Відео

You’re welcome! Thanks for the kind words! It’s a widespread myth that karate was designed to be used against samurai. Lots of karate books put for the notion that karate was the art the weaponless peasants of Okinawa which they developed to deal with their invading samurai overloads. However, it’s simply not true: 1) The weapons ban primarily applied to firearms. It’s why we still have kata for bo, tonfa, sai, etc. They had weapons. 2) Furthermore, some of the past karate masters were known to be skilled swordsmen. For example, Matsumura (Okinawan karate master and bodyguard to the kings) studied the Jigen-Ryu sword system of the Satsuma Samurai (the clan who invaded Okinawa in 1609) and was granted a certificate of competence in it. Azato (one of Funakoshi’s key teachers) was also said to be skilled in the same system. If we think that Matsumura was born 200 years or so after the Satsuma invasion, and he trained in their system, then we can conclude with some confidence that karate as we know it today was primarily shaped in a time where the animosity between the Satsuma clan and the populous had passed on both sides. 3) The majority of kata we have in karate today are Chinese in origin. There were therefore not developed on the island of Okinawa in response to the Japanese samurai invading. 4) The vast majority of the past masters were from the upper classes and weren’t “peasants”. Martial skill enhanced their social standing, and they were the only ones with the time and money to get instruction. 5) The past masters were clear that karate was a civilian self-defence system and not for dealing with samurai, etc e.g. Itosu’s 1st precept (states karate is for keeping one safe from “villains and ruffians”), Motobu saying, “Karate was not developed for use against a warrior on a battlefield or an athlete in an arena …”, etc. And so on. It’s a widespread myth, but there is nothing to support it historically and plenty to show it to be false. More on that in this video: ua-cam.com/video/ZOKZCsxHDY8/v-deo.html Old-school karate was a close-range affair, and the techniques of the kata make sense at that distance and within the context of civilian self-protection. They make no sense as katana defences, or as methods of mutually agreed combat. As karate developed into a modern budo (as part of huge cultural changes sparked by the Meiji restoration) the emphasis shifted from self-protection to competing against each other. The distance then moved from close-range (criminal violence) to a longer range (the distance of consensual combat). If we want to understand the kata, then we need to view them in their correct context i.e. a solution to criminal violence … as opposed to methods of consensual combat, methods of dealing with armed samurai, etc. As I say, I know that that idea of karate being a peasant art for fighting samurai is widespread, but it’s a falsehood. I hope this helps clarify and the above is of some use. All the best, Iain

Thanks a lot Iain to clarify and debunk this Myth. Let me explain the background of my question. In the 90th I made my 2 Kyu, but now I live in an area where the next Karate Dojo is about 30 kilometers away and difficult to reach, so I must make my studies alone and your vids are a big help for me. I make my partner training in a Jiu Jitsu/ Streetfighter Dojo. As you know we have Problems in Germany with Knife attacks, so I am searching for selfdefence technics in the Katas to Support my Sensei.

Hi Iain, I looked your vid and it explains a lot! 1000 Thanks for it! It's funny that I make KBS because I have no Karate Dojo nearby and even not know the KBS term. I trained 5 years in a Wing Tsun school too and now in the Jiu Jitsu/ Streetfighter Dojo and I am always the Karateka. Bye Willy

There’s defiantly a need to have karate work for the individual, but kata is not a blank canvas that is open to any and all interpretation. As Itosu wrote in 1908 (my emphasis), “Learn the explanations of every movement fully, and then YOU decide how and when YOU would use them when needed.” The movements of the kata are examples of solid combative principles. We need to learn, practise, understand and internalise them as they are presented by the kata. From there, we can decide how and when we as individuals can personally best apply them. We will need to make adaptations based on our individual build, preferences and proclivities. We also need the ability to adapt to the specific circumstances of any given situation. We don’t fight with kata, bunkai or drills …we fight with the habits (i.e. internalised combative principles) the kata, bunkai and drills have engendered in us. It all starts wit the kata example though. We don’t learn what works for us (by an unidentified process) and then overlay that to the kata. The kata teaches us what works, and then we fine tune for us as individuals.

@@practicalkatabunkai Thank you for the information Sensei. I love your principles , and applied application.

@@koden24 Thank you very much!

We all have our own preferences. I’ve not broken any knuckles either in 40 years of training, and I intend to hit front two, but, as per the video, we will always hit what we hit with because people are not flat and, for softer targets, we will end up making contact with all four if the punch moves more than 1cm into the target. It’s why I feel it’s a largely academic argument.

@@practicalkatabunkai me too I dont think there needs to be an argument there at all. You learn to punch how you were shown by your instructors and what feels natural to you. Both ways are entirely correct otherwise we would see a lot more broken hands in martial arts lol

That’s certainly what they would call them in judo, but I would question if they are the only “proper names”. Judo terminology tends to be dominant these days, but the exact same throws go by other names in old-school karate (varying from instructor to instructor), pre-judo-jujutsu (again, varying from style to style), wresting, etc. I do occasionally get told I have the names “wrong” when using alternative or older names, but that’s only because of the fact judo’s terminology is dominant today. When discussing the throws taught by given past masters - as I am doing in this video - my preference is to stick with what they personally called those thows; as opposed to “translating” into modern judo terminology. That seems to be more historically accurate and appropriate to me. Ultimately, when discussing function, it does not matter what people call them. As I like to occasionally remind people, “No one ever won a fight with terminology.” To quote Shakespear, “What’s in a name? A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.”

I think it depends on the objective. If we are talking about points style competition, then using uraken in that way is solid. However, if we are talking about delivering a powerful shot that has the potential to KO, then it’s much better to stick to the cross / gyakuzuki. The reason being that the opponent is advancing so the cross / gyakuzuki will largely impact in the opposite direction which will increase the effect. The uraken would be coming in more from the side. Furthermore, with the cross / gyakuzuki, the forward lean of the body is in the same direction of the strike - which will increase impact - however, with the uraken, the body is leaning forward whist the strike is coming in from the side. As always, it ultimately depends upon the objective and the context. The question, “Will this work?” is meaningless unless we also ask, “Works for what?”. If we are in a context where power and effect are key, then the cross / gyakuzuki is the much better option. However, if we are looking at a context where that is irrelevant (i.e. points fighting) then there is no reason at all while we could not swap out the cross / gyakuzuki for a uraken as that will definitely also work within that context. We don’t consider or train for points fighting in my dojo, so the uraken is out as a viable option for us and what we do. That’s not to say it’s a bad choice for other contexts though. I recall a session with one of my instructors where a fellow student threw a lateral uraken and my instructor said he should not do it as it wasn’t powerful enough. The student responded with, “I reckon I could make his eyes water!” To which, my instructor replied, “Well, read him a chapter from Love Story or peel an onion in front of him then.” Got a good laugh from everyone, including the gent who had used the uraken. Best of luck with the recovery! All the best, Iain

@practicalkatabunkai Thanks! You're quite right, I was only considering uraken for points fighting, not a real world application. This movement is very similar to some moves in traditional Wado-ryu, oddly enough. I can't honestly say that I'd use gyakazuki in an actual self-defence scenario in this position, but I see where you're getting at.

@@Cailus3542 I pleased that was of some use. Thanks for the question!

Yep! Mistype ... too busy to correct and reupload :-)

It's ok, the contents are much important 👍🏻

Yep, the punch was that fast it time travelled! Alternatively, I mistyped and haven’t got the time to correct and reupload :-)

@@practicalkatabunkai I believe either explanation absolutely, sensei!