This was my favorite Kata for decades and I was lucky that I learned it in about 1970 from a guy who considered it HIS favorite Kata so he had some in depth knowledge of and feeling for the Kata. I wasn’t just learning the movements.
i love this video. i love pinan shodan, or pinan nidan in my system (though i have no clue why we switched the order), but am nost often disappointed by the bunkai i see so many people teach. i see many people teach that the first movement is a guard against a high kick, that the turn is to chop and kick someone rushing you from behind, that the spear hand is designed to spear through the abdomen and some how pull his guts out, the, for lack of better terminology, fancy block taht happen after the double knife hands is to block a kick and trap it, the double forearm block is to stop a big punch, then ignore it to spin a block a kick and two high strike. i try to show these people that these are not practical or realistic and in many cases not effective and i told i shouldnt question i should just do it or i get the lame excuse of well i this is what i was told and didnt question it. i love this kata and it has so much to offer and can be used to set up locks and throws and defend against graps and attempted locks but the karate people i have met are against those ideas for the "cooler" looking stuff.
Agree with you, sir--about the change in kata order, Pinan Shodan was first many years ago--the osensei decided that Pinan Nidan was more basic and began teaching it first.
The order was changed when karate stopped teaching the bunkai. Pinan Shodan has all the necessary information for defence against violent attack. It's an introduction to self protection and encapsulates all the basic principles. The other Pinan kata show alternatives and variations. Heian Shodan, however is easier to learn from a performance point of view, and when performance is all you're doing, it makes sense to teach it first.
This is so frustrating... Not the lesson or explanation - they are great. The fact that to get to the black belt in most of Karate styles, people "learn" the katas, all of them, even compete showing the beautiful execution of the elements but still doing it as a serious of moves against bunch of opponents coming from various directions. That's frustrating. Watch any team kata in any style on any competition. And nobody even tries to explain the kata that way or practice it. What is the sense in learning all 5 pinans if even on the brown/black belt level you have no idea what it actually teaches you, and you still fighting with opponent from your left, then from the right, then from the back than from your front wandering why all these "imaginary idiots" are waiting for their turn in that specific order to attack. And than these people teach others and others and others.... It's like a never-ending chain of nonsense. This is just sad.
Enemy is definitely the right word. The word “opponent” means, “someone who competes with or opposes another in a contest, game, or argument.” We don’t have an “opponent” in self-protection. Using the word invokes connotations of a “fight” or similar consensual exchange. An opponent is an equal in a fight that we both agree to participate in. In self-protection, we are talking about a criminal who is seeking to harm me and / or my loved ones in a situation I do not consent to. They are not an “opponent”, they are most definitely my enemy. I use the word deliberately and carefully in order to engender the right mindset and to differentiate between consensual fighting and non-consensual violence.
Enemy is deffo the wrong terminology to use, I get your point and explanation but your enemy does not wear a gi or belt. Your enemy might be a friend of yours and you have just fallen out and end up fighting each other then shake hands and have a beer afterwards?? If your demonstrating street defence wear civilian clothes. Then it becomes a self defence class defending against 'an enemy' not Karate where your demonstrating kata and its practical application. 'Uke' the person who is receiving the technique after initiating the attack i.e. your opponent is the correct or traditional term in a karate session in a Dojo but I'm sure you know all this anyway..... Dont mean to split hairs but I agree with Marco... Good video though. Thanks!
Quote: “Enemy is deffo the wrong terminology to use, I get your point and explanation but your enemy does not wear a gi or belt … If your demonstrating street defence wear civilian clothes. Then it becomes a self-defence class defending against 'an enemy' not Karate where your demonstrating kata and its practical application.” I disagree that the clothing makes any difference. If I’m drilling for self-defence then I’m training to deal with an “enemy” for the aforementioned reasons. An “opponent” is defined as, “someone who competes with or opposes another in a contest, game, or argument.” That’s not what we are talking about here. It’s not a “contest” or a “game” (where my aim is to “win”). There’s way too much confusion around what “self-protection” actually is without potentially clumsy terminology adding to the confusion. I will work with “training partners” so I can deal with “enemies”. In a consensual l fight, I have an “opponent”. Self-defence is not consensual so it’s definitely the wrong term; both linguistically and practical. Quote: “Uke the person who is receiving the technique after initiating the attack i.e. your opponent is the correct or traditional term in a karate session in a Dojo” They are only my “opponent” if we are fighting each other, with us both consenting, and both of use are seeking to win that fight. I feel it’s only the correct term in that context. If I’m training self-defence (and that’s what kata is all about) then I don’t consent and I’m not seeking to win. I’m seeking to keep myself safe. Very different objectives. When training for self-protection my “training partner” is playing the role of my “enemy” and I feel it is right that we refer to them as such so that the drill and the objective don’t get confused (as so often happens) i.e. the drill is to enable me to escape from enemies in reality (objective); not escape from training partners in the dojo (drill / training method). I also see problems with your definition of “uke” too because we need to encourage a dominating mindset when violence can be avoided. The “after initiating an attack” gives the enemy the advantage. They get to initiate. They may be the recipient of the technique, but it is better that the initiative remains with us through pre-emptive and proactive action. All the past masters would advise against letting the enemy gain the upper hand. They understood the need to be proactive when others have brought their unprovoked violence to our door: “When faced with someone who disrupts the peace or who will do one harm, one is as a warrior in battle, and so it only stands to reason that one should seize the initiative and pre-empt the enemy’s use of violence. Such action in no way goes against the precept of ‘no first attack’ …the expression ‘karate ni sente nashi’ [no first attack in karate] should be properly understood to mean that the karateka must never take a hostile attitude, or be the cause of a violent incident; he or she should always have the virtues of calmness, prudence and humility in dealing with others.” - Kenwa Mabuni “There is a saying ‘no first attack in karate’ …To be sure, it is not the budo [martial art] spirit to train for the purpose of striking others without good reason. I assume that you already understand that in karate one's primary goal must be the training of mind and body… But when a situation can't be avoided and the enemy is intent on doing you serious harm, you must fight ferociously. When one does fight, taking control of the enemy is vital, and one must take that control with the very first move. Therefore, in a fight one must attack first. It is very important to remember this.” - Choki Motobu Quote: “Your enemy might be a friend of yours and you have just fallen out and end up fighting each other then shake hands and have a beer afterwards??” They would not be my “enemy”. They are my friend having a bad day. The key (practically, legally and ethically) is to have a very high threshold for violence. We simply don’t punch people because we’ve “fallen out”. Ever. If a friend is getting angry then we should listen, show compassion, show understanding and try to placate. If they continue to get aggressive, then we walk away or run away. Punches can kill. We should never throw them unless our safety genuinely depends upon us doing so. Morally and legally we need to know there was no other option. If someone wants to inflict serious harm upon us and our loved ones, then they are automatically an “enemy”. If they are not intent on inflicting harm then they are neither an enemy nor do they need struck. We should only use physical force if we genuinely NEED to. There are better ways to deal with such situations that don’t involve us risking the health of our friends and our own liberty. I appreciate you putting forth your view, but I am steadfast in mine. In the past, I did use the word “opponent” in the way you and Marky describe, but I saw the confusion it causes around issues where confusion can ruin lives. Therefore, I stopped and am now extremely careful with my terminology. We need to be extremely careful not to put our students in physical danger and legal hot water through any confusion. We “fight” our “opponents”. We “keep ourselves and our loved ones safe” from our “enemies”. All of those words and phrases require careful consideration. There’s a lot more on this in this article: www.iainabernethy.co.uk/article/problems-street-fighting Anyhow, agree or disagree, I hope you and other readers can see this was not an off the cuff turn of phrase for me, but something I have thought about long and hard. I know that this terminology gets the results I want for my students. They try and outfight their opponents in the dojo and enjoy it greatly (“fighting”). They also drill keeping themselves safe from enemies (“self-protection”). We include awareness, avoidance and de-escalation so they have a range of options. They have a high tolerance for violence and understand that it’s a last resort. They know the law, and know that in the instance of last resort the law is on their side because the force is genuinely needed. They train to act ferociously and seize the initiative, and to flee when it is possible (which is smart tactically and ensures the force used is always reasonable as defined by law). The terminology I use supports and ensures these things so it’s not something I will move away from at this stage. If you read the above quotes (and the others like them) you can also see it’s very traditional too. All the best, Iain
@@nmchugh1 You’re wrong. You’re thinking of Karate as a fighting sport not as an art of war. Kata application is about self defense, a true Karateka will have already have done everything and anything possible to avoid confrontation. If the attacker still brings violence then that person is to be considered a true enemy.
This was my favorite Kata for decades and I was lucky that I learned it in about 1970 from a guy who considered it HIS favorite Kata so he had some in depth knowledge of and feeling for the Kata. I wasn’t just learning the movements.
i love this video. i love pinan shodan, or pinan nidan in my system (though i have no clue why we switched the order), but am nost often disappointed by the bunkai i see so many people teach. i see many people teach that the first movement is a guard against a high kick, that the turn is to chop and kick someone rushing you from behind, that the spear hand is designed to spear through the abdomen and some how pull his guts out, the, for lack of better terminology, fancy block taht happen after the double knife hands is to block a kick and trap it, the double forearm block is to stop a big punch, then ignore it to spin a block a kick and two high strike. i try to show these people that these are not practical or realistic and in many cases not effective and i told i shouldnt question i should just do it or i get the lame excuse of well i this is what i was told and didnt question it. i love this kata and it has so much to offer and can be used to set up locks and throws and defend against graps and attempted locks but the karate people i have met are against those ideas for the "cooler" looking stuff.
Agree with you, sir--about the change in kata order, Pinan Shodan was first many years ago--the osensei decided that Pinan Nidan was more basic and began teaching it first.
Find new karate people 😀😀 and don't ever be told you can't do something. Exploration is the key to good application
@@darrelbedford6122 I'm no longer at that school
The order was changed when karate stopped teaching the bunkai. Pinan Shodan has all the necessary information for defence against violent attack. It's an introduction to self protection and encapsulates all the basic principles. The other Pinan kata show alternatives and variations.
Heian Shodan, however is easier to learn from a performance point of view, and when performance is all you're doing, it makes sense to teach it first.
I love how you cited the source for the bunkai of this move. I also read that, but didn't put it together like you did.
Excellent seminar....I wish It never ends =)
Sensei Iain is a great teacher 🥋
As normal, grand stuff, thanks Iain.
Really wish I could have been there for this one!
this is a great bunkai!
Very Nice Tricks
Good stuff
Awesome!
Great stuff.
Is it just me, (from what I can see) but have got better philosophically as well as physically?
This is so frustrating... Not the lesson or explanation - they are great. The fact that to get to the black belt in most of Karate styles, people "learn" the katas, all of them, even compete showing the beautiful execution of the elements but still doing it as a serious of moves against bunch of opponents coming from various directions. That's frustrating. Watch any team kata in any style on any competition. And nobody even tries to explain the kata that way or practice it. What is the sense in learning all 5 pinans if even on the brown/black belt level you have no idea what it actually teaches you, and you still fighting with opponent from your left, then from the right, then from the back than from your front wandering why all these "imaginary idiots" are waiting for their turn in that specific order to attack. And than these people teach others and others and others.... It's like a never-ending chain of nonsense. This is just sad.
I gave it a high score.
Thumb down for calling your opponent enemy.
Enemy is definitely the right word. The word “opponent” means, “someone who competes with or opposes another in a contest, game, or argument.” We don’t have an “opponent” in self-protection. Using the word invokes connotations of a “fight” or similar consensual exchange. An opponent is an equal in a fight that we both agree to participate in. In self-protection, we are talking about a criminal who is seeking to harm me and / or my loved ones in a situation I do not consent to. They are not an “opponent”, they are most definitely my enemy. I use the word deliberately and carefully in order to engender the right mindset and to differentiate between consensual fighting and non-consensual violence.
Enemy is deffo the wrong terminology to use, I get your point and explanation but your enemy does not wear a gi or belt. Your enemy might be a friend of yours and you have just fallen out and end up fighting each other then shake hands and have a beer afterwards?? If your demonstrating street defence wear civilian clothes. Then it becomes a self defence class defending against 'an enemy' not Karate where your demonstrating kata and its practical application. 'Uke' the person who is receiving the technique after initiating the attack i.e. your opponent is the correct or traditional term in a karate session in a Dojo but I'm sure you know all this anyway..... Dont mean to split hairs but I agree with Marco... Good video though. Thanks!
Quote: “Enemy is deffo the wrong terminology to use, I get your point and explanation but your enemy does not wear a gi or belt … If your demonstrating street defence wear civilian clothes. Then it becomes a self-defence class defending against 'an enemy' not Karate where your demonstrating kata and its practical application.”
I disagree that the clothing makes any difference. If I’m drilling for self-defence then I’m training to deal with an “enemy” for the aforementioned reasons. An “opponent” is defined as, “someone who competes with or opposes another in a contest, game, or argument.” That’s not what we are talking about here. It’s not a “contest” or a “game” (where my aim is to “win”). There’s way too much confusion around what “self-protection” actually is without potentially clumsy terminology adding to the confusion. I will work with “training partners” so I can deal with “enemies”. In a consensual l fight, I have an “opponent”. Self-defence is not consensual so it’s definitely the wrong term; both linguistically and practical.
Quote: “Uke the person who is receiving the technique after initiating the attack i.e. your opponent is the correct or traditional term in a karate session in a Dojo”
They are only my “opponent” if we are fighting each other, with us both consenting, and both of use are seeking to win that fight. I feel it’s only the correct term in that context.
If I’m training self-defence (and that’s what kata is all about) then I don’t consent and I’m not seeking to win. I’m seeking to keep myself safe. Very different objectives.
When training for self-protection my “training partner” is playing the role of my “enemy” and I feel it is right that we refer to them as such so that the drill and the objective don’t get confused (as so often happens) i.e. the drill is to enable me to escape from enemies in reality (objective); not escape from training partners in the dojo (drill / training method).
I also see problems with your definition of “uke” too because we need to encourage a dominating mindset when violence can be avoided. The “after initiating an attack” gives the enemy the advantage. They get to initiate. They may be the recipient of the technique, but it is better that the initiative remains with us through pre-emptive and proactive action. All the past masters would advise against letting the enemy gain the upper hand. They understood the need to be proactive when others have brought their unprovoked violence to our door:
“When faced with someone who disrupts the peace or who will do one harm, one is as a warrior in battle, and so it only stands to reason that one should seize the initiative and pre-empt the enemy’s use of violence. Such action in no way goes against the precept of ‘no first attack’ …the expression ‘karate ni sente nashi’ [no first attack in karate] should be properly understood to mean that the karateka must never take a hostile attitude, or be the cause of a violent incident; he or she should always have the virtues of calmness, prudence and humility in dealing with others.” - Kenwa Mabuni
“There is a saying ‘no first attack in karate’ …To be sure, it is not the budo [martial art] spirit to train for the purpose of striking others without good reason. I assume that you already understand that in karate one's primary goal must be the training of mind and body… But when a situation can't be avoided and the enemy is intent on doing you serious harm, you must fight ferociously. When one does fight, taking control of the enemy is vital, and one must take that control with the very first move. Therefore, in a fight one must attack first. It is very important to remember this.” - Choki Motobu
Quote: “Your enemy might be a friend of yours and you have just fallen out and end up fighting each other then shake hands and have a beer afterwards??”
They would not be my “enemy”. They are my friend having a bad day. The key (practically, legally and ethically) is to have a very high threshold for violence. We simply don’t punch people because we’ve “fallen out”. Ever.
If a friend is getting angry then we should listen, show compassion, show understanding and try to placate. If they continue to get aggressive, then we walk away or run away. Punches can kill. We should never throw them unless our safety genuinely depends upon us doing so. Morally and legally we need to know there was no other option. If someone wants to inflict serious harm upon us and our loved ones, then they are automatically an “enemy”. If they are not intent on inflicting harm then they are neither an enemy nor do they need struck. We should only use physical force if we genuinely NEED to. There are better ways to deal with such situations that don’t involve us risking the health of our friends and our own liberty.
I appreciate you putting forth your view, but I am steadfast in mine. In the past, I did use the word “opponent” in the way you and Marky describe, but I saw the confusion it causes around issues where confusion can ruin lives. Therefore, I stopped and am now extremely careful with my terminology. We need to be extremely careful not to put our students in physical danger and legal hot water through any confusion. We “fight” our “opponents”. We “keep ourselves and our loved ones safe” from our “enemies”. All of those words and phrases require careful consideration.
There’s a lot more on this in this article: www.iainabernethy.co.uk/article/problems-street-fighting
Anyhow, agree or disagree, I hope you and other readers can see this was not an off the cuff turn of phrase for me, but something I have thought about long and hard. I know that this terminology gets the results I want for my students. They try and outfight their opponents in the dojo and enjoy it greatly (“fighting”). They also drill keeping themselves safe from enemies (“self-protection”). We include awareness, avoidance and de-escalation so they have a range of options. They have a high tolerance for violence and understand that it’s a last resort. They know the law, and know that in the instance of last resort the law is on their side because the force is genuinely needed. They train to act ferociously and seize the initiative, and to flee when it is possible (which is smart tactically and ensures the force used is always reasonable as defined by law). The terminology I use supports and ensures these things so it’s not something I will move away from at this stage. If you read the above quotes (and the others like them) you can also see it’s very traditional too.
All the best,
Iain
THAT'S what you got out of this?
@@nmchugh1 You’re wrong. You’re thinking of Karate as a fighting sport not as an art of war. Kata application is about self defense, a true Karateka will have already have done everything and anything possible to avoid confrontation. If the attacker still brings violence then that person is to be considered a true enemy.
Genius