PDA

View Full Version : Sokon ("Bushi") Matsumura



glad2bhere
10th June 2003, 15:46
Dear Folks:

Is it possible to determine which of the modern Okinawan tradtions most closely reflects the art practices and taught by Sokon Matsumura?

Best Wishes,

Bruce

glad2bhere
13th June 2003, 03:58
Yes, Thanks very much. So many of the resources I have been investigating regarding traditional Okinawan kata refer back to Bushi Matsumura, but I have not been able to determine if there was any lineage who purported to follow closely the execution of these kata in a manner approximating Sokon Matsumura. Certainly there are many lineages who want to attribute some aspect of their art back to this particular individual but that is not to say that they have not made changes in the material during the intervening generations. Thanks again.

BTW: Do you know of any good source material on his manner of Te?

Best Wishes,

Bruce

glad2bhere
13th June 2003, 13:44
Oooopppsss---

Just came from another thread on RUMA links. Didn't realize there might be some political implications to my question. I'd rather not get bogged down in such stuff if it can be avoided. I'm looking for research resources and would very much appreciate whatever people have to share.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

CEB
13th June 2003, 14:58
Originally posted by glad2bhere
....Certainly there are many lineages who want to attribute some aspect of their art back to this particular individual but that is not to say that they have not made changes in the material during the intervening generations. ....
Bruce

I believe Karate just isn't that tight. I seen Matsumura Orthodox karate performed by 4 people who studied directly under Soken Hohan and all 4 did their forms differently. Is this because the 4 gentlemen changed their art from what they were taught or is it because Soken Hohan taught things different over that extremely long life of his? I don't know.

There is sequence toward the begining of Matsumura no Paisai ( Paisai Dai) Example: After you initially move forward (north) and do a technique that sort of looks like an X block. That isn't really what it is but that is what it sort of looks like. (disclaimer:I'm a goju guy) Then you face westerly and do some knife hand strikes. Almost everybody does 2 knife hands then your turn to the east and do 2 more. There is a gentleman who does 3. He swears that is classic Seito and that is how Soken Hohan taught it in the 60's. I believe him when he says that. I see no reason to make something like that up. I also believe everybody else is trying their best to do what they were taught. Karate changes. The 4 men step different and move differently.

I'll stop there it isn't my Ryu. This brand of karate just like any good karate method is not a cookie cutter style and I think as a result you are going to see it morph from generation to generation depending on build, how people move, temperment ect.... I think this changes styles away from their original more than any conspiracy or purposful intent.

glad2bhere
13th June 2003, 16:42
Dear Ed:

".....There is a gentleman who does 3. He swears that is classic Seito and that is how Soken Hohan taught it in the 60's. I believe him when he says that. I see no reason to make something like that up. I also believe everybody else is trying their best to do what they were taught. Karate changes. The 4 men step different and move differently....."

I dare say that you are right on the money, after all what you are describing cuts to the very heart of what I am researching albeit in Korean rather than Okinawan traditions. The focus of my research is that the development of Korean Martial Science had much less to do with combat efficiency and effectiveness (thought OF COURSE that was a priority) and a whole lot more to do with the manner and intent of training. What I have been hoping to do is identify four or five watershed points in the development of Korean Martial traditions and then see if I can understand the path that occurred (and why) between those points.

Now, what does this have to do with Okinawan traditions?

The plain fact is that there is a helluva lot more material available about Okinawan traditions than Korean-- for a variety of reasons. And while we are at it there are many parallels between Okinawa and Korea as stepping stones between Chinese and Japanese culture. And both Korea and Okinawa have been strongly influenced by Chinese and Japanese culture, both have endured periods of reclusiveness and both have interpreted influence upon the culture with spontaneously generated material of their own. In this way, I see in Okinawan traditions qualities which might provide insight into the the decisions made in the Korean culture regarding how Martial science would be taught and past on. There are even salient written materials in that Okinawa has the BUBEISHI (which may well relate back to the WUBEIZHI of Mao, Yuan-I) and Korea has the MU YEI TOBO TONG JI which most certainly borrowed from that same work by Mao.

All this is a long winded explanation for my interst in Sokon Matsumura who I would characterize as an Okinawan "watershed". Seeing how his material changed (or not) between himself and whatever the next major figure (Itosu?) in Karate development might give some insight into what teachers thought was or was not important and how that effected the way they taught or transmitted their art.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

Steven Malanosk
13th June 2003, 17:03
Ok, I am not a "Shorin" man so to speak, but I lived on the rock for 3 yrs. and dabbled / hung out enough to have a better than decent prspective.

Soken, left quite a leniage, varied as it may be.

There are more than a couple former military individuals who teach what is called Matsumura Orthodox etc. I am not going to mention names, as this is not a critique, but a refference, and they are not all exactly alike in curric., hence the word Orthodox coming into question. That is, the word, not the style.

On the island, most prominant Soken student in the public eye, is Fuse Kise of KenShin Kan.

Incidentally, as many of you may know, Soken, spoke no English.

Hogan, Japanese and Spanish.

There are those who claim direct deshiship from him......... perhaps.

Just keep in mind, that he was not around for quite some time, as he was living in Spain doing his photography thing.

He was used as a central point of refference / figure head.

In the past years, his KoBuDo, was questioned on this site, as being village KoBuDo rather than mainstream Orthodox. Personally I see no problem with that, as the so called village KoBuDo that I do myself is more than fine with me.

A matter of perspective I suppose.

I dont know if any of this means anything to ya, as it is totally " read between the lines info."

glad2bhere
13th June 2003, 17:30
Dear Steven:

".....There are more than a couple former military individuals who teach what is called Matsumura Orthodox etc. I am not going to mention names, as this is not a critique, but a refference, and they are not all exactly alike in curric., hence the word Orthodox coming into question. That is, the word, not the style.

On the island, most prominant Soken student in the public eye, is Fuse Kise of KenShin Kan....."

If I am drawing the proper conclusion from your post, then, the use of the word "orthodox" is truely a defining criteria when comparing this line to others. (You can tell that I come from an American background where "new and improved" and "traditonal" are more marketing than true qualifiers. ;) )

I have had some good luck with DRAGON TIMES here in the States. Has anyone run across any decent citations there--- or anywhere?

Best Wishes,

Bruce

Nyuck3X
13th June 2003, 19:02
I like to think Matsumura evaluated his students and trained them
according to their ability. Just look at two of his students Itotsu
and Kyan. They both hail from him but have different approches.
Even their kata Passai are different. Similar but different. Itotsu
uses chudan uke (middle blocks) instead of jodan (upper). Chibana
reincorporated the Matsumura Passai and that's how you got Passai
Sho and Dai. Back to the subject. You wouldn't train Mohammad Ali
the same way you would a Mike Tyson. Ali is a stand-up offensive
fighter and Tyson is defensive peek-a-boo fighter. The mark of a
really good teacher is one that recognizes the strengths and
weakenesses of a student and works with it. That's one reason I
abandoned Korean training. I have a bad lower back and tight hips.
I'm huge on top but no one wanted to acknowlege that. Shorin-ryu
just seems to fit me better. Specifically the Chibana lineage.
I mentioned this in another thread but Goodin Sensei (Matsubayashi
ryu) has done alot of research on karate history. You might want to
check out his web site at: http://seinenkai.com

As for who has the most direct influence from Matsumura?
I don't like to speculate. From one good plant comes many
seeds. Some do better than others due to their conditions
but they all benefit from good genetics.

Someone stop me now before I shave my head and start playing
a bamboo flute.

Peace.

glad2bhere
13th June 2003, 21:37
Dear Ray:

".....You wouldn't train Mohammad Ali
the same way you would a Mike Tyson. Ali is a stand-up offensive
fighter and Tyson is defensive peek-a-boo fighter. The mark of a
really good teacher is one that recognizes the strengths and
weakenesses of a student and works with it....."

Your comment, especially using Boxing for an example, has a lot of merit as I see it. Now, allow me to add a bit of an additional spin, 'kay?

So often when we talk about Karate, Taekwondo, Judo and the like the term we use as an umbrella is "martial arts", right? I can see your point if one were talking about something which was closer to a "civil art"--- say a community style or a family style. It seems to me that there would be the sort of leeway you are talking about for the teacher to adjust material to take individual strengthes and weaknesses of the student into account. But suppose we were talking about a truely military (army, navy) or para-military such as a body guard or police unit. In this case, wouldn't there be a need for uniformity among all teachers and all students? Perhaps I am being too literal with the idea of "martial" here. I know that in the Korean traditions there was material that was handed down locally by designated individuals identified as competent to teach and this was usually less structured and formal. Taek Kyon readily comes to mind. On the other hand the Korean military had specific weapons and drills for training its members. In this case the material of Gen Qi, Jiguang towards the end of the Ming Dyn comes to mind. Undoubtedly there was carry over between the two realms, civil and martial, at various points. As I close this out I am thinking that perhaps there is a possibility that "martial" structuring might have historically been more of an ideal, and a more flexible set of practices might have been closer to reality. In this way, when inquiries are made, everyone expresses the commonly held ideal of "no variance" and "strict uniformity". However, perhaps in actuallity what you describe could be closer to the mark --- out of the general view of outsiders. Whatcha think?

Best Wishes,

Bruce

Nyuck3X
13th June 2003, 23:57
Hello Bruce,


So often when we talk about Karate, Taekwondo, Judo and the like the term we use as an umbrella is "martial arts", right? I can see your point if one were talking about something which was closer to a "civil art"--- say a community style or a family style.

I guess this is where I become a karate snob. I believe that karate
is a personal art. That an instructor can only cultivate you. To
learn certain movements without knowing the essence of what you are
doing is just regurgitation.

I agree with you in that if you are going to teach a large group
of people, you need to homogenize or standardize the product.
I don't mean to water down, but to organize the curriculum
in a way that expedites the learning process for the group.
(By the way, I ment no slight to Korean arts in my previous
post. I just haven't met a Korean stylist that would acknowlege
my Japanese training and physical limitations.)
It wasn't until Itotsu's time that documentation shows karate
being taught in mass. If memory serves me correctly, Matsumura was
trained in the family art and by private instructors, becoming
a palace guard eventually. Same thing goes for Motobu's brother.
If we assume this is how most "martial" arts were passed along, then
a trained military as we know today did not exist. The only truely
trained soldiers were those of the palace.

My impression on training in the past is that teachers only took on
a few students at a time. In Okinawa, teaching was much less
stuctured. More like semi private classes. You worked on your own
and the teacher would come by through out the class and comment on
what you needed to work on.

The following story might give you some insite.
My teacher and his brother both studied under the same man.
After their teacher's death, the widow told the both of them
that not one of his students got all he had to teach but,
between the two of them, they had it all.
Although they both come from the same teacher, they do things
differently. One is more of a technician and the other a tactician.

I may have muddied the water a little more but I hope
I said something of use to you.

Good-luck in your research.
Peace.

glad2bhere
14th June 2003, 13:58
Dear Lee et al:

I just want to see if I can keep my hands around these concepts and would like to throw-out a simile' to see if the folks here think this is an accurate parallel for what is being shared here concerning the Matsumura material, 'kay?

In Yon Mu Kwan Hapkido, by the time someone has made it to Shodan, they will have learned some 250 techniques. When they test, they will be tested over all of these techniques. However, it is a given that different people of different size, age, athletic ability, etc., will favor some techniques over others. What this means is, though folks have learned 250 techniques, only some 25 or so are their "bread&butter" techniques--- if you know what I mean. Now the reason I share this is that the teacher shares the same information with everyone-- knowing that different people will favor some material over others material. What I am hearing people share here is that in the Okinawan traditions of old the TEACHER would expose different people to different material depending on what the TEACHER thought would be optimal for each persons' abilities. In this, rather than pass on the same number and style of techniques to all students and see what they favor, a teacher would provide some to one person and other techniques to other people based on perceived attributes.

Is this pretty close?

Best Wishes,

Bruce

Nyuck3X
14th June 2003, 19:27
This is what I believe to be true of old school Okinawan Karate.
Before I moved away from Oshiro sensei, I remember working out bunkai
with one of the senior students. Oshiro would give us a pattern
from kata and we would work with it and find different ways to
use it. In doing so we found effective ways of application for
our body types. What might work better for him (tall & thin)
would not work for me (short & stocky).

Miyahira is known to have said that there are no
secrets in karate, only hard work. As Troof pointed out in
his last post, at a certian point in your development it
is almost expected that you start incorporating your own
interpretations. Karate is a living art and must evolve.
This is why in the past teachers sent their students to
other teachers. Chibana's karate was not the same as Itosu's
even thou the latter was his teacher. Chibana also sent
Miyahira to train with Motobu Choki so Miyahira's karate was not
the same as his teacher's.

A set syllabus was not the norm back then. You learned basics
and concepts. You played with physiology and that's how you
developed your karate. It's different in the western world.
I'm of Asian decent. The Asian mind set is different. They
tend to do what they are told without questions. Most westerners
want to know the why and how. Young people today want all the
answers now instead of just getting on the mat and working it out.
Remember, Dan gradings didn't occur until after WWII. Before
that all you went on was reputation. You were lucky to find
a teacher because there were not commercial schools. Even if
you found a teacher he may not take you.

I was never required to learn a number of sets & applications
for my Yudansha. My teacher knew me and my possibilities. He
knew the way I think and my ability to build on what he
taught me. Our organization doesn't have a syllabus. We go
by our instincts. Beacause we are small we can do that. This
is where I believe large commercial dojos are at a disadvantage.
The teachers are not intimate with thier students. I don't believe
in rank tests either. I figure the teacher should know what
you can do already and not base his decision on the performance of
one day. It's more important to know how to interpet and apply
kata and bunkai than know a set number of applications. I also
believe in knowing a few apps really well rather than knowing many
half way.

I admire your thirst for knowlege.
Good-luck.
Peace.

glad2bhere
14th June 2003, 20:33
Dear Ray:

Thanks for confirming that my spinning head was worth the tolerance.
You will excuse, I think, if I submitt that everything we have written in these last couple of posts presents something of a paradox then. Consider this.

If one were to teach somebody according to the manner we have identified, it would be reasonable to assume that curriculums would diminish as individuals focused on things that worked best for them and paid less energy to things that did not work as well, yes? The teacher might even teach EVERYBODY EVERY thing that teacher knew and still, as we just discussed, students may gravitate towards what worked best for them and perhaps when they taught THEIR new students something not receiving as much focus would slip through the cracks. This said it would be reasonable to assume that over time there would be a steady decline in the overall amount of material per the art. Doesn't this follow? OK, well thats where I think a paradox comes in.

Historically arts tend to INCREASE in material. In fact, a tradition ascribed to training at the much-touted Shaolin temple indicates that so much material accrued that the curriculum had to be organized among a variety of approaches represented by animal attributes, with each student supposedly learning the material associated with one, two or three animals. In fact, one of the complaints of Gen Qi when organizing new training methods for his Ming conscripts was that too much material was out there and most of it "flowery" (IE. demonstrative but essentially ineffective). He gathered from 16 extant arts 32 methods and that was the foundation of the boxing his men learned.

Somewhere, just as in the case of mountain-building, there must be some opposing force that works against this tendency of folks to drop off material. In the case of building mountains, geological forces inside the earth push the mountains up. In opposition the forces of erosion continually grind the mountains down. We seem to have identified what could reasonably diminish Karate material, but I wonder what keeps it continuing to "push-up" or reinvent itself. Thoughts?

Best Wishes,

Bruce

Nyuck3X
16th June 2003, 23:54
Bruce,

I'll try to address this in the order that you presented it.


If one were to teach somebody according to the manner we have identified, it would be reasonable to assume that curriculums would diminish as individuals focused on things that worked best for them and paid less energy to things that did not work as well, yes? The teacher might even teach EVERYBODY EVERY thing that teacher knew and still, as we just discussed, students may gravitate towards what worked best for them and perhaps when they taught THEIR new students something not receiving as much focus would slip through the cracks. This said it would be reasonable to assume that over time there would be a steady decline in the overall amount of material per the art. Doesn't this follow? OK, well thats where I think a paradox comes in.

I see no paradox. This is why I stated that teachers would send
students to other teachers. What one teacher lacked, the other would
pick-up.


Historically arts tend to INCREASE in material. In fact, a tradition ascribed to training at the much-touted Shaolin temple indicates that so much material accrued that the curriculum had to be organized among a variety of approaches represented by animal attributes, with each student supposedly learning the material associated with one, two or three animals.

Different body types require different attributes. My nephew is
learning Tai Mantis but his balance needs work so his Sifu has
taught him a crane form. Tiger is better suited to stocky upper body
development and crane for long limbed persons. There are things that
cross over but this is true as a general statement. Now, why fill
the head of a new student with information that he won't find
usefull? This guy has to go out into the battlefield and fight for
his life. He wasn't training for a black belt. His "degree" was
walking away still living.


In fact, one of the complaints of Gen Qi when organizing new training methods for his Ming conscripts was that too much material was out there and most of it "flowery" (IE. demonstrative but essentially ineffective). He gathered from 16 extant arts 32 methods and that was the foundation of the boxing his men learned.

Exactly my point. Too much information. He whittled down what he
thought was "flowery or excessive" and taught it to his troups, only
now he uses this as the basis of his system for a group instead of
an individual.



Somewhere, just as in the case of mountain-building, there must be some opposing force that works against this tendency of folks to drop off material. In the case of building mountains, geological forces inside the earth push the mountains up. In opposition the forces of erosion continually grind the mountains down. We seem to have identified what could reasonably diminish Karate material, but I wonder what keeps it continuing to "push-up" or reinvent itself. Thoughts?

It's called altzhiemer's. We are all human and as such we all want
to be immortalized. We all want to be seen as being unique. There's
a guy here in town that claims to teach a combination of Kung fu,
Tae kwon do and Kempo. When I pressed him on the katas and school
affiliations he just shrugged and said he didn't know them. The kid
was maybe 21 and was a 4th dan. Why did someone feel the need to
amalgamate these things? Didn't the founders of these systems
create in their minds a "complete system"? If you know the
principles of the techniqes you were taught, then you should have it
all. It's not how many techniques you know, but what you draw from
in a panic situation and how well you execute it.

Yes, systems break down, change, get altered for better and for
worse. If karate is dynamic or living, then along with these changes
are interpretations. It expands and contracts with every instructor.
Yes, some information is lost, but some is gained from somewhere
else. That is exactly why systems become larger as time goes on.
This is also why the Okinawan form is different from it's Chinese
cousin. It adapted to the Okinawan philosophy and physiology.

There are many ways to skin a cat. Just look at other Ryuha, Goju
verses Shorin. They do things differently but are able to get the
job done. I don't see the preservation of a system as important as
the cultivation of a person. Miyamoto Mushashi wrote in his book of
five rings: The "Way" cannot be learned through frivolous contests
in which the outcome is for the name of the school or a large
trophy. it can only be realized where physical death is a reality."
The system will continue in many forms. There's nothing you can do
about it. Someone somewhere at sometime will make a change to your
system and call it something else.

No one can ever claim to teach Matsumura's karate exactly like he
knew it. He himself was an alagamation of different teachers. It's
the practitioner, not the style.

I'm spent. I don't have anything to add. Some of these ideas may not
make sense to you now, but they may later. Much of this didn't occur
to me until I reached a certian maturity. (Both chronilogical and
martial.) I'm not saying that you are any less than I am, it's just
that sometimes it just clicks in your head when you least expect it.

Peace.:D

glad2bhere
17th June 2003, 13:44
Dear Ray, Lee, et al:

Just a quick note to offer my sincere thanks for your many thoughts and observations. We seem to be moving into a bit different area of focus than the original string, but the discussion has been wonderful. As I say, the use of Okinawan traditions for where I am in my research right now, is more of an assist in identifying the sorts of intents and motives people would have for deciding in favor of one direction over another.

BTW: When one identifies "Matsumura Bassai" as such, is that because that kata is done in a fashion recognized (generally) as being done the way Sokon Matsumura would have done it?
Or--
Is the name attributed more because this manner of performing the represents an older form and this age is recognized by titling it with the name of an older personality? Just wondering.

Best Wishes and Thanks again,

Bruce

Nyuck3X
17th June 2003, 17:24
Bruce,

I agree, very good disscussion.

The way I understand it, the kata as we practice
(Kobayashi/Shorin-ryu) is named after him because that was the way
(approximately) Matsumura practiced it. Itosu did it differently.
Chibana incoporated the former back into his syllabus. That's why
we have Bassai (Passai,Patsai) sho/dai, also known as Matsumura
Passai and Itosu Passai. The latter has a heavier/sinking feel to it.
Almost like it's better suited to people with broad shoulders
using chudan uke (middle blocks) over jodan uke (upper blocks).
The jodan uke gives it a feeling of rising momentum so therefore
it feels lighter/faster. These are only my opinions. Nothing
anyone of any significance told me.

If you look at the Passai of Matsubayashi, Shobayashi (better known
as Sukunaihayshi), and Kobayashi (Passai dai) they all look very similar.
The first two a passed through Kyan and the last through
Itosu.

Peace.

CEB
17th June 2003, 21:28
Originally posted by Nyuck3X
...
If you look at the Passai of Matsubayashi, Shobayashi (better known
as Sukunaihayshi), and Kobayashi (Passai dai) they all look very similar.
The first two a passed through Kyan and the last through
Itosu.

Peace.

So, Shobayashi is the same thing as Sukunaihayshi. I didn't know if this was true or if Shobayashi was created by a student of Kyan, Shimabukuro Eizo (I think). Where does Shorinji Ryu fit in? Is it another name for the same thing? My boy's school work Wanshu, Annanku and some other forms and I'm told that they origin is Shorinji Ryu. I think they came to us via Kenshinkan. But they are Tomari forms I believe.

Nyuck3X
18th June 2003, 01:40
Sorry,
I should have specified that Shimabukuro Zenpo's group
prefers that translation. I'm kinda grey in that area too.
Maybe Jussi can jump in here?

Joen Nakazato (Shorinji-ryu founder), Zenryo Shimbukuro
(Sukunaihayshi founder and Zenpo's father)
and Shoshin Nagamine (founder of Matsubayashi) were all
contemporaries according to Mark Bishop's book "Okinawan Karate".

Peace

TimoS
9th July 2003, 22:15
Originally posted by Troof
Some folks may have more of a Shorinji influence in their art if they were learning from Kise Sensei when he was primarily a Shorinji guy converting to the Seito system. You can see this in the way some of Soken and Kise's senior students perform their kata.


Interesting discussion and I've actually learned a thing or two once again. Just out of curiosity, which Shorinji ryu did Kise practise before converting to Seito system ? Being a Shorinji student (Renshinkan) myself I found that point interesting

Cheers,
Timo

kenmeikan
15th July 2003, 14:09
Bruce,

Good Luck.

I have been studying Shorin-ryu Matsumura Seito Karate on Okinawa for over 30 years, eight of them with Sensei Hohan Soken.
I also studied extensively with Sensei Fusei Kise.

Bushi Matsumura taught quite a few folks who founded their own styles.
Sensei Hohan Soken taught many more folks who also founded their own styles.

I cannot say which person is teaching the closest to Bushi Matsumura.
The version of Shorin-ryu Matsumura Seito that I prefer is taught by one of Sensei Soken's first and longest, but least known student, Sensei Yoshimatsu Akamine. I first met him in the early 70's at Sensei Soken's house.

v/r
Edward Gingras

glad2bhere
15th July 2003, 16:47
Dear Ed:

I always have to stop and congratulate folks when they actually find a "home" in martial arts. For me it was discovering the Korean Hapkido arts, but I still have fond memories of my studies early-on in Shudokan.

BTW: Based on your experience are there any published materials (tapes or books) which reflect Bushi Matsumuras' approach? My goal is to bump the closest representation of older kata such as Kushan-ku up against their Shotokan counterpart so as to gauge the manner in which change occurred over time. I notice there are quite a few tapes advertised but I have found it is much better to go on the advice of someone who is acquainted with the material than take "pot-luck," if you know what I mean. Your comments would be welcome.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

chizikunbo
16th July 2003, 15:25
Karate today(almost all forms) has become so diluted that this may be impossible, things that were to hard were removed from most styles being practiced in the U.S.A. to fay for instance kata used to be practiced for ten years per kata, or makiwara traing almost completly removed from most systems.:(

glad2bhere
16th July 2003, 16:51
Yes, I know what you mean. In the Korean arts we run into this all the time. People of a certain build, age or what-have-you find some certain material particularly tough or challenging. Rather than work to find a decent relationship with that material the decision is usually made to simply drop the material in question. Not very good for the integrity of the art, ne?

The work that I am pursuing, however, is to get an appreciation for how such decisions were made--- at the INSTRUCTOR level.

For instance, here are some of the things that have been suggested to me over time.

a.) Itosu modified material that he learned from Matsumura so as to make MA material more appropriate to the Okinawan school system.

b.) Gichin Funakoshi, in turn, modified material as learned from Itosu so as to make material more appropriate for the Japanjese school system.

c.) Gigo Funakoshi and M. Nakayama modified material to make it a more "scientific" or rationally supported activity (I suppose something like what Kano envisioned doing for Ju-jutsu in making Judo).

d.) Nishiyama modified the Funakoshi material to make it more appropriate for a sport/competive application.

Now, I am a researcher, so I make NO judgements about the accuracy of anything I have just said. The reason I just shared these four steps is to give an example of 1.) points at which material changed and
2.) possible motives for causing that change. It is my belief that for the most part it has been teaching priorities and NOT combat efficiency or effectiveness that has actually shaped the direction of MA development. I am thinking that I can make an arguement using such a string of similar "change points" or "watersheds" in the development of Korean arts but I am currently "practicing" doing this with the better documented Chinese-to-Okinawan-to-Japanese progressions.

I guess everybody needs a hobby.....:D

Best Wishes,

Bruce

Black
1st August 2003, 17:31
Hello to everyone:

I was reading the posts on Matsumura karate and couldn't help but notice a post regarding the differences between Passai Dai and Passai Sho. As I understand it, the difference is that one is a junior level or, less advanced level, of the kata and the other is the more advanced level of the kata.

I understand it that one learns the lesser passai first so as to learn the bigger body movements and hip techniques first. Then, when the student has learned how to generate power with the big movements he/she is taught the greater passai which has more refined techniques. The same could be said for Kusanku no Sho and Kusanku no Dai. So, there is a possibility that one student may not have learned Passai Dai and so they only taught Passai Sho. Hence, it would seem as though they were two different katas, when in fact they are two different "stages" of learning a kata.

This is a gross oversimplification and I realize that it is not directly related to the Matsumura history discussion. However, if anyone is interested in continuing this discussion I would be interested as well.

Sincerely,
T. Black

Nyuck3X
2nd August 2003, 06:38
Mr. Black,
I felt the same way until I came upon a few articles that document
differently. The most compelling is at the following site:
http://seinenkai.com/
Go to the bottom and read the two part series on Shorin-ryu Karate.
There they suggest evidence that Itosu was known to re-engineer
kata and that Chibana "preferred" Matusumura's Passai to Itosu's.
This would suggest that the two Passai were never ment to be a
greater nor lesser. Looking at the other Shorin schools, they only
use one Passai be it Kyan, Matsumura or Itosu. Shobayashi and
Matsubayashi have their on versions and Kobayashi is the only one
that does the two. Why's that? Because Itosu only had an influence
on the one branch. That's my conclusion at least. Whether I'm right
or wrong doesn't matter. Your finding some meaning in the kata is
the important thing. If you like it, do it! For whatever reasons.
I do.

Peace.

BTW. I hate to bring this up but, forum rules dictate full name
when posting. Welcome Mr. Black.:D

Black
2nd August 2003, 16:39
My apologies to everyone. My first name is Tim! Force of habit:)

I will check out the site that you suggested Ray, thanks for the link.

I don't doubt that changes have been made to the katas at all. I think that we can all agree on that point. I was simply pointing to the fact that the two Chibana passais are connected.

I think that if you look at the two katas it is not hard to see how the lesser passai consists of bigger movements and the greater passai consists of more refined movements with more advanced fighting techniques. I think that part of the problem is that no one uses their kata to inform their fighting anymore.

My guess is that if one is able to use the kata for fighting then you will understand the connection and the difference between the two Passais.

Sincerely,
Tim Black

Black
2nd August 2003, 17:00
I wanted to post an addendum to my last post regarding "the" two Passais. I am speaking strictly of the Chibana Passais sho and dai that I learned from my teacher. I also understand that there are other versions of Passai from other styles and that they may have less of a connection to the katas I am referring to.

This is the difficulty of oral history that is passed down from generation to generation. There is a lot of confusion! When I speak about the katas I should really just refer to my own style so as to not offend anyone else who may do other versions of Passai.

Please forgive any indiscretion on my part regarding this issue.

Sincerely,
Tim Black

Nyuck3X
3rd August 2003, 00:55
No problem Tim.
Sometimes it's hard to remember that people can't read the
inflections and intentions one has when one posts.

Since you don't accept PM, may I ask what your connections are to
Chibana-ha Shorin-ryu? I'm connected through Miyahira Sensei. My
teacher's teacher was Latino Gonzales, 8th dan under him.

Peace.

Black
3rd August 2003, 02:39
Thanks Ray!

The karate I'm learning comes through Higa Yuchoku Sensei.

Tim Black