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.
Project Mawashi 