# Isshinryu Variations



## dancingalone (Aug 18, 2010)

Out of idle curiosity, why does the Isshinryu Naihanchi start out moving to the left rather than the right like most other styles?  Much the same question with Seiunchin...Why doesn't it open out to a 45 degree horse like the Goju version?


----------



## Victor Smith (Aug 18, 2010)

Hmmmm, as to why as Shimabuku Tatsuo didn't document why he made the changes to his Isshinryu there is no definitive answer.

Naifanchi Isshinryu style actually starts out to the right, it is the right foot that steps to the left (so in that sense it depends at what you're looking at). Actually Joe Swift told me there are a handfull of schools that start out going to the left, though the clear majority of naifanchi kata start moving to the right instead of the left.

Motobu Chokoi's son's Japanese video on his fathers teachings (not the American produced version) shows Naifanchi kata step by step beginning towards the right, exactly as in his father's books. But then he shows on that video the seniors group practice and they begin the kata to the left. So it's apparent that the starting direction is of less important in their lineage than the practice.

Structurally as both halves of the kata cover the same material it's irrrelevant which direction you start, and following an earlier principle if you begin the kata and don't stop but keep going on and on for say 5 or 10 minutes for the workout, it's even less relevant.

In my own studies I was originally taught several different variations of Isshinryu naifanchi. I only teach my students one, but at times I begin with the one and end with the other - getting old, yet both do the job.

You may find it interesting that I consider the real value of Naifanchi, not the applications which are bountiful, but that the kata is a preparatory study for Chinto, developing the abdomen to work a stronger Chinto spin. And of course I was taught several different Isshinryu versions of Chinto, one of which builds more directly on the Naifanchi kata, too.

Now for Isshinryu Seiunchin turing 90 degrees in the opening instead of 45 degrees some on Okinawa claim it's that Shimabuku forgot the right way to do the kata. Perhaps, but Shimabuku participated in festival performances and had to see Goju karate-ka performing Seiunchin over the years after his own training with Miyagi Chojun. So I pesonally don't consider the forgot argument.

IMO, he had a different technique in mind to counter. Where the Goju Seiunchin is most often shown as a counter from an attack from the front, I see teh Isshinryu Seiunchin as a counter from a double wrist grab and you're using the turning 90 degrees as a force multiplier to break the grab and then down the opponent. (of course just one of many possible uses).

Kata is mutable, it has always changed. In the case of Isshinryu Shimabuku Tatuso incorporated many changes in technique as well as form of his kata as his system developed. Suffice it to suggest he had his reasons and as a true Okinawan karate-ka didn't leave them in writing.

If not having clear answers makes you work harder to work out your own, I think that's reason enough.


----------



## dancingalone (Aug 18, 2010)

Another good post from you, Victor.  I had hoped you would respond.


----------



## Nomad (Aug 18, 2010)

The person teaching Naihanchi to Shimabuku Tatsuo was facing him, so he just did the mirror image? 

Sorry, couldn't resist...


----------



## Victor Smith (Aug 18, 2010)

Actually I always teach the form using mirror image myself.

Decades ago Carl Long (Shorin ryu Honda katsu then) taught a version where on the step across sections you turn 180 degrees and continue the kata. Suggested very interesting application potential.

For teenagers with too much energy I add Jump Spinning Reverse Crescent Kicks (and when younger I could do them in mirror image too, now alas).


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 18, 2010)

Naihanchi as performed by a group calling themselves 'Isshin Ryu Shinshinkan."

I do not know the group, but the kata looks familiar.  We don't do such exaggerated movements in the first (slow) version, nor do we do such jerky movements in the last (fast) version.  But at least the movements are recognizable to me.

http://en.kendincos.net/video-tdrptpdv-isshin-ryu-shinshinkan-naihanchi-kata.html

What is Isshin-Ryu Shinshinkan?


----------



## dancingalone (Aug 18, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Naihanchi as performed by a group calling themselves 'Isshin Ryu Shinshinkan."
> 
> I do not know the group, but the kata looks familiar.  We don't do such exaggerated movements in the first (slow) version, nor do we do such jerky movements in the last (fast) version.  But at least the movements are recognizable to me.
> 
> ...



Not familiar with the group myself, but it appears that the leader of the group is an Argentine or Uruguayan named Gerardo Cantore with this Japanese(?) gentleman as his top student/chief instructor.  http://www.maotw.com/gmg/s/shinshinkankaratedo.html  Not sure if they still consider themselves Isshinryu or not, but certainly Isshinryu is their base.

I've seen a few videos of the performer on the internet.  He has great snap which arguably isn't at total display in this video.  He does a particularly powerful Sunsu...   It's not how I practice my karate now either, but there was a time that I trained very hard to try to achieve that same type of movement that he has in abundance.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 18, 2010)

dancingalone said:


> Not familiar with the group myself, but it appears that the leader of the group is an Argentine or Uruguayan named Gerardo Cantore with this Japanese(?) gentleman as his top student/chief instructor.  http://www.maotw.com/gmg/s/shinshinkankaratedo.html  Not sure if they still consider themselves Isshinryu or not, but certainly Isshinryu is their base.
> 
> I've seen a few videos of the performer on the internet.  He has great snap which arguably isn't at total display in this video.  He does a particularly powerful Sunsu...   It's not how I practice my karate now either, but there was a time that I trained very hard to try to achieve that same type of movement that he has in abundance.



Thanks!  The thing I noticed in the first (slow) video was the (to me) exaggerated leg-lifts and what appeared to be some inserted 'bumps' as he cocked his knee up and down or pumped it or something.

We step over, lifting the leg to make it clear that we're 'stepping over' but not so much that we're making it look like we're doing some kind of 'eek a bug' dance.  I'm talking about the cross-overs, not the leg lift to represent the avoidance of a kick/sweep.  We also don't do the exaggerated intro; we just come to attention, rei, and hajime.  No elaborate pre-presentation.  I see that a lot though.  What's up with those hand flourishes?

I have noticed differences in Isshin-Ryu as practiced in Michigan and North Carolina.  Not huge, but when we do 'ure uke, seikan tsuki', we do NOT cross over (the only block or punch where we do not) and we do NOT apply an overhead block before bringing down the backfist (in MI).  When I was visiting in NC, we did.

I look at a lot of those Youtube videos for kata.  It's a shame that the old Master Shimabuku videos were such poor quality, but that's old Super 8 film for ya.  A lot of the more modern videos seem to have a lot of stuff added in that we don't do; and stuff which I just don't see in Master Shimabuku's kata.  I mean like for example where the hand turns over in Seisan after doing the three open hand palm up middle body block.  We do the block, turn the hand over to show a grab, and pull back to the obi, then move on.  I see lots of videos where the hand flipping over becomes this big complicated fluttery thing, which lots of back and forth jerky movement.  Is that supposed to signify something?

I'm asking because I don't know, not criticizing.  I've only got 2 years of Isshin-Ryu, not qualified to criticize.


----------



## dancingalone (Aug 18, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Thanks!  The thing I noticed in the first (slow) video was the (to me) exaggerated leg-lifts and what appeared to be some inserted 'bumps' as he cocked his knee up and down or pumped it or something.
> 
> We step over, lifting the leg to make it clear that we're 'stepping  over' but not so much that we're making it look like we're doing some  kind of 'eek a bug' dance.  I'm talking about the cross-overs, not the  leg lift to represent the avoidance of a kick/sweep.



I think he is showing some knee stomps explicitly.  It's an application I've been taught before where if you find yourself to the side of an attacker but you are nonetheless slightly behind him, you can step into the back of his knee firmly and force him down that way.



Bill Mattocks said:


> We also don't do the exaggerated intro; we just come to attention, rei, and hajime.  No elaborate pre-presentation.  I see that a lot though.  What's up with those hand flourishes?



There's no sound on this video, but I suspect there is some stomach/ki breathing occurring.  The hand going up and down is a physical reinforcement of the energy being send up and back down through the dan tian.



> I have noticed differences in Isshin-Ryu as practiced in Michigan and North Carolina.  Not huge, but when we do 'ure uke, seikan tsuki', we do NOT cross over (the only block or punch where we do not) and we do NOT apply an overhead block before bringing down the backfist (in MI).  When I was visiting in NC, we did.



Variation in kata invariably creeps in over time.  



Bill Mattocks said:


> I look at a lot of those Youtube videos for kata.  It's a shame that the old Master Shimabuku videos were such poor quality, but that's old Super 8 film for ya.  A lot of the more modern videos seem to have a lot of stuff added in that we don't do; and stuff which I just don't see in Master Shimabuku's kata.  I mean like for example where the hand turns over in Seisan after doing the three open hand palm up middle body block.  We do the block, turn the hand over to show a grab, and pull back to the obi, then move on. * I see lots of videos where the hand flipping over becomes this big complicated fluttery thing, which lots of back and forth jerky movement.  Is that supposed to signify something?*
> 
> I'm asking because I don't know, not criticizing.  I've only got 2 years of Isshin-Ryu, not qualified to criticize.



Are they executing dynamic tension like in sanchin?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 18, 2010)

dancingalone said:


> I think he is showing some knee stomps explicitly.  It's an application I've been taught before where if you find yourself to the side of an attacker but you are nonetheless slightly behind him, you can step into the back of his knee firmly and force him down that way.



I need to ask my sensei if there is a knee stomp intended in Naihanchi. If there is, I am somehow unaware of it.  Not to say that there isn't bunkai for it, but I did not think it was in the kata.




> Are they executing dynamic tension like in sanchin?



Dunno, but it looks like there is some kind of symbolic movement going on.  Have you not seen this yourself?  We just flip the hand over and 'grasp'.  Nothing else.

But that reminds me; in the video I posted the link to, there is also what appears to be a pelvic flip.  In Sanchin, we tuck the tailbone, but sensei very much does not like the 'flip' of the pelvis as if we were doing groin thrusts.  Looks like that in this video; an obvious 'thrust' of the pelvis.  Does that seem right to your interpretation of the kata (either Naihanchi or Sanchin)?


----------



## dancingalone (Aug 18, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Dunno, but it looks like there is some kind of symbolic movement going on.  Have you not seen this yourself?  We just flip the hand over and 'grasp'.  Nothing else.



I've seen people pull back the hand to their core slowly with tension and ibuki breathing.  If that is what you are referring to, I believe this is common enough, at least with the Isshinryu I have seen.  Anything more elaborate than that, you would have to show me a video of it.



Bill Mattocks said:


> But that reminds me; in the video I posted the link to, there is also what appears to be a pelvic flip.  In Sanchin, we tuck the tailbone, but sensei very much does not like the 'flip' of the pelvis as if we were doing groin thrusts.  Looks like that in this video; an obvious 'thrust' of the pelvis.  Does that seem right to your interpretation of the kata (either Naihanchi or Sanchin)?



I teach beginners the exaggerated pelvic tuck in Sanchin since they really don't get it without the big motion to set it into their minds.  It should go away over time.

When I teach Naihanchi (I don't teach it to all my students as we are a Goju dojo, so just to those who can benefit from the short power study), I actually don't teach pelvic tilt at all.  Nor do I turn the hips to the side like the gentleman does in the video.  The point to Naihanchi is to be able to generate force with relatively small motions.  Hip vibration along with isolated muscle group contraction/relaxation is the key, not full hip rotation.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 18, 2010)

dancingalone said:


> When I teach Naihanchi (I don't teach it to all my students as we are a Goju dojo, so just to those who can benefit from the short power study), I actually don't teach pelvic tilt at all.  Nor do I turn the hips to the side like the gentleman does in the video.  The point to Naihanchi is to be able to generate force with relatively small motions.  Hip vibration along with isolated muscle group contraction/relaxation is the key, not full hip rotation.



If it were ever possible, I'd love to visit your dojo sometime and learn whatever I could.


----------



## Victor Smith (Aug 18, 2010)

Shinshinkan is Isshinryu, with the name changed for I assume marketing. They do also refer themselves as Shinshinkan Isshinryu I believe.

They are direct lineage Uzeu Angi Isshinryu, though the only true constant is change happens.

My Isshinryu lineage (Shimabuku to T. Lewis to me and Shimabuku to T. Lewis to C. Murray (also Shimabuku to C Murray in part) to me performs the kata differently.

In my lineage there were no formal application studies and I fully see any movement section (depending on definition) as having dozens of applications, and practice that way, I rarely try to interpret a kata video as to the application intent. One never knows if the kata video is the true goal, or just a snapshot at that moment.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 18, 2010)

Victor Smith said:


> My Isshinryu lineage (Shimabuku to T. Lewis to me and Shimabuku to T. Lewis to C. Murray (also Shimabuku to C Murray in part) to me performs the kata differently.



That's cool!  Good to be so close to the source, as they say.  Mine is Shimabuku -> Harrill / Mitchum -> Holloway -> Me.  So I'm a bit farther down the tree, but still very lucky to be taught by someone as good as I feel my sensei is.


----------



## David43515 (Aug 18, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Naihanchi as performed by a group calling themselves 'Isshin Ryu Shinshinkan."
> 
> I do not know the group, but the kata looks familiar. We don't do such exaggerated movements in the first (slow) version, nor do we do such jerky movements in the last (fast) version. But at least the movements are recognizable to me.
> 
> ...


 
I can`t get it to play, so I won`t comment on how they`re doing it. When I began Isshinryu back in Ohio under Gary Copeland we began Naihanchi by moving to the left. In Seisan afterthe middle palm up blocks we generally pulled back with tension and ibuki breathing, but instead of pulling to the obi we pulled lower. Towards the hip joint so there was a distinct downward pull to break the balance. Once in a while you`d see guys roll the hand slightly as they pulled so that thier hand was palm facing to the rear. The idea was that you were using thefirst joint of the index finger to apply a rolling downward pressue to the top of the seized wrist. But we didn`t do it all the time.

I guess it just goes to show that there`s more than one bunkai for different techniques, and that people tend to change the kata a little to suit themselves over time.

I kind of like Iain Abernethy`s videos about bunkai because he`ll often show two styles` version of the same kata, for instance Wado ryu and Shotokan. And even though the technique is occationally different, the problem the technique is meant to solve is often the same. The difference is usually something as simple as one style using a side kick and the other using a front kick, or moving to 45 degrees as opposed to 90 degrees.


----------



## rlp271 (Aug 19, 2010)

I was taught Naifanchi with very little hip movement, basically none.  All the power comes from very small motions.  In discussions of variation in Isshinryu, or even discussions of why Isshinryu's kata look different from the style they were taken from, lineage comes into play.  

The way I see it, Shimabuku loved to tinker with things, and was doing it until he died.  Nagle and Long brought back an Isshinryu that was different from the Isshinryu that came to the US later with men like Armstrong, Smith, and Advincula.  Each person's Isshinryu would have been adapted to their body type as well, the smaller Advincula or the much larger Steve Armstrong.  Repeated contact with Shimabuku would have allowed a person to view the changes over time as well.  Which leads to my next point, I bet if you dug around long enough, you'd find at least one Isshinryu dojo that does a version of Seiunchin that is closer to Goju-ryu's, and another that starts Naifanchi going the opposite direction.  I'm not sure if Isshinryu was every supposed to be a completely codified system, but that's another discussion.


----------



## Victor Smith (Aug 19, 2010)

Styles in Okinawan karate did not begin until after WWII, imitating the Japanese karate styles. Before that there were just instructors and they taught as they needed.

Isshinryu, Shimabuku Tatuso's art, likely changed as much as more experience was gained training American students as anything. The transmission was very rapid, very few individuals in the world could have done better considering the very short time the American's had to train (max 16 months).

Coincident with the onset of instructing American Marines, they also allowed the opportunity to change what he was teaching. Many of his Okiawan students quit, to not associate with the Americans (which they linked to the vast devistation of Okinawa during the invasion) as much as not wishing to change the Kyan based training Shimabuku was providing previously. For quite some time he had both pre and post Isshinryu being taught in his dojo. Then the Vietnam years allowed for shorter tours of duty and instructional changes to add more kobudo and deal with less time for the students, caused more changes.

Shimabuku Tatsuo, being a true Okinawan, did not document his system, so no one can authoratively say and prove why he did what he did. That leaves different instructors (Okinawan and American) with differing answers.

Myself I don't think the 'why of the past' is terribly important, but rather the 'why of the now'.  I just work to take the versions of our kata I use and work to drop as many possible attackers with them as possible.


----------



## dancingalone (Aug 19, 2010)

Victor Smith said:


> Styles in Okinawan karate did not begin until after WWII, imitating the Japanese karate styles. Before that there were just instructors and they taught as they needed.



Do you think we have hit a point of critical mass where style has indeed become very important?  Where technique and philosophy and training methods have diverged so much that it's best to keep trucking on with the path one has chosen rather than being more of a generalist?  I guess that depends on what one is practicing exactly... More or less this is just some grist to chew on.


----------



## punisher73 (Aug 19, 2010)

rlp271 said:


> The way I see it, Shimabuku loved to tinker with things, and was doing it until he died. Nagle and Long brought back an Isshinryu that was different from the Isshinryu that came to the US later with men like Armstrong, Smith, and Advincula. Each person's Isshinryu would have been adapted to their body type as well, the smaller Advincula or the much larger Steve Armstrong. Repeated contact with Shimabuku would have allowed a person to view the changes over time as well. Which leads to my next point, I bet if you dug around long enough, you'd find at least one Isshinryu dojo that does a version of Seiunchin that is closer to Goju-ryu's, and another that starts Naifanchi going the opposite direction. I'm not sure if Isshinryu was every supposed to be a completely codified system, but that's another discussion.


 
I think that's the biggest key there.  Shimabuku's personal approach was in constant refinement and depending on when you were there it influenced on how you were taught.  I have read from some later people that with the shorter tours of duty the 8 kata was cut back even more but there were enough people already doing the standard 8 that it didn't really stick.

Add that to the fact of how many actually went back to Okinawa to follow up on their training or get further refinements and you have even more "changes" brought into the system as instructors put their own stamp on it from their experience and understanding.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 19, 2010)

punisher73 said:


> I think that's the biggest key there.  Shimabuku's personal approach was in constant refinement and depending on when you were there it influenced on how you were taught.  I have read from some later people that with the shorter tours of duty the 8 kata was cut back even more but there were enough people already doing the standard 8 that it didn't really stick.
> 
> Add that to the fact of how many actually went back to Okinawa to follow up on their training or get further refinements and you have even more "changes" brought into the system as instructors put their own stamp on it from their experience and understanding.



Didn't Sensei Mitchum spend a lot of time training with Master Shimabuku?


----------



## rlp271 (Aug 19, 2010)

Victor Smith said:


> Styles in Okinawan karate did not begin until after WWII, imitating the Japanese karate styles. Before that there were just instructors and they taught as they needed.



Isn't the date for styles emerging closer to the turn of the century (19th to 20th of course).  Anko Itosu codified what he had learned, created the Pinan (Heian) Kata to make it more digestible, and that was transmitted to Gichin Funakoshi, who in turn transmitted it to Japan.  In 1929 Chojun Miyagi took what he learned in China, what he learned from Higashionna, and named it Goju-Ryu.

It's true that the formal Japanese style of training and ranking didn't take hold until after WWII, which is why you get extremely fast rank progression among the original Marines.  Prior to this, you had informal meetings in people's back yards.  Each student was taught according to what their master wanted to concentrate on, and what he felt would best suit them.

@dancingalone:  I'm not surprised that styles were codified, and it's not a bad thing, but we concentrate on it too much.  We concentrate on what is "correct," but we forget that different people have different needs.  Example from Isshinryu: Armstrong and his students, from what I've seen don't chamber their blocks.  They come directly from the hip.  For Armstrong, this was fine, he was a very large man.  Someone smaller would probably have to use sabaki movements coupled with a parry to turn the "block" into a striking movement.  Depends on your interpretation of something as simple as the basics.  A problem occurs when there is a blind following and no understanding of what's being done.  With the heavy Japanese influence post-WWII, I can see how this would happen with Okinawan Karate Kempo.  Japanese society is conformist by nature.  The old Japanese saying goes, "The nail that sticks out is hammered down."  Anyone doing something radical would be considered wrong, and would be culled quickly.  The Kempo jutsu in Okinawa would have to quickly conform to Japanese Karate-do if it wanted to survive.

@Mr. Mattocks: I've heard Mitchum's time spent in Okinawa happened over a 7 and a half year period.  Originally, people said that he had trained in Okinawa for 7 and a half years, but his service record would show otherwise.  He made 3 tours to Okinawa in that time, but I'm not sure what the actual total time training was.  Many others went back as well, Advincula comes to mind, but I'm not sure what their ideas were about transmission.  Strict transmission of source material is a very Japanese idea.  As Mr. Smith pointed out, Shimabuku was Okinawan.  He didn't write things down, he taught what he liked at the time, and let people run with it.  I ran into an Isshinryu school, I want to say in Canada (I was very young), where they used the traditional corkscrew style punch.  Were they wrong?  Well, it depends on if Shimabuku was screwing around with it for a few weeks and someone picked it up 40 years ago.  I think the whole idea of Isshinryu as a codified system was a concept brought about by the US Marines.  It's great that they tried to create a standard, but they each did it on their own, in different places, with zero pier review.  It would be interesting if you could get say every person who is presently an 8th, 9th, or 10th dan in the same room to truly codify the system, but because of politics and ego that situation would likely be :hb: at best.


----------



## Victor Smith (Aug 20, 2010)

Shimabuku's teachings were really designed for his full time Okinawan students. When he accepted the American Marines many of those students left. In the early 1960's in his dojo Okinawan's were using the twisting punches and the American's were using the newer vertical striking.  Shimabuku was making accomodations to try and keep the Okinawan's  There is a record that he met with them to try and get them to return.

By 1964 he taught in Pittsburgh for 4-6 months (different sources cite different time) and the entire time he taught the Isshinryu system with twisting punches (apparently having reverted to the older way). In the early 90's I had a studenet from that Pittsburgh dojo train with us for a while. It was interesting seeing Isshinryu that way. By the late 60's I understand in the Western PA area various Isshinryu dojo would use twisting and/or vertical striking.

BTW there was extensive movie records made of Shimabuku's Pittsburgh time, but the school head has kept them private. The old isshinryu disease left everyone training their in contention and it's safe to say, as valuable as those movies are, they are lost for everyone forever.

Shimabuku said during his 1966 visit to the states he was so impressed his American students retained the vertical striking he was going to revert again and only teach that way from that point on.  One of my instructors trained as a sho-dan in Agena 1972-73 and he never made reference to twisting punches.

IMO it's really irrelevant which punch you use it you train to understand your strikes potential and it works, that you're only using one is fine.

Isshinryu's problems all of course go back to it's founder becuase he obviously never really thought short term American students would keep practicing for the next 50 years.  Not having the forsight or the intention of casting his 'system' in stone, he had no real controlling mechanism to fix Isshinryu in perpetuity.  (and of course in the long run the Japanese styles that started the style business first, all in the end had many breakaway systems.

Real Isshinryu is very simple to define, they step on the floor and practice Isshinryu, period. The quibbling details are irrelevant, rank is irrelevant, time training with Shimabuku is irrelevant. Isshinryu everywhere took on it's own personal existence because each instructor choose to keep it so.

Real Isshinryu is simply your fist meeting your attacker's face and they drop. That's real.

pleasantly,


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 20, 2010)

Victor Smith said:


> Shimabuku said during his 1966 visit to the states he was so impressed his American students retained the vertical striking he was going to revert again and only teach that way from that point on.  One of my instructors trained as a sho-dan in Agena 1972-73 and he never made reference to twisting punches.



This is something that has consistently impressed me about the American side of Isshin-Ryu.  Students from Okinawa came back the USA and kept at it diligently.  Clearly it left a powerful mark on them.  Shimabuku must have been some instructor.  How many people do we all know who say _"Karate?  Yeah, I studied (name some art) when I was a kid, for awhile." _ People try it, and even if they like it, most move on.  How many adopt it as a lifelong passion and devote themselves to doing as closely as they can to how they were taught it?

I mean no disrespect to any other Ryu, but I have noticed that many have few compunctions about changing their kata, their style, or whatever else they feel like changing as they feel it necessary.  I'm not saying this is a bad thing, but I have noticed that Isshin-Ryu tends not to be like that.  The fact that there are serious splits and arguments over small details tells me that people consider those details important and not superfluous.  It doesn't mean they are important, but it is interesting that so many consider them so; perhaps they are important after all.

My sensei tells us that when Master Harrill and Mitchum met up after so many years apart, they were surprised to see how little difference there was in their kata.  They touched each other up on various aspects, but for the most part, they did the same kata.  My sensei tells me that both men were very different in how they did their karate; Harrill being a bunkai man through and through, and Mitchum being a straight-ahead puncher and kicker; but both doing nearly identical kata after all those years training alone and away from each other's influence.  I thought that was a pretty cool story.

Of course, I'm too far removed from the source to have any valuable insight or opinion; I just really enjoy the story of Isshin-Ryu and being a student.


----------



## punisher73 (Aug 20, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Didn't Sensei Mitchum spend a lot of time training with Master Shimabuku?


 
I believe so.  I also think that he is one of the few that continued to go back (along with Advincula) and train after leaving.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 20, 2010)

dancingalone said:


> I've seen people pull back the hand to their core slowly with tension and ibuki breathing.  If that is what you are referring to, I believe this is common enough, at least with the Isshinryu I have seen.  Anything more elaborate than that, you would have to show me a video of it.



I had to ask one of my senseis last night what 'ibuki breathing' was.  He demonstrated, and now I get it.  The videos I've seen show very similar hand movements; what I saw as 'jerky' on the hand flip in Seisan was exactly the same, but corresponded with sensei's breathing.  I did not realize that the entire kata was then done under high dynamic tension; I get that now.

I can only say that in two years, I have not seen that; we do it in Sanchin, but only in that kata, and I had not been told it was 'ibuki' breathing until now.  Sensei says it can be done for any kata, and it's good exercise, but it's not how we do kata normally.  I had thought that the videos I saw online were how the practitioners normally did their kata (perhaps they do) instead of a variation for a particular purpose.



> I teach beginners the exaggerated pelvic tuck in Sanchin since they really don't get it without the big motion to set it into their minds.  It should go away over time.



Understood.  Our sensei rather dislikes it, and he tells me not to do it, but we do 'tuck' and we do practice breathing from the hara and dynamic tension in the kata.  Not all the way through it, but at certain places.  He tests our stability at various points in the kata.



> When I teach Naihanchi (I don't teach it to all my students as we are a Goju dojo, so just to those who can benefit from the short power study), I actually don't teach pelvic tilt at all.  Nor do I turn the hips to the side like the gentleman does in the video.  The point to Naihanchi is to be able to generate force with relatively small motions.  Hip vibration along with isolated muscle group contraction/relaxation is the key, not full hip rotation.



Thanks!

At the moment, I'm stuck on Chinto.  It's killing me.  I can't make brown belt until I get it down, but...I'll keep working on it.


----------



## Victor Smith (Aug 20, 2010)

My Isshinryu was always taught with very intense breating in parts of Seiunchin kata and the entire Sanchin experience.

Over the decades I've discontinued the heavy breathing with thie kids, but adults are tauaght both ways with and without the breathing in Seiunchin.

For Sanchin I take a very different approach and only use the kata as a disruptive study to destroy any attacker. I've abaondoned the intense breathing and do the kata with natural breathing and full speed.

BTW the concept 'Ibuki' did not come from Isshinryu.  It was used in the Mas Oyama books to discuss Sanchin breathing. I think everyone who read it said to themselves that sounds right and must be the correct term. I know I did. Eventually I discovered it was not named (as many Okinawan techniques never had names).

Mr. Lewis taught us Seiuhnchin with very heavy breathing. Here is one of my students doing the kata the way I was taught.  



 
When I posted it I got many Isshinryu replies how can this be so, but I'm not authorized to change what I was taught <GRIN>. Suffice it to say when we apply those slow sections we don't do it at taht speed.

I once questioned Harrill Sensei about it and he suggested the breating being shown was exaggerated for the group to understand the basic approach to breathing.  As I wasn't there I can't say nor do I care, too much discussion about things that can't be proven is less than usefull after all.

Suffice this is what I teach and practice for 37 years now. I no longer use the term Ibuki, leaving it for the kyokushinkai dudes.


----------



## dancingalone (Aug 20, 2010)

Victor Smith said:


> BTW the concept 'Ibuki' did not come from Isshinryu.  It was used in the Mas Oyama books to discuss Sanchin breathing. I think everyone who read it said to themselves that sounds right and must be the correct term. I know I did. Eventually I discovered it was not named (as many Okinawan techniques never had names).



Indeed.  Okinawan stylists like myself have adopted many loan words from out of Japanese styles.  I guess the Okinawans weren't as descriptive in writing, hence the lack of terminology for ideas and concepts that nonetheless exist in their karate.  Ibuki is of course one of these.

'Bunkai' is another adopted term.  My teacher, an Okinawan by the way of Singapore, taught me kata applications but he never used bunkai as an operative term.  He simply called them 'drills' in English.


----------



## Victor Smith (Aug 20, 2010)

Karate as it developed on Okinawa did not develop a technical vocabulary, nor did the 'write' karate books.  Dan Smith (Seibukan) explained the Okinawan term for punch, block, or almost anything would be translated as 'just put your arm here'.

Obviously they were focused on hand's on training, the instructor would show you what to do and 'correct' it if necessary, and if you could't say it you couldn't drop it's existence to the un-initiated.

In fact while Mabuni used the term 'bunkai in 1933 to explain how to break down a kata technique for its' uses, there is plenty of evidence that this was not how Okinawan's taught karate. Instead they practiced kata, and likely had a set of answer for standard attacks (which came from kata), but the detailed explanation of kata's movements is not a core Okinwan approach, but modern retro-fitting our answers to the past.

Without specific 'evidence' we can't prove the past, just infer what they did echo's in todays' training.


----------



## dancingalone (Aug 20, 2010)

Victor Smith said:


> In fact while Mabuni used the term 'bunkai in 1933 to explain how to break down a kata technique for its' uses, there is plenty of evidence that this was not how Okinawan's taught karate. Instead they practiced kata, and likely had a set of answer for standard attacks (which came from kata), but the detailed explanation of kata's movements is not a core Okinwan approach, but modern retro-fitting our answers to the past.



I can say anecdotally that my teacher learned his karate during the sixties on Okinawa.  He's told me that most of his so-called 'drills' (er, bunkai) are part of what they practiced back then verbatim.

Perhaps you could expand on what you mean by detailed explanation of kata movement vs. set answers coming from kata?


----------



## Victor Smith (Aug 20, 2010)

How to explain this simply, let me try.

For example Isshinryu is mainly a Kyan derived system (as are Seibukan and several others). From friends in those systems it's farily well documented Kyan never taught anything but kata, not sepecify ways to use kata techniques. In the derivative systems that tendency remains. Some have their students try to work out what those techniques could be use for (with some direction) to allow them to see what their level of training shows them, but not the instrutor's insight.  

Even in it's short term instruction, Isshinryu followed the same template, kata were just kata, but there were  a small subset of responses to study for specific attacks.

On the whole the first books published in the 20's and 30's do the same (Mabuni somewhat an exception showing 'bunkai' but likely to show the Japanese rulling estalishmet what karate could do as opposed to a teaching approach). Mutsu's 1933 Kempo Karate has half the book showing series of different karate answers for groupd attacks, but not specifically tied to kata. (on the other hand he does describe uses in the kata description steps).

Where kata have hundreds of possible answers, by the 1900's Okinawa was a quiet placee and did 'students' need more than a few resonses to standard type attacks (ie strikes, grab's, some judo takedowns, etc.).

There's not a simple answer, but as I see it the inference is clear. Thing's weren't hidden, they just weren't practiced the way today we assume they must have been.

In that way Funakoshi may not have hid anything. His books did suggest some answers, but if his tradition (Itosu) didn't include deep application studies, then perhaps he just kept to what he studied.

My instructor's did not study Isshiryu 'bunkai' just the kata, and some specific self defense answers. Now their training time was short so perhaps.... on the other hand the words many repeat, it's up to you to discover the meaning, might have been the true tradition.

In any case I know how I use my system and how I teach my students to understand it's potential.


----------

