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.

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, feel free to open a discussion 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.