Kamae Again

As previously, it seems that the opening, "kamae" positions of the classical bo kata were not meant to be static, "ready" postures. It seems that they were intended to be active dynamic parts of the actual opening sequences. This is very clear in kata like Choun and Sui Shi and less so in others like Sakugawa. In particular though, the opening of Tsuken no Kon was frustratingly obscure. Here's a reasonably viable option for that application.

Suna Uke 砂 受 Again

The names applied to martial arts techniques are sometimes curious in their lack of actual description of movement and application. This might be an intentional attempt to conceal information from outsiders or poetic license or just the human propensity for naming things. I am often aghast at how humanity tends to develop names for things that could be easily conveyed in a few words. Names though, instead of more lengthy descriptions, may not impart the specificity required for those not familiar with the intended concept. My students sometimes ask, "What would you call that?" and I try to dodge because names can carry or convey unwanted or erroneous connotations. It's better to demonstrate the motion and the intended application than put a name on it.

As an example, the motions in the kwah kata that were, at least to me, designated as "throwing sand" will not work as such. Try it, you have to modify the motion to get an acceptable throw that doesn't, at least partially, come back at you due to the angle of the blade. And the distance to the opponent for a sand throw is much greater than that for the accompanying techniques. So, again, what might it actually be? In the first and second instances within the kata, I think that it's an attack aimed at the head or neck. In the third instance I would consider it a block. Please consider the slowly-done and slightly modified, for safety's sake, video.

Thanks to Luc and Narda for assistance.

Bladed?

It has been my opinion for some time that Tsuken no Kon was designed for a bladed-end weapon, perhaps something with an additional cross-blade. Recently, a fellow practitioner wondered if, perhaps, all of the bo kata were originally meant for bladed weapons. This is an interesting hypothesis and worthy of some investigation. It will take some years to sort-out with any veracity. Please keep in mind here that we're not looking for any technique that might apply, we're looking for the original theme and intent of the kata.

My initial response was that I find sufficient effectivity in the other kata with a plain bo, but then I thought about the movements, here-and-there in some of the kata, that, after many years of analysis, just don't fit well with plain bo geometry. My rationale, to date, was that we just hadn't found the original meaning yet, but if the movements were meant for a different type of weapon, that might explain our lack of progress. This becomes a thorny problem when one considers the plethora of blade profiles that were developed for military use in feudal Japan and imperial China and the subtleties of use that might apply to each. One could also posit that practice with a plain bo might have been the result of the Japanese-imposed weapons ban in the early years of their subjugation of Okinawa. At any rate, we are again stuck with the problem of loss of meaning over time.

As of practice this week, it seems like blading might also apply to Shishi no Kon, but, again, it will take some years to sort this stuff out if ever.

It's curious that some of the motions found in traditional bladed weapons kata are very similar to the motions found in our bo kata. That's a clue perhaps, though, as always, the problem is finding and extracting the original meaning from our kata; the theme-consistent compilation of sequences that makes a solid coherent structure.

It's frustrating to not know and never be able to find, without some degree of uncertainty, the original intent of kata, but it also keeps training interesting and thoughtful. I'm not really sure that I would prefer historical clarity to investigation.

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.