# Rohai: from Matsumora(Tomari-te) or Matsumura(Shuri-te)?



## Muwubu16858 (Mar 4, 2008)

I was always taught that the Rohai kata emerged from Tomari, and later transmitted to Shuri through Itosu, who had learned it, and created the Rohai Sho Dan, Ni Dan and San Dan based on his study of the original(as Itosu did with most the kata he learned). Lately I've looked at the Shitokai, as well as some other styles refer to the kata as Matsumura Rohai, or Matsumura no Rohai.

http://shitokai.com/movies/matsumurarohai.php

http://home.swbell.net/rianardj/shorin.html

Plus you can search "Matsumura Rohai" and see many more links ome up for it.

Which is the real correct name? In my honest opinion, I say it is known by the name Matsumora no Rohai, or by Tomari no Rohai. Let me see what everyone else says....


----------



## terryl965 (Mar 4, 2008)

Matsumora no Rohai is what I have always been told. Guess it is up to the teacher who tought you.


----------



## exile (Mar 4, 2008)

I always understood it to be Matsumora as well, named for Kosaku Matsumora (18291898), a different person entirely from Sokon 'Bushi' Matsumura (17981890) who was famous as the security chief of Shuri Castle during the reign of the last king of Okinawa, and who is often identified as the primary figure in the creation of linear karate. See here for a (possibly somewhat apochryphal!) biography of Kosaku M; I'd always understood that Rohai was associated with the latter karateka, who taught both Choki Motobu and Chotoku Kyan. The spelling with 'u' may reflect people assuming that there was only one major 19th c. karate master with a name like that, and so misidentifying Rohai in favor of the more famous of the two...


----------



## cstanley (Mar 4, 2008)

The kata in question is Matsumora Rohai. There is also an Itosu Rohai, which is significantly different but recognizably a similar kata.


----------



## shoshinkan (Mar 4, 2008)

Rohai is from Tomari Te I believe, however it is Shorin Ryu in reality.

Our system doesn't accredit the kata to Matusmura O'Sensei, but it is taught as part of Seito Matsumura in the main.


----------



## twendkata71 (Mar 4, 2008)

When I was in Matsubayashi ryu it was just called Rohai. Later when I came in contact with Shito ryu people it was called Matsumora rohai.


----------



## cstanley (Mar 4, 2008)

twendkata71 said:


> When I was in Matsubayashi ryu it was just called Rohai. Later when I came in contact with Shito ryu people it was called Matsumora rohai.


 
That is because there are two distinct versions and a couple of alternate versions. But, the two main Rohai are Itosu Rohai and Matsumora Rohai. The Matsubayashi version is usually Matsumora; Shito ryu do both, but I most often see the Itosu version. Our branch of Shito, Motobu ha, does the Matsumora version.


----------



## Muwubu16858 (Mar 5, 2008)

Yeah, that's what I thought. The reason for bringing this up was because in a recent book by the Shitokai, which I bought from http://www.karatedo.co.jp/champ/e_books/e_book.html, they had the Kanji for Bushi Matsumura instead of Matsumora. Is it maybe the newer generations in charge of these styles never learned the kanji for the forms and slipped on pronounciation? I don't know.


----------



## TimoS (Mar 7, 2008)

Muwubu16858 said:


> Is it maybe the newer generations in charge of these styles never learned the kanji for the forms and slipped on pronounciation? I don't know.



Actually the kanji for kata names are a later addition. Originally, if they were written at all, my understanding is that they would use hiragana. Some styles actually still use (at least mainly) hiragana in the kata names. When karate went to mainland Japan they started using the kanji. That's at least how I've understood it, but of course I could be wrong


----------



## exile (Mar 7, 2008)

Since there are all these Rohai-knowledgable folks in this discussion, can I ask a question about the form itself without seeming to be going too off-topic?

I was taught a version of the kata which resembles the on shown in the earlier  link posted, but is a bit more elaborate. It involves all kinds of crane/heron-like movements; e.g., at the point in the video where the karateka walks three steps towards the camera, my version involvesafter the downard knifehand and punch to the (proper) lefta kind of slow rotation of the punchng hand, now held in a kind of beak shape, approximately 120º or so over to the right (with the performer in a kind of crouching cat stance), at which point you stand straight, bring your rear leg forward a step so that it's now right beside your lead leg, bring the hands to the side, bow slightly and take three running steps off-line (at the same angle that you wound up in at the conclusion of that lead-up rotation). At the end of the run, your right leg is in the lead: you bow low at the waist, arms spread out and both hands in a 'beak' shape, tip over to the right side, with the left arm going high and the right correspondingly low, and only _then_ do you do that leaping  movement back onto the left left with the left arm raised in 'high block' configuration and the right arm sweeping down. And there are similar elaborations elsewhere. Compared with the version I know, the video Rohai shown is distinctly stripped down. Does anyone recognize this version I've (partially) described... does it ring any bells? And if so, can you tell me _which_ version it is?


----------



## cstanley (Mar 7, 2008)

exile said:


> Since there are all these Rohai-knowledgable folks in this discussion, can I ask a question about the form itself without seeming to be going too off-topic?
> 
> I was taught a version of the kata which resembles the on shown in the earlier link posted, but is a bit more elaborate. It involves all kinds of crane/heron-like movements; e.g., at the point in the video where the karateka walks three steps towards the camera, my version involvesafter the downard knifehand and punch to the (proper) lefta kind of slow rotation of the punchng hand, now held in a kind of beak shape, approximately 120º or so over to the right (with the performer in a kind of crouching cat stance), at which point you stand straight, bring your rear leg forward a step so that it's now right beside your lead leg, bring the hands to the side, bow slightly and take three running steps off-line (at the same angle that you wound up in at the conclusion of that lead-up rotation). At the end of the run, your right leg is in the lead: you bow low at the waist, arms spread out and both hands in a 'beak' shape, tip over to the right side, with the left arm going high and the right correspondingly low, and only _then_ do you do that leaping movement back onto the left left with the left arm raised in 'high block' configuration and the right arm sweeping down. And there are similar elaborations elsewhere. Compared with the version I know, the video Rohai shown is distinctly stripped down. Does anyone recognize this version I've (partially) described... does it ring any bells? And if so, can you tell me _which_ version it is?


 
There is no traditional Rohai that fits that description. Sounds like somebody's home-cooking. TKD has messed with the traditional kata considerably, and self-styled, 3-bong hit Itosu's spring up in America every day.


----------



## TimoS (Mar 7, 2008)

cstanley said:


> 3-bong hit Itosu's spring up in America every day.



Ok, I just have to ask, what does that mean?


----------



## cstanley (Mar 7, 2008)

TimoS said:


> Ok, I just have to ask, what does that mean?


 
It has reference to those who, after too much dope or too much ego, develop delusions of grandeur...


----------



## TimoS (Mar 7, 2008)

cstanley said:


> It has reference to those who, after too much dope or too much ego, develop delusions of grandeur...


Thought so. Thanks  And, naturally, I fully agree with you


----------



## Jin Gang (Mar 7, 2008)

exile said:


> Since there are all these Rohai-knowledgable folks in this discussion, can I ask a question about the form itself without seeming to be going too off-topic?
> 
> I was taught a version of the kata which resembles the on shown in the earlier link posted, but is a bit more elaborate. It involves all kinds of crane/heron-like movements; e.g., at the point in the video where the karateka walks three steps towards the camera, my version involvesafter the downard knifehand and punch to the (proper) lefta kind of slow rotation of the punchng hand, now held in a kind of beak shape, approximately 120º or so over to the right (with the performer in a kind of crouching cat stance), at which point you stand straight, bring your rear leg forward a step so that it's now right beside your lead leg, bring the hands to the side, bow slightly and take three running steps off-line (at the same angle that you wound up in at the conclusion of that lead-up rotation). At the end of the run, your right leg is in the lead: you bow low at the waist, arms spread out and both hands in a 'beak' shape, tip over to the right side, with the left arm going high and the right correspondingly low, and only _then_ do you do that leaping movement back onto the left left with the left arm raised in 'high block' configuration and the right arm sweeping down. And there are similar elaborations elsewhere. Compared with the version I know, the video Rohai shown is distinctly stripped down. Does anyone recognize this version I've (partially) described... does it ring any bells? And if so, can you tell me _which_ version it is?


 
I've never seen anything like that.  I would like to, though, could you make a video of it and show us?  I don't doubt that karate kata are "stripped down", in general, compared to the Chinese forms that may have inspired or influenced them (which mostly don't exist any more, in the case of shuri and tomari kata).  
The version of rohai I know and practice is the matsubayashi version, which is said to be from tomari.


----------



## e ship yuk (Mar 7, 2008)

While I don't know anything about it....  did it look like this form, Exile?

Ran across this gentleman's videos when looking for some Chinto vids, and his Chinto has more elaborate movements than the one I learned... by chance, he has a Rohai video also.


----------



## exile (Mar 7, 2008)

cstanley said:


> There is no traditional Rohai that fits that description. Sounds like somebody's home-cooking. TKD has messed with the traditional kata considerably, and self-styled, 3-bong hit Itosu's spring up in America every day.



A couple of thoughts here:

(i) my TKD lineage is very closely associated with Shotokan (_Song Moo Kwan _is an almost word-for word translation of _Shotokan_; Byung Jik Ro, the lineage founder, was a fourth dan under GF, and was very strict about the technical content of the SMK curriculum); and

(ii) while it's true that TKD forms have, as you say, altered karate kate significantly, almost always the direction of modification has been to strip down the form (or recombine subsquences), rather than make the form more elaborate. The Rohai version I do has always struck me as much more like a Chinese form than anything else... and Korean modifications of kata don't usually come out looking like that. 

Lemme see some of the links that people have suggested here....



e ship yuk said:


> While I don't know anything about it....  did it look like this form, Exile?
> 
> Ran across this gentleman's videos when looking for some Chinto vids, and his Chinto has more elaborate movements than the one I learned... by chance, he has a Rohai video also.



ESY, I'm eternally in your debt... that's _exactly_ the version we do. Brilliant!! I am so happy!  I've looked at a dozen or more vids of the form and never seen anything close...

So please folks, can you take a look at the video that ESY linked to and tell me if you recognize what species of Rohai this one is? I'm interested in lineage, and sources... I'm making no value judgments about these forms, clearly, but I'm very curious, in terms of historical questions, about just which Rohai this is that got picked up and included in the SMK curriculum...


----------



## Jin Gang (Mar 7, 2008)

It's not any Okinawan version that I've seen, and it's not even close to the shotokan version.  It's closer to the Okinawan tomari rohai, because it has the one legged stance, and the embusen goes in the same direction, a step to the right, then back left, then 45 degrees right and left, then back to the center.  It's defintely changed, though, some techniques are obviously performed in tae kwon do manner, and there are some extra punches and kicks in there.  A couple things look like extra crane style moves added on, like the double strike out at the beinning, and the double beak move.  
  I think it's definately derived from the tomari/Mastsumora kata, not the Itosu or shotokan version.  It's differences come from the tae kwon do influence, and in my opinion, someone's attempt to accentuate it's identity as a "crane" kata by adding a couple stereotypical Chinese crane movements.


----------



## cstanley (Mar 7, 2008)

exile said:


> A couple of thoughts here:
> 
> (i) my TKD lineage is very closely associated with Shotokan (_Song Moo Kwan _is an almost word-for word translation of _Shotokan_; Byung Jik Ro, the lineage founder, was a fourth dan under GF, and was very strict about the technical content of the SMK curriculum); and
> 
> ...


 

Pardon me, but that is simply awful stuff. It is a highly bastardized version of the kata, hardly recognizable at all to anyone familiar with the original kata. Also, the performance of the kata is bad. This is why Okinawan traditionalists get disgusted with Shotokan, TKD, etc. These people "borrow" a kata, screw it up completely, then act like they are doing the same thing we are. Sorry. End rant.  PS The sword "form" he does in the other vid...that is awful, too. It is made up crap. He doesn't know how to hold the sword, chops instead of cuts, and misleads the public into thinking that is swordsmanship.


----------



## exile (Mar 7, 2008)

Jin Gang said:


> It's not any Okinawan version that I've seen, and it's not even close to the shotokan version.  It's closer to the Okinawan tomari rohai, because it has the one legged stance, and the embusen goes in the same direction, a step to the right, then back left, then 45 degrees right and left, then back to the center.  It's defintely changed, though, some techniques are obviously performed in tae kwon do manner, and there are some extra punches and kicks in there.  A couple things look like extra crane style moves added on, like the double strike out at the beinning, and the double beak move.
> I think it's definately derived from the tomari/Mastsumora kata, not the Itosu or shotokan version.  It's differences come from the tae kwon do influence, and in my opinion, someone's attempt to accentuate it's identity as a "crane" kata by adding a couple stereotypical Chinese crane movements.





cstanley said:


> Pardon me, but that is simply awful stuff. It is a highly bastardized version of the kata, hardly recognizable at all to anyone familiar with the original kata. Also, the performance of the kata is bad. This is why Okinawan traditionalists get disgusted with Shotokan, TKD, etc. These people "borrow" a kata, screw it up completely, then act like they are doing the same thing we are. Sorry. End rant.  PS The sword "form" he does in the other vid...that is awful, too. It is made up crap. He doesn't know how to hold the sword, chops instead of cuts, and misleads the public into thinking that is swordsmanship.



If any of you have seen my comments on the modifications of Empi which surface in the Eunbi hyung, you'll know that I'm no apologist for the modifications which TKD has often imposed on Okinawan forms. I'm just interested in reconstructing the history of this particular version and how it happened to appear in the SMK syllabus. Here's the point: I've no clue who this chap is, but the fact that he does a version of Rohai which is almost identical to the SMK version of Rohai suggests that there was a single source for this version (apart, that is, from the original Matsumora Okinawan source). What I'd really like to do is pin down that common source, which appears to have modified the Okinawan version considerably...


----------



## Jin Gang (Mar 7, 2008)

My guess is, you'll have to delve into the history of your tae kwon do branch and that of the guy in the video.  Maybe he picked it up from your branch, or vice versa.  This type of thing can be difficult to impossible to determine, since the folks who created or changed the kata generally aren't forthcoming about it.  The best you can do is try to find who your teacher learned it from, and then find out who he learned it from, and so forth.


----------



## exile (Mar 7, 2008)

Jin Gang said:


> My guess is, you'll have to delve into the history of your tae kwon do branch and that of the guy in the video.  Maybe he picked it up from your branch, or vice versa.  This type of thing can be difficult to impossible to determine, since the folks who created or changed the kata generally aren't forthcoming about it.  The best you can do is try to find who your teacher learned it from, and then find out who he learned it from, and so forth.



Good suggestions, much appreciated JG; but what I think I'm going to do is actually _call_ the guy's dojang and ask him (or one of his instructors). Sometimes the direct route is the only one that works. My instructor would have learned it from someone in the SMK lineage that goes back to Funakoshi, but I also learned Eunbi, which differs in critical ways from Emp, so _someone_ changed something along the way. If I get some information, I'' report.... thanks again for your input.


----------



## Jin Gang (Mar 7, 2008)

The lineage usually only mentions those who were "officially" teachers and students...or sometimes those whos names sound most impressive.  Rarely is the next door neighbor who was taking karate lessons listed in there.  Or the university karate club instructor.  Or the teacher you saw one time at a seminar, or who visited your school.  Or your friend who's studying another style and teaches you a couple things.  People learn from sources like these all the time, and incorporate the knowledge into their own styles, and rarely mention them unless pressed.  Some folks even lie about where they learned things, and say "it was always in the lineage, but most people never got all the material like I did" or make up a teacher that no one can verify ever existed, who gave them the body of material unexplained by their verifiable lineage.


----------



## e ship yuk (Mar 7, 2008)

exile said:


> ESY, I'm eternally in your debt... that's _exactly_ the version we do. Brilliant!! I am so happy!  I've looked at a dozen or more vids of the form and never seen anything close...


  Glad I thought to look back there.

On that gentleman's bio on the school site, he says he started training with Young Pyo Choi, the brother of Joon Pyo Choi, to whom I believe you can trace your lineage.

And... wow, there's actually footage here of Joon P. Choi performing Rohai.  And, while the magazine can at times be questionable, this TKD Times article suggests he has previously studied some style of kung fu.  Putting these things together... I think we can assume that GM Choi is the one who modified your Rohai, unless something comes up about Byung Jik Ro himself studying a soft style.


----------



## exile (Mar 7, 2008)

e ship yuk said:


> Glad I thought to look back there.  On that gentleman's bio on the school site, he says he started training with Young Pyo Choi, the brother of Joon Pyo Choi, to whom I believe you can trace your lineage.  And... wow, there's actually footage here of Joon P. Choi performing Rohai.  And, while the magazine can at times be questionable, this TKD Times article suggests he has previously studied some style of kung fu.  Putting these things together... *I think we can assume that GM Choi is the one who modified your Rohai, unless something comes up about Byung Jik Ro himself studying a soft style.*



Very good, esy. I'm convinced! It's very unlikely that BJR studied a soft/CMA style, from what I know of the history... And yes, Joon Pye Choi is my `great-grand-sahbumnim'! 

The Rohai he does is a bit more, um, _theatrical_ than what I learned, but clearly, it's the same kata.

Again, my thanks! :asian:


----------



## Garcia_Hanshi (Apr 15, 2008)

The links you presented in your question presents the Shito-ryu version of the Matsumura-no-Rohai Chu kata.  The second link doesn't present other than a kata curriculum which mostly pertain to the Matsumura Seito system.
As most Shorin Ryu Kata, Rohai is share between schools of Shuri and those of Tomari.  In fact, Rohai in different versions are accredited to different masters.  Yes, there is Matsumora-no-Rohai (Tomari-te), as there is a Matsumura-no-Rahai series (Shuri-te), and there are modern versions devised by masters such as Itosu.
If you study carefully the different versions of Rohai you will find that the ancient versions all have a Chinese flavor in its technical aspects, as well as in its angles of movements; while modern versions all have movements that can easily be identify as of modern Karate-Do.
Matsubayashi Rohai is a good example of an old version, while the Chito-ryu Rohai series are evidently a more modern version.  The technical complexity of the Matsubayashi version of Rohai when compared with those of Chitose, provide substantial evidence to compare the difference between ancient and modern versions of Okinawan Karate kata.
Rohai is originally a Chinese pattern, that was brought to Okinawa during the mid-1800s by several sources.  Rohai is a pattern that was widely practiced in Fujian as part of the white crane systems of that province.  Experts such as Wai Zing Xiang (Waishinzan), Ason, Iwah, Taitei Kojo, Sokon Matsumura, and several others, used to share knowledge and training sessions while in Fujian.  The same happened in Okinawa after 1830, when several students, practitioners, and experts used to gather for training sessions and knowledge was shared without ego.  It is not a forbidden fact that Tomari practitioners used to go to Shuri and train with their seniors and peers, such as the case of Kosaku Matsumora and Kokan Oyadomari, who shared training sessions with Sokon Matsumura.
At the present time, there are several different versions of Rohai kata, the Matsumura direct family lineage does contain 3 Rohai katas (Ge, Chu & Jo) which are not those of Itosu, while Shobayashi and other ryuha derived from Chotoku Kyan does preserve a different version of Rohai which is by some means similar to that of Matsubayashi.
Rohai is a kata that was brought to Okinawa by three different experts, Ason, Iwah and Matsumura; each taught the kata and the kata evolved into different versions in Okinawa and also later in mainland Japan.
One important fact that must be understood about ancient karate (Uchina-di or Okinawa-te) is that kata was taught differently to different students according to the skills and ability of each individual.  This teaching principle is opposite to that of nowadays karate-do where everything is taught under a particular standard in a uniform manner.  Therefore, in ancient times a kata could be performed differently by two students of the same teacher and they both were accepted as legitimate.  This is the reason for nowadays each karate ryuha seems to perform the same material from different perspective and in different fashions.
If any adherent of Shotokan observes the particular angles of execution of Gichin Funakoshi and compare it with the modern JKA version of kata performance will notice that modern Shotokan is not exactly as Funakoshi used to perform.  The same happens with modern Shito-ryu, Shorin-ryu, Goju-ryu, etc.
The importance of kata does not rely in a particular style of performance, but instead in the benefit said kata provides to the technical growth of the practitioner.
Hope this will help clarify some of the questions in regards to the Rohai kata.


----------



## TimoS (Apr 15, 2008)

Garcia_Hanshi said:


> while Shobayashi and other ryuha derived from Chotoku Kyan does preserve a different version of Rohai which is by some means similar to that of Matsubayashi.



Just to nitpick here for a bit: I know for a fact that Seibukan does not carry Rohai and Seibukan is in direct lineage from Kyan. Shobayashi may indeed carry Rohai for all I know, but since Seibukan doesn't, I suspect that it comes from a different source than Kyan. I will have to check what my sources say about this, because I could be wrong


----------

