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

[Jin Gang]

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

 

[exile]

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

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

 

[Jin Gang]

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

 

[e ship yuk]

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

Glad I thought to look back there.

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

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

 

[exile]

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

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

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

Again, my thanks! :asian:

 

[Garcia_Hanshi]

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

 

[TimoS]

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

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