PDA

View Full Version : Karate Kata and Grappling/Grabbing



TommyK
27th February 2003, 01:07
Greetings,

I do the entire series of the Pyan (Pinan/Heian) kata, and I need to learn more about the original intent of these kata and where the grappling/grabbing portions are.

I find many of the moves 'interesting' to say the least, and cannot explain why someone would make that movement/block/strike in response to xxxx.

Can someone direct me to books, articles, etc. where these portions are explained and where and when did some of the leading 'fathers' of karate say these grappling/grabbing moves are either part of the kata or used to be.

I recently read somewhere where the Founder of Shotokan downplayed the grappling when the art was intorduced to Japan, so that it would not conflict with native samurai grappling systems. If this thread has appeared before, forgive me.

All serious replies are sincerely appreciated.

Thank you and regards,
TommyK

kusanku
27th February 2003, 02:21
Unfortunately, Anko Itosu, creator of the Pinan Kata, left no notes on the applications of his kata.Funakoshi in Karate Do Kyohan and its predecesors, however, did mention some grappling technieus, and throws, and said to find more, refer to basic kata.

Since the Pinan Kata are arguably derived from such more ancient forms as the Chatan Yara Kusanku, Daddy of all Kusanku.kanku kata, and since that form, too, has no notes left by its creator whoever that actually was,applications are pretty much up in the air, up for grabs so to speak.:-)

Now, despite the fact, hotly contested by some, that applications have been handed down for many moves in many kata including Pinan,by some Okinawan and Japanese sensei, including direct students of Itosu , like Kenwa Mabuni, Founder of Shito Ryu, and despite the fact that some Okinawan teachers also teach these same and other apps, it cannot be actually proven that these were Itosu's actual intent as to the meanings of the forms he created.

What does appear to be true, is that the kata moves have mutliple applications in most not all cases, and multiple levels and variants(henka) with , as well, multiple possibillities of followup(oyo).This would be consisten with karate's purpose as a martial art designed to deal with numerous possibillities of attack and defense.

Things depend as Funakoshi said, on what the opponent is doing to you, ie, grabbing your wrist, which wrist with which hand, how, grabbing lapel, trying to hit you, choke you, hold with opne hand and hit with other, lock you, throw you, etc.

In many cases., there is no one clear answer as to what you are doing in a kata, with a particular move, in others, you could only be doing about one thing, but many would not agree on what that was.:-)

In Yang style Tai Chi Ch'uan, and Shaolin Long Fist, the creators of the style left us photographic and text records of the movements and their applications at various levels.In Judo and JuJuitsu and Aikido, the two person nature of the practice leaves no doubt as to the nature of the waza, and in many Kungfu systems the existence of two person versions of the forms, does the same. We may compare these to the same moves in karate and assume the same applications, but really, we do not know.

The book, the Bubishi, shows many applications but not the one man forms they come from, though where the moves are the same, we may assume , again, the same kata.

Like a jigsaw puzzle, karate at some point became mostly disassembled , the kata and their applications, once taught verbally and hands on, teacher to student, often became separate parts of instruction, and some taught the two man self defense waza, and no kata, and some taught kata and no waza, and some taught both as though they were unrelated.

But a few teachers did continue to teach the art in more complete form, among them Mabuni of Shito Ryu taught at least basic apps and folowups for many parts of many kata.Some Shorin and Kenpo teachers taught very secretly and until recently, to only selected students, the applications and the principles of bunkai, or analysis, of the kata.Most never learned them, or never seemed to.

This may seem a long answer to your question, finally to tell you, there is no manual that can be relied on short of some necessary faith, to the pinan applications.

That having been said, you might wish to go to www.ryushu.com, and see Mike Minor there, about getting some tapes of Taika Seiyu Oyata, who actually has tapes of applications for each Pinan Kata.

I make only this comment about his applications: they work, and are the best I ever saw or felt, and that from one of his students.

But are they the original applciations intended by the creator of those kata?I cannot say, I wasn't there when they were created, but Oyata's teacher may have been, as Nakamura studied with Itosu or at least Yabu, his senior student, among others.Other than that, I cannot with certainty say or prove.I don't think he claims they are the original applications, either, maybe doesn't say, either way.

Maybe the way to think about kata, isn't, what were the original applications, maybe it is rather, what were the lessons the kata is intended to teach, and from these, what can we learn or come up with?

I would say, instead of trying to reverse engineer applications, which can be somewhat risky until you understand good locking and throwing technique and principles for self defense(Ie, you may have a real fine throw there, but if the throwee can hook you in the ear before you get it sdone, it is not a good application), its best to first concentrate on basics and learn the moves of the kata, then derive applications only when you learn the do's and don'ts of locking, throwing and combining all those with striking and kicking safely.

Otherwise, one falls prey, as many karateka have, to not knowing what openings are in your basic techniques you may use as applications.For instance high-kicking a jujitsu man,or woman, is suicidal.While we may do kicks high in kata for training purposes, one needs to know these are not really meant as high kicks.OPunches should not be left hanging out, for similar reasons.

So when we see high level practitioners do kata, the way they do kata may seem strange, sloppy, or confusing.Thats because they aren't interested in looking good, but in leaving no openings for various attacks which many karateka never even know can happen because they don't practice them, and don'tr realize the kata have defenses and counters to them.

Enough.In this post there is sufficient information to enable you to find your own answers, if you care to, as well as to see what some others have come up with in this line.Remember, reality is changing and so are applications, of necessity.Principles however, remain the same.

TommyK
27th February 2003, 02:43
Hi John,

A most intensive and knowledgeable answer to the question I posited. I hope there are more of this calibre of response before the thread dies.

As you may know, I study Korean Karate and Self Defense (Ji Do Kwan Korean Karate wih techniques from Kodokan Judo and elements of 'Aiki' borrowed from both Tomiki and Yoshinkan Aikido).

The Ji Do Kwan Korean Karate we study can be traced back through the Koreans to Toyama sensei in WWII Japan. I understand he studied under Mabuni sensei, so I would expect to find some grappling/grabbing techniques in the Pyan (Pinan/Heian)kata. However, there are none in our school. Somewhere, these were lost or discarded, hence my original thread question.

In my 17 years of study in this school, I have gotten familiar with various wrist/grappling/grabbing techniques from our eclectic curriculum and I cannot fathom some of the suggested holds I have heard mentioned. On the other hand, some of the moves I am told are blocks, I cannot see in this series of kata.

I hope this explains better, my quest for data.

Thank you.

Regards,
TommyK

Machimura
27th February 2003, 05:27
Tuite/gyakute/tegumi/ti/Okinawan Sumo, whatever you want to call it, is an integral portion of Okinawan Karate. No doubt Itosu, Azato, Yabu and Kyan as well as others understood this. Also Jigen ryu Kenjutsu, the fighting art of the Satsuma Clan which Matsumura Sokon and Asato were Shihans in, had many "JiuJitsu" techs. This is also evident in the kata, if you understand or have trained in any Judo or JJ.

Now did the modern schoolboy versions of karate include this in their teachings? Yes, sometimes. Did/do most styles understand this? Yes, but only to the level that they were willing to explore or divulge it. Do they always relay this info, to every student? No. If karate was going to be changed from a fighting science (speaking of "Karate-Do Kyohan" peep Funakoshi's first work, "KarateJutsu", notice the difference in intent) to an organized vehicle fpr physical and mental improvement then a lot of these things would have to be omitted or "forgotten".

Remember that even Funakoshi wasn't taught everything that he could have learned. Funakoshi, who is revered for his introduction of karate to the world, was thought by many Okinawans as a satisfactory, not excellent, karateka. Many Okinawans saw him as a cultural icon, but many despised him "selling out" Okinawa's contribution to the MAs. Itosu, Kyan, Asato, Miyagi and Chibana should get the majority of the credit for formalizing karate, and separating them into distinct disciplines.

The redundant history lesson over, the reality is that many "pure" Okinawan Karate styles teach grappling and the ti aspects of karate. Also, being a child of Chinese MAs, karate integrated many Chuan Fa grappling concepts. John gives an explanantion as to the origin of Pinan. I have also been told it came from (at least Pinan Shodan and Nidan) a Chinese form called , Chan'nan. There are throws, catch kicks, locks and other grappling moves ingrained in the Pinan. The first lesson in fighting for real is to stay on your feet if at all possible. That's why strikes are concentrated on. Still many of the movements in kata are there to enhance gross motor training, so specificity or complexity in application is not necessarily the aim.

The fact is the Okinawans love to grapple and at one time, bullfight. Okinawan Sumo and Tegumi competitions use to abound. Many of these principles helped to comprise the complete fighting styles that we call Okinawan "Karate". Mu Duk Kwan, Tang Soo Do, Chi Do Kwan and TKD are all of "Shuri Te" lineage. That is a fact. Therefore their renderings of the "classical" kata are probably very similar. Remember it isn't necessarily how you do it, but that you do it. Looking at balance, relevance and plausibility many "bunkai" can be gained from good kata practice. Ask the officers who go to the shooting range, or the football players that "run" through their plays in half-pads if a general "form" of the real thing can prepare you.

Mabuni Kenwa was a virtual living library of kata. Funakoshi gets a lot of the credit for "Japanese" karate, when the focus could be on Mabuni. The late Grandmaster of the style I now train in, Hohan Soken, trained alongside Mabuni. They learned the principles of Gokenki's White Crane and exchanged ideas about their respective styles (Shito Ryu and Matsumura Shuri Te). The truth is they were both Shuri Te, but Mabuni also understood the slightly different "perspective" of Goju Ryu, too. Mabuni is a great master who is often overlooked.

Oh yeah, there is a myriad of grappling techs in all kata, Shuri Te, Naha Te or Tomari Te derived. Practice them and see if your body-mind recognizes these options...

Bryan Cyr

kusanku
27th February 2003, 13:03
Originally posted by TommyK
Hi John,

A most intensive and knowledgeable answer to the question I posited. I hope there are more of this calibre of response before the thread dies.

As you may know, I study Korean Karate and Self Defense (Ji Do Kwan Korean Karate wih techniques from Kodokan Judo and elements of 'Aiki' borrowed from both Tomiki and Yoshinkan Aikido).

The Ji Do Kwan Korean Karate we study can be traced back through the Koreans to Toyama sensei in WWII Japan. I understand he studied under Mabuni sensei, so I would expect to find some grappling/grabbing techniques in the Pyan (Pinan/Heian)kata. However, there are none in our school. Somewhere, these were lost or discarded, hence my original thread question.

In my 17 years of study in this school, I have gotten familiar with various wrist/grappling/grabbing techniques from our eclectic curriculum and I cannot fathom some of the suggested holds I have heard mentioned. On the other hand, some of the moves I am told are blocks, I cannot see in this series of kata.

I hope this explains better, my quest for data.

Thank you.

Regards,
TommyK

Ah, Ji Do Kwan.I am told this is Korean for Shotokan.S. Henry Cho I believe, said as much.

Well, the Okinawans held stuff back from the Japanese and the Japanese held more stuff back from the Koreans, leaving the outward form intact Japanese style karate but not teaching, whatever they may have known of the grappling.

'Tis said that Nakayama told a high ranking JKA instructor that the highest level in karate was to find the grappling techniques in the kata, but then did not show any.:-)

Okay, now I see what you need.Think of Heian/Pinans as beginning from an attacker's grab to one of your wrists, for a start.The arcing upward movement then becomes a wrist reversal and the other hand a strike.Think of the subsequent movements as followup locking, striking and throwing maneuvers.

the down block becomes an ikkyo type arm takedown, with the followup puinch hitting behind the ear or at the elbow like hitting elbow breath throw in yoshinkan.Vary the possible attacks and responses as in Aikido, and you get a pretty accurate idea of the potential.Also, remember that in every lock or throwing technique, there are three potential strikes, at the beginning, in the middle, and the end of the waza.

Karate thus is seen as a type of counter-jujitsu, with a tendency to use aiki type footwork at the higher levels, jujitsu type at the lower, and primary reliance on atemi or striking technique.

Maybe thats more what you were looking for, hope so.

Regards,

kusanku
27th February 2003, 13:11
Also, Bryan, good stuff as usual.

I forgot to add, up block in Heian/Pinan can be an up elbow lock, figure four, for instance, and the middle block can be a backfist, oir a wrap of the arm over into a hammerlock formation.The followup punches become self explanatory. For the wedge block in Heian Four, try a two handed intercept to outer wrist and elbow, locking the arm, then kick the back of inside leg and double punch represents the finishing technique.

Lots of things like this, are taught by many styles of Shorin ryu, quite openly.To beginners, even.That it is sometimes not seen in many styles deriving from Shorin ryu, is sad but true.Still, once you get on to the stuff, it starts to unfold as Bryan mentions.

As for what all is in kata, Okinawan saying:'All is in kata."

Thats the whole shootin' match, way I see it.:D

Rob Alvelais
27th February 2003, 18:11
Originally posted by TommyK
[B]
As you may know, I study Korean Karate and Self Defense (Ji Do Kwan Korean Karate wih techniques from Kodokan Judo and elements of 'Aiki' borrowed from both Tomiki and Yoshinkan Aikido).

The Ji Do Kwan Korean Karate we study can be traced back through the Koreans to Toyama sensei in WWII Japan. I understand he studied under Mabuni sensei, so I would expect to find some grappling/grabbing techniques in the Pyan (Pinan/Heian)kata. However, there are none in our school. Somewhere, these were lost or discarded, hence my original thread question.


Tommy,

Could you point me to a source for historical info on JiDo Kwan and their older, traditional forms (Pre ITF)? I'm very curious about Ji Do Kwan, since my brother started out in it, but by the time that he started, his instr. had completely switched to the WTF methodology and syllabus and abandoned the old traditional forms.

The info I've acquired from inquiring. (Hey John, how was that for alliteration? :laugh: ) is the the founder of Ji do kwan was a student of Funakoshi, rather than either Toyama or Mabuni (Although, George Anderson mentioned that the Ji Do Kwan founder was a student of Mabuni. Anyway, some of the traditional forms that I did see in Ji Do Kwan (sources other than my brother's teacher) looked more like Tang Soo Do or Oh Do Kwan forms, iow, Shotokan forms and Not Shito Ryu forms. Never have I seen anything even close to resembling a Higaonna Kei form in a TKD school. BTW, Toyama was more of a contemporary of Mabuni. BTW the Shudokan/Soryu schools all say that their founder (Toyama) was, like Mabuni, a student of Itosu and Higaonna and not Mabuni.


Rob

Rob Alvelais
27th February 2003, 18:23
Originally posted by Machimura
The late Grandmaster of the style I now train in, Hohan Soken, trained alongside Mabuni. They learned the principles of Gokenki's White Crane and exchanged ideas about their respective styles (Shito Ryu and Matsumura Shuri Te). The truth is they were both Shuri Te, but Mabuni also understood the slightly different "perspective" of Goju Ryu, too. Mabuni is a great master who is often overlooked.

Oh yeah, there is a myriad of grappling techs in all kata, Shuri Te, Naha Te or Tomari Te derived. Practice them and see if your body-mind recognizes these options...

Bryan Cyr

Bryan,

I gather that your Kushanku form is of the Matsumura lineage? John made a statement that the Pinans came from Chatan Yara Kushanku;

Since the Pinan Kata are arguably derived from such more ancient forms as the Chatan Yara Kusanku, Daddy of all Kusanku.kanku kata, and since that form, too, has no notes left by its creator whoever that actually was,applications are pretty much up in the air, up for grabs so to speak.:-), I'm not sure that we can make such a definitive statment. (It may well be true, for all we know, but then maybe not.)

I was wondering how different the the Matsumura Seito Kushanku kata is as compared to the Kushanku of the Chibana line (i.e., Shorinkan). We all can see that Chatanyara Kushanku (Kyan Lineage), while clearly a Kushanku kata, has some significant differences from the Kushanku Dai of either Shorinkan or Shito Ryu. Is the Matsumura Seito Kushanku online anywhere? My suspicion is that Itosu would have made the Pinans from his Kushanku Dai, rather than Chatan Yara Kushanku.

Rob

TommyK
27th February 2003, 19:15
Hi Rob,

The attitudes of people on the subject of Korean Karate varies from the idea that it is either "Shoto-kan lite" at best, or at worst,to being the reason that modern TKD left its original roots and became a sport.

I have been studying this style (in part, as our school is based in Ji Do Kwan, and supplemented as I stated above, by techniques from Judo and variants of Aikido)for 17 years and have been trying to understand it origins for about 15 of those years. Recently, within the last 3 years or so, terrific research has been done on the history and origins of the Korean Kwans by Dr. Dakin Burdick, Dr. Robert Dohrenwrend, and Eric Maddis.

In their separate efforts I have come to understand a general history of the Kwans and in particular Ji Do Kwan. In fact it is only in recent months that I have used the term Ji Do Kwan, as oppossed to the original term used in our school: Chi Do Kwan. (In private correspondence Mr. Maddis has convinced me that Chi and Ji are just the English transliterations for the same Korean symbol.)

You are correct in asserting that Mabuni and Toyama are contempories, as both left Okinawa for the greening grasses of educating students on the mainland islands of Japan.

Briefly, I understand that the Founder of Ji (Chi) Do Kwan : Yun Kwei-byung (1922-2000) studied under Mabuni Kenwa sensei (1889-1952)while in high school in Japan. Later when Yun was at Nihon University in Tokyo he studied under Toyama Kanken sensei (1888-1966). Yun was only 1 of 2 who received Master's certificates from Toyama sensei and who was elevated to 7th dan by Toyama sensei.

In the scrolls of the time his Korean name was transliterated as either In Gihei, or Yun Gekka. According to Mr. Maddis, when the Founder of the Yunmookwan, Chang Sang-sup disappeared in 1950, Yun took over as the Director of the Yunmookwan and renamed it the Ji Do Kwan.

The details of this chaotic time are still open to debate, but the brief details I outlined above are my understanding of the origins of Ji Do Kwan. Of course, S. Henry Cho is of this line and the Founder of our school was a leading student of Mr. Cho.

IN NYC, the few Korean Kwan schools that survive are known as the'old style' TKD schools, as what they do are far removed from modern TKD.

As for sources, Dr. Burdick published several articles in the Journal of Asian Martial Arts (a highly reknown and scholarly MA journal)and Dr. Dohrenwrend just finished a terrific 3 part article in "Dragon Times" (soon to be known as Classic Fighting Arts)a publication known to many Japanese stylists. Mr. Maddis's work has just completed final editing and is, I believe, soon to be published.

I hope this response was of some value toward answering your questions.

Regards,
TommyK

TommyK
27th February 2003, 19:21
Hi Rob,

Yes, while Toyama and Mabuni were contempories I had meant to write that both had studied under some of the same teachers in Okinawa and I expected to see the grappling/grabs from that angle. Also Yun did study under both, although the Manbuni study was only as a high school student and not as a advanced student.

Regards,
TommyK

Mitch Saret
27th February 2003, 20:20
Several excellent sources have been cited and I won't take up space repeating those.

In doing the Pinan/Heian series you must take into consideration which version you are doing. Funakoshi too the angles out of the forms for introduction into the Japanese school system, to make it easier for children. Those versions are what Shotokan uses to this day, in most cases. The Okninawan versions retain the angles and that is what is needed for effective in-fighting, in my opinion, for the distancing problems.

That being said, anytime you turn more than 180 degrees consider that you are doing a throw of some type. Would you really turn all the way around to the left to face an attacker coming from the right? I think not. Also not many techniques come in threes. Would you consider moving straight ahead into an attacker with three steps, executing three upward blocks, as in the first half of pinan 2/heian 1, or three punches as in the second half? Probably not. Perhaps the first motion is a stun, the second, an initial grab, the third, a second grab and off balance leading into a throw, as suggested by the next movement, turning past 180 degrees.

Another source of bunkai is the books by George Dillman. I may not agree with a lot of what he says, and think his books are overpriced, and several other things....but the information is interesting and may help you with what you are looking for.

Gene Williams
27th February 2003, 22:19
It is best to break the bunkai down in sections as if done against one opponent. You cannot always assume turns are throws; sometimes they are merely a transitions to the next sequence. They teach balance, focus, and fundamental movement, but I think we sometimes "reach" for applications. A senior can always make a throw out of a turn and a strike out of a block, etc. Some kata do have sequences for multiple attackers, and some are merely a method of putting together techniques against individual attackers in a sequence that can be easily remembered (the influence of Okinawan dance). Many fundamental moves are taught in kata; the longer you are in the arts, the more you will discover. There are many takedowns and chokes in kata, but karate often assumed multiple opponents, so taking someone to the ground and going down with them would not be wise in that situation. As to the Pinan (and I think the Heian are different enough to be spoken of completely separately, thank you), I have never been told that they came from Chatan Yara Kusanku. I believe they came from the Shuri kata we call Kosokun Dai (Kusanku). If you do them along with Kosokun Dai you can see it. There was another kata called Channan, which I am told has been lost, which also contributed to the Pinan. To students of the various ryu reading this forum: pick one style and way of doing kata and stay with it. That is the only way all the things that are supposed to happen in your development will happen. Trying to do two or three versions of the same kata is a mistake...you gain nothing but a novelty and you lose time. Gene

Juppe1972
28th February 2003, 09:32
Originally posted by TommyK
[B]

Recently, within the last 3 years or so, terrific research has been done on the history and origins of the Korean Kwans by Dr. Dakin Burdick, Dr. Robert Dohrenwrend, and Eric Maddis.

There is also quite interesting book written about early years of tkd, and founders of different kwans, who studied in Japan.

Partial translation of the text can be found in following adress:

http://www.martialartsresource.com/anonftp/pub/the_dojang/digests/history.html


Briefly, I understand that the Founder of Ji (Chi) Do Kwan : Yun Kwei-byung (1922-2000) studiedunder Mabuni Kenwa sensei (1889-1952)while in high school in Japan. Later when Yun was at Nihon University in Tokyo he studied under Toyama Kanken sensei (1888-1966). Yun was only 1 of 2 who received Master's certificates from Toyama sensei and who was elevated to 7th dan by
Toyama sensei.

Actually, according to book I referred earlier, it was Yoon Byung In (The founder of Chang Moo Kwan), who trained and studied karate under Toyama.

There is also a list about Hanshi titles given out by Toyama: http://www.wkf.org/shudokan.list.html

On the other hand, he had very close relationship to Chun Sang Sup. and they trained often together. So, it is more than possible, that Jidokwan is influenced also by Toyamas tteachings.

Rob Alvelais
28th February 2003, 15:35
Originally posted by Juppe1972
[B]

Actually, according to book I referred earlier, it was Yoon Byung In (The founder of Chang Moo Kwan), who trained and studied karate under Toyama.


Yes! That's what I thought as well. Yoon Byung In, was given a Shihan title from Toyma, as I recall.

Rob

Mitch Saret
28th February 2003, 19:07
Two things, Gene,

First, I never said Pinan and Heian were the same, I said it must be considered which version you are doing. While I agree that they are different, it's impossible to disagree that they came from the same source.

Second, I didn't say it was always a throw when you turn past 180 degrees. I said consider that you are doing a throw. I am not the be all/end all of kata by any means. The question asked was specifically about the grabbing and grappling portions of the forms and sources for that aspect.

We cannot know the original intent of the forms because we didn't create them. We are not even sure who created them and when. One school I occasionally train with claims Itosu created them out of 2 of the Channan forms from China. Another gentleman I know completely disagrees with that assumption. We use the forms as taught by Shigeru Nakamura to Seiyu Oyata, and from Oyata to my instructor.

The point is, everyone will find different things in the forms. Are they right or wrong? We may never know! (said in an eery voice)

Rob Alvelais
28th February 2003, 21:06
Originally posted by Mitch Saret
Two things, Gene,

First, I never said Pinan and Heian were the same, I said it must be considered which version you are doing. While I agree that they are different, it's impossible to disagree that they came from the same source.




You could have done so and it'd be fine!

The characters for Pinan and Heian are the same. It's just the difference in pronunciation from the Okinawan dialect to proper Japanese. Kind of like Seisan vs. Jyu San, Kushanku vs. Kosokun. Or perhaps a better illustration would be like the difference between Tao (Chinese) and Do (Japanese).

Many Shito Ryu instructors, refer to their Pinan kata as Heians. They're Japanese, often and naturally use the Japanese pronounciation.

Where one would be terribly mistaken would be to think that the only Heian kata are the Shotokan ones.

Rob

Gene Williams
28th February 2003, 21:12
Hi Mitch,
The Pinan and Heian did not come from the same source. The Pinan came from Channan and Kosokun Dai (generally accepted among most Okinawan martial artists, but if someone wants to argue, fine). The Heian are Funakoshi's bastardization of the Pinan kata (generally accepted among most Okinawan martial artists, but if someone wants to argue, fine). There was a guy in Barnwell, SC who studied under Oyata and had a really good school there. We visited the dojo once when Oyata came there and he put us all in the most pain with the least movement of anyone I have seen! Gene

Rob Alvelais
28th February 2003, 21:15
Originally posted by Gene Williams
Hi Mitch,
The Pinan and Heian did not come from the same source. The Pinan came from Channan and Kosokun Dai (generally accepted among most Okinawan martial artists, but if someone wants to argue, fine). The Heian are Funakoshi's bastardization of the Pinan kata (generally accepted among most Okinawan martial artists, but if someone wants to argue, fine). Gene

Gene,

I'm with you in not particularly caring for the Shotokan Heians, however, there are other groups who call the Pinan kata by the Japanese pronunciation of the characters.

Rob

Gene Williams
28th February 2003, 21:26
Hi Rob,
I know...drives me nuts! Higioshi used to raise Hell about calling Pinan Heian. In Nagamine's book, he says,"...the Pinan should never be referred to as Heian as they are in mainland Japan." Demura's people are even doing both sets of kata! Drives me nuts, and I have a lot of friends in JKF. Seriously, Pinan calls up an entirely different mode of thinking to me than Heian. I learned the Heian when I studied Wado for a few years when I had no Shito-ryu dojo. When I went back to Shito-ryu, the contrast was stark. Too much is lost in the Heian; they are really different. I am biased, of course, but most of my buddies in other Okinawan styles agree...even some Goju guys, who don't even do Pinan, have watched the two sets of kata and agreed. Shotokan is sort of in a class by itself. Not better or worse, just different. Gene

Rob Alvelais
28th February 2003, 21:35
Hahahaha,

There you go. Just looked in Ohgami's book on Wado Kata and He refers to these particular kata as "Pinan" Ohtsuka, founder of Wado Ryu calls them Pinan as well! Hayashi Ha Shito Ryu calls them Heians. It's enough to make your head spin.

You'll be delighted to know that Demura Sensei, isn't teaching Shotokan any more, and hasn't in quite some time. But, yes. there's a lot missing from the shotokan heians when compared to the Shorin/Shito Heian/Pinan's.

Rob



Originally posted by Gene Williams
Hi Rob,
I know...drives me nuts! Higioshi used to raise Hell about calling Pinan Heian. In Nagamine's book, he says,"...the Pinan should never be referred to as Heian as they are in mainland Japan." Demura's people are even doing both sets of kata! Drives me nuts, and I have a lot of friends in JKF. Seriously, Pinan calls up an entirely different mode of thinking to me than Heian. I learned the Heian when I studied Wado for a few years when I had no Shito-ryu dojo. When I went back to Shito-ryu, the contrast was stark. Too much is lost in the Heian; they are really different. I am biased, of course, but most of my buddies in other Okinawan styles agree...even some Goju guys, who don't even do Pinan, have watched the two sets of kata and agreed. Shotokan is sort of in a class by itself. Not better or worse, just different. Gene

Gene Williams
28th February 2003, 21:42
Yep! But the Wado kata are still Heian. Gene

CEB
28th February 2003, 21:48
Originally posted by Gene Williams
....The Heian are Funakoshi's bastardization of the Pinan kata (generally accepted among most Okinawan martial artists, but if someone wants to argue, fine). ...

I believe Funakoshi gets blamed for a lot of stuff he did not do, like Yamaguchi Gogen gets blamed for a lot of changing that he didn't do. But I guess being that grand poohbahs of their respective orders means the buck stops there, I suppose. Have a good weekend everybody.

Harry Cook
28th February 2003, 22:19
Why are the Wado Ryu Pinans "still Heian"?
I know that it is common to say that the Pinan kata came from the Channan, but has anyone ever seen the Channan? I know that Sakagami sensei said that the Channan could be found in the Chi Hsiao Hsin Shu, but I couldn't find any reference to these kata. I am very dubious about this tale. Where is the evidence?
Harry Cook

Rob Alvelais
28th February 2003, 22:28
Originally posted by Harry Cook
Why are the Wado Ryu Pinans "still Heian"?
I know that it is common to say that the Pinan kata came from the Channan, but has anyone ever seen the Channan?

Excellent point, Harry. One would think that people other than Itosu would have known the Channan kata and passed it along. Or, some of Itosu's students who were with him prior to his developing the Pinan would have learned Channan and not bothered with the Pinan and passed along the Channan. One would think that they'd be able to find the Channan kata on Okinawa, were this kata indeed the progenitor of the Pinans. But, I've not ever encountered any Okinawan sensei who knew the Channan Kata.



I know that Sakagami sensei said that the Channan could be found in the Chi Hsiao Hsin Shu, but I couldn't find any reference to these kata. I am very dubious about this tale. Where is the evidence?
Harry Cook

This is interesting to me, since as a Shito Ryu stylist, I've never, ever heard of the Channan kata in our circles. Our lore indicates that the Pinan came from the Kosokun kata and no mention is made of Channan by either Okinawan, Chinese or Japanese names.

Rob

Gene Williams
28th February 2003, 22:29
Hi Harry,
I have heard the same Sakagami statement. I don't think it matters so much what older kata Itosu based the Pinan on. The way in which they are done reflects a particular relationship to the rest of the Shuri kata in terms of movement, stance, application, and overall manner of doing karate and kata. There is a noticeable paradigm shift, if you will, in the Heian, or the way of doing kata that is most often called Heian (but sometimes Pinan).
I have compared notes with enough very senior Shotokan practitioners and they all agree...yes, they are significantly different. Wado reflects more Funakoshi influence even if some Wado folks call them Pinan.
Ed, Funakoshi may get blamed for a lot he did not do, but he most emphatically did develop the Heian kata. Gene

Gene Williams
28th February 2003, 22:38
Hi Rob,
I, too, am Shito-ryu and have heard from several different sources that Channan was lost to history. I have also heard the Sakagami statement that it could be found in a certain Chinese kata. I think the Channan kata is mentioned in Alexander's book, "Okinawa, Island of Karate," and in JohnSells book, "Unante." I think it is also mentioned in Bishop's book, "Okinawan Karate." I'm like you, how does a kata get lost? Well, I guess like I can't remember Juroku because I haven't done it enough over the years to remember it or pass it on to a student. If only one or two people knew it and were lazy about doing it, voila. I think it is really only academic, but interesting to discuss. Did you know that Motobu thought Funakoshi was a sissy? If you haven't aleady read Nagamine's book,"Tales of the Okinawan Masters," read it. It is very informative. Gene

CEB
28th February 2003, 22:44
I've heard the Channan tale from people who practice Matsumura Seito. I've also read in a 1972 interview with Soken Hohan that he only taught the first two Pinan forms. Most Matsumura factions I am familiar with now do all five. I don't know if Mr. Soken added them later or if they came from Mr. Kise and/or Mr Kuda. I've always wondered if Itosu created the Pinans and Soken Hohan's karate came from Matsumura Nabe and Matsumura Nabe learned only from Matsumura Soken then where did Pinan Shodan and Nidan come from? Unless Matsumura created Pinan Shodan and Nidan based on Channan. This may be the Matsumura Seito party line.

Rob Alvelais
28th February 2003, 23:37
Hi Ed,

I thought that I read here on E-budo that Soken Sensei brought the Pinans into his system from a source other than Nabe Matsumura. That, the Pinan's weren't really part of Matsumura Seito, very strictly speaking, but were added later.

Rob

Machimura
28th February 2003, 23:42
Originally posted by Rob Alvelais
, I'm not sure that we can make such a definitive statment. (It may well be true, for all we know, but then maybe not.)

I was wondering how different the the Matsumura Seito Kushanku kata is as compared to the Kushanku of the Chibana line (i.e., Shorinkan). We all can see that Chatanyara Kushanku (Kyan Lineage), while clearly a Kushanku kata, has some significant differences from the Kushanku Dai of either Shorinkan or Shito Ryu. Is the Matsumura Seito Kushanku online anywhere? My suspicion is that Itosu would have made the Pinans from his Kushanku Dai, rather than Chatan Yara Kushanku.

Rob

We do Kusanku Mei/Mai, Kusanku Sho and Dai. My sensei also knows Shiho Kusanku, which is a controversial form to say the least. The Chatan-Yara Kusanku, I have only seen once. Kusanku Sho and Dai as practiced in Shorinkan, is different in stance work and execution (from Matsumura Seito), but the pattern is similar. Shorinkan is a very "external" style as compared to Matsumura Orthodox, at least the Orthodox I've seen and learned. Seito is very "balanced" meaning the external and "nejia" (internal) influences are intertwined. Qigong is emphasized. We had a kata seminar about 4 months ago and folks from Shorinji Ryu, Seibukan Shorin, Kobayashi-Shorinkan, Shotokan, Tang Soo Do, Kyokushinkai and other ryuha showed off their kata. I have it on tape. It was great to see these people from all over showing what they knew.

I would say that if the Seibukan guy was doing Kusanku Chatanyara, then it had more similarities to the other styles than it did to our Matsumura Seito versions. It was very hard and fast with long, deep stances. Looks very different than our Kusankus. I don't know if it's just the way Sensei Lindsey interpreted things when he trained in Okinawa or if that's the way to really do the Seito kata. I would suspect the latter as it make more practical sense (with a little of the former thrown in), and reflects the true juho+goho influences seen in older Okinawan To-Te. I dunno, just speculation. It all seems so simple and natural and not forced at all. It makes more sense to someone who has a little knowledge of real world self-protection. At least in my case (and my brothers case). It also makes a lot of modern "scientific" and medical sense. My bro is an Orthopedic Spinal Surgeon and I'm a former AF Trauma Medic who will be a doctor soon. I'm slightly biased though, :)!

All of these ryuha are very similar. I know that different instructors of the same ryuha often teach things differently. Many times body type and overall understanding and ability plays into this. The Okinawan way of doing things was more of a private, 1-1 situation, or maximally, very small classes. Okinawa karate was always described to me as a "tailor made" MA. It is student dependent.

We can probably never know what is truly orthodox and correct and what isn't. Most karate is a little of both; original yet very new and evolving. Hohan Soken made the statement in Estrada's interview that when he was learning karate it was very common for students of one teacher to go and learn many perspectives and styles by training with various sensei. Once a foundation is set, this can only help. Learning to do multiple versions of the kata at the "mudansha" level is probably not a good idea. It can confuse. At the yudansha level, if understanding of your core style is refined enough, then instruction from other styles, and teachers is very beneficial. Good luck everyone and have a great weekend. Train smart!!!

Bryan Cyr

Gene Williams
1st March 2003, 03:33
Hi, Shihokosokun (Shihoksanku) is a kata that we do and it was developed by Mabuni Kenwa. It is not a major kata, and a real load if you already are doing Kosokun Dai and Sho. I would still maintain that learning multiple versions of the same kata is not beneficial and probably detrimental. Doing one version well and really internalizing it takes many years and, no, I'm not a slow learner. I have fussed at my senior students many times about what I call dabbling in different versions of the same kata. I was fussed at for it, too. This seems to be a malady of the mid-dan range. Damned if I want to play around with versions of kata that have finally become relaxing and fulfilling after years of, first, getting yelled at and, then, yelling at myself! Of course, yelling at students is relaxing and fulfilling, too! Anyway, just my perspective. Gene

Rob Alvelais
1st March 2003, 05:55
You're right, it was developed by kenwa Mabuni. I is indeed a lot, especially if you're doing Kosokun Dai/Sho, but Gene and I kind of have to know this one as well as Jyuroku (Shame on you Gene! ;) ), Shinpa, Shinsei, Aoyagi, etc, etc., etc. since our founder made these kata.

Rob



Originally posted by Gene Williams
Hi, Shihokosokun (Shihoksanku) is a kata that we do and it was developed by Mabuni Kenwa. It is not a major kata, and a real load if you already are doing Kosokun Dai and Sho. I would still maintain that learning multiple versions of the same kata is not beneficial and probably detrimental. Doing one version well and really internalizing it takes many years and, no, I'm not a slow learner. I have fussed at my senior students many times about what I call dabbling in different versions of the same kata. I was fussed at for it, too. This seems to be a malady of the mid-dan range. Damned if I want to play around with versions of kata that have finally become relaxing and fulfilling after years of, first, getting yelled at and, then, yelling at myself! Of course, yelling at students is relaxing and fulfilling, too! Anyway, just my perspective. Gene

Machimura
1st March 2003, 09:23
Is it possible that Itosu derived his versions of Pinan Shodan and Nidan, and possibly the others, from the form Channan? Couldn't Nabe Matsumura have done the same thing, hence the similarites but marked difference in execution? All this is just speculation. None of us will very be completely sure. Word of mouth is our only "evidence". Whatever the case may be, it is an awesome kata! I like all the versions I've seen, and the interpretations different ryuha have.

I think the Pinans are very good forms too. I especially like Pinan Shodan. As for the original question about grappling in the Pinans/Heians, yes I think you can glean those things from training in the Pinans. The same goes for all the other kata as well.

Go Spurs Go!!! (Sorry had to do it!)

Bryan Cyr

kusanku
2nd March 2003, 15:24
Originally posted by Rob Alvelais
[B], I'm not sure that we can make such a definitive statment. (It may well be true, for all we know, but then maybe not.)

That is why I said 'arguably.'That word placed,not for alliterative:D purposes, but to forestall any objections that the statement was, say, definitive.'Arguably, literally means, it can be argued, either way, that the pinans came from, or did not come from, Chatan Yara Kusanku, directly or through a series of earlier versions also arguably called channan,or that it came from a number of other kata, possibly later versions of kusanku sho and dai, passai, chinto, etc.

The reason that I feel that the Pinan actually are derived, almost in toto, from the CY Kusanku, is that in the Matsubayashi Ryu versions, of the Pinanas, the movements can almost if not all be found , later in the CY Kusanku.Though, it is quite possible, that Nagamine san or someone else could have fiddled them so they would be that way, and not vice versa.Thus,'arguably.'

I use that word a lot these days.Arguably, its a good thing to do.:D


I was wondering how different the the Matsumura Seito Kushanku kata is as compared to the Kushanku of the Chibana line (i.e., Shorinkan). We all can see that Chatanyara Kushanku (Kyan Lineage), while clearly a Kushanku kata, has some significant differences from the Kushanku Dai of either Shorinkan or Shito Ryu. Is the Matsumura Seito Kushanku online anywhere? My suspicion is that Itosu would have made the Pinans from his Kushanku Dai, rather than Chatan Yara Kushanku.

The Matsumura Seito Kusanku, Isshinryu Kusanku, and Matsubayashi Ryu Kusanku, are all pretty much , Chatan Yara No Kusanku. Kishaba Sensei was sent to Hohan Soken by Nagamine to bring back the CY Kusanku kata to Matsubayashi ryu, so its gonna be pretty close.As for Itosu making the pInanas from Kusanku Sho and Dai, I know those from the Chibana lineage, Shorinkan, and the problem we run into there, is that the Pinans contain some moves not found in either Kusanku Sho or Dai, but which are founbd in Chatan Yara Kusanku.Before I learned the latter kata, the derivation of those movements in Pinan, which appeared to be from kata other than any Kusanku I then knew, puzzled me, and I felt they must have come from Pasai, Chinto and some unknown kata I couldn't figure out and didn't know. The unknown kata was, in fact, Chatan Yara No Kusanku. near as I can figure out.Arguably, of course.

My point here, however, is that, please don't say that a statement I make using the word arguably is intended as a definitive one,because this miconstrues my motives and speaks to my credibility, whether its intended that way or not.And, you being a friend of mine,I feel I can say that, and should mention that we are buddies, so people don't think we are fixing up for a flamewar.Rob is a good guy and a friend of mine.

So, arguably they came from CY kusanku, but hey, maybe not, that is what arguably means. Definitive would be me saying, 'Pinan kata all came from Chatan Yara Kusanku, period.:D

Now That would be a definitve statement, and it would be entirely proper to call me or anyone else, on such a statment, and demand proof, even..which of course, there is none.As I mentioned earlier, there wewrren't manuals written on these, by Itosu, nor any from Matsumura, either,and Nagamine, who Did write manuals,doesn't comment on the matter.

Heck, maybe he and they, didn't think that was important, now there's a radical thought.:DDid you take a Corvette engine and put it in a Ford Falcon, who cares, all that matters is, it'll smoke anything else on the road.Maybe the Okinawans thought like that about it.I dunno.But definitve statement? Didn't make one.Arguably:D

Gene Williams
2nd March 2003, 15:41
John, Arguably, who cares? It is merely of academic interest. It is possible that Itosu was creative and had experiences of his own and actually put moves in the kata that weren't found anywhere else. This is like the de-constructionist movement in literature; they were so damned busy analysing the works that they forgot to read them! Gene

kusanku
2nd March 2003, 15:45
Originally posted by Harry Cook
Why are the Wado Ryu Pinans "still Heian"?
I know that it is common to say that the Pinan kata came from the Channan, but has anyone ever seen the Channan? I know that Sakagami sensei said that the Channan could be found in the Chi Hsiao Hsin Shu, but I couldn't find any reference to these kata. I am very dubious about this tale. Where is the evidence?
Harry Cook

Harry, that's spot on!I never saw any channan katas either, only know one person claims to have learned them, from a sixteen year old black belt, and the section he shared with me looks like a pinan with Ed Parker Kenpo spins and pokes mixed in, I don't buy it for a second.
'Chinese spinning attack,' he said.Hah!Chinese weren't idiots to turn their backs to opponents.

Joe Swifts translation of Motobu and others, saying that the channan were just the first name for the early versions of Pinan created by Itosu, seems more likely by far. Chinese kata named channan that no one ever saw, Naw.:D

Further, for those who state that the Pinan are derived from Kusanku Dai also called Kosokun Dai, why are there movements in the Pinan that aren't then, in the former kata, but are in Chatan Yara Kusanku?

And if the answer is they are from channan, please produce the elusive channan kata, so we may decide for ourselves.

As for doing more than one style, well, I did Shotokan, MNatsubayashi Ryu, and Okinawan Kenpo, my teacher also having studied under both Oyata, Odo, and direclty with Nakamura on Okinawa when they'd go to his hiome once a month for the big get together workouts.And the Kusanku done in Kenpo is I believe called Yabu Kusanku, and it also doesn't have all the moves from the Kenpo Pinans, which have some angles the rest don't have as well.But, Chatan Yara Kusanku, which isn't even taught in Kenpo, does have a number at least, of those mysterious moves.

Now, it may well be, that that is not the sourse, or the sole source, of the Pinans, but so far, no one has given any kind of proof that it isn't.

So if someone wants to prove me wrong, cough up those channan kata, and show cause.I'll admit to being wrong.Doesn't bother me one bit. I'll take learning and true knowledge over foolish pride any day of the week.

regards and thanks for that Harry,

Gene Williams
2nd March 2003, 15:53
John, You have the most impressive store of incomplete knowledge I have experienced in quite a while, and a very admirable willingness to talk about it at length. Gene

kusanku
2nd March 2003, 16:00
Originally posted by Gene Williams
John, Arguably, who cares? It is merely of academic interest. It is possible that Itosu was creative and had experiences of his own and actually put moves in the kata that weren't found anywhere else. This is like the de-constructionist movement in literature; they were so damned busy analysing the works that they forgot to read them! Gene

Well Gene, that again, is why I said, arguably, it was a throw away point of my thesis, which was what are the original applications to the Pinan katas.Which is the wquestion Tommy asked and I was trying to answer as best I could, and not to get boged down in a duel of nit picks.

As for reading the works, I personally can do three to five applications off any and every move in the Heians and Pinans in three different styles, and make them all work.

Back earleir on AMAKS and even here, I used to challenge people who doubted that kata apps were effective, to aske me what any opf the moves could be used for.Used to compare apps with others, too, that was always interesting.

But my point in mentioning Chatan Yara Kusanku, arguably the first version of that kata, was that neither is there a manual written for that kata by its creator, Chatan Yara or whoever, nor by Matsumura, and Itsosu also wrote none, for Kusanku Sho, Dai, or Pinana.

So, we cannot say with certainty,what the original apps were.And yes, I do some of those Oyata type ones, too.The temptation to believe them the original apps notwithstanding, absent any proof that they are, we still don't know.

As for Itosu putting moves in kata that weren't found anywhere else, what Itosu did was to take moves Out of kata, and simplify and homogenize them, rather than to complexify them.Imho, of course..:D
Also, it seems that Itosu may have taught more complex, ie earlier versions of Pinan and other forms, to adult students like Yabu, unless Yabu re-engineered his kata hismelf, which again, we don't know.

That Itosu simplified, rather than complicated, is shown by the more complex nature of the Chatan Yara Kusanku, containing around eighty moves of a very much more fluid nature than those seen in the Itosu versions, and even more than in the Kenpo version which also derives from Itosu.

Answer being, no body really knows who can prove it anyway.By the way Tommy, Dakin Burdick used to pay me to come down and show his students combat applications of the forms, even though he taught Tae Kwon Do, he wanted the apps from the Matsubayashi Ryu forms.Thats been some years back of course.

Regards to all,

Gene Williams
2nd March 2003, 16:02
John, Who are you trying to convince of your skills and the demand for them? Gene

kusanku
2nd March 2003, 16:12
Originally posted by Gene Williams
John, You have the most impressive store of incomplete knowledge I have experienced in quite a while, and a very admirable willingness to talk about it at length. Gene

Funny, I was thinking the very same thing about you.:DPerhaps it were wiser not to make such comments about and to people whom you never met in person, nor of whose skill or knowledge you have no clue. It is said a warrior always learns to know the other person before choosing to fight them.I would think that wise, but here you are, spoiling for a keyboard shinken shobu.

I am not going to oblige you, Sir.I have answered the question posed here, not by you but by Mr. Militello, to the best of my admittedly limited ability.I have responded even to your repeated ad hominems, cries for attention though they are or seem to be, as politely as I can.

If you have no proof to the contrary of what I have said, then the discussion ios over, as far as I am concerned. Good day to you sir, and I wish you the best, I really do.Whoever you are, and whatever you know, and all that.I do not claim suprhuman perfection of supernatural knowledge and I believe my posts on this thread, have made that clear. I have put what I know, and what I don't know, forth.

Thing is, no one else seems to know any more, placing me in somewhat the position of Socrates, who when told by the oracle that he was the wisest man in Greece, went around trying to prove the oracle wrong, only to find out that no one else really knew anything either.

We can all repeat what our teachers told us, but maybe they don'ty know those answers either.

Like I said, too, maybe they didn't think it was important.

What to me is important, is can I stop someone inside a second, who tries to hurt me? Yes, I can.Using kata priciples and applications.Do I know that or just think that? Only one way to find out.Many have.

Did I make it up myself? No. But some don't believe that. Fine.I respect everyone's right to believe as they will.

But insults are a sign of immaturity.Prove me wrong, fine.No one has, as yet.Anyway, arguably means, its just my current understanding, my opinion if you will. What to me is ridivculous, is that by using a word designed to avoid argument, so many seem to be starting.I will now absent myself from this thread.I seek no trouble, only peace.Those who have seen real trouble, usually are like that.Those who want to pick fights and call names,well....maybe life just hans't been exciting enough, I don't know.

kusanku
2nd March 2003, 16:21
Originally posted by Gene Williams
John, Who are you trying to convince of your skills and the demand for them? Gene

Why, you, of course, thats why I said, 'By the way, Tommy...':D

Merely the truth, too. Used to do seminars, eight years or so ago, for the Tai Chi people, the self defense club, and Dakins Tae Kwon Do club, in Bloomington Indiana, and they used, yes, to pay me for that. Now of course, everyone knows alll about things like that, they are all masters.:-)

But I'm still here.In all my ignorance and unlettered folkish ways.

Now again, Peace.

kusanku
2nd March 2003, 16:34
Originally posted by Gene Williams
John, You have the most impressive store of incomplete knowledge I have experienced in quite a while, and a very admirable willingness to talk about it at length. Gene

Unlike you of course, who said the Pinan came from Kosokun Dai and channan and then can produce no channan for evidence.

Fact is, all of us have incomplete knowledge. That's the nature of being human.Aristotle said, 'Man by nature desires to know.'But no one knows it all.

Sorry about that, but on reviewing the thread, that just kind of stuck out.

Now, if we can stop impugning each other's credibility, P-E-A-C-E.

Harry Cook
2nd March 2003, 17:11
Rob, the Shito Ryu source for the channan comments is Karate-Do Taikan Pinan by Ryusho Sakagami, Kyusei Inc. Tokyo 1974. on page 7 he says "master Itosu did away with many of the steps of various kata and from his own research, expanded on these kata to produce popular kata tailored for beginners. These new kata were at first calld "channan", but were later entitled pinan."
So this seems quite clear; the channan and the pinan are the same. However, somewhat confusingly, on page 123 he says that in the 14th article or chapter of the Chi Hsiao Hsin Shu (1595) "2 kata are executed with closed hands while the rest are an open-hand variety. The pinan kata of today were included in this 14th article but were called "Channan". Unlike the present Pinan kata, the Channan kata were not limited in their techniques."
Hironori Ohtsuka also made a generalised comment about the channan kata but he said that he did not know the actual, history or background.
It seems odd to me, given the somewhat conservative nature of the Okinawans that no one preserved the channan kata, but id the name channan was simply an older name for the pinans/heians then all of us with any connection to the Shuri-te line do them in one form or another.
John, are the "channan" kata you saw available for viewing in any way, or are they like The famed Mushindo Roku, only available to the truely initiated?
Yours,
Harry Cook