Gojushiho-Sho and Dai: Bunkai and Pad-Drills 

Hi Andy, Thanks for the post and I’m really pleased you’ve found the discussions to be of some value. YOU WROTE: Q: Given your view about how Kata (and by this I mean the solo practice) fits within the overall art of Karate, would you 1. update/change the form to better represent the practical applications? 2. Create new forms? (I can think of many reasons why you might want to do this). 1. I personally wouldn’t because the ones I was taught don’t need it. However, if I had been taught a version that had “anomalies” (movements significantly altered or added for non-functional purposes such as athleticism or aesthetics), then I personally would “wind those back”. For those who like the athleticism or aesthetics, then they can keep them as they are, but they should clearly acknowledge that those parts have had those changes made. 2. Yes and I have. For example, I have made a kata for the methods of Choki Motobu, because I like them; I have made a solo-pad drill kata (pad on one hand so it’s like your are holding the enemy’s head), because such kit didn’t exist at the time the traditional ones were made and it’s a useful from on solo training; and I have also made a couple that look more at the kind of methods martial artist use to fight each other today (old ones are exclusively self-defence focused). I have taught the first two to quite a few people and they also make use of them. The “fighting” ones are a personal thing which I’m still developing. All the best, Iain

@@practicalkatabunkai thanks Ian, appreciated. Good. Both would be required for a "developmental" or "scientific" martial art. A follow up question please, if I may: you said "I don't need to". 1. If it could be demonstrated that there was a superior way to practise a solo form so that it was even better at meeting your stated aims of utility, would you then change it? (modify it). 2. Have you ever proactively tested this? If so how? Many thanks again.

@@thinkdistinct1282 YOU WROTE: “1. If it could be demonstrated that there was a superior way to practise a solo form so that it was even better at meeting your stated aims of utility, would you then change it? (modify it).” I would. That’s how it was in karate until relatively recently. If a better way was found, it would be adopted. Karate has constantly been changing and evolving. There’s a lot of things I do differently to my teachers, just as they did things differently to their teachers, and I hope my students end up doing things differently to me. It’s just that on my specific generational link, kata is not one of the things I see any need to alter. Unfortunately, in some quarters, karate has picked up a fair bit of dogma i.e. “It’s right because sensei said it was right and therefore it must never change”. That’s an entirely non-traditional approach masquerading as traditional. “Times change, the world changes, and martial arts must change too.” - Gichin Funakoshi. YOU WROTE: 2. Have you ever proactively tested this? If so how? I don’t understand the question? We do lots of live drills making use of kata methods and principles. So, they are tested. However, in line with our previous conversations, the kata provides examples of principle that are supposed to be varied in accordance with the specifics of innumerable combative variations. How would one decide if 5+3=8 or 2+6=8 is the superior way of demonstrating the principle of basic addition? They both do the job, and I can’t see how they could be separated. Differing karate styles do the kata slightly differently, but the principles are consistent. As Mabuni said, “There are no styles of karate, only varying interpretations of his principles.” Mabuni also wrote, “kata must be practiced properly, with a good understanding of their bunkai meaning. There may be those who neglect the practice of kata, thinking that it is sufficient to just practice two-person drills that has been created based on their understanding of the kata, but that will never lead to true advancement. The reason why is that the ways of attacking and defending have innumerable variations. To create two-person drills containing all of the techniques including each and every one of their variations is impossible. However, if one practices kata correctly, it will serve as a foundation for performing - when a crucial time comes - any of the infinite number of variations.” Providing the kata provides a solid example of the core principle then it’s solid. However, other equally valid examples of the same principle also exist, and the kata would be valid if it showed those too. If you have a solid example, then you can’t really have a “more solid” one, just a different one. I am happy that the kata as I do them provide such solid examples, there is therefore little value in switching to another one “just because”. I also don’t think it is possible to differentiate or make a value judgement between such examples as per the mathematics analogy above. I hope that helps clarify my thinking? All the best, Iain

@@practicalkatabunkai brilliant thanks very much again for taking the time. I think that helps and gives me enough to test things. So would it be alright if I check with an example? Looking at you material I can see a particular way that "direction" is used, at least sometimes in the forms, if I understand it correctly. Something like "it's not that the Karateka is in the middle, it's that the form is telling you to move in a certain direction relative to your starting position". If I understand it correctly for example, you might say something like "from my starting position in the Kata I look left, and perform a left hand shuto", "this actually means that my attacker is square on and I actually shift my weight to the right to perform a shuto with my left hand, thus creating a tactically useful angle" or something like that. Another I've heard you say, I think, is something like "when I kick behind me, it's not that I actually move behind me, it's that this actually means I move behing the attacker" is that right? (hopefully that not to gross mistake but is roughly the kind of coding that you describe). Now we also know that we get good at what we practice. So to my question: Why don't we recreate the Kata? If the bunkai is "my opponent is square and I actually shift to my right" why not redesign the form for that? If "kicking behind me ACTUALLY MEANS I move being him" why not specifically practice "MOVING BEHING HIM' and create a new form? Again my aim here is not to personally undermine any practice or practitioner. I'm interested in a more general persuit of how we model the world scientifically to produce useful results. Karate Kata is an example of a model. I'm interested in how humans create and use any model. Thanks very much in advance. Andy

@@thinkdistinct1282 YOU WROTE: “If the bunkai is "my opponent is square and I actually shift to my right" why not redesign the form for that? If "kicking behind me ACTUALLY MEANS I move being him" why not specifically practice "MOVING BEHING HIM' and create a new form?” It’s because it’s an unknown. People move a lot in combat so it’s one of those variables we talked about. How I specifically get to that angle will depend on the specifics of the circumstance. Where are we staring from, how are we both positioned, how are we moving, how quickly are we moving, what about obstacles are in the surrounding environment, etc. The kata can’t tell you those specifics any more than a map of a landscape can tell you the weather (“the map is not the territory and all that”), but you do need to take the weather into account when using the map to navigate the landscape. The kata give us the angle, in partner work that we will drill some of the various ways we can get to that angle, in live practise we practice getting to that angle in the ever-variable world of combat. If kata was to give a specific motion, then that kata would be wrong for every single one of the other countless variables that exist i.e. if the enemy shifts to the side slightly, then that motion would no longer be right because if you did that set motion you would no longer be at the correct angle due to your relative positions being different at the start. Kata, therefore, clearly and explicitly shows the angle, but does not attempt to show how to get to that angle because you can’t possible know that ahead of time. The angles thing is often misunderstood in kata, despite it being clearly explained in the writings of Mabuni, Toguchi, Motobu, etc. For example: iainabernethy.co.uk/comment/5745#comment-5745 All the best, Iain