Friday, 22 September 2017
Beyond the endless defences against an oi-tsuki, poorly thrown hook punches and headlocks sold today in various combinations and flow drills it may surprise some that the antique forms have a far richer heritage to offer those willing to dig a little deeper. The kata inherited from China have come from many different sources and were developed for different purposes at different times. The function of a form can be defined by the correct usage of the techniques within the appropriate context. This means that kata were developed specifically for application in various contexts such as warfare, body-guarding, policing and civil control, theatrical performances, religious practices and so on.
From this understanding it should then be obvious that not all kata will be practical or applicable to self defence and street fighting as is commonly taught today. For example a form(s) developed originally for using a pair of Sai (Sanchin, Seisan and Sanseriu) within the context of policing (civil control/arrest) will have almost no use in developing unarmed skills for use in the context of street fighting/self defence.
The different contexts and martial requirements have inspired a great variety of skills, strategies and practices to be recorded in the different kata that are highly specific in function. The specificity of the functions means that they do not translate well and cross over to other uses. It is also important to bear in mind that while some kata will be complete in their function others will only be fragments of methods/systems.
The attitude that the original functions of kata have been lost forever is common and effectively closes the door on the fascinating practises, problems and solutions recorded in the antique forms. This belief about kata seems to be quite unique to Karate and we do not find it in European Martial arts research. Many excellent researchers are currently bringing back to life medieval European martial arts preserved in books and manuals with fascinating results. It is just within Karate it seems that there is a very precious attitude towards who can know what and who is allowed to talk about it.
Monday, 11 September 2017
When practising a solo kata knowing the function of the form, ideally what was intended for the movements in the first place is key to knowing how the techniques should be performed. Not all kata have the same function and so the execution of the forms will vary according to their specific functions. The more experience acquired in using the techniques the closer the solo kata can potentially be to reality and it is in this experience of applying the content of the form in increasingly challenging ways that will inform how to train when without a training partner.
Contra to popular belief practising a solo kata will not significantly improve the ability to use the techniques against another person, a solo form can only ever be a representation of the experience of the movements and how they have previously been applied. The way to develop the solo practise is by actually using the techniques with another person in ways that are constantly evolving and challenging to the practitioner, this all important experience then becomes the driving force behind the solo movements. So if you don't know what you are doing, then what are you doing?
Wednesday, 6 September 2017
It is a commonly held belief in the Karate world that the original functions of the antique forms (kata inherited from China) are lost and we can't possibly know what they were intended for when they were created. However if a statement is made about kata such as "kata are for self defence" then that would be a statement about the function of the form. The hypocrisy of saying the true functions can't be known but this is the function seems to be lost on many of the bunkai 'experts' (or salesmen?). If the original functions are really lost does that mean that all the applications, flow drills and bunkai are all made up?
Just another thought!
Wednesday, 2 August 2017
What is the principle excuse? it is the commonly taught idea that kata primarily teach principles and that the sequence and technical content are there simply to express these principles instead of a specific underlying function. An example of this would be saying that Naihanchi is about developing posture, rooting, generating power, mindfulness or any other number of self evident 'principles' that really do not need kata as a medium to be effectively practised. In fact a form like Naihanchi may be a hindrance in developing these qualities if the purpose of the practitioner is to become say a better fighter due to its very limited technical content and range of movements.
So what makes more sense as an approach to studying kata?
1. Kata were synthesised to catalogue techniques with a specific function in mind and context for usage. Example - Naihanchi records grappling techniques to be used in the context of civil arrest.
2. Kata were created to record principles (that are usually self evident and do not require recording in a form!) within a group of unrelated techniques in no significant order. Example - Naihanchi is for developing posture, power generation, chi, rooting, mindfulness etc.
Function dictates form? or abstract principles dictate form?
Monday, 31 July 2017
Some forms are undoubtedly combative masterpieces, but are all kata?
Wednesday, 14 June 2017
Wing Chun has millions of followers worldwide, with huge support from the film industry it has achieved a cult like status. Wing Chun techniques translate beautifully to the big screen and after seeing Donnie Yen dispatch opponent after opponent its hard to not let the imagination run wild and think what if?!!!
Well complex choreography is not reality when it comes to violence and no one needs to look far to see how badly Wing Chun fighters have performed in no holds barred and mixed martial arts contests. The video above is just one example of many available. The usual excuses almost always follow any criticisms of Wing Chun, such and such a fighter wasn't a real Wing Chun expert, he wasn't able to use the dangerous advanced techniques, my master would have...... and Wing Chun is just for the street where there are no rules.
Well hats off to anyone who steps up to fight in MMA to test themselves, their ability and their practice instead of citing lineage, rank, anecdotes about the good old days when training was really hardcore and so on!
Fighters aside what does this say about the technical content of Wing Chun and most importantly the forms that are the core of the system?
Is this an effective way of preparing someone for the chaos of real violence? (note: the example is for demonstrating the first form practiced in Wing Chun and is not a comment on or critique of Yip Chun).
If the forms were not intended for unarmed combat could the original function have been for something more pragmatic? it was! Armed combat!
Nathan Johnson (demonstrating in video) has spent the last decade unraveling the original function of the mysterious Wing Chun forms (Note: Nathan has practiced and taught Wing Chun and Karate for over 40 years). Over the course of the next year Nathan will be gradually publishing his findings and will be available for seminars for those wanting to explore in depth the roots and origins of Wing Chun.
For more information please email firstname.lastname@example.org