Nunchaku Kata????

Why aren't there any "traditional" nunchaku kata? Why was it trained in differently than, say, bo, sai, tunfa?

With only logic to guide us, I would say it was never a major field of study. Because of Taira's efforts, where many, many different weapons training sources were pulled together, and he enhanced them with his own kata too, it looks like all of the weapons training consisted of kata.

Actually except for a few family traditions, before 1900, most kobudo seems to have been very much small local, individualized practices. Perhaps with only one weapon.

If for the nunchaku one could swing it effectively and knew a few other things it could be used for, it was likely enough for anyone, because they really were not in a high weapons usage environment.

I don't see nunchaku as a primary weapons system, but more a back up weapon, such as the Bando short stick I practice. An emergency weapon for surprise.

But Taira, and other more modern researchers, saw a value in combining weapons and kata practice, and something new was created. The original kobudo kata (pre Bruce Lee) were not more than effective basics, probably on the older principles.

Then again after all does one need more.

And depending on the traditions, some weapons practice didn't work on basics, just some kata practice.

So many unanswered questions,

Thanks Victor. Every time you post, I receive a valuble lesson. Sometimes it's technique. Sometimes it's philosophy or history. In any case it is always valuable.

bd: Quit worrying about getting ahead or looking cool. With a lifetime to train you will have plenty of time for the former and little need for the latter.

Page

Dear Victor:

Has anyone done a survey of forms/hyung/kata to assess how much the use of kata is a function of civiliam arts versus martial arts? There is some bit in the back of my mind that wonders if the use of kata is more of a tool for people who might not have benefit of regular military training (as it were) and would have to rely on more variant and infrequent training over the generations. In my own research it seems as though the closer one gets to a military souce the less forms are used. On the other hand, the more one moves towards civilian practice with, say, family arts, village teachers, and commercial schools the greater the frequency of forms. By extension, since nunchukas are argeably more of a civilian weapon one would expect a great reliance on kata for teaching. Thoughts? Comments?

Best Wishes,

Bruce

Hi Bruce,

Some thoughts. I do not equate the use of kata with a focus on martial (military) training.

On the whole the pace at which a karate system develops a students potential, it is too slow for military needs, where most individuals in the military received very specific training for certain types of missions.

As the first goal in the military is to get people on line ASAP, kata would not be useful. As troops seem to be trained mission specific, a faster focus of training is called for.

And in contemporary military training, what we think of as the martial arts, are most often subsidiary training and as a personal choice. In such cases long term development is useful over a longer career, and the subsidiary values are likely more important than the primary values. Such as a sniper training in the MA to develop stronger confidence, than the Sniper’s need for hand to hand expertise, for if they get hand to hand their mission really has been compromised beyond belief.

On the other hand I don’t personally accept that arts such as karate were really developed for civilian self defense. We only have oral history to support this, and there does not seem to have been a need for the citizenry to do so. Of course people with karate training became officials and police, so there is a secondary case. But the civilians, when have they resorted for karate, except in antidotal evidence.

While karate in the last century was added to some of the secondary schools, it seems likely this was for pre-military training in following orders and overall physical development than for self defense.The events in the mid century did really not leave personal self defense as practical, against the armies, the bombs and all the rest.

I think karate developed because 1) some had an individual interest in paralleling Chinese systems of martial study, 2)Perhaps the Okinawan’s were interested in developing a similar system of creating officials where martial competence would be part of the testing, 3) Some were looking for something interesting to do. Outside of keeping on developing reasons, none of which constitute any proof to the fact.

All we can say is it did develop, and various individuals wrapped different reasons about its presence, with no subsequent ‘proof’.

While karate developed with some parallel to the Chinese systems (and their much more complex forms work), the Okinawan kobudo traditions were far more private. Some used forms, and others likely just consisted of techniques (till the modern era).

So the nunchuk was just there, and could be swung, etc. That didn’t mean anyone on any regular basis ever split their neighbor’s head open. So they may have just been what they were, nothing special, just a different sort of stick. Only in contemporary times have other approaches been developed from what I’ve seen.

Thanks for the enlightening statement, BuDoc. To get back on topic instead of turning this into a philosophy thread, does anyone know of ANY websites whatsoever in which I can learn anything at all about nunchaku techniques?

B-D:

Do you have something against buying and using books? You can get just about any title--- cheap--- through AMAZON.COM and HALF.COM. If you had the book you could make notes, tear out pages and put them in a binder--- whatever. Is there an issue here that I am missing?

Best Wishes,

Bruce

Dear Victor:

Thanks for your thoughts. I really value your opinion. Having said that, though, I have to tell you that I think I am a bit more confused about where you put kata in relationship to martial vs civilian arts. What I thought I heard you say was that though some civilians might move on to assume a military or paramilitary position, the development of the arts themselves (such as Karate) were probably more civilian. If I heard this right, I think I am understanding that because military training would be more mission-specific, the use of general kata would be more trouble than they might be worth. Right so far?

If I am on track I would conclude that you agree that kata are more of a civilian training/education tool. And if THAT is true, would our Thread Originator actually be doing himself a disservice by learning a kata since a kata would actually be intended for teaching/learning and would be LEAST applicable for demos. Thoughts?

BTW: This is why I thought our friend would benefit most from just mimicing Tournament demos rather than try to make something out of a serious learning device. Comments?

Best Wishes,

Bruce

Bruce,

First Okinawa had no military tradition with karate. In the 1500's their militia lasted 15 hours against the landing Japanese and then the Okinawan military was over.

Of course there were minor officials like the kings guards, or police but there was no tradition of training them in karate. The closest I've seen was occasionally somebody with karate training would become a police officer, and perhaps because of that training.

But Okinawa 100 years ago has police records which didn't show a violent society. So a real need (excepet for wild kids and drunks) was hardly there. Wheh the Japanese volunteered Okinawan's in the defense of Okinwaw during the American invasion they didn't train them in karate, and whatever they did train them in was inneffective against the bombs, the cannons and modern military might, more the saddness for we destroyed an entire Generation of martial seniors.

Look at militaries, real militaries, they're mostly geared to large unit operations. If you look at Tom Cruises movie 'The Last Samauri',while fiction, as generally correct about the military campaigns being used in Japan, around the same time that Karate was being solidified on Okinwawa, who in their right mind would believe Okinawan Karate and/or Kobudo had any place against either sort of military large unit action.

Those in the military who are all round specialists are alwlays few. Perhaps they might benefit from long term karate, but not the military.

I personally believe that the desire to imitate the largest oriental society, China, and it's use of MA testing as a qualification for gentleman and govenment service had somethign to do with karate being developed.

Karate did not develop for the 'people', mostly for the very very few and eliete. The common persons were not included, even in the 1900's as the common persons children could not afford to go to the schools, that was the province of the upper classes.

I find it unusual wrap karate into a civilan defense tradition when it wasn't offered for training (till the mid 1920's or so) more openly.

Long ago I heard rumblings that specific chinese traditions were 'crafted' into the developed karate tradition, with the plan that certain Okinawan's could participiate in a theater wide attack on the Japanese interests. In other words as an attack art (read strike from behind) where many karate traditions would work just great. But there is no documentation that I've ever seen to support that theory, just hot air. There is a logic, the tradition was trasmitted to Okinwaw, to be taught in secret, for the day of the uprising. Then joe average could strike suddenly. Nice story isn't it, but just a story. Still one that makes sense why there were so many older 'secret' traditions behind karate's transmission.

I simply accept there was some undocumented reason why the art developed, and on the whole it's transmission in the past 100 years focused on trying to keep it straight, except where changes were felt were necessary, then everyone changed anything as they wished. For there were no real rules.

I think kata became what it did because that was what was originally transmitted or copied from China (even though in vastly differnet form), and the Okinwawn's just made it a tradition.

Kata has vast value, but it takes a long, long time to get it. There is no free lunch. For quick training, different answers are always more logical. But I only do karate, and don't worry about the others.

Now for somebody today who has a burr under their saddle tha t they have to have nunchaku. The only logical course is find an instructor, enter whatever training they provide and wait till the time is right for the instructor to choose nunchaku for you.

Thought I know there are 'mcdojo' type clubs that will teach anyone anything (I've seen enough of that).

As for needing nunchaku, wake up. Almost everywhere they are ILLEGAL to carry and use. So they make absolutely no sense for self defense, a SD tradition that can land you in jail is worthless.

If it's to look cool, good luck. I don't do that. I don't suggest books, video tapes or .mpg files will give anything. They might provide some value to somebody actually training in the art but that's it.

Personally for Nunchaku, while I know how to use them, have studied a kata, I dropped all of it decade(s) !! ago. Because I found no real value in it. If need be i can use them. All the rest irrelevant for my own training and teaching needs.

Victor, you covered so many grounds in that post, I can only answer cronologically...interesting theory about okinawa, but I suspect karate practice goes even deeper, or I could be just caught up in some of the hoopla that has gone on for a century. I'm still looking into that, progress is slow. but if karate was reserved for upper-class, how do you explain the formation of naha-te? was it simply money that gave dock workers interest in learning the art enough to stowaway on a ship to China to seek additional training? The theory of China being a lure for prestige, I can buy into, but not the theory that only nobles pursued this prestige.

as far as weapons training, I'm not into Karate for tradition sake - therefore I don't feel the need to learn weapons...the only serious weapons class I have attended was instructed by the US Army. Nunchaku and other weapons which I'll never have available in a SD situation, have only peripheral relavance to my art so far. however, if I had an instructor that can show me otherwise, my mind is a sponge. for instance, nunchaku is not interesting to me, but if my instructor was Bruce Lee or Fumio Demura, I might spark an interest and see it's relavence in my empty handed studies.

on topic for the impatience complainers of where this thread is being taken: buy a video on amazon, or e-bay if you want to save a buck. or better yet, it's the fad nowadays to create your own kata...

Kintama,

From what I've read, the karate tradition pre 1900 was an extremely small gorup. It wasn't that people didn't know they practiced, but there was no general admittance.

I'm willing to accept almost any form of 'proof' outside of just oral tradition to support otherwise, but to date I haven't seen anything that seriously contradicts that.

As for Naha tradition, I'm assuming you're referring to Hiagonnna K. He had previous karate training on Okinawa, and yes he and several others did move to China for training. But it was Miyagi that made his tradition public, in the 1920's onward so to speak. Which takes us into the modern era.

Not trying to start any argument over this, just explaining what I've read and accumulated.

As for weapons training, it has been an integral part of advanced Isshinryu instruction since the 1960's. On the whole I find a large subsidiary value in strength and grip development that comes from weapons training, a development that strengthens the layers of karate execution potential.

The Chinese systems which have very large weapons training components, really are using those traditions for their subsidiary values too (IMO).

Don't need Kobudo for good Karate, but I can make a case that good Kobudo can help move good Karate a step forward when one advances into advanceed kata application study.

But thats one of my personal mantra's, and almost all of the greeat karate-ka I've trained with in many systems, have good kobudo skills too.

Dear Victor:

I had been rereading OKINAWA- STORY OF AN ISLAND PEOPLE and was repeatedly stunned at the history as compared to the MA oral tradition.

For instance, prior to the 14th century the bood suggests that the Okinawan people were just plain primitive. It seems that the first real boost to the culture came with the families sent to Okinawa by the Ming Dyn to enhance Okinawa as a Ming outpost.(BTW: I think the same thing can be said about the former island of Formosa-- now Taiwan.) The mixing of the Chinese boxing and the indigenous To-De produced what would later be called Okinawa-te.

Now the reason I mentioned all of that is to say this. One theme that seems to get little discussion is the role of Okinawa as a base for Wa-Ko predations on the coast of Ming China. In fact the kata "Cinto" is apparently named for a "sailor" ("pirate") who was taking a momentary respite. My guess is that contributing factor to the development of Karate in Okinawa may have been as a kind of local "street-fighting" art that folks engaged in Wa-ko-type activities would have found it good to know. I think this would go a long way towards explaining why so many of the Kobudo weapons are effectively implements one might find in daily living instead of actual weapons in the military sense. FWIW.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

This thread is fascinating...thank you all for redeeming (derailing!) what might have been another less than useful thread.

Mr. Smith, may a newbie ask a question? It would seem from what I read that the history/development of kata and nunchaku might be two different topics. Focusing on nunchaku alone, the moment I learned the basics I started to think about Surachin (sp?)...or flexible/rope type of weapons. In your opinion, could it be possible that nunchaku were simply tools...and beyond teaching the basic movements/techniques/physics they were still viewed as 'primitive' by the more educated/semi-elites that were knowledgable in the Chinese traditions? That would account for no grand katas.

Yes most sources point to the nunchaku having been part of a rice flail or a horse bridal. There are some books on okinwan karate that show both versions. They dont look anything at all like the modern nunchaku , but could still be used as such.
The other orgin theory of this weapon is that a chinese general was a master of the staff. It broke in half during training so he attached the two pieces with horse hair. His name was something close to Nunchaku so that was how it got its name.
Of course these are just theories. However if you want to see te nunchaku being used as a rice flail(however the stick is a bit longer), watch the movie the Seven Samurai. There is a scene where some peasants are farming and using this tool.

Thank-you all for the corrections, clarifications.
my head hurts. I had an easier time learning differential equations - history was never my strength, I need to read more...one thing that is reminded from this exercise is why there are so many overly-simplistic romantic tales of the origins of kobudo and karate out there...the info is so scattered and painfully incomplete, that it's just easier for a person not willing/able to do the research to just select the source/opinion which best suits the image of their particular spin on an art. versions of history can only be proven unlikely and is rarely definitive...thats what is making my head feel like it got tagged

on topic: someone was asking about a good/cool nunchaku kata?
not sure about the 'cool' or 'good' but here you go:
http://karate.dhs.org/kata/nunchaku.htm

Unfortunately there are too many books and too many theories, to simply know which are real. In time one begins to question most simple answers and replace the question with the answer, this cannot be proven, for it can there would be no question.

The only value to trying to understand the past is not to explain it, but rather can we use it to guide our future, or learn how not knowing the answer is an answer too.

Okinwawa, because of its location was a shipping hub across the entire Orient.

The nunchaku was not an Okinawan invention, it was and is found in many cultures. Perhaps they got it from Okinwawa. Perhaps Okinawa got it from elsewhere. With no answer, we just look at its existence. And with a tradition stating there were no old time nunchaku kata, that seems to just be the way it was.

The past 100 years many things changed, Perhaps for better, perhaps just for neutral change, perhaps for worse. Hard to know. But we can accurately state development of things like nunchaku kata were new, and not the true past. And that's all that means. New does not mena bad, just that it wasn't the old way.

On the whole I don't see much serious Okinawan Nunchaku tradition, just there was something. Of course I've seen people who spent literally years making it something else, and are very good at that they do. The issue is whether that skill enahnces true karate, and of course the answer can only be personal.

All we can do is look as clearly as possible and wonder.

Being accurate is a novelty in itself, IMO.

I have nothing against books. I have nothing against any sort of information, all I'm wanting is everyone's opinions of which information to use. I'm a beginner with the weapons and kung fu altogether. How about some titles for some of those books??

it was like magic...I went to www.google.com and typed in "nunchaku books" and it returned some 47,700 links to...imagine this: nunchaku books!

http://www.martialartsgear.com/Books/Nunchauku_Books/Nunchauku_Books.shtml
http://www.gungfu.com/cart-htm/media_books_weapons.htm
.
.
.
hundreds of more links. but which books are 'good'? The logical thing would be to research which artist you'd want to learn from, and then look at the reviews for his books.

what you'll find out (and the reason why people are not answering your question directly) is that even after buying a library of do-it-yourself-kobudo books and trying to mimic the frames - you'll never be able to learn what is between those frames (even in video). It is a one-dimensional leaning tool. Many of books/videos are marketed as complete learning systems, because guess why...anyone...anyone...thats right Bueller, because they want your ca$h. Some of the more honest authors mention the info provided is for reference only - meaning they assume the reader already has in-person training from a qualified instructor.

people aren't ignoring you, they just don't want to necessarally condone something that they don't believe in (ie: instruction thru media) and do not wish to stray people wrong, so the best thing to do is be silent or change the subject when someone naively asks a topic question such as yours, which by the way was originally asking for links, not books.

hope that clears some things up for you.

Hope this clears some things up for you, I don't particularly enjoy all the smart-@$$ remarks from people on here. People who, get this, happen to not be as skilled as some of you tend to ask for help from time to time. I asked a simple question and, yet again, the millions of philosophy posts come flying my way and then I get a post from someone who "clears it up for me" by telling me to use Google. Guess what genius, just using Google doesn't tell me how good a book is, does it? That's supposed to be the purpose of this forum, people to direct me to the proper information. Throw me a frickin' bone here.........dumb@$$

Dear B-D:

Thank you for putting this in perspective from your point of view. Perhaps some Class A information is due you.

You may not realize it, but in asking your question, you inquiry comes under the eyes of people who have quite a bit of time in the MA. I am familiar with, for instance, Mr. Victor Smith from other discussion Nets and the fact that he would take any time at all from an exceptionally busy schedule tells me you are one lucky person.

Something else to consider is that not everyone here responds just to address your particular issue. Some people develop sub-dialogues and ask/answer questions that are peripheral to the major question you pose. Consider this an additional un-requested blessing.

Lastly, whatever your particular value-system regarding the MA, you will find that in the future, discussion of some aspect of MA devoid of philosophical and historic context is not unlike purchasing a fast-food sandwich only to find that it is only bread and condiments. Unfortunately, that portion which you originally inquired about is only a small (very small) part of a much bigger picture. Just some thoughts.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

Thanks for all of the enlightening responses guys. As far as I'm concerned, when a post is responded to it should be answered as directly as possible. As for the "food related" metaphors, I do not wish for the buffet-version of everyone's responses, I simply wanted the "fast-food" version. I wanted a straight-up answer of some url's to find some info. and then I politely asked for some "good" book titles only to be told to use Google in a very rude way?!?!??! This is pathetic. Every forum I use ends up in being a fight just to get people to understand what the original question said. For all it matters to me, don't respond in an arrogant and rude way if you don't want to be responded to in that way as well. Now, does anyone have any decent responses to my original question!?!?!?!?!

BD,

Let me make this simple. First you ask a question and after that internet discussion takes its own direction. That's thw way it is. But you obviously aren't satisfied with the answers being offered.

There are no intelligent references for movies, video clips or books that will teach you nunchaku. But feel free to clip yourself in the head a few times to get the point!

I've been at this a long time. I don't train anyone in weapons till they reach a level of training where I feel it is worth my and their time to study them (and thats after reaching black belt in my system of study). I've had black belts join the program and they've followed the same instruction path as a new beginner. It was their choice because the found some value to the way I teach and what I have to offer. That's their choice.

And FYI I train Bo, Tonfa, Kama, Sai, Stick, Tanto and Chinese straight sword. None of which can be truly learned anyways but hands on.

You want a weapon to look cool. I teach weapons and that's not an adequate reason to study them, ever, IMO. In fact that's a reason not to share them with somebody. The only value in Okinawan weapons today is to develop subsidiary strength for karate training, and the same applies to the Chinese weapons training.

But internet discussion opens other lines of discussion.

You will not find nunchaku at home self schooling anywhere. And that's the way it is.

Pleasantly,

Victor Smith
bushi no te isshinryu

K

Thanks, I was caught in all the uproar about "edible metaphors" that I didn't even notice you put a link.

K

truthfully i would wait for my sensei to teach me about the nunchaku if for no other reason than respect for my sensei... but thats just me i can see your want for the nunchaku to look cool in your hands who doesn't? all i can say is BE CAREFUL WITH THE THINGS(i hit myself in the "not so funny bone" with my nunchaku) and well my whole arm went numb and i dropped them on the floor. most will say thats stupidity on my part i call it "un planned conditioning"