r/karate • u/toragirl Goju-ryu • 10d ago
Question/advice Help refining thesis topic (bunkai)
I am writing a thesis/essay for my upcoming grading, and hoping this lovely group can help me refine my core question.
I am intrigued by a question posed in a class a few months ago that asked if bunkai should be unchanged, or if it should adjust based on the culture or who is studying the art. I'm just not sure how to frame this or a similar idea into a thesis vs. an opinion.
So, I'd love to hear your perspectives, your suggestions for authors or books or journals to review, or other ideas related to a thesis that explores the evolution of bunkai.
5
u/karatetherapist Shotokan 10d ago
Bunkai is analysis. Oyo is application. Bunkai finds oyo. Bunkai could be updated, I guess. Oyo changes based on what you're looking to find. We tend to find what we're looking for and miss what we're not looking for (confirmation bias).
The bunaki/oyo process is reverse engineering in one sense, and creative in another. Furthermore, creativity means we can use something effectively in ways it was never intended.
When I use a screwdriver as a prybar is that "wrong?" I can also use a screwdriver as a throwing knife, door wedge, wire holder, and a thousand other ways. The screwdriver traditionalist would deride my solutions as wrong and breaking the long standing tradition of the screwdriver's guild. Screw them! heh.
2
u/toragirl Goju-ryu 10d ago
I guess I am asking about Oyo. Should we be studying the oyo that the kata originators intended, or should we be looking for Oyo that meets the needs of 2026?
5
u/karatetherapist Shotokan 10d ago
We don't know what they intended. There is no record. Perhaps there were but they were destroyed in WWII. Who knows. Whatever applications we are taught are not connected to the creators of the kata at all. Now, if a new kata is created and that person tells us what they mean, that's different.
Everyone should invent their own personal kata that matches the threats they are most likely to encounter. If you travel a lot, you might need a few different kata. That might make a more interesting thesis.
2
u/toragirl Goju-ryu 10d ago
I'm leaning into this a bit. Now I have to wrap my head around how to make it a "thesis" vs. an "Op Ed" for my writing requirement. It's been too long since my uni days!
4
u/karatetherapist Shotokan 10d ago
Well, you have to explain why a kata is a better approach than just drills or doing scenario training to meet your needs. For me it allows for memorizing everything because good ideas fade fast. It allows you to practice alone. It also develops appreciation for standard kata and potentially improves bunkai.
If we are too learn from the old masters, and one of their methods was encapsulating learning in kata, then we should do the same. They had present threats, created kata to practice, and taught them to others. If that's the example, we should do the same. Nevertheless, there's no point losing what they already learned and taught so we keep their kata.
You could also qualify that only those who have shown an ability to master kata and do bunkai are tasked with creating a personal kata. This is shu-ha-ri.
Make your claim. Answer "because..." Qualify it.
Advanced students with experience in bunkai should create a personal kata because [your reason], provided [whatever conditions you imagine].
You could create a very mild thesis, such as: "Once students understand the principles behind traditional kata, they should build a personal kata suited to their own threat environment, because a kata is only as useful as its fit to the expected violence its practitioner is likely to face." This likely doesn't step on too many toes, but is hard to expand upon.
Or, you could be more contentious: "Kata creation was always the real curriculum in karate. The old masters didn't hand down kata to be preserved unchanged; they showed a method to be repeated. A practitioner who never builds a kata for their own threats has learned karate's artifacts but not its method." This version gives you more to argue.
3
u/Scither12 10d ago
I’ve seen multiple ways/interpretations of doing bunkai for one kata and I think it’s valid. There are many different body types where certain techniques work better or worse for so sometimes you need to slightly adjust a bunkai for it to make it work for you
1
u/toragirl Goju-ryu 10d ago
Totally agree, but when the katas were originally developed, there were fewer differences in body type - assuming that the core practitioners were all adult men of a similar age. So it's reasonable to assume that kata were developed to teach a core principle (e.g., pushing, pulling, rotation). But if the interpretations of those kata "don't work" for a modern karate student (e.g., we now have diversity of age, stature, body type and part of the world we study in), should we be trying to make our body do the oyo as taught, or should we maybe be creating new kata that teach new principles?
1
u/Scither12 10d ago
Yea of course it was only okinawans which were within a smaller range of body type. think what you are getting at is the principal of Shu-Ha-Ri. Sure the founders of styles had their bunkai but I think they were made for their own body style/preference. It’s why they created their style after all. It’s just human nature to evolve or change somthing so it fits your needs. Imagine a 5”3 Okinawan using certain original bunkai techniques against a 6”6 Dutch man? I think some might work and others might not.
We have so many different organizations now within styles that have changed bunkai and tons of knowledge was lost during WW2 as many young men who where practicing and learning karate/bunkai died in the war. It’s unfortunately a paradox of many older martial arts.
3
u/karainflex Shotokan 10d ago
Nice question with one true answer (that Funakoshi btw already answered in his biography; it's one sentence in the book, don't overlook it). Here are some questions that are worth thinking about in this context:
As kata predates karate we have now the leading question is what the use case of the martial art was back in the day. The use case of the art back then demands a certain approach to bunkai, doesn't it? Was it sport? Was it keeping tradition and scripted fighting until the practitioner gets enlightened? Who was the opponent who is played by Tori nowadays? Why did that person attack Uke? Where? Maybe somewhere where people had fun back in the days, maybe some place where certain substances were consumed? What did that person think and do? So what kind of attacks make sense for this historic Tori? In what shape was Tori and where did this historic Tori get his fighting skills from? Were there easily accessible boxing gyms? Did Tori had a permanent membership there and went there after his office job? (I am talking of date 16xx-1899 here, and asked in a way which will make the question pretty obvious; By the way, what about the region and history were it all started? What about culture, what about politics? Did something special happen back then?)
As we derived what the use case of the art was, what was the use case for kata? Who came up with it and why and did the person who came up with it knew the application behind it (I goddamn hope so, but who knows - maybe he saw the old internet video with the Star Wars kid; oh wait, that happened after 1900). Did the person who allegedly came up with it teach the same kata and application to everyone? Why or why not? Did that pioneer even know the application of a specific sequence or technique, or was that stuff even older and maybe already forgotten? If you dig around, e.g. in the Itosu book by Feldmann you get great insight on this. (And if not, the way I asked should make this obvious too) Was an absolutely perfect choreography of the kata important or when did that phenomenon start? How and when were the techniques and stances named? Are the names even important? Could they be misleading? Are the katas we have now originals? If not which was it, who changed it and why and when?
What about modern Toris? Ask yourself the same questions. And then: what about modern Toris in other locations of the world. Maybe in a certain city that shall not be named which made the so called "London Handshake" a thing? What about bunkai in that place and time? Keep it as is? Change it?
Many questions. And a pretty simple answer if one and one were put together :-)
2
u/Wooden-Glove-2384 10d ago
this is all my personal opinion formed after training since 1982
full disclaimer around 2010 I inherited by club when the Sensei said "I'm out, if you wanna run it go for it"
I switched to an MMA/kickboxing format bringing in someone who did grappling better than me
then the health club said "you ain't making enough money" and threw me out maybe 9 years later
at that point I started doing Dutch Muay Thai with a buddy of mine.
point people is I've been "out" of the karate world for that long
so take this for whatever its worth
no, I don't think bunkai should be unchanged
I think it is for the individual to decide how to use any series of movement and any interpretation is fair game if they can make it work reliably under pressure
since an individual is shaped in part by their culture they are naturally going to automatically bring in cultural influences
taking it one step further ... I don't think much, if anything, should be standardized.
not technique, not training methods and absolutely not kata
1
2
u/Eikgander Ameri-Do-Te 10d ago
Bunkai should change and can go back and forth depending on a few factors:
1) size of practitioner and opponent
2) strength of karateka and opponent
3) Experience of karateka and opponent
4) age of karateka and opponent
Why those things? Because we cannot operate in a vacuum where we assume everyone is a certain size, shape, strength and age. Your experience will also dictate how you execute or formulate your bunkai and application.
One move can and should have multiple interpretations precisely because not everyone can execute 1 specific application all the time.
So with this in mind, bunkai should be principles vs. specific interpretations and techniques. Principles allow for flexibilities to the same end, whereas prescribed movements become dogma and prevent alternate explorations.
I believe that this is inline with the idea that techniques were first created, then kata formed around these specific moves. In the sense that katas aren't meant to be directly translated into application, but serve as a repetitious reminder of what potential techniques could be.
It is my belief that practitioners should not believe in a monolithic interpretation of bunkai whether it's ryu-specific or federation/association-specific. Rather, there should be a passionate discourse amongst karateka, much like academia, that promotes learning, challenges ideas, and even debates in both theory and application.
2
u/toragirl Goju-ryu 10d ago
I think I differentiate between a different application of the same principle and multiple different principles. Yes, a strike delivered will change the target depending on the relative heights of the attacker/defender and the starting range, but it's still the same strike.
My interest in this topic is that there has been over the years a lot of BS bunkai propogated as fact, which has led to a lot of (misplaced) hate on standardized kata in karate. I'm loving the swing back to fundamental biomechanics, which is putting realism back into the bunkai being taught.
But I am curious to think about if and how the culture (e.g., North American vs. Asian) that we study in also impacts our interpretation of principles, and how we move our understanding forward while respecting our roots.
Thanks for your input!
Any resources that you lean on?
2
u/Eikgander Ameri-Do-Te 10d ago
I agree with you from the tsuki and geri perspective. The differentiation comes in other things like, is that a sweep, a throw, or grab and twist, or....?
I think an example is that, kansetsu geri is a kansetsu geri BUT, depending on how it's taught it can be either one that's a quick kick to the knee, or a stomp and follow down to the ground. If you know what I mean?
I think your argument advanced about hate towards standardized kata is a valid one, but I think it's less to do with karate as an art and more to do with how it's evolving into a sport. WKF's homologation of katas and kumite has created a "standard" for competitions and sport. It is less about application and more about a demonstration of athleticism and show. Don't get me wrong, I don't besmirch competition karateka as I also compete in competitions. However, competitions, even in kumite, are not real life. It’s a sport.
So what you're proffering is the return of application and karate being budo, with a focus on like you said biomechanics and functional forms (katas). You can see the difference in old Okinawa masters and their katas vs. the newer-age katas performed for competition. The older katas were practical, lower more realistic kicks, dachis that weren't exaggerated, and can generate power more easily than modern stances, etc. I think this is sound but you're going to get very strong reactions because the field is not ready for that type of distinction yet.
We have to remember that the modern techniques/stances look great, sharp, etc. because they are trained to be like that... as a sport, with a whole host of modern athletic training supports (calisthenics, weights, sport medicine, sport nutrition, etc.) the two are no longer the same. They're two different paths to different goals.
In terms of references? No. I don't think there are many academic discussions on this niche topic, but I think we should totally start building a publication on these discourses. It helps with learning and professional development.
I think you may be able to draw some inspiration from Patrick McCarthy Shihan and his various works and interpretations on the Bubishi.
2
u/toragirl Goju-ryu 10d ago
Yes, I definitely have been reviewing my copy of the Bubushi in this research!
2
u/shinoya7 10d ago
There’s no such thing as unchanged bunkai. Ask 10 people the application of one move or section in a kata and you’ll get 10 answers. The first move MIGHT be the same, but after that it can be whatever the person either wants or is capable of. The only thing that shouldn’t change or be forgotten is if there’s a principle or concept attached to that segment.
1
u/Fearfadesfast 10d ago
Is this specifically for karate forms? What styles?
What do you mean by should?
1
u/toragirl Goju-ryu 10d ago edited 10d ago
I'm a student of (Japanese lineage) Goju-ryu.
I think my point of view is that we can acknowledge that the game of 'telephone' happened as karate came from Okinawa to Japan and then through the US Forces to the US and Canada, and maybe left some fundamental lessons behind. I have seen some bad bunkai being taught (e.g., it doesn't hold up to pressure testing or its connection to the kata seems tenuous) at times.
I personally think that bunkai principles are core, and perhaps there is only one principle interpretation. But how does that contrast with the popular idea of Omote/Ura/Honto 'levels' of bunkai?
1
u/Fearfadesfast 8d ago
So a lot of that has to depend on what style you are limiting the topic to. And what you mean by “should”.
Should for whose benefit?
IMO funokoshi should not have taken his katas it to Japan. Korea shouldn’t have renamed and modified karate, there shouldn’t be governing bodies or national interests, and Kata should be personalized to the student.
But with all those shoulds it’s a cluster-cuss.
1
u/LanternDojo 10d ago
I don’t know how helpful this will be, but I think you have more fundamental questions here –
What came first, the kata or the bunkai?
If the kata came first, then it seems fair to say that any bunkai that fits the movement of the kata is acceptable.
But if the kata were constructed from collections of self-defense movements (that is, sequences of bunkai)… then shouldn’t there be a fixed set of bunkai at the core of every kata?
So maybe an initial topic should be – what is kata?
I believe in the core bunkai theory and I think one of our main objectives in studying Okinawan karate is to uncover or decipher these applications. I’ve written some blog posts on this, but my main inspiration has been Giles Hopkins Sensei. His books and especially his old blog: Goju-ryu blog
This seems to be a minority opinion in karate so who knows what your own teacher’s will make of it.
1
u/toragirl Goju-ryu 10d ago
I think it is well established that the katas came to teach the principles. I enjoyed Giles Hopkins Sensei's books, but I was a little skeptical when he started to lean very heavily into nearly every bunkai being an attack or control of the opponent's head. What do you feel about that?
1
u/LanternDojo 9d ago
Haha that was the part that convinced me most! If you are unarmed, the head and neck are going to be the most effective targets. Ditto if you are attacked by someone larger, younger, more fit, etc. What took me some time to digest was just how… brutal that is... but then isn’t that what you need to do in a time before hospitals and police? You can't risk an injury to yourself and you're mostly on your own. And isn’t that worth preserving in these complicated kata forms? There’s a logic to it that appeals to me.
Anyway, to your first sentence about kata teaching principles. I agree, and I think that answers your original question. If the kata teach these fundamental rules, then are those actually changing between cultures or specific karate-ka? Something like get off the line of attack is as true for a German as an Okinawan.
1
u/WastelandKarateka Shorin-Ryu & KishimotoDi 10d ago
Bunkai is the name of a process. Disassembly and analysis, specifically of kata. By its very nature, it changes depending on who is doing it. As such, the applications change, as well. Interestingly, I just published an article that discusses something along those lines.
https://ilpracticalkarate.com/2026/09/kata-dead-or-alive.html
2
u/toragirl Goju-ryu 10d ago
This is amazing! You've covered a lot of what I have been contemplating!
1
u/Odd-Engineering-7959 4d ago
My personal opinion is that there are aspects of kata and bunkai that should remain unchanged, and others that need to be changed/updated/adapted to accommodate new understanding, to suit the practitioner or to adapt to volatile conditions.
Traditional katas and bunkai should remain unchanged and taught as-is as a basic/fundamental understanding as part of official curriculum and for grading purposes. This ensures a baseline consistency in terms of quality and also helps preserve the cultural and historical legacy of the ryu or style.
But practitioners should NOT stick to this basic/baseline understanding for the rest of their life. Past their grading, they ought to reevaluate their understanding, and readapt the application of katas to suit their own physique, different scenarios as well as lessons they may have picked up from other martial arts.
9
u/EzmareldaBurns 10d ago
I think the argument would be are you trying to preserve karate as a living historical document or to maintain the spirit of karate as a ultilatarian civil self defence system, answer that question and justify your answer the answer to your bunkai question presents itself.
I'm 100% on the ultilatarian side. The old masters innovated and so should we. That is not to say we dispense with tradition and history but we should always critically analyse what purpose does it serve us here and now.
Some bunkai I have been taught was total bolocks passed down by uncritical minds others work well in the original context eg grabbing the top of the head because in the time of it's origins topknots were common, we can adapt that to an ear grab or wrapping the neck possibly but if we keep it as it was it becomes useless.