Martial Arts Forms Applications

Below is an excerpt from a post that appeared at Applied Methods. It addresses a topic that I find quite interesting.

When teaching an application from a form, is it "the" application, or an example of the principles practiced in the form? Both?

The full post may be read here.

 

Following my recent article on kata applications, a familiar response appeared. The essence of it was simple enough:

“My instructor taught me the bunkai.”

Fair enough.

Before going any further, it’s worth acknowledging that while bunkai technically refers to the process of breaking down and analyzing a movement, most karate practitioners use the term when discussing applications. For the sake of simplicity, that is how I will use it here.

The interesting question is what conclusion should follow from the statement, “My instructor taught me the bunkai.”

When I suggest that kata movements may express principles rather than single fixed applications, some people hear something very different. They assume the argument is that nobody knows the bunkai. That is not what I am saying at all.

A more accurate way of expressing the idea would be this:

Even if we think we know the bunkai, that doesn’t necessarily mean it is the only valid expression of the principle.

That is a very different claim.

The interesting thing is that many practitioners unconsciously equate “I was taught this application” with “this is the application”. That leap is precisely what I like to challenge.

Let us assume for a moment that an esteemed instructor taught a specific application for a kata movement. Fine. That tells us he believed the application represented the movement. It may even be an excellent application. It may have been passed down through several generations of practitioners.

What it does not automatically tell us is that it was the original application, that it was the only application, or that the kata creator intended the movement to be restricted to that one use.

Those are different claims.

If we think about how martial arts are actually taught, the picture becomes even more interesting. Even instructors who believe in a correct bunkai will often demonstrate variations based on height, distance, timing, resistance, or circumstance. The moment that happens, we have already moved beyond a single fixed application and into the realm of principle.

When an instructor tells a student, “If your opponent is taller, change your angle”, or “If they grip you higher, drop your weight”, they are no longer teaching a fixed technique. They are proving the point without even realizing it.

A principle can produce many applications. A technique is only one expression of that principle.

What I suspect is happening is that many people see only two possibilities. Either there is one correct bunkai, or nobody knows anything and we are in to guesswork.

I do not believe the situation is nearly that simple.