This post is more of a short reply to a reader’s question about the kata Enpi. In particular they asked about its Okinawan historical applications.
Firstly, it depends which applications are being referred to. For instance if we are referring to the opening movements (dropping to one knee etc.), in that case it would be near impossible to have an historical application as in all likelihood this sequence was an innovation of Funakoshi. That is why you won’t find this very distinct movement in any existing version of Wansu (The Okinawan version of Enpi). You can’t have an application to a move that doesn’t exist.
However, if you are referring to the use of the age-zuki to the throat, then yes, this does have a historical basis. In fact, this is one of the few historical applications that are still widely known in Shotokan circles, although the specifics of its timing, which allow it to be more easily landed, are not as well known.
At the end of the day it doesn’t really matter if a technique is historical or not, if it is useful, keep it, if not, dump it.
Kata application. If you want to get an argument going in the dojo, this is one topic that will do it. Online, it is no different. Theories abound as to how to apply kata. However, almost every one of them will claim some sort of historical basis. There is however a major problem, not all of these weird and wonderful theories can possibly be correct. Part of the historical research I have been conducting these last few years has been aimed at trying to unpick exactly how kata should be applied, at least from a historical point of view. To this end I consulted mainly Japanese texts of pre-World War 2. There is a surprising amount of material available, although it takes a great deal of work to track it down.
Heishu vs. Kaishu Kata
To understand the application of kata, it is important to grasp that there are two broad types of kata. According to the Goju-ryu master, Chojun Miyagi, kata can be split into Heishu (fundamental kata) and Kaishu (dynamic, advanced kata). The Heishu kata act as gateways, they develop in the karateka, the prerequisite skills and conditioning to access the advanced forms. Chojun Miyagi further explains that these kata are aimed at developing correct posture, breathing, power development and a fighting spirit.
In Goju-ryu this would be Sanchin kata, while in Shotokan we have the Tekki series. While combative applications obviously exist for these kata, their actual aim is to develop a strong base. A couple of years ago I posted on this point, regarding the Tekki kata. (It can be found HERE) It is interesting and perhaps unsurprising to note that Chojun Miyagi actually included the Tekki in his list of Heishu kata.
Kaishu kata on the other hand, have a much more pronounced combative aim and as such are performed in a much more dynamic manner. Their practise must always be accompanied by a good understanding of their combative application.
Kata vs. Kumite
Modern karate generally splits kata and kumite. In other words they are practised as separate exercises. However, prior to World War 2, this was most definitely not the case. Rather, the application of kata was the kumite training. This simplicity of training has quite a few implications. Firstly, it meant that they practised a lot of application. Historical sources suggest that each training session had both the training of kata performance and the kata application. I was not surprised when I looked at Funakoshi’s application of kata. His standard of technique was extremely high; he had much practise behind his techniques.
Offensive Applications
I believe the early karateka had an intimate understanding of the realities of fighting. As anyone who has any experience of violence will tell you, having the capacity to apply both defensive and offensive techniques is an important self-defence skill. The study of offensive kata application is now almost unknown by most Shotokan practitioners. In fact many will even claim that there are no offensive techniques in the kata at all. However, again from a historical point of view this is simply untrue. Reading almost any of Funakoshi’s early works revealed many applications that were offensive. References to offensive applications are also found in many other contemporary karateka’s work, such as Kenwa Mabuni and Chojun Miyagi. Examples of attacking techniques can even be seen demonstrated from Heian Sandan!
Concept vs. Technique
A quick google of “bunkai” plus various words such as “concept”, “theory”, “principles” etc. will reveal a treasure trove of theories and ideas that claim to unlock the secrets of how to apply kata. Inevitably, the principles hold supreme, in other words the kata is heavily modified to fit the principle when the kata is applied. The reasoning put is that they aren’t really techniques, but are really representations of principles.
An analysis of historical documents however suggests that in fact they didn’t modify the kata. There is an almost non-theoretical approach to bunkai. Instead, the early karateka applied kata in a much more contextual way. Rather than trying to force an application they instead paired the context with the best technical response. Hence in some cases they used aggressive, offensive techniques.
This is not to say that they had no tactical theories, they most certainly did, the Bubishi (Patrick Macarthy’s HAPV theory is quite helpful in understanding this, I recommend it) for instance is packed full of tactical advice. However these are not theories of application, but theories of fighting tactics. Due to this excellent understanding of tactics, consistently, the kata was applied with very little modification. This feature was be found across every karateka that I studied. None of them modified the kata on application. I think it is safe to conclude that the kata represent techniques, although a tactical understanding is needed to apply them effectively without modification.
However, it is the presence of offensive techniques that is most interesting from a Modern point of view. Their existence has solid historical evidence, yet Modern theories have almost entirely neglected them. This has certainly led me rethink how I apply my kata. Most Modern karateka are at most only look at a fraction of possible applications. They are seriously missing out!
Coming soon – I will be looking at a couple of specific historical applications.
(A quick note – this is part two of a series, please read my previous post for an introduction)
Some prominent instructors at the moment contend that uke-waza are not correctly understood – they argue that there are no such thing as “blocks”. Instead these techniques are really arm-locks, strikes etc. Their rationale is that the techniques are not functional as blocks – therefore historically they couldn’t have been trained as blocks either. Other instructors seem instead to question the basic methodology favoured by many traditional Shotokan schools of incorporating uke-waza as ippon kumite techniques. They argue that rather, these very simplistic training methods are better replaced by complex drills. Again, they provide quotes that suggest that historically these actually are the way to unlock the real meaning of kata and the uke-waza within. Other critics of modern Shotokan suggest that the uke-waza have been fundamentally altered by the Japanese and are no longer authentic.
However, just what is the historical evidence?
1. Are blocks really blocks or are they actually something else? This one is very easy to answer. Historically speaking, blocks really are blocks. The age-uke is used to protect jodan area; the gedan beraai is used to defend chudan and so forth. This is not to say they have no other use, occasionally they were used to strike, but historically there can be no doubt that pre-war karateka thought of these techniques as actual blocks, other uses seem secondary. This wasn’t only a feature of Funakoshi’s karate; many other luminaries of the time such as Kenwa Mabuni, used the techniques in almost identical ways. I have found no historical evidence that contradicts this. Interestingly, a very modern common way of using uke-waza, i.e. using the ‘wind-up’ as a blocking action and the actual block as a struck, has no historical basis that I can find.
2. Is ippon-kumite type training a historically authentic way of training uke-waza? Again, yes. I have found no reference to any kind of complex drill that some instructors argue as historically trained. I would contend that any traditionally trained Shotokan karateka would be quite at home with pre-war ippon type training. However they would need to make a few adaptions, in particular a wider range of defences and bring in more taisabaki techniques. (I will address some of these points in more detail in a later post) If anything, the only difference is that modern karateka have a slightly more restricted “diet” of ippon waza – we no longer train against arm grabs for instance.
3. Historical uke waza have a completely different form to modern Shotokan. In this case I would say: “Maybe”. Gichin Funakoshi certainly modified his technique quite a bit, especially in relation to the “fist distance rule”. For those of you who are not Shotokan specialists, the “fist distance” rule is a structural convention whereby the elbow of the blocking arm is positioned one fist distance from the body. (Although one JKA chief instructor tried to change it***) In some cases Funakoshi keeps it and in others (even in the same publication) he breaks the rule. Interestingly though, Kenwa Mabuni largely kept to the “one fist rule”, which suggests that it was a quite wide spread convention, it wasn’t just a Shotokan thing. However there are a few exceptions to how the rule was applied compared to modern Shotokan. In age-uke for instance the “fist distance rule” is normally interpreted as a fist distance between wrist and forehead, with the blocking arm parallel with the floor. Historically though this is not accurate, in fact age-uke looks and functions quite differently – WITHOUT BREAKING THE FIST DISTANCE RULE.
Difference number one: the elbow of the blocking arm is brought closer to the head; in fact the historical elbow distance, not the wrist, appears to be ONE FIST DISTANCE from the head. Difference number two: the blocking arm is held at an angle AWAY from the head. Difference number three: The blocking area shifts from the wrist towards the elbow.
What exactly does this mean? Why did they perform the age-uke in such a different way? These are difficult questions to answer with absolute certainty. However I would take an educated guess and suggest that it had to do with the relationship between the open hand and weapon techniques. In many publications Funakoshi poses with Sai and Bo. In fact a pair of Sai is even used to adorn one of his earliest works. The method described of performing the age-uke with an angled forearm is vital in the use of the Sai. The reason for this is that it helps to redirect a heavy blow from a weapon. The attacking weapon slides off the Sai – performing a block with the Sai in the modern manner would be extremely risky. Considering that almost every other technique with a weapon, especially the Sai, is closely twined with an open hand technique, age-uke is unlikely to be an exception.
Age-Uke with a single SAI.
For me this is a very good example of an important Budo concept, namely “Riai”. This concept refers to the harmonious relationship between the use of weapons and empty hand technique. For reasons of functionality and simplicity, both are performed in the same way. It brings an entirely different dimension to the art. I also suspect that the modern wrist to forehead method is actually much more modern than we realise. Here is a clip of Enoeda performing Heian Shodan, interestingly; he performs the age-uke in the older, historical way, suggesting that the modern method is very recent indeed. If any reader has any insight into why he performs it this way over the JKA standard, I’d be grateful if they would share it.
So, what have I learnt?
Essentially, for me, a block is just that. Sure, they have other uses, but ultimately their primary use from an historical point of view is that they stop incoming attacks impacting on their targets. Also, ippon style training IS authentic, although I have learnt to expand my repertoire – the modern ippon method is too limited in scope. From a Budo/Riai point of view I have adapted my blocks ever so slightly, particularly in the case of the age-uke. I have found that even with very heavy multiple attacks the historical age-uke holds up very well, in fact against particularly strong opponents it works more reliably than the modern version.
(***Luckily for me, many senior JKA instructors in South Africa chose not to change to the rather pointless 1.5 fist distance rule)
In my next post I’ll be exploring some of the historic bunkai of pre-world war two Shotokan. My findings are quite surprising.
Project Mawashi 