PSA: "Karate blocks" are not blocks!

From what I know, it's the sukui nage pick up throw. The reason I said it's not gedan is the direction of the arm. A bit technical but judo is kinda anal about that.

The difference there is that the sukui nage pick up is exactly that - a pick up. The non-sweeping arm is picking up the opponent's leg. Machida makes no such attempt and the corresponding kata technique with the gedan barai movement(which you first see in Heian Godan) doesn't demonstrate it either.

But there are plenty of similarities between karate takedowns and judo techniques so it's very common to see broadly similar principles with slight differences. There are only so many ways to take a person down.




And that's very sad. People see the techniques, but not the set-ups. Good kata link techniques by making the preceding move the set-up for the next move. My knowledge might be shallow, but I've never seen a kata that has gyaku-zuki followed by this "bedan barai."

Principles used change depending on the desired effect.

I could write quite a bit on kata. But the end goal of learning those kata is not to end up always linking one technical sequence to the next one in the same kata. The goal is to be able to link sequences across multiple kata. So a technical sequence from Kushanku followed by a sequence in Empi, even though the 2 sequences don't link in the individual katas.

You shouldn't need to see a kata that sequences the gyaku-tsuki with gedan barai. If you're capable of both movements then you should be able to sequence them on your own.
 
Last edited:
The difference there is that the sukui nage pick up is exactly that - a pick up. The non-sweeping arm is picking up the opponent's leg. Machida makes no such attempt and the corresponding kata technique with the gedan barai movement(which you first see in Heian Godan) doesn't demonstrate it either.

But there are plenty of similarities between karate takedowns and judo techniques so it's very common to see broadly similar principles with slight differences. There are only so many ways to take a person down.

It's the rising up of Machida's torso that powers the forearm, not the turning of the torso (as in gendan barai). That's why it's not gedan (lower level/attitude in Japanese).

I could write quite a bit on kata. But the end goal of learning those kata is not to end up always linking one technical sequence to the next one in the same kata. The goal is to be able to link sequences across multiple kata. So a technical sequence from Kushanku followed by a sequence in Empi, even though the 2 sequences don't link in the individual katas.

You shouldn't need to see a kata that sequences the gyaku-tsuki with gedan barai. If you're capable of both movements then you should be able to sequence them on your own.

A kata is made for a desired effect (or a series of desired effects, deemed crucial by the kata creator). Sure, you must by able to do variations due to the unpredictability of conflict but not being able to manifest said effect is a failure of training the tradition. As in 'you' don't get what the creator was saying. As your training and experience grows it's inevitable that a personal style will emerge from the bits and pieces one has learned before. Before that, learning what the founders knew as a whole (a tenet of Confucianism) was a traditional pre-requisite. Shu-Ha-Ri and all that shit (as opposed to modern thinking aka get your tokui waza and you're all set).

The gyaku-zuki to gedan barai with the same arm was the most similar movement pattern used by Machida as the setup to the throw. That's why I'm asking if there was a traditional kata equivalent of it.
 
It's the rising up of Machida's torso that powers the forearm, not the turning of the torso (as in gendan barai). That's why it's not gedan (lower level/attitude in Japanese).

We're going to disagree there. You're interpreting a response to the opponent's defense as a refutation of the entire technique. You're looking for picture perfect technique which is never what it looks like in real life.

A kata is made for a desired effect (or a series of desired effects, deemed crucial by the kata creator). Sure, you must by able to do variations due to the unpredictability of conflict but not being able to manifest said effect is a failure of training the tradition. As in 'you' don't get what the creator was saying. As your training and experience grows it's inevitable that a personal style will emerge from the bits and pieces one has learned before. Before that, learning what the founders knew as a whole (a tenet of Confucianism) was a traditional pre-requisite. Shu-Ha-Ri and all that shit (as opposed to modern thinking aka get your tokui waza and you're all set).

The gyaku-zuki to gedan barai with the same arm was the most similar movement pattern used by Machida as the setup to the throw. That's why I'm asking if there was a traditional kata equivalent of it.

That entirely depends on what kata you're referring to. And what you missed in what I said elsewhere is that plenty of kata have similar appearing movements. So a gedan barai movement in one kata does mean the same thing as a gedan barai movement in a different kata. Even in the same kata, the same movement doesn't always indicate the same application when seen later in the kata.

I don't know what you're talking about in the gyaku-tsuki to gedan barai sequence with the same arm. The takedown with the gedan barai is found in multiple kata. The initial arm movement is not a gyaku tsuki, it's the first part of bringing his arm across the body while stepping through to initiate the takedown. It doesn't require a punch set up. In the second gif there is no gyaku tsuki to gedan barai either. The initial movement is simply reaching and across to pull the opponent's arm down.

It's literally the exact same sequence from this video in the OP (Starting at 0:27-0:31):


The only difference is that in the Machida clip, the opponent is actively defending the technique and in the OP's video, the opponent is allowing the instructor to easily bowl him over. I won't argue with you over this, you're entitled to your opinion.
 
Are you guys seriously evaluating Machidas ludicrious knockout of Bader? Who wouldn't KO a dude who runs straight into a punch with no defence?
 
We're going to disagree there. You're interpreting a response to the opponent's defense as a refutation of the entire technique. You're looking for picture perfect technique which is never what it looks like in real life.

If it was said that it was a variation of shuto uke, I'd be strongly inclined to agree. But it's not, and going by Japanese terminologies it's not 'gedan'

That entirely depends on what kata you're referring to. And what you missed in what I said elsewhere is that plenty of kata have similar appearing movements. So a gedan barai movement in one kata does mean the same thing as a gedan barai movement in a different kata. Even in the same kata, the same movement doesn't always indicate the same application when seen later in the kata.

I don't know what you're talking about in the gyaku-tsuki to gedan barai sequence with the same arm. The takedown with the gedan barai is found in multiple kata. The initial arm movement is not a gyaku tsuki, it's the first part of bringing his arm across the body while stepping through to initiate the takedown. It doesn't require a punch set up. In the second gif there is no gyaku tsuki to gedan barai either. The initial movement is simply reaching and across to pull the opponent's arm down.

It's literally the exact same sequence from this video in the OP (Starting at 0:27-0:31):


The only difference is that in the Machida clip, the opponent is actively defending the technique and in the OP's video, the opponent is allowing the instructor to easily bowl him over. I won't argue with you over this, you're entitled to your opinion.


The reason I included the gyaku-zuki is that in this throw, one needs to close the distance to nearly hip-touching range. In the video, he uses a hook to close the distance safely then morphs it to gedan barai then uses a shuto uke movement to sweep the guy's head. Which in turn is averted in Machida's case. The sweeping hand that causes the takedown does not fulfill the qualities of 'gedan.'

Are you guys seriously evaluating Machidas ludicrious knockout of Bader? Who wouldn't KO a dude who runs straight into a punch with no defence?

Nope. Bader's KO isn't a takedown, nor is it @panamaican 's first gif post (which we are discussing). Watch the Machida vs Nakamura gif and get back to us.
 
They claim our Karate blocks require too much strength, power, speed, intuition and effort to successfully work against an opponent attacking full force.

Yeah, I've never heard anyone say that, however I agree that most people know that that kata bullshit doesn't work in a real fight - otherwise you would see it at least occasionally in MMA fights.
 
PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT:
"Karate blocks" are not blocks!


This common misunderstanding has been clarified by wiser Karateka than myself so in this thread I will begin by citing them with source links. I hope that at least some Sherdoggers will find this helpful or interesting. Thank you for your attention.

Let's start with the term "UKE" itself.

One of the most commonly mistranslated and misunderstood words in the karate lexicon is “uke.” Just about anyone who has trained in traditional karate for more than a few weeks should recognize that word. Despite the familiarity of the word, most karateka will erroneously say that “uke” means “block.” This is something that has been deeply ingrained in karate culture – so much so, that even people who know what the word actually means will still say “block” when speaking about it in English. The word “uke” is actually a shortened form of the word “ukeru,” which means “to receive.” This is a much more nuanced term when you apply it to a fighting technique, because you can receive an attack in many more ways than simply blocking it. That nuance is likely why the literal translation of “uke” never gained popularity. A lot of people (particularly Western people) prefer terminology that is specific and precise, rather than vague and nebulous.

SOURCE: http://www.karateobsession.com/2015/03/terminology-confusion.html

“Traditional Karate blocks don’t work against real attacks.”
That’s something I often hear. (Especially from people who don’t practice Karate.)

They claim our Karate blocks require too much strength, power, speed, intuition and effort to successfully work against an opponent attacking full force. I agree.

You see, the Japanese word “uke” is a conjugation of “ukeru”, which literally means TO RECEIVE”. Your blocks are not really “blocks”. They never were. They are ways of “receiving” your opponent’s attack.

Even Funakoshi Gichin (1868-1957), the founder of Shotokan Karate – a style known for being very hard, direct and linear – used “blocks” in a totally different manner in his books compared to today’s Karate practitioners. Yet, in modern Karate, we interpret “uke” as “to block an incoming force”. Totally different concept.

So, make this crucial shift in your mindset:
To “block” is to receive.
That’s the original meaning of “uke”.


SOURCE: http://www.karatebyjesse.com/karate-block-real-meaning/

Uke-waza (receiving techniques) are not solely defensive – they are both defensive and offensive at the same time. (...) If you block your attacker’s initial attack and simultaneously land a significant strike of your own (particularly to the head, as Motobu often suggested), you stand a very good chance of stopping the attacker. The reason for this is two-fold. First of all, you are interrupting a committed attack, which the attacker expects to be overwhelming, so you have a psychological effect. Second, your attacker will likely be moving forward, meaning that they will be moving into your strike. As combat sports pundit, Jack Slack, often says, “creating collisions” like this is the best way to knock someone out. By interrupting your opponent’s attack, and creating a powerful collision, you can end the fight entirely by knocking them out, or daze them enough to cause them to stop their continuous attack and have to reset.

SOURCE: http://www.karateobsession.com/2016/02/motobu-choki-and-stopping-attacks-with-blocks.html

Finally, my favorite example - Gedan Barai or "low block".
(not quoting anyone here, just my personal thoughts)

The word "Gedan" means "low-level" but also "downward", while "Barai" means "sweep" and by no means "block". Note that everyone translates the "barai" in Ashi Barai correctly as "foot sweep", yet in Gedan Barai it suddenly turns into "low block" and nobody bats an eye! :eek: How we ended up with both "uke" ("receive") and "barai" ("sweep") translated as "block" is beyond me...

Now note how a "full" Gedan Barai always starts at the shoulder.

gedanbari.gif


Why? Some people say that this is "windup" to make the block even more powerful and devastating... Sorry for being blunt but this is plain wrong. In a fight where strikes are thrown fast and continuously you don't have time to waste on "windup"! Anyone who has ever done free sparring knows this.

Gedan Barai is one of the first techniques any Karateka learns, whether it's in Taikyoku Shodan or in Heian Shodan. And here's the proper bunkai (application/analysis) for the opening movements of both kata:



Thus, Gedan Barai (in Taikyoku and Heian Shodan) is:
  1. Limb control while you're moving / evading
  2. A neck crank throw (there's that "windup" movement!)
Here's another take on Gedan Barai as limb clearance and a takedown:



And that's not the only thing you can do with Gedan Barai. Here's a self-defense class showing a completely different application (with the "windup" again):



The takeaway.
Okinawan Karate has always been an art very much focused on close-quarter limb control (http://www.karateobsession.com/2015/03/karate-limb-control.html). It is not surprising then, that a group of its fundamental techniques called "receiving" and "sweeping" (uke / barai) transitions directly to limb control and takedowns. The original terms themselves convey the proper meanings so let's not ignore them for the sake of simplicity. "Blocks" are not really blocks.

PS. to my Karate bros:
Any other examples of "blocks" used for control instead of impact? Post your favorite.


Sounds like number 1 bullshit
 
Karate is a pretty complete system, once you get over the worthless system for skill transmission that has allowed vital core information be lost to the vast bulk of practitioners (If it had been a good method of transition, we would not need to have this debate and reinvent the lost stuff over and over).

I don't think the method of transition was the problem. I think a lot of us who study karate tend to place the blame on the transmission of information through kata without really thinking too much about it.

Kata isn't a worthless system of skill/technique/application transmission - its done the job of transmitting carbon copies of the original forms. The proof is in the pudding - kata have virtually remained exactly as they were when they were adapted/created. Any alterations or changes in kata have been done willfully otherwise they've been great for their intended purpose - a physical copy of the karate curriculum.

No one has ever complained about the transmission of information in Judo kata. Those of us who study karate tend to forget that Judo also has kata and they don't suffer from any of the issues we do - or at least nowhere near to the same extent. The kata in judo are just as old as those in modern karate.

Whether we like to hear it or not - the problem of information lost from transmission is entirely our own doing.

I can say first hand that when I was learning kyokushin karate - kata was an afterthought for everyone in all the dojos I've attended as well as many of the people I came into contact with. In my years of learning I never met one person that could apply all the uke we were taught in sparring. It was the basic knockdown karate parries/blocks that everyone else uses.

Most of the bunkai applications in karate at the moment have been drawn mainly from Okinawan karate because simply put no-one really knew what the applications were for some of the stuff.

How can anyone learn to apply uke when no-one practices or tries to apply them in sparring? I'm sure it's not kyokushin either - a lot of styles of karate suffer from the same problems. It's one of the main reasons I left kyokushin karate because I felt what I was learning was very incomplete.

The problem has been a de-emphasis on properly learning kata & their applications for decades and heavily skewed focus on kihon & kumite. A problem only compounded by no overall regulative body to oversee proper transmission of the art and a splintering of the art into many styles/groups.

Judo has largely not splintered in the same way and has done a better job of regulating and ensuring proper teaching of all aspects of the curriculum. It's why you rarely hear the words judo & mcdojo in the same sentence. The same can't be said for karate.
 
I don't think the method of transition was the problem. I think a lot of us who study karate tend to place the blame on the transmission of information through kata without really thinking too much about it.

Kata isn't a worthless system of skill/technique/application transmission - its done the job of transmitting carbon copies of the original forms. The proof is in the pudding - kata have virtually remained exactly as they were when they were adapted/created. Any alterations or changes in kata have been done willfully otherwise they've been great for their intended purpose - a physical copy of the karate curriculum.

No one has ever complained about the transmission of information in Judo kata. Those of us who study karate tend to forget that Judo also has kata and they don't suffer from any of the issues we do - or at least nowhere near to the same extent. The kata in judo are just as old as those in modern karate.

Whether we like to hear it or not - the problem of information lost from transmission is entirely our own doing.

I can say first hand that when I was learning kyokushin karate - kata was an afterthought for everyone in all the dojos I've attended as well as many of the people I came into contact with. In my years of learning I never met one person that could apply all the uke we were taught in sparring. It was the basic knockdown karate parries/blocks that everyone else uses.

Most of the bunkai applications in karate at the moment have been drawn mainly from Okinawan karate because simply put no-one really knew what the applications were for some of the stuff.

How can anyone learn to apply uke when no-one practices or tries to apply them in sparring? I'm sure it's not kyokushin either - a lot of styles of karate suffer from the same problems. It's one of the main reasons I left kyokushin karate because I felt what I was learning was very incomplete.

The problem has been a de-emphasis on properly learning kata & their applications for decades and heavily skewed focus on kihon & kumite. A problem only compounded by no overall regulative body to oversee proper transmission of the art and a splintering of the art into many styles/groups.

Judo has largely not splintered in the same way and has done a better job of regulating and ensuring proper teaching of all aspects of the curriculum. It's why you rarely hear the words judo & mcdojo in the same sentence. The same can't be said for karate.

I'm an even bigger proponent of kata and sparring based on it. I've said in previous posts why. When I first started going out and sparring non-karateka, I found that I frequently applied movement patterns I'd engrained from hours of kata practice. Movement, defenses, strikes, counters, etc. All 2nd nature because of kata, even though I'd never drilled for those circumstances.

Where karate fails the general student, in my opinion, is in the teaching of kata principles and over emphasizing techniques. We do a bunch of kihon but we discuss them in the context of the fighting principles of ring styles like kickboxing, MT, or boxing. We don't talk about them as much in the context of the katas. It ends up not meshing.

Here's an example that works for me. I was once watching a video where an older practitioner was talking about a sequence. Evade/parry the attack, control the limb, destroy the limb, attack the head/throat/groin, take them off their feet. If that sequence is a set of principles for responding to a situation then the student should start with understanding those principles. The kata sequences that go down that road become the kihon that the student practices.

I don't know if that sequence is valid or not, only that it is can represent a set of principles. I only bring it up because if the principles are taught properly then the intersection of kata, kihon and kumite regains some strength. Without the unifying principles for the individual katas, we're going to keep having people trying to reverse engineer what is intended.

Personally, I find myself watching probably hundreds of martial arts videos, karate, MT, boxing, judo, sambo, McMap, etc. for insight into kata. In the end, there aren't that many different principles out there and every kata emphasizes a few and neglects others. Ok, I'm definitely getting long winded here.
 
another example of the same trip being used in MT

[
EvergreenAppropriateAoudad-size_restricted.gif
 
Where karate fails the general student, in my opinion, is in the teaching of kata principles and over emphasizing techniques. We do a bunch of kihon but we discuss them in the context of the fighting principles of ring styles like kickboxing, MT, or boxing. We don't talk about them as much in the context of the katas. It ends up not meshing.

Here's an example that works for me. I was once watching a video where an older practitioner was talking about a sequence. Evade/parry the attack, control the limb, destroy the limb, attack the head/throat/groin, take them off their feet. If that sequence is a set of principles for responding to a situation then the student should start with understanding those principles. The kata sequences that go down that road become the kihon that the student practices.

I don't know if that sequence is valid or not, only that it is can represent a set of principles. I only bring it up because if the principles are taught properly then the intersection of kata, kihon and kumite regains some strength. Without the unifying principles for the individual katas, we're going to keep having people trying to reverse engineer what is intended.

Personally, I find myself watching probably hundreds of martial arts videos, karate, MT, boxing, judo, sambo, McMap, etc. for insight into kata. In the end, there aren't that many different principles out there and every kata emphasizes a few and neglects others. Ok, I'm definitely getting long winded here.
Thank You for the many elaborate posts in this thread @panamaican! I've bolded out the sentence which I want to elaborate on:
"The kata sequences that go down that road become the kihon that the student practices."

One of the problems with modern Karate practice is that it's built on the "3 Ks": Kihon, Kata, Kumite. Taking my native Shotokan as an example:

First, you practice a given move (say, Gedan Barai) 100x times in Kihon, focusing on "perfection", without much though of application(s).

Then you practice a given Kata with that move 100x times, again focusing on "perfection", without much though of application(s). Bunkai is maybe sprinkled on top once a month - and still, it's usually a very shallow "block-counter" explanation.

Finally you move on to Kumite, which is light-contact fist-fencing at a distance and the first one to land wins, so all that "perfect" Kihon and Kata basically go out the window in a glorified game of tag. (sorry if too harsh)

So in those "3 Ks" each "K" is separate and they barely mix. Instead, what we should be doing is "3 Bs" - Bunkai, Bunkai, Bunkai!!! Of course, I'm being slightly facetious but going back to that bolded sentence:

"The kata sequences that go down that road become the kihon that the student practices."

The (short) Kata sequences are what we *should* be drilling! With properly analyzed application and principles! With a partner! With (adjusted) resistance! This way, instead of dead Kihon + dead Kata + unrelated Kumite you get practical application, variations and principles trained over and over again until it "becomes the kihon that the student practices."

And this is not some kind of novelty or modern idea. This is the way Karate used to be practiced. A teacher would have a small group of dedicated students (some as live-in Uchi-deshi) and they would drill short Kata fragments with a partner, paying attention to details, variations and principles (Bunkai!). After a student gained proficiency in all Kata sequences (meaning that he could apply them on a resisting opponent) he would demonstrate his skill by performing the full Kata with perfect form, speed and intent. That is what Gichin Funakoshi meant when he said that they would spend 3 years on one Kata before moving on to the next one! Not mindlessly performing the full Kata over and over until it looks sharp for tournaments like they do nowadays!

Two related quotes from Funakoshi himself:

"To practice kata is not to memorize an order. Find the katas that work for you, understand them, digest them & stick with them for life."

“You may train for a long time, but if you merely move your hands and feet and jump up and down like a puppet, learning karate is not very different from learning a dance. You will never have reached the heart of the matter; you will have failed to grasp the quintessence of karate-do.”

All this begs the question - how did we go from Bunkai-based practice to the absurd "3 Ks"? There must have been a number of reasons but I personally put most of the blame on:
1) Anko Itosu who simplified the Karate curriculum and introduced it into Okinawa's schools
AND
2) the Japanese, who introduced Karate into their military and later, universities.

The practice got turned on its head - instead of a small dedicated few and close teacher-student relations you got a large group of young people with variable skill and interest in the art. Coordinating Bunkai-based drills in this situation is virtually impossible, yet commanding everyone to just repeat a single move (Kihon) or sequence (Kata) is easy and straightforward. And remember, Kumite was only introduced by Gigo and his followers much later - without direct connection to Kata and Bunkai!

In the West, where teaching Karate became a business first and foremost, the "3 Ks" fit perfectly as a simple method of "teaching" a large group of *paying customers* without much effort. The "3 years spent on one Kata" idea was brushed off since "Western consumers" generally don't have that kind of patience and want quick progress, new belts/ranks and new Kata.

Finally, we ended up in a situation where the "secret" Bunkai is only presented (with variable quality) during Kenshusei and Gasshuku programs for black belts (also paid, of course). But since many practitioners essentially stop learning as soon as they receive their Shodan (since it's a mark of "mastery") we get an army of Karate black belts who have no practical Bunkai knowledge or skill whatsoever and whose Karate "is not very different from learning a dance".
<WellThere>
 
Last edited:
Thank You for the many elaborate posts in this thread @panamaican! I've bolded out the sentence which I want to elaborate on:
"The kata sequences that go down that road become the kihon that the student practices."

One of the problems with modern Karate practice is that it's built on the "3 Ks": Kihon, Kata, Kumite. Taking my native Shotokan as an example:

First, you practice a given move (say, Gedan Barai) 100x times in Kihon, focusing on "perfection", without much though of application(s).

Then you practice a given Kata with that move 100x times, again focusing on "perfection", without much though of application(s). Bunkai is maybe sprinkled on top once a month - and still, it's usually a very shallow "block-counter" explanation.

Finally you move on to Kumite, which is light-contact fist-fencing at a distance and the first one to land wins, so all that "perfect" Kihon and Kata basically go out the window in a glorified game of tag. (sorry if too harsh)

So in those "3 Ks" each "K" is separate and they barely mix. Instead, what we should be doing is "3 Bs" - Bunkai, Bunkai, Bunkai!!! Of course, I'm being slightly facetious but going back to that bolded sentence:

"The kata sequences that go down that road become the kihon that the student practices."

The (short) Kata sequences are what we *should* be drilling! With properly analyzed application and principles! With a partner! With (adjusted) resistance! This way, instead of dead Kihon + dead Kata + unrelated Kumite you get practical application, variations and principles trained over and over again until it "becomes the kihon that the student practices."

And this is not some kind of novelty or modern idea. This is the way Karate used to be practiced. A teacher would have a small group of dedicated students (some as live-in Uchi-deshi) and they would drill short Kata fragments with a partner, paying attention to details, variations and principles (Bunkai!). After a student gained proficiency in all Kata sequences (meaning that he could apply them on a resisting opponent) he would demonstrate his skill by performing the full Kata with perfect form, speed and intent. That is what Gichin Funakoshi meant when he said that they would spend 3 years on one Kata before moving on to the next one! Not mindlessly performing the full Kata over and over until it looks sharp for tournaments like they do nowadays!

Two related quotes from Funakoshi himself:

"To practice kata is not to memorize an order. Find the katas that work for you, understand them, digest them & stick with them for life."

“You may train for a long time, but if you merely move your hands and feet and jump up and down like a puppet, learning karate is not very different from learning a dance. You will never have reached the heart of the matter; you will have failed to grasp the quintessence of karate-do.”

All this begs the question - how did we go from Bunkai-based practice to the absurd "3 Ks"? There must have been a number of reasons but I personally put most of the blame on:
1) Anko Itosu who simplified the Karate curriculum and introduced it into Okinawa's schools
AND
2) the Japanese, who introduced Karate into their military and later, universities.

The practice got turned on its head - instead of a small dedicated few and close teacher-student relations you got a large group of young people with variable skill and interest in the art. Coordinating Bunkai-based drills in this situation is virtually impossible, yet commanding everyone to just repeat a single move (Kihon) or sequence (Kata) is easy and straightforward. And remember, Kumite was only introduced by Gigo and his followers much later - without direct connection to Kata and Bunkai!

In the West, where teaching Karate became a business first and foremost, the "3 Ks" fit perfectly as a simple method of "teaching" a large group of *paying customers* without much effort. The "3 years spent on one Kata" idea was brushed off since "Western consumers" generally don't have that kind of patience and want quick progress, new belts/ranks and new Kata.

Finally, we ended up in a situation where the "secret" Bunkai is only presented (with variable quality) during Kenshusei and Gasshuku programs for black belts (also paid, of course). But since many practitioners essentially stop learning as soon as they receive their Shodan (since it's a mark of "mastery") we get an army of Karate black belts who have no practical Bunkai knowledge or skill whatsoever and whose Karate "is not very different from learning a dance".
<WellThere>

Completely agree and I think I said something similar in a thread a while ago

These days I spend more time practicing kata and teaching my kid. And when I teach him, I teach him technique sequences and applications from the kata but not the kata themselves. Without the constraints of a class of 20+ people, it's so much simpler to start with kata based application and skip the wall to wall stepping punches and stationary pseudo-kickboxing sequences.

Right now, we're working through Heian Shodan (for basic principles,techniques and coordinating the movement of feet and hands) and Naihanchi Shodan (for the importance of lateral movement), and he's never seen either kata in their entirety. I imagine I'll teach him the kata after I think he's solid on the applications.
 
Thank You for the many elaborate posts in this thread @panamaican! I've bolded out the sentence which I want to elaborate on:
"The kata sequences that go down that road become the kihon that the student practices."

One of the problems with modern Karate practice is that it's built on the "3 Ks": Kihon, Kata, Kumite. Taking my native Shotokan as an example:

First, you practice a given move (say, Gedan Barai) 100x times in Kihon, focusing on "perfection", without much though of application(s).

Then you practice a given Kata with that move 100x times, again focusing on "perfection", without much though of application(s). Bunkai is maybe sprinkled on top once a month - and still, it's usually a very shallow "block-counter" explanation.

Finally you move on to Kumite, which is light-contact fist-fencing at a distance and the first one to land wins, so all that "perfect" Kihon and Kata basically go out the window in a glorified game of tag. (sorry if too harsh)


Exactly. This is precisely the problem with a lot of modern karate. I had the exact same experiences in kyokushin. Everyone spends so much time doing 'x' uke or 'y' technique in kihon but that's as far as it ever goes. When it comes to kumite - everyone fails to link those techniques to kumite and instead what you get is your standard game of kyokushin - not a lot of uke and more stand/bang. At least this is the norm.

When someone is using age uke or jodan uke to block a punch & you're witnessing this from very experienced instructors - it's an alarm bell.



So in those "3 Ks" each "K" is separate and they barely mix. Instead, what we should be doing is "3 Bs" - Bunkai, Bunkai, Bunkai!!! Of course, I'm being slightly facetious but going back to that bolded sentence:

"The kata sequences that go down that road become the kihon that the student practices."

The (short) Kata sequences are what we *should* be drilling! With properly analyzed application and principles! With a partner! With (adjusted) resistance! This way, instead of dead Kihon + dead Kata + unrelated Kumite you get practical application, variations and principles trained over and over again until it "becomes the kihon that the student practices."

And this is not some kind of novelty or modern idea. This is the way Karate used to be practiced. A teacher would have a small group of dedicated students (some as live-in Uchi-deshi) and they would drill short Kata fragments with a partner, paying attention to details, variations and principles (Bunkai!). After a student gained proficiency in all Kata sequences (meaning that he could apply them on a resisting opponent) he would demonstrate his skill by performing the full Kata with perfect form, speed and intent. That is what Gichin Funakoshi meant when he said that they would spend 3 years on one Kata before moving on to the next one! Not mindlessly performing the full Kata over and over until it looks sharp for tournaments like they do nowadays!

I found this quote by Mabuni Kenwa and it's very enlightening (took it from karatebyjesse):

If practiced properly, two or three kata will suffice as “your” kata; all of 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.



All this begs the question - how did we go from Bunkai-based practice to the absurd "3 Ks"? There must have been a number of reasons but I personally put most of the blame on:
1) Anko Itosu who simplified the Karate curriculum and introduced it into Okinawa's schools
AND
2) the Japanese, who introduced Karate into their military and later, universities.

Personally I don't blame Anko Itosu and I think it would be very difficult to. His initial intentions were to ensure that everyone had access to karate training in the school system. In a way it was a service to karate as an art. If he hadn't pushed it & popularized it - there is the possibility that none of us on the other side of the world would ever have heard of Karate. In fact Funakoshi credits Itosu primarily for being the main driving force that helped karate to spread.

I think the simplification of the curriculum was to ensure that it was readily digestible by young children and to give structure to karate training. Prior to Anko Itosu karate training was very unstructured - we didn't have a curriculum per say, we didn't have grades to distinguish different levels of experience or to even test what you knew up until that point. Often times students spent years on one kata or would sporadically jump from one training aspect to another - with no clear link between the two. Anko Itosu helped bring much needed structure to an art that needed it if it was to go beyond the small island of Okinawa. I've heard of the sporadic unstructured training regimen from stories in passing of old Okinawan Karate masters.

For anything to be taught well it has to be simplified or broken into chunks and structured so students are able to more effectively digest whatever they are learning.

I think it's difficult to place blame on anyone's shoulders and that it really is the fault of many rather than one. I mean if your Sensei is teaching you incomplete karate or karate with serious faults - the onus is on him but if you teach that karate to someone else - then the onus is also on you.

I think the main problem with why this happened to begin with is because there was no overall regulative body that made sure only those qualified are allowed to teach. Karate was way too splintered early on to allow this to happen whereas Judo was relatively unified under Jigoro Kano. It's a big reason why Judo has been able to maintain such uniform high standards and has never had a problem with students or teachers being oblivious to parts of the curriculum (like kata) - to the degree it is in Karate.


It's not like it's the end of the world either. We have enough resources and knowledge on the edge of our fingertips to be able to remedy a lot of the issues in Karate today. The fact that there has been a significant shift towards learning the proper application/principles behind kata is a great sign that karate will eventually come full circle again.
 








Personally I don't blame Anko Itosu and I think it would be very difficult to. His initial intentions were to ensure that everyone had access to karate training in the school system. In a way it was a service to karate as an art. If he hadn't pushed it & popularized it - there is the possibility that none of us on the other side of the world would ever have heard of Karate. In fact Funakoshi credits Itosu primarily for being the main driving force that helped karate to spread.

I think the simplification of the curriculum was to ensure that it was readily digestible by young children and to give structure to karate training. Prior to Anko Itosu karate training was very unstructured - we didn't have a curriculum per say, we didn't have grades to distinguish different levels of experience or to even test what you knew up until that point. Often times students spent years on one kata or would sporadically jump from one training aspect to another - with no clear link between the two. Anko Itosu helped bring much needed structure to an art that needed it if it was to go beyond the small island of Okinawa. I've heard of the sporadic unstructured training regimen from stories in passing of old Okinawan Karate masters.

For anything to be taught well it has to be simplified or broken into chunks and structured so students are able to more effectively digest whatever they are learning.

I think it's difficult to place blame on anyone's shoulders and that it really is the fault of many rather than one. I mean if your Sensei is teaching you incomplete karate or karate with serious faults - the onus is on him but if you teach that karate to someone else - then the onus is also on you.

I think the main problem with why this happened to begin with is because there was no overall regulative body that made sure only those qualified are allowed to teach. Karate was way too splintered early on to allow this to happen whereas Judo was relatively unified under Jigoro Kano. It's a big reason why Judo has been able to maintain such uniform high standards and has never had a problem with students or teachers being oblivious to parts of the curriculum (like kata) - to the degree it is in Karate.


It's not like it's the end of the world either. We have enough resources and knowledge on the edge of our fingertips to be able to remedy a lot of the issues in Karate today. The fact that there has been a significant shift towards learning the proper application/principles behind kata is a great sign that karate will eventually come full circle again.

But I feel Itosu should bear some blame. You are correct, Karate needed structure, but in building that structure, the most important aspect was lost for many decades. The actual useful applications of the forms. I mean it's only a google search away and you can still see many Karate styles doing t he shit interpretations of Blocks. Tang soo do and other Shotokon offshoots are still not doing any form of bunkai and what they are doing is utter bullshit.

There are how many countless generations of Karateka that got taught bullshit? Just look at karate sparring! Not one single person uses anything resembling the kihon or the kata. It becomes shit looking kick boxing.

Makes me wonder why arts like TKD waste their time on their forms. Given their hatred of Japan, why they keep their martial traditions is fucking strange. TKD as a whole would benefit if all the forms and other Japanese crap were removed and they could focus on being the foot fencers we all know they want to be.
 
Thanks for including my work as a reference--it's always nice to see that it's helping people, in some way!

Now, for what it's worth, I actually agree that the Machida takedown being debated is not a great example of the gedan-barai takedown, although it may have started or been intended as such. That said, it is still an example of a "scissoring" or "wedge" takedown, as a concept. The principles aren't quite the same as the gedan-barai variant, because Machida is rising/twisting. Not to worry, though! Naihanchi addresses several variants of the "scissoring" or "wedge" takedown. I'm going to use Tachimura no Naihanchi, from KishimotoDi, as my examples, because the older kata is more explicit on the mechanics.

Here is the one that best fits the Machida takedown, in question, focused on rising/twisting:
giphy.gif

giphy.gif


Here is a takedown focused on mostly just twisting:
giphy.gif

giphy.gif


Of course, Naihanchi also contains a gedan-barai takedown, as has been discussed already. They are three different expressions of a concept (using the arm and leg in a scissoring action to throw the opponent over the leg), using different principles (sinking/rising/twisting), and all found in the same kata.

Everything is Naihanchi ;)
 
Last edited:
To the point of the watering down of karate, I agree with Hotora86 on the two main roots of the problem.

Itosu, as mentioned, was responsible for systematizing, simplifying, and popularizing karate on Okinawa. Now, I don't believe that he did this to TRY to water down karate, overall, but I do think this started the ball rolling. Additionally, Itosu, himself, was primarily interested in the personal and physical development that comes from training in karate. He is known to have been a strong proponent of the body conditioning aspects of karate, and the health benefits of training. We also know that Matsumura, one of his teachers, was not particularly fond of Itosu--he didn't think he moved well. This led to Itosu actually spending more time training with Nagahama than Matsumura. Nagahama, as best we can tell, taught Naha-Te, and supposedly told Itosu on his deathbed that he had only taught Itosu the physical development components of karate, not the fighting methods, and that he should go back to Matsumura for that. This could, potentially, mean that Itosu didn't even know all of the applications of the kata he taught, to begin with. He also likely spent more time passing on the body conditioning methods he learned from Nagahama, since he would have been more comfortable with it, having spent more time on it. Obviously, I could be wrong--these are just assumptions based on what I do know, because I wasn't there. We do know that he passed on at least some applications to his students, because they show up in a variety of published work, as well as having been passed on by his students to theirs, and so on, but that could be part of how the loss of information began.

The Japanese had a huge impact in keeping that ball rolling. They also made karate the (fairly) popular martial harts hobby that it would eventually become. It started as a way to prep their young people for military service, and then carried over into University clubs, which led to the creation of teams and competition circuits (based on Kendo competitions, for kumite). Without that, I suspect karate would have remained a relatively small, niche art, kind of like Silat--people in the arts would have heard about it, but finding an instructor would be awfully tough. Unfortunately, this process scaled up the simplifications that Itosu had started, because they had to teach so many people at once. Additionally, the Japanese considered themselves to be a superior race, and consider their culture (and martial arts) to be superior to others. They considered Okinawa to be a backwater colony full of the Japanese equivalent of rednecks, and didn't see any combative value in karate. They had plenty of traditional, time-tested combative arts, and didn't need another one. What it provided, though, was a new and interesting way to express their Budo culture. Who cares about the practical application of the kata when you just care about the warrior spirit that is cultivated by focusing on perfecting your movements, and competing (Kendo-style) against other people doing the same? If you were a Japanese karateka in the 1930's, you probably would have gone to learn koryu jujutsu if you wanted to learn self defense, not karate.
 
To the point of the watering down of karate, I agree with Hotora86 on the two main roots of the problem.

Itosu, as mentioned, was responsible for systematizing, simplifying, and popularizing karate on Okinawa. Now, I don't believe that he did this to TRY to water down karate, overall, but I do think this started the ball rolling. Additionally, Itosu, himself, was primarily interested in the personal and physical development that comes from training in karate. He is known to have been a strong proponent of the body conditioning aspects of karate, and the health benefits of training. We also know that Matsumura, one of his teachers, was not particularly fond of Itosu--he didn't think he moved well. This led to Itosu actually spending more time training with Nagahama than Matsumura. Nagahama, as best we can tell, taught Naha-Te, and supposedly told Itosu on his deathbed that he had only taught Itosu the physical development components of karate, not the fighting methods, and that he should go back to Matsumura for that. This could, potentially, mean that Itosu didn't even know all of the applications of the kata he taught, to begin with. He also likely spent more time passing on the body conditioning methods he learned from Nagahama, since he would have been more comfortable with it, having spent more time on it. Obviously, I could be wrong--these are just assumptions based on what I do know, because I wasn't there. We do know that he passed on at least some applications to his students, because they show up in a variety of published work, as well as having been passed on by his students to theirs, and so on, but that could be part of how the loss of information began.

The Japanese had a huge impact in keeping that ball rolling. They also made karate the (fairly) popular martial harts hobby that it would eventually become. It started as a way to prep their young people for military service, and then carried over into University clubs, which led to the creation of teams and competition circuits (based on Kendo competitions, for kumite). Without that, I suspect karate would have remained a relatively small, niche art, kind of like Silat--people in the arts would have heard about it, but finding an instructor would be awfully tough. Unfortunately, this process scaled up the simplifications that Itosu had started, because they had to teach so many people at once. Additionally, the Japanese considered themselves to be a superior race, and consider their culture (and martial arts) to be superior to others. They considered Okinawa to be a backwater colony full of the Japanese equivalent of rednecks, and didn't see any combative value in karate. They had plenty of traditional, time-tested combative arts, and didn't need another one. What it provided, though, was a new and interesting way to express their Budo culture. Who cares about the practical application of the kata when you just care about the warrior spirit that is cultivated by focusing on perfecting your movements, and competing (Kendo-style) against other people doing the same? If you were a Japanese karateka in the 1930's, you probably would have gone to learn koryu jujutsu if you wanted to learn self defense, not karate.
Very interesting, never heard of Nagahama before but now that you've mentioned him I've started looking and found this:

http://www.fightingarts.com/reading/article.php?id=1

Looks like part of the blame is also on Nagahama for not teaching Itosu properly. :p
 
Yeah, I've never heard anyone say that, however I agree that most people know that that kata bullshit doesn't work in a real fight - otherwise you would see it at least occasionally in MMA fights.

 
Back
Top