PDA

View Full Version : pinan vs heian... what happened?



bartfast
27th June 2007, 21:24
Having studied both Japanese, and Okinawan versions of the pinan/heians, I am fascinated by the differences between them. There of course certain schools where the only difference is in the naming and order of shodan/nidan, but other more interesting differences are what I'm talking about here...for instance:
In JKA Shotokan, you begin with one fist over the other at your hips. In Okinawan versions you start with both arms swung to the side. In Shotokan, you then assume a back stance in which you do not move except to shift 180 degrees to mirror the opening moves. In Okinawan versions you assume the cat stance and shift to a tall horse stance when executing the strikes, with a stepping motion before switching to the other side. In shotokan, the kick is a side kick from the same stance, whereas in Okinawan versions you assume a cat stance at 90degrees with a front kick. the list goes on, but those are some very prominant ones. Since it is widely accepted that these kata were created by itosu in 1904, and that he directly taught the people that perform it both ways; which was the original? Why the difference? how did such differences happen within the first 20 years or so of modern karate? Any thoughts??

Prince Loeffler
27th June 2007, 21:53
Having studied both Japanese, and Okinawan versions of the pinan/heians, I am fascinated by the differences between them. There of course certain schools where the only difference is in the naming and order of shodan/nidan, but other more interesting differences are what I'm talking about here...for instance:
In JKA Shotokan, you begin with one fist over the other at your hips. In Okinawan versions you start with both arms swung to the side. In Shotokan, you then assume a back stance in which you do not move except to shift 180 degrees to mirror the opening moves. In Okinawan versions you assume the cat stance and shift to a tall horse stance when executing the strikes, with a stepping motion before switching to the other side. In shotokan, the kick is a side kick from the same stance, whereas in Okinawan versions you assume a cat stance at 90degrees with a front kick. the list goes on, but those are some very prominant ones. Since it is widely accepted that these kata were created by itosu in 1904, and that he directly taught the people that perform it both ways; which was the original? Why the difference? how did such differences happen within the first 20 years or so of modern karate? Any thoughts??


And your name is ?...............

Prince Loeffler
27th June 2007, 22:28
Thanks for complying with E-Budo rules. What Okinawan karate did you learn the pinan from ?

bartfast
27th June 2007, 22:48
currently I am (off and on-when work permits) studying Okinawa Kenpo. But the case stands for many many okinawan schools. A more popular one would be Shito-ryu. here are two youtube links. the first is shito-ryu, the second shotokan. The differences are clear immediately.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnQ7uc_H7tc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36pI7IRLqFs

Prince Loeffler
27th June 2007, 22:56
Here's the Matsubayashi Ryu version of Pinan Shodan courtesy of Jim Sindth, it has a slight difference between the above links.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNzcUfnGJyI


I am not familiar with Okinawan Kempo kata , thus it would be hard hard for me to make the comparison.

gwroy20
27th June 2007, 23:00
Also, Kyokushin's Pinan Sono Ni

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrhFuHpj0MA

bartfast
27th June 2007, 23:13
Well...Just to stay on track...my question isn't "are there differences..." but "Why are there differences?" It just seems odd that such stark differences could come about so rapidly. The Kata was "invented" in 1904(ish) and by 1920(ish) Funakoshi was in Japan with a back stance, while others were on Okinawa with the cat stance. Did Funakoshi learn it with a back stance? did he later change it from cat to back? As it is, in "Karate-jutsu", Funakoshi's original book, the pictures of him look like a cross between the two stances. like a cat stance with a flat front foot. not the long angular stance typically seen in Shotokan. Does anyone have insight into why these changes came about? or what Itosu's pinan looked like as he taught them? the sensei that brought about these changes all reportedly studied directly under Itosu, so why are their kata different?

Prince Loeffler
27th June 2007, 23:22
1) but "Why are there differences?"

2) The Kata was
"invented" in 1904(ish) and by 1920(ish) Funakoshi was in Japan with a back stance, while others were on Okinawa with the cat stance.

3) Did Funakoshi learn it with a back stance? did he later change it from cat to back?



1) The students that separated from Itosu, could made the slight changes that fits their own personal interpretation of the pinan Kata. Kyan Chotuko was known to do this. Other reasoning could also be politicaly induced.

2) The pinan kata first came to light in 1907-1908. Originally done with the cat stance as opposed to backstance, It was changed with the same reasoning mentioned above.

3) As Funakoshi was a native Okinawan and trained under an Okinawan master, I believed that he primarily learned it as Neko Ashi Dachi then later change it to Kokutsu Dachi.

Hope this helps !

bartfast
27th June 2007, 23:43
I agree with what you are saying...but I don't think I'm satisfied. In a shotokan school, a great deal of time is spent on learning the movements exactly. even black belts will constantly be corrected with slight finger alignments or toe positioning. It stands to reason that Funakoshi must have undergone similar training. Especially in the early days, Karate was about depth rather than breadth of knowledge. It wasn't uncommon for someone to be a Master and only know 1-3 Kata. but they KNEW those kata. Funakoshi must have mastered the Pinan kata. Which means he must have spent a lot of time and energy learning them exactly. why then would he arbitrarily change what he spent so much time perfecting? And if that is the case, then why hasn't the personalization of kata carried on? I feel if most karateka went to a dojo and the sensei taught you his personal version of a kata, that sensei would be a bit suspect...

Prince Loeffler
28th June 2007, 00:04
Funakoshi must have mastered the Pinan kata. Which means he must have spent a lot of time and energy learning them exactly. why then would he arbitrarily change what he spent so much time perfecting?



Only he (Funakoshi) can answer this question. For years I wanted to know why Funakoshi, if he wanted to preserved the Pinan Kata as taught to him, then why would he change the name to Heinan ?

I was told once that somehwere down the line, Someone within the JKA made some modification to the pinans. Wether this is true or not, difference is obvious.

We can have theories after theories and in the end , we would still be farther from finding the truth. Why is this ? Because Funakoshi is lone gone and perhaps whatever the honne and tatemae of his reasonings went with him to his grave.

ZachZinn
28th June 2007, 00:24
I agree with what you are saying...but I don't think I'm satisfied. In a shotokan school, a great deal of time is spent on learning the movements exactly. even black belts will constantly be corrected with slight finger alignments or toe positioning. It stands to reason that Funakoshi must have undergone similar training. Especially in the early days, Karate was about depth rather than breadth of knowledge. It wasn't uncommon for someone to be a Master and only know 1-3 Kata. but they KNEW those kata. Funakoshi must have mastered the Pinan kata. Which means he must have spent a lot of time and energy learning them exactly. why then would he arbitrarily change what he spent so much time perfecting? And if that is the case, then why hasn't the personalization of kata carried on? I feel if most karateka went to a dojo and the sensei taught you his personal version of a kata, that sensei would be a bit suspect...

I'm not sure I buy the concept that fully learning a kata involves everyone looking and performing the same in terms of the minutia you're talking about. From what I understand that type of thing is a later development specific to mainland Japanese karate.

In any case Japanese kata seem to look and feel very different from their Okinawan predecessors, not a bad thing neccessarily.

I also have been led to believe that the major changes were made by later JKA folks. If you look at Funakoshi's book To-Te Jitsu even his back stance is really just a variation on a cat stance, none of the deep stances you see in today's Shotokan. However, I've also heard alot of not so nice things about Funakoshi's karate itself from various sources.

In the end who knows for sure, I don't think anyone has the real skinny, just some guesswork.

Anyway, i would argue that everyone teaches their own personal version of kata, whether they intend to or not.

There is a huge difference between teaching the proper mechanics and principles and just saying "it's wrong if it doesn't look like mine"...to me the latter is way more suspect, and indicates someone who knows about what kata is supposed to look like, and maybe not so much what it is meant to accomplish.

bartfast
28th June 2007, 00:58
I'd agree with that completely. which is probably what is at the root of the question for me. Can the Kata accomplish the same thing if the basic movements are altered in such ways? We are all taught over and over again that each and every movement of a kata is equally important and holds layers of meanings. Some argue that punches are only punches when you are a beginner, and that as you progress you learn they are really escapes from wrist grabs or any of a million other bunkai that we have all read in the past. there are certain movements in kata that seem to be nothing more than pretty poses, but we are always told they hold meaning. So what of the (sometimes referred to as cup and saucer) fist over fist at the hip in the beginning of heian nidan? doesnt that drastically change the opening scenario? how can you be accomplishing what the inventor of the kata had hidden in his opening movements? Or the difference between a side kick and turning to perform a front kick. If we accept this kind of reasoning, we have to allow that Funakoshi didn't have the grasp on Karate he is credited with (which judging by the photos in karate-jutsu, I am willing to concede). Which really means that actual bunkai is probably impossible, as in "what did Itosu intend to say with the kata? what were the movements for?" we will never know because it seems someone learned what it looked like, not what it did, then spread it around the world dwarfing that from which it was derived...

Nyuck3X
28th June 2007, 01:04
Chibana-ha Shorin-ryu uses a high back stance instead of nekoashi.
It's so narrow, that it can be mistaken for cat stance by those who use
a really deep stance.

Today's JKA karate is way different than the stuff Funakoshi taught
early on. Even within the Shoto circles, I find variation. I have two
Shoto BB training with me and they both do things different. One is
Nishiyama and the other is Kanazawa.

JKA stuff had to be consistant accross the board because you had
people at different Universities. In order to compete, they had to have a
level playing field. In Okinawa, they didn't have that issue.

I can not tell you who and why the kata was changed, but in the
Okinawan tradition, at a certian point, kata was tailored to the practitioner.
When I teach ohyo waza, I cannot expect a small person to do the same
moves a large person can do so I teach them different ohyo. The kata
stays the same, but the ohyo has to fit the individual.

The idea of preserving the kata is a relatively new thing. Today
we are trying to keep things from changing for historic reasons.
Again, in old Okinawa, the purpose (in my case of Shorin) was to protect
the King. Traditon was not a concern. Today people do karate
for many reasons. One of which is to preserve an art form.

Also, kata can change by accident. I train in Chibana-ha Shorin but, I
also have trained with Matsubayashi Sensei. On a recent visit by my
Chibana-ha sensei, he noticed a few changes I picked up from the other
teacher. I never ment to incorporate it, it just happened.

Just my 2 cents.

Peace

Geoff
28th June 2007, 14:34
I personally feel that Funakoshi Gichin and his origianal senior students (Gigo and Egami) were experimenting with rationalizing or economizing what they felt were the essential characterisitcs or truths of their karate. The changes from Pinan to Heian reflect their pov.

A better illustration of the Funakoshi model would be the essentially parallel Shotokan system that Funakoshi and some pre-JKA seniors taught and practiced that emphasized the Taikyoku kata 1-3, Ten no Kata and Gohon/Sanbon/Ippon kumite. Essentialy, these masters were trying to develop a complete, exportable and rational karate system that could be easily taught and modified to fit local preferences while remaining true to essential karate principles (as they saw them). Funakoshi says as much in Karate-do Kyohan. I have been working on an article expanding this idea for some time now. Perhaps one day I'll even finish it!

While Funakoshi's karate gets a lot of flack in some circles for simplification, I think a better explanation is that he employed his experience as an educator and scholar and karateka to try to revolutionize and globalize karate-do.

Chris McLean
28th June 2007, 14:44
I think it was the influence of the Samurai arts. The samurai are "one cut, one kill" sounds very similar to the "one punch one kill" of Shotokan. The samurai fight from longer range from opponents due to mai. Okinawan arts deal with the opponents in a grappling trapping range after closing the gap, using combinations to achieve this objective. The back stance also looks very similar to a posture of a Samurai. The changes look like cultural influences to me.

bartfast
28th June 2007, 15:48
While Funakoshi's karate gets a lot of flack in some circles for simplification, I think a better explanation is that he employed his experience as an educator and scholar and karateka to try to revolutionize and globalize karate-do.

I think that is an important point actually... My previous martial arts experiences have always been in large group classes where everyone performs movements by number. Whether just punching, or even kata, everything is done treating the whole group as though it was one person.

It seems on Okinawa (back in the day..) training was much more personal and one on one. once Kata started being taught in schools, that changed. It is possible that some of the more subtle steps were ommited or modified by funakoshi (and others) to make teaching groups (especially school children) easier.
Also, since funakoshi most likely learned in a very private setting, it is possible that he was taught the kata differently than other students were... Maybe he just preferred back stance to cat stance- so that is what he was allowed to use...?


The back stance also looks very similar to a posture of a Samurai.

Also a great point... I studied Aikido as well in the past and we used a stance called Hamnei which is a very similar to the shotokan back stance, except your weight is evenly distributed.
It seems to me that a lot of okinawan styles actually don't have that back stance. To them, back stance is exactly like front stance, but you turn your upper body to face the rear. So maybe there is something to be said of the samurai japanification of the movements as well as the names of kata......

Chris McLean
4th July 2007, 15:12
With regards to Shotokan, could it be that after WWII they made changes to hide some techniques from the Military board that was convened to decide whether or not to allow martial arts to be allowed back into practice? Maybe it was the fear of not being allowed to practice that caused the change in Kata. They could have watered it down to make it look less threatening.

Nyuck3X
4th July 2007, 17:18
Here is a picture of Iha Sekichi in kokutsudachi.

Nyuck3X
4th July 2007, 17:22
Here is a puicture of him circa 1964.
Slight difference but still narrow.

Someone mention their teacher once said,
Shotokan is good, if you take the kendo out of it. Lol...

Trevor Johnson
4th July 2007, 18:50
One thing about Shotokan that I don't think anybody's mentioned so far was the influence of the universities. A lot of stance lengthening and such went on there, because it was a good workout.

The influence of kendo distances and such has already been mentioned, but don't forget the influence of having to teach a whole bunch of teenagers something that got their blood pumping in a very militaristic style of class. They weren't teaching them the "internal" part of karate so much as the "external," how to hold their legs, their arms, etc. They corrected the limbs, but not so much the center of the body, how to feel an opponent's balance, etc. A lot of subtleties were lost.

And also, don't forget the issue of WWII. A LOT of JKA seniors were involved in WWII and couldn't train, and after the war, Funakoshi was a bit old for teaching. They ended up having to reconstruct the kata from their memories, and didn't always do a good job of it. Turns go the wrong way in some of the advanced kata, like Hangetsu, (compared to, say, Seisan, it's antecedent) and their Wankan ends halfway through because they forgot the ending! (They didn't go back to the rustic Okinawans to figure out how to finish Wankan, either. They never asked.)

Mitch Saret
5th July 2007, 22:36
If we look at Funakoshi developing something for the Japanese school system, we can see a bit of a correlation. At that point in time the Japanese was still a militaristic, ordered, society. Funakoshi too what he learned on his Okinawan home and made it a bit more orderly. Taking some angles out of the form, making it end in the same spot it started, things like that.

As for the name difference, my understanding that it is a different pronounciation of the same character. Remember, Okinawa wasn't always part of Japan. Think of the word roof and how it's prounced in the northeast(r-ooo-f), and in Chicago (r-u-f). Different pronounciation, same characters.

bartfast
6th July 2007, 18:14
As far as the name changes go, I was under the impression that it wasn't just a difference in pronunciation, but actually a deliberate attempt to distance (what would become) Shotokan from its Okinawan roots to make it palatable to the Japanese (mainland)...

Also, as far as the WWII theory, a lot of the kata was already changed as early as the 20s-as illustrated in Funakoshi's Karate-jutsu...

I do agree that the universities no doubt played a large part in some of the curriculum of Shotokan (and the elementary schools before that even), especially the breaking of kata into numbered sequences, having a steady rhythm etc.... all of which make teaching a large group possible. This of course was definitely evident and played a large part in post WWII karate (especially as taught to American GIs.) That no doubt furthered the military discipline/group training aspect as we know it today.

I haven't had a lot of time to pour over it recently, and I should take the time since it's my question to begin with... but in Karate-jutsu, Funakoshi demonstrates the back stance, and the cat stance and describes each..in the section concerning stances and such... so, cat stance is not removed from the style...just the kata (at this point he still calls them pinan incidentally..)
I initially considered that perhaps he replaced cat stance with back...but it is clear that he used both, and was taught both (and taught both).

Timothy.G.B.
6th July 2007, 19:07
Interesting reading.

What about the possibility that Funakoshi didn't really have a lot of depth to his karate and because of that, his karate changed over the years as he tried to make sense of something he himself didn't fully understand? Then, his students, all very smart people in their own right, continued to try and figure it out on their own, making changes that made sense to each of them.

Probably an unpopular theory, especially with the Shotokan folks, and it is not meant to be inflamatory. I started my karate in a Shotokan dojo and it was great because it taught me to love karate and to search for anwers to the many questions I had.

I wanted to put that out there as another plausible explanation.

Best,
Tim

bartfast
6th July 2007, 19:53
thats a very important point... especially judging from the photos in karate-jutsu of Funakoshi performing the techniques and kata, his place as a legend is definitely due to his role as promoter/author/teacher; not as technician. So it is fully possible that the future Heians are wrought with mistakes and skewed to accommodate his loose grasp of the art...

When we take into consideration that at the time most karateka only learned at most 3-5 kata, and at that usually only 1 every 5 years or so... it is a bit odd that Funakoshi emerges with more than 15 of them under his belt (no pun intended....well...a little...) so maybe his mastery of them was a bit superficial...

Even if we take that though, it doesn't explain the differences... It explains why they might be performed a bit stiff, or something like that... but to actually alter the stances, and strikes and things like that... it seems more deliberate..not the result of a lack of skill...

Funakoshi himself however, related a story about how sometimes certain kata were never taught to anyone, and if they were - there were usually deliberate inaccuracies so that the true meaning could not be detected. I believe Funakoshi says that his son was taught the correct version of one such kata in Funakoshi's place, and that the teacher explained that he was the only one to ever learn the correct version.

Is it possible that Funakoshi himself learned kata that were deliberately inaccurate ?

There is always a great deal of interest and importance placed on bunkai... but how can we believe in the secret hidden techniques if the techniques themselves aren't preserved properly? How can we say "this is what Itosu was saying in this kata" if we change the words?

Casper Baar
7th July 2007, 16:57
Just a question. Is there proof of Itosu teaching bunkai? Is his bunkai preserved/ still taught and if so in what styles?

And some thoughts:
From what I understand preservation or orthodox karate ryu are probably a modern invention. With a few exceptions (GoJu-ryu comes to mind) can we even speak of ryu before 1900? Isn't the whole idea of a ryu with a set or very slowly changing syllabus more Japanese then Okinawan?
I think you learned karate from your teacher in a small group. The teacher might adapt the karate to fit you better or to teach you something. So this is a way to diversify karate. Second diversification would occur if student 1 would first train with teacher a and then teacher b and student 2 with teacher a and then teacher c. That's just how techniques and kata change.

Then there's the reforming of the way students were taught. So the what (is taught) has been changing forever and the how (it is taught) has been changing for at least 120 years.

Funakoshi was a reformer, so was Itosu, so were the men after Funakoshi. Thye changed what they knew to fit the modern times as they saw best. If you train in a lineage full of reformers it's just silly to use reverse engineering on what you know and present the result as historically correct (defending the king with your back to a wall thats what the kata is for, yeah right).


I should probably buy: "Shotokan a precise history" I think this answers some of these questions but it's not in stock anywhere.

By the way if someone has answer to my first questions or if my assumptions are wrong I'm happy to learn about it.


have a nice weekend,

Nyuck3X
7th July 2007, 17:34
I have not been a big advocate of the back against the wall/rice paddy
fighting either, but lately I have been exposed to some techniques that
suggest the protection of of the King was plausible.

No one knows what Itosu was thinking so speculation is all we have.
I have been thinking lately, and the question of documentation keeps
poping up in my head. Were not Matsumura, Itosu and Funakoshi
educated people. As educated people, did they not have the resources
to document these things. If there really is "ONE CORRECT" interpretation,
then they would have written it down somewhere. Rather than that, we have
what is very common among oral traditions as the freedom or free will to
adapt things to make them pertainent to our lives. Today we have the
internet. What we write today, will be around the world in seconds.
Back in the day, your information was by word of mouth and very localised.
You probably would never be questioned about your karate.

Funakoshi's changes were only to make karate mean something to the
Japanese public. IMO, I do not think reverse engineering is wrong. It makes
my karate mean something to me. If done with the original intentions of self
protection, why would that be wrong? While I do not like what Funakoshi did,
(mostly because of ignorance on my part), I support his changes.

Regarding the book, I did not like it. It was very childish in it's presentation.
It sounded more like a Shotokan propaganda device. I also disagree with
some of the conclusions the author made. One thing I do not understand,
he refers to Itosu no Passai as Matsumura no Passai. This throws up a
red flag that maybe he did not do his homework. IMO. If I got this wrong,
please correct me.

Peace

P.S. Here is a discussion on the Pinans from another forum.
The kata by Mr. Urena is how I do it.

http://www.budoseek.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=18907&highlight=pinan

Trevor Johnson
7th July 2007, 21:00
I should probably buy: "Shotokan a precise history" I think this answers some of these questions but it's not in stock anywhere.


Yes you should. There's an expanded 2nd edition coming out soon. Race ya!

bartfast
9th July 2007, 17:51
Just a question. Is there proof of Itosu teaching bunkai? Is his bunkai preserved/ still taught and if so in what styles?


I don't know of any direct record of anything Itosu did, but Funakoshi does mention some bunkai in Karate jutsu while describing the kata. Taking pinan shodan (which is still what he called what would later be heian nidan) for instance (and I don't have the book in front of me right now, so its by memory..) he says of the opening movements that you are blocking a strike to the face with a left hand middle block, while simultaneously preparing a counter strike with your right arm above your head. the next technique is a punch with your right hand, while your left hand chambers. the bottom fist strike is to catch the opponent that has been off-balanced by your previous punch and ensure that he falls to the ground. then repeat the mirror of it on the other side.


That is certainly the most simple explanation, and seems to be the one Funakoshi was taught, and then taught himself. It doesn't stand to reason that Itosu (and the others that taught him..) could have given other explanations that Funakoshi later disregarded. So, they either taught the kata using those explanations or, they didn't say anything at all about what the movements were.

I think that the idea of bunkai being so deep and mystical is very recent. I think the masters of Funakoshi's and Itosu's time took it for granted as being obvious in most cases, and possibly put in some movements strictly as exercises, or to look mysterious. No one wants to think that is the case (I certainly don't....) but there are a lot of stories of the old school teachers using their kata demos to sell medicine, or even to get students...what better way than with esoteric movements...

However, that said, people have been mentioning that the idea of preserving kata is new, and that it was very common to change them from master to master... that is true, and we have seen it in certain ways, but I think there was always a sense of importance about preserving kata. I recently read a translation of one of the 20 precepts of Funakoshi and it was: "perform kata exactly-actual fighting is another matter"... something like that.

Brian Griffin
10th July 2007, 07:27
With regards to Shotokan, could it be that after WWII they made changes to hide some techniques from the Military board that was convened to decide whether or not to allow martial arts to be allowed back into practice? Maybe it was the fear of not being allowed to practice that caused the change in Kata. They could have watered it down to make it look less threatening.
The post-war SCAP ban on the practice of martial arts did not affect karate. It was not considered to be a martial art.

Aikido, however, was included in the ban. Go figure...

Casper Baar
10th July 2007, 19:14
to D. Fiorello:

I was actually more curious for Itosu's bunkai surviving in lines that do not include Funakoshi. This would give a clue as to where certain changes came from. But thank you.


"However, that said, people have been mentioning that the idea of preserving kata is new, and that it was very common to change them from master to master... that is true, and we have seen it in certain ways, but I think there was always a sense of importance about preserving kata. I recently read a translation of one of the 20 precepts of Funakoshi and it was: "perform kata exactly-actual fighting is another matter"... something like that."

Could also mean use exact movements during kata... does not necessarily have to mean perform the kata exactly as you were taught.

Many of the old teachers had more than one teacher. So from his second teacher the student learned different versions of the same kata and new kata that the first teacher didn't teach.
I think the whole idea of a ryu with a set curriculum (or slowly changing) is modern for many Okinawan karate lineages.

Trevor Johnson
10th July 2007, 19:38
I think the whole idea of a ryu with a set curriculum (or slowly changing) is modern for many Okinawan karate lineages.

That's been my impression as well, from everything I've learned. Kata didn't get really set in stone until very recently. And even among modern schools, kata are more variable in some than others. Eizo Shimabukuro, for example, apparently is very strict on kata being performed exactly as they were taught.

bartfast
10th July 2007, 20:32
Many of the old teachers had more than one teacher. So from his second teacher the student learned different versions of the same kata and new kata that the first teacher didn't teach.



It is certainly true that they had more than one teacher... but let me ask you this... is it true that they learned the same kata multiple times? It seems to me, that when I think about it, you usually read something like: "johnny karate learned pinan from Albert kenpo, and learned sanchin from Sammy sumo..." etc.
If we remember that it was most common that a master would only know two or three kata in most cases, it seems odd that you would encounter masters in different areas that practiced the same kata...

Also, what effect do you guys think the introduction of the pinan into the school systems play on its development and propagation... It is safe to assume, probably, that most Okinawan styles have the pinan in them if for no other reason because a lot of practitioners of the time learned them in school as well as from private teachers... I would imagine this would have helped to solidify the pinan and keep them fairly standardized. And I would say...the pinan are *mostly* the same in most styles..definitely if you are a practitioner of an Okinawan style you will recognize the pinan of another style (certain variations of course..). However, I feel the Heian are just drastically removed from the Pinan...

Are we to think this is because someone taught them to Funakoshi that way? Or that Funakoshi himself changed them? When did he do so? Did he ever teach them with cat stances, or always back stance (for example)?

Is anyone aware of an Okinawan style that has the Pinan as performed in Shotokan?

Trevor Johnson
10th July 2007, 21:41
Are we to think this is because someone taught them to Funakoshi that way? Or that Funakoshi himself changed them? When did he do so? Did he ever teach them with cat stances, or always back stance (for example)?

Is anyone aware of an Okinawan style that has the Pinan as performed in Shotokan?

Cat stance, or a shorter version of a back stance is what I've seen. I think most of the real lengthening of the stances was for the university clubs, who wanted more athleticism.

Geoff
10th July 2007, 23:31
I believe that Funakoshi and his followers changed their karate in Japan in the 1930s through the early 1950s. However, I am not saying that the changes were made thoughtlessly. In fact, Funakoshi Gigo and Egami were atempting to do something different with their karate than had been done on Okinawa. Later Shotokan masters like Nakayama and Kanzawa continued this trend. Shotokan people recognize that there are now clear differences between the Nakayam lineage (now supported by the re-united JKA), the Kanazawa lineage and there is even more diversification among those small outlying groups that never joined the JKA in the first place (Yes, there is non-JKA Shotokan!).

As far as Shotokan-type karate on Okinawa I would point to Graham Noble's interview with karate senior Dan Smith in Classical Fighting Arts issue #5 in which Smith states, "I went in to watch the [Seibukan - Shorin ryu] training and sure enough it was very close to the Shotokan training I was used to. It appeared to be more the Shotokan of Oshima Sensei that I had seen when attending the Shotokan tournaments in the mid 1960s in the USA." He went on to say, "As I said, the reason I chose the Seibukan Dojo to train in was that it was the closest karate I could find to Shotokan."

I have also heard that there is a karate style on the southern part of Kyushu (the closest part of "mainland" Japan to Okinawa) that is carried on by the descendants of Funakoshi's teacher Azato, which practices Shotokan-like karate with the addition of close-in fighting drills, different bunkai and Azato-lineage family kata. I wish I knew more about it!

Nyuck3X
10th July 2007, 23:34
Are we to think this is because someone taught them to Funakoshi that way? Or that Funakoshi himself changed them? When did he do so? Did he ever teach them with cat stances, or always back stance (for example)?


If you look at Itosu's other students, Mabuni, Chibana and Kyan for example,
there is a close similarity to their Pinan. I think It would be reasonable to
think that Funakoshi made the changes. You can also see it from the early
publications of Funakoshi to the later ones.

wsteigner
11th July 2007, 00:26
Hi Ray, Don`t think Kyan was a student of Itosu or that he taught the Pinan
kata.He had 4 famous students, Shimabuku Tatsuo Isshinryu, Shimabuku Zenryo, Sukunaihayashi Seibukan, Nagamine Shoshin Matsubayashi-ryu, and Nakazato Joen Shorin-ji, of these 4 only Nagamine Shoshin
had Pinan Kata in his Dojo which most likely came from one of his other teachers. Shimabuku Zenryo had his good friend Nakama Chozo teach the
Pinan Kata to his son Shimabuku Zenpo and they were add to his Seibukan Dojo in the 60`s maybe. Shimabuku Eizo younger brother to Shimabuku Tatsuo also does the Pinan Kata which he may or maynot have gotten from Chibana Choshin.
thank you
bill steigner
Jinbukai

Nyuck3X
11th July 2007, 19:08
Thanks Bill.
You are correct, Kyan worked directly with Matsumura.
I don't know where my head was at. The Nakama/Shimabukuro
connection is the same as I know it. From what I undrstand, he
also learned Passai Gwa from Nakama.

Peace.

Nyuck3X
17th July 2007, 23:06
Just an FYI

I just looked at Nagamine's book" Tales of the Okinawan Masters"
and he states that Kyan did indeed study with Itosu.
First I heard of this. Go figure.

bartfast
25th July 2007, 19:31
I just finished reading Funakoshi's autobiography, and he states that he spent a lot of time making Karate simpler and altering the Kata to make them easier to learn. I suppose that has quite a bit to do with it. Seems the kata became a little more aesthetic and a little less martial... It was interesting to me that he continually called Karate a sport. He definitely began the move from martial art to sport Karate. Where as most Okinawans hold that "no makiwara- no Karate" and "no kumite- no karate" he held.... "eh whatever... if you aren't trying to kill people with it...and you just want to work out, you never have to hit anyone or anything..."

very interesting. He truly was an innovator. many decades before his time.
And gives a little more insight into why the stylistic change at his hands...

john_lord_b3
27th July 2007, 05:11
That's been my impression as well, from everything I've learned. Kata didn't get really set in stone until very recently. And even among modern schools, kata are more variable in some than others..

Here you can find the Wado-ryu version of Pinan.

http://www.art-of-budo.com/karate/EN/media/media_videos.htm

Notice any resemblance to Shorin-ryu and Shotokan?

Wado-AJ
31st July 2007, 10:26
haha,

i really need to capture new footage... its to soft.
except pinan sandan, thats quite new.