Who should have been in charge of Isshinryu after Shimabuku Tatsuos death?
Before I comment there Id like to begin by looking at Okinawa in particular.
Until the 1950s there really werent structured Okinawan karate systems, instead there were individual instructors. In the 50s, likely because the USA was returning control of Okinawa back to Japan in 1972 the Okinawans finally began to follow practices that would look like the Karate developments in Japan itself. Formal uniforms, organizations, dan ranking, etc.
When Kyan (one and probably the main instructor of Shimabuku Tatsuo) passed away those who trained with him and had become instructors didnt fight to see who was to be in charge of Kyans system, Kyan had no system, he just taught his karate. Instead they did what they did, each looking different from each other to some extent, and Shimabuku Senseis changes in the same yet separate.
In 85 I had the occasion to meet and chat with Shimabukuro Zempo (today head of the Seibukan one of the Kyan style schools) and at that time he explained to me on Okinawa there were 90 Shorin schools, 60 Goju schools and only 3 Isshinryu schools. Just a comment but years later George Donahue (in a Shorinryu lineage and having trained on Okinawa) explained if you visited each of those 90 Shorin dojo theyre all doing something different too.
Creating Isshinryu Shimabuku didnt just create a new way of training doing karate, he created a very fast course of study to share a piece of his system, and did so sharing it with the USMC for starters. There was no structure envisioned to control the spread of Isshinryu, it is likely he didnt believe those students had learned enough to continue his Isshinryu studies for the rest of their lives (a very non-Okinawan idea).
Of course they did, karate is not rocket science after all. No doubt their arts were not his and became their own in myriads of different ways.
Now in the 50s and 60s on Okinawa what did the head of a system mean, simply the head of a school or schools on an island 45 miles long. Throughout martial arts history succession of a style or school head has been fraught with difficulty.
The dynamics behind Shimabukus son Kichero taking the Isshinryu mantle, the departure of most of the rest of his Okinawan students (which actually began when he started teaching both Isshirnyu as opposed to Kyans karate, and the Americans (the destruction of ½ of Okinawas population from WWII was too difficult to deal with), and even the fact that as this form of Karate spread around the world it was being done without Okinawan control, makes the issue of style head most curious.
If you look at the Uzeu Angi youtube videos from 1968 I believe you are seeing as close to the Shimabuku Tatsuo ideal as exists (at that time he was still training under his father in law). But the video Ive seen of Shimabuku Kichero doesnt look horrible either.
Tthe immense issue of distances involved kept true communication between the entire Isshinryu community stifled, and lack of 20 or 30 years continuous training with the founder, the differences between Isshinryu karate-ka continued to widen, no matter which Okinawan group some found worthy, and many simply stepped away from the issue.
Was there anything to rationally be in charge of? Or is it a spiritual issue, a desire to have a leader by the leaderless?
There are many valid interpretations to Isshinryu, especially if they can knock down someone attacking. That should be enough of a common cure to build upon. Most of the other issues cannot be rationally resolved, and are used to build walls.
My instructors trained with Shimabuku Tatsuo (Mr. Lewis) and also with Shinso (Mr. Lewis student Charles Murray in 72 with both Shimabuku Tatsuo & Shinso. I simply use my instructors as my guide to what my Isshinryu could be. That is logical.
The funny thing is to evaluate any instructor you only have to evaluate their students abilities and accomplishments.
For example I trained a slight bit with the late Sherman Harrill (and found out he originally trained alongside Tom Lewis on Okinawa among others). Harrill Sensei did develop a very unique ability to extract hundreds of application potentials from Isshinryu kata technique. But as an instructor you evaluate him by his students. I only have to suggest John Kerker (who now heads Harrill Senseis old Carson City dojo in Iowa) is cut from the same cloth. Harrill Senseis students do what he did, the mark of transmission, which does not come from 15 months but decades of work.
What happened is just now Isshinryu lore. That you have any of it is simply that everyone ignored the true Okinawan tradition and didnt keep it private. I know the truth of Shimabuku Tatsuo but I dont know him except from my instructors words. For the rest the true history always resides with whos telling g the tale.
Ive never associated with Shimabuku Tatsuo, Kichero or Shinso, nor have I associated with Uezu Angi. Trying to understand the truth is a very small concern, IMO.
But if there is an answer it should be whoever trained longest, knew the most and was the best.
I would just suggest it probably would not have made any difference if the outcome was different.
