If we stick to the strictest sense of martial art as the means of study of the fight, we cannot base ourselves on the opinion or on the particular opinion, but on the search and the elucidation of efficiency through the tools that science gives us.
That is to say, that the martial art, the fight, the combat or the meaning of the kata is not subject to what one wants to do (bunkai), but rather, based on the search for efficiency, one is subordinated to what science show with your methods what is the most efficient. Then it will be necessary to see who can or cannot, by ability, access said methods.
It is as the old analogy of the black cat in the dark room explains. It is a recurring and practical analogy that tries to explain and compare the attitudes of a philosopher, a metaphysician, a theologian and a scientist when it comes to understanding the world. Doing philosophy is like being in a dark room looking for a black cat. Doing metaphysics is like being in a dark room looking for a black cat that isn't there. Doing theology is like being in a dark room looking for a black cat that isn't there and suddenly yelling... Got it! I found it! And doing science is like being in a dark room looking for the light switch to see if there is a black cat there or not.
And although we insist on endowing the martial art with philosophical overtones, which can undoubtedly help us to investigate and reflect, as opposed to a supposed "theology" that claims to be in possession of the truth, abusing beliefs and traditions, we cannot exclude from the formula of knowledge and the development of science, which, in the words of Jorge Wagensberg, Professor at the Faculty of Physics of the University of Barcelona:
<<must be based on the spirit and scientific talent that are shown only with the method, with a critical sense and with scrupulous respect for error, that is, looking for the light switch in the dark room.>>
Therefore, martial arts don't evolve, or at least should not, based on personal opinion, but based on scientific development based on efficiency. Understanding science as that which explains the link between action and reaction. If someone cannot explain how an action has come to be such, he is failing science. Take the science out of the equation.
And how do we know where we are and where we started from? With a system to treat solids of revolution, that is, a body in three dimensions. Like the theorem of Pappus of Alexandria (290-350 BC). In which there are two lines in a plane. Three points are taken on each of the lines (the lines do not have to be parallel). Each point on a line is connected to the two that are not directly opposite. Those lines that join points determine three aligned points, that is, they are on the same line. This line is the centroid that relates surface and volume of a body.
It is clear that a technique, a structure, can have a specific multitude of variants (that is the objective of bunkai), but how many of these variants have been experimented with, studied and proven to be really efficient? And even if there were, it should be taken into account that the performance mechanics, possibly, were one, the most optimal.
Based on beliefs and opinions, many systems, many forms, have been distorted, thus losing their original meaning. However, something inherent to the technique is the physical structure, which has not changed. Everything is much simpler.
Comments