Bunkai
(“Breaking Down”) is the interpretations of the motions performed
within a kata. Until Taika began presenting his
interpretations, the majority of systems emphasized that these motions
represented the necessary motions for “sparring” (the fact that
this made no sense, seemed to be irrelevant).
For
some time, the study/practice of kata motion was (and to some limited
extent, still is) considered to be of no use or
purpose. Why would they of been created, if they served
no purpose? It was not taught that each student should create
their own (kata). They were required to learn the specific
kata, that their instructor mandated (for whatever
reason).
What
seems to of been lost, was the reason(s) for their
having done so. The RyuTe®
system requires students (over the course of their mudansha/kyu-rank
experience) to learn 12 kata (8 traditional, and the 5 Pinan kata). Within
each, are motions that are repeated in some of the other kata.
Originally, many instructors taught only a few (2 or 3?) kata
(to their students). They focused their instruction of technique
around (only) those kata. A number of those instructor's became
famous for just the techniques that they performed from those
kata (and from their perspective, there was no need to
learn any other/more kata).
It
is my own opinion, that total knowledge isn't necessary (for
the average student) of every kata (that's taught). Taika
always stated, that each person will find the kata that they
are the most comfortable with and that kata will (tend to) become their
kata.
With time, and experience that kata may change (to a
different one), but every student will always have 1 kata that is
their favorite. It
is that kata, that most of their preferred techniques
will come from or be represented within.
I am constantly hearing
about people claiming to reverse-engineer a kata (wtf
?). IMO, this usually amounts to someone taking a technique
(that they like), and forcing the kata motions to match
that technique (and when the motions don't, they'll claim that
the kata had been taught incorrectly, LOL).
For
my own mudansha students, (when asked, or for example purposes) I
will tend to illustrate some (simplistic) technique for whichever
motion is asked about. As that student's experience increases, I will
(generally) show another (technique) for the same kata motion.
Beginning
students, are like (very) small children. They only seek simplistic
answers (initially) to their questions. As they progress in their
study (and hopefully understand more), I provide more involved
answers. I've stated numerous times (on this blog) that RyuTe®
is rife with trivialities (of detail). Providing
too much, too soon, will only be confusing (and possibly
detrimental) to the student.
In
general, the (specific) techniques that I've shown to a
student (as representing the Bunkai of the particular motion)
has been irrelevant. It's never been the technique that
was important, it's always been the motion.
It
isn't how many different types of techniques we can come up
with (to apply) by using that 1 motion. It's how many different
offensive motions can be prevented/countered by using
that 1 motion (defensively).
(Phrased
slightly different, LOL) To myself, it makes more sense to
practice 1 motion, that has a multitude of applications, than to
practice a multitude of applications to defend against 1 motion.
It's
that very practice, that drives me crazy when viewing
some of the nonsense that's out there. I've seen system's that
teach 30 different ways to prevent being struck by a roundhouse
punch, really? Does a student
(any student?) really
need to learn 30 different
ways to prevent being
hit by a roundhouse punch?
And even if they
believed that they do,
what are the (different) criteria
for each?
I'm
just finding it odd,
that people keep trying
to make the whole self-defense/life protection (thing) a lot
more complicated
than it needs to be.
The whole “Bunkai” issue, seems to of become a favored battle
ground for number of these “confusionists”
(LOL).
I'm in favor of letting them "battle it out", I'm going to stick with my definition.
No comments:
Post a Comment