Bunkai, Kyusho, and the Death Touch – Part III

Before moving on with my discussion of other aspects of bunkai, let me share some of my thoughts on the subject of who the bunkai were developed to combat Some hold that the bunkai (and kata) were developed for use against anyone you might meet on the street. Others hold that they were only developed for use against untrained or unskilled fighters.

I don’t know the answer and doubt anyone does for sure. All that exists, to my knowledge, are a bunch of theories and beliefs. For a more accurate history of our arts and the lineage of our kata from a scholarly standpoint (meaning the result of very rigorous investigations, rather than merely the repetition of rumors and hearsay passed down from generation to generation, sometimes as PR for a style or organization), I’d recommend everyone read Hanshi Patrick McCarthy’s Bubishi, Sensei Harry Cook’s Shotokan Karate: A Precise History, and Sensei John Sells’ Unante. These were the last three I read. But there are surely others out there, written by other martial arts scholars. Please feel free to recommend others in the comments section below.

In philosophy, they make a very clear distinction between the use of the word “know” and the use of the word “believe”. People often get these confused. They say they know something, when in fact they merely believe it. To know something means you are certain it is true and have concrete evidence to support that position. To believe something has a much lower level of proof. In the case of the origins of our older kata and their bunkai, probably no one knows the truth even though some may believe they do.

The question about kata being developed for use against trained or untrained opponents is a new one. Throughout my over 55 years in the martial arts I never knew anyone who questioned this until recently. We always assumed kata were for honing skills for use against pretty much every possible unarmed opponent. This is why they were referred to as an encyclopedia of a system.

For as long as I can remember, primary warrior arts always included weapons. Empty handed arts like early jujitsu and sumo (both of which included striking and kicking), and later karate, were considered secondary arts. They were for use when a warrior lost his weapon, it broke, or he was attacked at a time when he didn’t have a weapon with him or within reach. So would this be any different in Okinawa? These were brilliant men, charged with the protection of the royal family in some cases. I find it hard to believe that they would miss this point. In a bloody battle on a muddy field, weapons did slip out of hands. And warriors were surely attacked by surprise by other warriors when otherwise engaged and didn’t have their weapons at the ready. I certainly don’t know the answer to any degree of surety but do have a lot of questions and see many possible (even probable) inconsistencies here.

But if some want to restrict their usefulness, that’s certainly their right. I choose not to. In fact, I’m always searching for sources of useful information from both inside and outside the martial arts – from martial arts and styles different than my own and from physics, psychology, mathematics, sociology, physiology, anatomy, etc. I previously mentioned Hanshi Anderson finding his concept of increasing and decreasing Rates of Closure from helicopter pilot training.

I find a great deal of useful material within our kata. They are endless sources of information on techniques, tactics, and strategies, including for fighting both trained and untrained fighters. I practice both the Okinawan and Japanese versions of many. The latter include longer fighting distances and are perhaps more clearly geared towards honing techniques for use against another trained man. (Also, what some tend to forget is that, when the Okinawans were introducing karate to the Japanese, they weren’t teaching it to the Swiss. They were teaching it to a people with a tremendous warrior tradition. Most who trained in the early days were very proficient in other martial arts with very long histories.)

But even if evidence was uncovered to prove our kata were created for use against untrained fighters, does that mean we have to – or should - interpret bunkai in this way? Not as far as I’m concerned. Times change. How many people outside your school do you know who have had some training in the martial arts? I know a lot. When I began karate in the 50s, only a handful of people in the entire country had trained in the martial arts. But we didn’t restrict our training to techniques for use against the untrained. There were people out there who had trained in boxing and wrestling and some very great, very experienced street fighters so we trained to defend ourselves against other trained men. The kata were viewed the same. And with the popularity of the martial arts, matters are far worse today.

Those who have created many things in life often aren’t always the best judges of the full usefulness and value of their inventions. I doubt the inventors of the telephone, computer, or internet had any idea as to the full potential of their creations. How could they? Do you think those who invented the internet had any idea it would someday bring down countries, as has happened recently?

This is all just my opinion on the matter. I have no issue with anyone choosing to think otherwise. In fact, as we will each possibly pay the ultimate price for our choices in the martial arts, it’s critical we each make the best choices as possible for ourselves. Again, thanks for bearing with an old man’s ramblings. I greatly appreciate your readership and support.