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.