Does any of it actually work? When i see bunkai that is defending against karate atacks in karate stances i know it doesnt., it should be analysed against attacks that are not common in current karate practice, otherwise all that you are learning is how to defend against very strict orthodox karate practitioner. And the chances of getting into situation where you are defending against that practitioner is pretty much non-existant which makes whole practice questionable.

@@user-rz7ih2vh1c Sure, basic karate works. But as you suggest the actual bunkai don't usually look much like how the kata is performed. In fact, slavishly trying to make bunkai look exactly like a kata movement generates impractical bunkai. This is one of the serious faults you see in bunkai demos.

@@haffoc Its not just in demos. Ive come to conclusion that bunkai is actually lost to us at this point. We have a saving grace that is a sort of an interpretation, derived from your actual combat practice while using those froms. Problem is - due to limitations in combat practice there was wrong or inneficient interpretations. And those interpretations were reinforced in master-student relationship. Not only majority of teachers now do not know original bunkai of kata but they also cannot derive their own due to limitations of rules.

@@user-rz7ih2vh1c I understand your position. I used to feel essentially the same way, that kata were useless and imagining bunkai was a waste of effort. However, after reading Kenwa Mabuni's 1938 book 'Karate do Nyumon,' which sets out a very clear method for interpreting kata and deriving bunkai, I have changed my opinion. The kata can provide a foundation for deriving practical self defense movements. Once you read his book you'll see what I mean. Stripped to its essence, the book tells you to take a single movement out of a kata and explore all its ramifications against a partner; that is, trying that single movement out against all manner of attacks while adding all manner of counters from punches to kicks, locks and throws. The only requirement is that the applications you uncover must be of practical use in combat. You will see there are no 'established' bunkai. There is only what you have discovered works for you.

@@haffoc I've read your summary of this book in some other post and i will probably read this book, thank you. I now think more along the lines of practicing outside of dojos to find some meaning. I need broader set experience, standup grappling at the very least to even begin scratching that surface. Lot of kata and stances started to make more sense when i started to learn more about wrestling.

That's to show you the embusen, or spatial development of the kata. You can see all directions and also the kata is supposed to start and end at the same point

The applications, which are pretty standard stuff that you often see peddled as bunkai, are unrealistic and impractical because they take the kata movements literally. That is a big mistake. Choki Motobu and Kenwa Mabuni were both very clear about this point -- you can't take kata literally and if you try to fashion bunkai that does so, it will result in impractical bunkai.

@De caprio According to the writings of both Mabuni and Motobu, the bunkai were flexible and had no limit and were not prescribed. What was needed, Mabuni felt, was a systemic approach for deriving the bunkai. Kenwa Mabuni, the founder of Shito Ryu karate and a direct student of Anko Itosu, published a book on karate 1938 called ‘Invitation to Karate Do,’ ‘Karate Do Nyu Mon.’ The book is significant for many things, but most of all, perhaps, because it provides a method for interpreting the kata - that is, a method for deriving the bunkai. This was one of Mabuni’s express intentions, for he says, ‘Given the great variety of existing techniques, I can’t put them in a book, so I am limited to explaining how you can investigate and practice each one ...’ Since Mabuni was one of Itosu’s direct students, and trained with the highest level karate practitioners in Okinawa, such as Choki Motobu, before going to Japan, his views on kata interpretation are entitled to great weight. I summarize Mabuni’s approach here: 1. The kata cannot be understood without the practice of ‘kumite.’ ‘Kumite’ to Mabuni meant practicing the techniques of the kata with a partner. It included the notion of free sparring, but it also meant partner drills from the pre-arranged and simple, to more spontaneous and complex. Thus, when an instructor teaches a kata, he should break out each movement and have students practice and explore the movement in paired drills. The failure to practice kumite as one learns a kata turns the kata into a meaningless dance. 2. In the kata, there is only one enemy, and he is in front of you. 3. What appears to be a sequence or combination of movements is most likely no such thing. Movements generally shouldn’t be practiced in sequence as they appear on the kata. Doing so results in unrealistic interpretations. For instance, the three age uke in Pinan 2/Heian 1 going up the center are not a sequence or combination. Similarly, the pairs of shoto uke seen so often in the kata are not a sequence or combination. The bunkai should never be forced and unrealistic. They should be simple and practical. 4. Each movement in the kata, that is each technique, should be broken out and studied in isolation in kumite drills. This means a couple of things. First, it means that the student should defend against the primary attack, whether it is a punch of kick, by learning to move in response to the attack in different directions: left, back and right. (Mabuni expressly says that even though the kata may show a defense used with a step forward, in the bunkai, the step should always be backward or to the side.) Second, some defenses can be used against a variety of attacks. So, use the defense against a variety of attacks. For instance, age uke and shoto uke are not only useful against the straight punch, but can also defend against a push, a hook and a blow from above. Experiment in kumite with this. Find out what works and what does not. 5. Where there is a defense in the kata but no counter-attack, you add the counter-attack in kumite. (An unspoken corollary to this is that if a movement looks like a defense, that’s probably what it is, not a disguised blow.) Experiment with all the counters you know. As you learn more counters, go back to the defense in the kata and experiment with the new ones. Counters can consist of throws and locks as well. Itosu said that throws and locks are taught ‘orally,’ which seems to mean that he intended them to be taught in kumite. So, add them there. 6. If a defense clearly consists of one block/parry, experiment with adding a second block/parry against a follow-up second attack (that is, a kick followed by a punch and vice versa, or the one-two punch; there are, in fact, a lot of defenses against multiple blows in the kata; when you start looking for them, you’ll find them). Then add a counter. 7. Do not take the movements in the kata literally. Many of them are illustrative, memory aids for the actual bunkai, which can only be understood through the practice of kumite. The openings of Pinan 2/Heian 1, Pinan 3/Heian 3, and Pinan 4/Heian 4 are examples of this. The actual bunkai do not look much like the way the movements are performed in the kata. Mabuni makes this clear with his bunkai for the bewildering simultaneous chudan uke/gedan barai in the opening of Pinan 3/Heian 3. It looks nothing like what most people seem to think it represents (and is an exception to the rule that you shouldn’t interpret a series of movements as a combination; here Mabuni says it is a defense against the one-two punch). Movements that are done simultaneously in the kata may not be performed that way in the bunkai. If you follow this straightforward method, you will find even the simplest kata alive with possibilities.

@De caprio the bunkai should be practical. They are not a show.

@De caprio Yes.

@De caprio I don't think it's a case of karate v. mma. I think mma is a potential testing ground for a certain style of karate. Karate was invented not for fighting in an mma type environment, but rather for street self defense against attacks by thugs. However, karate has been adapted for the ring-style fight, and some of its techniques work fine in the ring. But adaption is the key point. Also, to be successful at mma you have to be more well rounded than your typical karate guy. You need basic boxing, throws for clinch work, leg takedowns, and ne waza skills. So your standard karate guy has to cross train if he's going to be successful. We had one kid black belt who went to an mma gym for a year. The experience turned him from an average fighter to a real tiger.

So you never saw the "real" bunkai. No kata is effective or were intended for street fighting. Also the emphasis on kata was done by Gichin and his sons. Kata is called kata, shape, pattern, form not fighting.

@@suprememasteroftheuniverse Hello Master of the Universe. Your assessment is not quite correct. Kata was not originally a ballet. The techniques in kata were abstracted and represented patterns for mostly different real self-defense situations. A combination usually has several variations of application. If the Okinawan masters of that time had only practiced ballet, they would have failed terribly in reality. However, since in many cases they were bodyguards, security guards, or police officers, they could not have afforded to fail in serious situations. Each kata therefore very well provides a large repertoire for real situations. The old traditional forms are in many cases more substantial. Itosu Anko created three forms from the Kushunku (Kaushanku Sho, Dai and Shiho). He had two goals: 1.teaching for the school for the purpose of physical education, but also 2. codified techniques for those who seriously wanted to learn the ancient system of Okinawa Karate. The key to this system was and is the appropriate instructor. Funakoshi later probably pursued other goals, which can be read from his books if you work them up chronologically.

Why? Who said? Nothing in karate can change? Egami Sensei changed the wrist termination way back in 1966. Half the people in Japan practice terminating in a bent wrist.

@@ckhthd Of course, you can change a lot of things. This has also happened in the past in karate. You just have to know why you change something. If the change is an end in itself and you do not know what was originally meant, it misses the point. For example, you can change the technique of pole vaulting. Nevertheless, the goal remains to jump higher than others. It is the same with karate, is what I do fiction or does it serve reality? If you have the competition in mind, then you train for the competition. And that's ok. But that is different from training for a realistic application. If the goal is not self-defense, then that's fine. But then you must not go and sell an Omote Bunkai as if it were useful for a realistic application. In this way, the students are led to believe that they are dangerously safe. Itosu Anko and Gichin Funakoshi warned against changes in the traditional katas, probably because they saw in them a danger that the kata would be misinterpreted in relation to the bunkai. Nevertheless, they made changes themselves. But I have already listed the motivation for this. Mabuni said that an experianced master immediately recognizes whether a student has understood a kata he is demonstrating or not. The idea of correct application when performing is the soul of the kata.

@@suprememasteroftheuniverse kzfaq.info/get/bejne/Z8yZYNp10b7QaIU.html