One of my favorite things about you is that “I don’t know” is okay. I think we gain a lot more credibility with our students when we are confident enough to say that. I tend to follow it up with “here are maybe some ideas, but I can’t say definitively these are the intention.” As well as an assertion that I’ll go look for an answer amongst other instructors I respect and bring those back if I think they have value.

Thanks for posting. Kata and karate is and should be evolving and this is adding to the growing body of research. Really appreciated.

Excellent video! You’re a very intelligent Karateka Sensei Abernathy.

Thanks for posting this I was trying to explain this last night, you explain it far better than me

Excellent! It brings clarity to intent and purpose.

Wish I was in the UK I would definitely go to one of your seminars

Great video. I’ve been missing your explainers.

It's taken me 8 years and the Kata bunkais for the katas I know have been slowly starting to I guess you could say show themselves from my increasing knowledge of kinon.

Incredible video! Thank you so much for this information. It made my night!

Thank you sensei.

And here i was trying to work out a kata "rosetta stone" and then this comes out as a more eloquent explanation of what i wanted to say

@dermotrooney9584

6 ай бұрын

Haha! Overthinking it is my problem too. (That and being a fat old duffer with a kind of dyslexia for Japanese karate words 😂)

@liamdurr

6 ай бұрын

@@dermotrooney9584 less overthinking here, and more "I know the concepts in my head, just how do I explain this to a class of mixed experience/grades without melting their brains" trying to find the right balance of explanation and simplicity is often a difficulty of mine

@dermotrooney9584

6 ай бұрын

@@liamdurr Spot on. I'm in the brain melted gang - looking for pattern in the patterns when really they come from stacks of compromise.

The 60 degree comment made my eyes light up (thinking about my next kumite event). Great insights and I'm sure the community appreciates you sharing. I certainly do. Thanks very much. 👍 🙏✌️

A student from the 1960s, still a student.. thanks for continuing to post

Well done, thank you !

thanks Iain

Great video

Lovely stuff again Iain. I'm trying to coax some of our club to your Burton gig. 🌟

Love it ! Any other video with a deeply explanatory of angle? Greetings from Mexico.

@practicalkatabunkai

6 ай бұрын

There’s more in this video which you may find useful: kzread.info/dash/bejne/k6icrdiFYarKf6g.htmlsi=lPlgA2XskIjYnlqg This other one also explains this idea. The following link should take you to the right part (the whole video is worth a watch): kzread.info/dash/bejne/jIN_vKWsqKuqiZs.htmlsi=YzTXy8ovMHaXPA24&t=2446 The angles is a key concept, so it’s referenced in a lot of my videos. The tow linked above are good for expanding on the key ideas though. I hope that helps.

I love this video. I would personally disagree about the large turn in pinan nidan, I teach that after framing to prevent a body lock (jodan uke) you take a grip and turn into a body drop throw (tai otoshi). But that could just be because of the difference between how we perform in matsubayashiryu vs how you move in wadoryu!

@practicalkatabunkai

6 ай бұрын

Thank you! As per the video, there are numerous legitimate takes on kata and if people are happy with what they do and it works, then I would support that. I therefore have no desire to get you around to my way of thinking :-) However, it may help the thread if I further expand on my thinking around that. The kata is largely the same in all the versions I have seen in that regard. It’s therefore not due to stylistic differences as this is a common factor. It’s the fact that the first one has a rear leg turn, whereas the second has a lead leg turn, that makes me reject the idea that the rear leg turn is part of the application as opposed to a “linking step” to get you to the correct angle. If it was part of the technique, I would expect to see the kata constructed so that the rear leg moved on both sides. No doubt the method can be used as you describe, but it’s the asymmetry that leads me to think differently. I also feel seeing the gedan-barai as a lock followed by a punch at a 45-degree or 90-degree angle (which depends on the specifics of the style) better explains the middle level punch that follows. As said in the video, it is a good thing that differing approaches exist (a lack of them implies a lack of thinking) and I hope our combined posts give readers something to consider when analysing the kata for themselves.

@lamardowling637

6 ай бұрын

@@practicalkatabunkai thank you for the in depth reasoning for why you use the approach you do! Also, thank you for all the content you put out to help us all get better together!

You are wonderful 😍

Iain... I'm gonna start calling Mr. Bunkai or sumthin'. Hehe! 😅 All these Karate Frameworks you're creating are helping future Karate Practitioners... like me. 😊

As someone who does TKD, I notice that some of the movements overlap with Shotokan forms. With that being said, I have no guarantee that the development of my Form(Kata) system is based on the 3 key points you stated in your video. It seems as if the forms are oriented to practice defense from an attacker on my left, right, front, or back (maybe not surrounded by 8 people lol). Is it possible to "retrofit" the movements to fit the concept of moving to a different angle on my opponent?

@practicalkatabunkai

6 ай бұрын

If an angle was changed for non-combative purposes, then the things discussed in the video would not apply. What is discussed in the traditional view of angles when applied to the traditional kata. This video may also help expand on that: kzread.info/dash/bejne/k6icrdiFYarKf6g.htmlsi=0GBT6iJ8omyd7pk4 Looking at alternative versions of the kata / forms - no matter what style people do - is always useful as sometimes those variants on a common theme can bring that common theme into a sharper focus. It can also help highlight when non-combative changes have been made as those versions tend to be the outliers from the majority. I know a lot of TKD people who have looked at the motions as found in the karate forms to help clarify what the original intent was. That seems to work pretty well for them.

Another great video, as always. I am going to pass the link for this onto two new students who, only last night, I was summarising how to interpret kata. I’m sure this explains it more coherently and elegantly than I did 😂 Interestingly, at 14:10 you mention the back foot going around after the third Age Uke in Pinan Nidan, as you make a Gedan Barai. I’ve actually usefully incorporated this into my Bunkai for my preferred application. Next time I see you, I’ll show you my thoughts as I’d appreciate your esteemed opinion on it.

@CornwallKarate

6 ай бұрын

Just to add though, I fully appreciate my interpretation may not have been the original intentions of Itosu!

@practicalkatabunkai

6 ай бұрын

@@CornwallKarate They key thing for me is that the kata maintains its original intent: a repository of combative information and a supplementary form of solo practise. I consider myself a pragmatist as opposed to an historian. I’m seeking what works best for me and mine in the here and now. If my take on the kata achieves that, then historical accuracy (for which we may never have the information needed to confirm) is not really a consideration. If there is a difference - and many motions are so clear it could not really be anything else - then I feel sure that if the past masters would view the results of the aforementioned approach as, “Not exactly what I had in mind, but that would hurt, and I like what you’ve done there!” That’s more than good enough for me.

@CornwallKarate

6 ай бұрын

@@practicalkatabunkai that works for me, too! Thanks for taking the time to reply :)

@joelquebec

6 ай бұрын

We use it as an arm drag that takes the uke on wild ride.

Love this! During the video you mention some of books and texts that refer to “the BIG 3” principles. Could you possibly share the titles etc? I’d love to do some extra digging.

@practicalkatabunkai

6 ай бұрын

It’s me that has brought them together as the “big three”, but all of it comes from past writings. Here’s some key texts that may help. Angles Karate-Do Numon by Kenwa Mabuni: iainabernethy.co.uk/comment/5745#comment-5745 Kaisai no genre by Miyagi and Toguchi (Basic Rules 1 and 3, Advanced Rule 6) Stances Karate-Do Taikan: The 17th of Funakoshi’s 20 precepts and Genwa Nakasone’s explanation. Kaisai no genre by Miyagi and Toguchi (Advanced Rule 9) Hand Position Kaisai no genre by Miyagi and Toguchi (Advanced Rules 2, 5 and 7) There’s a lot more because these rules are scattered through much of the part writings and we see numerous examples of them in action. For example, Motobu seems to support the angles specifically in regards to Naihanchi, “In the Naihanchi kata, twisting to either the right or the left is a stance that can be used in actual confrontation. Thinking of twisting to either the right or left in the Naihanchi kata, one can start to understand the meaning of the movements.” He also has much to say on how the arms should work too. It’s all a bit piecemeal though. Unfortunately, there is no historic, one-stop, complete rules of bunkai source. However, the rules are consistent across all the various sources and it’s easy enough to bring them all together for modern karateka. Above all, they really work in making the kata come alive :-) I hope this of some help. All the best, Iain

@Spirittkdaus

5 ай бұрын

This is outstanding@@practicalkatabunkai ! Thank you for the insight. Plenty to get stuck into, and ‘Yes’ it truely bring our practice to life. Thank you for all the knowledge you share.

@practicalkatabunkai

5 ай бұрын

I am pleased that was helpful!@@Spirittkdaus

I could not agree with you more.

Dear Iain, if I may have a suggestion... I had subscribed to Your fantastic channel for the partner drills and bunkai demonstrations which I found immensely helpful - after all, a picture (or video!) speaks a thousand words. I've also listened to Your podcast and liked some of it. My point is this: explanations and lectures such as this one are perfect in podcast form but not so much in a video format with just the person talking on screen. That's only my personal opinion but if You hear similar feedback from others then You may want to reconsider the division of 'talk' vs 'show' content on Your channels. Thanks again for Your amazing work and knowledge that You're sharing with the Karate community.

@marystevens480

6 ай бұрын

For partner demonstrations and comprehensive footage of physical examples, Iain has an app which is updated weekly.

@practicalkatabunkai

6 ай бұрын

Thanks for all the support! The podcasts are largely defunct at the moment as I don’t have the time to record them. I do have my app which has 1600 hours+ of material; most of which is practical instruction. I also update it every week with new videos. That’s a lot of work. The app is a subscription service so I can justify the hours spent on that. I can’t justify sharing the same content for free on KZread as I, like everyone else, have bills to pay and people to support. It’s why I now share one video or so here every month. I get that not everyone is interested in the app, so I feel a free “something” is still worth sharing. The statistics show that it is the “talking head” videos that get the most support and interaction. Therefore, when I do think I should upload something to KZread, it tends to be them I emphasise. Of course, I can’t please everyone all the time and you’re right that some would prefer technical instruction. I will make a note of that and maybe add some of that at some point. If you are keen to get LOTS of technical instruction videos, then the app would be the best option. Failing that, I will continue to add stuff here, but that’s largely steered by what your fellow KZread users seem to prefer. I have noted that I should throw a little more technical stuff into the mix going forward though.

Don't know best answer in the world! My dad used to say!!

Sensei, can you give us a citation to Mabuni's article on angles, so I can read it firsthand?

@practicalkatabunkai

6 ай бұрын

It’s from “Karatedo Nyumon” by Kenwa Mabuni. You can read it here: iainabernethy.co.uk/comment/5745#comment-5745

Very true, the modern kárateka must research Northern and Southern Chinese martial arts(Henan, Hebei and Shandong)(Fujian and Guangdong), Realize the similarities to SouthEast Asian martial arts like Silat & Malaysian Wing Chun (from China not Hong Kong) and learn Aiki-jujutsu. The Samurai was the last influence weaved into Karate.

Have you ever played with the kata of kuk sool won its korean style

@practicalkatabunkai

6 ай бұрын

I have not. So many martial arts, so little time :-)

I do worry sometimes that we have not developed in Karate . Most Kata are barely 100 years old. That tells me that the Masters we recognize as the fathers of modern Karate learned something different. Then they made improvements are organized it better for teaching . I am American Kenpo karate even are Katas that are the new kids on the block was done in the 50s . Then Ed Parker with Chinese influence add Long 3 , 4, 5 and 6 there from the late 60s ( I am not going into 7 and 8 because Parker own notes in 87 didn’t have them they were sets ). I just curious should we be looking back are should Karate as whole with all the knowledge we have now a days be creating new ones . Just my thoughts but what do I know I have only been doing Karate for 42 years.

@practicalkatabunkai

6 ай бұрын

I think it depends on which kata and which karateka. Some are relatively new (i.e. the Gekisais from the 1940s), but others are much older (i.e. Kushanku / Kosokun from the 1700s). There are also new kata. In addition to the “traditional ones”, I teach and practise three kata I made myself. Others have also taken these kata into what they teach. These kata are for solo pad drills, the methods of Motobu Choki, and for ground escapes. There were no traditional kata for these things, so I made new ones. The traditional kata cover most of what we do (the strikes, throws, grips, escapes, etc) but some new ones help too. All kata were “new” at one point. There’s no reason karateka can’t make new ones as well as do the older ones.

@samowens3

6 ай бұрын

@@practicalkatabunkai agree I see so many Dojo either hanging on to the pass . Or you see the new breed of Dojos that teach BJJ , Muay Thai , Boxing and Wrestling. I also see Sensei learning everything basically MMA and taking back to their Traditional Martial Arts and applying them . Personally I consider myself like Dan Insanto while not as good but life time student of as much knowledge as I can gain . I started Tang So Doo under GM Cho in 1980 then went to Shuri Ryu under GM Trais System . Then I started Kenpo in 1988 . In 1990 I joined the Army study Hakkoryu Jujitsu for 3 years while going back on leave to test for Kenpo . In 1997 I went to Ranger Batt started studying BJJ while still maintaining Kenpo ties . I spent all my money on travel and seminars till I got injured in the War for 4 years I couldn’t do much because of surgery and rehab . In 2011 I focused back on Kenpo got promoted to 6 th Dan under GM Tracey also had close ties to GM Vic Moore due to Shuri Ryu connections . GM Vic Moore promoted to 8 th Dan but I felt like I didn’t deserve it so I don’t wear it or claim it on my site . I finally made 7 th Dan in Kenpo when my Master died of Covid in 2021 GM Tracey son promoted per my Master . Now I work a lot with Hanshi McCarthy and GM Hokoma online due to pandemic. Hanshi McCarthy was like my Master and was once a Shuri representative for Canada that’s how I know him . But with all that being said I feel like at 51 I just now starting to put science, the exercise, diet and into Martial arts .

pitty you don't show present this with visual examples

@practicalkatabunkai

6 ай бұрын

These are principles, so they apply to 100% of all of bunkai. Any single examples could confuse the issue as people may think I am solely talking about those examples and not universally. If you have a watch of any of my kata bunkai videos, you can see these principles at work. The video was made on the assumption the viewers are familiar with these ideas in practice and was aimed at how they related to the act of kata analysis where the application is not initially known. As regards the angles specifically, this video expands on it: kzread.info/dash/bejne/k6icrdiFYarKf6g.htmlsi=vwZzfRHGV_mj2Y9V

There is no 'practical bunkai' of kata; the term itself is an oxymoron. The belief that fighters of 18th(etc.) century put into kata anything that modern suburban karateka of 21th century would find 'practical' is absurd. If you want to 'speak the language of kata', you must first give up any search for 'practicality' (as you understand it).

@practicalkatabunkai

6 ай бұрын

Thanks for the comment. That’s a strong set of statements without any evidence or reasoning presented to support them. Doesn’t mean you are wrong, but it would be unreasonable to expect people to take what you are saying as valid without you elucidating as to why that is the case. The rules discussed in this video come from the writings of Funakoshi, Mabuni, Motobu, Toguchi, etc. All written from the 1930s onwards. Do you feel unarmed criminal violence has drastically changed since then? No one grabbed, hit, clinched, etc less than 100 years ago? All close-range strikes, throws grips, cranks, strangles, etc have been invented in the last few decades? They simply didn’t know this stuff in the past? How did they fight back them? What is your evidence for civilian combat being dramatically different a few decades ago and how do you discount evidence to the contrary? When people in the modern age are using these methods effectively, why is that? Just dumb luck of the right people meeting largely aberrant criminals? If you have a reasoned argument for this then it would be revolutionary. However, Ockham’s razor may suggest you don’t really understand how kata works and don’t have sufficient knowledge of karate history? It’s hard to be sure without you explaining the position taken. If you have the time, it would be good if you could do that so myself and other readers can better assess the validity of the stated position. All the best, Iain

@mirekcerny2081

6 ай бұрын

@@practicalkatabunkai There is, in fact, just one core statement in my comment; the rest just follows logically from it. And that statement is that it is absurd to believe that the fighters of 18th century who created the kata put into them things modern suburban karateka would find 'practical'. Now I could be an a-hole and demand that you prove that 18th century fighter's idea of practicality was the same as yours - because this is the unproven assumption behind the whole 'practical bunkai' idea. And until you prove it, "your position can be considered invalid". But I am not really interested in proving or disproving something. Just to give your readers a little food for though: Compare comparatively lawless, war-plagued society of 18th century China, where people carried deadly weapons on them; with our law-bound society where you can go to jail for breaking somebody's arm. Do you not think what is considered 'practical' in one society would be not-so-practical in the other one?

@practicalkatabunkai

6 ай бұрын

@@mirekcerny2081 Thanks for the reply. Based on that reply, I don’t think this is a conversation that either of us will find valuable or that will add anything to the thread for other readers. I also struggle to see the basis on which your views are held. Any discussion is, therefore, almost sure to go around and around in circles. Time is precious and I can’t see how this would be a good use of time for either of us. It’s therefore probably best for us both to go back to practising what we do and write this one off. All following questions are rhetorical and are primarily aimed at other readers who may want to think about it for themselves. I am not expecting any answers, but any you do post can be considered by other readers within the context of previous discussion and what follows. YOU WROTE: “And that statement is that it is absurd to believe that the fighters of 18th century who created the kata put into them things modern suburban karateka would find 'practical'.” People still grab, punch, choke, etc just have they have done for thousands of years (due to the nature of human physiology). I therefore can’t see how the claim that it would be “absurd” to think that nothing in that would be useful to us today can hold any validity. There may be one or two thing that could be antiquated - such as grips to the top-knot hairstyles of times past - but they could be easily adapted, and the vast majority of things would still be totally relevant (making your claim false). The assumption that 100% of that karate cannon was frozen in amber in the 18th century is also flawed. As per my post above, the past masters were writing less that 100 years ago and they found it practical at that time. People are also using it today effectively. Some of the kata are also pretty young i.e. pinans from the ealry 1900s, Gekisais from the 1940s, etc. You originally claimed that “ANYTHING” from that time period would not be effective today: YOUR ASSERTION: “The belief that fighters of 18th(etc.) century put into kata anything that modern suburban karateka of 21th century would find 'practical' is absurd.” Therefore, you claimed that no strike, lock, throw, choke, etc from that time period could be effective today and it was “absurd” to think otherwise. It therefore logically follows that the way people punched 200 years ago could not work today. That would seem completely illogical. I therefore asked you to back that up. YOU WROTE: “Now I could be an a-hole and demand that you prove that 18th century fighter's idea of practicality was the same as yours - because this is the unproven assumption behind the whole 'practical bunkai' idea. And until you prove it, "your position can be considered invalid".” In any debate, the burden of proof is on the one making the claim ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy) ). You are the one that made the claim. It’s bold one too. You claimed it was “The belief that fighters of 18th(etc.) century put into kata anything that modern suburban karateka of 21th century would find 'practical' is absurd.” As above, it follows that nothing from the past would work today. We know that the methods of boxing, wrestling, judo, etc all date back to the past too (unarmed combat did not begin in the modern age). Are the methods of wrestling also ineffectively in any time period other than ancient Greece? The locks and shoulder throws depicted in drawings from that time period don’t work now? Your claim also overlooks the fact that kata have changed and evolved over time. YOU WROTE: “But I am not really interested in proving or disproving something.” That’s why I think this is likely to be a waste of time for us both. If people make a claim, then lots can be gained (for participants and observers) if there is a discussion around the merits of that claim. I can make any assertion I like, but it only has validity if followed up with evidence and reasoned argument. YOU WROTE: “Just to give your readers a little food for though: Compare comparatively lawless, war-plagued society of 18th century China, where people carried deadly weapons on them; with our law-bound society where you can go to jail for breaking somebody's arm. Do you not think what is considered 'practical' in one society would be not-so-practical in the other one?” This is not the same as the claim you made. There is a valid point that laws have changed over time, and therefore modern karateka may need to consider if the way they are applying the methods is legally advisable. For example, there are stamps to a downed enemy’s skull in kata and it would be prudent to adapt that to stamps to the thigh (to stop them getting back up and effectively giving chase). I covered that exact point while teaching in Finland this weekend. However, changes in legal considerations does not support your original position that, “The belief that fighters of 18th(etc.) century put into kata [ANYTHING] that modern suburban karateka of 21th century would find 'practical' is absurd.” The methods in the kata that got them to the floor could still be relevant exactly as they were AND the stamp would still work with the minor adaptation of an altered target. If those bits still work, then the “anything” of your claim is shown to be false and hence your assertion falls down. The vast majority of what is in kata works fine today. You are the one who claimed none of it would. I am always very interested in debates where people are prepared to back up what they say and discuss things in a logical manner. Assertions without anything to support them followed up with “I am not really interested in proving or disproving something” are not going to lead to any meaningful discussion. If people don’t accept the core premises and obligations of meaningful debate, then it’s a waste of time. You are, of course, entitled to believe and say whatever you wish to. However, if you want others to think what you have to say has merit, then you would need to show why and back up the original claim. All the best, Iain

@mirekcerny2081

6 ай бұрын

​@@practicalkatabunkai Well, I believe that if just one of your readers will be tempted to look behind the flawed "practical bunkai" idea by it, then this conversation will be very valuable ;-) You seem not to completely grasp what I am implying by dichotomy of old/new practically. The most practical thing (from the 18th century fighter's perspective) when the opponent grabs your lapel is not to stomp on his skull after you take him down; but to kill him standing up. Why waste time with some silly punches, kicks or takedowns? This is the 'language of the kata'. On the other hand, this is very probably not what 'practical' in your 'practical bunkai' stands for. Technique that kills the opponent who grabs your lapel - directly, no vanilla takedowns - is the antithesis of what most people consider 'practical' in 21th century; as it will land you in jail in no time. So they will not want to learn such a technique, because it is impractical. Yet, it is precisely this kind of 'impractical bunkai' that old kata tend to teach. Quite simply, because they were not made for 21th century suburban people, but for 18th century fighters.

@practicalkatabunkai

6 ай бұрын

@@mirekcerny2081 Thanks once again for the post. You seem to have altered your position in the last couple of posts, or I have entirely misunderstood you, and that is of interest. YOU ORIGINALLY WROTE: “The belief that fighters of 18th(etc.) century put into kata anything that modern suburban karateka of 21th century would find 'practical' is absurd.” That would seem to infer that nothing in the kata would be usable / practical today. However, in the post above you said: YOU WROTE: “You seem not to completely grasp what I am implying by dichotomy of old/new practically. The most practical thing (from the 18th century fighter's perspective) when the opponent grabs your lapel is not to stomp on his skull after you take him down; but to kill him standing up.” YOU WROTE: “… it will land you in jail in no time.” Your position therefore seems to be that the kata is TOO DEADLY for ANY of it to be used today due to modern legal considerations? You feel kata is too effective, as opposed to ineffective? Is that right? YOU ALSO WROTE: “Why waste time with some silly punches, kicks or takedowns? This is the 'language of the kata'” Is it therefore also your position that the kata contain no punches, kicks or takedowns? These methods are “silly” and not part of kata? Again, this would seem to be illogical based on the fact that we can clearly see all three in kata. There are clearly kicks, punches and takedowns. If you feel such methods are not in kata, then, to be specific, what are the motions that would seem to be kicks, are named as kicks, and the past masters said were kicks? What is happening when the leg is lifted and projected forward in your view? It is presumably more deadly that the kick it would seem to be (because you have inferred the kata is too deadly to be of use at all today without facing jail), so what is it? Same with the punches and the takedowns. When we close a fist and project it forward what is it if not a punch? What did all the masters writing in the 20th century get wrong when they thought karate had punches in it? You would seem to be saying the world's karateka are mistaken in thinking karate contains punches. That's a MASSIVE claim too. If they are not punches, what is the true function of these “punches” that makes them too deadly for modern use? When they showed throws and takedowns from kata in their books, what were those motions really if they would “kill someone standing up”? Again, why did the past masters not understand karate in the same way as you? While I feel I am inline with what the past masters said, you seem to be saying they (and me, and pretty much all other modern karateka) are entirely wrong about the nature of kata. What’s the basis for that? Why are you right and 100% of those from the past who wrote about kata wrong when they thought they contained kicks, punches and takedowns? If you know these things, and can demonstrate them as true (ie not just a baseless assertion), you are in a position to revolutionise that way karate has been practised for millions of people. YOU WROTE: “Well, I believe that if just one of your readers will be tempted to look behind the flawed "practical bunkai" idea by it, then this conversation will be very valuable ;-)” If you have a solid argument that will convince people, it would indeed be valuable. However, you are very unlikely to achieve your aim simply by making assertions and not backing them up. You will need to fulfil your burden of proof if you want the discerning reader to seriously consider your position. You can do that by addressing the above and that may help people see the validity in what you are asserting. All the best, Iain