Kenwa Mabuni was Right!
Published:
By Spencer Sensei
In the AOKK we take seriously our philosophy of training to fight in all three ranges of personal combat. You know this if you read my paper “Is Your Karate Complete?” The theory of the three ranges of karate, I thought was an original concept born out of decades of study. The truth is what we believed to be our new way was simply a restating of the old way of karate. Somewhere throwing techniques, locks, chokes, and mat techniques became secondary or nonexistent. With the advent of MMA (mixed martial arts), progressive instructors began to include naga-waza (throwing techniques) and tatami-waza (mat techniques) to their curriculum in support of their atemi-waza (striking). This came after witnessing the effectiveness of those techniques in competition. Yes, MMA is a sport and not a self-defense system because it has rules but do not throw the baby out with the bath water. From this competition we discovered there are weaknesses in our traditional karate, and the innovative instructors began to compensate for those perceived weaknesses. I believe the philosophy of the three ranges of fighting is key to making a complete fighter, and admittedly I thought that it was an original concept until I read a statement by Kenwa Mabuni. Mabuni sensei is a karate grandmaster that died in 1952, or two years before I was born. Mabuni sensei said, “The karate that has spread to Japan is incomplete. Those who believe that karate consists only of kicks and punches and think throws and joint locks are exclusive to judo or jujitsu, have been misinformed. We should have an open mind and strive to study the complete art.” I read this and realized the idea I have been promoting since the earl nineties is not a new concept, but one that was established long ago. Mabuni sensei’s statement supports the philosophy of training in all three ranges of personal combat, and by making the statement, his implication was that somewhere in the past we lost a portion of our art.
When I was child, my father taught me boxing and rudimentary judo, so when I discovered karate, it was simply a natural transition, or a way to add more weapons to my arsenal. My family moved many times while I was growing up and with almost every move, I found myself in a physical altercation. It seemed like there was one or two jerks everywhere we moved. Although, the only common denominator was me… I’m certain that I had nothing to do with drawing out the worst in others. My early training served me well most of the time but not always because some of my opponents were quicker and stronger. Eventually, I grew up… well physically and left home. In my first altercations as an adult, I was knocked to the ground, and that was a position for which my training had not prepared me. Pop never taught me mat technique just punching and throwing. This was the early seventies, and I got my first taste of the “Ground and Pound” one night in a parking lot. My opponent was a former wrestler, and instead of throwing punches he quickly took me to the ground and once on the ground he began raining down blows. Afterwards, while I was pulling my lips out from between my teeth, I realized my training was not complete, so I began my quest to obtain better weapons.
In the seventies, as an adult, I began my karate training, I studied Shotokan a traditional Japanese style of karate. It emphasized punching, kicking, and kata. It also included sparring just to keep the young guys interested, yet we used very different techniques, during our sparring, opposed to those used when we drilled and practiced in class. It appeared that our class drills only purpose was to make our kata better, yet our sparring incorporated boxing techniques coupled with the traditional kicks. The question was how did kata improve my ability to defend myself? This caused a bit of cognitive dissonance. The formality of class wouldn’t allow any questioning of the instructor, so in my heart I was not sure exactly why we focused on kata or why we were doing what we were doing as we mimicked the form’s movements. I also wondered just how effective this would be in a real confrontation. Karate was supposed to turn you into a superhuman fighting machine, so I was on board at my first opportunity to train, but after a few months I began to believe something was missing. I had never heard the name Kenwa Mabuni, nor read his statement, and I wish that I had.
On my karate quest, I went from Japanese karate to Okinawan karate to Korean karate, and back to Okinawan karate. In most ways they were homogeneous. I earned a black belt in Korean karate before trying Okinawan karate once again. The style was called Isshin-ryu. Isshin-ryu karate kicked to the legs. This was a revolutionary concept. All the other styles kicks were above the waist or higher. Kicking to the legs and punching to the face made sense. At last, I was fighting from head to toe but not in all ranges of personal combat. There was still something missing. Eventually, my first Isshin-ryu instructor introduced me to the concept of the three ranges of fighting. He also emphasized the elbow and knee strikes found in Muay-Thai (kickboxing). To flesh out my education, in the three ranges of fighting, I began to train in kickboxing, jujitsu, and eventually mat technique. The goal was to be able to defend myself against an attacker in any arena. Once the UFC (Ultimate Fighting Championships) came along it looked like a vindication of my first instructor’s philosophy, and he eventually went on to train a few UFC fighters with some success. My first instructor and I parted ways in the mid-nineties, but the concepts I learned while training with him stuck. When I departed, I believed completely in the three ranges of fighting philosophy. Mabuni sensei would have been pleased.
Okay let’s take a trip down the rabbit hole. You’re probably wondering what are the three ranges of fighting? Range one is long distance. In this range we honed our ability to strike at length with our legs and arms. Remember the old karate adage, “Legs are longer and stronger.” We also learned how to move in and out of the circle of combat to deliver punches at length. In range-two, or close fighting, we learned body punches, standing locks, chokes, throws, head-butts, elbow strikes, and knees. Lastly, in range three we learned ground techniques. Our goal is not to take the fight to the ground, but if it happens you must understand how to protect yourself. In the AOKK we teach stand-up fighting techniques from the very start of the student’s training. When the student is proficient in this range we move to the next range and so on until all three ranges of fighting are understood. We start with standing techniques first because most fights start while the opponents are on their feet. Well… that’s the three ranges of personal combat.
Once I departed from my first instructor, I began to pursue the meaning behind the movements in kata. I began collecting bunkai (dissection of kata) from other black-belts like a child that collects insects. I questioned black belts across styles and systems. The goal was to tease out the self-defense hidden inside kata. What I found was there is no smoking gun. No one could definitively say this is what the movement means, yet I received countless interpretations, from them, for the same series of techniques. My second Isshin-ryu instructor also emphasized kata in our training, and he too had a few thoughts on the three ranges of personal combat and how it applied to bunkai. Both of my Isshin-ryu instructors were opened to questioning and my second instructor told me once that kata mostly consisted of range-two fighting or standing jujitsu and throws. You must understand the counterattacks in kata are a response to a specific type of assault. Bunkai is a response situational attack. You are not attacking, you’re being attacked. The bunkai may or may not mitigate the assault, but it gives you a starting point. Once you find yourself in a neutral position by escaping an initial attack, you can then go on the offensive if you choose to do so. Kata is mainly reactive while kumite is proactive. It is most important to practice the self-defense found within kata with a partner, but first you must know the self-defense. Solo practice of kata reinforces the counterattack, but only if you’re focused and can visualize your opponent. Practice these techniques long enough and your reaction will happen without thought. This reaction without thought gives you an edge. Remember not all bunkai end with a stopping blow or throw. In some instances, the bunkai is designed to allow you to move to a neutral position where you must decide your next course of action. In the real world there are no one punch kills. From the neutral position you decide to go or not to go on the offensive. Free fighting is a fluid event. During an assault, you may move in and out of the self-defense found in your forms. You may go from the defensive to the offensive or from kata to kumite and back.
Mabuni sensei saw and didn’t like the superficial way karate was being instructed in his time. A sSuperficial understanding of karate can get you hurt. Obviously, there are kicks, blocks, and punches within the bunkai of every form, but these are only a means for getting inside your opponent’s defense, so you can grasp and control, lock, choke, or throw the adversary. When you began looking inside the katas for evidence of situational self-defense, the once odd and mindless movements of the form began to generate counterattacks beyond the superficial blocking, striking, and kicking.
My second instructor died in 2011, and I miss our long and involved conversations on the martial arts. We often talked about bunkai. Since his passing our yudansha has focused on blending the three ranges of fighting into our curriculum, and we continue the exploration of the self-defense found in the confines of our forms. The student performs kata countless times during their training to reinforce these counterattacks, but if you do not have an understanding of what you’re doing then kata may as well be some kind of folk dance. In my opinion kata without bunkai has no meaning, and so it would have no purpose it a student’s education.
Mabuni’s statement may be a slap in the face of the local martial arts school, but it should be a wake-up call to expand our karate technique. We may never know why locks, chokes, and throws faded from the curriculum of the early instructors. It could simply be that this type of training requires special equipment like tatami (mats). Eventually, judo would move away from atemi-waza (striking) and karate would move away from naga-waza (throwing) until both became distinct art forms. Funakoshi sensei and Kano sensei were acquaintances. If they’re like most martial arts instructors, they must have shared their thoughts on technique with each other, so why did range-two techniques disappear from Japanese karate and prompt Mabuni sensei’s remarks. Why did bunkai die? We may never know the answer to those riddles, but the AOKK is determined to reinstate range-two techniques into its interpretation of bunkai. The AOKK chooses to listen to Mabuni sensei’s warning. The question is will other karateka?
I guess Mabuni was right. Karate is more than kicking and punching. It must contain locks, chokes, throws, knees, elbows, and mat technique to be complete. Many of these techniques are found in kata. To find the truth within kata we must open our minds. American karate is a business. This business is supported by teaching children, so the range of techniques we may teach is limited. Too many of these students leave the dojo believing that they have a complete system of self-defense and they do not. Too many times black-belts loose altercations to untrained assailants because their training was incomplete, and they got surprised. Mabuni sensei was right and close-range techniques must be added to all systems if we are to keep karate relevant in our modern age.