Bunkai/Hidden techniques - Split from "How Do I Quit"

[Cayuga Karate]

Makalakula wrote:

n Shuri te systems, this gets even more pronounced and I think we start to get the hint at where some of these moves may have originated. All of the "castle" systems of karate had some exposure to a system of swordsmanship that was imported from Japan called Jigen Ryu. This school has empty handed lists that contain techniques for dealing with an armed attacker while you are unarmed. It also contains techniques for subduing unarmed attackers. Many of these techniques are directly found in the kata. In particular, I think techniques for weapon retention, off hand draws of secondary weapons, and specific throwing techniques designed to clear a weapon and disable an attacker, can be identified.

Emphasis added.

In your response you noted

The passage notes that Lord Shimizu instructed second generation Jigen Ryu Headmaster Togo Bizen no Kami Shigekata (1602-59) to teach self defense tactics to farmers and peasents in Satsuma...."there can be no question that Jigen Ryu is connected to Okinawa's Domestic fighting traditions; however, the question remains, which influenced which!"

I may be missing something here, but I don't see how Satsuma teaching local farmers in Satsuma, in the early 1600s, how to use their native implemements against an attack shows how Jigen Ryu concepts were incorporated into the Okinawan kata that Motobu and others describe as being of Chinese origin, many of them taught to Okinawans a hundred or more years later.

This may be the origin of the "one strike one kill" meme that has filtered through karate circles for ages. Of course, I think as with many concepts, the original meaning of this has been lost and people may be taking it too literally.

Yes Jigen Ryu has an emphasis on killing with the first strike. Again, I fail to see the relationship of this concept with the movements in Okinawan kata. If anything the complexity of Okinawan kata indicate to me that there is far more emphasis on multiple movements than on single blows. If single blows were all that mattered, then I believe the Okinawans would have abandoned kata and focused exclusively on makiwara training.

Noting this, lets address the question at hand.

I don't mean to appear rude here in any way, but I fail to see how a list of techniques/drills from a Jigen Ryu syllabus in any way addresses the issue at hand.

Was Jigen Ryu taught by samurai to select members of the Okinawan elite? Certainly. Do Japanese sword arts commonly have derivative empty hand training. Certainly. We can see that with Jiu Jitsu, Aiki Jitsu and Aikido.

But simply because we have Japanese sword arts that were practiced by a few Okinawans does not necessarily mean that those Okinawans took sequences from those arts and blended them into the Chinese kata that they had practiced for generations.

We do have fairly clear guidance from Motobu, Funakoshi, Nakama and others that the Okinawans practiced Chinese forms. We do know some changes were made. I believe Higaonna is attributed to the change to Sanchin where the hands are now closed, as compared to, for example, Shisochin, and Uechi ryu kata where they are open.

Nakama said Itosu closed the hands on some sequences, and added more pauses, a distinct characteristic of modern Okinawan kata. (Nakama stated that he modified the original Chinese kata simultaneous sequences to more block-then-strike sequences.)

That's what we know, and precious little else. If posters here would like to help our collective understanding of the origins of kata, then it would be helpful if they made use of known documentation.

This is no insult to the Okinawans who have given us the little history we do have, but it is clear that it is woefully incomplete and in many ways just non-sensical. I have noted above, and will do so again. There are many references to the requirement that the Okinawans need to develop empty hand arts after the Satsuma prohibited the carrying of swords and spears. Nowhere in the Okinawan karate history (until Nagamine's text from the 1990s), is there mention of the fundamental national security requirement that Okinawans be able to fight off pirate attacks from their trading convoys to and from China. These Okinawans had to use the common bladed weapons of the time, and they were likely very proficient in using them. They had been seafarers, and their formal trading relationship with China extended over 500 years, long before handheld firearms were used at sea.

Among the karate community there appears to be a willful blindness to these basic facts of history. And it extends further. It is simply accepted that the Chinese military authorities who trained Okinawans in combative arts taught them empty hand fighting soley with the goal to protect Okinawans on land in Okinawa. It is never considered why these Chinese military authorities, skilled in defense of naval vessels, wouldn't have been motivated to teach the Okinawans how to defend their precious tribute cargo to and from China, and their very lives as well. It is useful to note that the usual result of a successful pirate attack would be that all passengers and crew would either be killed, or forced into a miserable life of slave labor aboard a pirate ship, where one could expect a less than subsistance diet, onerous working conditions, and other horrors as well.

These threats to Okinawa's national security interests have been studiously ignored, by the historians of Okinawan karate, and by their millions of students worldwide. What has been provided is a simplistic model of history that completely omits much of the basic history of Okinawa's past as a seafaring nation.

I believe a time will come when the karate community begins to accept this past, and the ramifications of this past on their study of the Chinese kata handed down to Okinawans, in part by Chinese military authorities.

We're certainly not there yet. I will continue to make this case here and in other venues. I do recognize that I am challenged by an institutional aversion to these concepts. Someday there may be a much greater appreciation of the question posed above.

"Why did Chinese military authorities, skilled in the armed defense of maritime commerce, choose to teach empty hand kata to Okinawans whose national security interests required broad skill in armed defense of maritime commerce?"

 

[Makalakumu]

I may be missing something here, but I don't see how Satsuma teaching local farmers in Satsuma, in the early 1600s, how to use their native implemements against an attack shows how Jigen Ryu concepts were incorporated into the Okinawan kata that Motobu and others describe as being of Chinese origin, many of them taught to Okinawans a hundred or more years later.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Ryukyu

The invasion of Ryukyu (琉球征伐 Ryūkyū Seibatsu[SUP]?[/SUP]) by forces of the Japanese feudal domain of Satsuma took place in 1609, and marked the beginning of the Ryūkyū Kingdom's status as a vassal state under Satsuma. The invasion itself involved few casualties, as Ryukyu had little military strength, and its people were ordered by their king to surrender and to spare themselves any bloodshed.

This program included Okinawa because it was a vassal state under Satsuma. This is why so many Okinawan masters were awarded Menkyo Kaiden in Jigen Ryu in later years.

Yes Jigen Ryu has an emphasis on killing with the first strike. Again, I fail to see the relationship of this concept with the movements in Okinawan kata. If anything the complexity of Okinawan kata indicate to me that there is far more emphasis on multiple movements than on single blows. If single blows were all that mattered, then I believe the Okinawans would have abandoned kata and focused exclusively on makiwara training.

Makiwara training was very much emphasized in the old art, but I think we'll get off track on this if we're not careful. At any rate, I think people are being far too literal. "End it NOW!" is the moral of this story, IMO. Still, the idea is there and that is what matters for this discussion. I don't think the appearence of this meme is coincidental when you consider all of the information.

I don't mean to appear rude here in any way, but I fail to see how a list of techniques/drills from a Jigen Ryu syllabus in any way addresses the issue at hand.

Many of the concepts on these syllabus are referring to two person kata that are shared between systems of aikijujutsu and jujutsu. Some of these techniques are directly analogous to those found in kata. I have a shodan in Japanese jujutsu and many of the two person techniques appear to be direct matches between the movement sequences in Okinawan Kata. I'll shoot a video of some of it when I have time.

Was Jigen Ryu taught by samurai to select members of the Okinawan elite? Certainly. Do Japanese sword arts commonly have derivative empty hand training. Certainly. We can see that with Jiu Jitsu, Aiki Jitsu and Aikido.

It's not just a few Okinawan Elite. Soken Matsumura, Ankoh Azato and many of his entire line were awarded the Menkyo Kaiden in Jigen Ryu. This school of Japanese Martial Arts was pervasive.

But simply because we have Japanese sword arts that were practiced by a few Okinawans does not necessarily mean that those Okinawans took sequences from those arts and blended them into the Chinese kata that they had practiced for generations.

I don't think it's fair to call the kata Chinese. I think, as other karate researchers like Patrick McCarthy points out, that the kata were blends of Chinese concepts, Japanese concepts, and traditional homegrown Okinawan concepts. It's an amalgamation.

Regarding your point about weapons training, I think it's very plausible that the kata contain information on weapon techniques. The origin is not pure, however. We must look in many directions.

 

[Cayuga Karate]

This program included Okinawa because it was a vassal state under Satsuma. This is why so many Okinawan masters were awarded Menkyo Kaiden in Jigen Ryu in later years.

Do you have a source that specifically states that Satsuma had a training program across the Ryukyu Kingdom? If you have one, please provide it. If you are using the reference you have provided, I don't see anything that states this was taught outside of Satsuma. The text appears quite clear. This was a program in Satsuma, not in the Ryukyu archipelago. Moreover, if Satsuma had engaged in a training program of the Okinawan peasantry, I find it difficult to believe there would be no reference to in in the standard histories of Okinawan karate. I believe the fact that it is mentioned in none of them is proves that it is highly unlikely that it ever occurred.

It's not just a few Okinawan Elite. Soken Matsumura, Ankoh Azato and many of his entire line were awarded the Menkyo Kaiden in Jigen Ryu. This school of Japanese Martial Arts was pervasive.

I would be grateful if you could provide a reference regarding the statement "many of his entire line"? Is there a list of specific individuals, or a claim to a number of those awarded the Menkyo Kaiden? Also, what reference/source do you have that Japanese sword arts were pervasive in Okinawa? I am aware of brief mention of it in Funakoshi's writings, regarding Azato, and there are references of Matsumura training in Jigen Ryu. I would be grateful if you could provide any other historical references to sword training in Okinawa in the 19th century.

I don't think it's fair to call the kata Chinese. I think, as other karate researchers like Patrick McCarthy points out, that the kata were blends of Chinese concepts, Japanese concepts, and traditional homegrown Okinawan concepts. It's an amalgamation.

I am familiar with a number of sources that state the karate is a blend of various inputs, including both Okinawan and Chinese. But I am unaware of any authoritative source that attributes specific kata, known to have existed 100 years ago in Okinawa, as being a blend of Chinese concepts, Japanese concepts and traditional homegrown Okinawan concepts. I would be grateful if you could provide a source, especially McCarthy's statements.

I think you would find much disagreement in the Goju community with the implication that Higaonna created the kata he is claimed to have brought back from China. I think you would also find much disagreement in the Ryue Ryu community that Nakaima created the kata he brought back from China.

While I await your references of the incorporation of Japanese influences in specific Okinawan kata, I will be content to rely on some authoritative sources regarding the origins of Okinawan kata. (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IASrvM7gGkcA48ISIJRF4uzlGweWxfFV28x4CLDUkts/edit)

Motobu (1870-1944)

As I have mentioned, Ryu Kyu Kempo-Karate originally came from China. Sanchin, Jo-Ju-Shi-Ho, Seisan and Seiunchin have been used there for many centuries. However, the Naihanchi, Passai, Chinto and Rohai styles are not left in China today and remain only in Okinawa as active Martial Arts.

Funakoshi (1868-1957)

Those who received instruction from a castaway from Annan in Fuzhou include: Gusukuma and Kanagusku (Chinto), Matsumura and Oyadomari (Chinte), Yamasato (Jiin) and Nakasato (Jitte), all of Tomari who learned the kata separately. The reason being that their teach was in a hurry to return to his home country.

Nagamine (1907-1997)

Through oral tradition and hand-to-hand training, the secret performances of the Chinese masters in the art of self-defense came to be known and their kata integrated with te.

 

[Makalakumu]

I'm sorry, but this post is probably going to let you down. I'm at home and time is limited.

Do you have a source that specifically states that Satsuma had a training program across the Ryukyu Kingdom? If you have one, please provide it. If you are using the reference you have provided, I don't see anything that states this was taught outside of Satsuma. The text appears quite clear. This was a program in Satsuma, not in the Ryukyu archipelago. Moreover, if Satsuma had engaged in a training program of the Okinawan peasantry, I find it difficult to believe there would be no reference to in in the standard histories of Okinawan karate. I believe the fact that it is mentioned in none of them is proves that it is highly unlikely that it ever occurred.

I'm not at the office anymore, so specific sources will have to wait. However, if the program was not extended to Okinawans, how did so many of the Okinawan Bushi receive Menkyo Kaiden in Jigen Ryu?

Incidentally, I did find this website interesting...

http://hakudaryukempojutsu.webs.com/okinawante2nobleti.htm

The Satsuma Samurai who had occupied Okinawa from 1609 practised Jigen Ryu which can be traced to Marume's Taisha Shin Kage Ryu. Murame had when a student of Kamiizumi Nobutsuna, the founder of the Shin Kage Ryu, assisted in a demonstration before Ashikaga Yoshiteru Shogun.

Sakugawa who is believed to have been a student of Kusankun who practised what was called Kumiai-Jutsu. Sakugawa was also in charge of security for a large commercial shipping firm and had studied martial arts in Beijing and Fuzhou in China and Satsuma in Japan.
There is little doubt that Sakugawa's influence of on Okinawan martial arts combined methods from both China (Kumiai Jutsu) and Japan (Jigen Ryu).

Another important influence is Sakugawa's student Sokon Matsumura who had also studied in Hakutsuru (White Crane) in Fuzhou and had opportunity to study under Ason and Iwah, Chinese Military Attaches of China in Okinawa. It is believed by many that Sokon Matsumura was also initiated into the Jigen Ryu the art of the Satsuma clan under Yashichiro Ijuin in Japan.

Matsumura as a youth living in Shuri learnt the basics of Okinawa's indigenious fighting art Te and had served as body guard to Sho Ko, Sho Iku and Sho Tai, the last three Okinawan Kings. There is some evidence to suggest that Matsumura was the Te instructor to the Okinawan Royal Family of Motobu Udun.

Matsumura like his teacher Sukagawa was also responsible for security on ships trading in the pirated seas between Okinawa, Japan and China.

I would be grateful if you could provide a reference regarding the statement "many of his entire line"? Is there a list of specific individuals, or a claim to a number of those awarded the Menkyo Kaiden? Also, what reference/source do you have that Japanese sword arts were pervasive in Okinawa? I am aware of brief mention of it in Funakoshi's writings, regarding Azato, and there are references of Matsumura training in Jigen Ryu. I would be grateful if you could provide any other historical references to sword training in Okinawa in the 19th century.

Imagine that two of your martial arts teachers had trained in the same style. Now imagine that martial arts instruction was much more rare than it is today. The fact that two of Funakoshi's teacher's were awarded Menkyo Kaiden in Jigen Ryu is not to be overlooked. It bespeaks that this art was common in the circles of people who practiced martial arts.

That said, tracking down all of the Okinawans that were awarded the Menkyo Kaiden in Jigen Ryu probably requires a visit to the Honbu in Kagoshima. Maybe someday...

I am familiar with a number of sources that state the karate is a blend of various inputs, including both Okinawan and Chinese. But I am unaware of any authoritative source that attributes specific kata, known to have existed 100 years ago in Okinawa, as being a blend of Chinese concepts, Japanese concepts and traditional homegrown Okinawan concepts. I would be grateful if you could provide a source, especially McCarthy's statements.

McCarthy's statements can be read in his translation of the Bubishi. Allow me to paraphrase, he states that karate incorporated techniques from chinese, japanese, and indiginous okinawan sources. This is a pervasive theme IMO.

I think you would find much disagreement in the Goju community with the implication that Higaonna created the kata he is claimed to have brought back from China. I think you would also find much disagreement in the Ryue Ryu community that Nakaima created the kata he brought back from China.

I'm sorry, I should have been more specific. I was referring mostly to Shuri Te systems. Maybe my comments relate to Tomari Te systems as well, but that would require more research. One thing I do know is that many Tomari kata have the same specatacular throws that are found in Japanese martial arts!

 

[Cayuga Karate]

Makalakula

I believe throughout this thread, you have made numerous statements for which you appear to have no supporting historical documentation. I have requested sources for a variety of statements for which nothing has been provided. So for the benefit of the historical record, I would like to review your claims further. If you would like to provide sources that rebut my claims, please feel free to do so.

You wrote:

In Shuri te systems, this gets even more pronounced and I think we start to get the hint at where some of these moves may have originated. All of the "castle" systems of karate had some exposure to a system of swordsmanship that was imported from Japan called Jigen Ryu.* This school has empty handed lists that contain techniques for dealing with an armed attacker while you are unarmed. It also contains techniques for subduing unarmed attackers. Many of these techniques are directly found in the kata.

*This statement (in bold) regarding "all" of the castle systems has no support in the historical record. We do know that one significant contributor to karate (Matsumura) did train in Jigen Ryu during at least one of his two voyages to Satsuma. But there is no real evidence that he taught anyone this Jigen Ryu art. In "The Essence of Karate" Funakoshi states:

Master Azato received insturction in horsemanship from the Meiji emperor's equerry, Instructor Masachika Megata,: in the use of wooden swords from Instructor Yashichiro Ijuin of the Jigen-ryu school of swordsmanship; and in archery from Instructor Genta Sekiguchi.

As Funakoshi makes no mention of Matsumura having a role in Azato's Jigen-ryu training, we should suspect that he likely didn't. In support of this position, I think it instructive to consider whether Matsumura taught Jigen-ryu to his other students which include Itosu, Kentsu, Hanashiro, Funakoshi, Kyan, Nabe Matsumura, Tawada, Takemura, Kiyuna, Sakihara and Ishimine. And we find no mention of any instruction of Jigen-ryu by Matsumura to any of these students. The lack of any evidence that Matsumura taught Jigen-ryu to any of these other students lends support to the likelihood that Funakoshi's statement that Azato's instruction in Jigen Ryu was limited to Ijuin.

In a later post, you reference the Satsuma training of Satsuma residents as to:

...why so many Okinawan masters were awarded Menkyo Kaiden in Jigen Ryu in later years.

I asked for documentation referring to this and you wrote:

This [Satsuma Training] program included Okinawa because it was a vassal state under Satsuma. This is why so many Okinawan masters were awarded Menkyo Kaiden in Jigen Ryu in later years...It's not just a few Okinawan Elite. Soken Matsumura, Ankoh Azato and many of his entire line were awarded the Menkyo Kaiden in Jigen Ryu. This school of Japanese Martial Arts was pervasive.

Your statement is unclear whether "his entire line" refers to students of Matsumura or students of Azato. Regarding Azato, his only known student is Funakoshi, and Funakoshi makes no claim he learned sword arts from Azato. I have addressed the issue of Matsumuru's students, above.

If you have been exposed to some historical information that all of these Okinawan unnamed karatemen (aside from Matsumura and Azato) receiving Menkyo Kaiden in Jigen Ryu, I would be grateful if you would provide it.

The issue here is not really whether there is any documenation regarding whether some Okinawans trained in Jigen-ryu, but rather what impact that may have had on the development of what you refer to as "castle systems". It is not clear whether you are considering the collective arts of Shuri, or whether you are considering that the fighting arts of Shuri were not uniform, but they themselves were different and somewhat distinct systems. It is worth noting that Yabu Kentsu referred to specific kata as "styles". Gojushiho, Kusanku, Passai and Naihanchi were considered themselves to be styles. Funakoshi mentions that experienced karateka knew only a few kata (styles) each.

We all need to recognize that due to the secrecy of the past, and to the devastation of the scant records of karate history in WWII, that we are left with a sparse historical record. But not all records were destroyed. Funakoshi, Miyagi and Motobu all recorded their histories before the destruction of WWII, and these survive intact. These histories uniformly describe the Shuri kata (aka castle systems) as being Chinese in origin, not Japanese, not even Okinawan.

This is not to say that there couldn't be sequences of movements in other combative arts such as Jigen-ryu that parallel some movements in the Chinese kata practiced in Okinawa. However, the existence of occasional similar movements in two different systems is not necessarily evidence that one influenced the other.

In another post on this thread, I requested information supporting the statement regarding exposure of all castle systems to Jigen Ryu, and you pointed to a web site that described the Satsuma program for teaching Satsuma residents homeland defense using their native implements, such as kama, the rice harvesting tool common throughout Southeast Asia. It appears quite clear from the information you provided that there is nothing in the historical documentation that has explicitly attributed this Satsuma practice as having influenced the development of a similar practice in Okinawa. Your source, in fact, includes a quotation that it could not be determined whether the Okinawans influenced the Satsuma, or vice versa. It is clear that this is source is engaging in pure speculation. He cites no references to support his vague claims that one of the systems must have influenced the other system without knowing which influenced which.

It should be noted that there is essentially no documentation of any influences on Okinawan karate development in the 1600s. The first source noted came from the mid-18th century, and it, as well as references to 19th century influences make clear that Okinawan martial developments of that period were based upon Chinese teachings rather than Japanese practices. Motobu, Miyagi, Funakoshi, Nagimine and others make no reference of Japanese influences on Okinawan kata and all attribute the development of the Okinawan art of "Chinese Hand" to Chinese sources. Funakoshi does state that Azato incorporated his experience of horsemanship, archery and jigen ryu into has karate. However, as I find it perplexing to understand how horsemanship practices and archery techniques would influence the kata that Azato taught, likewise, I find it doubtful that Azato's Jigen-ryu training resulted in any meaningful changes to the kata he taught.

For many on this forum, these may seem like some obscure historical points, completely divorced from the practical aspects of how one trains in karate today, whether for health, for improved fighting skills or for the many reasons that drive people to train. And I understand that perspective. However, I would argue that with such scant information on the development of Okinawan karate, that we should all be able to recognize what the literature does claim. And that is that the kata were of Chinese origin, and handed down in secret. That may lead some to try to answer the question posed above. Why would Chinese military authorities, tasked with the protection of ships to and from the Ryukyu kingdom, be inclined to teach their empty hand kata to the Okinawans? Why not teach the arts that were needed such that the Okinawans could likewise protect their precious cargo to and from China? It is my belief that once one fully appreciates the implications of those questions, one can have their perspectives on the purpose of kata forever changed.

I have limited my discussion thus far to the origins of kata. Though the practice of empty hand kata was a major component of combative arts training in the 1800s (and likely earlier), it is still only one element of what we now karate, which as a general practice is clearly Okinawan. The specifics of ti techniques, of hojo undo, (including the rigors of makiwara practice), the practice of kobudo, and the specific tempos at which the Chinese kata are practiced (punctuated with numerous pauses and tension versus the Chinese practice of fast and flowing), all come together to form distinct blends of uniquely Okinawan combative arts. Could the practice of Jigen-ryu provided some influence to the overall arts that some Okinawans practiced and taught? I don't see why not.

However, if one wants to claim that there are clear influences of Jigen ryu, or other arts, on the development of the Okinawan kata we practice today, and in addition, that the practice of Jigen-ryu was widespread in the karate community of 150 years ago, then these claims need to rest on historical documentation. We cannot simply wish these influences into the kata, nor wish widespread Menkyo Kaiden among the numerous karateka who participated in the transmission of the castle systems we practice today. The historians of karate have clearly pointed exclusively to Chinese influences on kata. In addition, the training in Jigen-ryu appears limited to only two individuals who, by all accounts, chose not to pass down these sword arts. For Jigen-ryu to have had some influence on the development of kata, or karate for that matter, we should all recognize that such alternative and novel theories must be based on historical evidence. In the absence of that historical documentation, claims of heritages that diverge significantly from the known sources are nothing other than idle speculation, and all should recognize these claims as being unsupported in the historical record.

 

[Makalakumu]

In the absence of that historical documentation, claims of heritages that diverge significantly from the known sources are nothing other than idle speculation, and all should recognize these claims as being unsupported in the historical record.

I think you may be minimizing the effect the Japanese had on Okinawa. There are plenty of historical sources that tie right back to the founders of many of the styles of karate we practice and it all ties into broader historical trends.

On top of that, we have direct techniques in kata that are nearly identical to those taught in various aikijujutsu and jujutsu systems. Even Mark Bishop describes the original Te practiced by Choyu Motobu as being very different from the karate being practiced. It resembles Aikido

There is no doubt that the majority of the influence for the historical development of karate is Chinese. However, I would say that there is also no doubt that the Japanese influenced karate to some extent as it developed. Where does that influence come from? Well, I think we have a link to Jigen Ryu. I disagree with your assessment of what other researchers like Patrick McCarthy have suggested.

That said, I don't forsee anybody proving this with first hand documentable sources. The people who passed on the kata didn't leave detailed notes about the influences of their kata and the applications contained therein. So, the curse of Tetsu No Ame bears more ugly fruit.

From personal experience, I've realized that it has been valuable to study Japanese and Chinese martial arts. It's only deepened my understanding of karate. This is because of the perfectly reasonable relationship of the cultures and their martial arts.

 

[Mark Lynn]

However, I believe many of us recognize that from one critical perspective,much of kata just does not lend itself to empty hand fighting.

I have to disagree here, I believe that the historical record shows and that they are mean for self defense, primarily for empty hand to empty hand fighting. Also from what I have seen the majority of posters on this thread and others view that the katas are more empty hand vs. empty hand rather than empty hand vs. weapons.

Let me be clear, it is not that I don't believe you can take the motion of a scooping type of a block and not use it as a disarm against a club attack. However I don't think it (meaning a weapon defense) was the primary application taught.

The upper block discussed at the beginning of this discussion can be used to illustrate a fundamental challenge we all have in translating numerous empty hand kata sequences into empty hand fighting.

If we are considering a kata movement in empty hand fighting, then I believe it logical that we look at the movements as they appear in kata. This upward block is found in several kata, and in each, there are movements that precede it and movements that follow. In Shotokan systems, this movements is first found in Heian Shodan (Pinan Nidan). It is preceded by a downward block and followed by two more upward blocks. There are four movements and four steps, a pattern found in many Okinawan kata.

In most all fighting systems outside of karate, if there is a sequence of four movements, then, in general, it is practiced as a unit, and can be used as a unit of fighting, a combination. In boxing, it is not uncommon to practice a sequence of four movements. Parry, and then follow with a three strike combo. In Kali, sequences can be far more lengthy (although there is no formal kata). In Aikido, the same.

I disagree with your point here. Because the move is repeated doesn't mean it is tied together and must be thought of as one sequence. I have often heard the point/teaching that if it is repeated you are also practicing it on the opposite side. Also if it is done in groups of 3 moves repeating then it might be more important that the application is practice more for a right handed attack than say a left one (or maybe thought of as more practical).

Also the FMAs do have katas (Anyos) at least we do in Modern Arnis and in Kombatan Arnis. The FMAs do have combnations that are repeated over and over again teaching a response or prescribed series of hits. In Kombatan in the Espda y Daga training you have almost mini katas (drills) that are done in a certian way to teach basic principles and types of strikes. To say though that the movements of the kata (getting back to the Okinawa katas) must be practiced as a 4 count unit of movement instead of 1, 2, or 3 moves (or why not 20 moves), I believe is to general of a statement to apply to all of the diverse styles and katas found today or what was created back in times past.

Yet here we are in karate with four hand movements coupled with four steps in a sequence that appears to have eluded attempts at explanations for use in a realistic empty hand encounter. As noted above, we find these three and four step sequences across all manner of kata. And in case after case, explanations of the use of these sequences in empty hand fighting is never really addressed.

What we have instead is individuals who take small components out of these sequences, and they use them in isolation. The movements are decoupled from the patterns in which they occur, and only in isolation can good empty hand fighting applications be developed. The common practice is to add other movements to the combination to make it useful. Sometimes the hand sequences are kept, and the steps are eliminated, or greatly modified such that the final sequence really does not map all that well to the original kata movements.

For those who argue that kata has all the fighting sequences that one needs for self defense, it should be recognized that across many kata there are multi-step sequences that cover a lot of ground. These patterns, as they appear in the kata, are never "decoded" for use in meaningful fighting sequences for a simple reason. They don't map to empty hand fighting.

Again you make several sweeping statements here like those who do these things are wrong and you because you believe that they should go together has the correct answer. I disagree. When I look at material from Iain Abernethy, Tonny Annesi, Harry Cook and others they all show applications pulling out one section from the kata, as well as stringing together movements from the kata. But I don't see where anyone says that they don't relate to empty hand at all.

Taika Seiyu Oyata would take what he called the upper art and the lower art (meaning the upper body and lower body) and he would use different movements (hand movements from one kata with the foot work from a different move in another kata) to show applications from the kata. It was like having a container (the kata) with words in it (moves) and taking the words out and spelling different sentences. Only instead of coming up with one sentence he would write a mini book because he then combined different elements; different timings, different attacks etc. etc.

I believe that this is one way that students could spend years studying one kata over and over and over again.

 

[Mark Lynn]

The following excerts are from an article To'on Ryu Karate -do's forgotten style by Mario McKenna Dragon Times Vol.17. I did not reference all of the references given in the article but I did qoute what was being written.

The article is about Kyoda Jujatsu who "received instruction from Higashionna Kanryo (1853-1915), the same Higashionna Kanryo who instructed Go Ju ryu foounder Miyagi Chojun (188-1953)." ...." Higashionna Kanryo had also trained in quan'fa with Aragaki Seisho (1840-1918/20)."

Sometime between 1901-1903, Kyoda Juhatsu began to study Fujian based quan-fa from his father's acquaintance, Higashionna Kanryo. Higashionna Kanryo had studied extensively under Aragaki Seisho and Kojo Taite of Kume village in his youth and later received instruction in Ming He Quan (Whooping Crane Fist) from Xie Zhong Xiang (in Fuzhou City, Fujian province. Higashionna was considered along with Itosu Anko, to be one of the foremost inovators of karate-do on Okinawa at the turn of the 20th Century. A few months later, Miyagi Chojun; founder of Goju ryu also began studying from Higashionna."

So Higashionna Kanryo was teaching quan-fa (which later became karate-do). Here in the next paragraph is adescription of what he was taught.

"Like most karate-do training in the early 20th century, instruction wass tailored to the needs of the individual with a strong emphasis on the application of techniuqe. Kyoda Juhatsu for his part spent several long months learning the basic footwork and breathing of San Chin, the fundamental kata used by Higashionna. In fact, Kypda Juhatsu as with all of Higashionna's students spent the first few years mastering San Chin, basic applications (e.g. kakie-push hands and yakusoku kumite-pre arranged sparring) and supplementary strengthening excercises ..... before being taught other kata by Higashionna."

"Once these fundementals training methods had been adequately mastered, Higashionna would teach one or more additional kata and their respective applications. These included Seisan, Sanseru and Perchurin/Suparempei. Among the students that Higashionna instructed Kyoda Juhatsu was the only one to learn all four of the kata directly from Higashionna Kanryo. Furthermore Kyoda unlike Miyagi, learned the use of Chinese weaponry from Higashionna, including the use of the spear and broadsword."

From the above it appears they spent years mastering basics and learning empty hand applications and then at some period also learned Chinese weaponry. However it appears it wasn't the main thrust of the instruction since Miyagi Chojun didn't learn it.

Kyoda Juhatsu also learned from other instructors like "Yabu Kentsu, one of the greaest exponents of Shuri-te.....For a brief tie Kyoda also learned under Yabu's teacher, Itosu Anko." ... "Kyoda also lent his talents to the establishment of several karate-do associations and research societies."......Besides Kyoda there were many famous karate-do teachers who instructed there, including Choju Oshiro, Choshin Chibana, Mabuni Kenwa, Miyagi Chojun,Hanashiro Chomo, and Motobu Choyu and Wu Xian Hui (Jap. Go Kenki)."

Being part of a research society I would think that if empty hand defense against weaponry was the main interpretations or true applications of the katas than that would have a stronger foothold in systems today. I don't see it.

On a side note because it keeps being put forth that the chinese were training people to fight against pirates and it was the Chinese military doing it here is some info about Wu Xian Hui.

"Of all of the instructors who participated in the karate-jutsu Kenky Kai, perhaps Wu Xian Huihad the most lasting and profound influence on all of the others.... there is little factual evidence surrounding his life. It is known that Wu was Chinese and immigrated from fuzhou in 1912. He was a tea merchant by trade and resided in Naha's Higashi-machi. Wu was also an instructor in White Crane boxing and it was from Wu that Kyoda learned the kata Nepai."

Kyoda also learned from an elder brother from a man named Miyagi (this Miyagi rented a room from Kyoda in their family house). The elder brother "...traveled to China and studied quan-fa. This man did not use any other kata, and specialized only in Seisan"

Getting back to the Chinese military training/teaching again I don't see it. Time and time again it seems like Okinawa martial arts were influenced by people that had gone to China (like the elder brother of Miyagi example), or someone like the tea mechant Wu who joined a research society. We have White Crane Boxing, Whooping Crane Fist, and the elder brother who taught Seisan. Three different people who taught someone else who then taught others and impacted karate-do as we know it today.

 

[Mark Lynn]

Here is an excerpt from an article entitled "A night of Talking about Karate karate Ichiyu-Tan by Choki Motobu 1934 :translated by Joe Swift B.Sc. 2003 that appeared in Dragon Times vol #2

Choki Motobu ... "(I) studied with Itosu Sensei for 7-8 years" he goes on to describe a visit he had with him and the following took place. Itosu Sensei turned to the students and said show us a kata. The kata that they performed was very similar to the Chnnan Kata that I knew, but there were some differences also. Upon asking the student what the kata was, he replied, "it is Pinanno Kata". The students left shortly after that, upon which I turned to Itosu Sensei and said, "I learned a kata called Channan, but that kata that those students just performed now was different. What is going on? Itosu Sensei replied, "Yes, the kata is slightly different, but the kata you just saw is the kata I have decided upon. The students all told me the name Pinan is better, so I went along with the opinions of the young people." These kata which were developed by Itosu Sensei underwent change even during his own life time."

Later on he goes on about Naifunchi Kata
"There are differences in the performance of Naifuanchi no kata between Matsumura Sensei and Itosu Sensei." He describes the leg being raised to the knee. "In Matsumura Sensei's style, the foot is set down flat on the ground quietly. However in Itosu Sensei's style the foot is stomped down strongly on a diagonal." Later he goes on to describe the difference in their double punches.

OK why bother posting this. Because once again I believe this shows one reason why we can't make sweeping statements about how kata is performed or whatever. Two of the founder's of karate (Ok older masters, influential instructors/masters at that) changed the kata from how they learned it or taught it. Both of them would have a reason for the change(s), the method of foot placement (stomping of the foot or quietly placing the foot), the breaking down a long form into 5 katas etc. etc. for the educational system, even the placement of the hands during the kata. All of this, changes the meaning and intent of the technique when the application is performed.

Also while we might look for some really deep hidden meaning as to why something is done a certain way or named a certian way it could be pretty simple like "The students all told me the name Pinan is better, so I went along with the opinions of the young people."

 

[Mark Lynn]

Going back to the theme influences on the Okinawan martial arts or Japanese martial arts.

Is it possible that 1) Old jujitsu had some techniques that looked like karate? 2) Did some master of the martial arts cross train early on in the development of karate and absorbed it into what became karate later on?

I believe yes to a degree. Dragon Times article on Shindo Jine Ryu karate Vol.9 pg 35 in an article on Yasuhiro Konishi Sensei

"Shindo Jinen Ryu was founded by Yasuhiro Konishi who was born in 1893....began his training in martial arts at age 6 in Muso Ryu Jujitsu.....(when he entered high school) he began training in Takeuchi Ryu Jujitsu. This particular jujitsu style is known for it's strong kicks and punches, very similar to karate." "At age 13 he began his studies in kendo as well.

"Konoshi Sensei's first exposure to Te (which later develop into karate was through a fellow classmate at Keio University Tsuneshige Arakaki of Okinawa. Konoshi found the techniques of Te (as refered to by Arakaki) very similar to those of Takeuchi Ryu jujitsu. Though Arakaki was in no way a master of Te, Konoshi Sensei found the system intriguing."

......"Konshi Sensei however was a visionary in the sense that he saw value in cross training; he remembered the kata demonstrated during his university days by Arakaki, and he agreed to Funakoshi's request. With Konoshi's Sensei's help, Funokoshi established a To-te practice club at Keio University (the first university cub in Japan).

Here we have a system of jujitsu that looks like karate with strong kicks and punches, likewise we have Te that is similar to jujitsu (before Okinawa karate showed up on main land Japan). Konoshi sensei sees the value of cross training so he helps Funakoshi Sensei establish the first university club. From several different sources now (cited in previous posts) it appears that there was a lot of cross training going on back then, as I would venture to say like today.

 

[Cayuga Karate]

The Boar Man wrote

Later on he goes on about Naifunchi Kata
"There are differences in the performance of Naifuanchi no kata between Matsumura Sensei and Itosu Sensei." He describes the leg being raised to the knee. "In Matsumura Sensei's style, the foot is set down flat on the ground quietly. However in Itosu Sensei's style the foot is stomped down strongly on a diagonal." Later he goes on to describe the difference in their double punches.

OK why bother posting this. Because once again I believe this shows one reason why we can't make sweeping statements about how kata is performed or whatever. Two of the founder's of karate (Ok older masters, influential instructors/masters at that) changed the kata from how they learned it or taught it. Both of them would have a reason for the change(s), the method of foot placement (stomping of the foot or quietly placing the foot), the breaking down a long form into 5 katas etc. etc. for the educational system, even the placement of the hands during the kata. All of this, changes the meaning and intent of the technique when the application is performed.

The statement above (in bold) appears to make the assumption that because Matsumura and Itosu taught slightly different versions of Naihanchi, that one of those two or both of them made those changes. This is not the only conclusion possible. It overlooks the possibility that Naihanchi may have been taught differently, or modified by the Chinese, over time. Itosu's primary instructor was Gusukuma. Both Gusukuma and Matsumura are recorded by Funakoshi as having trained with different Chinese men. Those differences in Naihanchi could have come down from variations the Chinese themselves taught to different individuals.

The fact that we have differences in kata today is not proof that the Okinawans meaningfully changed kata. It is quite possible that the very Chinese who taught these kata taught variations that could lead to different applications.

I am not arguing that no changes were ever introduced by the Okinawans. I would argue that small changes were likely. The more important issue to me are the huge differences in kata and embusen within the kata families of Kusanku, Passai, Rohai and others.

Consider Kusanku. There are well over a dozen distinct versions. There are some common movements between them, but some versions, (e.g. from Chito Ryu, Ken Shin Kan and Genwakai) bear little resemblance to the Yara kusanku of Kyan, or the Kusanku Dai and Sho of Mabuni, Chibana and Funakoshi.

One can argue that there was some historical "original" Kusanku in Okinawa, and that these many diverse versions were all Okinawan creations. But there is nothing in the historical literature that hints at Okinawans taking a kata and creating something wholly different of the same name. That does not mean it didn't happen. However, the historical record indicates that the Okinawans were diligent students of all manner of Chinese culture. Much of that culture evolved incredibly slowly in China. I would argue that the Okinawans worked diligently to propogate the Chinese culture, and were not all that motivated to introduce grand changes to many aspects of it.

For that reason, it is arguable, that much of the variety we see across families of kata are quite likely the result of Chinese influence rather than Okinawan influence.

 

[Cayuga Karate]

The Boar Man wrote:

Getting back to the Chinese military training/teaching again I don't see it. Time and time again it seems like Okinawa martial arts were influenced by people that had gone to China (like the elder brother of Miyagi example), or someone like the tea mechant Wu who joined a research society.

Funakoshi names 22 individuals who studied, in Okinawa, with the military attachees Iwah, Ason and Waishinzan. And he mentions in addition that Kusanku, a military attachee taught a number of Okinawans as well.

In the time frame that this instruction was going on (early to mid 1800s), we have a very limited record of Okinawans going to China for training. And we have no record of any sort for the hundreds of years that precede it.

What Okinawans are documented as having traveled to China? Sakugawa in the 1700s, Nakaima in perhaps the 1840s, and Higashionna, in the mid-to-late 1870s. Uechi didn't travel to China until around 1897, 20 years after the time that Japan ended tribute trade with China, which brought to an end the travel of Chinese military attachees traveling to Naha and Shuri.

I do not want to minimize the importance of Higaonna's training in China. Current research indicates he brought back Sanchin, Sanseru, Seisan and Suparenpei. We can never know the true source of Seipei, Seinchin, Shisochin, Kururunfa, and Saifa, but it is not at all far-fetched to consider that these kata were practiced in the Kumemura district, and all predate Higashionna's travels to China. My point here is that according to the current conventional wisdom, a large portion of Higashionna and Miyagi's curriculum are composed of kata not brought back from China by Higashionna, and were quite likely to have been taught to Okinawans by Chinese in Okinawa.

For the record, according to the historical record, in this timeframe, (mid 1870s) it was no trivial matter to travel to China and simply join a kungfu school. Legend has it that Higashionna left Okinawa because he could not get training in a Chinese school in Okinawa. And once he did get to China, he was refused instruction until after he courageously saved the teacher's daughter in a flood. (http://sanzinsoo.angelfire.com/oral.html)


The Boar Man wrote:

I would think that if empty hand defense against weaponry was the main interpretations or true applications of the katas than that would have a stronger foothold in systems today. I don't see it

My argument is a bit more subtle than that. It hinges on the historical realities of the Ryukyu kingdom of the period preceeding the ending of Tribute trade with China. If we accept:

1. that Funakoshi was correct and that military attachees taught Okinawans, and,
2. that these military attachees were in Naha and Shuri to provide protection, including protection at sea against pirates off the coast of China, and,
3. that these military men would have been quite skilled at armed combat with the bladed weapons of the time, and,
4. that these military personnel would only have taught Okinawans if they were officially authorized to do so, and,
5. the Chinese government, made somewhat substantial investments in this trade (100-300 person convoys every two years), and,
6. to ensure the success of this relationship, the Chinese would be motivated to ensure that the Okinawans were able to successfully make their bi-annual voyages to China, then

a conclusion we can draw is that Chinese military authorities would have been authorized to teach military arts (weapon arts) to the Okinawans to ensure they could successfully defend against incessant pirate attacks.

Once we get to that discussion, there are obvious questions that arise from it.

For example:

During the 6-9 month periods that the Chinese military authorities were in Okinawa, how did they go about preparing Okinawans to fight armed pirates?

A similar question is:

To what extent did the Chinese train Okinawans for empty hand against empty hand, empty hand against weapon, and weapon and against weapon?

I would argue that if the Chinese were motivated to teach Okinawans how best to kill pirates, they would emphasize training that would best prepare Okinawans to fight weapon against weapon, and that the emphasis on empty hand against weapon, and empty hand against empty hand would be only a marginal effort. Military training has always been primarily about fighting with weapons.

If one accepts that conclusion, another question arises.

What record do we have of Chinese military authorities, in Okinawa, teaching bladed weapon arts to the Okinawans? More specifically, what bladed weapon kata survive.

And the answer to that is very, very little, if any.

Yet, the Okinawans did preserve numerous empty hand forms.

This, IMO, is an important conversation. The standard histories of karate make virtually no mention of the military requirements of the Ryukyu kingdom, namely the vital importance of tribute trade with China, and the national security interests in ensuring those bi-annual convoys successfully navigate the dangerous waters off the Chinese coast.

But simply because the literature overlooks this key requirement for skill in armed conflict with pirates, does not mean the requirement did not exist.

We can all read the standard histories regarding how the Satsuma took bladed weapons away from the Okinawans and how that forced them to learn how to fight with their hands and feet. But these histories simply do not explain why Chinese military authorities would have focused their efforts on preparing the Okinawans for empty hand fighting in Okinawa, rather than armed conflict at sea. The latter is what they were uniquely skilled in, and something of great benefit to the Okinawans.

If one accepts that the standard histories are woefully deficient on this subject, and accepts that the Chinese would have been motivated to invest time in training Okinawans in armed conflict, two simple questions arise.

1. Why did those armed arts suddenly disappear once the Okinawans ended tribute trade with China?
2. Why did so many empty hand arts survive?

Those are questions that may lead some to a very different understanding of the Chinese forms that have been handed down.

 

[Aiki Lee]

I just want to say that I think this thread is a facinating read with good points made by all.

 

[Makalakumu]

The Boar Man wrote:




Funakoshi names 22 individuals who studied, in Okinawa, with the military attachees Iwah, Ason and Waishinzan. And he mentions in addition that Kusanku, a military attachee taught a number of Okinawans as well.

In the time frame that this instruction was going on (early to mid 1800s), we have a very limited record of Okinawans going to China for training. And we have no record of any sort for the hundreds of years that precede it.

What Okinawans are documented as having traveled to China? Sakugawa in the 1700s, Nakaima in perhaps the 1840s, and Higashionna, in the mid-to-late 1870s. Uechi didn't travel to China until around 1897, 20 years after the time that Japan ended tribute trade with China, which brought to an end the travel of Chinese military attachees traveling to Naha and Shuri.

I do not want to minimize the importance of Higaonna's training in China. Current research indicates he brought back Sanchin, Sanseru, Seisan and Suparenpei. We can never know the true source of Seipei, Seinchin, Shisochin, Kururunfa, and Saifa, but it is not at all far-fetched to consider that these kata were practiced in the Kumemura district, and all predate Higashionna's travels to China. My point here is that according to the current conventional wisdom, a large portion of Higashionna and Miyagi's curriculum are composed of kata not brought back from China by Higashionna, and were quite likely to have been taught to Okinawans by Chinese in Okinawa.

For the record, according to the historical record, in this timeframe, (mid 1870s) it was no trivial matter to travel to China and simply join a kungfu school. Legend has it that Higashionna left Okinawa because he could not get training in a Chinese school in Okinawa. And once he did get to China, he was refused instruction until after he courageously saved the teacher's daughter in a flood. (http://sanzinsoo.angelfire.com/oral.html)


The Boar Man wrote:



My argument is a bit more subtle than that. It hinges on the historical realities of the Ryukyu kingdom of the period preceeding the ending of Tribute trade with China. If we accept:

1. that Funakoshi was correct and that military attachees taught Okinawans, and,
2. that these military attachees were in Naha and Shuri to provide protection, including protection at sea against pirates off the coast of China, and,
3. that these military men would have been quite skilled at armed combat with the bladed weapons of the time, and,
4. that these military personnel would only have taught Okinawans if they were officially authorized to do so, and,
5. the Chinese government, made somewhat substantial investments in this trade (100-300 person convoys every two years), and,
6. to ensure the success of this relationship, the Chinese would be motivated to ensure that the Okinawans were able to successfully make their bi-annual voyages to China, then

a conclusion we can draw is that Chinese military authorities would have been authorized to teach military arts (weapon arts) to the Okinawans to ensure they could successfully defend against incessant pirate attacks.

Once we get to that discussion, there are obvious questions that arise from it.

For example:

During the 6-9 month periods that the Chinese military authorities were in Okinawa, how did they go about preparing Okinawans to fight armed pirates?

A similar question is:

To what extent did the Chinese train Okinawans for empty hand against empty hand, empty hand against weapon, and weapon and against weapon?

I would argue that if the Chinese were motivated to teach Okinawans how best to kill pirates, they would emphasize training that would best prepare Okinawans to fight weapon against weapon, and that the emphasis on empty hand against weapon, and empty hand against empty hand would be only a marginal effort. Military training has always been primarily about fighting with weapons.

If one accepts that conclusion, another question arises.

What record do we have of Chinese military authorities, in Okinawa, teaching bladed weapon arts to the Okinawans? More specifically, what bladed weapon kata survive.

And the answer to that is very, very little, if any.

Yet, the Okinawans did preserve numerous empty hand forms.

This, IMO, is an important conversation. The standard histories of karate make virtually no mention of the military requirements of the Ryukyu kingdom, namely the vital importance of tribute trade with China, and the national security interests in ensuring those bi-annual convoys successfully navigate the dangerous waters off the Chinese coast.

But simply because the literature overlooks this key requirement for skill in armed conflict with pirates, does not mean the requirement did not exist.

We can all read the standard histories regarding how the Satsuma took bladed weapons away from the Okinawans and how that forced them to learn how to fight with their hands and feet. But these histories simply do not explain why Chinese military authorities would have focused their efforts on preparing the Okinawans for empty hand fighting in Okinawa, rather than armed conflict at sea. The latter is what they were uniquely skilled in, and something of great benefit to the Okinawans.

If one accepts that the standard histories are woefully deficient on this subject, and accepts that the Chinese would have been motivated to invest time in training Okinawans in armed conflict, two simple questions arise.

1. Why did those armed arts suddenly disappear once the Okinawans ended tribute trade with China?
2. Why did so many empty hand arts survive?

Those are questions that may lead some to a very different understanding of the Chinese forms that have been handed down.

Do you have any examples of weapons techniques that you think are shown in the kata? What do you teach your students?

 

[Mark Lynn]

First off I want to extend my appreciation to you for the civil dialog and discussion. I've found the thread fascinating and it has made me look up past articles and such to defend my view. So even though I still disagree I thank you for the discussion.

Funakoshi names 22 individuals who studied, in Okinawa, with the military attachees Iwah, Ason and Waishinzan. And he mentions in addition that Kusanku, a military attachee taught a number of Okinawans as well.

In the time frame that this instruction was going on (early to mid 1800s), we have a very limited record of Okinawans going to China for training. And we have no record of any sort for the hundreds of years that precede it.

Where does Funokoshi name these individuals and the military attachees. What source.

I believe everyone can agree that written historical records are sketchy at best, with no records written at worst. So we have to rely on what is available, and oral histories that are handed down in the form of dojo lore. Also considering that we are trying to put forth positions based on persons travel between three countries, in various dialects (which causes name or spelling challenges), it is a very hard subject to debate. Also considering that I'm not a historian, or professional reasearcher, or have even studied an Okinawan martial art etc. etc. I'm having to rely on other peoples research. So it is what it is.

However I will quote from other noted researchers from their articles written in Dragon Times so as to give context to my points and so that anyone can try and find the articles to do further reading if interested.

What Okinawans are documented as having traveled to China? Sakugawa in the 1700s, Nakaima in perhaps the 1840s, and Higashionna, in the mid-to-late 1870s. Uechi didn't travel to China until around 1897, 20 years after the time that Japan ended tribute trade with China, which brought to an end the travel of Chinese military attachees traveling to Naha and Shuri.

I do not want to minimize the importance of Higaonna's training in China. Current research indicates he brought back Sanchin, Sanseru, Seisan and Suparenpei. We can never know the true source of Seipei, Seinchin, Shisochin, Kururunfa, and Saifa, but it is not at all far-fetched to consider that these kata were practiced in the Kumemura district, and all predate Higashionna's travels to China. My point here is that according to the current conventional wisdom, a large portion of Higashionna and Miyagi's curriculum are composed of kata not brought back from China by Higashionna, and were quite likely to have been taught to Okinawans by Chinese in Okinawa.

For the record, according to the historical record, in this timeframe, (mid 1870s) it was no trivial matter to travel to China and simply join a kungfu school. Legend has it that Higashionna left Okinawa because he could not get training in a Chinese school in Okinawa. And once he did get to China, he was refused instruction until after he courageously saved the teacher's daughter in a flood. (http://sanzinsoo.angelfire.com/oral.html)

While it might not be far fetched to consider, I believe it is a stretch to base a position on when there isn't any documentaion that supports that all of these forms predate the 1870's and come from a certain area.

In regardsto the 2nd bolded statement, I agree parts of their curriculum probably were influenced by the chinese in Okinawa but that doesn't mean it was from military personal based there for 6 months.

My argument is a bit more subtle than that. It hinges on the historical realities of the Ryukyu kingdom of the period preceeding the ending of Tribute trade with China. If we accept:

1. that Funakoshi was correct and that military attachees taught Okinawans, and,
2. that these military attachees were in Naha and Shuri to provide protection, including protection at sea against pirates off the coast of China, and,
3. that these military men would have been quite skilled at armed combat with the bladed weapons of the time, and,
4. that these military personnel would only have taught Okinawans if they were officially authorized to do so, and,
5. the Chinese government, made somewhat substantial investments in this trade (100-300 person convoys every two years), and,
6. to ensure the success of this relationship, the Chinese would be motivated to ensure that the Okinawans were able to successfully make their bi-annual voyages to China, then

a conclusion we can draw is that Chinese military authorities would have been authorized to teach military arts (weapon arts) to the Okinawans to ensure they could successfully defend against incessant pirate attacks.

I don't know exactly if the part of the sentence (in your statement) that I bolded you were meaning that the below 6 points are "historical realities" or are you meaning that the historical realities in that time period these things might have happened? If you mean they might have happened Ok I'll go with that, not that I believe they did but... anything is possible. If you are saying they did happen then I beg to differ.

Heres why
1) Ok I'll take it that Funokoshi stated that military attachees Okinawans but I would still like to see the proof, what book, page# etc. etc.
2) Again proof?
3) We don't know this, since there is no record. We can say they were quite skilled, but they could have been sent there as well because they pissed off the higher ups, they could have been sent there because they were planning on marry the generals daughter for all we know. It also could have been a training mission for them to help them move up in the ranks. Its just specualtion at this point unless there is documented proof.
4) Again this seems like speculation. Time and time again I find references of tea merchants, family members, a stranded (or ship wrecked) chinese guy, and people traveling trying to find work and learning and teaching the MA on the side. I haven't seen anything that says this was an officer or that guy was an officer sent to train the Okinawans to fight against the priates.
5) Ok I agree the chinese were making money off of the Okinawans so yes they would have an investment there.
6) Ok I see this point as well but....

Then you go back to making the statement (that I underlined) that is based on point 3 and 4 as if they were fact.

Once we get to that discussion, there are obvious questions that arise from it.

For example:

During the 6-9 month periods that the Chinese military authorities were in Okinawa, how did they go about preparing Okinawans to fight armed pirates?

We don't know if they did this first off, and I suspect they didn't to the degree in which you seem to suggest. For instance complicated kata isn't the way to teach masses fighting techniques. After this period in time (up to the 1870's) instruction seems to become a more individual manner. This established a much closer student/teacher relationship where katas were (possibly) selected to fit the individual. Itosu even broke katas down to teach school kids, etc. etc. (i.e. younger students and larger classes) therefore it seems that complexe katas wouldn't be taught to men to fight off pirates. The teaching model doesn't make sense.

Instead the teaching model of the Filipino's during WWII makes more sense, get them out in the training area and start them hacking with the bolos, simple, effective. Likewise the Filipino's along the coasts of the Philippine islands have a multitude of different styles of FMA created to defend their villages from pirates. There is/was no need for manuals/books written records of any kind (and there isn't much) just someone who knows how to fight would pass down the methods to the family or villagers, simple and effective. These systems will die out as the people move on, or as the originators die off.

Even the Japanese who imported karate training into the military and into the school systems to promote good health and gear up for military service taught differently than the manner in which karate was taught just after the 1870s. Applications were stressed less, students spent much shorter time learning kata, gone were the days of spending years to learn Naihanchi, or developing a strong stances in Sanchin etc. etc. Not that some wasn't passed down but... the emphasis on teaching changed when the military was involved. So I can't see where the chinese would teach the Okinawans a teaching method (mass instruction, no applications or limited bunkai, weapon katas and defenses against weapons on ships etc. etc.) and that the Okinawans would later abandon only to have that teaching method resurected again but without the weapon katas and ship board defenses just 30-50 years later.

A similar question is:

To what extent did the Chinese train Okinawans for empty hand against empty hand, empty hand against weapon, and weapon and against weapon?

I would argue that if the Chinese were motivated to teach Okinawans how best to kill pirates, they would emphasize training that would best prepare Okinawans to fight weapon against weapon, and that the emphasis on empty hand against weapon, and empty hand against empty hand would be only a marginal effort. Military training has always been primarily about fighting with weapons.

You are talking about hand to hand combat on a rolling boat in the sea, just like weapon to weapon combat on the sea. If training sessions were held it was probably out on the ocean on boats. Basic instruction on how to repel boarders and fight with whatever was available. Why bother with katas on the open sea. In fact I've never heard of a kata being developed specifically for warfare on a boat.

If one accepts that conclusion, another question arises.

What record do we have of Chinese military authorities, in Okinawa, teaching bladed weapon arts to the Okinawans? More specifically, what bladed weapon kata survive.

And the answer to that is very, very little, if any.

Yet, the Okinawans did preserve numerous empty hand forms.

Again I believe the answer is obvious because they weren't taught forms as a way to fight against pirates.

This, IMO, is an important conversation. The standard histories of karate make virtually no mention of the military requirements of the Ryukyu kingdom, namely the vital importance of tribute trade with China, and the national security interests in ensuring those bi-annual convoys successfully navigate the dangerous waters off the Chinese coast.

But simply because the literature overlooks this key requirement for skill in armed conflict with pirates, does not mean the requirement did not exist.

We can all read the standard histories regarding how the Satsuma took bladed weapons away from the Okinawans and how that forced them to learn how to fight with their hands and feet. But these histories simply do not explain why Chinese military authorities would have focused their efforts on preparing the Okinawans for empty hand fighting in Okinawa, rather than armed conflict at sea. The latter is what they were uniquely skilled in, and something of great benefit to the Okinawans.

If one accepts that the standard histories are woefully deficient on this subject, and accepts that the Chinese would have been motivated to invest time in training Okinawans in armed conflict, two simple questions arise.

1. Why did those armed arts suddenly disappear once the Okinawans ended tribute trade with China?
2. Why did so many empty hand arts survive?

Those are questions that may lead some to a very different understanding of the Chinese forms that have been handed down.

You wrote
"Why did those armed arts suddenly disappear once the Okinawans ended tribute trade with China?" I don't believe they were there as you seem to be hinting at, in the first place. So there were none to disapear.

"Why did so many empty hand arts survive?" These came later and were influenced passed down from 3 sources (and possibly more).
1) Chinese who immagrated to Okinawa (and the guy who got stranded there)
2) Okinawans who went to China
3) The Okinawans created some of ther own.

We are looking back on history as it is now we have a bunch of different forms and styles of karate. However back then there were far fewer styles or methods and teachers. Over time people cross trained and then added their own influences and different lineages were created and so on and so on.

 

[Mark Lynn]

In my previous post I wrote this
"However I will quote from other noted researchers from their articles written in Dragon Times so as to give context to my points and so that anyone can try and find the articles to do further reading if interested."

So I'll try and back up my position.

The statement above (in bold) appears to make the assumption that because Matsumura and Itosu taught slightly different versions of Naihanchi, that one of those two or both of them made those changes. This is not the only conclusion possible. It overlooks the possibility that Naihanchi may have been taught differently, or modified by the Chinese, over time. Itosu's primary instructor was Gusukuma. Both Gusukuma and Matsumura are recorded by Funakoshi as having trained with different Chinese men. Those differences in Naihanchi could have come down from variations the Chinese themselves taught to different individuals.

I disagree, Itosu appears to have modified the kata

From DT Vol 20 article entitled The Big Fifteen Original Kata of Gichin Funakoshi by Joe Swift.
Nahanchi (Tekki 1,2,3,)
"There are three kata in modern (i.e.post 1900) karate, with the second and third being thought to have been created by Itosu Anko. Another popular theroy is that originally the three were one kata, but were broken up into three seperate parts by Itosu."

"He is also known to have changed the original kata. Mabuni Kenwa (1889-1941) a direct student of Itosu and founder of Shito ryu karatedo, supposedly learned the Naifuanchi kata from an old expert named Matayoshi Seihaku. Upon showing this kata to Itosu, Mabuni was told that the way he performed it was the old way, and that Itosu had researched and improved the kata so Mabuni should practice it the new way instead."

The fact that we have differences in kata today is not proof that the Okinawans meaningfully changed kata. It is quite possible that the very Chinese who taught these kata taught variations that could lead to different applications.

I am not arguing that no changes were ever introduced by the Okinawans. I would argue that small changes were likely. The more important issue to me are the huge differences in kata and embusen within the kata families of Kusanku, Passai, Rohai and others.

But it is a well known fact that Itosu changed kata and even created the Pinian katas. From DT Vol 20 article entitled The Big Fifteen Original Kata of Gichin Funakoshi by Joe Swift. "Motobu Choki, in both his 1926 and 1932 publications, states; "The Pinan were created by the modern Bujin Itosu Sensei as teaching materials for his students, making them truly a unique form of Okinawa kenpo, which is indeed a very joyus thing for those that follow the way"." "Contrasting this is the theory which states that Itosu did not create the Pinans, but actually remolded older Chinese based xing/kata called Channan. The theroy states that Itosu learned a series of Chinese Quan-fa xing/kata from a ship wrecked Chinese at Tomari, and reworked them into five smaller components,....."

Same article but on Passai
"Of the Okinawan version of Passai, a clear evolutionary link can be seen from the Matsumura no Passai to the Oyadomari no Passai and then onto the Passai Dai of Itosu. Out of these the Matsummura version seems to have retained an essentially Chinese flavor, whereas the Oyadomari version is more "Okinawanized" form, which was further modified by Itosu into the unquely Okinawan modern version seen today." "Funakoshi's Passai is clearly the Passai Dai of Itosu, which is very similar to the Ishimine no Passai, believed to be passed down by Bushi Ishimine.

So here we have references to an evolution of a kata Passi (going through 2 changes), and one that bears resembalance to another version. We could argue that Itosu was the only one changing anything but that isn't true, since he modified the 2nd version to the one we see today (it had already been modified once), and there is Bushi Ishimine version which is similar yet different still.

Consider Kusanku. There are well over a dozen distinct versions. There are some common movements between them, but some versions, (e.g. from Chito Ryu, Ken Shin Kan and Genwakai) bear little resemblance to the Yara kusanku of Kyan, or the Kusanku Dai and Sho of Mabuni, Chibana and Funakoshi.

One can argue that there was some historical "original" Kusanku in Okinawa, and that these many diverse versions were all Okinawan creations. But there is nothing in the historical literature that hints at Okinawans taking a kata and creating something wholly different of the same name. That does not mean it didn't happen. However, the historical record indicates that the Okinawans were diligent students of all manner of Chinese culture. Much of that culture evolved incredibly slowly in China. I would argue that the Okinawans worked diligently to propogate the Chinese culture, and were not all that motivated to introduce grand changes to many aspects of it.

For that reason, it is arguable, that much of the variety we see across families of kata are quite likely the result of Chinese influence rather than Okinawan influence.

I disagree, I don't think there were a bunch of Chinese teaching people the same kata different ways, maybe some small differences but not "heavily modified" as we see in the following quote.

Taken from an article in Dragon Times Vol 20 entitled Wu Xianhui and Tang Daiji Pioneers of Okinawan Karate by mario McKenna M.Sc.

Wu and Daiji both immigrated to Okinawa from China. "It is believed that Wu and to a lessor extent Tang, had a tremendous impact both technically and personally on many karate's early pioneers such as Miyagi Chojun (gojo ryu), Mabuni Kenwa (Shito ryu) Kyoda Juhatsu (to'on ryu) and others Both Mabuni Kenwa and Kyoda Juhatsu preserved the xing (kata) Nepai in their respective styles. However it should be noted that the Shorin ryu version of this form was heavily modified and renamed Nipairo. The To'on version retained some of its original form with the emphasis on smooth, continous circular technique. Mabuni also retained the form Happoren in his Shito ryu as well which was also subsequently modified".

However speaking of Kusanku taken from the DT article on the Big 15 kata of Fonakoshi cited above.
"Although it is said that Funakoshi's Kushanku came from Asato Anko, a careful comparitive analysis shows that it is infact the Kushanku Dai that Itosu re-worked for his physical education curriculum."

From the same article cited above talking about Kushanku comes this.
"In the year 1762, a tribute ship sent to Satsuma from Ryuky was blown off course during a storm, and ended up landing in Tosa Province in Shikoku where they remained for a month. The Confucian scholar of Tosa, Tobe Ryoen (1713-1795), was petitioned to collect testimony from the crew. The record of this testimony is known as the Oshima Hikki (literally "Note of Oshima", the name of the area the where the ship ran aground) . In this book there is some very provacitive testimony by a certian Shinja Peichin, describing a man from China called Koshankin, who demonstrated a grappling technique." "It is commonly accepted that this Koshankin was the originator of the Okinawan Kusanku kata, or at least inspired it. However there are several unknowns in this equation. First of all, was Koshankin his name or title, or even a term of affection towards him? second, if it was a title or term of affection, what was his real name? Thirdly what martial art(s) did he teach, and how do they differ from modern karate kata of Kushanku? Most of these questions are still being reasearched by this author and others."

Ok so if this is true than it was one man who 100 years before showed a grappling technique and who might have shown or inspired a kata. That being said I believe the Okinawans have institutedthe changes and not several Chinese of whom there is no record of teaching different people the different kata with the same name.

And from DT Vol.21 article entitled "A Brief Overview of The Etymology Of Modern Goju-ryu Kata" comes the following.
"Although many Goju-ryu stylists would like to think of their system and it's coresponding training kata as an unadulterated and traditional method handed down by Ru Ru Ko to Higasshionna Kanryo and finaly to Miyagi Chojun, recent evidence suggests the contary. Indeed, Goju-ryu is Miyagi Chojun's personal interpretatin of his instruction from Higashionna Kanryo in conjujunction with his own research."

Earlier in this post I mentioned Wu Xianhui and his influence on Okinwan karate. In that same article comes the following about Miyagi Chojun. "On his second trip Xianhui accompanied Miyagi and for 10 days Miyagi Chojun was a guest at Aniya's home (a former student of Wu's) in Shanghai. During this time Miyagi Chojun demonstrated karate at various clubs and associations. He later met with Chinese quan-fa masters Zhao & Jia for the purpose of research and further studies. Unfortunately it is unknown what fighting traditions these two men followed. Miyagi was also introduced to Miao Xing (1889-1939) a renowed master of Lohan Quan (Monk Fist Boxing). Miyagi reportedly trained with Miao Xing at the Jing Wu Athletic Association and it was through this experience that Miyagi based his Geki Sai kata on." ....... "it is known that Miyagi sought out several books on quan-fa and these were obtained through the efforts of Aniya."

My point to all of this is that it appears to me that it wasn't the Chinese attachees teaching quanfa to the founders of Okinawan karate, but rather common instructors who immagrated there as well as individuals who went to China for one reason or another and studied. As these instructors grew in their knowledge of the martial arts they inturned added to, changed or deleted what they had learned previosuly. In fact karate seems to have always been under a slow but constant change in one way or another. As in the example of Passai above it evolves.

 

[Mark Lynn]

I do not want to minimize the importance of Higaonna's training in China. Current research indicates he brought back Sanchin, Sanseru, Seisan and Suparenpei. We can never know the true source of Seipei, Seinchin, Shisochin, Kururunfa, and Saifa, but it is not at all far-fetched to consider that these kata were practiced in the Kumemura district, and all predate Higashionna's travels to China. My point here is that according to the current conventional wisdom, a large portion of Higashionna and Miyagi's curriculum are composed of kata not brought back from China by Higashionna, and were quite likely to have been taught to Okinawans by Chinese in Okinawa.

For the record, according to the historical record, in this timeframe, (mid 1870s) it was no trivial matter to travel to China and simply join a kungfu school. Legend has it that Higashionna left Okinawa because he could not get training in a Chinese school in Okinawa. And once he did get to China, he was refused instruction until after he courageously saved the teacher's daughter in a flood. (http://sanzinsoo.angelfire.com/oral.html)

Not being familar with the kata you referenced above; in DT Vol.21 article entitled "A Brief Overview of The Etymology Of Modern Goju-ryu Kata" There is a table 2 that shows "Gojuryu Kaishu kata and their respective animal origin according to Kinjo and Tokashi" In it, it lists these forms along with the others you mentioned and has the animal name that corresponds to the name of the kata. As it relates to Miyagi Chojun the following is stated ".... During his studies he came into contact with such fighting traditions as Fujian White Crane Boxing, Tiger Boxing (Hu Quan), Monk fist boxing (lohan Quan) and quite possibly Five Ancestor fist boxing ( Wu Zu Quan). Not surprisingly these diverse styles are reflected in the katas of Gojuryu."

Considering that Miyagi Chjun lived between 1888 and 1953 he wasn't born yet to be instructed by the Chinese attachees during the 6 month period they were in Okinawa. However it is documented that he had contact with these fighting systems and that he traveled to China and studied Quan-fa and demonstrated karate, all for his research.

So I disagree with your statement "My point here is that according to the current conventional wisdom, a large portion of Higashionna and Miyagi's curriculum are composed of kata not brought back from China by Higashionna, and were quite likely to have been taught to Okinawans by Chinese in Okinawa." unless you mean in Miyagi's lifetime.

 

[Cayuga Karate]

The Boar Man wrote:

Where does Funokoshi name these individuals and the military attachees.

Funakoshi recorded the names of Chinese Military attaches and Okinawans that studied under them in his 1914 Newspaper article, his 1925 text Karate Jutsu and his 1935 text Karate-Do Kyohan.

 

[Cayuga Karate]

Earlier, I wrote:

During the 6-9 month periods that the Chinese military authorities were in Okinawa, how did they go about preparing Okinawans to fight armed pirates?

The Boar Man wrote:

We don't know if they did this first off, and I suspect they didn't to the degree in which you seem to suggest. For instance complicated kata isn't the way to teach masses fighting techniques. After this period in time (up to the 1870's) instruction seems to become a more individual manner. This established a much closer student/teacher relationship where katas were (possibly) selected to fit the individual. Itosu even broke katas down to teach school kids, etc. etc. (i.e. younger students and larger classes) therefore it seems that complexe katas wouldn't be taught to men to fight off pirates. The teaching model doesn't make sense.

We have an historical record on which to draw. It's meagher, but it exists. we can draw conclusions on it.

First, the following authorities all born in the late 1800s, credit toudi (Chinese hand) as having been taught by Chinese. Funakoshi, Motobu, Miyagi, Nagamine, Nakama.

We can consult Kerr's text on the tributary relationship between Okinawa and China. By the 1700s, Okinawa sent a convoy of three vessels to China every two years. China sent investiture missions (formal recognition of the new king) to the Ryukyu kingdom in 1719, 1757, 1800 and 1866. Swanson notes that the 1800 mission contained a ship of 200 Fujian navymen for protection.

Kerr notes that these trading missions lasted 6-9 months. We can reasonably infer that the military officials that accompanied these missions (to protect the passengers and valuable cargo) were available during portions of these layovers, to provide some instruction in combat.

Funakoshi names three of these military men by name. According to Kinjo, one of those, Waishinzan, was sought out by Higaonna, when he travelled to Fuzhou in the 1870s, but was unable to teach civilians due to his military status. His friend Ru Ru Ko, apparently was no longer serving in the military and eventually was able to take Higaonna on as a student. Apparently Nakaima trained Ru Ru Ko, some years earlier, as well.

Motobu attributes 13 kata, by name, to Chinese sources. Funakoshi references 4 kata taught by the shipwrecked sailor stranded in Tomari. (Two were on Motobu's list, Jitte and Jiin were not.)

Nagamine mentions that Chinese kata were integrated with Okinawan arts to form karate.

Now you can argue that forms have not been the primary vehicle that the Chinese have provided instruction in martial arts. You are entitled to your opinion. But I believe the record is overwhelming on this subject. The vast majority of Chinese martial systems utilize formalized routines (forms or kata) for training. You may think this is not an optimal way to teach. But that doesn't change history. Chinese martial arts have been handed down, in large part through long sequences of prearranged movements. This contrasts greatly with fighting arts in other parts of the world. PMA doesn't have true formalized forms. Japanese Koryu systems have very different kata. They are primarily short, and utilize two persons. The Chinese arts utilize forms.

 

[Cayuga Karate]

The Boar Man wrote:

You are talking about hand to hand combat on a rolling boat in the sea, just like weapon to weapon combat on the sea. If training sessions were held it was probably out on the ocean on boats. Basic instruction on how to repel boarders and fight with whatever was available. Why bother with katas on the open sea. In fact I've never heard of a kata being developed specifically for warfare on a boat.

I have been writing about the challenges of military combat at sea, and therefore I am talking about weapon-to-weapon combat. The fact that you may have never heard about a kata developed specifically for warfare on a boat does not mean they did not exist. Kata provide a vehicle for information and skill transmission from teacher to student. In their essence, that is what they do. There are weapons kata throughout the Japanese koryu curriculum. Kata was the vehicle for the transfer of military skill through the Japanese samurai community for hundreds of years. Why should you be surprised that the Chinese utilized kata for weapons training. In fact, this very question gets to the very issue I have been addressing. I would argue, that martial arts should be viewed as having martial (military - in the most basic definition of the term) origins. Xingyi was created from spear arts. The Aiki arts have many movements derived from sword techniques. Empty hand Kali flows from the weapons kali. The ancient martial arts were far more likely to provide skill in the use the weapons of the times. However, as firearms replaced bladed weapons in combat, the old weapons forms fell into disuse. Now we live in societies protected by large military systems. We no longer have need for weapon arts of sword and spear. And since we face serious consequences to using weapons in personal confrontations, we resort to our empty hands. These empty hand arts, can be viewed, to some extent, as the last vestiges of old military arts that thrived in the far east and around the world for all of our existence.

The western art of fencing commonly utilizes planned sequences in training. Planned sequences are no different than kata. Western fencing methods were common on western sailing vessels for hundreds of years.

The Chinese have numerous weapons kata, from sword to spear. Kata is the vehicle in which the Chinese have passed down fighting arts from generation to generation. I would imagine that what remains is but a small percentage of what was practiced over time. As these weapons are no longer needed for military combat, the old forms have gone extinct. What remain in the Chinese curriculum are but a small percentage of what was practiced over hundreds, if not thousands of years.

We are indeed fortunate that the Chinese chose to share their combative arts with the Okinawans. Morio Higaonna his described the faithfulness with which Okinawans preserved the old kata taught to them by the Chinese. Encyclopaedia of Goju Ryu, vol. 4: Sanseru and Seipai).

Goju-ryu makes no secret of its Chinese origins, yet it should not be considered a purely Chinese martial art. While the patriarch of Goju-ryu, Kanryo Higaonna, trained in China as a young man and was clearly influenced by the principles and practices of Chinese boxing, Okinawan Goju-ryu is more than just another form of White Crane Fist.

In the evolution of Goju-ryu karate, Okinawan self-defense methods were blended with Chinese combat techniques, principles, and strategies. Training methods were changed somewhat to suit Okinawan practitioners, their physiques, and lifestyles. What resulted after more than a half century of development was classical Okinawan Goju-ryu karate as presented in this series of programs. Ironically, this is without doubt closer, in a technical sense, to what Okinawan students were taught by 19th century boxing masters in China, than modern Chinese Wushu.

During the late Qing era and the early days of the Chinese republic, with notable exceptions, the martial arts went into decline in China. In the backwater of Okinawa, however, when change happened, it did so at a snail’s pace. As good Confucians, the Okinawans revered tradition and resisted change.With the rest of Asia in turmoil for more than fifty years, the tranquil, rustic, sub-tropical islands of Okinawa provided a safe repository for Chinese boxing methods, as well as the crucible in which they were refined and developed for use by the generations that would follow. (emphasis added)