PDA

View Full Version : Uechi Ryu, is it Karate?



brendan V Lanza
6th June 2008, 18:28
Hi, I'm a practitioner of Kyokushin Karate and am a lover of the martial way in which I practice, so I enjoy reading about other styles of Karate and I had seen a great video of Uechi Ryu on Youtube and wanted to read about its history. But what I read is that the founder learned a fujian style of kung fu and started teaching it in okinawa and that now it's somehow a style of karate. Is it the same style of kung fu that he learned or is it mixed with karate or did he use traditional okinawan methods of training and then call it karate or what? I don't yet understand how it became karate. I know that all karate has a root in chinese martial arts and kung fu, but it is still different from kung fu in it's present form, even though the same principles are shared. I just am curious about whether or not it actually is karate or kung fu, and if it is karate, how did it make the transition? thanks.

andy.m
7th June 2008, 14:17
Uechi Ryu is Karate. The term Karate[ 唐手]= Chinese hand, which is sometimes translated via Okinawan as 'Tode', or which ever variation of it you've seen.This is the original way of writing Karate. This identifies that the art came from China. In Uechi Ryu's case this was around the time of the first world war. It wasn't until the mid 1930's that the Karate[空手]=Empty hand, version came into use , to deliberately divorce the art from its Chinese origins. -andy

TonyU
7th June 2008, 22:23
Yes it's karate. Just any other MA that evolved and came out of Okinawa.

brendan V Lanza
8th June 2008, 12:19
So what you're saying is that it mixed with karate at one point and they finally called it karate?

dsomers
8th June 2008, 13:10
It's Karate, just like Goju is Karate, that was one of the styles that made up your style of Kyokushin. A man by the name of Ryu Ryu Ko, taught Kanryo Higashionna Whooping Crane, who taught Miyagi Chojun Sensei, and it was called Goju Ryu by Miyagi Sensei.
Uechi trained kingai Noon, & brought it back to Okinawa, & taught it as Uechi Ryu Karate.
Shorin Ryu is also based on crane. All Okinawan Karate is based upon some type of Chinese Martial Art.
When it came to Okinawa, it was called Naha Te, Shuri Te, & Tomari Te, because of the area's it was taught at.
Later they began naming styles. Shuri Te & Tomari Te became what is known today as Shorin Ryu. The methods taught by Uechi, & kanryo Higashionna (Who taught Miyagi), were called Naha Te. Now, they have their own style names of Uechi Ryu, & Goju Ryu.
I hope this helps.

TonyU
8th June 2008, 15:18
I think you're trying to make this more complicated than what it is. No matter where the art originated from, it evolved from there in Okinawan thus making it karate.
All the arts in Okinawa in its infancy evolved either by the practitioners influences or other outside influences.
Some have closer resemblance to their origins than others, but it's still karate.

brendan V Lanza
18th June 2008, 06:01
Actually, let's not over simplify this either, besides making it more complicated. Just because it was taught in okinawa doesn't mean that it evolved in Okinawa, and goju ryu is not a pure chinese martial art. Naha te predates goju ryu, which is mixed with naha te. All Karate forms were derived not only from chinese martials arts, that's just part of it, they also implemented the local okinawan disciplines. They were mixed with chinese kungfu, which the martial artist came over from China during cultural exchanges and business deals. They were combined, the okinawan fighting methods and the chinese martial arts, and okinawan traditional training methods were used as well, to make what is known today as Karate. Orignally called Tode, which was chinese hand, translated, but that was because the chinese provided the first fixed system for them to base the rest of their art upon. Shuri te had the local fighting methods of shuri mixed in it, naha te had the local fighting methods of naha in it, and tomari te had the fighting methods of tomari in it. Secrets of breathing, deeper stances, and breaking techniques were taught and the forms were also modified, and techniques were added, along with the Tenshin method, which is a coveted okinawan secret. Shuri te had the most kung fu influence, tomari te had the most okinawan influence, some of the versions being almost purely okinawan, and naha te was very balanced between the two. It is not purely chinese, and if you see them next to the chinese martial arts from whence they originated you will find that they are different, while they hold the same base. If the country where the martial art was taught was the only difference then they wouldn't call it by a different name, now would they? That would be ridiculous, like wing chun taught in america isn't wing chun because americans are learning it? that makes no sense. So, basically if the fujian crane kung fu that uechi learned wasn't modifed in the same way as the others then it is his style of kung fu and not karate, just like bruce lee made jun fan, his style of wing chun. It is not a completely different martial art because he taught it in America. So, this might change one's view. I have never heard of uechi ryu being called naha te, does it emphasize breathing?

JS3
18th June 2008, 12:07
I have never heard of uechi ryu being called naha te, does it emphasize breathing?

Actually, not that I agree, in most books on the subject Uechi Ryu is clasified under Naha te along with Goju Ryu.

ZachZinn
19th June 2008, 00:35
never heard of uechi ryu being called naha te, does it emphasize breathing?

Uechi Sanchin seems to have much "lighter" breathing than Goju versions generally. If people call it Karate it's Karate, sorry but that's pretty much it, most Uechi ryu people call what they do a form of Karate, so there ya go.

Other than that the question is kind of a semantic one, I suppose you could call it something else, but why bother?

brendan V Lanza
19th June 2008, 05:14
You know that back in the day they used to call every kind of martial arts in the US Karate, muay thai, kick boxing, they even called tae kwon do korean karate, but that doesn't make them karate. We are beyond the time where the mystery of martial arts has befuddled us. Americans are now well aware of what the asian martial arts are and no longer content to label some thing a generic label. Muay thai is not karate, neither is judo or any other martial art except karate. Every expert who knows the kinds of techniques found, the kinds of experts who live the martial way or observe tournaments for a living, or just plain love watching martial arts know the difference between them. I don't think that because somebody calls something by a name mistakenly that we should all follow that. Call me stubborn, strict, or strange, but I feel that I haemore respect for the art that I practice and understand the meaning behind its history and name. I have nothing against uechi ryu and if it is truly combined with the techniques mentioned then it is karate, if not, then it has been mis named by history, which is fine with me, it has just as much meaning to the practitioners as every other way of life. But I do not like it when people disrespect a style or art by giving it a generic "who cares" and it is all just karate because everybody says so. I find it to not be in sync with what budo requires from an individual's mind. They all called the earth flat, too, you know.

Joseph Svinth
19th June 2008, 08:02
Uechi Ryu, by its own history (and the internal evidence of its own texts) is an Okinawan version of late 19th/early 20th century Southern Shaolin. A reasonably generic Fujianese system with a lot of secret society stuff thrown in, if you want to be exact.

Anyway, the Ryukyuan name for Southern Shaolin (in general) is Shorin-ryu. Why? Pronounce an "L" sound with a Japanese accent, and see what you get. Hence, the name for the Ryukyus, which in Chinese is Loo Choo.

Meanwhile, during the 18th and 19th centuries, the Ryukyuan name for Chinese martial arts in general was Tang hands, where the character for Tang referred to an old Chinese dynasty and the character te meant "hands." However, the kanji for Tang hands could be (and usually was) pronounced "kara te".

About 1905, alternative kanji, also pronounced "kara te", were introduced in Okinawa. The alternative replaced the kanji meaning "China" with kanji meaning "empty." Reasons included Japanes nationalism -- the Japanese of those days weren't too impressed with the Chinese. But, at the same time, the name also emphasized character development, unarmed fighting, and so on. Funakoshi went on for several pages in his books on why this came about.

All of which is a very long way of saying that Uechi Ryu is karate, because karate is the Ryukyuan word for any Okinawan striking system that has roots in Fujianese Southern Shaolin.

As for Korean karate, well, that's Tang Soo Do. Same kanji as Tang hands/kara te, only this time using a Korean rather than Ryukyuan pronunciation. From a technical standpoint, Tang Soo Do is essentially Japanese university and South Manchurian Railways karate of the 1930s, as modified by the Koreans for their own purposes during the 1940s and 1950s.

During the 1960s, Tang Soo Do was probably the most common Korean style in the USA. Why? Well, it was the system taught at a major USAF base in Korea, and as such, it got lots of American students (to include Chuck Norris), who in turn brought it back to the USA. In addition, it was one of the most popular styles in New York City.

What happened? In 1967, US immigration laws changed so that Asians could come to the USA at the rate of 20,000 per year per country rather than the old 80 per year per country. Voila! Taekwondo, which by then had become the official martial art of the Korean government, began to spread into the USA. At the same time, guys of Chuck Norris's generation were beginning to retire from martial arts, and their replacements were often guys who had learned taekwondo instead. Nonetheless, depending on which system you're talking about, "Korean karate" may be a very accurate description of what you're seeing.

brendan V Lanza
19th June 2008, 15:37
Very interesting Joe, I did not actually know that bit about the tang soo do, but it makes sense considering that it was no too long after the Japanese had left Japan and the US were the occupying forces. My wife is Korean and my daughter, who is coming next month, will be too, half anyway. I live in Korea and speak the basics of the language as well. My teacher is a Korean who studied in Japan, a direct student of Royama kancho (chairman) of the Kyokushin Kan association. Many of Oyama Masutatsu's closest friends and students were Koreans living in Japan at the time (including Oyama himself), My teacher also was a student of Oyama Masutatsu directly depending on the training day. My dojo is one of the last remnants of karate here, it is all tae kwon do almost. I haven't even seen Tang Soo Do here, although I'm sure it's here somewhere. It's all Olympic Tae Kwon Do, though, almost impossible to find Martial Tae Kwon Do, I hear you need to go to North Korea or the States in order to find it now. So, that is a very interesting piece of History for me.

You have convinced of the authencity of Uechi Ryu, using facts, culture, and History, and you did it marvelously, I really appreciate it, Joe. Thank you for not pulling the whole, "Who cares" with me. Do you have any more info on the secret sociecy background of Uechi Ryu that you mentioned? I would really like to know more.

Joseph Svinth
20th June 2008, 02:47
By "secret society", I meant fraternal organizations that served the same purpose in China as the Masons, Elks, Moose, Redmen, Skull and Bones, and so on did (or do) in the USA. Not everybody gets asked to join these organizations, and even if you do get asked, then there are initiation rites, arcane rituals, and funny costumes to master. Moreover, even once in The Group, it turns out that not everyone gets full access to the Inner Sanctum. Sound familiar? Sure it does; lots of martial arts organizations are still organized this way.

***

For an introduction to Chinese training manuals, try Brian Kennedy and Elizabeth Guo, "Chinese Martial Arts Training Manuals" (North Atlantic, 2005).

For the development of Okinawan karate, try Mark Bishop, "Okinawan Karate: Teachers, Styles, and Secret Techniques" (A. & C. Black, 1989).

Finally, for a discussion of how taekwondo evolved from karate, see Eric Madis's essay in Green and Svinth, "Martial Arts in the Modern World" (Praeger, 2003).

brendan V Lanza
20th June 2008, 06:41
Yes, I know about how Tae Kwon Do evolved from Karate, you can find the info here in Korea, the Tang Soo Do was news to me, though. I had read a wikipedia article that said that Tang Soo Do was basically the same as Tae Kwon Do, but Hong Man Hi registered Tae Kwon Do first, and that Tang Soo Do came about from a contestor, but your explanation sounds a lot more reasonable. Very interesting. You know that most Koreans don't even know this here, everybody thinks that Tae Kwon Do was a martial Art o its own that has been around since before the Japanese came here. This is mostly because of patriotic propaganda spread by word of mouth here, they are very upset about the Japanese occupation and the abuse they and their culture took from it. But Historically it is known by those who studied it, that it came from the karate that was taught here. It was forbidden to teach or practice korean martial arts and to speak the korean language in public. So they had to learn the japanese martial arts, and thus created their own from them. Karate became Tng Soo Do and Tae Kwon Do, while Aikido became Hapkido, and Kendo became Kumdo. Judo is the only japanese martial art that retins its name and wasn't modified in technique to become Koreanized. The only true korean martial arts that survived were Kuk Sool Won, Taekyon, Sireum, Subak (but it is rumored to exist in North Korea, we don't have it in the South) and Te Kung Woo Sool. The other books you mentioned are great and I definately want to check them out. Thanks alot, Joe. I had heard before that there were a few groups, however, that were some Asian Martial secret societies where you had to be asked in order to join and then they would have you do something for them and then once that was completed, initiate you. As to the way so many martial art organizations work, you are right, they do work like secret societies. However, do know of any specific secret societies, like the ones I spoke of, historically?

anewsome
20th June 2008, 13:34
This is an interesting technique, can you talk more about the history of
this technique?

Mark Murray
20th June 2008, 15:42
This is an interesting technique, can you talk more about the history of
this technique?

Hello Aaron,
E-Budo rules state that you have to put your full name in each post. You can modify your sig to have this done automatically.

Thanks,
Mark

John Connolly
20th June 2008, 19:17
Hi Brendan,

Kuk sool (won) is a new MA, with roots in Hapkido and Southern Praying Mantis. For more info on esoteric Korean martial arts, go to http://www.hapkidoforum.com

Tae Kwon Do is often discussed as a derivative of Shotokan, even using many of the same kata (hyung or poomse in Korean).

Joseph Svinth
20th June 2008, 20:33
Triads and tongs are examples of South Chinese secret societies. Some of these societies were essentially mafia (e.g., the Green Gang in Shanghai), but others were essentially benevolent organizations. For a discussion of this in the USA, see Brian Paciotti, "Homicide in Seattle's Chinatown, 1900-1940: Evaluating the Influence of Social Organizations," _Homicide Studies_ (2005), 9: 229-255. http://hsx.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/9/3/229 . The original is pay-per-view, but the draft can be read via PDF download from Paciotti's home page.

ZachZinn
21st June 2008, 03:32
This is an interesting technique, can you talk more about the history of
this technique?

Mods: this guy is spamming MA boards with these generic posts, not sure why but he's doing at fightingarts.com as well. Just a heads up.

Joseph Svinth
21st June 2008, 19:46
The previous link talked about Chinese gangster societies. For an introduction to a Chinese benevolent society in North America, see
http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/history/chinese_freemasons/index.html .

What's interesting about this article is its discussion of the Hong Leagues, the Southern Shaolin Temple, and so on. That the traditional lodge stories almost exactly mirror what Sifu Sez about the origins of Southern Shaolin boxing indicates that many, perhaps most, early teachers of CMA in North America were members of benevolent societies such as the ones described here. (If they hadn't been, then Sifu would have had different stories.)

Brian Owens
22nd June 2008, 09:51
...just like bruce lee made jun fan, his style of wing chun. It is not a completely different martial art because he taught it in America.
No, it's not a completely different art because he taught it in America; it's a significantly different art because it combines elements of Wing Chun with elements of other Gung Fu systems, Western-style boxing, Ryukyu Kempo, and whatever else works with efficiency. Wing Chun was just one foundational art -- among many -- that went into Jun Fan Gung Fu.

Jun Fan Gung Fu is not a "style" of Wing Chun.

Sorry for the thread drift, but I feel that the distinction is important.

Victor Smith
22nd June 2008, 21:17
Wikipedia articles do not mean they are ever correct or accurate as anyone can enter material. Just reading this morning how Universities are banning its use by studetns because they have too many failing tests after using Wikipedia as a source.

Tang Soo Do Moo Duk Kwan contained the same forms as Shotokan taught in roughly the same order and having the same names, just Korean pronunciations. Hwrang Kee apparently sourced Shotokan for the system's development, perhaps with the inclusion of Korean style kicking.
I had the misfortune of explaining this in a letter to Black Belt in 79 and two months later had ever letter in the magazine (then published by a Korean publisher) denouncing my existence for explaining this (and today the TSD people write the same articles). (Which got me great favor in some circles and perhaps great dis-favor in others, as I didn't care any way no small loss to me).

Of course I was unaware how any Korean had no reason to admit any ties to Japan after the totally brutal way Japan treated Korean for half a century. Makes me wonder what would be left today if South Korea had developed the atomic bomb perhaps?

Frankly the core of this is arts are what they are, not where they came from, which is just an intellectual exercise.

Uechi Ryu was originally taught in the Okinawan community within Japan proper and was not imported to Okinawa till 1948. On the other hand Mr. Uechi was Okinawan even if he originally trained in China.

I've had students with Uechi backgrounds and I tend to take very seriously people who train that intense and want to insert their finger tips, thumbs and toe tips into my body, and work hard not to let that occur.

History is interesting, whenever we can prove any of it, but in the end it's what they do on the dojo floor today which is more important, IMVHO.

brendan V Lanza
23rd June 2008, 05:49
First, sorry it took me so long to reply, had trouble getting to an ineternet connection that worked for more than a couple of minutes these past few days.

To John Connely, If you go to the homepage of Kuk Sool Won you will learn that it was formally created into a martial art by the grand master kim inhyuk and he founded it more recently, however he claims (and he is supported by the korean government, actually kuk sool won is the official martial art of korea while tae kwon do is the official sport of korea) that his family were the instructors to the korean royal family, before their queen was murdered by the japanese and they were taken over by them. When the Japanese came they burned korea's historical libraries, sources of their martial art traditions. They then placed three or four foot long nails, about half a foot around, into the mountain tops in korea in order to stop the ki from flowing from the mountains, traditionally believed to be a source of ki, to the korean people. Today they have removed about 70 % of these nails, but still some remain. Grand master in hyuck claims that his art, kuk sool won, is a combination of traditional tribal martial arts of korea, Korean buddist temple arts, as well as the fighting style of the Korean courts. There is no mention of hapkido, however. I guess it goes to trust in the creator and the historical verification from the Korean government, using what information they had about his family's istory and what texts remained, of which i don't know how much did, the japanese were very thorough in their work.

I said it was his style of wing chun, not a style of wing chun, he mixed it with other elements but it was his own style of which wingchun made up the bulk. that's why he called it jun fan gung fu, bruce's kung fu.
I am sorry if it offended you or your style.


To Joeseph Svinth, thanks man, I actually didn't know that the Yukon site was back up and running, it was having some problems before. I am actually a Freemason and so are many of my family members and I wasn't aware of the Hongmen's connection. I had heard of them before, but never made the distinction, I thought that they were a mainly criminal group or policitcal society, but I should have known to look on the Yukon site. Very interesting stuff. Thanks once again, man.:)

To John, Yes you are right an art is an art and it's origen is not important, a point that i was trying to make in terms what i was saying before about where it is taught doesn't change its name. The techniques are important in categorizing a martial art, however, otherwise we'd just call all martial arts fighting. But yes, you're right, philosophically and a definate good point to make.;)

brendan V Lanza
23rd June 2008, 05:53
Sorry, I forgot to mention that the post about the wing chun was for brian owens, not to john conely.:cool:

brendan V Lanza
23rd June 2008, 05:58
Victor smith, the second reply was to you, not john, about the names and origens, sorry im at work and i got confused with the names. I apologize, man.:nw:

Brian Owens
23rd June 2008, 08:00
...I said it was his style of wing chun, not a style of wing chun...
Yes, that's what you said, and it's incorrect.

It was Bruce's style of Gung Fu; but it was not "his style of Wing Chun."

Whether you say "his style of Wing Chun" or "a style of Wing Chun" you're still saying the same thing -- that it's a system within the system of Wing Chun. That's simply not true.

brendan V Lanza
23rd June 2008, 08:13
I don't want to offend you, how would you like to define it, Brian? I am not a practitioner of chinese martial arts and am afraid that I am not very knowledgeable about Bruce Lee's arts.:(

ZachZinn
23rd June 2008, 08:34
I don't want to offend you, how would you like to define it, Brian? I am not a practitioner of chinese martial arts and am afraid that I am not very knowledgeable about Bruce Lee's arts.:(

All he is saying is that Jun Fan Gungfu isn't a subset of Wing Chun, which is pretty much true as far as I know. Didn't Lee synthesize alot of stuff (western boxing, Filipino arts etc.) outside of Wing Chun to form Jun Fan?

Anyway I don't think you're offending anyone's style, but rather someone is pointing out factual errors in your argument.

I got your point and all but perhaps it was just a poor analogy to use Jun Fan.

Anyway I'm gonna reverse the course of things a bit and ask why Uechi Ryu wouldn't be Karate.

Why wouldn't it be? I think it's questionable to say there are definitive black and white characteristics distinguishing different TMA when you get to the heart of it, so political squabbling aside, as long as it isn't couched in some ridiculous origin story or fake history, i'm personally willing to let people call their art what they want to, Uechi-Ryu included.

If some feel that it's more appropriate to call it "second generation" whatever, that's ok too.

brendan V Lanza
23rd June 2008, 09:30
See, all the sources that I had read about Uechi ryu described the founder as learning fujian crane and then teaching his own version, slightly modified in stance and application, but he was an okinawan and he taught it in Okinawa. Shotokan is japanese, not okinawan, but it is still karate because of the kinds of techniques used in it and the principles, not only that it was based on a chinese martial art and the people added a gi and belt system to it, that's not what karate is. I can consider Ed Parker's Karate karate even though it was not invented in okinawa, the location doesn't make the martial art. By the way I just picked Ed parker's kempo karate out of the air, and have never seen it before, so if it is actually not a real karate style but something else, excuse me, I have never seen its techniques in person. So, that said, it is not okinawa that makes karate, it's the kinds of techniques along with the cultural background used. Karate is rooted in fujian chinese martiaal arts, it was then mixed with both okinawan traditional training methods and okinawan local martial arts disciplines of the time, they did have their own fightin methods, too you know. If a chinese martial art was all that was needed to make karate then all karate would be kung fu, or vice versa. Neither statement is true, however. Now, what I was asking before involved the fact that I had never seen any other element of another influence in the sources written about uechi ryu besides the fact that he himself made very small changes to it. Which, if that was all there was to it, would mean that it was actually kung fu taught locally in okinawa, using the japanese gi. Which makes it kung fu and not karate. However, if there were other influences, then it could be karate, and that was what I wanted to know. I remember that I read somewhere that there was a similar controversy about it by other karate organizations somewhere a while ago, but the source at the moment has failed to return to me. I would have inserted it by now if it had. Anway, that is why I had said that it might not be karate.

Brian Owens
23rd June 2008, 11:40
...I am not a practitioner of chinese martial arts and am afraid that I am not very knowledgeable about Bruce Lee's arts.

...By the way I just picked Ed parker's kempo karate out of the air, and have never seen it before, so if it is actually not a real karate style but something else, excuse me, I have never seen its techniques in person. ...
If I might be so bold; it would probably be better to make your point(s) by arguing from that which you know, rather than that which you do not. It keeps things clear and reduces unwanted tangents.

(By coincidence, you picked two arts that I have briefly been involved with. What'r the odds?)

brendan V Lanza
23rd June 2008, 14:34
Considering you have experience in this area, please tell me if ed parker's karate is a legitimate karate style, then? I interjected it because I always assumed so, but you pointed out that i made a mistake with bruce lee's art so i mentioned that i have never seen ed parker's karate in person so i could be politically correct. Neither of the arts were the focus of my discusssion however. The point of what I was saying is about the categorization of martial arts and what karate actually is. Since you seem so upset about it, please verify that i am correct about ed parker's karate, as you so eloquently put it you have had experience with it.:D

ZachZinn
23rd June 2008, 21:10
Ok, so what do you think it is about Uechi Ryu that makes it not Karate? Obviously Chinese styles and Karate share alot of principles and techniques, so what makes Uechi Ryu more kungfu than say Goju or Shorin ryu?

Is it just the amount it has allegedly been altered from the source that makes a style what it is?

brendan V Lanza
24th June 2008, 03:53
Yes, my original thinking was that if it is a style of kung fu and it really hasn't been altered, then it is kung fu. Other styles of karate have been mixed with okinawan tradition, training methods, and their own fighting methods, developing to their own way in their stances and techniques, which were altered to the basis of understanding used there. There is emphasis on deep breathing in naha te (modernly Goju Ryu), which supposedly Uechi ryu is listed under, yet it doesn't emphasize this. It has light breathing, but I don't think that they practice it in the same way as in Goju ryu. In Goju Ryu they will have classes where practitioners do a special kind of breathing supposed to enhace your ki, this can last for long periods of time in their practice. If I teach western boxing in china it doesn't make it kung fu, however if I combine it with kicking and wresting I can call it shootfighting. So, If Uechi Ryu was just kung fu taught in okinawa, not modified as the others were, it is still kung fu. Unless you are of the belief that all karate is just kung fu, which so many argue that all martial arts come from kung fu, which has been a point of argument for dynaties. Let's not argue that point, though, it will be one that has no bearing here and will never finish.

ZachZinn
24th June 2008, 05:59
Hmm, I personally doubt that Uechi Ryu is so unchanged as all that, I don't know though as I don't train it.

Anyone have opinions on how similar it is to whatever it came from, anyone truly in the know on this?

Anyway, the arguments about ibuki style breathing aren't persuasive, hard style breathing methods aren't unknown to Chinese MA in the least. You could argue that the hard style Ibuki used in Goju is uniquely Okinawan i don't know, but it seems like a semantic argument.

Basically I still don't see any persuasive evidence that Uechi should not be called Karate, whether it was changed less or not is really a moot point, martial arts are changing all the time, if this is what you base their naming on then no one has a right to claim [i]any[/i[ lineage to a style.

I'm willing to bet that Uechi like every other style underwent at lesat some change in content and training methods from it's Chinese predecssors, who in turn probably went through plenty of changes from their parent styles and so on.

Until pretty recently people didn't call their styles Karate or Kungfu anyway.

brendan V Lanza
24th June 2008, 06:20
The methods of breathing in okinawa are different, in my understanding, from those in mainland china, although this point is of course arguable. The okinawan techniques inserted into karate are the difference mainly between karate and kung fu. However, maybe you're right about one thing and we're asking the wrong questions here. Maybae we should be asking, "how is uechi ryu different from Pangai Noon kung Fu?" Does anybody here practice Pangai Noon or have they seen it in action?

Brian Owens
24th June 2008, 07:29
...please tell me if ed parker's karate is a legitimate karate style, then? ...The point of what I was saying is about the categorization of martial arts and what karate actually is. Since you seem so upset about it, please verify that i am correct about ed parker's karate...
First, I'm not upset at all. I wonder what gave you that impression. You've asked for information and opinions, and we're providing it.

Okay; what about Ed Parker's Kempo -- is it Karatedo?

Ed Parker's first book was titled Secrets of Chinese Karate, and he adopted a Karate-style dogi (although in black, not white) and a Karate-style belt ranking system, so maybe he thought of it as a style of Karatedo rather than Chuan Fa.

It seems to meet your definition of Karate: "it is not okinawa that makes karate, it's the kinds of techniques..."

However, to me, it is Okinawa that makes something Karatedo.

Technique-wise, many external Chinese styles and most Korean styles are very similar to Karatedo, and yet I wouldn't call them such because of what they do not have in common: as you said, "the cultural background used."

Regardless of the foundational origins of an art, to me it's the culture in which an art was formalized, codified, and nurtured through a growing student body that determines what it is.

Thus, to me, Ed Parker's Kempo is Ed Parker's Kempo and nothing more or less. It's an ecclectic American martial art.

Jun Fan Gun Fu / Jeet Kun Do is Gung Fu, albeit an ecclectic form, because of its firm foundation in Chinese martial arts and philosophy.

Shotokan is Karatedo because it came to Japan from Okinawa. (Incidentally, Funakoshi considered Shotokan (Shoto's Hall) to be a place, not a style.)

Shito Ryu, Goju Ryu, Wado Ryu, etc. are Karatedo, because their lineages lead to Okinawan teachers as the wellsprings.

So...

To me, it's not just technique that matters, but culture, language, pedagogical approach, etc.

By those standards, Uechi Ryu is Karatedo.

(But please, don't ask me about Ron Van Clief's Chinese Goju. That one makes my head hurt.)

TonyU
24th June 2008, 13:20
Mr. Owens,
Nice job. Best explanation yet.

brendan V Lanza
25th June 2008, 05:10
"To me, it's not just technique that matters, but culture, language, pedagogical approach, etc."

I wholeheartedly agree with you, Mr. Owens, you are absolutely right. You have me 100% convinced on this point. Your explanation has definately been the best so far. However, under this logic Uechi ryu has an okinawa teacher, so it probably has some okinawan culture, but we still don't know if the technique conforms to the other forms of karate i any way. I have never seen pangai noon nor have any idea of whether or not uechi has changed or if it is just pangai noon with okinawan culture. So, still under this definition, it might not be karate. we know it has the culture, but not the technique. I can teach sumo in okinawa as well, but it wouldn't be karate.

drosera99
25th June 2008, 06:18
Hmm, I personally doubt that Uechi Ryu is so unchanged as all that, I don't know though as I don't train it.

Anyone have opinions on how similar it is to whatever it came from, anyone truly in the know on this?

I study Uechi-ryu and while I'm no expert on Southern Shaolin, I can tell you that Uechi-ryu looks much more like Goju then Fujian White Crane or Hung Gar, both Shaolin styles that would/could have been similar to the style Kanbun Uechi originally learned in Fujian.

As you know, Kanbun Uechi studied a style of Gung Fu called Pangainoon from a martial artist known as "Shashiwa" in Japanese but who's name is probably Chou Tsu Ho. Shashiwa's style was said to be a combination of Tiger, Crane, and Dragon styles. While no one has ever found a practitioner of Pangainoon Gung Fu in China, it is quite possible that the art died out, that it was absorbed, or that the right people simply haven't been found. As someone else mentioned earlier, many of the Southern styles tend to be rather secretive.

But it is still possible to see the routes of Uechi-ryu (and most every other style of karate) in Southern Gung Fu, especially in certain Tiger and Crane forms.

Below is a video of a Fujian White Crane form that bears many remarkable resemblances to Sanchin kata, especially the open handed version practiced in Uechi-ryu.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ZtLgfru5PjM

brendan V Lanza
27th June 2008, 05:37
Since you do study Uechi ryu, do you know about any text or source where we could read about the development of the art? I think that that would be instrumental in clearing this up for sure.

brendan V Lanza
27th June 2008, 05:47
Have you seen other styles in tournament? I'm curious to know how different they are, if they are very similar in their application it will be very good evidence that the style did change quite a bit. I heard that there are alot of animal movements in uechi that are commonly found in kung fu that are not as apparent in the othe styles of karate, like the dragon.

drosera99
27th June 2008, 19:10
Since you do study Uechi ryu, do you know about any text or source where we could read about the development of the art? I think that that would be instrumental in clearing this up for sure.

There are two books George Mattson wrote but I think they are both out of print. The first one is more about the tradition and history. That's also the one I don't have, sadly. The one your looking for is called, The Way of Karate.

Then there's the Uechi-ryu Kyohon that Kanei Uechi wrote. But that's only printed in Japanese (which I don't speak) and costs some $2000 dollars on Ebay.


Have you seen other styles in tournament?

Yes, through tournaments (although I really don't do that anymore), demonstrations, and videos.


I'm curious to know how different they are, if they are very similar in their application it will be very good evidence that the style did change quite a bit.

There are quite a few differences. To me, Goju actually uses footwork that looks more like Gong Fu then does Uechi. There are also differences in upper body movements. Uechi-ryu is unique in that everything works out of Sanchin. Kanei Uechi used to say that everything in Uechi-ryu is an extension of Sanchin kata. So, in Uechi-ryu the techniques are often similar with very little use of hip rotation and a focus on sanchin body positioning. This means the arms are almost always in a position that is derived in some way from the arm position in Sanchin. While Goju-ryu does this to, it is, in my view, done to a far greater extent in Uechi-ryu.


I heard that there are alot of animal movements in uechi that are commonly found in kung fu that are not as apparent in the othe styles of karate, like the dragon.

This is true. Pangainoon, the Gong Fu that Kanbun Uechi learned in China, was a small style derived from Shaolin tiger, crane, and dragon styles. Uechi-ryu is fairly unique among the traditional schools of Okinawan Karate because of its use of dragons style techniques. Most Karate is a combination of tiger and crane techniques.

If you have the opportunity and are interested, Uechi-ryu's Seichin and Seirui kata have an emphasis on dragon style techniques. Both of these kata can be viewed on YouTube.

Here is a video of Seirui kata:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=8JgzoSuk0Jk

Watch for the four consecutive dragon techniques starting roughly ten seconds in.

brendan V Lanza
28th June 2008, 15:46
That helps a lot, actually, thank you, Drosera. So, it is similar in some ways, but different in others. I guess finding kanbun uechi's original writings on the subject is increably expensive. I am very recently, through videos on youtube, finding how much my own style of karate is rooted in kung fu, actually. I had always set them apart, especially because of how thay always make them fly in the movies and perform positions that are very far removed from the horse stance practiced in many karate dojos. But I have been watching real kung fu recently, not theatrical kung fu. There was a moment reminiscent of the matrix when keanu reeves looked up for a moment and said, "I know Kung Fu." I saw Forbidden kingdom today and noticed some quite similar basics, including the horse stance. I can see how one might argue how Karate is simply Okinawan Kung Fu, with an okinawan twist in technique and with an Okinawan Budo culture. Under such a definition, I would most wholeheartedly agree that Uechi Ryu is Karate, which is a form of Kung Fu as well (Karate, that is, not specifically only Uechi Ryu). So, I concede:smilejapa

dingodog1
28th June 2008, 16:34
Mods: this guy is spamming MA boards with these generic posts, not sure why but he's doing at fightingarts.com as well. Just a heads up.

He'll probably come back and edit the posts with some outrageous or illegal on these forums, info.

Unless, he's banned of course.

glad2bhere
28th June 2008, 19:17
I don't know if this will help or hurt..... I just throw it out FWIW.

Many years back I had a brush with UECHI-RYU out in Boston and found the art to be challenging and rewarding, though not altogether what I was looking for at the time. I'll leave that for a different thread.

I mention this only because, at that time (circa 1977) there were two very different views in the community. One view was that people were practicing UECHI-RYU Karate and looked to UECHI Kanai as the head of their art. If I recall there were only three kata used to embody the curriculum. At about that time or maybe a little before other kata were introduced raising the number to five. The sense that I had was that folks who continued to advocate for only the original three kata viewed themselves as learning the "orthodox" art and tending to invoke more connection with Chinese traditions, using the term "PANGAINOON. I think this was the sort of position I saw reflected in Mattson's later book (see: "Uechi-Ryu Karate-Do"). By comparison, the other group of folks tended to hold with the five forms, and viewed what they practiced as being far more Okinawan. At the time there was considerable press about the KYOKUSHIN Karate people and their full-contact approach and my guess is that this struck a chord with the UECHI-RYU Karate people and their conditioning approaches. I now understand that the UECHI-RYU community has splintered significantly along many lines.

Anyhow. FWIW.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

drosera99
28th June 2008, 22:51
Thanks Bruce.

There are people here who call what they practice Paingainoon Kung Fu and Paingainoon-ryu Karate. But like I said, all of what they've learned is Uechi-ryu and while certain people have tried to "reclaim" the origins of the system by training differently, etc. I don't see any real basis for this to occur as there aren't any real connections with Shushiwa's other students and their descendants (if they still exist) in China.

There were originally only three kata and they are the backbone of the system. Uechi Kanei invented five more, bringing the total to eight, for the purpose of retaining students and introducing the concepts more gradually.

Mattson sensei practices all eight kata and all eight kata are accepted by all of the Uechi-ryu organizations.

brendan V Lanza
29th June 2008, 04:46
So, Uechi Kanbun did add his own katas, and he's okinawan, so that goes to show that there's an extension in the art beyond pangai noon as was my original question, unless the three kata became stretched out into eight, im not sure because you said that he invented five, yet you also said that he wanted to introduce the concepts gradually. Now, my second question would be why would people want to have the three original kata instead of the extra ones? Is the original art of pangainoon lost in China? It wouldn't make sense otherwise. what's going on exactly?

drosera99
29th June 2008, 06:55
So, Uechi Kanbun

It was Kanbun's son, Kanei.


did add his own katas, and he's okinawan, so that goes to show that there's an extension in the art beyond pangai noon as was my original question,

I guess if you want to think about it like that. The other five don't really contain any new techniques.


unless the three kata became stretched out into eight, im not sure because you said that he invented five, yet you also said that he wanted to introduce the concepts gradually.

Right. There's a pretty big gap between the first kata (Sanchin) and the second (Seisan) in terms of the complexity of techniques. So, three kata were created to introduce students to techniques and concepts more slowly and also to hold their attention as they studied.


Now, my second question would be why would people want to have the three original kata instead of the extra ones?

I have no idea. Some of the people who do "pangainoon-ryu", sometimes "shorei ryu" or whatever still practice the five kata invented by Kanei, I believe. I don't really no any of these groups so I don't know why they left Uechi-ryu or what is meant in terms of technique by there attempt to "reclaim the origins" and what not. It's the same stuff as far as I can tell.


Is the original art of pangainoon lost in China? It wouldn't make sense otherwise. what's going on exactly?

It's hard to tell. It's quite possible that the art is dead in China. It's also possible that it's simply quite small and that it simply hasn't been in contact with the Uechi people who've gone to China.

glad2bhere
29th June 2008, 16:19
Applying the module used in Korea, the rule seems to be that once an art has been modified in deference to the needs of the new "host" country, the art shifts from being "owned" by the source country. In the example of Hapkido, there is much controversey over this dynamic. Some people, asserting that they teach what CHOI taught, and Choi taught what TAKEDA taught tend to view Hapkido as "relocated DRAJJ". There have been many long and passionate threads about this. OTOH there are folks who believe that once Choi returned to Korea and started teaching, small but meaningful changes occurred resulting in a shift away---- even if only marginally---- from what CHOI learned in Japan thus making the result "Korean".

My sense is this latter case might be similar to what Uechi did when he brought his material back from China. I don't think he taught for a number of years at first (see: Mattson) so there might have been time to consider how best to represent his material to a non-Chinese population. Thoughts?

Best Wishes,

Bruce

aef
2nd July 2008, 21:34
It's hard to tell. It's quite possible that the art is dead in China. It's also possible that it's simply quite small and that it simply hasn't been in contact with the Uechi people who've gone to China.

That is one plausible way to see it. The second half of the 19th century was a period of civil unrest, civil wars and wars against foreign countries, and there was huge destruction in Fuzhien and a great migration. The Okinawan Uechi ryu, Goju ryu and Ruey ryu would be the descendants of Fuzhien schools that disappeared in those years. There are some testimonies about Miyagi Chojun's visit to Fuzhien in search of Higashionna's sensei and his place of training in China, but they are all second hand testimonies, so many people do not believe them.

Also, Communist government tried to assimilate the old traditional martial arts schools, in order to replace them with his newly created wushu (or "gymnastic kung fu"), so it hasn't been until very recently that any government support has been directed to research old traditional martial arts. The quantity (and quality) of old schools that have disappeared in China in the last 150 years is huge.

glad2bhere
3rd July 2008, 02:27
Somebody correct me if I am wrong but isn't this what happened with two of the best known sets of Karate kata?

I seem to recall that ITOSU was supposed to have used a little known form (CHANNON?) as a resource for developing his PINAN Kata, though the original material may now be lost. In like manner I have also heard that before the PINAN forms, NAIFANCHI was the most fundamental set to be learned (absent SANCHIN), and this kata was drawn from a Chinese form last known to have been practiced on Taiwan just before WW II. It would seem to me then that Okinawan form was a thoughtful evolution of MA with the loss of the precursor material on the mainland. Thoughts?

Best Wishes,

Bruce

andy.m
21st July 2008, 17:27
Just to add something to this debate, about how styles devolpe and change etc. Have a look at this-
http://www.cyberbudo.com/budosai/2007_video.php

click on Highligh part 4
It's a very interesting demo of Sanchin Kata, firstly by two Fuken White crane masters(sorry I don't recall their names). Next Uechi Ryu, by Sensei Guchi , and lastly , Goju Ryu's by Sensei Higaonna.
Andy.:laugh:

DustyMars
21st July 2008, 19:21
Since leaving Okinawa some 46 years ago my “expertise” in karate has diminished a lot so maybe I should not speak about it. I studied Matsubayashi-ryu at Nagamine sensei’s dojo and a brief period of Goju-ryu with Miyazato sensei’s dojo. While traveling around the Rock my friends and I would drop in at other dojo and watch. A most impressive school taught Uechi-ryu and whilst a young, and less smart guy, concluded that it was roughest karate I had ever seen before then or there afterward.

Just recently I came across some videos of Uechi-ryu and have become quite interested in it because of the great technique they exhibit and the obvious usefulness it would be to anyone who studied it. Of course, I am now too old and out of shape to actually practice it, the videos surely entertain me in my imagination (yes, being on the floor again)!!!

Hopfully this is not to far OT. :)

glad2bhere
21st July 2008, 20:07
Just to add something to this debate, about how styles devolpe and change etc. Have a look at this-
http://www.cyberbudo.com/budosai/2007_video.php

click on Highligh part 4
It's a very interesting demo of Sanchin Kata, firstly by two Fuken White crane masters(sorry I don't recall their names). Next Uechi Ryu, by Sensei Guchi , and lastly , Goju Ryu's by Sensei Higaonna.
Andy.:laugh:

Thanks for the clip, Andy. It was phenomenal!!

Obviously Mssrs Pan and Chen (White Crane) had many similarities, including a flurry of very small but discrete movements at the ends of their respective forms.

The UECHI-RYU master's execution was the closest to what I learned many, many years ago.

Certainly Master HIRAGONNA Morio was the form that I have seen most commonly used. Good stuff!

Best Wishes,

Bruce

kenkyusha
21st July 2008, 23:06
The is footage available of folks from the Wakayama dojo (under Tomoyosei [sp?] sensei) doing kata. There are marked differences between them and nearly everyone else in Uechiryu... some folks have hinted that that approach might be closer to what was being taught by the elder (Kanbum) Uechi sensei upon his return from China.

Be well,
Jigme

glad2bhere
22nd July 2008, 02:18
I have to ask this speaking, once again, as an outsider.

I was aware of the matter of the additional kata with UECHI Kanai Sensei, but am I now hearing that there was a difference in execution between the two generations - son and father? Can anyone speak to this with authority? Thoughts?

Best Wishes,

Bruce

glad2bhere
22nd July 2008, 17:37
BTW: since we are discussing SANCHIN I thought I would recommend the "Five Ancestor Fist Kung Fu" by Alexander L Co. It has a fascinating version of SANCHIN which seems closely related to the WHITE CRANE version. FWIW.

Best Wishes,

Bruce