endorphin rush. But watching some people's kata feels very removed from reality. After all, isn't kata merely a means to remember techniques, applications, and principles of self defense? Some people--and they're not all Westerners either--do moves in kata as if they were baseball players standing at home plate admiring their own home runs...only the ball drops in for a single! They put on these "frightening" faces as if they were performing in a grade-B kung fu movie, trying to scare their villainous foes with fearsome faces. They pause or emphasize techniques with slow, dynamic movement in places that--in application--don't call for slow movement at all. They slap themselves and wear thick, starchy crisp uniforms (gi) to highlight their "power" as though these were the sound effects in a bad movie.

Is this just our infatuation with all things Eastern? Is it because so many people have no idea what kata is for? Is there some sort of connection we make through movement with all the others before us who practiced and performed the same thing? Or is it merely the connection it manifests with all the other paraphernalia--the incense, the costumes, the hierarchy, the rituals, so like the Church? After all, you can see real power--witness some of the Chinese stylists in silk or satin cloth--without always hearing it. Watch a video of someone's demonstration kata some time with the sound turned off. And this was a young Okinawan karate-ka that I was watching!

And you see it with kobudo as well. The people who decide to make the kata really long and "complex" looking by repeating movements ad nauseum just to make it look long and complex looking. If a kata is a repository of technique, why is it necessary to keep repeating the same techniques over and over again?

Anyway, this sort of "posing" I find annoying. This is the image that many people--martial arts practitioners and the general public alike--have of karate. It's also the expectation that new students may have of karate when they seek out a dojo. But so much of this is a meaningless distraction. So much of this is actually contrary to proper movement--movements that are flowing, generally a lot smaller, and a power that generates from the whole body and may not be accompanied by the snap of a canvas "dish towel." Okay, done with rant. I sort of wish I hadn't watched that video. I hate ranting.

Hey, you can attack now 'cause I'm stepping back!

I was recently reading someone espousing principles of kata analysis on a discussion forum and I was reminded--because they were repeating things they had been told--of something Toguchi sensei said in his second book: Okinawan Goju-Ryu II: Advanced Techniques of Shorei-Kan Karate. Of course, I've never been quite sure what may have been lost in translation, since it says right under the title that the book is "compiled by Toshio Tamano and Scott Lenzi." Since Toguchi sensei is dead, who's to know? But so much of Okinawan karate has been passed on by word of mouth. So much is learned in the dojo just by watching, and I've often wondered how many times we may have gotten something completely wrong, or only partially understood something. There was a wonderful description by Alan Ruddock of an Aikido class with Ueshiba sensei in an issue of Classical Fighting Arts (Vol. 2, no. 11, issue #34), where he describes Ueshiba sensei as stepping on the mat, demonstrating a technique, and then not saying another word! Ruddock says, in his memoir, that O-Sensei "went round smiling at everyone, with no clues, correction, or suggestions. There was no teaching as we understand it" (p. 46). The implication is that everyone interpreted what the teacher demonstrated in their own way. I find this fascinating in its broader implications.

Anyway, Toguchi sensei lists three rules of kata analysis:

1) Don't be deceived by the Enbusen Rule. 2) Techniques executed while advancing imply attacking techniques. Those executed while retreating imply defensive or blocking techniques. 3) There is only one enemy and he/she is in front of you (Toguchi, p. 49.).

Not to put too fine a point on it, but each of these "three main principles" is a little suspect. At the very least, they are ambiguous enough to leave one with serious questions as to their meaning. For example: Toguchi sensei (if we can indeed attribute these ideas to him and not to some intrepretation by those who have "compiled" his notions into book form) says, in explanation of the first principle, that "applying kata movements directly to kumite is a mistake" (p. 50). Why then do we have kata? To my way of thinking, if you apply the movements of kata exactly the way they occur in kata, you will not only have a very effective method of self-defense, but you will also thereby learn the principles--they just may not be the same sort of principles that Toguchi sensei refers to. Or was there something lost in the translation?

His second principle is that "techniques executed while advancing imply attacking techniques. Those executed while retreating imply defensive or blocking techniques" (p. 49). It is, of course, very difficult to separate out offensive and defensive movements in Goju-Ryu. For example, the first move in Seiunchin steps forward to apply an arm-bar to release one's hands from a wrist grab. Is this offensive or defensive? Sanseiru steps back (after the three slow "punches") to apply an arm-bar. But if we look at one of the more obvious examples of a technique that seems to show a defensive or blocking technique as the defender or kata practitioner is stepping back--the apparent "down block" in shiko-dachi that occurs in the middle of Seiunchin--we see that in this case, as in a number of others, one is stepping back to attack. In other words, there are enough exceptions for this rule to also be called into question.

Toguchi sensei's last principle--"There is only one enemy and he/she is in front of you."--seems on the surface to be the easiest to digest. There is one attacker, not multiple attackers. We turn in kata to face a single attacker, whether we are "flanking" them or fighting them on an angle, as is often the case, or facing them, kata does not show one surrounded by a gang--that's not the meaning of the turns.

So, I guess, one out of three ain't bad, is it?

Forums and stuff

Sometimes when I read posts on the Internet about Goju-ryu (or perhaps martial arts in general), I imagine the people actually having conversations face to face. One I read recently would go something like this:

"Hey, I'm thinking katas have themes...ya know, personalities that make them all distinct." (Does that mean the katas are different...not all the same?!)

"I can see that," his forum friend answers in a non-judgmental way, not wishing to offend. (Sometimes, IMHO, I wish people would be a bit more offensive.)

"So what do you think about Saifa?"

"I'm thinking the name pretty much says it all...you know, 'to destroy and defeat,'" his more knowledgeable friend replies. "The first three moves are the signature of the kata," he adds. (Signature? What's the rest of the kata?)

"Yeah, that helps when I'm visualizing techniques," the other agrees. (Really?! Helps what?)

"What about Seiunchin? I've always been told it means 'to control and pull into battle'."

"Maybe, but I think a more useful translation is 'attack, conquer, suppress'."

"What about Sanseiru? I mean I know that it translates as '36 Hands', but how does that help one understand the techniques of the kata?"

"Well, a very knowledgeable teacher once explained it this way: Thirty-six represents six times six. The first six is the eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and spirit. The second six refers to color, voice, smell, taste, touch, and justice." (Whoa, those things all fit together, don't they?! What do you suppose my ten-year-old son would say if I gave him that math problem?)

At this point in the conversation, a small boy in karate gi and clutching a frayed copy of "The Emperor's New Clothes" comes into the chatroom. He just catches the last response and asks innocently, "How does that help one's understanding of kata?"

To which the older student responds, "If you have to ask, obviously you're not ready to learn. Face it, Junior, you don't even know Seipai yet."

"Okay, what's Seipai kata all about?" he asks.

To which the knowledgeable student responds (and here I'm quoting) "The true meaning of kata becomes clear only when one learns the application of it...In Seipai, and the three that follow, the applications are not immediately clear. Techniques were deliberately masked within these kata so that bystanders were not able to fully comprehend the depth of the applications being practiced." (Oh. Wow! Depth? I suppose that means there are all sorts of 'levels' of bunkai...level one, two, three, four...there's always one more. Did you pay your dues this month?)

"And Seisan?" the young boy asks.

"Seisan means thirteen hands. This kata contains many unusual techniques and demonstrates the difference between Go (Hard) and Ju (Soft)." (Well, that's suitably vague, isn't it? Don't all the katas contain go and ju techniques--afterall, it is called Goju-ryu, isn't it? Don't they all contain many unusual techniques? Of course, the discussion continues...but patience only goes so far. Hey, I didn't make this stuff up. Well, at least not all of it. Of course, by repeating it I'm no doubt offending a whole lot of probably very nice people.

But seriously...so many discussions of kata seem to provide so little useful information. Maybe I'm just getting old and my patience for stuff like this has deserted me over the years, but don't you wish people that said something actually said something?

Sanchin one more time?

I've read a lot about Sanchin kata recently. People talking about it as the fundamental or basic kata of Goju. People talking about everything being based on Sanchin or Sanchin exhibiting the essence of Goju. People even discussing bunkai for Sanchin. I've heard this sort of talk with Uechi folks, too. Hummm....

In what sense can Sanchin be seen as containing all Goju? There's basic stance or Sanchin dachi. There's a straight punch and a closed-fist middle-level block and a grab and pull in with both hands and a push out with both open hands and a mawashi-uke. That's all of Goju? Those who say that you can find all of the techniques of Goju in Sanchin are trying on the Emperor's New Clothes.

To me, there are a few really important things in Sanchin that are often ignored or passed over. And one of the most fundamental is the position of the arms throughout most of the kata. This position--with the elbow down and the angle between the forearm and the upper arm slightly more than 90 degrees--is fundamental in Goju-ryu. Learning to maintain this position or rather to instantly move into this position--whether the hand is closed as it is in the blocking position of Sanseiru or open with a vertical hand as it is in Shisochin or open with the palm up as it is in Kururunfa--is fundamental to good technique. It's similar to the arm position one sees in T'ai Chi ward off only in Goju it is done with the elbow down. The goal should be to maintain the integrity of this structure--with ligaments, tendons, muscles, and bones all involved. Whenever the arm comes up to "block" or rather to intercept the opponent's attack, this position of the arm is assumed. It is neither too stretched out nor too collapsed--both are weak.

The second is not always practiced, but it has to do with the kata being performed very slowly, though that really has nothing to do with it--it just makes it easier to work on--and that is, one should use the whole body in a truly integrated fashion. In other words, each punch and block is moved by the core of the body or by using the koshi if you will. This should not be exaggerated, but neither should the waist or shoulders be locked into place. One should feel this movement when the fist goes out and when it is drawn back. This is practiced in Sanchin because all movements should employ the body in this fashion. To paraphrase the Chinese classics, the waist is like a millstone and the arms and legs merely follow.

So what are the three battles beginners must fight in Sanchin kata? Is it "mind, body, and spirit," as students have always been told? Isn't everything mind, body, and spirit? Perhaps it is (1) how one breathes, gathering and directing one's energy; (2) how one moves, using the koshi, with a supple waist; (3) and how one maintains the integrity or position of the body, especially the position of the arms.

More on kata themes

Sometimes when I read posts on the Internet about Goju-ryu (or is it martial arts in general), I imagine the people actually having conversations face to face. One I read recently would go something like this:

“Hey, I’m thinking katas have themes…ya know, personalities that make them all distinct.”

“I can see that,” his forum friend answers in a non-judgmental way, not wishing to offend.

“So what do you think about Saifa?”

“I’m thinking the name pretty much says it all…you know, ‘to destroy and defeat’,” his more knowledgeable friend replies. “The first three moves are the signature of the kata,” he adds. I’m not sure if that means the rest of the kata is insignificant or what.

“Yeah, that helps when I’m visualizing techniques,” the other agrees. Really?!

“What about Seiunchin? I’ve always been told it means ‘to control and pull into battle'.”

“Maybe, but I think a more useful translation is ‘attack, conquer, suppress'.”

“What about Sanseiru? I mean I know that it translates as '36 Hands', but how does that help one understand the techniques of the kata?”

“Well, a very knowledgeable teacher once explained it this way: Thirty-six represents six times six. The first six is the eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and spirit. The second six refers to color, voice, smell taste, touch, and justice.” Whoa, those things all fit together, don't they?!

At this point in the conversation, a small boy in karate gi and clutching a frayed copy of “The Emperor’s New Clothes” comes into the room. He just catches the last response and asks innocently, “How does that help one’s understanding of kata?”

To which the older student responds, “If you have to ask, obviously you’re not ready to learn. Face it, Junior, you don’t even know Seipai yet.”

“Okay, what’s Seipai kata all about?” he asks.

To which the knowledgeable student responds—and here I’m quoting—“The true meaning of a kata becomes clear only when one learns the application of it….In Seipai, and the three that follow, the applications are not immediately clear. Techniques were deliberately masked within these kata so that bystanders were not able to fully comprehend the depth of the applications being practiced.” Oh. Wow!

“And Seisan?” the young boy asks.

“Seisan means thirteen hands. This kata contains many unusual techniques and demonstrates the difference between Go (Hard) and Ju (Soft).” Well, that’s suitably vague, isn’t it? Don’t all the katas contain go and ju techniques—afterall, it is called Goju-ryu? Don’t they all contain many unusual techniques? Of course the discussion continues...but patience only goes so far. Hey, I didn't make this stuff up. Well, at least not all of it.

So many discussions of kata seem to provide so little useful information. Maybe I'm just getting old and my patience for stuff like this has deserted me over the years, but don't you wish people that said something actually said something?

More thoughts on the Chinese classics

"Never forget for a moment that as soon as one part of the body moves the whole body moves. Do not move just one part independently." T'ai-chi Touchstones: Yang Family Secret Transmissions. Compiled and trans. by Douglas Wile, p. 113.

Everything is connected. This is the only way to move effortlessly in a relaxed fashion. It is also the only way to move with real power and speed. So often you see people demonstrate kata without the waist or the legs when they are attacking or blocking with the arms or the hands. It's most notable when people turn in kata to face another direction. They appear to ground themselves firmly in some rigid stance before they attack or block with the hands or arms. This sometimes happens in the first turn-around in Seisan kata. The students demonstrating kata turn and sink firmly into basic stance before the arms move. Or students stepping forward in the second move of Seipai move in such a way that you can see the hands moving independently of the lower part of the body, instead of being connected and really "powered" by the movement of the waist and lower half of the body. Or students stepping up from zenkutsu-dachi to a feet parallel stance with an overhead hammer fist attack in the middle of Saifa will stand up and then attack with the hammer fist. But even this swinging or arcing hammer fist should be connected to the waist and powered by the rest of the body. Or when blocking in the last sequence in Saifa (turning before the final mawashi and cat-stance), the forearm block should be executed by engaging the waist--in other words, when the arm moves to block, the whole body moves. This is rather hard to convey in words, but it is easy to see.

"The circle of retreat is easy; the circle of advance is difficult." T'ai-chi Touchstones: Yang Family Secret Transmissions. Compiled and trans. by Douglas Wile, p. 89.

When I read this, I think of the angles of counter-attack shown in the Goju-ryu classical katas. We see retreat directly back in Seiunchin. We see "blocking" or receiving movement stepping back along a diagonal in Kururunfa. We see stepping off-line to the sides--at a 90 degree angle to the opponent's attack--in Seisan and Sanseiru. We even see defense from a position with no movement in Seipai, as if one is caught with one's back to the wall, unable to move off-line in any direction. But with a very real attack it has always seemed to me that the most difficult movement is to move along the forward diagonal, along the tangent of the circle of advance. We see this in the diagonal steps before the kick in Saifa or before the first kick in Seipai or the corner techniques in Seipai. This movement is more difficult, but it is certainly made easier if one keeps in mind the admonition of the first quote above: "...as soon as one part of the body moves the whole body moves."

Pictures: Seipai, Saifa, Saifa, Seipai.

Themes in kata?

Are there themes in kata? I don't mean whether a kata is a monkey kata or shows clear evidence of dragon-style kung fu. I've actually read these debates. They sound so erudite...so filled with posturing and punditry. And where do they get you in the long run? I once asked Matayoshi sensei this sort of question--whether the different Goju katas showed the influence of different animals--having been, of course, raised on the stories of the fighting of animals influencing early martial arts teachers or martial arts masters basing their techniques on the movements of various animals. But Matayoshi sensei said that the different techniques were spread throughout the katas instead of each kata being thematically influenced by a single animal. So that in any given kata, he suggested, you might find snake or leopard or dragon techniques all mixed in together. So much for theme.

But I'm not really thinking of kata themes in that manner anyway. The problem, however, when you think of different katas exploring different themes, it seems to me, is that it raises so many other questions, regardless of whether or not you get the themes right. For example, if you suggest that Seiunchin is a kata that was created to explore responses to pushes and grabs--since that is certainly not enough to base one's self-defense on--then other katas would be needed to explore other self-defense scenarios. That in itself presupposes that some or all of the katas go together in one system, whether they were created that way or whether they were merely collected and put together in that way. Which raises the question: Is it a complete system? Of course, this thematic analysis of kata is based on bunkai or application of moves, which itself is a matter of some disagreement or at the very least multiple interpretations.

In any case, I find it an interesting exercise because it is a way to "see the system" or at least a way to organize a seemingly random and large collection of techniques. For example, Kururunfa seems to be a thematic exploration of one kind of an outside block--the defender's right hand blocks the attacker's right punch or the defender's left hand blocks the attacker's left punch. We see this over and over again in the kata. In fact, all of the initial or receiving "blocks" seem to show this, in various forms. There is some variation; that is, sometimes it is shown with the hand vertical, sometimes with the palm up, and sometimes with a palm-up hooking block. Seipai, on the other hand, seems to be a thematic exploration of another kind of an outside block--the defender's left hand blocks the attacker's right punch or the defender's right hand blocks the attacker's left punch.

The problem is that Seipai is also about "twisting the head off." This comes up a lot in the combinations of the kata. And Seisan seems to be a thematic exploration of the "sun and moon block." But one of the problems here is that the Higa dojo (Shodokan) seems to be the only school of Okinawan Goju-ryu that even does the sun and moon block in Seisan kata. And how are we to look at Shisochin? Is it an exploration of four direction fighting, as its name implies--responses to attacks from the front, sides, and back--or is it an exploration of how to use the forearms in blocks and attacks? Is Saifa a basic beginning kata that deals with responses to grabs, pushes, and punches--why it's taught first? Or is it taught first because it shows how to use the waist or koshi?

In any case, I don't think this is a fruitless journey or pointless question just because there is no definitive answer. The understanding you gain is certainly beneficial to your ability to see variations within the different kata and beneficial to your ability to use each of these techniques.

Simplify, Simplify, Simplify

“Our life is frittered away by detail. Simplify, simplify, simplify!” Henry David Thoreau

I have often wondered about the supposed complexity of the way many people see karate. People seem to pride themselves, and build reputations, on how many applications of kata technique they can come up with. These are the same people, of course, who propagate the notion that kata can mean anything you want it to mean.

I once read a forum post by someone who was arguing that “every inch” of movement in kata was meaningful (which I don’t have a problem with) and should be analyzed for bunkai (which I do have a problem with)—and not just full of meaning but containing multiple application possibilities. His example was the simple punch or tsuki. This technique, he pointed out to his obviously less schooled audience, in addition to being a punch, could be a block on the way out, a block on the way back, a grab, an elbow attack to the rear, etc., not to mention the multiplicity of techniques that could be gleaned if one were to couple it with the other arm. I think he randomly threw out the number twelve as the number of possible techniques one could apply from the simple punch. But this is not simple to me.

It seems to me that if you want an effective method of self-defense, you must simplify it. This is really what happens when you are able to see your martial art as a system. It’s what happens when you look for and base your practice on principles instead of techniques and the acquisition of techniques. Certainly you need to learn, practice, and study technique, but in Goju-ryu, when the techniques are based on principles (for lack of a better or more specific word), the techniques in kata can be seen as variations. And when you study kata this way, it tends to simplify your understanding.

For example, using the Goju-ryu classical kata, one might argue that there are only four ways to block an opponent’s right punch; blocking on the outside with your left arm or hand, blocking on the outside with your right arm or hand, blocking on the inside with your left arm or hand, and blocking on the inside with your right arm or hand. Whether you block with your hand, forearm, or closed fist is itself only a variation. So the “entry” or receiving (uke) technique of any of the Goju bunkai shown in the classical kata must begin with one of these in some manner—not, for the moment, considering responses to an opponent’s two-handed push or a grab.

One can imagine then that any bunkai sequence that begins with a left outside block to the opponent’s right punch might “tack on,” so to speak, any other closing or bridging technique and finishing technique from any other kata. That is, the last technique in Saifa, for example, is a variation of the last technique in Seipai—or the corner techniques in Seipai or the second sequence with the right front kick, for that matter. They all begin with a left outside block to the opponent’s right punch attack. So one could begin with Saifa and end with Seipai.

The same would be true for any left hand outside block to the opponent’s left punch. We see this in the “blocking” technique in the left or west side move in Kururunfa, or the closed fist double block-punch before the “jump” in Seipai, or the double handed changing-gate technique in Sanseiru. They all begin with a left outside block (palm up) to the opponent’s left punch. So one could begin with any one of them and end with any other one.

The reason this is important is because as a matter of self-defense, as opposed to agreed upon dojo practice, one can’t predict how the opponent will move, so one must be flexible or sensitive enough to vary one’s technique. It’s easiest to vary one’s technique if one simplifies one’s technique, and one way to simplify is to see the relationships between various techniques. The system then becomes both smaller in the sense that it is easier to grasp, and larger in one’s ability to draw on any number of responses depending on the situation.

*Pictures: 1) Saifa 2) Seipai 3)Kururunfa 4) Seipai 5)Sanseiru

How real is this?

I was looking around the Internet the other day and stumbled upon a number of people recommending books by Kenwa Mabuni (at least one or two translated by Mario Mckenna and generally available). Now I'm familiar with the stories of the close friendship Miyagi Chojun sensei supposedly had with Mabuni sensei. Someone even referred to them as "best friends." I've heard how they were both part of a study group that had as one of its members Go Ken Ki. It says in Patrick McCarthy's book, Ancient Okinawan Martial Arts: Koryu Uchinadi, that Mabuni "trained directly under Higashionna Kanryo," though only for a year (McCarthy, p. 4)--and yet McCarthy says the following: "In an advertisement that he ran in his book on seipai, Mabuni describes himself as a shihan of Goju-ryu kempo...." (p. 30)

I find that surprising, though I'm not sure what to make of it. Further on in his book, McCarthy quotes Mabuni as saying, "There are no styles of karate-do, just varying interpretations of its principles." (p. 33)

I don't really understand this either, though perhaps there is something lost in translation. It seems to me that different schools or martial arts may emphasize different things, but that principles are principles. How can an interpretation of a principle vary?

In fact, I never really understood why you would collect both Shorin and Goju into one system. Isn't there redundancy of some kind at the very least? From the list in McCarthy's book there are 52 kata in Mabuni's Shitoryu system. How can one practice, let alone fully understand, so many kata? I've had occasion to talk to Shitoryu black belt instructors, and they have confessed that their knowledge of many of these kata is at best "rusty."

When I look at the cover of Mabuni's book on Seipai (illustration above), I immediately wonder how realistic this application from the last technique in the kata is. It seems to me that if the attacker is throwing a double punch, your chances of grabbing the attacker's arms in this fashion and executing a throw are rather poor, and not much better if the attacker is grabbing the defender...unless, of course, you have a very willing and compliant partner--that is, a dream technique that may work only in the dojo. Masaji Taira sensei of Jundokan shows this application, I believe, as well as a number of other prominent teachers.

The other thing that bothers me when I see this kind of discussion or illustration of application is that the right hand is "out of position" or not really following kata movement. You can't grab an incoming attack quickly and securely this way unless the "attacker" is not resisting. (It has always seemed to me--and something I was always taught--that the kata is there to teach correct movement and bunkai means the analysis of kata. If your application doesn't follow kata movement then the kata is not teaching you how to move nor are you really analyzing kata.) And further, the stance does not show how the lower half of the body is moving in kata; Mabuni seems to be in shiko dachi.

The kata, it seems to me, actually shows that one is side-stepping a right punch/attack from an attacker stepping in from the west (supposing that the kata begins facing north). The left hand or forearm "receives" (uke) the attack while the right arm comes across to the right side of the attacker's neck. This places the defender in a 90 degree relationship to the incoming attack--that is, getting out of the way. In this position, with the defender's arms describing a small circle, the attacker's right arm is brought up and the attacker's head is brought down, while the defender steps back into a left foot forward neko-ashi-dachi (cat stance). This is followed by a hammer fist to the attacker's temple.

In another text translated and published by McKenna, Kobou Jizai Goshin-jutsu Karate Kenpo, Mabuni shows applications of a number of techniques from Seiunchin, but here again the interpretations only partially seem to follow the actual movements of the kata. I wonder whether that's what Mabuni meant by "varying interpretations of principles"--randomly ignoring logical movement. In this illustration depicting the opening of Seiunchin, Mabuni's defender is not stepping out along the 45 degree line or outside the attack. Neither is there an explanation of why both of the defender's arms are brought down over the thighs. Because of the stepping shown in figure 1 (or lack of stepping to the outside of the opponent's attack), the defender has left himself open to a second attack. Furthermore, the counter-attack shown in figure 3 is certainly less than lethal. And it also raises the question of why one would drop into shiko dachi to block an opponent's punch in the first place.

Again, it has always seemed to me that one should follow kata technique when doing bunkai since the kata--if kata is worth anything--is teaching one how to move. In this application, illustrated above, the stepping is important and both hands are used. In addition, the defender's counter-attack is to a more vulnerable target, the opponent's throat.

Mabuni's second sequence is equally questionable it seems to me. He doesn't show the cat-stance fist-in-palm technique that immediately follows the last technique in the first sequence and precedes the first technique in this second sequence. Then he seems to show the two-handed technique as a push against the opponent, who then seems to advance once more and is attacked with an elbow to the mid-section. Not to say that these technique would be completely ineffective but there are a number things that seem unrealistic about them. Why would one push the opponent away just to allow him to attack again? Again, in the kata, the left open palm is cupped over the right elbow. Is this one of Mabuni's "varied interpretations"? I much prefer to see this sequence as a continuation of the previous sequence of moves.

So how does one explain the differences? Are these just variations in interpretation or are they more significant than that? Was Mabuni hiding techniques by showing only fairly simplistic bunkai? Could he have thought that to show more lethal bunkai was at odds with one of his apparent themes in this publication, to stress the health and fitness benefits of practicing karate? Or did Mabuni, "the shihan of Goju-ryu kempo," not study long enough to really learn much about Goju-ryu? That sounds so blasphemous though.