Multiple Applications

Just because we use a butterknife for everything from turning screws to scraping ice off of windshields doesnt mean we have a poor understanding of butterknifing =)

I would say that with any great tool, people will eventually find endless uses, and kata are definitely great tools. If anything, finding multiple uses speaks to a greater understanding of the mechanics of the techniques.

very quickly as im off to work,

kata mostly teaches me principles of movement that I find have multiple uses in self defense. It also teaches me certain techniques that have specific uses.

Will expand later!

I like the analogy of kata as a tool. Correct or not I think it accurately describes the current popular approach to kata in karate.

I suppose it comes down to how one defines the term “function”. For example, is the function of a thing the set of functions that it could possibility be used for? Or is the function of a thing the function that it was designed for in the first place? According to www.answers.com it seems the latter definition of “function” is more fitting; the term “use” being more applicable to the former definition.

So I guess the question becomes does one search for function in kata or does one search for use for kata. Personal I think the search for function is more meaningful, however I accept the search for use is more practical. But I prefer meaning over practicality.

I hope people are able to follow this! It’s getting a bit philosophical!

Martin

im a use man myself! (with a hint of function)

My opinion is that within the current culture of karate there is a lack of understanding (in terms of understanding function) both of specific applications of kata and of the general context within which it is appropriate to use these applications. Therefore in order to survive as an instructor you are forced to resort to teaching “use” rather than “function” (see last my last post).

Martin

well Martin,

your opinion is just that, yours. And of course im open to seeing the value in it.

Its obviously apparent that you view martial arts very different from the vast majority of us (I like that by the way!) and obviously we can all just bang heads as the historical 'truth' is lost in time (did it ever exsist though? or was it always different things to different people?).

One of the things i have begun to see over the last few years is that karate technique is a template teaching principles of movement, people choose to use it for what they require.

My 'truth' is that I believe karate is a method of civil self protection, entwined with a holistic method of good health (mind, body and spirit), linked to ancient tradition/religious symbolism,

I train the Okinawna Shorin ryu tradition as best I can, specifically looking back and finding 'clues' to the real 'truth' (sport has alot to awnser for IMO), and I gain much pleasure out of doing so, outside of all that its personal to each of us - my karate is different from the next man, the template may look the same but we all require a different function - it aint line dancing (well actually it is in many dojo......).

As stated before I hope that I can see and train with you guys, I feel that I can benefit from expieriencing your art, despite me perhaps disagreeing with some of your beliefs - you might want to do the same?

I personally don't care about the culture of Karate or culture of MA in general...it has it's own life that is driven by different motives and with a different path than my own. In my opinion you are correct in pointing out the general lack of understanding of kata....
But in order for either one of us to claim that, implies we know the 'true' application and context...which is not a historical truth (since documentation has not survived), but rather a personal truth.

that being said, we can only really talk about kata when the goals of each person talking is known. To say someone can interpret kata movements with no assumptions is hogwash. some basic assumptions are reasonable: kata is fighting principles with physical combat application.

that assumption is strengthened by a century of DOCUMENTED Masters of various arts, telling us this is so.

I feel this is a sane starting point when discussing kata application... to say otherwise is to say not just the mainstream culture of Karate is wrong, but the written works and demonstrated abilities of past-Masters should also be thrown out. I don't throw away history and start over, I learn from it and try to personally build upon it.

over-analyzing leads to an accedemic study. My feeling is, to learn kata, find a sensei that makes it work and learn from that person.


"I've never been an intellectual but I have this look."
-Woody Allen

There is nothing wrong with making assumptions about kata; I myself make assumptions when analysing kata. But let’s not forget that many of the kata are older than the documented history of karate, the history itself is quite insubstantial and that all historians are biased by the culture from which they write. But regardless of what history may or may not say, if you are going to analyse them honestly then it is logical to avoid assumptions about the nature of the outcome of your analysis. If you do not then you will find nothing other than what you assumed would be there in the first place; you’ll have learnt nothing that you didn’t know already! I use the following assumptions:

1. Forms were created and did not simply evolve from nothing.
2. Forms were created by experts working within an already well established format.
3. Forms were created to act as mnemonic devices.
4. Principles can not recorded in forms without recording techniques.
5. Forms were created so that both the look and feel of the form would be as close as possible to the look and feel of actual its’ application.
6. Forms or techniques created for the same format or principle will share basic similarities.

Martin

I agree with those assumptions. but you have left the following undefined:
"application",
"technique",
"principles"

if you don't make the 'what for' assumption....then it becomes recursive logic.

for example: "Forms were created so that both the look and feel of the form would be as close as possible to the look and feel of actual its’ application."

If 'application' is the unknown, the assumption becomes worthless since we don't know what the form originally looked like when it was 'created'.

consider these assumtions:
* forms likely change at least slightly thru each generation.
* We don't know for sure what the originals looked like.
* The changes/modifications thru the generations were improvements based on the needs of the changer. eg. historical text suggests this general trend: from military use to civilian self-defense. from self-defense to sport. from sport to pastime/fitness.

consider zenkutsu dachi. when used for self-defense, its a short distance charging configuration, the rear knee is no further back than the front heel.
But for sport, it's a quick linear distance gaining manuver with longer stride. for forms competition, deep and low stances get higher scores from the judges-shows control and strength. as a pastime or exercise, zenkutsu becomes a stretch as long and low as possible.

now, lets say I ONLY ever saw the long and low version. If I try to find it's function while not changing the position of long and low, I've missed the point of my exercise since my assumption is incomplete. I must further assume that at one time, this 'stance' was used and effective for fighting....and therefore must not have been long and low. a person not assuming it's application while only having a modern version to work with may come up with 1001 uses for long and low zenkutsu, but it's a forced-fitting that has nothing to do with probable historical truth.

refusing to make the assumption that kata was created for a martial purpose, makes the base assumptions a bit pointless....I assume

recursive logic meaning:
assumption 'A' is based on the results of outcome 'B'. but 'B' initialy depends on 'A'.

two major problems with that as it relates to the discussion:
1. kata HAS changed.
2. you don't have the original version.

It's only 'bad data' when you can't use kata to meet your objective. but since you don't have an objective, you'll never seek to prove your data to be 'bad'.

I start with an objective, and then look for good data.

you start with what you assume is good data, to find your objective.

don't know what else to say. seeing and feeling it work for self-defense was the clincher in my beliefs of what kata was/is for.
Not to mention people who have written, spoke and delivered kata: Funakoshi, Mabuni, Miyagi, Nagamine, Motobu, et al. the list goes on of very capable and knowledgable people who have already done the decades of research, study and training. why throw all that history away and ignore it?

how can you trust that they didn't change the kata which was handed down to you and practice, but not trust when they ALL have said kata contains fighting priciples and is central to Karate training?

That seems rather selective in your assumptions.

Saying that “I don’t have an objective” is misrepresenting what I am saying. I do have an object. Understanding kata! Furthermore the terms ‘good data’ and ‘bad data’ are subjective terms. Now, as I have already said, you can “use” kata for whatever you want, but let’s not confuse this with logical analysis. I am not advocating throwing away history, but again as I have already said, many kata predate the documented history of karate; therefore it is logical to closely examine kata without letting the history of karate influence that analysis. I think that Funakoshi et al.’s definition of fighting principles were probably vastly different to ours; I mean, I’m sure you’ve seen their bunkai! They too believed that kata were supposed to be “used” for fighting, and they “used” them to fulfil this objective, but just because they believed this, does not make this belief true. Of course it is known that many of these karate masters did in fact change kata but I do not believe they changed them beyond the scope of logical analysis.

Martin

'understanding kata' is a task. 'self defense' is an objective.

a task with no objective...or, as you would rather put it: the task IS to find the objective. is a circular, closed loop analysis. doesn't go anywhere until you start adding in 'justified' assumptions....or at least a direction. you have chosen a direction with bias while claiming you have no preconceived notions. of course you do. you are force fitting your interpretations into all wrist grab releases since you perhaps never had instruction showing effective and practical self-defense interpretations. If you had, you'd be on a different course of study now I suspect. Don't assume everyone is using kata with the linear punch/block interpretations that is taught pre-shodan. They incorrectly do so because they try and make their kata 'bunkai' into one step kumite. hint: It's not.

kata hasn't changed? How many versions of Seisan are there? which version will you choose? which one is the 'raw data' ?

If kata hasn't changed, how is it possible to have multiple versions surviving to this day? why is it logical to assume some kata changed and others did not?

sorry to keep on this... but I think saying that it's not logical to assume what kata is for, is worth a discussion for the mental exercise if nothing else.

While never equating it to a lack of understanding, I HAVE asked myself several times why some kata have singular sets of defined bunkai, while others have variations of the bunkai. I never understood the teaching of both ways. Why can't the style pick one way or the other?

Then, some years ago, I read something that helped me to grasp the flaw in training.

"Which is more important: what the teacher teaches, or what the student learns?"

In other words, what does it matter how many traditional bunkai there are, or how many variations are added to a kata later in its years? As long as the bunkai is true to the kata, and it works...why worry? I was taught the first sequence from kata X meant one thing, but as I read through other people's explanation, I saw how they learned it. Most of them work, some are elaborate renzuko bunkai lists, which are rather useless aside from training distance. Out of those that worked...which is right? All of them.

Just because they have more than one application to one move, does that make the meaning of ANY of the appplication any less important than the other if they work?

I hope this rant makes sense. If not, please ask, and I willl try and put it in more definite words.

Your rant does indeed make sense (to me anyway). However I was asking the question in a cultural context. Do the numerous applications of a single kata sequence indicate a general level of confusion about the “true” applications of kata?

I put “true” in quotes because you may not believe that there are any “true” applications or that it would be impossible to find them.

Martin

semantics, yes, I was going in that direction wasn't I...sorry to derail, my bad. I wasn't misrepresenting you (on purpose), I must have been misunderstanding you.

on topic:
what if the 'true' applications were known at one time, but were adjusted for whatever specific need the changer had at the time of the change? is that a likely possibility? It seems to fit the historical model of societies changing for necessity.

Thanks Ed...

I would say that this is a likely possibility, yes. However I would also say that I get the feeling that the old karate guys didn't really approve of it and that different people are likely to have changed kata in different ways; hence different versions. It is possible that a kata has been changed beyond the scope of logically analysis, I wouldn’t deny that. I get this feeling when looking at some Shotokan kata but whether this is a majority or a minority is truly unknown. I believe that there are still lots of good kata out there and as I’ve already alluded to, one can look at lots of different versions in order to filter out changes that may have happen prior to recorded history.

Martin