I've been studying Kobudo far too long to be where I'm at now. In the empty hand arts I feel much more confident. Not just about abilities but conceptually. I may not be expert at doing everything but I can understand and to some extent explain and relate most things in empty hand kata. Kata being the text book for our style, style being the "stylized" skeleton of old and effective fighting methods.
On the other hand, I have all these Kobudo kata. Same analogies apply. Text books of a style and so on. Except that I haven't really 'de-coded' much good information from them. Kobudo kata are older (that's one theory anyhow) and there is less written about them, especially post 1920. I know less about the historical use of the armed kata than the unarmed but they were obviously recorded fighting methods. You don't pickup an obvious weapon and memorize useless movements, do you? So, let's assume a few things.
Assumption 1: Kata are stylized, weapons or not.
Kata are made up of specific Kihon, movements that are stylized building blocks arranged in a sequence. The way you actually DO a side strike with a 6 ft. bo may look slightly different than the way you SHOW a side strike in kata. All the pieces are in there but in a ritualized manner. This is the beginning of understanding kata. Learning to read these kihon. Then little clues that start to show up over and over such as, 'the reception is happening at the halfway point of the movement, not the terminal point'. They make some handy rules when looking for applications. I know this is the case and I understand it because of the work I've done with empty hand kata. I would expect it to carry over to weapons.
Assumption 2: Violence and the application of violence today is very similar or identical to violence in olden days of China/Okinawa.
We may be several hundred years (or less) later in history and living in a different culture but I don't think there has been any great advancements in the skill of using physical violence for personal gain. In other words, people still hit people in much the same ways, though we have more technology now to provide other tools. Still, unless there is some long-lost technology that we can't relate to from ancient China, it's generally what it appears to be. I have a stick, I will use it to hurt you because it is a more effective way to do damage.
Now, the real question starts to show. Who's methods are we practicing. It is important to consider because we need to know how they used the skills we are trying to uncover. If my Bo kata is really a recording of a mounted riders spear movements then I need to get a horse to make any sense of it. If it is a recording of techniques used by law enforcement/military of the day then I have a context to work from.
Assumption 3: These movements are meant to be done to someone, not with them.
The whole basis of Kobudo being a combat art is that we are learning combative skills. You can argue that they are irrelevant in this time period but that is beyond the scope of this discussion. The fact remains that there is or at least once was a martial application for every movement in the kata. From people who were there and felt it was good enough to record to memory. So, applications should at least allow you to achieve the initiative and do damage with the help of the weapon(s).
Assumption 4: I am assuming a similar strategy to empty hand strategy. That being, Gain iniatiative, Control (possibly with damage) to maintain and capitalize iniatiave, create space and exit or disengage safely. This assumption may be innacurate but it is what I'm familliar with and can relate to. I know it and it seems sound. I also really like the idea the it serves the same goals wether I am armed or unarmed. The only real catch I can see here is the possibility that there is a more militaristic strategy (maintain iniatiative and kill bad guy) or a restraint strategy (gain iniative and subdue for arrest). I imagine the first 1-2 stages are very similar either way.
I'm sure there are numerous other assumptions but those are the ones that come to mind right now. Let's look at the facts.
I have a weapon. This only gives us half of the picture. I'm using it against who...armed with what? Applications would vary greatly against an unarmed opponent than an armored, opponent with a spear, or sword, or ...well, it varies.
Through research I have started to not eliminate but reduce the likely-hood of certain variables. I do not think this stuff was meant to be used by peasants to fight off evil Samurai. It makes a cool story but it's not realistic or supported by history. The most likely origins I've been able to trace out are that the practice of what we know as Kobudo was primarily a law enforcement or guard (as in royal protection) skill. Most likely originating in China (if not earlier) and like everything else making it's way through Okinawa. I'm not entirely sure that these forms were ever practiced in a practical way in Okinawa. This would help explain why nobody passed on any of the uses of these weapons.
Just some thoughts. I'm starting to ramble now. Hope some of it makes sense. My wife was talking to me as I wrote so it's probably just a mess of words. More to come...
No comments:
Post a Comment