Does the solo kata warrant the attention it receives?

General discussions on Wado Ryu karate and associated martial arts.
Tony West
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2015 11:02 pm

Does the solo kata warrant the attention it receives?

Post by Tony West »

To continue on from the other thread
Out of the seinsei I have trained with, very few have mentioned kaisetsu as a concept that needs a Japanese word. I guess if you'd ask many Japanese sensei about kaisetsu in kata they would be looking like "yes, kaisetsu is of course important... what is your question?"

What has been told is kaisetsu instead of bunkai, seems to me to be stuff that most good sensei teach even without the word.
What is my question? I'm not really sure.
I suppose I wonder whether my experience of learning the kata is the norm.
We learn the solo form and there may be an occassion where sensei will demonstrate how the movements can relate to fighting in some way but it's not a structured transmission of knowledge in the way our syllabus work is. We don't explore how a certain movement can be used in different context whilst using the same body mechanics and not all of the kata is analysed.
I've seen and practised applications of the same kata from different instructors and I don't see a common thread in terms of body movement or power generation.

I'm not overly concerned with self defence so I'm not looking enviously at those who have clearly defined bunkai. I'm also not interested in competition so even though I do get a lot of satisfaction from performing a sharp and efficient kata I'm concerned it wont sustain me in the long run.
It feels like kata for katas sake.

Do you think discussion and exploration of our kata is essential? Desirable?
Is the purpose of our kata just tanren?
Wado heretic
Posts: 94
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2011 7:29 pm
Location: United Kingdom, England, Shropshire

Re: Does the solo kata warrant the attention it receives?

Post by Wado heretic »

A short Essay by Mabuni Kenwa entitled Practice Kata Correctly. Translation by Mark Tankosich, and the essay recovered from seinenkai.com.
Mabuni Kenwa wrote:In karate, the most important thing is kata. Into the kata of karate are woven every manner of attack and defence technique. Therefore, 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 pre-arranged kumite 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 thrusting and blocking - that is to say, the techniques of attack and defence - have innumerable variations. To create kumite containing all the techniques in every one of their variations is impossible. If one sufficiently and regularly practices kata correctly, it will serve as a foundation for performing - when a crucial time comes - any of the innumerable variations.
However, even if you practice the kata of karate, if that is all that you do, if your other training is lacking, then you will not develop sufficient ability. If you do not also utilize various training methods to strengthen and quicken the functioning of your hands and feet, as well as to sufficiently study things like body-shifting and engagement distancing, you will be inadequately prepared when the need arises to call on your skills.
If practiced properly, two or three kata will suffice as "your" kata; all the others can just be studied as sources of additional knowledge. Breadth, no matter how great, means little without depth. In other words, no matter how many kata you know, they will be useless to you if you don't practice them enough. If you sufficiently study two or three kata as your own and strive to perform them correctly, when the need arises, that training will spontaneously take over and will be shown to be surprisingly effective. If your kata training is incorrect, you will develop bad habits which, no matter how much kumite and makiwara practice you do, will lead to unexpected failure when the time comes to utilize your skills. You should be heedful of this point.
Correctly practicing kata - having sufficiently comprehended their meaning - is the most important thing for a karate trainee. However, the karate-ka must by no means neglect kumite and makiwara practice, either. Accordingly, if one seriously trains - and studies - with the intent of approximately fifty percent kata and fifty percent other things, one will get satisfactory results.
Not claiming that said short essay has all the answers but it hopefully answers a few.

As an individual who has traversed both sides of the bunkai/kaisetsu divide I am mostly of the opinion that is it semantics these days. Both processes are fundamentally the same. Let us break down the process of kaisetsu:

Kaisetsu is where you explain the visual process of the movements of the Kata. The Kata should be explained within the context of its established movements, without change or modification to said movements. In kaisetsu, the movement process is analysed, rather than the individual postures. Underlying the concept of Kaisetsu is Kaishaku. This is the interpretation of the movements within the context of their potential application, while still working within the mechanical processes of the kata.

If we contrast this with bunkai we can see the differences most people focus in on. Bunkai means to literally break down or disassemble. As such each individual posture, technique, and movement is explored in of itself. Done properly, this is without modifying the kata movement at all.

Bunseki: To analyse. This is the interpretation of the movements in the context of their potential applications, and the possible broader meanings. What tactical implications may the movement have beside the technique it represents.

Oyo: The literal application of the technique in an exercise or drill. This is as much a test as it is anything else; does the meaning, or technique, that has been uncovered through Bunkai and Bunseki in fact viable.

Sadly, for most, oyo is all they know of the concept of Bunkai. As such, they often see what is in fact an experimental process rather than a final product. Similarly, in this process the thinking is very much bottom-up, rather than top-bottom. If a technique does not work, it is not necessarily assumed that the interpretation is wrong or the karateka at fault, but in fact the way the kata is being performed might not be correct. In Okinawa it is not unusual for a kata to be changed quite regularly. Ultimately, the application should resemble the kata shape, but any deviance is part of the experimental process, not necessarily a fault in the application.

Conversely, if an application does not work in the Kaisetsu process, the view is taken that the application is wrong and was not the purpose of the movement, or the karateka was at fault in failing to make the application work. It is rarely presumed that the kata is at fault, or that the kata is in any shape maladapted.

Furthermore, note the difference emphasises. Kaisetsu is about the movement of the kata, where as bunkai looks at the movement but as much emphasis is placed on the postures. If one was to use an analogy; Kaisetsu would be the literature teacher whom cares about the content and meaning of a sentence, where as Bunkai would be the language teacher who cares about the proper grammar as much as the content of the sentence.

However, both processes are fundamentally the same. They about uncovering the meaning of the kata and coming to conclusions about the kata. They just arrive at slightly different points and have a different attitude to what the end goal of the process is.

On to whether the Wado-Ryu kata have bunkai. In short, they do. Ohtsuka Meijin may have fundamentally changed the kata he learnt but he did not originate them. The kata of Wado-Ryu are still the kata of Okinawan Karate, just flavoured by Ohtsuka Meijin’s concepts and ideas. As a process, you can readily apply the process of Bunkai to the Wado-Ryu kata. However, I think much reticence comes from the different attitudes. Furthermore, there is virtue in the argument one should view the kata through the same lens as the founder of the discipline. It provides the most useful context to what you are in fact studying.

Similarly, we must keep in mind the unique paired Kata of Wado-Ryu, and the different attitudes of Japanese Budo and Okinawan Budo. Ohtsuka Meijin infused into his expression of karate a sense of attack and defence through the Kihon Kumite. In contrast, such an attitude does not exist in Okinawan karate. In Okinawan karate, much is made of recapturing the initiative, and preserving one’s life in combat. The kata as such deal almost purely with an aggressor, or a potential aggressor in a self-defence situation.

In short; your practice of the solo kata must be done with deference to the paired kata, and the kihon waza. They create the context for better understanding the intent of the solo kata movements. What you try to achieve in the Kihon kumite is essentially what you should seek to accomplish with the kata movements.
R. Keith Williams
omote
Posts: 25
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2011 1:24 am

Re: Does the solo kata warrant the attention it receives?

Post by omote »

Purely for myself, most of the emphasis in the solo kata has been on correct movement, and correct body/muscular development. I have never had a Japanese sensei put any emphasis at all on application, directly from the solo kata, except as a visual, or mental tool, to get the student to move correctly. In my opinion, the solo kata are invaluable in the first 10 years or so of training, as a method of ingraining Wado movement, and building a body capable of doing Wado application.

Our fighting is in the Kihon Kumite and other two man kata.

My very limited 2 cents.

Jay
Jay Boatright
Florida, USA
claas
Posts: 186
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2011 4:39 pm

Re: Does the solo kata warrant the attention it receives?

Post by claas »

I am very often speculating that if Otsuka sensei had had more time, the solo katas might have been totally reconstructed. I guess he saw a lot of value in walking different directions and making holes in the air, but not in the same way as the Okinawans. Still the forms are in some way the same, like Wado heretic says. This makes one think, could there be a more optimal kata set for developing and practicing what Otsuka thought was important, since the original katas were meant to be optimized for something else?

I guess many solve this by practicing more of the parts they feel are more essential. And fortunately every move can be made into a problem to solve. Trying to understand how to perform better, staying within the form.

But I gotta say, I think it is strange that Tony doesn't see a common thread in teaching body dynamics or power generation, when comparing different instructors. Are they all Wado? Because my experience is that everyone teaches the same stuff, but yes, the explanations might vary. That is a huge advantage of Wado. Still after almost a century, split-ups and being worldwide and big the content is the same. In the old days they probably did a lot of the basics, it seems.
Lasse Candé
Helsinki, Finland
Tony West
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2015 11:02 pm

Re: Does the solo kata warrant the attention it receives?

Post by Tony West »

But I gotta say, I think it is strange that Tony doesn't see a common thread in teaching body dynamics or power generation, when comparing different instructors. Are they all Wado? Because my experience is that everyone teaches the same stuff, but yes, the explanations might vary. That is a huge advantage of Wado. Still after almost a century, split-ups and being worldwide and big the content is the same. In the old days they probably did a lot of the basics, it seems.
I've mostly been taught kata as a form of tanren.
I increasingly perform kata more efficiently and than I did and I feel the benefit through the rest of my training.
The teaching of the solo kata has been consistent. Some instructors have gone in to more detail than others about how to perform the kata but I have zero concerns about how that has been taught.

I have experienced marked and sometimes contradictory differences in the teaching of kihon waza between instructors but that's possibly a discussion for another time.

When it comes to bunkai/application I've had differing opinions where the mechanic/method of making the application work isn't part of the solo kata. It may look like the kata but it's a superficial similarity.
To illustrate with a vague example; an application for the opening movements of pinan nidan where dropping of body weight is irrelevant but the position of the hands/arms are what make it work.
Or an application where a movement emphasied in solo kata is included but served no real purpose but movement which has been added is the movement that makes the whole application effective.
Sorry if I'm dithering but it's something I find difficult to explain.

If the intention of kata in wado is tanren and the bunkai just reinforces the movements by giving them some context to facilitate the correct practice, I'm happy I'm on the right path. This is mostly the type of bunkai/application I'm being exposed to. Some of it is fine but I think a lot of it is quite fanciful and would be less than effective.

If Otsuka meijin intended us to dissect the kata and extract real self defence skills ala okinawan karate then I don't know where to start doing that within my wado training.
On the one hand I'm not overly concerned with the practical application of my kata. As mentioned above, kihon kumite and other training gives me plenty to chew on.
On the other hand the exploration of our kata seems to be a half measure and I find that a little confusing.
If I seem quite conflicted it's because I am.

I'm also at pains to point out that this is just a niggling concern and not some great crisis, just thought it might be something interesting to discuss. If not for the more experienced but maybe for newcomers to wado ryu.
claas
Posts: 186
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2011 4:39 pm

Re: Does the solo kata warrant the attention it receives?

Post by claas »

When applying, usually something is altered, added or removed. The first movement of Pinan nidan is an example of exaggerated motions for principle training. The body must open a lot, hikite is used, an exaggerated stance is used... Two different applications would be something that is directed more downwards and something that is noru, attacking simultaneously the body and pressing the arms. Have seen them both many times as example and taken these, different aspects of the many principles at play in the kata move are stressed differently and of course the manifestation is dictated as much by the circumstance as by the wanted kata principles.

Also the possibility to move from the stance is another thing that might make the sensei invent a drill, to get the student to have the right stuff going on in the stance. Some sensei use for some movements tests where the partner gives resistance. Many times these are not the applications, but ways to teach body dynamics. Some people have a tendency to be a little too narrow-minded and reduce a certain kata movement to whatever explanation and then judge if that is the correct explanation. Often there is a lot more to learn about the move and so new explanations are needed to cover as much of this as possible.

When you mention tanren a few times it is a little unclear what kind of tanren you are referring to. What is your vision about the tanren that you think katas are meant for and what seems to be what your instructors teach?
Lasse Candé
Helsinki, Finland
Tony West
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2015 11:02 pm

Re: Does the solo kata warrant the attention it receives?

Post by Tony West »

Tanren to me is conditioning the body to make martially applicable movement a natural part of our repertoire.
To use the same pinan nidan example, the opening move teaches the dropping of mass downward by relaxing the knees and also the fast and efficient opening of the upper body. Repeated performance of the kata "burns" the action in to your muscles and nervous system such that I can perform it quickly, efficiently and intuitively in any way I find applicable.
That to me has been a perfectly valid purpose for kata until I read the term kaisetsu.

Bunkai to me was always an interesting diversion from kihon, kata and kumite. It stood apart from kata in that I may recognise the postioning of arms and legs from the kata but practice of the bunkai didn't really translate to better understanding of the kata and vice versa.
I may have totally misunderstood the term but kaisetsu seems to be study of the kata. A breaking down and illustration (through partner work) of what each movement of a kata achieves and how it can be applied.
From there you explore and create your own deviations using the same principles.

To further muddy the waters the two highest grade instructors in our club have differing opinions. One is of the opinion that kata is primarily for conditioning, the other holds that they are a repository of combative principles. From my limited perspective it seems a japanese vs okinawan approach.

I'm not being impatient really, there's still a lot of mileage in the way I'm training currently.
I'm just curious to know how others train I suppose.
claas
Posts: 186
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2011 4:39 pm

Re: Does the solo kata warrant the attention it receives?

Post by claas »

I haven't studied Okinawan karate, but my impression is that in the original approach a kata is a curriculum and the solo form of it a performance that has many functions in itself plus a way of making a list of the movements.

In Wado they aren't a curriculum but instead parts of the whole Wado curriculum.

But anyway, I would definitively go with the principle-based opinion out of these two. But then, when talking about what "principle" means, we arrive to the point where the body-conditioning instructor isn't totally wrong. (Difficult to judge the people, so right now I am just commenting the provided summaries.) Katas have typically bigger moves and smaller moves than actual moves in combat. Also stances could be exaggerated or limited and so on. These moves have body-conditioning effects, but the content is in the body-mechanical principles. So now the kata both gives a vehicle for teaching the principles plus a method of training them. Why should these two conflict, when two birds with one stone is clearly the best way possible?

But this is not all. In Wado there are a lot of teachings about mindset and fighting strategy when doing kata. So they are vehicles for all possible kinds of teaching. It has become clear to me what most high-ranking sensei mean when they say that nine katas is a lot. It wouldn't be if the katas could be narrowed to just one function of them, instead of very broad studies.
Lasse Candé
Helsinki, Finland
Gary
Posts: 238
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2011 1:14 pm
Location: South London, UK
Contact:

Re: Does the solo kata warrant the attention it receives?

Post by Gary »

Function over form!?

I always find it difficult to comment on threads on this, so perhaps I shouldn't!!

With my very simplistic understanding however - I think the two are different with alternative purposes that converge... eventually!!!

It is my belief that the 'genus' of Wado isn't Okinawan karate but rather, it is closer to Japanese swordsmanship. Therefore one needs to step away from the concept of solo kata and Bunkai and move closer to the idea that form is first taught through solo kata and then realised through kata-geiko.

Last weekend I was lucky enough to train with some Niten Ichi-ryu guys and they really understand that concept. They have a training they refer to as 'Seiho-kata' which takes the form - and challenges that practitioners to beat their partner.

Perhaps this is what we are missing in many Wado clubs today.
Gary Needham
Walton Wado Karate Club

清漣館双水執流英国稽古会
http://seirenkanuk.wordpress.com/
claas
Posts: 186
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2011 4:39 pm

Re: Does the solo kata warrant the attention it receives?

Post by claas »

Is a process of partial fusion of old arts and refinement for a modern age really even a question of genus? The hybrid of course has elements of all of its historical sources and if it has merit, its nature probably reflects the ideas of the founder the most.

Many karate practitioners have noticed that Wado is the same as their stuff, but with some strange things. A koryu practitioner might see the Japanese influence or might not. If the koryu art of the practitoner isn't related to Wado it happens a lot that they don't. But it doesn't matter which one the background of the observer is, they will either search and find how it isn't the same as their art or how it has even strong elements of their art. To blur this further, even people in the Chinese arts might find the same stuff even if the arts are totally unrelated. This is of course because the content is universal and the art just means which aspects of universal knowledge, free for anyone to discover, you focus on.

Anyway, since Wado is not built like an Okinawan style nor like a koryu, it doesn't have the good sides of their curricula. It isn't an Okinawan curriculum with some Japanese elements nor is it a koryu with some karate elements. Then we of course have to hope that something else rose up and I think it did. Many people say Wado culminates in kihon kumite and to me it seems this makes sense, even if I think saying that is minimalistic to such a degree that the proposition becomes questionable. But kihon kumite isn't central to any koryu nor other karates.

Could write a few more descriptions for example about how it is compatible with sports karate and other stuff more within the realm of modern budo, but this post is becoming long as it is. The point is that Wado seems to me to be an art of its own to such a degree that you can pretty much choose who to believe or who not to believe, when they say Wado is or is not whatever.

One thing that would be interesting though, would be to see how Funakoshi's karate was during the longish time-period Otsuka sensei spent there as his top student...
It is obvious Wado took something similar as its platform and then Otsuka sensei still had almost half a century to refine it under the label of Karate.

More about form and function in a separate post...
Lasse Candé
Helsinki, Finland
Locked