# Do Okinawan Kata Have Military Origins



## Cayuga Karate (Jan 12, 2010)

Six months ago I began a videoblog (http://cayugakarate.com/blog) dedicated to exploring the potential link between Chinese military arts and Okinawan empty hand arts. I would like to share my work with the contributors on MartialTalk. 

It would be helpful to briefly review the historical context of the Chinese presence in Okinawan. 

Between the late 1300s and the late 1800s, the Chinese engaged in the tributary system of trade with numerous peoples throughout Southeast Asia. The Okinawans, due to both their location, as well as their seafaring skills, had an important role in this trading system which became an integral component of the Okinawan economy and social system. In support of the tributary system, the Chinese established a substantial presence (36 families)in the Kume Mura village in Naha. Throughout much of the 500 year period of tributary trade, Okinawan tribute ships were vulnerable to piracy and the Chinese had strong motivation to ensure these ships were appropriately protected against attacks. It was not uncommon for the Chinese to send military personnel to Okinawa. (Funakoshi lists five Chinese by name as teachers of Chinese martial systems to Okinawans. Four of these were described as military attaches.) And while the origins of Okinawan of karate will forever be clouded, due primarily due to the secrecy in which it was practiced; there is some belief that the Chinese are a significant source of Okinawan kata. 

If we accept the proposition that the Chinese placed a high value on tribute trade with Okinawa, we should consider the possibility that the Chinese would want Okinawans to have the military skills necessary to protect Okinawan tribute vessels on route to China. We do have a record of Chinese military officials engaged in teaching the Okinawans martial arts. If that were true, we should at least consider the possibility that these arts could have been used in a military context, specifically protecting Okinawan tribute vessels. 

Based upon this historical analysis, I have proposed the following hypothesis. Okinawan kata, at least those taught by Chinese in Okinawan, have origins as Chinese military arts, and were taught to help ensure the protection of tribute trade.

Prior to the emergence of firearms, the bladed spear (which I will refer to as a "spear", rather than use the more uncommon term "halberd") was a common weapon used in military combat. While long spears were common on the battlefield, short spears were quite common throughout the Chinese military. Short spears (about the height of the person using it) would have an obvious advantage (compared to long spears) in defending a ship against pirates who had been successful in boarding, and therefore, we should expect that the Chinese would have passed on arts specifically for use with the short spear. 

The hypothesis proposed leads to the question: do Okinawan kata have movements that could propel a spear in useful, effective fighting combinations?

It is the purpose of my videoblog to further explore this question. Since July, I have documented 30 hours of training and instruction (mostly training), and have documented the movements of 20 kata for use with a spear. Over the next several years I will explore the movements of these 20 kata, and 20 others, for use with a spear. 

In general, I will record a minimum of 1000 repetitions of a kata, in some cases many more. I want to have some minimum level of competency before I take the opportunity to share what my training in a kata has taught me about the uses of the spear movements found within each kata. 

While I expect many to be resistant to this novel hypothesis I have proposed, I am hopeful that some might find my ideas useful. There are many karateka engaged in the study of kata, who are perplexed at how some of the movements could be used in effective fighting combinations. For many, there are some movements in kata that just dont seem to model actual fighting.

I am eager to engage those who would be interested in exploring this very different approach to the analysis of kata.

My blog, over time, will also contain a thorough review of the available literature regarding the origins of Okinawan karate, the history and impact of the Okinawan-Chinese trading relations, and the effects of the Japanese occupation and banning of weapons of warfare. I have posted some of that information already. 

Before I close, I need to make some very important points. I have said nothing here that would imply that I dont believe many kata movements are useful in fighting. That is because I believe that kata contain all sorts of great empty-hand fighting applications. I also believe that some movements dont seem to have much usefulness in actual fighting, but that does not detract from the fact that I am an ardent believer in the practice and use of Okinawan kata for empty hand fighting.

Second, I recognize that the history is terribly incomplete and that drawing any speculations is difficult. As I document the historical record, this will become more clear. For those kata that predate 1900, we will never know for sure which are of Chinese origin, and which may be of uniquely Okinawan origin. Without question, the kata have been modified in ways that make them uniquely Okinawan, and in ways that dont resemble the way that Chinese kata, both empty hand and weapons kata, are practiced today. 

Nevertheless, regardless of whether the kata have changed, the question still remains. Do the Okinawan kata today, in general, provide for effective spear combinations? I will review a broad cross-section of common Okinawan kata, 40 altogther, in an effort to demonstrate that they do. 

As I have brought this issue to other forums, some have asked questions about the relation of Okinawan kobudo to the issue I am studying. Please note I make no arguments at all about Okinawan kobudo. While some of those weapons may have been used to defend tribute ships, I dont see what motivation the Chinese would have had to teach the use of those weapons in preparing Okinawans for combat with armed pirates. The Chinese have had thousands of years experience in the use of the spear in military combat, and I see no reason that they would have chosen to instruct the Okinawans in bo, tonfa or nunchuka, as these are non-bladed weapons. In military combat, at least prior to the adoption of firearms, preference was clearly given to bladed weapons. And while the kama is bladed, the short length makes it not nearly as effective as a spear. (I wont argue with the Sai one way or the other. They are effective throwing weapons, and could very well have had a role.)

I do not mean to minimize the role that Okinawans played in the development of karate, as it is practiced today. There was an art of te that predated the rise of the Ming and the development of Tributary trade. However there was substantial Chinese influence throughout the development of the art, and today karate can be viewed as uniquely Okinawan, from the way they train, to the way they practice kata. I do not mean to minimize their obvious fundamental role in the development of their art. 

What I do hope to do is to ensure that students of the art do not overlook the importance of the Chinese role in this development. If indeed Chinese military personnel had a role teaching forms to Okinawans, and if these forms survive today with a strong resemblence to the original movements taught, then we need to consider the Okinawans as transmitters of Chinese information, and we should look to the motivations of the Chinese as to why they taught these forms. It is accepted that the Chinese taught empty hand systems for empty hand self-defense. I believe that this assumption should be questioned.

I fully recognize the complexity of this subject, and I am sure this post will elicit all sorts of questions from the contributors here. I will do my best to answer all issues raised. I am most interested in the discussion of kata movements, so if anyone has in interest in pursuing those specific discussions, I would be most obliged. But I have a strong interest in fleshing out the historical record, and would appreciate all information that contributors can share on this topic.

-Mike Eschenbrenner
Cayuga Karate
Ithaca, New York, USA


----------



## tshadowchaser (Jan 13, 2010)

Mike,
My first 2 questions would be why you started on this path, why you think it's important? 
 My third question would be why the spear and not the sword, which seems to be a very good close quarter fighting weapon.?


----------



## dancingalone (Jan 13, 2010)

Mike, thanks for the interesting post.  I look forward to reading any future articles although I have to admit spear work interests me not at all.


----------



## TimoS (Jan 13, 2010)

Maybe it's just me, but I find the whole idea that karate is in fact chinese spearfighting very amusing. Those okinawans sure don't know what they've been training for all these years


----------



## dancingalone (Jan 13, 2010)

I've always thought Okinawan karate was its own animal with influences from China, Japan, and perhaps even some southeast Asian countries.  It's not a samurai art although many would like such a connection.  I'm also not convinced it stems from Chinese military spear training either, but I'll certainly read any articles Mike chooses to write and share.


----------



## K-man (Jan 13, 2010)

Within kata are many moves that could be used with with a weapon. I have seen traditional goju kata performed with Tonfa and Sai in particular. In FMA the moves with sticks can be replicated without the sticks to good effect. So it makes sense to me that many kata can include weapons. The question becomes, what came first? My feeling would be the answer is contained in the name. *Kare *(empty) _*te*_ (hand) is relatively recent. Prior to this it was simply *te* and linked to its region of origin, hence Naha-te Shuri-te and Tomari-te. If the karate we know had developed with a weapon, such as the spear, why would it regress to open hand? I do not doubt there are many links to military training in the MAs but I feel that karate was designed to use when there was no weapon available. 
Like the others I look forward to reading more. :asian:


----------



## TimoS (Jan 14, 2010)

Ok, for argument's sake, let's say that the karate kata are really spearfighting techniques. Why is it then that separate weapons kata for bo and e.g. nunti exist? Also, and more importantly, why is it that nobody in Okinawa seems to have made this connection? Why have they all this time practised with only bare hands? Why all these generations of masters insist only on teaching bare hand stuff? Surely you have some evidence, not just guesswork, to support the theory? 
With my previous karate instructor, we practised some empty hand kata with weapons, e.g. Chinto with a bo (or was it jo, can't remember anymore). Does that make Chinto a bo kata? No, it doesn't!


----------



## dancingalone (Jan 14, 2010)

K-man said:


> If the karate we know had developed with a weapon, such as the spear, why would it regress to open hand?



Does there have to be a linkage at all, even if it's true that many of the kata adapt remarkably well to usage with weapons?  

The Goju karate and kobudo taught to me from my teacher came from two distinct sources.  Although we often mixed and matched drills, we understood that our kobudo did NOT come from Miyagi Sensei.

Perhaps an interesting exercise would be to look into some of the southern Chinese fighting systems to see how they do things.  As I understand it, the White Crane system has distinct forms for weapons and empty hand practice, too.  At face surface, I would have thought there would be more examples of the same form teaching both weapons and unarmed techniques.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 14, 2010)

I think you'd be getting closer to the truth if you researched the Pechin and looked at Kobudo.  The empty hand kata are well researched and really aren't weapon kata.  Although, many of the same principles can be found in weapon kata.  Karate is a quasi-civilian art.  It was practiced by nobles and middle class Okinawans and it was practiced by officials who acted under the authority of the King.


----------



## Cayuga Karate (Jan 14, 2010)

TShadowChaser,

May I call you Sheldon?

You wrote:



> My first 2 questions would be why you started on this path, why you think it's important? My third question would be why the spear and not the sword, which seems to be a very good close quarter fighting weapon.?


Great questions. Let me start with the third. I would never argue that the sword is not a superb close quarters weapon. It may well be the best. However, the short spear has both the benefits of being able to be wielded like a sword, with the added benefit of increased range. While the sword has excellent thrusting capabilities, they are no match for the spear, which can be anchored against your body during the thrust, for a level of stability the sword can never match. Before I discuss range in more detail, let me point out that there are historical sources that discuss the use of the spear in defending tribute ships. For example in Nagamine's *Tales of Okinawa's Great Masters*, he wrote:



> ... As the book, Okinawa, 1000 Year History describes, all trubute ships that sailed the treacherous waters between China and the Ryukyu Archipelago during feudal times were equipped with a turret, artillery, and weapons such as arrows, spears, guns and explosives.


Please note that the text does not mention swords. 

Nagamine also goes on to write:



> It was the responsibility of the captain and crew to be able to defend their cargo and their vessel against attacks during a voyage. Hence, proper training in the combative disciplines was essential. Designated the official vessels of the Ryukyu Kingdom, tribute ships carried both valuable cargo and important passengers to China. Tribute was the single most important aspect of the Ryukyu's social economy, and, therefore, no expense was ever spared in ensuring the safety of the cargo, passengers and crew.
> 
> In the event of an assault, which was quite frequent during feudal times, passengers who were skilled in combative disciplines were, by order of the King, commanded to aid the crew.


Above, I discussed the value of a spear's range compared with a sword. I think this can be best understood when considering fighting movements, one after the other, in two opposite directions. A traditional katana is approximately 40 inches in length. A short spear is nearly the height of the warrior. For me, that would be about 66 inches. When I extend my arm out in front of me, my hand begins about 18 inches from my body. Let's look at the range of two directions. We can measure the range of spear thrusts with arms only with no movement of the torso towards either targets. Limiting my body to a simple 180 degree turn, I measure the length of a stab first in one direction and then in the opposite direction using the full range of both spear and sword. The range of the sword is less than 10 feet, and the range of the spear is over 14 feet, over a 40% increase in range. 

In the melee of battle with allies and enemies all around, the ability to quickly shift direction and thrust into the back of a nearby enemy is highly valuable. The range of a short spear is optimized for this multi-directional kind of combat.  

Compared to the sword, the short spear also has greater range in spinning movements and can be spun about in ways that make it difficult for even a skilled swordsman to attack. In Secrets of the Samurai, the authors wrote:



> According to the literature of the bujutsu, an expert spearman trained in any of those schools was studiously avoided not only by single warriors armed with the formidable katana, but ever by groups of warriors whom he cold scatter with an intricate, yet impenetrable and deadly circular dancehis long weapon cutting, thrusting, slashing, and parrying as it cut through the air around him in a series of murderous whorls.


The length of the spear would also make it more valuable in the use of the stabbing motions needed to prevent a pirate from boarding a vessel, and for use as a javelin for throwing at enemies at all stages of a conflict. 

This is not to say that military personnel on a ship might not wield multiple weapons. For example, it was quite common for Samurai of the times to carry both swords and spears, and this may well have been the case on Okinawan tribute vessels.

While there are movements in kata where the hands are together, and can be used for sword movements, there are many movements in kata that use push-pull motions where the hands are separate, moving in opposite directions. These movements are useful for a longer weapon with a much bigger split grip, as compared to the spear.

In short spear fighting movements, where the spear is held at one end, blocking is done not only with the end of the spear near the blade, but with the end of the spear between the hands. These blocking movements  require a wide split-grip. Compared to spear movements, done with the hands apart, sword movements, almost uniformly, have the hands close together, and all blocking is done with the blade. Sword movements simply do not include the push-pull movements that are found not only in empty hand karate, but in virtually all traditional bo kata.

In looking at kata to see whether some might have military origins, the first question to ask would be: "why?". Why would the Chinese want to educate the Okinawans in military arts. Looking at historical sources, we all should be able to acknowledge that Okinawan was a seafaring nation and Okinawa seafarers, especially those engaged in tribute trade, *required* spear-fighting skills. (Nagamine writes that the captain and crew were responsible for defense of their vessel, their cargo, and their passengers.)

The next step is to consider how Okinawan seafarers might have come to learn their spear arts. One source could well have been the Chinese, particularly military personnel who were in Okinawa to support Tributary trade. 

Is there evidence to support that Chinese military were engaged in the training of Okinawans in combative disciplines. Although the historical record is woefully incomplete, there is indeed some evidence that Chinese military personnel played a role in teaching Okinawans combative arts. Miyagi mentions Kume Mura security personnel as likely sources of Okinawan arts. Funakoshi names five Chinese by name as teachers of Okinawans in combative arts. Four of these he describes as military attaches.

If the Chinese were responsible, at least in part, in teaching Okinawans military arts designed to ensure the viability of tribute trade, a follow up question would be whether any of these arts survived. 

We have kata that have survived, many of supposed Chinese origin, many reputed to be very old. We can examine these to see whether they would be useful in propelling a spear.

-Mike Eschenbrenner
Cayuga Karate
www.cayugakarate.com/blog
Ithaca New York - USA


----------



## SahBumNimRush (Jan 14, 2010)

Mike, this is a very interesting topic!  Although I do not practice okinawan, chinese, or japanese styles particularly, the history of techniques and form history very much intrigues me.  The gaping holes in history and the revisionist history that is rampant in many martial arts is quite frustrating leaving much to speculation.  I don't think people should get defensive or insecure about exploring the possibilities of influence from other nations. 

The same holds true with Korean arts.  The peninsula of Korea was a common gateway from China to Japan/Okinawa.  I have read accounts of form history originating in China, being passed to Korea, then to Okinawa/Japan, and then sometimes back to Korea again.  Other times coming from China directly to Okinawa or Japan via boat, then to Korea.. . I cannot believe that there was absolutely no cross-over between nations and skills.  Customs, skills, religion, etc.. . are all ultimately spread when trade routes and commerce occurs between nations.

Forms such as Bassai and Chinto are practiced by my art, and I have read that these forms were originated from the So Rim Sah school in China.  But I digress, I look forward to reading what you find over the journey of your research.


----------



## TimoS (Jan 14, 2010)

Cayuga Karate said:


> For example, it was quite common for Samurai of the times to carry both swords and spears, and this may well have been the case on Okinawan tribute vessels.


Samurai? On Okinawan vessels? Say what!?!


----------



## TimoS (Jan 14, 2010)

SahBumNimRush said:


> Forms such as Bassai and Chinto are practiced by my art, and I have read that these forms were originated from the So Rim Sah school in China


Interesting. I've never heard this, which naturally doesn't prove anything. Do you have any material at hand about this connection? Also, does So Rim Sah "translate" into Shaolin temple?


----------



## Cayuga Karate (Jan 14, 2010)

Sheldon wrote: 



> Mike,
> My first 2 questions would be why you started on this path, why you think it's important?


I began my formal karate training in Shito Ryu in 1976 under a student of Hayashi. Kobudo was a basic part of our curriculum. I believe that by 1983, I had learned 35 empty hand kata, and a number of weapons kata. I moved to an area with no Shito Ryu and trained under a superb Shotokan teacher where I trained in both Shotokan kata, and a different kobudo system. One glaring lesson learned is that while every virtually every movement in the kata of these comparative system is similar, virtually none are identical. 

My wife at the time trained in Matsubayashi Shorin Ryu. Compared with Shito Ryu, the Pinans, Naihanchi and Passai overlap, and have lots in common but little identical. But all the other kata even those with the same names, were completely different. Chinto, Gojushiho, Wanshu, Kusanku, Anaku, all had a few similarities, but a great variety of differences.

My wife's brother was a long term Goju student. Again, compared to Shito Ryu, all the kata were the same, but different, with remarkably few movements done exactly the same way in both systems.

I moved again, and found an Okinawan Kempo dojo, and learned once again the kata were all different. I moved again, found a great Shidokan system (under Iha Sensei) and experienced deja vu. All the kata movements are similar, yet virtually none identical. Both of these systems had there own kobudo systems distinct from what I had learned elsewhere.

Ten years ago I inherited a dojo that I had been affiliated with for over 20 years. I quickly learned why teaching few kata has advantages over teaching many. If you want your students to really understand a kata, and all the ways it can be used in empty hand fighting, then the fewer the better. 

I liked to practice what I preach, and so I personally abandoned the practice of virtually all the kata I had learned and focused on just a few. For a lengthy period my students and I practiced just one. My goal was to be able to apply these movements in realistic fighting applications and that just required a substantial amount focused training. And with regret, after years of training and enjoyment, I abandoned kobudo as well.

But I could never stay away from Kobudo forever. Several years ago I attended a Matayoshi seminar at a friend's dojo. The training lasted about six hours, about 4 hours of bo and two hours of sai. I borrowed a heavy bo (a beautiful Tokaido weapon) for the training and I was determined to use it for the full session. We began the session with grip changes. Holding the weapon out in front, one palm up, one down, switch. After about 4 minutes my forearms were on fire. We went close to 10, and by then I could barely hold on to the bo. 

By the time we got to sai, I was pretty much focused on not dropping them. My arms, wrists and hands were just exhausted.

That training was a real eye opener. Never in my karate training had Kobudo had been practiced with that level of intensity over a six hour period. I walked away exhilirated and debilitated feeling both weaker yet stronger. 

To use an old expression, the scales fell from my eyes. I had experienced a practice of kobudo that strengthened in a way that in my opinion, empty hand kata practice just doesn't. There were many reasons why Okinawan karateka were so strong, but I came to believe that for many, kobudo training was a vital factor. 

I decided to try to take this lesson in an attempt ot improve my empty hand kata capabilities. I adapted kata movements for a bo, soley for purposes of strength training. And I believe I achieved results. After a few reps of movements using a heavy bo, my kata felt stronger when done empty hand. 

Of course a number of movements with the bo didn't really make much fighting sense, and some kata movements had to have pretty drastic alterations to be used with a bo. But what I found, quite surprisingly, is that many, especially push/pull movements for thrusting and stabbing seemed to make perfect sense, almost like they were designed for a long pole of a weapon. In hindsight I suppose it shouldn't have been so surpriing, since that's what we find in bo kata. Many push-pull movements we use for empty hand strikes are nearly identical to movements used to propel a bo. (The angle of the hand is of course a bit different.)  

I then began to wonder about the many kata movements where the hands moved together, those that did not seem to work with a bo. I experimented with a sword, and surprise again, many seemed to make sense. But not all. The push-pull movements designed that worked so well for the bo just did not map to sword movements. 

One day I was spinning a hanbo, and marveled at the similarity to the opening of an old kata. I tried using this short stick in other movements in the kata, and was thrilled that it could be held at the end and be used as both a sword-like weapon when the hands were together, and a spear-like weapon when the hands were apart.  From there I worked hard in the trial-and-error process of "reverse-engineering" of the kata that I practiced regularly. And from there, I began the evaluation of a much broader set of forms. The key to the discovery was the concept of the short spear. The length of the bo prohibits many spinning motions one can do with a short spear when holding it at the end. 

One attribute of my years of training that I brought to my analysis was, as noted above, my experience training in different systems of karate and in the variations of movements found within these systems. What I have found should be of interest to many. It all works. 

In training in a particular combination, one key fighting concept is variability. The defender is not always a certain distance. His weapon may not always be held a certain way. And to deal with variability, we need to be able to adapt movements on the fly. A subtle change in length of stance, path of hand movement, or direction of a body turn can alter the weapon path in useful ways. 

Let's consider an example. The first forward direction found in Kusanku and its variants (Kushanku Dai, Kanku Dai, Kosokun Dai) is done in different stances in different systems. From the short cat stance in systems descending from Kyan, Mabuni and Toyama, to the slightly longer back stance found in systems descending from Chibana, to the yet longer back stance found in systems descending from Funakoshi, to the more forward stances found in the systems descending from Soken and Nakazato. I put up a post (http://cayugakarate.com/blog/?p=833) on my blog with links to to video.  

All of these stepping variations, and the associated hand movements and body turns, can be used to propel the spear in useful ways.  

To get back to the original question asked by Sheldon, why do I think this study is important? For a number of reasons. First, I find it interesting. Second I value the utility of the movements. Karateka for years have grappled with how to make use out of many kata movements. For those who are frustrated in their attempts to get meaning out the use of kata, I propose an alternate path of investigation. Third, I enjoy the practice. I have begun to explore practicing Okinawan kata the way forms are practiced in China, smooth and flowing. And fast. Finally, and perhaps most important, I find the brisk pace that I now do kata, to make the spear go as fast as possible (simulated fighting) is just a great way to train. 

My primary audience are those young students who are at the beginning of their careers training in kata. For those who are looking for better answers to their kata questions, I believe some might find value in what I share. I recognize that many with the most years of training will just find my ideas too iconoclastic to take seriously. So I look to the new generation of karateka, our future teachers, to consider my ideas on their merits, and not through the lens of 30 years of karate training through a very different lens. 

Thank you for the questions.

-Mike Eschenbrenner
Cayuga Karate
www.cayugakarate.com/blog
Ithaca, New York - USA


----------



## Cayuga Karate (Jan 14, 2010)

Timo wrote, 


> Ok, for argument's sake, let's say that the karate kata are really spearfighting techniques. Why is it then that separate weapons kata for bo and e.g. nunti exist? Also, and more importantly, why is it that nobody in Okinawa seems to have made this connection? Why have they all this time practised with only bare hands? Why all these generations of masters insist only on teaching bare hand stuff? Surely you have some evidence, not just guesswork, to support the theory?


Although I am sure you are aware of the state of the historical record, I believe a brief review would be useful. 

First, there are numerous sources describing the secrecy in which all martial arts training was practiced in Okinawa. This secrecy has resulted in a very barren historical record. To make matters worse, what record existed was decimated in WWII. In Tales of Okinawas Great Masters, Nagamine writes:


> [T]he entire populated areas of great Naha, including Shuri and Tomari, were completely annihilated by the horrifying air and naval pounding they took during the assault on Okinawa in WWII. Anything not destroyed by the direct strikes, was incinerated by the perpetual fires which ensued. Countless thousands of lives were lost in the holocaust, national treasures were destroyed, ancient landmarks obliterated, important property vaporized, and records of every sort simply vanished.


It is quite expected to get called out for not providing evidence that the Chinese taught military arts. But the truth of the matter is there is little in the historical record that sheds any light on this issue, one way or the other.

The Chinese established a presence in Okinawa in the late 1300s to support tribute trade. This tribute trade required military protection. Tribute trade carried not only goods to China, but senior members of the Okinawan aristocracy. These were the very same kinds of individuals who learned Chinese culture (writing, history, philosophy, dance, etc.) from the residents of Kume Mura. It was widely known that passage to China could be dangerous. It seems obvious to me that all capable passengers would want to have some skill in fighting off pirates. Their lives may have depended on it. There can be no doubt that the crew needed skills in military arts, as it was their mission to fight off pirate attacks. A successful pirate attack could well have meant the execution of all passengers. From the pirates perspective, it would be better not to have surviving witnesses. Piracy carried a certain death penalty in China.

Some might argue the practice of these military arts, required for tribute trade, was simply outside the scope of Okinawa existence, that this practice simply never would occurred. It can be argued that there is no documentation this existed, so why even bother to consider it. After all,  there was a well documented weapons ban. This argument typically leads to some kind of statement to the effect that the Okinawans had their (non-military) kobudo weapons, so why would they have any reason to have use for spear arts.

Some might acknowledge that some of this military training (in support of tribute trade) must have gone on but might believe there was some kind of "Chinese wall" separating military arts from empty hand arts, and never the twain did meet. This is an obvious conclusion one can make when looking at the only evidence we have that survives from the Chinese instruction of years past; empty hand kata. The assumption, the speculation in my perspective, is that the separate spear arts, since they were distinct and separate from empty hand arts, must have died out at some point. 

This assumption would seem to imply that spear arts can only be practiced with a spear in hand, and that since no common Okinawan arts are practiced with spear today, they must have vanished over the years. 

  But when it comes to evidence (or the lack thereof), it cant be stressed enough that neither side has some compelling set of historical documents. To those asking for my historical documentation, I have the following questions: What historical records are there regarding specifically what the Chinese taught the Okinawans in the 1400s? The 1500s? The 1600s? The 1700s? 

And the answer is that there is no documentation to support any conclusions other than that there was instruction from Chinese sources in Okinawa. If anyone has more, I would be very grateful if they would share it.

The only true evidence that has survived is the kata. From them, there are a variety of speculations regarding their origins, their purposes, and why they were taught to the Okinawans. The standard speculation is that because of the weapons bans, the Okinawans had no need to learn military (aka spear) arts. Regarding the question of why the Chinese would flout the ban on this instruction and teach the Okinawans, it could be argued that the Chinese shared all manner of Chinese culture. From there, perhaps a speculation could be made that this cultural transfer extended to the teaching of empty hand martial arts, despite this instruction being forbidden by the Japanese. Is there evidence to support that claim, specifically that the Chinese taught empty hand arts to Okinawans, solely for the purpose of empty hand self defense? It's unlikely. 

I do know of some evidence that appears to contradict it. Regarding Kanryo Higaonnas efforts to learn Kenpo from the Chinese, Eiichi Miyazato has written:



> Kanryo Higaonna Sensei, very strong, even as a young boy, took an interest in Karate at a very early age. He himself trained in tee but, by chance one day, he stumbled upon Chinese Kenpo. The splendid feats that he witnessed fascinated him so much that he went around all the prominent houses in Okinawa and asked them to teach him. Unfortunately for him, the common practice of the time was to keep the art veiled in secrecy, and the more famous the house was, the more pride they took in this secrecy. Considering the fact that those within the family who practiced the art didnt share their knowledge even with their own family, an outsider receiving instruction was virtually unheard of.


Recognizing the numerous sources describing the secrecy of the practice of kenpo in Okinawa, I would tend to believe that Higaonnas experience more the norm than the exception. Yet Funakoshi describes four Chinese teachers (3 of which were military attaches, one a sailor) as having taught 22 Okinawans their arts.

Some might just brush off this disparity in sources, one that it was difficult to find instruction, and one that documents several Chinese teaching a number of Okinawans. Should we expect such a disparity. I would argue in support of that with the speculation that the Chinese, especially military envoys, would tend to break a Japanese decree only when it would suit their purposes. Do I have evidence of that. No I dont. Do others have documentary evidence on the motivations of Chinese in teaching empty hand arts. I would be very surprised if any exists in support of that position. 

Timo asked "more importantly, why is it that nobody in Okinawa seems to have made this connection?" This issue is a complex one, and I can't martial all the evidence in this forum post, but I will make a small start. 

I would argue the following. 

1. At the time these kata were taught, they served several purposes. Training in these or any martial arts is good exercise, something useful throughout ones life. The Okinawans learned all manners of customs and norms from the Chinese and fully integrated them into their lives. It is widely believed that many Okinawans learned Chinese arts and practiced them for their lifetime. Whether the Okinawans studying them were only interested in the military purposes, or improving their empty-hand self defense capabilities, or because it was great exercise and good for one's health, or because it raised them in stature in the community, or because they just liked the training, or some combination of these factors, we will never know. 

2.  Once one learns certain movements for use in propelling a spear, they can often be used effectively in completely different empty-hand applications. The speed and power of many arm movements needed to quickly propel a spear can be seamlessly applied to blocking and striking combinations. This is found in a number of Asian arts including Aikido/JuJutsu where sword movements are used, empty-hand, to defend against the sword. This is the oft-derided reverse-engineering model of self-defense. Take some sequence of movements you can do well (fast and hard), and see how you can apply it to in ways not related to the original purpose of the training.

3. The weapons ban prevented the carrying of the spear, and hence it had no utility as a weapon in Okinawa, outside its role in protecting shipping vessels, and perhaps the Ryukyu king. I see no reason why should Okinawans would have wanted to have preserve weapon arts that for a weapon that was illegal? Rather, if those some of the same movements that were useful in propelling a spear, were also useful in fighting empty hand, why not just practice empty hand, since that was the only way that one could use the movements in self-defense. Not only did the average Okinawan not get attacked by pirates armed with spears, even if he did, he would not have the spear needed to fend them off. 

4.Finally, there is an complex issue that needs mention, one where a few sentences can do it no justice because generalizations can so often lead to misunderstandings. Nevertheless, I will try. 

The Asian cultures, in general, have an approach to instruction, that would tend to preserve the practice of something, even if the purpose of it was not well understood. Many aspects of a number of Asian cultural arts are highly stylized. Kabuki dance is but one example. Kerr records the incredibly complex kowtow rituals the Okinawan royalty engaged in on their tribute travels to China. Today, in Asian cultures, teachers have far more authority than in many western cultures and instruction is typically more of a uni-directional learning process, with teachers providing instruction, and students absorbing information.  This is a very simplistic overview of a very complex issue, but nevertheless I believe it could well be a factor regarding why we have the karate kata we do today. 

      Asian cultures, in general, have historically provided a fertile environment for the transmission of cultural information, generation to generation. We see that in the martial arts. Fathers were expected to train their eldest sons. And eldest sons were expected to toil under their fathers instruction, and so the cycle would be repeated. If, say in 1700, an Okinawan seafarer studied a Chinese military art, so that he could better defend his ship, he would have trained intensively in that art. And he would have passed that art down to his eldest son. If his son was not a seafarer, would the father have taught the use of the spear? Maybe, maybe not. Maybe just the empty hand version of the kata was all that was taught. Maybe the integration of that old weapons art, done empty hand, with the added concepts of ti, made for great fighting combinations. 

This is a way in which the arts could have slowly but inexorably split apart, the old military arts falling by the wayside, and the empty-hand components surviving due to the generational transfer of teaching, father to son, that was so common in Okinawa and other Asian cultures. This is an inherently complex subject that I will write more extensively on in the future.

Mike Eschenbrenner
Cayuga Karate


----------



## Cayuga Karate (Jan 14, 2010)

Timo, 

Thanks for pointing this out. I have contributed a lot of time in making these posts. I regret my language is not always perfect. I made an implicit, not explicit point that was not clear. 

I wrote:


> This is not to say that military personnel on a ship might not wield multiple weapons. For example, it was quite common for Samurai of the times to carry both swords and spears, and this may well have been the case on Okinawan tribute vessels.



Here is an improved version of that text that makes the point explicitly.

This is not to say that military personnel on a ship might not wield multiple weapons. For example, it was quite common for Samurai of the times *in Japan as well as in Okinawa, *to carry both swords and spears, and this *[the arming with both swords and spears]* may well have been the case *of Okinawan Security personnel* on Okinawan tribute vessels.

Bold letters have been added for clarity.

-Mike Eschenbrenner
Cayuga Karate
Ithaca, New York USA


----------



## SahBumNimRush (Jan 14, 2010)

TimoS said:


> Interesting. I've never heard this, which naturally doesn't prove anything. Do you have any material at hand about this connection? Also, does So Rim Sah "translate" into Shaolin temple?


 

So Rim Sa translates as "Young Forest Temple"  My knowledge of chinese arts is very small, I wish I had a more solid foundation in that part of martial history.  I have seen this correlation between bassai and chinto with the "young forest temple" in various literature.. . The only book I happen to have at my hands right now (I'm at work, not at home) is _Tang Soo Do_ by Kang Uk Lee, but to be honest it is only mentioned and not elaborated on.  Most sources I find this correlation on only mention its source.

Check out this site's "ancient history" section, it talks about the young forest temple in japanese terms, which may be more helpful to you than the korean terms.. . http://www.kamishinryu.net/

Any opinions or further information/explanation would be greatly appreciated Timo.


----------



## Cayuga Karate (Jan 14, 2010)

Maunakuma wrote:



> I think you'd be getting closer to the truth if you researched the Pechin and looked at Kobudo. The empty hand kata are well researched and really aren't weapon kata. Although, many of the same principles can be found in weapon kata. Karate is a quasi-civilian art. It was practiced by nobles and middle class Okinawans and it was practiced by officials who acted under the authority of the King.



I have made a number of statements regarding the importance to both the Okinawans and the Chinese of the protection of tribute trade from piracy. Regarding the role of kobudo in that protection, I wrote the following in my initial post: 



> As I have brought this issue to other forums, some have asked questions about the relation of Okinawan kobudo to the issue I am studying. Please note I make no arguments at all about Okinawan kobudo. While some of those weapons may have been used to defend tribute ships, I dont see what motivation the Chinese would have had to teach the use of those weapons in preparing Okinawans for combat with armed pirates. The Chinese have had thousands of years experience in the use of the spear in military combat, and I see no reason that they would have chosen to instruct the Okinawans in bo, tonfa or nunchuka, as these are non-bladed weapons. In military combat, at least prior to the adoption of firearms, preference was clearly given to bladed weapons. And while the kama is bladed, the short length makes it not nearly as effective as a spear. (I wont argue with the Sai one way or the other. They are effective throwing weapons, and could very well have had a role.)


It is widely believed that much of Okinawan Kobudo is a distinctly Okinawan art. That may or may not be true. However, I would argue, as I have above, that these weapons would not have been all that effective in defense against pirates armed with spears. Nagamine writes: 





> No expense was spared when it came to protecting the safety of the cargo, passengers and crew.


If someone wants to make the argument that Okinawan non-military weapons were the preferred arms for defense against the military weapons (spears) used by pirates, they are welcome to make that case. I do not believe the Okinawan or Chinese personnel involved in the planning and execution of the security of these ships would have come to this conclusion. 

In 1500 the Ryukyu king banned weapons in the countryside. It is *highly *unlikely that he banned the use of these weapons to protect his ships. In 1609, the Japanese banned the carrying or training in military weapons (spears and swords) across the Ryukyu kingdom. 

After the invastion, the success of Okinawan tribute trade was still important to the Japanese rulers. I find it difficult to believe that prior to each tribute voyage that the Japanese scoured the ships for spears, depriving the Okinawans of the protection of their vessels. 

Others may argue that the weapons bans would have resulted in the Okinawan seafarers shifting from spears to traditional Okinawan kobudo weapons such as bo, sai, tonfa, nunchaku, kama, timbe, nitanbo, and the like. 

I, on the other hand, see no reason to believe that the Okinawans ever would have abandoned the use of spears in the defense of tribute trade. Not at least, until the early to mid-1800s, when firearms assumed a predominant role in the defense of shipping vessels. 

-Mike Eschenbrenner
Cayuga Karate
Ithaca, New York - USA


----------



## Cayuga Karate (Jan 14, 2010)

SahBumNimRush wrote:



> Forms such as Bassai and Chinto are practiced by my art, and I have read that these forms were originated from the So Rim Sah school in China. But I digress, I look forward to reading what you find over the journey of your research.



My good doctor:

These are two of my favorites. Are you talking about what in Shito Ryu are practiced as Bassai Dai and Chinto? (Shotokan Bassai Dai and Gunkaku)

Do you practice these? You might be curious to see how well they can propel a spear.

-Mike Eschenbrenner
Cayuga Karate
Ithaca, New York - USA


----------



## TimoS (Jan 14, 2010)

Cayuga Karate said:


> But the truth of the matter is there is little in the historical record that sheds any light on this issue, one way or the other.


True, there isn't much written, partially because of the secrecy or let's say that it was a secret most people knew about, so it really wasn't that much of a secret. However, we have the kata and, much more importantly, we have the kata applications that have been passed on.


> It seems obvious to me that all capable passengers would want to have some skill in fighting off pirates.


Not necessarily. Let's take a look at modern piracy. Most of the vessels that have been pirated in e.g. near Somalia have had no defences whatsoever against the pirates. I don't see why this couldn't be true back then also.


> This argument typically leads to some kind of statement to the effect that the Okinawans had their (non-military) kobudo weapons, so why would they have any reason to have use for spear arts.


Oh please don't tell me you believe that the weapons used in kobudo were all some sort of farming tools? Most of them were weapons to begin with! 


> Some might acknowledge that some of this military training (in support of tribute trade) must have gone on but might believe there was some kind of "Chinese wall" separating military arts from empty hand arts, and never the twain did meet.


I'll come back to that after I check a few things with friends who practise traditional chinese martial arts.


> This is an obvious conclusion one can make when looking at the only evidence we have that survives from the Chinese instruction of years past; empty hand kata. The assumption, the speculation in my perspective, is that the separate spear arts, since they were distinct and separate from empty hand arts, must have died out at some point.
> This assumption would seem to imply that spear arts can only be practiced with a spear in hand, and that since no common Okinawan arts are practiced with spear today, they must have vanished over the years.


There are Okinawan spear kata in existense, so that theory doesn't hold much water. 


> But when it comes to evidence (or the lack thereof), it cant be stressed enough that neither side has some compelling set of historical documents.


But surprisingly, the okinawans have these kata and they know how to use them. IF they were in fact weapons stuff, why did they die out and only the empty hand stuff survived? How hard can it be, even in the semi-secrecy of old Okinawa, to practise with a stick in your hand? And how come all those weapons kata survived?


> The only true evidence that has survived is the kata.


Seems to be one of the very few thing we can agree on.


> 1. At the time these kata were taught, they served several purposes. Training in these or any martial arts is good exercise, something useful throughout ones life.


At the time? Here's a newsflash: they still think so. Not only is kata a good way to pass on the teachings of karate (that is, the kata applications and techniques), it is also considered an exercise in itself.


> This is the oft-derided reverse-engineering model of self-defense. Take some sequence of movements you can do well (fast and hard), and see how you can apply it to in ways not related to the original purpose of the training.


Yes, because in okinawan karate, there's no need for reverse engineering. The applications are taught with the kata.


> 3. The weapons ban prevented the carrying of the spear, and hence it had no utility as a weapon in Okinawa, outside its role in protecting shipping vessels, and perhaps the Ryukyu king. I see no reason why should Okinawans would have wanted to have preserve weapon arts that for a weapon that was illegal?


To the best of my knowledge, the weapons ban was by no means all-inclusive. For example, the kings' bodyguards were using weapons. Many people just think that e.g. sai was used for planting rice or something equally silly. It was weapon, favoured especially by the police. Also, do you think that the weapons ban that the Satsuma samurai edicted was strictly enforced? There was maybe a handful of samurai on the whole island, so the people could have had weapons.


> Not only did the average Okinawan not get attacked by pirates armed with spears, even if he did, he would not have the spear needed to fend them off.


True, but then, the average okinawan didn't have the time for martial arts. That was for those who had the time and energy for it: the nobles.


> nevertheless I believe it could well be a factor regarding why we have the karate kata we do today.


Err, no. The karate kata are there because that is where we take our techniques from. Without kata, there is no karate.


----------



## TimoS (Jan 14, 2010)

SahBumNimRush said:


> So Rim Sa translates as "Young Forest Temple"


Ok, that's Shaolin temple alright, or Shorinji in japanese.


----------



## Cayuga Karate (Jan 14, 2010)

K-Man wrote:



> The question becomes, what came first? My feeling would be the answer is contained in the name. *Kare *(empty) _*te*_ (hand) is relatively recent. Prior to this it was simply *te* and linked to its region of origin, hence Naha-te Shuri-te and Tomari-te. If the karate we know had developed with a weapon, such as the spear, why would it regress to open hand? I do not doubt there are many links to military training in the MAs but I feel that karate was designed to use when there was no weapon available.


Thank you for taking the time to share this. Funakoshi has a good description of this is his text Karate-Do Kyohan. Right at the beginning of the text he describes his role in changing the meaning of kara from "Chinese" to "empty".



> Karate-do is a martial art peculiar to Okinawa in its origins. Although it has in the past tended to be confused with Chinese boxing because of the use of "China" (I will use "China" for the character for Tang/China/Chinese.), in its earlier name, in fact, for the past thousand years, the study and practice of masters and experts, through which it was nurtured and perfected and formed into the unified martial art that it is today, took place in Okinawa. It is therefore, not a distortion to represent it as an Okinawan martial art.
> 
> One may ask why the "China" has been retained for so long. As I discuss in the section, "The Development of Karate-do", I believe that at the time the influence of Chinese culture was at its peak in Japan, many experts in the martial arts traveled to China to practice Chinese boxing. With their new knowledge, they altered the existing martial art, called Okinawa-te, weeding out its bad points and adding good points to it, thus working it into an elegant art. It may be speculated that they considered "china" an appropriate new name. Since even in contemporary Japan, there are many people who are impressed by anything that is foreign, it is not difficult to imagine the high regard for anything Chinese that prevailed during that period in Okinawa. Even at the time of the present writer's youth, lack of a full set of Chinese furniture and furnishings in one's home was a serious impediment to the social influence of any leading family. With this background, the reason for the choice of the "China" character meaning "Chinese" as a simple case of exoticism is apparent.
> 
> Following tradition, the writer has in the past continued to use the character "China". However, because of the frequent confusion with Chinese boxing, and the fact that Okinawan martial art may now be considered a Japanese martial art, it is inappropriate, and in a sense, degrading, to continue to use "China" in the name. For this reason, in spite of many protests, we have abandoned the use of "China" to replace it with "empty."


Please note that the time of Funakoshi's writing, 1942, the Japanese had been at war with China, and to appreciate the magnitude of the hostility the Japanese military rulers viewed the Chinese, just five years earlier the Japanese massacred hundreds of thousands of civilians in what is known as the Rape of Nanking.

Funakoshi clearly was under pressure to sanitize the Okinawan art of Karate, to make it not so overtly Chinese and more Japanese. In that effort, he not only changed the name from Chinese hand to empty hand, (which had occurred earlier that the writing of this text,) but changed a number of names of kata away from Chinese names to Japanese names. Pinan became Heian, Naihanchi became Tekki, Seisan became Hangetsu, Chinto became Gunkaku, Wansu became Empi, Kusanku became Kanku. 

Thanks for taking the time to comment.


----------



## TimoS (Jan 14, 2010)

Cayuga Karate said:


> Right at the beginning of the text he describes his role in changing the meaning of kara from "Chinese" to "empty".


Funakoshi had no role whatsoever in the changing of those characters! He was probably one of the most influential in popularizing it, if not the most influential, but he did not make the change. The first time those characters were used was already back in 1905, nearly 40 years before Karate do Kyohan, which means that the meaning was most likely known and widely used even before that. Also, the "official" decision to switch to kanji was done in 1936, at a meeting where Funakoshi most certainly was not present.


----------



## SahBumNimRush (Jan 14, 2010)

Cayuga Karate said:


> SahBumNimRush wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Yes Mike, these are the forms I was referring to, and yes I do practice them, they are 2 of my 3 favorite forms (the other being kang song goon, also known as kanku/kusanku).  I was told once that Bassai was originally used as a bo form.  I cannot say one way or the other for certain, but I see *some* practical applications with a bo in it.


----------



## TimoS (Jan 14, 2010)

SahBumNimRush said:


> I was told once that Bassai was originally used as a bo form.  I cannot say one way or the other for certain, but I see *some* practical applications with a bo in it.


I have a hard time believing that. The applications I'm familiar with all point to close-in fighting and many of the moves, at least in the Shorin ryu Seibukan version that I'm practising, are just about impossible to perform correctly with a long(ish) piece of wood stuck in your hands. To do that, you would have to change the moves and, well, then it's not the same kata anymore.


----------



## Cayuga Karate (Jan 14, 2010)

Timo, 

  I am going to review these a few statements at a time. I did say I would address all issues raised. 

In response to my statement It seems obvious to me that all capable passengers would want to have some skill in fighting off pirates., you wrote 


> Not necessarily. Let's take a look at modern piracy. Most of the vessels that have been pirated in e.g. near Somalia have had no defences whatsoever against the pirates. I don't see why this couldn't be true back then also.


  I am not sure the historical documentation would support your statement. I would be interested if you could provide any references in support of your equating acts of piracy today with acts of piracy against tribute ships in feudal times. 

  While you appear to see commonality between the two environments, I see a number of differences, several, quite significant. Tribute ships in feudal times carried 100 people, including passengers high up in the Ryukyu aristocracy. Today, cargo vessels carry a crew of perhaps a dozen, with no passengers. Ships in feudal times were suffered pirate attacks because the pirates wanted the cargo. Today pirates hold the crew hostage for ransom. The cargo is usually not even at risk and even if it were, tt is ensured. In Feudal times, as Nagamine noted, "Tribute was the singlemost important aspect of the Ryukyu's economy." A loss of a tribute ship would have been devastating. 

Today, the crew has no commitment to die in defense of the shipment. That was simply not the case in feudal times. I quoted Nagamine here today that the crew had no choice but to fight pirates. I also quoted Nagamine that non-crew passengers skilled in combative arts were by order of the King, commanded to aid the crew.  

As you note, the vessels off Somalia had no defenses against piracy. In contrast, in a post on this thread I quoted Nagamine: "no expense was spared when it came to ensuring the safety of cargo, passengers and crew."

  My reading of the historical literature shows me that pirate attacks in feudal times was a bloody encounters. For example, Kerr quotes the the following from the Ming annals "Their discipline was stern an they fought all to death. ... As the profit was always enormous, trouble with these pirates became worse day by day." 

I would be interested in any historical documentation you can provide that supports your statement "Most of the vessels that have been pirated in e.g. near Somalia have had no defenses whatsoever against the pirates. I don't see why this couldn't be true back then also."

  In response to my statement: "This argument typically leads to some kind of statement to the effect that the Okinawans had their (non-military) kobudo weapons, so why would they have any reason to have use for spear arts.", you responded:



> Oh please don't tell me you believe that the weapons used in kobudo were all some sort of farming tools? Most of them were weapons to begin with!


 I am certainly not alone in my reference to long bladed weapons (spears and swords) as military weapons. The Japanese used the similar criteria in their weapons bans. In contrast other weapons that were not long and bladed were not considered by the Japanese to be military weapons and therefore did not fall under the decree. I refer to bo, tonfa, nunchaku, sai, tonfa, timbe as non-military weapons. 

Swords, spears, bows and arrows have a long history as military weapons. Would you be willing to share any documentation you have regarding the regular military use of the common Okinawan kobudo weapons for military purposes? By military, I mean groups of armed men (often very large groups) fighting with weapons on behalf of larger communities, usually governments.

If you have any references that traditional Okinawan Kobudo weapons were commonly used in military conflict, I would be grateful if you could provide them. 

-Mike Eschenbrenner
Cayuga Karate 
Ithaca, New York - USA


----------



## Cayuga Karate (Jan 14, 2010)

Timo,

In response to my statement: "This assumption would seem to imply that spear arts can only be practiced with a spear in hand, and that since no common Okinawan arts are practiced with spear today, they must have vanished over the years."

You replied:



> There are Okinawan spear kata in existense, so that theory doesn't hold much water.


I will reiterate what I wrote. "since no *common* Okinawan arts are practiced with spear today." [emphasis]

First let me state that I qualified my use of the term spear early on. I find the use of the term halberd awkward and pedantic and when I refer to a spear, I am referring to a bladed spear. That being understood, I did not state, nor imply that there are no Okinawan spear kata in existence. 

The question is whether the spear is common in Okinawan arts, or is found in common Okinawan arts. Of course you may claim that the spear is  indeed common. However, I would imagine most of the readers here would not find that argument convincing. 

I am not going to quibble about some of the minor issues you raise. But I would like to address one point you made. 



> because in okinawan karate, there's no need for reverse engineering. The applications are taught with the kata.


For this, I have some questions I hope you can provide some insight on. Can you validate an original source of any bunkai application you have learned. Most of your kata comes from Kyan. Can you validate whether applications were of his design, his teachers design, or do they go further back? 

Can anyone validate whether Shoshin Nagamine, Joen Nakazato, Zenryo Shimabukuro, Tatsu Shimabuku and Eizo Shimabukuro were all taught the same applications by Kyan, for all the movements in all the Kyan kata? Or in general, did Kyan teach a bit of bunkai to some students and a bit of bunkai to others, leaving large section of kata up to the imagination of his students?

Were the students of Itosu all taught the same applications for all the kata they learned from him. 

Mabuni amassed some 40 kata while on Okinawa. Does anyone believe that he was taught bunkai for every one of the hundreds of movements contained within. Does anyone believe that all these applications flowed without interruption from the originators of the kata. Could Mabuni even teach the applications found in all these kata in any way that would be useful for his students?

Following is a clip of bunkai practiced by the students of Seikichi Iha, a student of Shinpan Gusukuma, and Katsuya Miyahira, two mainstream Okinawan teachers. Would anyone argue that this bunkai goes back to Itosu, Matsumura or further. Chinto is a very old kata. 






Regarding kata bunkai, we can look at movements practiced by a whole range of Okinawan schools. Following is a clip of a discussion of some Naihanchi movements. 




The actual application begins at 2:00. At 2:20 the sensei shows the application of the cross strike found in Naihanchi, which ends just past the torso in the kata. In the application, he fundamentally modifies the movement by extending it fully. The movement he teaches simply is not found in the kata. He has turned a movement that punches a short distance and freezes, to a full blown reverse punch that extends fully and snaps back to chamber. It has been my experience that this is the norm of kata bunkai, there is often quite a bit of modification needed to make the kata movements work in realistic fighting applications. 

Here are a couple of clips of Seibukan movements that I would like to comment on.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKBo5wcAzwo&NR=1 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vAnhxndLLw&feature=related

I will begin with some quantitative observations about the types of attacks and defense sequences found in the two videos. I counted 28 attacks demonstrated (counting the synchronized pair movements in the first video as a singe attack). Of these attacks, there was one only one two-strike combination (right then left). There was one combination of a strike then a kick. There was one combination of a grab then a kick. Out of 28 attacks, only three had what I would consider two parts to them. Of the remaining 25, four were grabs, four were kicks. The remaining attacks were single strikes. There was one right reverse punch. The remainder involved a step then strike movement, 10 being the traditional karate step then strike, right lunge punch. There were a wide variety of counters, with a number of interesting combinations utilizing strike, then lock sequences. But the majority of counters were a single strike response. 

Among those that train in fighting-oriented arts, I am certainly not alone in the opinion that many of the concepts I have pointed out just don't model the way  empty-hand fighting works. In general, a very common attack from fighter with just basic training would involve the attacker shuffling in, not stepping forward, withdrawing his punches immediately, and using punch combinations. Also even a beginner fighter learns not to leave his jaw exposed by keeping one hand on his hip.

Regarding defenses, it is well known that against larger attackers, a person usually needs more than one counter to stop them. Yet, as noted, many of these defense sequences shown demonstrate a single counter.

I chose Seibukan to evaluate for several reasons. First, I would argue that the applications in Seibukan (and in these videos) contain far more realism than the bunkai taught by a variety of other traditional Okinawan systems. Seibukan is a great example of a rock-solid Okinawan system. It's roots are in Zenryo Shimabukuru and Chotoku Kyan, two renowned Okinawan karateka. To use an American phrase, Seibukan is as old-school as it gets. 

Another observation is that it appears to me that the kata combinations at the end of the second clip, don't always correlate all that well to the sequences kata sequences shown just before the applications. Starting at 3:24 in the kata sequence of Passai, the student begins with a shuto technique, takes one step forward with a second shuto, and continues advancing with three distinct shuffles forward. The kata has the two arms raising on the first shuffle, falling on the second sequence, and finishing with a lunge punch on the final shuffle. 

In contrast, the student demonstrating the bunkai does the initial left shuto block, but instead of using another shuto going forward, followed by the rising arm movements, the downwards strikes and the lunge punch, he does what appears to be a single strike (the camera angle was sufficient to see the hand counter), followed by a rising knee to the abdomen, and ending with a standing choke. There was a single step forward during the sequence, but none of the three shuffling movements found in the kata. It would seem to me that if the kata student demonstrates a sequence with four movements forward, that the student showing the bunkai should show those movements. 

I saw another concept I found a bit odd. In the Passai sequence beginning at 3:15 in the 2nd clip the student shows three repetitive movements coming forward, right, then left, then right. In the application coming forward, the defender comes forward to the attacker with the first movement in the air, then the 2nd movement in the air, then the third is used to grab. Over the years, I have seen a lot of bunkai from a lot of systems. This was the first where I saw that sequential set of kata movements used to wave the hands in the air while one walks towards the attacker.

Again, I do not mean to single out Seibukan, because I really enjoyed these clips and recognized immediately the quality of their training. These are good karateka, and the Sensei is outstanding. 

I showed the Chinto application above, because of the concepts I see in common with the Seibukan clips. That is the movements, while very good karate applications, in general have a quite a bit that does not map to the kata. Despite the mainline heritage of this Itosu/Chibana system, these bunkai sets were not developed by either Itosu or Chibana, but by a senior student of Miyahira.   But that is what is practiced for Chinto bunkai in this Chibana system.

I bring up these issues for a number of reasons. There are some Okinawan systems that have done better than others at teaching bunkai. Seibukan is an example of effective karate fighting, and good bunkai. But the notion that all Okinawan systems teach useful movements for all of their kata movements would strike many students of the arts as a bit of an exaggeration. Much is simply ignored, and good bunkai applications often reach outside the kata for movements to add to the combinations to improve their utility.

I have stated here that I will present fully on all movements of each kata that I examine. One useful approach would be a comparative analysis with the approach to kata of a mainstream Okinawan karate school. 

I would imagine that Seibukan Finland teaches the Pinans. I would appreciate the opportunity to compare my reverse-engineered empty hand and spear applications with some of the traditional applications that may have come out of Okinawa as part of the Seibukan system. I am hopeful that Timo would like to participate in such a comparison? 

Criticism of my ideas is welcome. But readers here could really benefit from a comparison that will allow them to judge for themselves the relative effectiveness of empty hand kata for empty hand self defense, or for the military art of spearfighting. 

Mike Eschenbrenner
Cayuga Karate
Ithaca, New York - USA


----------



## SahBumNimRush (Jan 14, 2010)

TimoS said:


> I have a hard time believing that. The applications I'm familiar with all point to close-in fighting and many of the moves, at least in the Shorin ryu Seibukan version that I'm practising, are just about impossible to perform correctly with a long(ish) piece of wood stuck in your hands. To do that, you would have to change the moves and, well, then it's not the same kata anymore.


 

I am inclined to agree with you Timo, as I find it hard to extract bo techs out of the majority of the form.  I keep an open mind about these things, since I believe that many things change within the forms over time for various reasons.  When styles are crossed between nations, they are adapted to the indigenous styles.  When styles are passed from teacher to student over generations, aspects are undoubtedly lost and some added.  Because traditionally styles were passed verbally and little was ever written, it is difficult for me to say for certain what the "original" intent of these forms truely are.  

I would very much love to be enlightened to the original purposes of these, but all I can find is interpretations.  This is both a curse and a blessing, IMHO.  Skilled martial artists may find very effective insights within their practiced forms, some which may have not been the original intent, but work none-the-less.  But from a historical and priciple aspect, the true intent is near impossible to ever decipher.


----------



## jks9199 (Jan 14, 2010)

Interesting work.

In the style I train in, the weapon hand and empty hand are inter-related.  The same body dynamics and principles apply, though their expression may change slightly as you add or remove a weapon.  You can certainly do any basic empty hand weapon form with a weapon, though you very likely will have to change some steps and movements, and you can perform many of the same movements unarmed that you find in our weapons forms.  However, you'd be going too far if you said that the empty hand forms were derived from weapons -- or vice versa.

I think that you're starting from some assumptions about the nature of a battlefield that may not be accurate, and about the tactics and strategies on the battlefield.  Polearms were indeed often primary weapons on a battlefield, for a lot of reasons including range and power.  I doubt that there were many places where staffs, however, were used in preference to some sort of bladed weapon... 

I have to wonder if perhaps you haven't found that there are indeed underlying principles of movement and body dynamics that are common to the Okinawan armed and unarmed fighting systems more than that one derived from the other.


----------



## TimoS (Jan 15, 2010)

Cayuga Karate said:


> Swords, spears, bows and arrows have a long history as military weapons. Would you be willing to share any documentation you have regarding the regular military use of the common Okinawan kobudo weapons for military purposes? By military, I mean groups of armed men (often very large groups) fighting with weapons on behalf of larger communities, usually governments.


Because okinawan kobudo weapons never were battlefield weapons, that would be impossible to provide. They were weapons of law enforcement, bodyguards, aristocrats etc.


----------



## TimoS (Jan 15, 2010)

Cayuga Karate said:


> Of course you may claim that the spear is  indeed common


Of course it is not common, because a) even in modern kobudo styles, nunti is an advanced weapon and (more importantly) b) before the advent of kobudo as a separate style, the masters knew maybe one or two weapons kata. Then later Taira Shinken and Matayoshi Shinko went to all these masters, learned the kata and put them together into kobudo systems.


> Can anyone validate whether Shoshin Nagamine, Joen Nakazato, Zenryo Shimabukuro, Tatsu Shimabuku and Eizo Shimabukuro were all taught the same applications by Kyan, for all the movements in all the Kyan kata?


Yes, I can, based on what I've seen with my own eyes last summer in Okinawa. Joen Nakazato's students were demonstrating Passai and although the moves looked a bit different, the applications were the same. As to where they originated from, nobody knows. However, the content remains the same. Even in Goju Seisan, many of the applications are exactly the same as in Shorin Seisan.


> Or in general, did Kyan teach a bit of bunkai to some students and a bit of bunkai to others, leaving large section of kata up to the imagination of his students?


Do you know how the kata was (most likely) taught when Kyan sensei was still teaching? Because your question, to me, shows that you think they were taught in the modern way, i.e. the kata as a whole and then maybe some applications here and there and that quite simply is not the case. The way those students were taught was they would be shown a move and then shown the application to the move. Next time they might be shown the next move in kata or they would drill the ones learned. So, using this method there wasn't much need for leaving things to students' imagination. Of course how they applied the kata in a real-live situation is something that couldn't be taught, they were shown principles and they drilled those with a partner.


> Were the students of Itosu all taught the same applications for all the kata they learned from him.


I wouldn't know. We are not in Itosu's lineage.


> Does anyone believe that all these applications flowed without interruption from the originators of the kata.


Why wouldn't they? 


> Could Mabuni even teach the applications found in all these kata in any way that would be useful for his students?


Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. The point is, those who taught him the kata surely would've known the applications. Whether Mabuni passed those on, I don't know.


> Following is a clip of bunkai practiced by the students of Seikichi Iha, a student of Shinpan Gusukuma, and Katsuya Miyahira, two mainstream Okinawan teachers. Would anyone argue that this bunkai goes back to Itosu, Matsumura or further. Chinto is a very old kata.


Chinto isn't a Matsumura kata, it is a Matsumora kata. Two totally different persons.


> The actual application begins at 2:00. At 2:20 the sensei shows the application of the cross strike found in Naihanchi, which ends just past the torso in the kata. In the application, he fundamentally modifies the movement by extending it fully.


Fundamentally? Not even close.


> Here are a couple of clips of Seibukan movements that I would like to comment on.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKBo5wcAzwo&NR=1
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vAnhxndLLw&feature=related


BTW, I am very familiar with those videos and all the persons on the video  I shot those videos and I train as often as I can with all the persons on the clips. They are all from various cities here in Finland, so I don't get to meet them too often.


> But the majority of counters were a single strike response.
> 
> Among those that train in fighting-oriented arts, I am certainly not alone in the opinion that many of the concepts I have pointed out just don't model the way  empty-hand fighting works. In general, a very common attack from fighter with just basic training would involve the attacker shuffling in, not stepping forward, withdrawing his punches immediately, and using punch combinations. Also even a beginner fighter learns not to leave his jaw exposed by keeping one hand on his hip.


Did our guys at any stage imply that these were realistic self-defence combinations? What you've looked at are for example our formal ippon kumite drills and while they teach us some of the tools in kata, that's not the most important lesson to learned from those. Those would be timing, stepping out of the line of attack, etc.


> Regarding defenses, it is well known that against larger attackers, a person usually needs more than one counter to stop them. Yet, as noted, many of these defense sequences shown demonstrate a single counter.


Like I said, ippon kumite and other more of less formal exercises meant to teach you some of the basic tools and how to apply them. When we practise kata in a more free-form way, we are taught to continue with something. E.g. the opening moves on Naifanchi. First you block a punch and then you strike with your elbow. If the first strike isn't successful, you continue with a second, third, fourth etc. or you switch to something else.


> Another observation is that it appears to me that the kata combinations at the end of the second clip, don't always correlate all that well to the sequences kata sequences shown just before the applications. Starting at 3:24 in the kata sequence of Passai, the student begins with a shuto technique, takes one step forward with a second shuto, and continues advancing with three distinct shuffles forward. The kata has the two arms raising on the first shuffle, falling on the second sequence, and finishing with a lunge punch on the final shuffle.


Those aren't the basic bunkai we're taught. Jani, the guy in the middle defending, is using more "free-form" applications. 


> It would seem to me that if the kata student demonstrates a sequence with four movements forward, that the student showing the bunkai should show those movements.


If they were demonstrating the basic bunkai, then yes. In this case, they weren't.


> I saw another concept I found a bit odd. In the Passai sequence beginning at 3:15 in the 2nd clip the student shows three repetitive movements coming forward, right, then left, then right. In the application coming forward, the defender comes forward to the attacker with the first movement in the air, then the 2nd movement in the air, then the third is used to grab. Over the years, I have seen a lot of bunkai from a lot of systems. This was the first where I saw that sequential set of kata movements used to wave the hands in the air while one walks towards the attacker.


Oh that one. That's supposed to simulate groping in darkness and when you finally find your opponent, you strike. Whether that's a realistic scenario or not, I cannot comment.


> I showed the Chinto application above, because of the concepts I see in common with the Seibukan clips. That is the movements, while very good karate applications, in general have a quite a bit that does not map to the kata. Despite the mainline heritage of this Itosu/Chibana system, these bunkai sets were not developed by either Itosu or Chibana, but by a senior student of Miyahira.   But that is what is practiced for Chinto bunkai in this Chibana system.


Could be. I am not familiar with Chinto myself, as it is taught to us only after reaching 2. dan. Also, there was talk on this forum previously that in the Itosu lineage there is much wider dispersion in the applications.


> I would imagine that Seibukan Finland teaches the Pinans. I would appreciate the opportunity to compare my reverse-engineered empty hand and spear applications with some of the traditional applications that may have come out of Okinawa as part of the Seibukan system. I am hopeful that Timo would like to participate in such a comparison?


We are, but those are considered additional kata, so many of the people here don't know them too well, myself included. I've been taught Pinan 1-3, but I can't remember how those go, as I don't usually practise them.


----------



## Cayuga Karate (Jan 15, 2010)

Timo,
You wrote:



> Chinto isn't a Matsumura kata, it is a Matsumora kata. Two totally different persons.


 
I must admit I was a bit surprised by this statement. You have made claims regarding the general nature of karate instruction in Okinawa. It appears that your knowledge may be somewhat limited to Kyan-based systems. For what it is worth, Chinto is a kata found in systems that descend from Sokon Matsumura, both in the common lineages of Itosu/Azato (Chibana, Mabuni, Toyama, Funakoshi) as well as the Matsumura Seito school descending from Nabe Matsumura (Soken). While we cant prove that Itosu learned Chinto from Sokon Matsumura, (since there is no documentation) we do know that Soken practiced it and we know that Soken has stated he learned his kata from Nabe Matsumura. That would be pretty sound evidence that Chinto comes from Sokon Matsumura. I think most would be very surprised to find that Itosu learned Chinto from Kosaku Matsumora. 

On another topic, while Nunti is a pointed spear, I have written here that when I refer to the term spear, I refer to a bladed spear, rather than use the awkward, little-known term  halberd. Bladed spear forms are not found in common Okinawan karate systems. 

You and I could debate further the usefulness of basic bunkai and the more free-form applications that often diverge greatly from movements found in kata. But without visual evidence, readers here would never be able to evaluate the merits of our arguments. 

Your claim that my hypothesis cannot be correct seems to be based, in large part, on the argument that the applications you have learned for kata are really good fighting applications, and therefore the kata movements could not possibly have been designed for a spear. Perhaps you would be willing to provide evidence in support of that claim by posting video of these applications. 

I propose a comparison. You demonstrate/teach your empty-hand applications, I demonstrate/teach my spear applications. That will provide readers of the forum the information necessary to draw their own conclusions. Let me start with a disclaimer. My karate training has almost uniformly been in systems that practice Itosu/Higashionna kata. Aside from a couple of visits to Matsubayashi dojos, one ten years ago, the other 25 years ago, I have never trained in a dojo in the Kyan lineage. 

I would be eager to review any Seibukan Kyan kata of your choosing for use with a spear. We could provide a comparative analysis, move for move, of one kata of your choice, in its entirety. I am hopeful that you will be willing to provide evidence of the great fighting applications of a Seibukan kata, since this would let the readers of Martial Talk be the judge of the relative effectiveness of the empty hand kata movements in versus spear movements in combat applications.

One important criteria would be the fidelity with which bunkai applications conform to kata movements. I propose we use the Kyan videos of Zenpo Shimabukuru found on youtube as the standard to which our movements should conform. 

And there would be no need to rush on the delivery. Kata isn't taught in a day. We could take a section or two each week. 

I would appreciate your participation in this effort. Thank you. 

-Mike Eschenbrenner
Cayuga Karate
Ithaca, New York - USA


----------



## Cayuga Karate (Jan 15, 2010)

Timo,

I made two statements regarding Funakoshis role in the changing of the name from Chinese hand to Empty hand. 




> Funakoshi has a good description of this is his text Karate-Do Kyohan. Right at the beginning of the *text he describes his role in changing the meaning of kara *from "Chinese" to "empty". Funakoshi clearly was under pressure to sanitize the Okinawan art of Karate, to make it not so overtly Chinese and more Japanese. In that effort, *he not only changed the name from Chinese hand to empty hand*, (which had occurred earlier that the writing of this text,) but changed a number of names of kata away from Chinese names to Japanese names. Pinan became Heian, Naihanchi became Tekki, Seisan became Hangetsu, Chinto became Gunkaku, Wansu became Empi, Kusanku became Kanku.


To which you replied: 



> Funakoshi had no role whatsoever in the changing of those characters! He was probably one of the most influential in popularizing it, if not the most influential, but he did not make the change. The first time those characters were used was already back in 1905, nearly 40 years before Karate do Kyohan, which means that the meaning was most likely known and widely used even before that. Also, the "official" decision to switch to kanji was done in 1936, at a meeting where Funakoshi most certainly was not present.


I find this an odd point you make. On what historical evidence do you make this claim that *Funakoshi had no role whatsoever*? It seems that you imply that Funakoshi had to have been at the 1936 meeting for him to have had any influence. It seems that the name change took place only at the 1936 meeting. On what evidence do you make such a statement? First, regarding Funakoshis lack of attendance, even as early as 1936, there was such a thing as mail. 

But more important, I think you are not clear on the order of events here. Funakoshis Karate-Do Kyohan publication was 1935, a year before the meeting took place in which the formal name change occurred. By 1935, in Japan, but not Okinawa, toudi was replaced with karate, and the term became widespread. It appears you are arguing that Funakoshi had no role in the the widespread use of the term karate, in Toykyo, the year before the 1936 meeting. On what historical documentation, do you make that claim?

I assume from your argument that there was no pressure from Toyko on the karate community that they needed to change its name. Are you arguing that the Okinawan karate seniors just decided this by themselves in a vacuum. 

On the contrary, the pressure was most likely to be felt, at least initially, not in Okinawa, but in Tokyo. This change occurred in large part because the Japanese people were being whipped up in an anti-China war hysteria. And in Tokyo, Funakoshi was likely more involved with more Japanese than practically the entire Okinawan karate community back home. He taught privileged members of the Japanese society. He taught at universities. If there was pressure to change the name, Funakoshi would have borne the brunt, as would have Mabuni in Osaka, and Motobu during his teaching there. 

The historical record is rather clear. Funakoshi published his book in 1935, and that name Karate was quickly adopted all around Tokyo. The following year, it was time to bring the Okinawans along with the program and Genwa Nakasone was sent to make this happen. 

Some of the participants in the 1936 who were from Japan, makes these points clear. 



> *Kita Ezio:* Before I came to Okinawa, I, too, believed that the pronunciation of kara meant empty.
> 
> *Furukuma Gisaburo:* For people from other prefectures (outside Okinawa), the term karate-do is appealing and has a definite ring of martial arts to it. Moreover, it appears that Toudi has lost its appeal.
> 
> *Ota Chofu:* I dont think that anybody dislikes the term kara; however, there are those who resent the term tou [China].


 
Maury Levitz has an excellent post on the topic.
http://www.newpaltzkarate.com/article/Article1SA.html

Let me quote a section. 



> Funakoshi was clearly not the first to use the "empty hand" (kanji) meaning for karate. He was, however, influential in popularizing this meaning by calling on his colleagues to abandon the "Chinese Hand" meaning of karate in favor of "empty hand."  The change from "China hand" to "empty hand" gained immediate popularity on the main islands of Japan once it was introduced. But back on Okinawa the change seems to have taken some Japanese mainland influence to effect widespread Okinawan acceptance of the new name.


 
This is not the first time on this thread that you have made some sweeping statement unsupported by the historical record. Would you care to provide any historical documentation that supports your statement Funakoshi had no role whatsoever in the changing of those characters.

I look forward to your reply.

-Mike Eschenbrenner
Cayuga Karate
Ithaca, New York USA


----------



## TimoS (Jan 15, 2010)

Cayuga Karate said:


> I must admit I was a bit surprised by this statement



You're surprised because someone is telling you how it is?


> . You have made claims regarding the general nature of karate instruction in Okinawa. It appears that your knowledge may be somewhat limited to Kyan-based systems.


Nope. Trust me on this one. I've been practising two Kyan lineage styles and I can tell you that my facts are correct.


> For what it is worth, Chinto is a kata found in systems that descend from Sokon Matsumura


No it isn't. Kyan learned the kata from Kosaku Matsumora, a Tomari based master. While Matsumura may very well have been familiar with the kata, the evidence points that he didn't pass it on. From Matsumura (or most likely one of his senior students) Kyan learned only two kata: Seisan and Gojushiho. 


> I think most would be very surprised to find that Itosu learned Chinto from Kosaku Matsumora.


You mean you would be surprised. Look e.g. here


> Itosu continued his training in the martial arts with Matsumora Kosaku          and allegedly the cave dwelling "ANAN" in 1873 (Sakagami)





> On another topic, while Nunti is a pointed spear, I have written here that when I refer to the term spear, I refer to a bladed spear, rather than use the awkward, little-known term  halberd. Bladed spear forms are not found in common Okinawan karate systems.


Which should give you a clue as to whether they were used at all.


> Your claim that my hypothesis cannot be correct seems to be based, in large part, on the argument that the applications you have learned for kata are really good fighting applications, and therefore the kata movements could not possibly have been designed for a spear. Perhaps you would be willing to provide evidence in support of that claim by posting video of these applications.



Why bother? You've already seen our demonstration from last year. I still maintain that the karate kata were not "spearfighting" (or halberd, if you will) kata. If they were, why would the okinawans stop training them? Because there was suddendly no longer a use for them, as you claimed earlier? And yet, somehow, all these other weapons kata survived, it's just that these spear kata didn't... Riiiiggghtt. How convenient. 
You are also quite keen on quoting Nagamine. Well, I've read his book also and I can't remember anything there that would suggest spearfighting. After all, Nagamine did a lot of research into karate history. Wonder why he didn't think of picking up a piece of wood and start swinging it around.... He must've had no idea what he was doing...



> I am hopeful that you will be willing to provide evidence of the great fighting applications of a Seibukan kata, since this would let the readers of Martial Talk be the judge of the relative effectiveness of the empty hand kata movements in versus spear movements in combat applications.


I have an even better idea: why don't you go over to e.g. Karate Underground forum and try how they like your ideas over there? Or e-budo?


----------



## Cayuga Karate (Jan 15, 2010)

Timo,

Wow, what a remarkable post. 

Let's start with Chinto. You reference a FightingArts reference that does *not* state that Itosu learned Chinto from Matsumora, and ignore a FightingArts reference that Itosu's Chinto did indeed come from *Matsumura.*

http://www.fightingarts.com/reading/article.php?id=222



> There are three distinct "families" of Chinto in modern Okinawan karate: (1) Matsumura/Itosu lineage (performed front to back), (2) Kosaku Matsumora lineage (performed side to side), and (3) the Chotoku Kyan lineage (performed on a 45 degree angle). The version practiced by Funakoshi is clearly from the Matsumura/Itosu lineage.


 
I assume you know that a Google search of "Chinto" and "Matsumura" yields 30,000 hits. You might be surprise that they aren't all sites that state he didn't teach it to Itosu. 

A quick check of some web sites of schools that descend from Matsumura shows a widespread belief that Itosu's Chinto comes from Matsumura. 

You, on the other hand, argue to the contrary. And what evidence do you present with this stunning revelation? First, as noted above, you cite an article that Itosu trained with Matsumora, but makes no reference to Chinto regarding this training. An assumption on your part, perhaps? 

Your second argument is, quite candidly, quite an odd twist of logic. 

In a reply to my statement: "Chinto is a kata found in systems that descend from Sokon Matsumura." 

You replied: 



> No it isn't. Kyan learned the kata from Kosaku Matsumora, a Tomari based master. While Matsumura may very well have been familiar with the kata, the evidence points that he didn't pass it on. From Matsumura (or most likely one of his senior students) Kyan learned only two kata: Seisan and Gojushiho.


 
It seems what you are saying is that Kyan learned all the kata that Matsumura (or one of his senior students) had to teach. That was Seisan and Gojushiho. Kyan didn't learn Kusanku from Matsumura, therefore Itosu also couldn't have. Kyan didn't learn Naihanchi from Matsumura, therefore Itosu also couldn't have. Kyan didn't learn the kata *named* Matsumura Rohai or Matsumura Passai, therefore Itosu also couldn't have. The list of kata goes on.

But your argument that Chinto is "not learned by schools that descend from Matsumura." is to me quite revealing. Why would you make such a preposterous statement, one that is so patently false to anyone on this forum that trains in Matsumura systems. I do wonder what motivates you to fabricate such obvious fallacies. 

I must apologize. I just don't think it productive to take the time to respond to your increasingly non-sensical statements. I do enjoy the give and take of forum discussions, but there is no point discussing matters further with a poster who so often engages in irrational dialogue. 

Regarding Matsumura's version of Chinto, you could go to Youtube and type in Chinto. The first seven links from this search included a Chibana version, a Mabuni version, Hohan Soken himself, and three Wado ryu versions. Six out of seven are Matsumura systems. One is a Kyan version (Isshin Ryu)

Or you could go to this link on my web page, which includes these and also the Funakoshi (Gankaku) version. 

http://cayugakarate.com/blog/?p=827

I hope you enjoy your training in the arts. I wish you well. Over the next several years I will be popping in here to share what I have learned in my study of spear arts. If you comment, please don't expect a reply. I have my training to tend to.

It's been a pleasure.

-Mike Eschenbrenner
Cayuga Karate
Ithaca, New York - USA


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 15, 2010)

Pat Nakata, who is a direct student of Chosin Chibana, Hironori Ohtsuka, and Gogen Yamaguchi in karate, and Fumio Nagaishi in Kobudo doesn't practice with the spear and neither does he show anything spear related in empty hand kata.  I can ask him specifically about this subject, but I can pretty much guess the answer.

Another guy who would be able to authoritatively answer this would be Stephen Carbone of Detroit.  He is a ninth degree black belt in Ryu Kyu Note Kobudo and Isshinryu karate.  When I talked to him about the connection of empty hand and weapon kata, he said that many of the principles were the same, but they were two separate entities.  Any resemblance when you put a weapon in your hand when doing an empty hand kata is coincidental.  

In other words, the people made the katas really meant them to be either weapon or empty hand.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 15, 2010)

TimoS said:


> No it isn't. Kyan learned the kata from Kosaku Matsumora, a Tomari based master. While Matsumura may very well have been familiar with the kata, the evidence points that he didn't pass it on. From Matsumura (or most likely one of his senior students) Kyan learned only two kata: Seisan and Gojushiho.



What about the apocryphal story regarding Matsumura and the Sailor Chinto?  Perhaps Kyan only learned those two kata from Matsumura because that was all he taught him?  This may be an unanswerable question, but I've always wondered why Kyan never learned Kusanku?


----------



## TimoS (Jan 16, 2010)

maunakumu said:


> What about the apocryphal story regarding Matsumura and the Sailor Chinto?  Perhaps Kyan only learned those two kata from Matsumura because that was all he taught him?  This may be an unanswerable question, but I've always wondered why Kyan never learned Kusanku?


_Maybe_, and this really is speculation, bushi Matsumura died before he could pass that one on to Kyan. After all, when Kyan went to Matsumura's dojo, Matsumura was already quite old. Kyan wasn't that long with Matsumura before he went with his father to Tokyo. As for the sailor Chinto, I don't know. It might very well be a story.


----------



## TimoS (Jan 16, 2010)

Regarding Itosu and Matsumura, http://www.fightingarts.com/reading/article.php?id=1


> Many          martial historians refer to Itosu as having been a disciple of the Great          Sokon "Bushi" Matsumura. He was most influential martial artist          of his time who helped bring karate into the modern era as exponent of          Shuri-te (meaning Shuri hands or art). It was Matsumura who was a student          of Tode Sakagawa (1733-1815) who in turn studied under Kusanku -- after          which the famous kata is named (Konku).        Was Itosu the link to this heritage, an interpreter of Matsumura's karate?          Upon closer examination this appears to be incorrect, or at least overstated.
> The question then becomes how do we ascertain the truth when so much          of martial history is based on oral accounts and opinions? While we may          never know the truth for sure, we should look to accounts of those who          actually trained under Itosu for significant periods of time.
> One such account comes from Choki Motobu (one of Okinawa's greatest early          twentieth century karate masters) who spent eight to nine years under          Itosu. In his 1932 book, "Watashi no Tode Jutsu," Motobu is          quoted as saying: "Sensei Itosu was a pupil of Sensei Matsumura,          but he was disliked by his teacher for he was very slow (speed of movement).          There (in the dojo) for although Itosu sensei was diligent in his practice          his teacher did not care about him so he (Itsou) left and went to sensei          Nagahama."


It is quite easy for westerners to confuse Matsumura with Matsumora.


----------



## TimoS (Jan 16, 2010)

Chinto and Matsumora 
http://www.msisshinryu.com/kata/empty/chinto.shtml
http://awhelan.blogspot.com/2009/01/chotoku-kyans-chinto-kata.html
http://shitokai.com/newsletter/chinto.php
etc.

I _may_ have been wrong saying that all Chinto comes from Matsumora, I will check with my sources. For a fact I know that Chinto practised in Seibukan is from Matsumora, so I may have assumed that all the others come from that source also.


----------



## TimoS (Jan 16, 2010)

Cayuga Karate said:


> I must apologize. I just don't think it productive to take the time to respond to your increasingly non-sensical statements. I do enjoy the give and take of forum discussions, but there is no point discussing matters further with a poster who so often engages in irrational dialogue.


Ok, well, if my statements are "non-sensical" let's see you sell your stuff to noted karate historians here or here. I know e.g. Patrick McCarthy posts on e-budo


----------



## TimoS (Jan 16, 2010)

Ok, just receiving more information from my source regarding Itosu and kata Chinto. Here's a summary


As I said, Seibukan version of Chinto comes from Matsumora.
It is uncertain whether or not Matsumura taught Chinto.
Itosu's Chinto most likely came from Gusukuma of Tomari, along with Wansu and Rohai.
Itosu most likely didn't study with Matsumora, as I guess I previously said. They were apparently about the same age, so it is unlikely they were teacher and student.
Itosu's instructors were Gusukuma (according to Funakoshi and Katsuya Miyahira), Nagahama (according to Motobu) and Matsumura.
Oh and as for Rohai, http://www.fightingarts.com/reading/article.php?id=1 states also this:


> If          we look at the words of Gichin Funakoshi (the great karate pioneer who          is often referred to as the "Father of Japanese Karate.") who          is regarded as a top student of both Anko Azato and Anko Itosu, we find          that Anko Itosu became a disciple of GUSUKUMA OF TOMARI! (also sometimes          known as Shiroma).        On page 18 of his text (reprinted as "Tote Jitsu" in 1925)          Funakoshi states, "It is confirmed through written documents and          collections that ....._[SIZE=-2](2)[/SIZE]_ ASATO followed          MATSUMURA and ITOSU followed GUSUKUMA, according to what has been told          through generations." In his later text, "Karate-do Kyohan"          (page 8, 1973 edition), Funakoshi says again that "It is stated that          ...... _[SIZE=-2](3)[/SIZE]_ masters AZATO and ITOSU were          Students of MATSUMURA and GUSUKUMA respectively. Masters Azato and Itosu          were the teachers who instructed this writer and to whom the writer is          greatly indebted"
> Thus through the combined weight of the statements made by two direct          long term students of Anko Itosu (Motobu and Funakoshi), we can logically          come to the conclusion that Anko Shishu (Anko Itosu) began his training          under Matsumura, left to become a disciple of Nagahama of Naha (a seaport          city near Shuri, the capital), and upon Nagahama's death became a disciple          of GUSUKUMA of TOMARI.
> *This would explain the inclusion of the Tomari (a seaport village near          the capital Shuri) [SIZE=-2](4)[/SIZE] kata Rohai and Wanshu          within the Itosu curriculum. Sokon Matumura was not known to have taught          or passed on these forms.*
> To explain the presence of these kata in the Itosu curriculum, other          historians have theorized that Itosu, as student of Matumura, must have          therefore trained briefly, side by side, with Kosako Matumora of Tomari          sometime after 1873. *But, the more logical explanation is to assume that          Motobu and Funakoshi are correct in stating that Itosu had studied with          Gusukuma. He was a Tomari instructor, and both katas are recorgnized as          Tomari kata.*


So yeah, I am real non-sensical in what I write here :boing2:


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 16, 2010)

I'm glad that the internet exists and this level of communication is possible.  I've learned so much about karate from reading the various articles and opinions and I've learned that many of the cherished beliefs passed on by my instructors were false.  It took a great deal of humility to accept that I had learned something incorrect and it took a great deal of courage to pass this information on to my instructors.  The book that I wrote and linked in my signature is my contribution to passing on what I have learned.


----------



## TimoS (Jan 16, 2010)

maunakumu said:


> I'm glad that the internet exists and this level of communication is possible


The problem with the internet, in this context as in many others I'd guess, is that there's too much false information available. You have to be able to shift through all the rubbish to find the elusive nugget of gold  
Just an example that is not related to the debate here: on our finnish martial arts forum we were discussing okinawan weapons and I was reading about surujin. Now, on finnish wikipedia it is said that it was used also as some sort of an oar, but I just can't see how that is possible, as it is a chain/rope with weights on each end. Is there a mistake on the finnish wikipedia page (I suspect there is, but can't be sure) or am I not seeing something? Earlier we were discussing the origins of nunchaku and since I'm no horseman, I had trouble understanding how those were apparently used (one explanation is that they were originally horse bridle (at least I think that was the word))


----------



## SahBumNimRush (Jan 16, 2010)

TimoS said:


> The problem with the internet, in this context as in many others I'd guess, is that there's too much false information available. You have to be able to shift through all the rubbish to find the elusive nugget of gold
> Just an example that is not related to the debate here: on our finnish martial arts forum we were discussing okinawan weapons and I was reading about surujin. Now, on finnish wikipedia it is said that it was used also as some sort of an oar, but I just can't see how that is possible, as it is a chain/rope with weights on each end. Is there a mistake on the finnish wikipedia page (I suspect there is, but can't be sure) or am I not seeing something? Earlier we were discussing the origins of nunchaku and since I'm no horseman, I had trouble understanding how those were apparently used (one explanation is that they were originally horse bridle (at least I think that was the word))


 
This is a very true statement, and although there are far less checks and balances on the web, the same falacies may be found in literature as well. While these statements hold true to all subject matter, I find it particularly more rampant in the subject of martial arts.  The "mysticism" propagated by various cultures, the lack of written historical literature, the adaption and change of knowledge past from generation to generation (although mostly unintentional, it is still passed on as the "truth"),  and the loss of information from generation to generation (undoubtedly there are some students who did not learn everything their master had to teach, and those students became instructors and taught an "incomplete" system).  

For my own personal search/research, I have started with Korean (tang soo do) history, I know little about Okinawan, Japanese, or Chinese MA history.  There is an overwhelming amount of information, and it is extremely difficult to sort out the right from wrong.  I would very much appreciate any reccomendations for a strong foundation of history in Okinawan, Japanese, Chinese, and even Korean MA's that anyone here at MT would have to offer.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 16, 2010)

SahBumNimRush said:


> This is a very true statement, and although there are far less checks and balances on the web, the same falacies may be found in literature as well. While these statements hold true to all subject matter, I find it particularly more rampant in the subject of martial arts.  The "mysticism" propagated by various cultures, the lack of written historical literature, the adaption and change of knowledge past from generation to generation (although mostly unintentional, it is still passed on as the "truth"),  and the loss of information from generation to generation (undoubtedly there are some students who did not learn everything their master had to teach, and those students became instructors and taught an "incomplete" system).
> 
> For my own personal search/research, I have started with Korean (tang soo do) history, I know little about Okinawan, Japanese, or Chinese MA history.  There is an overwhelming amount of information, and it is extremely difficult to sort out the right from wrong.  I would very much appreciate any reccomendations for a strong foundation of history in Okinawan, Japanese, Chinese, and even Korean MA's that anyone here at MT would have to offer.



Not to toot my own horn, but my book deals specifically with TSD history and the arts relationship to karate.


----------



## K-man (Jan 16, 2010)

Cayuga Karate said:


> Regarding kata bunkai, we can look at movements practiced by a whole range of Okinawan schools. Following is a clip of a discussion of some Naihanchi movements.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It is a shame when an interesting discussion gets to the stage where a person putting their point of view, even though it may be contentious, feels they have been attacked so strongly that they take their bat and ball and leave. So Mike, if you're still around, please don't give up.
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





Regarding bunkai, naihanchi is a really interesting kata to study. I would maintain that the explanation shown in the video clip here is simplistic and not true to the kata. It is reminicent of the explanations we were given twenty odd years ago. I don't believe the kata moves do have to be extended or modified and I don't believe the fist retraction to carriage as shown is realistic, practical or the intended application of the kata. I have some of Dillman's videos and find his explanations far more plausible. Unfortunately I can't find the comparable movement on YouTube but there is a video that typifies the type of application of kata I try to emulate. 



 :asian:


----------



## TimoS (Jan 16, 2010)

K-man said:


> Unfortunately I can't find the comparable movement on YouTube but there is a video that typifies the type of application of kata I try to emulate.
> 
> 
> 
> :asian:


Ok, I'm a bit drunk (ok, ok, more than just a bit) at the moment, so please filter what I'm saying according to that  (it's 3:30 AM here and I just came from a bar). I looked at that video for a while and to me it looked overly complicated. Naifanchi applications are, IMHO, mostly very simple. I'll try to remember to look at the video when I'm sober again, but in my current state I had trouble identifying the bits of kata where those applications supposedly come from. One of the reasons I've taken a liking to the, admittedly, relatively simple looking kata applications in Seibukan is that they mostly rely on "crude mechanics", i.e. block, kick, punch combinations that I can perform even if I've had a bit too much to drink  The more complex and "fine mechanics" (e.g wrist locks or even, God forbid, pressure points) type of applications, the less likely I am able to perform them regardless of the condition I'm in.


----------



## K-man (Jan 16, 2010)

TimoS said:


> I looked at that video for a while and to me it looked overly complicated. Naifanchi applications are, IMHO, mostly very simple.
> One of the reasons I've taken a liking to the, admittedly, relatively simple looking kata applications in Seibukan is that they mostly rely on "crude mechanics", i.e. block, kick, punch combinations that I can perform even if I've had a bit too much to drink  The more complex and "fine mechanics" (e.g wrist locks or even, God forbid, pressure points) type of applications, the less likely I am able to perform them regardless of the condition I'm in.


I agree totally. The video I posted was not as clear and simple as I would have liked but gives an indication of Dillman's explanations. 
Sometimes, with beginners, it could be that you give a simple explanation, however if your student starts to think that your explanation is not practical, you start to lose credibility. I try to give explanations that you would use in a RB scenario. 
I don't go along with a lot of the simple explanations for a number of reasons. Firstly, I don't believe there are *any* 'blocks' in kata. IMO blocks are instinctive and influenced by reflex reaction. If that is the case, why would the masters, passing on their secret fighting systems, worry about including blocks in their kata? Secondly, I believe that the 'blocks', in kata, are in fact strikes to specific parts of the opponent's body (vital points if you like) that will have a predictive effect. Thirdly, there are many locks and throws within kata that actually look like blocks or strikes. Whether you can utilise them in a real world situation depends on your own ability. And I don't like the idea of 'blocking' at all because it signals the end of one attack and that normally triggers the next. 'Uke' means to receive, not block, and IMO to receive is to deflect or redirect, not to stop. 
I don't believe the masters were working to the lowest common denominator scenario or we would have systems, like boxing or even KM, that you could become relatively proficient very quickly. A lot of the military and LE training is simple of necessity. They don't have years to train SD when they have other options normally available. 
The kata appear simple because they were designed to deceive. They are easy to learn because of that simplicity, but learning is quite different to understanding. If the real meaning was as obvious as the simple explanation there would be no variation in understanding because everyone would have been given the same explanation.
I look at kata as an enormous toolbox. It contains everything from sledgehammer to the finest scalpel, from micrometer to precision electronics. You can't take everything with you. What you choose to use is up to each individual. If somebody drops off a box of 10,000 electronic bits and pieces and a soldering iron, very few of us will ever produce an LCD TV or an Apple computer. It is the same for kata. :asian:


----------



## seasoned (Jan 17, 2010)

K-man said:


> I agree totally. The video I posted was not as clear and simple as I would have liked but gives an indication of Dillman's explanations.
> Sometimes, with beginners, it could be that you give a simple explanation, however if your student starts to think that your explanation is not practical, you start to lose credibility. I try to give explanations that you would use in a RB scenario.
> I don't go along with a lot of the simple explanations for a number of reasons. Firstly, I don't believe there are *any* 'blocks' in kata. IMO blocks are instinctive and influenced by reflex reaction. If that is the case, why would the masters, passing on their secret fighting systems, worry about including blocks in their kata? Secondly, I believe that the 'blocks', in kata, are in fact strikes to specific parts of the opponent's body (vital points if you like) that will have a predictive effect. Thirdly, there are many locks and throws within kata that actually look like blocks or strikes. Whether you can utilize them in a real world situation depends on your own ability. And I don't like the idea of 'blocking' at all because it signals the end of one attack and that normally triggers the next. 'Uke' means to receive, not block, and IMO to receive is to deflect or redirect, not to stop.
> I don't believe the masters were working to the lowest common denominator scenario or we would have systems, like boxing or even KM, that you could become relatively proficient very quickly. A lot of the military and LE training is simple of necessity. They don't have years to train SD when they have other options normally available.
> ...


Sweet, very nice post. I too feel that kata has something for everyone. I don't want to get off the OP but would like to comment on this if I may. The kata from day one begins to transform us into the art. With new students, I stay on page one, punch, kick, block. This is something the student can use right away. Some people never get past this aspect of training, but that is ok, they can still become very good, very fast. But as the student grows toward proficiency, the kata grows with them.  In time the kata will expose a complete fighting art from first contact to finish, containing all that is needed to destroy an enemy. I hold this to be true, because fighting was a way of life in early times, and all manner of defense was deployed "within kata". Now getting back to the OP, I was taught empty hand, with weapons incorporated later on, as an extension of our techniques. As far as Military Origins, this may be, but the Okinawans took what they could from Chinese influence, added it to their Okinawan "TE" and formed a complete empty hand art with weapons as an added perk. Those Okinawan weapons were applicable then, but not so much now, because if you can't carry them in your car, in some cases against the law, "what good are they, other then a supplement to training.  I have gotten a lot from this thread, and give thanks to *Cayuga Karate,* for presenting his ideas.:asian:


----------



## SahBumNimRush (Jan 17, 2010)

K-man said:


> I agree totally. The video I posted was not as clear and simple as I would have liked but gives an indication of Dillman's explanations.
> Sometimes, with beginners, it could be that you give a simple explanation, however if your student starts to think that your explanation is not practical, you start to lose credibility. I try to give explanations that you would use in a RB scenario.
> I don't go along with a lot of the simple explanations for a number of reasons. Firstly, I don't believe there are *any* 'blocks' in kata. IMO blocks are instinctive and influenced by reflex reaction. If that is the case, why would the masters, passing on their secret fighting systems, worry about including blocks in their kata? Secondly, I believe that the 'blocks', in kata, are in fact strikes to specific parts of the opponent's body (vital points if you like) that will have a predictive effect. Thirdly, there are many locks and throws within kata that actually look like blocks or strikes. Whether you can utilise them in a real world situation depends on your own ability. And I don't like the idea of 'blocking' at all because it signals the end of one attack and that normally triggers the next. 'Uke' means to receive, not block, and IMO to receive is to deflect or redirect, not to stop.
> I don't believe the masters were working to the lowest common denominator scenario or we would have systems, like boxing or even KM, that you could become relatively proficient very quickly. A lot of the military and LE training is simple of necessity. They don't have years to train SD when they have other options normally available.
> ...


 

I agree that many of the "blocks" in forms are very useful as strikes, and I can appreciate that the creators of those forms originally intended them as strikes.  That being said, "blocks" such as the blocks to the up in basic forms, such as Keecho Eeboo (Kihon #3, I believe) are what I consider "blocks."  Although, this may be a simple case of semantics.  Am I to understand that you consider these movements "uke" or misdirection?  If so, we are completely on the same page.


----------



## K-man (Jan 18, 2010)

SahBumNimRush said:


> I agree that many of the "blocks" in forms are very useful as strikes, and I can appreciate that the creators of those forms originally intended them as strikes. That being said, "blocks" such as the blocks to the up in basic forms, such as Keecho Eeboo (Kihon #3, I believe) are what I consider "blocks." Although, this may be a simple case of semantics. Am I to understand that you consider these movements "uke" or misdirection? If so, we are completely on the same page.


I am not familiar with the forms of TKD so have no idea of 'Keecho Eeboo'. however, the basic training in Goju Ryu teaches 'blocks' to a very high level. In fact we have many high ranking instructors insisting that these 'blocks' are just that. I happen to disagree. I believe all parts of the kata are as applicable now, in SD, as they ever were. My question is, "would you use an upper 'block' or middle 'block' or in a bar brawl?" I doubt you would ever see it and I certainly would never contemplate using it. Next question, "if you are training a move that you would never use, why develop muscle memory? In fact, why train it at all?"


> Am I to understand that you consider these movements "uke" or misdirection?


 Not at all. All our Goju 'blocks' utilise both hands. The first hand redirects the attack, the second or 'blocking' hand is actually delivering a strike. 'Uke' is the umbrella description of your initial response to the attack. It may be that you 'jam' the attack but you don't 'block' it. :asian:


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 18, 2010)

maunakumu said:


> Not to toot my own horn, but my book deals specifically with TSD history and the arts relationship to karate.


 

And a damn fine book it is too!
 The 'history' put forward in the Korean TSD books is, to be polite, dubious at best.

I think it's Kee Cho Hyung Ee Boo rather than Keecho Eeboo that people may recognise. 


http://www.iainabernethy.com/articles/Pinan1.asp

This is the first of a series ( all available on same site) on Bunkai that I'd recommend definitely for serious study and practice.


----------



## K-man (Jan 18, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> http://www.iainabernethy.com/articles/Pinan1.asp
> 
> This is the first of a series ( all available on same site) on Bunkai that I'd recommend definitely for serious study and practice.


In light of the discussion regarding 'blocks', it is interesting to read: 





> In '_Karate-Do Kyohan_'                Gichin Funakoshi, who was a student of Itosu's, said that the name                'Pinan' was chosen for the series because once these katas have                been mastered, the karateka can be confident in their ability to                defend themselves in most situations. If this is true, it would                mean that the Pinan series would need to include techniques for                uses at all ranges of fighting. In addition to the familiar strikes,                they would also need to include throws, takedowns, holds, chokes,                locks etc. It is my understanding that the Pinan series does indeed                include all these methods; however, it would be fair to say that                these methods are not widely practised.


 No mention of 'block' even though I would have thought a block would be basic.   
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	





> As mentioned earlier,                the Pinan katas are often thought of as training methods for beginners                or children and therefore they are often undervalued by more experienced                karateka. One of the reasons for the Pinan series being viewed in                this way is the fact that they were established in the early 1900s,                which was around the same time that Itosu was introducing karate                onto the curriculum of Okinawan schools. Some say that the Pinans                are merely watered down versions of the advanced kata and were developed                solely for children. If this were the case then why did Itosu also                teach the Pinans to his adult students? Also, why did he choose                a name which is said to be related to the combative function of                the katas if they have no combative function?
> It is far more likely                that Itosu had developed the Pinans over a period of time prior                to the introduction of karate onto the Okinawan school system and                meant for them to be a synthesis of his favoured methods. When Itosu                was introducing karate into the Okinawan schools, the Pinans would                be the natural choice of kata because they are relatively short.                The main difference between the adults' and children's training                would simply be a matter of approach. The children would be taught                the solo forms, without their applications, and would perform them                as a form of group exercise; whereas, the adults would be taught                the complete fighting system. As time has passed, it is the 'children's                approach' that has became the most widely practised.


 Which basically is saying what I have tried to say, even a basic kata can be a complete fighting system. It doesn't have to be changed, or 'modernised', just taught by a teacher who understands the applications.  :asian:


----------



## SahBumNimRush (Jan 19, 2010)

K-man said:


> In light of the discussion regarding 'blocks', it is interesting to read: No mention of 'block' even though I would have thought a block would be basic.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

Re-reading my previous post, I can see how it could have came across as arguementative, which was certainly not my intent.  I had meant to pose more of a question about what those "blocks" to the up are as an application.  The knife hands, and other "blocks", I understand applications to, but I have not found an application for the block to the up in a foward/front stance other than a deflection/misdirection of an attack to open the oppenent's body for a counter strike.  

Since your art is closer to the source of these forms/katas/hyungs, I was hoping you may provide some insight to this particular movement.  

Respectfully,


----------



## SahBumNimRush (Jan 19, 2010)

K-man, 

After thinking more about the proper movement of the "block to the up," I believe "Age-Uke?" is what you may call it.  I am starting to see applications as a fore-arm strike, as well as possible wrist grab defense (from the "wrap-up").  Is this how *you* apply it?

Oh, and btw, Tez3, thanks for the link to Iain's page, I've read/seen his stuff around on the web before, just never came across his site.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 19, 2010)

SahBumNimRush said:


> K-man,
> 
> After thinking more about the proper movement of the "block to the up," I believe "Age-Uke?" is what you may call it. I am starting to see applications as a fore-arm strike, as well as possible wrist grab defense (from the "wrap-up"). Is this how *you* apply it?
> 
> Oh, and btw, Tez3, thanks for the link to Iain's page, I've read/seen his stuff around on the web before, just never came across his site.


 

No worries! Don't forget to download the free e books from there! the forum is good too, it's quite a technical place for Bunkai and karate. You can get Iain's opinion on the use of the rising block lol!

Iain is awsome to train with, he takes the techniques in the kata and shows you the Bunkai....you end up going 'wow that is so simple why didn'tI see that, it's so obvious'! I'm hopefully going to another of his seminars next month. He's off to Australia in March and Canada in May then Germany in June.


----------



## K-man (Jan 19, 2010)

SahBumNimRush said:


> Re-reading my previous post, I can see how it could have came across as arguementative, which was certainly not my intent.  I had meant to pose more of a question about what those "blocks" to the up are as an application.  The knife hands, and other "blocks", I understand applications to, but I have not found an application for the block to the up in a foward/front stance other than a deflection/misdirection of an attack to open the oppenent's body for a counter strike.
> 
> Since your art is closer to the source of these forms/katas/hyungs, I was hoping you may provide some insight to this particular movement.
> 
> Respectfully,


Didn't even consider your post argumentative.   
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 In Goju we call the upper block 'jodan uke' but because it is a rising block 'age uke' makes sense especially as we have 'age tsuki' as an uppercut punch.  To my mind, as it is taught and explained you would almost never have the opportunity to use jodan uke unless you were having a pillow fight.  To protect against a downward strike with blunt instrument you would probably break your arm (I know, 45 deg angle is to deflect), and against a machette there would probably be four less fingers and a thumb fewer to help you count.  Against a strike to the jaw, as in upper punch 'jodan tsuki', I can't believe anyone would use it in a real life situation.  So we have a block that has been handed down that is pretty much useless!  
Off the top of my head, apart from the Goju gekisei kata developed in the 1930s by Chojun Miyagi, the upper block is in none of the advanced Goju kata. Gekisei kata came from the Fukyu kata initially created by Miyagi and Sochin Nagamine (Shorin ryu), so I suspect that the upper block came to Goju via another style.  So, why would Miyagi, one of the masters, include an upper block on his system of fighting if it was as useless as I alluded to earlier? The answer is, for me, very clear. The attack is basically an upper punch or thrust, or could be a downward strike.  A weapon could be part of any of these attacks. I will describe the following actions from a right handed attack. As is seen in gekisei kata the first action is to move off the line tsabaki to the left,  deflecting the attacker's arm away with the left hand or forearm.  Depending on whether the attack was directed in, as in punch or thrust, or down as in stick or hammer fist, several targets are exposed. If you are into Kyusho, the Triple Warmer meridian runs along the back if the upper arm and a forearm strike to Tw12, in the middle of the tricep, produces a lot of pain.  This point is not regarded as a priority target in any of my texts, apart from controlling take-downs, and this alone may explain the absence of the upper 'block' in the original Goju kata. (We also have chudan uke or shuto uke which would do the same job.) However, if the attack is directed horizontally, the deflection closes the attacker and exposes the back of the arm. A strike on this point will cause pain and the position you are likely to find yourself, after striking, is beside or slightly behind your attacker.  This opens up all the other targets to the side of the head or neck.
The second scenario is the downward attack.  This is much more straight forward. Same tsabaki to the left but this time the deflection with the left hand allows the attacker's arm to continue down. The forearm strike is then perfectly suited to take out the neck or jaw. In Kyusho, St9 or Si16 would be the obvious targets and you would probably collect both at the same time. If you found yourself behind your attacker then the target might be Tw16 or Gb20.  If you aren't into kyusho then you are simply striking the neck or head.
As an interesting aside.  I believe gekisei kata was taught to Japanese troops and if you think of hand to hand fighting that particular forearm strike would come up under an opponent's helmet.  :asian:


----------



## SahBumNimRush (Jan 20, 2010)

K-Man, Thank you for your response.  I am not traditionally trained in Kyushu, but I am board certified in acupuncture.  I have only begun to skim the surface of use of these points in an offensive situation.  Most if not all of the vital point/pressure point strikes we use correspond to acupuncture points on the body, although are instructor doesn't put much stock in "nerve" strikes (mostly because he is one of the exceptions to the rule, as they don't really work on him).  

I don't believe any movements in the old hyungs/katas/forms are useless, but I agree, many of them appear that way.  It is difficult to find practical applications to movements that have been given "watered down" descriptions, i.e. what is called a "block"  now was initially intended as a strike, grapple, grip, lock, etc.  

I appreciate your take on the block to the up.


----------



## Cayuga Karate (Jan 20, 2010)

K-Man,

You wrote:



> So Mike, if you're still around, please don't give up.


I'll be around, for a long time. I mentioned in my original post here that I was at the beginning of a long journey, one that I am sharing with the world-wide karate community through my blog www.cayugakarate.com/blog/. It is there I will present my evidence, which will consist largely of my training.

I fully expect confrontation. There's an old saying in science. It advances one death at a time. When someone has invested a lifetime of looking at something a specific way, it is a daunting task to consider alternatives, much less accept them. Over the next few years, as I present my evidence, I believe I will convince many young karateka, those not yet steeped in the mystique of karate, to try my ideas. And I believe many will find my ideas compelling.

It will take years to roll out this information. Why so long? It's quite simple. I make no claim to be particularly good at the spear movements of any of the 40 kata I will review. And my preference is to gain ability in each, prior to explaining it fully, and moving on to the next.

In a post on my blog from mid-December (http://cayugakarate.com/blog/?p=660) I presented a collection of movements from 15 kata. This is a project I will continue to work on. It took me a week to put this sequence together, and it included 3 kata for which I had very little training in the empty hand versions. (But it did make great sense to include them in the group.) This post was a response to my posts on another forum that I present "proof". So I thought I would string together the movements from these 15 kata as a small piece of "proof".

I struggled with the sequences of one of the three kata. Not only was I unable to execute them adequately due to my inexperience with the movements, I was not satisfied with all the spear concepts I had come up with. So in my next post, (http://cayugakarate.com/blog/?p=665) I wrote that it was time to spend some time training in this Old Jewel of a kata.

Over the next 35 days, I continued training in that kata, recording 1000 repetitions of the movements. And yesterday I wrote on my blog that I was committed to recording (and posting) another 2000 repetitions of this kata in the next 4 weeks. I am reasonably confident that at the end of that period, I will have a pretty good idea about how to use the spear effectively with the movements of this kata. And likely, I will be satisfied with all the spear concepts I have come up with, specifically that they map to the kata movements with great fidelity, and they have useful fighting applications.

Until I have completed that kind of training in each, I am not really motivated to just throw out all 40 kata for dissection by the karate community. Rather, each will be honed until it's ready. It's quite possible come mid-February, I still may want additional time to improve my skills further before taking the time to teach the Old Jewel, on a movement-by-movement level. Time will tell. This is a journey, an exploration of these concepts. There is no real time-frame for any kata. I train, document it, with a goal of moving on to another within a few months. 

But at the end of training in each kata, I will be prepared to provide instruction, and we should all expect that good instruction can only come at the end of some significant training. Then karateka and non-karateka alike will be able to measure the evidence, both faithfulness to the movements in the kata, and effectiveness.

I would like to address an issue that has come up in this forum and elsewhere. The question is asked in many ways, but essentially it is "Are there any Okinawans who believe that empty-hand kata were designed for spear fighting?" I find it unlikely. If there were, I certainly would like the historical reference. But the answer is of no consequence to me. 

I have two pieces of evidence in support of my view, kata movements themselves and the historical record. The movements within the kata are the primary evidence. If they did not work for military purposes, then I would find no reason to look to the historical record to understand why they might. 

However, I believe the movements themselves are convincing evidence,  and my review of the ragged remnants of the historical record to date is compelling (I have much more reading and posting to complete for a more full view of the historical record). But here are some statements supported by the historical record. 

Tribute trade was the centerpiece of the Okinawan economy, especially for the aristocracy. The Okinawans were among the most avid participants in tribute trade. Trade with Okinawa was also very important to the Chinese. Here's a key passage from Kerr's Okinawa, the History of an Island People. 



> p. 67 - The Tribute System must be understood if we are to comprehend the peculiar position into which the teh Ryukyu Islands now moved. Here lies the key to Okinawan's external relations after 1372.
> 
> p. 86. - The Chinese, meanwhile, had recognized in fact the importance of Okinawa trade to them as a source of coveted luxury goods, for despite official attitudes of disdain for foreign commerce and haughty pretense of indifference to mercantile affairs on the part of literati, Chinese officials did not forgo opportunities to enrich themselves and their kinfolk.



We know the Chinese made a substantial investment in tribute trade in general and in Okinawan in particular, setting up a large large community in Okinawa to support this trade. Tribute ships sailed as frequently as every other year, with as many as 150 passengers and crew, many passengers came from high up in the Okinawan aristocracy. We know that Okinawans successfully traded across Southeast Asia, acting as kind of a middleman between these communities and China.

The question I have to those who doubt the possibility that there were military origins for the Chinese kata is quite simple. 

Why, when the Chinese valued Okinawan trade, when they set up a large trading establishment in Naha, would they not have bothered to teach the Okinawan seafarers the very best spear skills to protect this vital and valuable tribute trade from pirates? Why would Okinawan seamen and Okinawan aristocracy, those that sailed on these ships, not have wanted to learn the very best Chinese spear skills, those fighting routines honed over thousands of years of Chinese warfare. 

The reigning assumption is simple. We have empty hand arts today, ergo, the purpose has always been that they have been for empty hand fighting. Despite the well-known history of secrecy, over hundreds of years, there is an assumption that we can see back into the minds of those that trained in these arts in the distant past. 

In reality, there is no record, one way or the other. Current assumptions are that there must have been some sort of goodwill where the Chinese violated Satsuma decrees and taught empty hand fighting. The question that is never asked is why they would have done so. 

Trade was a dangerous business in feudal times, something I will document more fully in the future. I see no reason to believe pirates had any motivation to spare the lives of any captured person aboard a tribute ship. Tribute was the property of the King, and the captain and crew were required to protect it, as well as protect the passengers (members of the Okinawan aristocracy) and ship. Nagamine notes that passengers skilled in fighting were commanded to fight as well.

I know that if I were a member of the Okinawan aristocracy, and I was part of the tribute mission to China, I would have trained ceaselessly in the best ways to kill pirates I could find. And if training were available in spear arts, that is where I would train the hardest. 

There are other assumptions commonly made today. Because there were weapons bans, Okinawans would not have wanted to learn spear arts. Even if they did, they had no need to. They had their kobudo.

I do not see this argument as applying to the problems of the times.  Regular sailing on a tribute ship meant there was increased risk of pirate attacks. The crew most certainly knew and trained in spear arts. Anyone arguing that the young male members of the aristocracy would not have wanted to find fame and glory in helping to successfully protect a tribute ship, rather than being thrown overboard, is, in my view, simply refusing to accept human nature. Their argument is essentially, all those Okinawans going back and forth to China wanted only to learn empty hand arts, even though those arts would have been essentially useless when attacked by armed, skilled and motivated pirates on the high seas. Or, the argument might be, Okinawans would have wanted to train in arts with short non-bladed weapons (nunchaku, tonfa, sai) short bladed weapons (kama), or long non-bladed weapons (bo) to defend against pirates armed with long bladed weapons.  

To me the historical record is clear. Tribute trade was the lifeblood of the Okinawan economy beginning in the early 1400s. Both the Chinese and Okinawans had ample reason to want to protect this valuable trade from piracy. This protection virtually required every able bodied person on these voyages to be skilled at killing armed, motivated pirates as efficiently as possible. The Chinese military authorities that traveled to Okinawa  certainly were well versed in Chinese military combat arts. It seems to me as patently obvious that the Chinese would have taught these arts to the Okinawans who would be either passengers or crew on tribute ships. As noted in the Kerr statements above, the Chinese valued Okinawan tribute, and therefore it was in the own self-interest to see that Tribute ships successfully complete voyages on the high seas.

Another overlooked point is the secrecy in which arts were taught in Okinawa, Perhaps the Satsuma weapons ban was a great motivator. But it would not be a prerequisite for secrecy in the training of defense of tribute trade. Military arts were required for defending these ships. And as military arts, they inherently required secrecy. If we can accept that military arts were taught, then we can better understand the intense secrecy in which they were taught. We can also better understand why they may have survived as today's empty hand kata. They were taught in secret, so whatever had been taught hundreds of years ago was never documented. 

One last point worth mentioning. The requirement for these military arts evaporated in the early 1800s. By that time, firearms became increasingly important in the protection of tribute trade.

So what became of these old weapons arts. I would argue that a society like Okinawa, steeped in tradition, would not so easily abandon their old arts.  I find it likely in a society like Okinawa, steeped in tradition and culture handed down generation to generation, they continued practice of the patterns taught father to son. 

And most important, they, like the Chinese, found additional non-military applications based on the original military movements. It goes without saying that there were many spear movements that naturally transitioned to empty hand fighting. In propelling a spear, you move your hands from near your body to away from your body, and across your body, just as you do when striking and blocking. And the Okinawans were notably dogged in adapting further, their arts to their environment in Okinawa, one dominated by the Satsuma weapons ban.

There are those who will always argue that I am wrong, period. My proof is in the pudding. I will demonstrate 40 kata, over time for use with a spear. I am working on an old jewel now. You can visit my web site to see if the movements I am practicing appear to have some applicability to the melee environment of armed combat on a ship. 

Anyone can come up with many of the elements generally required for success in the combat environment if fighting on a ship. Here's an incomplete list off the top of my head. 

You have to be careful to be aware of your surroundings (e.g. opponents attacking from your blind side) at all times, so there has to be a lot of movement and turning in different directions. Effective body mechanics have to be used to propel a spear blade quickly. You have to make full use of your weapon, using its full length by holding it at the end. When doing so, you have to be able to use the end between your hands to block. The blade should never stop. There should be no pauses. There should be a continuous flow of movements of the blade. The movements need to be confined when necessary. You can't swing wantonly, you might wind up killing or maiming an ally. (There are many more.)

This is how one should train to fight with a long bladed weapon. Use good body mechanics to propel it at fast as you can, so that the blade has great kinetic energy. At high speeds, when it makes contact with its target, human flesh, the damage is overwhelming. There needs to be no discussion like we do in empty hand arts regarding the effectiveness of strikes. Consider a punch to the solar plexus. I would argue that there are many people larger than me, where if I target a punch to the solar plexus in a fight, it will likely be ineffective. 

Towards the end of the form (see :20 at 



 ) there are three striking movements one based on a lunge punch and two based on reverse punches. I use my my legs, arms and torso, to drive the blade deep into the target. In the video, my back hand is low, so the movement acts as both a block as well as a strike to the head/neck. 

If I raised my back hand, I could use the tip of the spear to strike the abdomen of the opponent, below the rib cage. Once penetration of the abdomen is done, the technique combines a drop of the weight with a corkscrew turning of the hand, enabling one to drive the blade across and down through opponent's abdomen.

There are many people who can take my punch, and stand there unaffected. There is not a human alive that can long survive the massive damage done to internal organs, caused by a well executed karate strike, using a sharp blade at the end of a 5 foot pole. Hari Kiri is done with a small blade, and a single arm motion. It has but a tiny fraction of the kinetic energy that a spear thrust has using the movement of a standard lunge or reverse punch. You cannot drop your mass on the blade in Hari Kira the way you can in a spear strike. The spear strike can simply cut much, much further than can a hara kiri cut. 

Of course one movement is not evidence that karate kata are supremely well adapted for use in spear fighting. So I have chosen to train in, and then teach, the movements from 40 entire karate kata. That body of information will to many, be compelling evidence.

I have many years to role out my evidence that the kata movements work for propelling a spear in useful fighting combinations. There will be many who argue that since their kata has such incredibly effective empty hand bunkai, that these kata could not possibly have been designed for military purposes. I challenge any person who wants make such an argument to support their statements. It's easy today to post video to youtube. Please, cover a kata in its entirety and put up the empty hand applications on youtube. Make it the kata of your choice. Then I will post in response,  video of my applications. Or we can do the applications one by one starting at the beginning of the kata.

We can then provide readers of forums such as these with useful information to draw their own conclusions. I am confident that many readers, especially those not steeped in the mystique of karate, will come away with a new  appreciation for the effectiveness of karate movements in real true combat, military combat.

-Mike Eschenbrenner


----------



## TimoS (Jan 20, 2010)

So, your historical "proof" lies basically on those two sentences, *neither* of which mention anything about spears? Or empty handed fighting or any other kind of fighting for that matter. Wow!
Also, you haven't dealt with why all the other weapons and many of their kata survived for all these years, some maybe even centuries, but the spear fighting skills just vanished.
But hey, feel free to ignore me, after all, _I'm_ the non-sensical one :lfao:


----------



## SahBumNimRush (Jan 20, 2010)

I am by no means a hyung/kata/form historian, but the majority of the forms that I practice Pyung Ahn (Peinan/Heian), Jin Do(Chinto), Kong Sang Koon (Kushanku/Kanku) were all developed either after or near the end of this tribute system.  I am not as familiar with the dates of origin of Bassai or Naihanchi (Tekki) forms, but i also practice these forms.   

Do you believe that spear kata would have came into existance earlier in the history of tribute system, or do you believe these forms were created as a way to pass this on.

Personally I have serious doubts and see some holes in your theory, although I am no historian.  If taking your history as the truth, as I am sure you have done your research, it is interesting to me that the spear techniques have been lost while other kobudo weapons have been passed on.  This fact is a very interesting question, and I am interested to read/hear what you find in the course of your research.  However, I think many, if not all, of these katas were designed as open handed forms, although techniques of many weapons apply the same principles that we are taught from empty handed techniques. I think that it is from this principle that you will find your correlation between the techniques in these katas and the use of the spear, because many of the movements apply similar mechanics.

Just my thoughts.. .


----------



## dancingalone (Jan 20, 2010)

TimoS said:


> But hey, feel free to ignore me, after all, _I'm_ the non-sensical one :lfao:



I value both of your contributions to the forum.  Could we perhaps end the snideness on both sides?  It's fine to disagree, but let's do it in a fashion that will let the thread continue.


----------



## TimoS (Jan 20, 2010)

SahBumNimRush said:


> I am by no means a hyung/kata/form historian, but the majority of the forms that I practice Pyung Ahn (Peinan/Heian), Jin Do(Chinto), Kong Sang Koon (Kushanku/Kanku) were all developed either after or near the end of this tribute system.  I am not as familiar with the dates of origin of Bassai or Naihanchi (Tekki) forms, but i also practice these forms


Actually, we only know to a certain degree of certainty (i.e. a scope of few years) when Pinan kata were created. As for all the others, their origins are lost in history, although many theories of their origin are available. Pinan kata were created by Itosu Anko sensei sometime early 1900 (or very late 1800). He took techniques from at least kata Kushanku, but also other kata into them (I think one of them was Jion, although this is not readily visible in all the current versions. I am not familiar with Jion myself, so I can't be certain), mixed them up and originally called it/them Channan. As many know, Channan has been called a lost kata and some people even claim to have found it. Interesting to note that none of these persons are okinawan or even japanese, so it is anybody's guess how or where they've actually learned it. However, there is evidence, although mainly anecdotal, that Channan was just a working title and Itosu later dropped the name in favour of Pinan.


----------



## SahBumNimRush (Jan 20, 2010)

I am familiar with the history of Anko Itosu, and his creation of the Pyung Ahn (Pinan/Heian) forms.  I have read that the forms were created prior to his teaching Karate in school systems, which supports the idea that they were in fact created in the late 1800's - early 1900's.  I have also read that he drew from both Kong Sang Koon (Kushanku/Kanku) and a form named Jae Nam (Chiang Nam in Chinese I believe).  I cannot find any information about this form, and I am curious if it is the Channon kata you are speaking of.

As for the histories of Jin Do (Chinto) and Kong Sang Koon (Kushanku/Kanku) I will offer the information that I have learned through reading various texts.  

   The methods and techniques found within the Jin Do Hyung are thought to have originated approximately 300 years ago.  The originator is unknown, but it belongs to the So Rim Sa School of martial arts.​   The form is said to have been created by Sokon Bushi Matsumura (1809-1902 A.D.), a royal bodyguard to three Okinawan Kings and a key proponent in the development of Karate-Do.  Matsumura studied under Tode Sakugawa, Iwah, Ason, Kushanku (Kong Sang Koon), and Jin Do.  Jin Do was a Chinese martial artist that became shipwrecked on Okinawa during the 1800s.  Jin Do, in need of shelter, settled in a cave, and being stranded without resources, To survive, Jin Do began stealing produce and livestock from local farms at night to feed himself.  This activity did not go un-noticed and was reported to the Okinawan king, who sent Matsumura to deal with the problematic Jin Do.
                Matsumura was a very skilled fighter, as with any bodyguard of the king, and normally defeated his foe with ease.  However, Matsumura engaged Jin Do and found himself to be equally matched in skill and the battle quickly stalemated.  Matsumura, intrigued by the sailors skill, made a deal with Jin Do; in exchange for Jin Dos protection and safe return to China, Jin Do would teach Matsumura his fighting method.  
                Matsumura created the hyung, naming it after the originator of the methods it contained, so that the methods were recorded and passed successfully to future generations.  As mentioned before, Matsumura was a very skilled fighter, but he was enamoured with the techniques of Jin Do due to their effectiveness and uniqueness.  Therefore, it is safe to say that the Jin Do Hyung is a record of the unique or unusual techniques in Jin Dos repertoire, and the applications in this hyung are all advanced in nature. Matsumura is credited with integrating the Chinese Kung Fu with the Okinawan Te to create Tode , which evolved into Shuri-te (1830), which evolved into Shorin Ryu (1870).

As for Kong Sang Koon (Kushanku/Kanku)

.  The hyung is said to be a record of combative techniques and concepts formulated by a Chinese martial artist named Kong Sang Koon (Kushanku in Okinawan).   General Kong Sang Koon, along with other military advisors, came from China to Okinawa in the 1750s at the request of Okinawas king.  Kong Sang Koon was a master of So Rim Sa Kung Fu, and brought some of his students with him to Okinawa.  Tode Sakugawa was one of Kong Sang Koons students during his stay in Okinawa, and Tode Sakugawa is considered one of the most influential people in Karate-Dos history.  Tode Sakugawa began studying martial arts under a monk named Peichin Takahara, and it was Takahara who gave Sakugawa the name Tode (an ancient term for karate).  It was Peichin Takahara that encouraged Sakugawa to train with Kong Sang Koon, because he believed him to be the most skilled martial artist to have come to Okinawa from China.
Tode Sakugawa trained under Kong Sang Koon for many years, and it was he who created the Kong Sang Koon Hyung as a record of his teachers fighting method.  It should be noted that Tode Sakugawa was the first teacher of the legendary Sokon Matsumura, who created the Jin Do Hyung.  Furthermore, Matsumura was the teacher of Anko Itosu, who created the Pyung Ahn Hyungs.  Anko Itosu was Gichin Funakoshis teacher, and it was Gichin Funakoshis book on karate-do that Hwang Kee began studying these sets of hyungs.​ 

I know this is a bit off topic, but since it does deal some with the history of the katas I guess it is still somewhat on topic.  I would gladly start a separate thread regarding these historic topics.  I also welcome any comments on my research, because as I said, I do not claim any expertise in Japanese/Okinawan martial history, but it is something that very much interests me.  After all, much of my Korean art traces its lineage back to these island nations.

Respectfully,


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 20, 2010)

I do both TSD's Kong Sang Koon and Wado Ryu's Kushanku and find them quite different from each other.
Just a thought I had while reading thread as I have no idea why they are different.


----------



## SahBumNimRush (Jan 20, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> I do both TSD's Kong Sang Koon and Wado Ryu's Kushanku and find them quite different from each other.
> Just a thought I had while reading thread as I have no idea why they are different.


 

It is interesting to me that some forms practiced across many different Okinawan, Japanese, and Korean styles are very similar in nature (i.e. Pyung Ahn, Pinan, Heian) and some are so radically different (i.e. Kong Sang Koon and Kushanku)

I have no solid explaination for this, but it is a very interesting and valid observation!


----------



## TimoS (Jan 20, 2010)

SahBumNimRush said:


> I am familiar with the history of Anko Itosu, and his creation of the Pyung Ahn (Pinan/Heian) forms.  I have read that the forms were created prior to his teaching Karate in school systems, which supports the idea that they were in fact created in the late 1800's - early 1900's.  I have also read that he drew from both Kong Sang Koon (Kushanku/Kanku) and a form named Jae Nam (Chiang Nam in Chinese I believe).  I cannot find any information about this form, and I am curious if it is the Channon kata you are speaking of.


Most likely it is the same. The name "Channan" is, I've been told, more or less meaningless in japanese (and, if I remember correctly, also in uchinaguchi, the native language of Okinawa), therefore Itosu named it Pinan, meaning "peaceful mind" or something similar. In a way, it can be said that Itosu used Channan kata to create Pinan kata, because, as I said, Channan was a working title and it was one of Itosu's students or friends who suggested the name change. I can try to dig the name up, I should have it someplace. The Pinan kata were evolving a bit when e.g. Funakoshi was learning them. This can be attested to by some moves in Pinan (4, I think) in at least some branches of Shotokan, as those moves are not present in the versions of e.g. Shito ryu. This, to me, is one proof that Channan was just a working title. Then there's the fact that when Motobu saw the Pinan, he said something like "they resemble the Channan that Itosu was practising". Hmm, well, actually, here's the article.


> As for the histories of Jin Do (Chinto) and Kong Sang Koon (Kushanku/Kanku) I will offer the information that I have learned through reading various texts.
> 
> The methods and techniques found within the Jin Do Hyung are thought to have originated approximately 300 years ago.  The originator is unknown, but it belongs to the So Rim Sa School of martial arts.​​



Yes, that would be Shorin in japanese. Connection of Shorin ryu to actual Shaolin methods is, again, lost in history. There was, most likely, some sort of contact with the chinese empty hand fighting methods, but who taught what to whom and when did this happen is not known. Personally, I am quite sceptical of any karate family tree that goes beyond the time of Bushi Matsumura. For example, it is said that Matsumura was taught by "tode" Sakugawa and others, but do we really know that for sure? We don't even know when Sakugawa was born or when he died. Wikipedia gives his time of death to be 1815 (or 1837 or as late as 1843, depending on which article you read). Bushi Matsumura was, again according to wikipedia, born in 1800, so he would've been about 15 years when Sakugawa died, _if_ he died in 1815. 


> Jin Do was a Chinese martial artist that became shipwrecked on Okinawa during the 1800s.  Jin Do, in need of shelter, settled in a cave, and being stranded without resources, To survive, Jin Do began stealing produce and livestock from local farms at night to feed himself.  This activity did not go un-noticed and was reported to the Okinawan king, who sent Matsumura to deal with the problematic Jin Do.


Yes, I've also read the same story. It may have happened, or maybe it's just a story. I actually agree with this writer: http://awhelan.blogspot.com/2009/01/chinto-fighting-to-east.html



> This story, while charming, may be apocryphal: It was first published in a 1914 newspaper article written by Gichin Funakoshi who heard the story from his teacher, Itosu Anko, who heard it from Matsumura himself. Further complicating the story's authenticity is its fable-like nature. A well known and respected individual attempts to face down a challenger by physical means and is thwarted only to find success through a peaceful approach.





> It should be noted that Tode Sakugawa was the first teacher of the legendary Sokon Matsumura, who created the Jin Do Hyung.


As I wrote earlier, that's what the tradition tells us. Was this actually so, we don't really know.


> Furthermore, Matsumura was the teacher of Anko Itosu, who created the Pyung Ahn Hyungs.


Actually, while Itosu did study for a while with Bushi Matsumura, it should be noted that for whatever reasons Matsumura didn't like Itosu and therefore he left, quite soon as I understand. Itosu's main teacher was Gusukuma (also spelled Shiroma, but not to be confused with Shinpan Shiroma) of Tomari. 
​


----------



## TimoS (Jan 20, 2010)

SahBumNimRush said:


> It is interesting to me that some forms practiced across many different Okinawan, Japanese, and Korean styles are very similar in nature (i.e. Pyung Ahn, Pinan, Heian) and some are so radically different (i.e. Kong Sang Koon and Kushanku)
> 
> I have no solid explaination for this, but it is a very interesting and valid observation!


Well, one reason could actually be Itosu sensei. He created e.g. the Kushanku Sho ("lesser" or small Kushanku) and kept the older version as Kushanku Dai (big or major Kushanku). He did the same with other kata also, at least Passai. Then there's the fact that many teachers modified the kata to more properly fit their style. They may have changed e.g. nekoashidachi (i.e. the cat stance, where most of the weight is on your back leg and only the ball of your front foot touches the ground) to zenkutsudachi (the front stance). 
Oh, and speaking of Passai, there were numerous versions of the kata. I have a scanning of an old article from some karate magazine (no idea which) identifying 11 versions of kata: Matsumura, Matsumora, Oyadomari, Itosu, Funakoshi, Kyan, Motobu, Chibana, Ishmine, Tawada and Tomari Passai. Then there's also what we in Seibukan call Passai Guwa, and I'm not sure if it is one of those listed or something totally different  It comes to us via Itosu/Chibana lineage (along with Naifanchi, Pinan and Jion), whereas the other kata come from Kyan (well, except for Fukyugata 1 and 2)


----------



## Cayuga Karate (Jan 20, 2010)

Dr. Rush,

Thanks for taking the time to ask questions about my study. I will answer all but one in the post, and save one for a later post. 

You wrote:



> I am by no means a hyung/kata/form historian, but the majority of the forms that I practice Pyung Ahn (Peinan/Heian), Jin Do(Chinto), Kong Sang Koon (Kushanku/Kanku) were all developed either after or near the end of this tribute system.


 
Historical sources are the key to understanding the development of these arts. Regarding the origins of the movements of both Chinto and Kushanku, I have seen some of the claims, and am eager to know the sources of them. I did read your history of the Kusanku kata, "and it was he (Sakugawa) who created the Kong Sang Koon Hyung (Kusanku kata) as a record of his teacher&#8217;s fighting method." I would be interested in feedback from any MT reader regarding the historical source of this statement. I am not doubting it outright. I am just curious of the lineage. I wonder to what extent, over time, the concept of Sakugawa as the source of a version of Kusanku, may have evolved to Sakugawa as the originator of that version. In support of this I think it productive to compare his version to that of Chatan Yara, who was believed to be  be another of Kushanku's students. Though there are many differences, the two kata also have much in common. Perhaps the full forms both trace back to forms taught by Kusanku. 

Regarding the known documentation, there is reliable documentation that a Chinese by the name of Kushanku taught Okinawans fighting movements in the late 1700s. Funakoshi describes him as a Military Attache. I have seen other sources describe him as a Chinese sailor. Nagamine makes references to him, describing in detail his exploits battling pirates on a tribute vessel, and his ordeal in escaping death after the Chinese captured him and other pirates and concluded that he too was a pirate. Funakoshi wrote an article in the early 1900s for an Okinawan newspaper that refers to Matsumura (and quite possibly Matsumora) as being dispatched to the countryside to coax Chinto out of his cave. I would be most interested to understand what historical documentation describes Sakugawa further. I am most interested to learn the sources of further claims about this key historical figure.  

As to whether Sakugawa was the originator of his version of the Kusanku kata, sources state he created a kata based on movements he learned from Kusanku. In the event that he did, the question remains, who is the source of the movements taught by Kusanku? The movements could have been of Kushanku's design, never taught to him by others. Or quite possibly he could have learned them from others. If so, it is entirely possible that they could predate him by hundreds of years. I would make the same argument regarding the sources of the movements found in the kata that descend from Chinto and his students. Chinto is the source of the movements, but we can never know whether he taught his personally developed movements, or rather that he shared with the Okinawans lessons he had been taught. We can never know.  

I would make a somewhat similar argument for the development of the Pinan, though this subject is more complex. There is some evidence (from Motobu, e.g.) that some of the Pinan kata are based on Channan kata. I do not believe there is any historical record regarding the origins of these Channan kata, other than they may have had Chinese origins. Also, a review of Pinan finds many movements are quite similar, if not identical to movements found in the Passai and Kushanku kata variants, as well as Jion (Jutte, Jiin), Naihanchi, and Chinto. There is no doubt that many Pinan movements do not appear in kata that have survived until the present. 

While we do know that Itosu created these kata, I do not believe there is any historical record stating which movements within these kata Itosu developed himself. It is quite possible, and based on the similarities to some kata movements, I find it quite likely, that Itosu drew extensively, perhaps almost exclusively, on movements he had learned over the course of his life studying these arts. Itosu may well have been the originator of many movements. However, it is also quite possible that he was more of a conduit to the past, to teachings that had long preceded him. If the latter were true, we are again faced with the question; what are the origins of the movements? 

(On a separate note, this topic of comparative analysis has long intrigued me and sometime in the future, I will do a post on my blog that will dissect Pinan kata movement by movement for comparisons with movements found in other kata. This was inconceivable just ten years ago. Thank goodness for youtube.) 



> I am not as familiar with the dates of origin of Bassai or Naihanchi (Tekki) forms, but i also practice these forms.


 
Passai is often defined as an art regarding a fortress. Some say defending a fortress, some say penetrating a fortress. While it is true that the Ryukyu king built a castle in Shuri modeled on Chinese patterns, fortresses or castles were not that prevalent in Okinawa. They certainly were in China. The Ming engaged not only in massive castle building, but also the vast expansion of the Great Wall, which could be viewed as the longest fortress in the world. 

Regarding the origins of Naihanchi, there really isn't much literature. I find it quite intriguing that many Wado Ryu dojos have an interesting definition of the term. Some sources say that Ohtsuka, in addition to training with Funakoshi and Mabuni, also trained with Motobu, who spent some years in Tokyo, and that he studied Naihanchi with Motobu. Maybe Motobu is the source of this definition, we will never know. But there are Wado schools that define Naihanchi as "battlefield" kata. (see page 9 at http://issuu.com/publishgold/docs/cjkkaratekatas). And many other sources point to the Naihanchi stance and recognize its similarity to that found by calvary soldiers. Funakoshi even renamed his kata "Iron Horse". 

(For an interesting historical note on the utility of Naihanchi for self protection, the subject of much of what I will debate in the future, this source also mentions that Ohtsuka found Naihanchi Nidan and Sandan to be "almost useless". I also find it intriguing parallel in Shito Ryu. Mabuni, an important student of Itosu, was renowned for his accumulation of a broad cross section of Okinawan kata. Funakoshi says when he first began training with Itosu, 2/3 of his first 10 years were spent in the practice of Naihachi Nidan and Yondan. Despite the centrality of these kata to the older practice of beginners, Mabuni systems that descend from his sons, and from Sakagami, have also pretty much abandoned the practice of Naihanchi Nidan and Sandan. (For evidence, please refer to the kata published by the Shito-Kai (which descends from his son Kenei) (http://shitokai.com/movies/order.php). The thirty kata conspicuously omit Naihanchi Nidan or Sandan. The same is true for the kata set taught by his son Kenzo. The practice of these kata is rare at best in Demura dojos (a student of Sakagami). 



> Do you believe that spear kata would have come into existance earlier in the history of tribute system, or do you believe these forms were created as a way to pass this on.


 
Chinese military attaches were documented by Funakoshi as having been involved in the instruction of Okinawans. In McCarthy's translation of Miyagi's three hypotheses, Miyagi makes a similar statement, with the exception that they were referred to as "security" personnel associated with the Chinese community at Kume Mura in Naha. We will never know the true origins of these movements. My speculation is that they go back hundreds of years, and were not designed by Okinawans, nor by the Chinese teaching the Okinawans, and that they could be much older than the time that they were taught. 



> Personally I have serious doubts and see some holes in your theory, although I am no historian. If taking your history as the truth, as I am sure you have done your research, it is interesting to me that the spear techniques have been lost while other kobudo weapons have been passed on. This fact is a very interesting question, and I am interested to read/hear what you find in the course of your research.


 
It is fairly well documented that Okinawan kobudo is a uniquely Okinawan development, made in response to the Satsuma weapons ban, for use by the Okinawan aristocracy, and perhaps other classes, to provide for personal protection. I cannot quote the sources just now, as I am not at home and don't have access to many sources, but they are numerous. It is very well documented that the Satsuma clan banned the carrying of military weapons, spears and swords. There may have been limited exceptions. I find it unlikely that there was no armed military guard of the RyuKyu king, but it is quite possible the ban extended to Royal guard as well. (And while there are references to the study of Matsumura and Azato in Japanese sword arts, it was likely there were limitations on their ability to carry swords in public.) Essentially the weapons ban insured, almost universally, that an Okinawan could not carry a military weapon (a long bladed weapon (aka spear or sword)) in public. I think we all can accept that if a weapon can't be carried, it is of marginal use in personal protection. It's use would at best be limited to the defense of one's home.

The standard history is that in response to the ban of military weapons, the Okinawans adapted non-military objects for personal protection. I divide these objects into two groups. The first are short implements that Okinawans were justified in carrying, and therefore could be carried in the open. And importantly, they could and were carried concealed. These include tonfa (used to turn millstones), nunchaku (used as either part of a horses bridle, or to flail grain), sai/nunti sai (which were attached to long poles for spear fishing), and kama, used to harvest rice and other grains. (These are the prevalent documented uses, and I fully recognize there are others.) I would be interested to learn the extent to which some believe that these these short, (and in most cases blunt) implements were the primary weapons used to defend tribute trade against assailants armed with long bladed weapons. 

In addition to these short implements, the Okinawans had a longer implement commonly carried, with obvious personal protection possibilities. The bo was used, as noted above for spear fishing, and probably, with a suitable end attached, in a variety of farming tasks. A related implement, the eku was used as an oar. But the bo was also the common mode of transportation for containers and packages of water, foodstuffs, and other goods and items that needed to be carried. There are pictures in Kerr's text showing this practice. One of my Chinese students has told me that this method is still very common today in rural Chinese communities. 

These short and long Okinawan implements were not affected by the weapons bans, and could be carried and therefore used, in personal protection. The Okinawans adapted them in ways uniquely Okinawan. I do not know of any historical documentation that states that kata for these weapons were of Chinese origin. Certainly there are movements with bo/eku/nunti-bo that are common to spear arts, so there is overlap, and there may have been Chinese influence. But again, most references point to Okinawan origins for the kobudo kata, and not Chinese origins. 

This contrasts with the empty hand forms, for which some sources state come (or likely come) from Chinese sources.

I expect many to argue that the regarding the protection of tribute ships, the Okinawans would have relied on their kobudo weapons, which were non-military in nature, to repel enemies armed with military weapons. I find this argument, especially regarding the short implements, to be unpersuasive. Nagamine mentions that no expense was spared in equiping ships to be able to withstand pirate attacks. To me it is obvious that this would mean arming sailors and crew with military weapons. Others will of course view this differently than I do, that of course the Okinawans would prefer non-military (non-bladed) weapons to defend tribute ships against assailants armed with military (bladed) weapons. 



> However, I think many, if not all, of these katas were designed as open handed forms, although techniques of many weapons apply the same principles that we are taught from empty handed techniques. I think that it is from this principle that you will find your correlation between the techniques in these katas and the use of the spear, because many of the movements apply similar mechanics.


 
I will use a separate post to address this issue. This has been yet another long post and this issue is quite complicated. 

Again, thanks for the comments and questions. I hope I was able to provide you and other readers of MT with some useful information and perspectives. 

-Mike Eschenbrenner
www.cayugakarate.com/blog/


----------



## Cayuga Karate (Jan 21, 2010)

SahBumNimRush



> For my own personal search/research, I have started with Korean (tang soo do) history, I know little about Okinawan, Japanese, or Chinese MA history. There is an overwhelming amount of information, and it is extremely difficult to sort out the right from wrong. I would very much appreciate any recomendations for a strong foundation of history in Okinawan, Japanese, Chinese, and even Korean MA's that anyone here at MT would have to offer.



Regarding on-line references. I put up a post (http://cayugakarate.com/blog/?p=889) on my blog that I will add to over time. It includes Funakoshi, Nagamine, the Kerr text on part of the Chuzan period of Okinawan history, and a recent scholarly analysis of the Ming tributary system. Those are all useful references. 

I also have began a post excerpting from Kerr, with a focus on Tribute trade. (http://cayugakarate.com/blog/?p=885)

Mike Eschenbrenner
Cayuga Karate
Ithaca, New York - USA


There is a large and growing body of useful sources on the web.


----------



## TimoS (Jan 21, 2010)

I've been re-reading my copy of Nagamine's Tales of Okinawa's Great Masters and I came upon this


> It was the responsibility of the captain and crew to be able to defend their cargo and their vessel against attacks during a voyage. Hence, proper training in the combative disciplines was essential. Designated the official vessels of the Ryukyu Kingdom, tribute ships carried both valuable cargo and important passengers to China. Tribute was the single most important aspect of the Ryukyu's social economy, and, therefore, no expense was ever spared in ensuring the safety of the cargo, passengers and crew.
> 
> In the event of an assault, which was quite frequent during feudal times, passengers who were skilled in combative disciplines were, by order of the King, commanded to aid the crew. *An example is found in the time when Sakugawa Kanga was on board such a ship bound for China. Of course, a man Sakugawa's skills was not only expected to help, but also, in spite of being unfamiliar with ship duty, serve as an assistant to the director of security.
> One evening, the day before the tribute ship was scheduled to arrive in Fuzhou, both passengers and crew were enjoying a routine voyage when, all of a sudden, the ship was attacked. Savage cries shout out from the darkness and arrows found their marks. Besieged by Chinese pirates, the crew fought gallantly against the ruthless sea dogs. A master fighter, Kanga wasted no time stripping down to undergarment in an effort to enhance his combative mobility. Grabbing a rokushaku-bo (six foot staff) he bolted out on the deck of the ship under siege.*"


*
*So, let's see now. A famous karate exponent fighting pirates on one of tribute ships, you'd think he would grap a spear or sword or any bladed weapon if one was available. However, he didn't! According to the story he used a regular bo. This, to me, raises the question that maybe those weapons just weren't there. Why else would Sakugawa use a bo? It is quite plausible that the weapons ban extended to ships also.


----------



## SahBumNimRush (Jan 21, 2010)

TimoS said:


> I've been re-reading my copy of Nagamine's Tales of Okinawa's Great Masters and I came upon this
> 
> [/b]So, let's see now. A famous karate exponent fighting pirates on one of tribute ships, you'd think he would grap a spear or sword or any bladed weapon if one was available. However, he didn't! According to the story he used a regular bo. This, to me, raises the question that maybe those weapons just weren't there. Why else would Sakugawa use a bo? It is quite plausible that the weapons ban extended to ships also.


 
That is a very interesting historical account.  Again, I personally have no facts on the subject either way.  But I wonder why the King would leave the ships vulnerable to such attacks of piracy on open seas by enforcing the weapons ban on the ships.  That being said, I know that someone skilled with the bo can be a formidable opponent against anyone with a sword.  I am in no way disagreeing with either your point of view or Mike's, but it is a very interesting topic of discussion.


----------



## TimoS (Jan 21, 2010)

SahBumNimRush said:


> That being said, I know that someone skilled with the bo can be a formidable opponent against anyone with a sword


First of all, metal was not very common in old Okinawa. This is attested to, among other reasons, by the abundance of wooden weapons and that there simply aren't that many weapons with metal in them. Sai are wholly metal, kama have a metal blade, nunti has a sai-like part at one end of a bo. Surujin may or may not have been metal, my guess is that they were mostly made from rope. Rochin was either a really short spear or a machete-like knife. Secondly, how skilled do you think these pirates were in (un)armed combat? I'm guessing not very skilled. They would most likely rely on surprise, ferocity of attack and simple numbers to overwhelm the defendants. If some of them got killed, well, I don't think they were overly concerned with that.


----------



## TimoS (Jan 21, 2010)

Another problem I have with this whole concept that the empty hand kata are in fact spear fighting (or halberd fighting, which, to me makes even less sense. I'll come to that later on) moves in disguise is that IF this was so, surely some legends of okinawans' prowess with spears would've survived to this day, but there seem to be no such tales. Now, some might try to argue that the spear arts vanished because of the degree forbidding weapons. To counter this, consider the fact that e.g. Bushi Matsumura's training location was in the middle of woods. He didn't have a separate dojo, where he and his students could train. Now, understandably, you can pretty much train just about whatever you wanted in such a location. Why bother disguising your spearfighting moves into empty hand stuff when all you needed to do was pick up a piece of wood and use that as a mock spear? Also, as I've stated previously, it is curious that all these other weapons kata survived, but spear fighting supposedly simply vanished without a trace, only to resurface in USA in 21st century.
Now, as for the halberd theory and why I find that theory even more suspicious. Most asian halberds or halberd-like weapons I've seen use a large, usually single-edged blades. such as naginata or nagamaki, or going to China, kwan dao. Actually, just quickly checking google image search, even those asian halberds that have a spear-like part in them, also have somekind of blade on the side. Now, with such a blade the emphasis must be on cutting, but karate uses straight punches, which would mean a stabbing motion with a bladed weapon. That's not using it to it's full advantage. It can easily be compared to having a Ferrari and never using it for anything else than going to the grocery store. Sure, you could use it for that also, but that's not what it is designed to do.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 21, 2010)

No apologies for quoting Iain Abernethy again but I find his teaching down to earth and practical. His research is spot on and not fanciful
http://www.iainabernethy.com/articles/there_is_nothing_peaceful_about_the_pinans.asp


----------



## TimoS (Jan 21, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> No apologies for quoting Iain Abernethy again but I find his teaching down to earth and practical. His research is spot on and not fanciful


Interesting article. I do, however, suspect that he's reading too much into the name. Karate was back then read as todi, but the modern writing was not unknown during the time the Pinan were created. So, if it was also known as "empty hand", why not consider the "peaceful mind" reading of Pinan characters just means that you should have a peaceful mind when fighting? I don't see anything wrong in that idea and even that might be overinterpreting something, which is, after all, just a name. I'll show the article to my friend, I'll see what he thinks about it.
As for the bunkai sequence he shows in the pictures 4-6, that might work if you do it the way e.g. Shotokan practitioners do the kata. However, here's the version practised in Matsubayashi ryu and the sequence is quite different. In this version, the second technique is what we call chudan uchi otoshi and the bunkai shown doesn't work.


----------



## SahBumNimRush (Jan 21, 2010)

TimoS said:


> Interesting article. I do, however, suspect that he's reading too much into the name. Karate was back then read as todi, but the modern writing was not unknown during the time the Pinan were created. So, if it was also known as "empty hand", why not consider the "peaceful mind" reading of Pinan characters just means that you should have a peaceful mind when fighting? I don't see anything wrong in that idea and even that might be overinterpreting something, which is, after all, just a name. I'll show the article to my friend, I'll see what he thinks about it.


 
I was taught that the taught that the meaning (more of a definition rather than a literal translation) of Pyung Ahn (Pinan/Heian) is Peace and Harmony of the Mind and Body, which is the ideal that we strive for as martial artists; to be able for the mind to cause the body to react without conscious thought, a.k.a. react as second nature/instinct.  I do not claim that this is the right definition or the only definition, but that is what I was taught.


----------

