Kamae 構え

Sui Shi Kamae

If we look at the opening position for Sui Shi no Kon, it is obviously meant to be an active part of the kata, but the static nature of the posture can be misleading.  The common evaluation only considers the blocking potential in the static position and misses the effectivity that is embodied by the motion of getting there. As has often been said, it's the in-between that counts.

This opening sequence sets-up the theme of the kata with the remaining sequences being variations on it.

In all the classical bo kata, there are no engagement pauses. There is no back-and-forth exchange that might stop briefly (disengage) and then continue (re-engage). The opponent gets the first attack and is then dealt with continuously until dispatched.

Intercepting the initial attack (kamae)

First strike

Second strike

Begin takedown

Finish takedown

Third strike

So, what of the openings of the other classical bo kata? Choun and Tsuken seem to be telling us something. While the opening of Choun is along the lines of Sui Shi (a functional dynamic not really meant to be a static posture), I don't know what the opening of Tsuken is trying to say. I haven't been able to find any viable martial application for such movement. It has been suggested that it's just an historical nod to the workaday function of a bo; perhaps, but that seems a bit obvious and out of place in a martial kata.

If only this stuff had been transmitted through time with the original meanings attached, wouldn't our lives be easier; less interesting perhaps, but easier.

Basic Trouble

While my weapons perspective is limited to one style, my empty-hand training spans three styles and thirty-seven years. Though I can only claim depth of knowledge in my current style of Goju, I spent enough time at Tae Kwon Do (old style, Shorin Ryu derived) and Ishin Ryu to have a good sense of both systems. My transition to Goju Ryu was due to the lack of specific application definition within the other systems kata. Looking back across the three, I can now see that the structure of the lower level, basic kata is largely to blame. It seems that the application paradigm used to construct the, much younger, basic kata also got applied, analytically, to the older, classical kata as well. This overlay renders some troubling inconsistencies in technique when applied to the classical kata and leads me to conclude that the classical kata were constructed from a very different perspective. This inconsistency is what drives the generally accepted view that the techniques in kata have no specific definition and can be construed in any way one sees fit. What hubris to think that the authors of the classical kata were so inept that they would construct non-specific kata. Why be specific when it's just your life on the line?

 My bet is that the specificity of the imbedded applications within the classical kata got lost along the way (over time). The movement was retained and the meaning became generic through the loss of the original application intent. That loss of definition led to the construction of the basic kata as a means to satisfy our need for definition and understanding. This is grossly evident in the many publications and practitioners that promote "any" interpretation of kata as valid and in the theatrical performance methodologies that are now accepted and validated through artistic competitions.

The same problem seems to exist in Okinawan weapons styles today. It's obvious, from performance methodologies, that the application concepts imbedded in the basic kata also get applied to the classical kata. So much so that the major application training is from the basic kata and the classical kata are then rendered through the same looking-glass.

Dispensing with the basic kata and concentrating on the classical kata can lead to a much different application paradigm that doesn't stretch the credibility of the movement through simplicity of thought. Give those folks some credit, they weren't engaged in an artistic pursuit, they were training for actual combat.

Systematizing

If the kata of any martial art are to be construed as a system, there must be some common, guiding principles that apply across-the-board. Perhaps the originators of kata did not need any principles as their compilation(s) would have been wrought from practically applied combative techniques. Those which worked in battle would have been retained and incorporated into kata, which would then become the pedagogical vehicle. Granted, at some point back in history, some nascent guiding principles would have to have been applied, but we are many generations beyond that now.

The problem for modern martial artists is that the specifics of the original applications, and the principles applied therein, have been lost over, at least, the last few generations. Our only way to recover the original applications is to find the imbedded guiding principles and then use them as an analytical tool against each kata.  So, how are we to find these underlying principles? 

One way might be to find a key kata, one in which the principles are more easily discerned, to use as a guide. I find that in Goju Ryu this is Sanseiru and in kobudo it is Suishi kata. For me, these kata have a level of repetition that makes the structure and underlying principles easier to discern. Granted, it has taken many years of practice to draw this conclusion, which may be skewed by hindsight, but, at the least, it is easier to see the principles embedded in these kata and then expand that understanding to the other systemic kata.

So, (try to see this when you perform the kata) the basic repetition in Suishi is block, hit, thrust, take down, hit and skewer. This basic sequence, with various slight caveats, is repeated four times starting with the opening movements. The last two sequences vary a bit more, but are still based on the previous core movements.

What can we discern, principle-wise, from the structure of this kata? Perhaps, but not necessarily limited to; kata are compilations of complete sequences that begin with defensive motions, transition to controlling motions and end with lethal motions; both ends of the bo are used; sequences can be contiguous (transition) through directional changes; flowing, unpunctuated movement fosters maximal effectivity; defensive motions should tie-up and, possibly, injure an opponent and the opponent, within each sequence, only gets one attack (indecisive back and forth exchanges within a sequence are not pedagogically sound). There may be more guiding principles that can be gleaned and applied as analytical tools that, over time, will become part of your innate perspective and, therefore, no longer mentally segregated as "principles".

As in many disciplines, a wholistic analytical approach is what we're looking for and that is what a principle based approach should foster. Principles are the experimental tools, that can be modified and tested against the kata structure until the underlying meaning is clear. While there may be other approaches that might lead to the same understanding, the piece-meal, punctuated, individual technique method that has historically been applied does not seem to have rendered optimal results. We need to evaluate kata as a series of concise, combative sequences, not as a compilation of individual motions. This is an important analytical distinction; knowing where to segregate sequences (where one ends and the next begins) has a big affect on one's view of the embedded applications and the kata structure as a whole.

How will you know that your analyses are correct? We never will for sure, but it's rather easy to discern technical improvement through the sieve of variation testing. When you can no longer refine and improve the sequence bunkai and you have a consistent theme that runs through the kata, you're probably close to the original intent. Which is not to say that analysis should end there, prodding the model should be a constant training companion, for reassurance if nothing else.

Throwing Sai

When I was taught one of the Matayoshi sai kata (There are three I'm told. I know only one.), I was told that there were two "throws" in the kata, both directly following a spin-around, the first a single throw aimed at the opponent's foot, the second a double throw for both feet (I am assuming that most Matayoshi practitioners will know this kata). This is very problematic. The distance that one can throw a sai without it spinning beyond a viable angle is very limited and a foot is a very small target, especially coming out of a spin. I don't think that it's practical at all, especially within the confines of the kata. Aside from the dubious distancing, in the first case you presumedly pierce a foot, then draw a spare sai from your belt and stab. It takes a long time to draw that spare, what is the opponent doing during that time? And if he was close enough to stab directly out of the spin, why not? In the second case, you pierce both feet and then turn your back on the opponent without further ado. That opponent is injured, but still has a weapon and is now really intent on hurting you and is at a distance to do so. In reality, I don't think that one could reliably throw two sai and simultaneously pierce two feet. Put some patterns (which won't defensively move) on the ground and try it. If you can get it consistently, you're way better than me. These "throws" must be something else and the geometry of the sai coupled with the structure of the kata can inform us here.

If one looks at kata as a compilation of sequences instead of individual movements, the structure becomes clearer. In this case, and not in all, the sequence segregations seem to correspond to the major directional changes. One sequence North, one West, one East, one South. One could argue that there are some unnecessary repetitions in each sequence and we could debate the reasons for such, but the kata is still primarily a four sequence set. Using this structure as a guide, each spin is the culmination of a sequence that should render the opponent unable to respond (dead), so we need to look at the preceding movement and the entire sequence for guidance. The tines of the sai can hook or capture and be used as a fulcrum against the body. My interpretations are too gruesome to print and much more realistic than throwing-away your weapon in a questionable attempt at minor injury.

If this proves reasonable to you, then you can look at the other silly interpretations (at least as explained to me), stabbing then hitting in the groin, punching with the sai (you're likely to damage your thumb joint), four blocks in succession; all these can be much more effective when seen differently and as integral parts of a sequence. The difficult part, as with all kata, is working out a viable analysis.

I continue to be baffled, not just in the martial arts, by how easily folks will accept dubious "facts" when they come from an "authority".  I have always told my students to question everything that I show them (and, to their credit, they do). I might be wrong and they might find a better resolution and they need to, independently, resolve it themselves. Of all the enjoyment that I get from training, the debate is what I prize most.

Suna Uke 砂 受

Receiving sand?

My introduction to practicing Kobudo was instruction in bo basics and Choun no Kon kata. Right from the get-go I was troubled by the definition of some of the movements. Perhaps having been athletic all my life, having practiced karate for a few years and being an engineer gave me an unusual perspective. In particular it struck me that Suna Uke, which was defined as "throwing sand", was unlikely to work well given the length and geometry (cross section) of a bo. So I went out and tried it. It does not work well. You can get a few grains of sand to an opponents eye level, but only at an unrealistic distance (due to the arc-length of the bo). So I practiced diligently for years and retried it periodically; it didn't get any better. When I finally got the nerve to ask if the instructor had ever tried this with sand, I was told no. So I asked several other experienced practitioners and they had never actually tried it with sand either. (In contrast, you can easily put a good sized glob of sand exactly where you want it with an eku, though I didn't try that until many years later.) So what might this actually be?

Suna Uke occurs only once in Choun no Kon, at the end, and is followed directly by a thrusting attack, so it must be defensive. It must come up to thwart an attack and end relatively close to the attacker if the following thrust is to be effective. That's an interesting dynamic, coming up, under an attack. What might that encounter? A hand perhaps?

So I implore you, try this out. Throw the sand. Come up to meet the attack and deflect the bo (be careful for hands). And let me know what you think.

Uke?

I don't like the term "block" (though I use it frequently out of habit) because it, typically, has non-dynamic connotations. The typical, middle-of-the-bo "block" presented in kobudo is an example. It's punctuated and sets-up a race where the opponent has a slight advantage, either through seeing it coming and reversing early or rebound of energy once contact is made. The need for near-perfect perpendicularity to the attack (if you don't want to get your fingers whacked) is another consideration. The typical presentation geometry, between attacker and defender, does not give the defender an advantage, hence the race. Ideally, I would like my defense to garner me some advantage.

What if the defensive technique (initial contact with the opponent) happens much earlier than the middle-of-the-bo posture? What if the back end of the bo receives the attack and the typical, middle-posture is just the follow through? Now the defender has an advantage, the opponents fingers or hand gets whacked and the follow-through impedes the opponents use of the back end of his bo. (Consider this applied to the sequences of Choun no Kon.)

Folks talk about uke as "receiving" because of the disruptive collision that the term "blocking" typically implies. Uke is smooth and flowing, enveloping and deceptive. Blocking is banging and crashing. Granted this is just a terminological difference that could be meaningless were it not for the common practice. I have traveled some and trained in all the places I have been.  The most common, though not exclusive, presentation of "blocking" is banging and crashing into the opponents attack, absorbing and deflecting is not the typical mode that accompanies the terminology of "blocking". It is also mostly presented, both physically and verbally, in a punctuated nature. You "block" then you do "X" (something else) and the two are separate entities. In Goju we talk about receiving and controlling, which is one continuous motion. I think that the same dynamic can be applied to kobudo kata.

No Gaps!

What constitutes dynamic performance of kata? I suspect that most practitioners would say that their kata performance is dynamic. I certainly always would have, but, from my current perspective, my older modes of practice weren't what I would now consider unpunctuated (dynamic). It's not that I wasn't trying, it's just that after so many years of practice, the engrained neural-physiology is deceptive. My instructor is fond of saying, "no gaps." Hindsight is always clearer isn't it. If we apply dynamism to Choun no Kon we might get something as below to consider.

The second sequence of Choun no Kon starts with a a block, followed by four strikes (the last a thrust) and a finishing rip.

The third begins with that double-down from the opening, but done to the side. Again I would suggest reaching and taking the opponent down (this time by stepping back). Then follow in and down; strike, block or strike; strike; extend; follow and finish.

The forth sequence; block, swing, hit, block or hit, hit, thrust, take down and skewer.

The last sequence; block, thrust, rip.

Yes, the sequences might be strung-together a bit differently, but not grossly so. There is some wiggle room for where the beginnings and ends are, but the kata is not an assemblage of individual techniques that can be piced together in any way. Not that pieces can't be extracted and used separately, but that was not the original intent.The kata was made to transmit specific sequences.

Vice Versa

I have watched many a martial artist, myself included, try to reanimate their craft by attempting to dynamically assemble a series of static postures from kata. Wouldn't it be, at least, interesting to work this in reverse? Reanimate the kata and see where it goes?

The opening movements of Choun no Kon are frequently done in a very vertical, planer, puncuated fashion. This  leads to their interpretation as blocks for ankle attacks, but it takes a long time to propel a bo from vertical up to vertical down. If you reach and let the arc of the bo follow your natural morphology a bit more, you get a much earlier attack-interception; taking less than half the time. And what next, a single strike? How about strike and displacement of the opponent in the direction that would drive him?  Then another hit, down. And taking him back to the front where he is finished. It makes a nice sequence, flows well and is a bit gruesome, so, perhaps, real.

Animating the kata, performing it with real application in mind and removing the artistic puncuations can render a much different perspective.

Introduction

Having diligently practiced Kobudo since 1989 and having applied the analytical principles that we have used on Goju Ryu karate, I think that there may be some room for reinterpreting the intended combative applications of Kobudo kata movements. It seems that the typical, punctuated, stop-action, performance methodology does not exhibit optimally effective technique. Indeed it seems as though the common methodology follows the static postures that one might adopt to render illustrations or photographs of an otherwise dynamic discipline. Presentation in this manner, over time, may have defined and reinforced the common interpretation of the movement and skewed the original, intended, meaning. If we drop the punctuation and the timing that it requires, we begin to see a much different application paradigm.

Of course, all this would be moot if history had reliably transmitted the original definitions forward, but that does not seem to have happened.

I originally practiced Matyoshi Kobudo, but I would suspect that most adherents would not recognize my current performance as such. Eliminating the punctuations, and the requisite timing dictated by such, renders a much different presentation. Folks I know that studied long and hard with Matayoshi say that he would frequently tell them to "Go play" (with kata). Why, if they were intact and accurate renditions of optimally effective technique? Was he indicating that there was more to be found in alterations of performance? Matayoshi also said that there are three karates, one that you teach, one that you demonstrate and real karate that you don't show to anyone. If nothing else, this indicates that the common presentations, at least for karate, are off the mark. Did he have a deeper, exclusive, understanding of Kobudo also?

My perspective will, most likely, solicit a torrent of objections and suggestions as to my ineptness. If you consider my arguments and disagree, by all means, have at me; I am good at sloughing off slights. If you'd like to discuss the possibilities and/or my logic and methodology, I welcome your input.

My hypothesis here, as with Goju, is that the kata were originally specific and not intended to have a broad interpretation. The broad and generalized analyses seen today are the result of the loss of the original meaning.

I have no rank. I have no credentials. I have only years of study to offer.