PDA

View Full Version : A book about kata with sai?



Jimmy Francoeur
27th September 2001, 17:37
Hi there!

I am looking for suggestions of reading. I want a book about kata performed with sai. I would like to have description of old kata, not some recent invention. Does a book like that exist? Any suggestion?

Thank You very much!!
Jimmy:)

Doug Daulton
28th September 2001, 04:29
Originally posted by Jimmy Francoeur ...I am looking for suggestions of reading. I want a book about kata performed with sai. I would like to have description of old kata, not some recent invention. Does a book like that exist? Any suggestion?Mr. Francoeur,

The only such books published in the US, would be those written by Demura Fumio sensei. They are published by O'Hara I think. Demura sensei is a student of Sakagami Ryusho who was, in turn, a student of Taira Shinken. That said, those books have a relatively modern take on the sai. Good stuff, just not old stuff.

If you want old sai forms in print, the closest you'll come is the 3-volume Ryukyu Kobudo series written by Inoue Motokatsu sensei. Originally published in Japanese, they were translated to English as well. However, they are very hard to find. You may want to check in with Mark Brecht in the Japanese Treasures Forum (http://204.95.207.136/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=35). He may be able to dig some up for you, but they will set you back around $130 US.

Another option would be purchasing the video, "Taira Shinken: Father of Ryukyu Kobudo" . In it, Taira performs several old sai kata. Here, I must note that I served as writer/director for this documentary. I share this not to blow my own horn, but to be upfront with the recommendation. With that in mind, I'd also let you know that the old footage of Taira does not necessarily represent the form as he later taught it. So, keep that in mind.

If you are looking for kobudo instruction, check out the links provided in the first thread on this forum. You are sure to find some good folks there.

Good luck,

Jimmy Francoeur
28th September 2001, 14:21
Hi Mr. Daulton

Thank-You very much for the suggestion. by the way, where the video You talk about are available?

Thanks You and have a nice day!
Jimmy:)

Joe Swift
28th September 2001, 14:32
Hi guys,

Don't forget Murakami Katsumi's "Saijutsu: Traditional Okinawan Weapon Art" published by Charles E Tuttle Co.

Although it doesn't get into how to handle the sai, it has 3 great basic kata, along with versions of Tawada no Sai and Matsumura no Sai.

ISBN: 0804832447

Joe Swift

John Bowden
28th September 2001, 16:29
If you must approach sai without a teacher, find video footage of someone highly skilled who demonstrates techniques, forms and most importantly application against other weapons.

Videos are infinitely better than books, Senseis are infinitely better than videos.

One note that I must make in particular, if you want to learn a sai form, the Murakami book and the Taira translation by McCarthy are not the way to go. These books can serve only as a reminder to someone who has already learned the forms for sai. The essence of the techniques and the forms are completely absent in both cases.

I hope this doesn't seem like a criticism. I do not believe that either of these books was meant to be a tutorial. I hope that no offense is taken.

If Mr. Dalton's people actually have a video of their Taira Shinken practicing kobudo, this might be something worth looking at. If a person is looking for a good basic introduction to sai, there is a very detailed tape on a form of Matayoshi ryu as performed by Mikio Nishiuchi. It is available through Panther video (more recently Century Martial Arts.) There is a tape documenting quite alot of Matayoshi school forms and kumites out by Master's Publications (I believe) which is also available from Century.

Doug Daulton
29th September 2001, 00:57
Originally posted by John Bowden ... Videos are infinitely better than books, Senseis are infinitely better than videos.

One note that I must make in particular, if you want to learn a sai form, the Murakami book and the Taira translation by McCarthy are not the way to go. These books can serve only as a reminder to someone who has already learned the forms for sai. The essence of the techniques and the forms are completely absent in both cases.Mr. Bowden,

I could not agree with you more. Books AND videos are poor substitutes for qualified instruction. In one glance and comment, a good teacher can correct something it would take a entire volume to explain well.

For those interested, the Taira documentary is available through Dragon Times/Tsunami Productions. To order, click here (http://www.dragon-tsunami.org/cgi-bin/ePages.storefront/79076029/Product/View/9996-366739).

Joe-san - When did Mr. Murakami's book come out? I've not heard of it.

Regards,

Ken Allgeier
15th October 2001, 07:48
I was looking at Murakami's book on Saijutsu at "Barnes & Noble " and IMO it is not a vary good book.Their are no classical Sai kata's in the book.The first three kata's are called ( if memory serves me right ) Sai ichi, Sai nidan, Sai sandan.The kata in the book which is refered to as " Tawada no Sai" is in fact not the true classical kata know as " Tawada no Sai ", if fact I belive in the book it maybe called something like " Tawada sho no Sai" .Their is a trend in Okinawa, inwhich people will take the name of a classical weapon kata and create a new kata with the old name.This maybe done because the classical weapon are just to diffcult train with anymore.Also their is no classical Sai kata called " Matsumura no Sai " it is just a modern kata.And the story at the end of the book has no citation, which bring up the question of where did Murakami get this story of one of Admiral Perry's officers dueling with his sword against a Okinawan and his Sai.

Joe Swift
15th October 2001, 08:08
Gee Ken, Why don't you tell us how you REALLY feel! :-)

Anyway, I have known Murakami Sensei for several years now and consider him a mentor of sorts...

The first three kata in the book were the invention of Murakami, and he states this in the book.

Tawada no Sai and Matsumura no Sai he states he learned from Sato Kinbei, but has no idea where Sato learned them.

Murakami is also a very senior member of the Ryukyu Kobujutsu Hozon Shionkokai (Inoue's group) and thus he also knows and teaches the 8 Taira lineage sai kata (which I personally kind of doubt the "autheneticity" as far as being the original/ancient versions anyway, simply because they all look like the same kata with differing "signature characteristics" that set them apart from each other).

I also asked him where those stories came from, and he said they were just fictional accounts that he heard long ago... he also said he regrets not mentioning that in the book...

Anyway,

Joe (no one said you have to buy it! :-D) Swift

CEB
15th October 2001, 19:21
There is a book series still available on Okinawian Kobudo that demonstrates kata. Some are done with sai. I don't know anything about the author's particular brand of kobudo , therefore I won't make a buy or don't buy recomendation.

Richard Kim did a 3 books.

Weapons of Hama Higa.
Weapons of Matsu Higa.
Weapons of Chatan Yara.

You can still get the books. Again, I don't practice the authors style so I can't give much useful info except I thought the books were interesting I but I don't think you could learn the kata from these books (or any book for that matter). Even if you can memorize the dance from the book perfectly I doubt you can really learn the kata unless you have a teacher swinging a bo at you showing you the bunkai. But that probably just me. I kind of a slow learner. Anybody with any info on Mr. Kim's Kobudo style or these books please post. I would be interested in reading about it.

Ed Boyd

Joe Swift
17th October 2001, 01:44
Hi all,

Not sure if they're still available or not, but Inoue Motokatsu had a two-book series on his interpretation of Taira's Ryukyu Kobudo available in English. I think volume 1 covered some sai kata... perhaps someone can post the exact title & info here?

Also, although it's WAY out of print, I have heard that you can still find the odd copy of Sakagami Ryusho's old booklet on Tsuken Shitahaku no Sai, from the 1970s, if you look hard enough in the martial arts supply shops...

Joe Swift

Ken Allgeier
17th October 2001, 15:35
I have Motokatsu Inoue first book " Bo,Sai,Tonfa and Nunchaku" ( and the Budosai tape showing the RKHS, Inoue 's group ) and Sakagami's booklets on " Tsukenshitahaku no Sai" and " Hamahiga no Sai ".What I find interesting is that the kata's from both of these sources are a vary watered-downed/simplified versions of the original Okinawan weapon kata. I wonder why they changed the kata so much ?

Doug Daulton
17th October 2001, 16:11
Originally posted by Joe Swift ... Not sure if they're still available or not, but Inoue Motokatsu had a two-book series on his interpretation of Taira's Ryukyu Kobudo available in English. I think volume 1 covered some sai kata... perhaps someone can post the exact title & info here?Mark Brecht from E-Budo's Japanese treasures forum can track down both the Japanese and English versions of Inoue's books (I think it is a 3 volume set, not 2). There is link in an earlier post on this thread.
Originally posted by Joe Swift ... Also, although it's WAY out of print, I have heard that you can still find the odd copy of Sakagami Ryusho's old booklet on Tsuken Shitahaku no Sai, from the 1970s, if you look hard enough in the martial arts supply shops... I do not have the Sakagami's booklets, but I believe they were compiled into a single volume entitles "Nunchaku and Sai". I think it is out of print but one should be able to find a copy pretty easily online or in a used bookstore.
Originally posted by Ken Allgeier ... I have Motokatsu Inoue first book " Bo,Sai,Tonfa and Nunchaku" ( and the Budosai tape showing the RKHS, Inoue 's group ) and Sakagami's booklets on " Tsukenshitahaku no Sai" and " Hamahiga no Sai ".What I find interesting is that the kata's from both of these sources are a vary watered-downed/simplified versions of the original Okinawan weapon kata. I wonder why they changed the kata so much ? Ken,

When you say the kata of Inoue's group is watered-down, to what original source are you comparing?

Regards,

Rob Alvelais
17th October 2001, 17:07
Doug,

I've got the book "Nunchaku and Sai" by Sakagami. Tsukenshitahaku no Sai isn't there. I'm not sure what kata it is in there, however, it's definitely not the one that's in his booklet TsukenShitahaku no sai.

Rob

Sochin
17th October 2001, 18:04
RE: "The only such books published in the US, would be those written by Demura Fumio sensei."

Whiel I like Sensei Demura's work a lot, don't forget Richard Kim's KOBUDO #3, Okinawan Weapons of Chatan Yara, Masterss Publication, (1986, isbn 0-920129-10-2), it has two sai kata in it. I don't know how old they are though - they are fairly commonly done.

Sochin
17th October 2001, 18:21
From Ed Boyd,

Even if you can memorize the dance from the book perfectly I doubt you can really learn the kata unless you have a teacher swinging a bo at you showing you the bunkai. But that probably just me. I kind of a slow learner. Anybody with any info on Mr. Kim's Kobudo style or these books please post. I would be interested in reading about it.

Morning Ed,
After I jumped in with my reply, my computer finished loading and I found your request...

I've been Sensei Kim's student since 1986. He has taught us an incredible number of weapons kata. He was trained as a Shorin man but spent a lot of time with Sensei's Yamaguchi (Goju) and Oyama (Kyokushin Kai) after the war. he cross trained extensivelly and brought much to his teaching. I have not heard him say where he learned his weapons kata.

Typically we do not learn weapons sparring at his seminars, just kata. Bunkai might be mentioned but only in the context of getting the proper feel and form of a technique.

As for his books, he has said often that he was displeased with the production of his efforts, pics were lost and out of place, and they were less than the best quality. We use them as reminders of kata we have learned on the floor and they work well for that purpose.

John Bowden
17th October 2001, 23:45
Originally posted by Ken Allgeier
What I find interesting is that the kata's from both of these sources are a vary watered-downed/simplified versions of the original Okinawan weapon kata. I wonder why they changed the kata so much ?

I always find it interesting when people talk about "original versions" or "authentic" in regards to Okinawan Kobudo. :)

How can you hope to claim to know what version is "original?"

Are we really shipwrecked on our "historical" foundation?

Really, even in antiquated and seemingly outdated martial arts, to really reach a level of special understanding we may need to innovate still and incorporate creativity into our practice.

Personally, I think that the true secrets of martial arts lay in the unteachable lessons that come from creative analytic practice rather than study.

I think anyone who can truly strike with their bo understands what I say.

Doug Daulton
23rd October 2001, 19:21
Originally posted by Rob Alvelais
Doug,

I've got the book "Nunchaku and Sai" by Sakagami. Tsukenshitahaku no Sai isn't there. I'm not sure what kata it is in there, however, it's definitely not the one that's in his booklet TsukenShitahaku no sai.

Rob Rob,

Any chance I could get a copy of that original pamphlet?

Regards,

Buddha
24th October 2001, 07:30
Hi Alls:

Is very interesting this post congratulations, but i use the Fumio Demura sensei book, because he came from a good traditional family, but the real spirit in old or new weapon kata, just yourself can put in, really....

from Panama, sensei Rogelio Ortega

senseibuda@latinol.com


Thats all ..... Rogelio:smash:

Ken Allgeier
27th October 2001, 18:52
My mistake I should have never used the word " Original " in the context of classical weapon kata from Okinawan.What I meant to say was ' older ' or the oldist ' known version of a given weapon kata known.


Let me explain, the first Okinawan weapon kata that I learned were from the Penn State Unv. Karate club ( a Isshin Ryu group) .I learned the 3 bo kata Tokumine no Kon
Urasoe no Kon
Shishi no Kon no Dai

And the 2 Sai kata , Chatanyara no Sai
Kusanku no Sai


Four year ago I started to learn Ryukyu Kobujutsu/Ko-buki kata from Mr Glenard Grabow.Some of you may remember Mr Grabow's articles from the old " Bugeisha " and " Budo Dojo " magazines.I would like to the state the Mr Grabow began his training in Okinawa in 1961 and his teachers were Shinjo Masanobu,Kani Katsuyoshi,Toguchi Seikichi,Kiyuna Choyu.It became quite apparent that, what Mr Grabow teaches in the context of Okinawan weapon kata is Different from some other indivduals and groups in America.What Mr Grabow teaches (and his research has shown) is the older version of the Bo Sai and Tonfa Kata.I would like to state that Mr Grabow is vary adamant about the fact that these kata should not be altered in any maner from how he learned them in Okinawa.For one reason is that these older version of the weapon kata are time capsule into the past and a understanding how these indivdual fought, and if these kata are modified, their is a lost of historicsl knowledge of the past.For example the kata Tokumine no Kon found in Isshin Ryu, is in fact the kata Yonegawa no Kon.I mean no disrespect, but the truth is that Tatsu Shimabuku ( founder of Isshin Ryu ) took the kata Yonegawa no Kon simplified it and renamed Tokumine no Kon.What I mean by ' simplified' is that the diffcult waza and combative scenarios are removed within the kata.Thus making the kata easier to preform and learn.This was also done to the kata Urasoe no Kon and Chatanyara no Sai.I can not comment on Shishi no Kon because I have never learn a older version of that kata.

This situation of simplifing classical weapon kata, I have noticed also has occurred within the Inoue & Sakagami schools in Japan and the The Matayoshi Kobudo( Okinawa) where their Bo kata also have are simpilfied.In Motokatsu Inoue Book " Bo,Sai ,Tonfa and Nunchaku " the two Bo kata which are demostrated Shuji and Sakugawa are lacking in the more diffcult waza found in the older version of thus stated kata , which were taught to me by Mr Grabow.I am not saying that the indivdaul skill within these schools is poor or substanard, only that the classical Bo and Sai kata have been simplified( from the older version ) over the years by different teachers, why I do not have a answer for that.

Brian Dunham
27th October 2001, 23:57
Ken,
I can not disagree with your points about the general trend of simplifying kobudo kata, but I have a couple problems with your post.

1. Shimabuku is supposed to have learned Tokumine no Kun from Chotoku Kyan. This is well known to be the only Bo kata that Kyan taught. I have not seen the version practiced by the Seibukan or other groups that follow the Kyan/ Zenryo Shimabuku teachings, so I can't say for sure if the Isshin Ryu version is Kyan's Tokumine no Kun.

2. However, Yonegawa no Kun originated in Yamanni Chinen Ryu. It is an extremely complex and difficult kata. Have you ever seen this kata demonstrated by any of the senior members of Yamanni Ryu? If you ever do, you will not believe that Isshin Ryu's Tokumine no Kun has anything to do with Yonegawa no Kun.

Shinken Taira (Shimabuku's primary Kobudo teacher) endeavored to preserve as much of Okinawa's weapon traditions as possible. By sheer necessity, many of the kata that he preserved had to be simplified. At the very least, kata that came from different traditions(with their own distinct and unique mechanics) had to made to be performed with the same mechanics. This is why Taira's kata from sources like Yamanni Chinen Ryu (Shushi, Shirotaru, Yonegawa) bear only the most superficial resemblance to those still taught in Yamanni Ryu.

Regards,
Brian Dunham

Brian Dunham
28th October 2001, 00:49
BTW, I have seen both Isshin Ryu's and Taira Shinken's versions of Catanyara no Sai, and they are essentially the same. Also, I was under the impression that Taira was responsible for preserving this kata, and that most, if not all, groups doing this kata, learned it from him or one of his students. So, if Mr Grabow has a fifferent source from which he learned this kata, I would be interested to know what it is. Respectfully, can you share this with us?

Regards,
Brian Dunham

John Bowden
28th October 2001, 02:54
Ken,

Thanks for the interesting reply. I have long wanted to ask Mr. Grabow to make me a set of his sai. He's the only person that I'm aware of in America making that style of sai. Perhaps if I do, I'll check out one of his videos also.

Regardless of what many say, I still personally feel that it's unlikely that many of our Okinawan forms are exactly as they were even 150 years ago. Even more, I don't feel that it makes any difference. I'd be very interested to see other Masters, both current and historic, but what's the difference if that Master's system is 15 years or 1500 years old? I'd only care to see how they do things differently than I do and see if I like it better than the way I do it.

I think alot of forms really may have needed to be changed a bit to allow for the differences in the way modern people train. In addition, if there really are forms 100+ years old, these would have been taught often on a 1 on 1 basis. Introduce Japanese style group teaching and hierarchical concepts and you have already diverged alot from the original teaching form or no form. Bad? Good? Who knows?

Later,
John

Patrick McCarthy
9th November 2001, 13:06
Folks,

Not sure if this post really belongs here or the buy & sell section, but I thought I'd take a crack at it anyway as it should be of interest to kobudoka with a passion for sai and love of history.

I received a remarkable pair of old iron sai directly from the late kobudo master, Akamine Eisuke, in Okinawa a couple of years before he passed away as a gift for translating his teacher's (Taira Shinken) 1964 publication, "Kobudo Taikan." I am now considering selling them and am fielding offers. According to the late master they were used by both Yabiku Moden and Master Taira.

Interested parties can see the sai located on this page http://www.society.webcentral.com.au/photo_sai__shi_shi.htm and or on this page
http://www.society.webcentral.com.au/photo_akamine_2.htm

Incidentally, I also have Inoue Motokatsu's three volume set (in Japanese) entitled, "Ryukyu Kobujutsu," in which there appears many sai kata: i.e. Kojo, Ugushiku, Hantaguwa, Yakaa, Tawata, Tsukenshitahaku, Hama Higa, Chatan Yara, etc. My copies are also personally autographed by the late master, who I once studied under. I would also field offers for those parties seriously interested in purchasing them.

Please make offers c/o bujin @ bigpond.com

Dear Doug, if you reason that this post is not appropriate for this thread, let me know and I'll remove it ASAP.

Yoroshiku

Doug Daulton
9th November 2001, 17:21
Originally posted by Patrick McCarthy ... Dear Doug, if you reason that this post is not appropriate for this thread, let me know and I'll remove it ASAP.Pat,

I'd say this post is entirely appropriate, give the subject of the thread. E-Budo anti-advertising policy generally applies to hawking one's own wares in the forums. Even then, if the pitch is relevant to the topic at hand, I'll generally let it stand.

Regards,

dsomers
5th November 2005, 15:59
I know this thread is a few yrs old , but I just came across it . Somone was asking what Kata is in the book "Nuchaku & Sai" , it pictures the Kata Tawada No Sai .
In regards to Shimabuku Sensei's Tokumine No Kun , we have to rememember that when he was creating Isshin Ryu that he was trying to create a style that was uniquely his . With that said , I do see pieces of Tokumine(kyan's version) , Yonegawa , as well as Sakugawa in it . When he taught this kata , he might of been creating something that he wanted to be his , or perhaps he was just piecing together Kata that he remebered , because he simply forgot . Just a thought .

David

Shikiyanaka
6th November 2005, 19:59
Hi all,

may I share this with you, with all respect: I do not understand that "not original" thing blaming Mr. Taira Shinken.

Taira showed Hama Higa no Sai in his "Ryukyu Kobudo Taikan" of 1964. Taira received Menyo from Yabiku in "Ryukyu Bojutsu and Saijutsu". The exact text of it is:
Shihan Menjō
(Place:) Ikaho Onsen
(to Person:) Taira Shinken
The person given on the right (Taira Shinken) studied Ryūkyū Bōjutsu and Saijutsu for long years.
Therefore (he recieves) this license of the title of Shihan
15th of August, 1933
(Society:) Ryūkyū Kobujutsu Kenkyūkai
President Yabiku Mōden
(see the text of the Menyo in the new revised and expanded edition of that book, supervised by Inoue Kisho.)

There is also the story of Hama Higa Pechin in the new edition, taken from the handwritten notes made by Taira. According to this, the kata traces back to one Hama Higa Pechin, who went to Satsuma and later to Edo in 1682 as part of the congratulatory party for Shôgun Tsunayoshi (Tokugawa).
There he is said to have "performed a speciality of Ryūkyū in front of Shōgun Tsunayoshi: Tōde and Saijutsu Kata. This form of demonstration the name Sanchi-ryū has been bestowed upon by King Shō Tei, which afterwards was passed on as the Hama Higa no Sai Kata."
[Note: Sanchi-ryū 算知流 was the old traditional way of playing Go, stemming from the Yasui family 安井家, which had been described as "quarrel principle". Chosing this name showed some kind of submission - at that time maybe better called "respect" - for the Japanese superiority. This is only to be understood by knowing that at that time the principle of Fuseki 布石 (the strategical arrangement of the Go-stones), had been founded and the old Sanchi-ry was substituted by the Dōsaku-ryū 道策流, which was the first to use Fuseki.]
The details of the account given leave no doubt that the Taira's informations where gathered with the help of learned historians (maybe Higaonna Kanjun, who also wrote about martial arts of Ryukyu elsewhere).

Everybody may agree that this was a quite early event in terms of Ryukyu martial arts.

Timewarp:
Among the directors of Taira's association where:
Higa Yūchoku
Akamine Eisuke
and five other Okinawans.

Of course also mainland Japanese were among the directors, like Sakagami Ryusho, Inoue Motokatsu, Hayashi Teruo and many others.

Among the consulting members where (only Okinawan members listed here):

Chibana Chōshin
Higa Seikō
Soken Hōhan
Chinen Masami
Nagamine Shōshin
Yagi Meitoku
Uechi Kanei
Tamaki Juei
Miyazato Ei'ichi
Nakazato Shūgorō
Fukuchi Seikō
Shimabukuro Tatsuo
Toguchi Seikichi
Uehara Saburō
Shimabukuro Eizō
Nakamura Shigeru
Miyahira Katsuya
Kinjō Hiroshi

So I ask myself, who where the people who handed down the original form, the secret techniques, the real martial art, if not these people? And if there was someone, where did he/she learn? From Nagamine Shôshin (who you find on the above list)? Or from Masami Chinen (who you find on the above list)? Or from whom?

I saw a video (a dantai enbu) of Chatan Yara no Sai which today looks exactly the same as about in the 1960s (there are not much earlier moving picture sources). I also saw Sai and Bojutsu kata from a person, whose entry in the Bugei Ryûha Daijiten of 1978 is "Kyan-ryū (Saijutsu): Okinawa". The Saijutsu of this person was also "upgraded", in other terms, it was changed. There even was the attempt to let this Saijutsu run under a different name, only to authenticate some different person, who retroactively needs to be made some more important in history (because otherwise, the whole lineage would begin to disintegrate).

There is one thing I agree with: there are people who made up new things with the help of the old kata. But the kata and techniques have not been simplified, but rather have been "upgraded" to the popular customers wants...

It is simply other way around than suggested. Stop betraying those who worked hard and really achieved something, but are dead now. At least this is not the original Okinawan form (I read something about this in a book :) ).

dsomers
6th November 2005, 20:35
Andreas ,

I was not blaming Taira Sensei for anything . Nor , have I betrayed anyone . I am a direct student of Nakamoto Masahiro Sensei , who was a direct student of the late Taira Shinken . I would never even think of doing so . Please go back , & read what I was saying . I was speaking of Tatsuo Shimabuku . Many others , more educated in history then myself , have said that he may have pieced together parts of Kata to make it his own , or simply cause he forgot . Please dont take it as insult , it is not meant to be .

David

Shikiyanaka
7th November 2005, 18:26
David,

I was not referring to yours, but to Ken's postings:

Just for the record:
Murakami is shown with Tawada no Sai, Matsumura no Sai and Sunakake no Kun in "Ryukyu Kobudo Gekan" (Inoue, 1974). This is no proof that they are much older, however, the trend of taking older names, which Ken referred to, maybe just is patr of the traditional thing. Yabiku, for example, also added some moves to Shuushi no Kun. But didn't he learn it and wasn't it his right, isn't that traditional?


I have Motokatsu Inoue first book " Bo,Sai,Tonfa and Nunchaku" ( and the Budosai tape showing the RKHS, Inoue 's group ) and Sakagami's booklets on " Tsukenshitahaku no Sai" and " Hamahiga no Sai ".What I find interesting is that the kata's from both of these sources are a vary watered-downed/simplified versions of the original Okinawan weapon kata. I wonder why they changed the kata so much ?

(Ken, are you sure you have "Hamahiga no Sai"? I only know of Tsueknshitahaku no Sai, Hamahiga no Tonfa and Nunchaku booklet. As far as I know the announced continuation of the series never took place and there is no mentioning of Hamahiga no Sai.)

From BRD:

Sakagami Hirikazu Ryūshō, a student of Mabuni Kenwa [a noted weapns expert, by the way]. He was born on 13th of April, Taishō 4 (1915). Kendō Nanadan Kyōshi, Iaidō Nanadan Kyōshi, Jūkendō Renshi, Aikidō Godan, Jōdō Rokudan, Karate-dō Renshi Hachidan of the former Butokukai .
Well, ok, maybe he was somewhat too busy to study the real martial arts of Ryukyu.

And here came up the question what original source was taken as a comparison, and that's a fair question.

Inoue and Sakagami were Taira's students, and Taira is usually said to have done this and that with the kata... And he also made his own Kata (traditional or not). Anyway, many of the Sai-kata were lost without his work. So who could say that for example Hama Higa no Sai is not traditional, if there is no other lineage to have adopted it somewhere in the past and with which it is comparable?

John wrote:

Really, even in antiquated and seemingly outdated martial arts, to really reach a level of special understanding we may need to innovate still and incorporate creativity into our practice.

That's ok, but the name of the association which has many of the Sai-kata in its curriculum contains the term "Hozon", meaning preservation; conservation; storage; maintenance (as you acknowledged), not re-engineering to assumptive circumstances (like fighting against Samurai). So the Okinawans may not see it as their task to further develop the Kata to keep pace with the performing and tournament arts movement. They adopted them, try to keep them as they were when they learned them and made a tremendous job.

Then Ken corrected " Original " to ' older ' or the oldist ' known version, and talks about Isshin-ryu. Kusanku no Sai, as far as I know, is one of those newer Kata, which just have been made up. And I maybe wrong but I thought at least Shinjo Masanobu and Toguchi Seikichi were Goju-ryu practitioners solely.

Ken wrote:

This situation of simplifing classical weapon kata, I have noticed also has occurred within the Inoue & Sakagami schools in Japan and the The Matayoshi Kobudo( Okinawa) where their Bo kata also have are simpilfied.In Motokatsu Inoue Book " Bo,Sai ,Tonfa and Nunchaku " the two Bo kata which are demostrated Shuji and Sakugawa are lacking in the more diffcult waza found in the older version of thus stated kata , which were taught to me by Mr Grabow.I am not saying that the indivdaul skill within these schools is poor or substanard, only that the classical Bo and Sai kata have been simplified( from the older version ) over the years by different teachers, why I do not have a answer for that.

So we have the Taira-lineage, and also the Matayoshi lineage, which are said to have simplified classical weapon kata. Matayoshi was on of those few persons who maybe really had to fight a fight, when he was in China. I have seen excellent bunkai of a senior of Matayoshi Kobudo and his Kata tapes are good to me, also he is said to have altered it a little bit for the taping. So you are maybe just talking about the styles as they are presented in the USA?

Brian wrote:

Shinken Taira (Shimabuku's primary Kobudo teacher) endeavored to preserve as much of Okinawa's weapon traditions as possible. By sheer necessity, many of the kata that he preserved had to be simplified. At the very least, kata that came from different traditions(with their own distinct and unique mechanics) had to made to be performed with the same mechanics. This is why Taira's kata from sources like Yamanni Chinen Ryu (Shushi, Shirotaru, Yonegawa) bear only the most superficial resemblance to those still taught in Yamanni Ryu.
Don't forget that people are different. What some are able to do, others aren't. Taira's teacher was Yamani-ryu, Akamine's had four teachers, who studied together with Masami Chinen under Chinen Sanda, and where also Yamani-ryu. Masami himself was consulting member of Taira's group (at least at 1964). So here are five students of Chinen Sanda in this lineage. Of course, the Japanese have a different Budo-approach and one may see this. But also the new styles which use old names have bend to the Japanese idea of sheer jutsu. The one thing you build your argumentation on is that there are kata that are "still taught in Yamanni Ryu." Are you sure? Haven't you had the idea that these maybe the new versions you were talking about, only vice versa (not simplifed, but updated)? Taking as a thruth that others than Yamani have simplified the Kata is an assumption, that directly leads to intended outcome calculated by the representative of the public relations department of Yamani, carrying in its slipstream all the aftereffects of the wrong assumption by itself. (Winning or losing tournaments does not influence this logic).


In fact, wasn't it the Yamani-ryu circles in USA that provided all the arguments against the "old kata", just because they received a cold shoulder for their progressiveness and market oriented modifikation of the original techniques on Okinawa? Coming to America with a Sandan or so they quickly noticed the necessity (necessities everywhere!!!) to bend to the rules of the market (while having some fun also). The customers simply wanted to be manipulated, they begged for it, and since some time word is spread that all the established styles are doing something wrong: Matayoshi didn't understood Yamani and that's why they put the Bo on the side of their arm; Taira learned too many Kata, so he couldn't do even one good. The tapered Bo are "pigs Bo", and the only real Bo is a straight one; etc. pp. to be continued. The simple fact is that some people were thrown out some dojo from traditional, old older oldest Okinawan traditional reasons, and the Americans don't care, and when the Americans don't care, others also don't care, because what is successful must be good. Greetings from Tyrannosaurus Rex. Good! Just leave Mr. Taira, Mr. Matayoshi, Mr. Inoue, etc. out of it. They are dead and do not deserve this kind of wicked rhetoric.

In reality what we have been presented as the original Okinawan waza is a new development of the last 25 years or so. I really don't care if they took a move from Katori Shintô-ryû's Bô vs. Katana or whatever and now call it abcient original and the only true Okinawa Bojutsu. And yes, it looks good and it is good. But in this all you have been put into a chessmate situation because of your way of thinking. Its your own wanting of progression that leads to necessities (again!) unconnected to the subject of being original or not and prevents you from the venturous idea that "old Okinawan technique" maybe just were that "simple" (I don't feel it's simple, it is just not always comfortable).

Just look at the techniques the Inoue group extracted from the kata already over thirty years ago. Quite good for just a watered down version, I would say. Who says he does it better?

As this thread was about Saijutsu, I don't even understand bringing those arguments into play. They were meant for giving authenticity to Yamani-Bojutsu, and that's hard enough. Their Sai kata is nothing else but the Kyan no Sai of Matsubayashi-honbu co-founder Kyan Shin'ei, which had been changed and "watered down" for theatralical performance reasons (there is a video of it performed by Kyan Shin'ei for easy comparison to the new Yamani Caruforunia-ha version). And they did it with all the kata: they took them and changed them, telling everybody "this is only true one"... and the fans go crazy! I don't even believe that there was more than Sakugawa no Kun and Shuji no kun in the "original" curriculum. All the rest may just have been re-invented, possibly even with the help of the so called "simplified" originals. Also check the Karate department, its the same.

Here, for example, are the "traditional" Sai kata of Ryukyu Kobudo as found in the BRD (I guess they are called Sai kata of Ryukyu Kobudo because they date back to Ryukyu kingdom times):
Chikin Shitahaku no Sai
Hama Higa no Sai
Chatan Yara no Sai
(Hama Udun) Yakaa no Sai
Hantagwa Kōuragwa no Sai
Kojō no Sai
Arakaki-ryū no Sai
Tawada no Sai

Any lineage who has more then 50% of those?

So while everyone is very enthusiastic about tradition, we should not inconsiderately blame those who only made it possible for those who harvest the fruits today. And that's traditional.

Respect

Sanseru
7th November 2005, 21:29
Hello everyone:

I am partially presenting a letter written by my teacher (Minowa Katsuhiko) to myself. Part of the letter dealt with Yamani-ryu and a video I had sent Minowa sensei containing Shushi no kon as performed by Mr. Oshiro. Given the current discussion on Taira and Yamani-ryu, I believe it is relevant.

This section of the letter is NOT presented as an assessment of Mr. Oshiro's' skills, but for the insights Minowa sensei provided in the commentary on his training experience.

Mario McKenna

Letter Begins...

Shushi no kon [Oshiro Toshihiro]
Mr. Oshiro's Shushi no kon is considerably different to what is practiced in the Ryukyu Kobudo Shinko Kai so I can't really comment on whether it is good or bad. A long time ago, we (Akamine, Nakamoto, myself, ect.) all learned the same kobudo kata from Taira Sensei. And although our kata may have differed, the differences were quite small.

However, a long time ago, Taira Sensei stated to us that many of his bo kata came from Yamani-ryu. Taira Sensei had four top students of Yamane-ryu who acted as advisers for his Ryukyu Hozon Shinko Kai I think and they would occasionally come to his home and their names were on the name board. Their kata and Taira Sensei's were essentially the same. I'll say it again, it could have been either Taira sensei taught us incorrectly or his Yamane-ryu juniors learned incorrectly. But at that time I believed in what I was being taught by Taira Sensei, even to this day and practice it to the best of my ability.

Letter Ends...

bujutsustudent
9th November 2005, 08:59
I normally try to stay out of heated debates as they prove childish, however naive posts tend to coax a response out of me to individuals I feel aren't educated to respond to such threads. I certainly agree with you regarding your point on remembering Taira sensei, Matoyoshi sensei, Inoue sensei, etc. All of these individuals were wonderful martial artists whom without their efforts, many of us would never have seen Okinawan bujutsu.
With that being said lets's discuss your comment on "Yamani-ryu circles", their arguments against the "old kata" , "progressiveness," etc. If you kindly go to this website www.oshirodojo.com there is a link to several articles with Oshiro Sensei commenting on this subject concerning yamanni chinnen ryu. I suggest you read them. Just for arguments sake, I'll help to clear the air. Sensei Oshiro and Sensei Nishime teach Yamanni-chinnen ryu in several facets. In order to target large groups of students, they openly and admittingly created Introductory katas. You can see them performed on Oshiro Sensei's Yamanni ryu video.
It is known that not everyone is able to grasp the sophistication and deepness of traditional martial arts. Therefore, drills, katas, and such are created to help EVERYONE learn. What you see students doing as far as Yamanni ryu is concerned in tournaments is NOT the martial art...it is the sportive aspect used to reach a targeted audience. The same is with their Karate. They openly admit this so please don't feel like you have struck oil in discovering this aspect in their demonstrations. To understand the deepness and sophistication of Yamanni -Chinnen ryu you have to do the martial art. This is taught in a more private and different manner to those who dedicate themselves to learning it. Traditional kata is taught unchanged from its predecessors. It is much more difficult and requires much more commitment as sophisticated theories and psychologies of combat are taught along with much more deep and sophisticated internal sciences and body mechanics. As far as your comment: "I don't even believe that there was more than Sakugawa no Kun and Shuji no kun in the "original" curriculum. All the rest may just have been re-invented, possibly even with the help of the so called "simplified" originals. Also check the Karate department, its the same." Let me help you with this one. The only katas that were created were the first 5 Introductory katas as shown on Oshiro Sensei's video.
If you ever get a chance to see Sensei Oshiro demonstrate, I suggest you go. When either Nishime Sensei or Oshiro Sensei demonstrate a bo or sai kata, they are very careful in demonstrating them..so careful that they change a few things for DEMONSTRATION purposes. This way, when people tape them or record their performances without permission and then attempt to copy them, they know where a particular group got it and when. When they demonstrate for the public...Not fellow martial artists, but for the public......they show what we call omote (frontal or percievable) techniques. When they demonstrate for martial artists of a particular calibur...they may show more ura(hidden) techniques.
If you know as much as you act like you do...you'll notice this if you ever see either of these gentleman demonstrate. About now you are probably wondering how I can argue what I'm arguing....2 reasons..I have seen Oshiro Sensei and Nishime Sensei performing various Yamanni ryu bo kata at a speed so high, I thought they were performing an empty hand kata..I kid you not. I have been a private Yamanni ryu student of both Oshiro Sensei and Nishime Sensei for the past 5 years...and even though I know that this is not a long time by all means to have been training in an art and has nothing to do with my level of skill or lack of skill the point is..I have gotten to know both Shihans quite well and have NEVER heard them make the comments you claim in your post on any of the individuals earlier discussed. I am always researching and studying and to be quite honest..researching books and speaking to many individuals...for the record I have READ that Matayoshi sensei was not a Yamanni ryu master. This seems to be an accepted fact. Please correct me if you feel I'm wrong. Does this mean he was a bad martial artist or had was bad at bojutsu? Of course not...he was wonderful and like stated above he did alot for Okinawan bujutsu. In everything I'm talking about my ultimate is point is ...you do not have to attack an entire organization to make a point with an individual you may not agree with. I don't think you have any business bringing uneducated Yamanni-Chinnen ryu speculation into your argument with someone else to make your point about showing Taira sensei, Matayoshi sensei, Inoue Sensei respect. I already respect these gentleman and many people involved with Yamanni-Chinne ryu respcet these gentleman. However, you are doing them no justice speaking about "Yamanni chinnen ryu" the organization. Address the problem with the particular person..Not the organization which has nothing to do with your disagreement. If I misunderstood anything you wrote please correct me, as I am far from perfect and am still learning. Best regards and train hard. I hope I cleared up any misconception you might have had. I don't know everything but if you have any question feel free to ask.

Shaz D'Souza
RBKD Yamanni-Chinnen Ryu











In fact, wasn't it the Yamani-ryu circles in USA that provided all the arguments against the "old kata", just because they received a cold shoulder for their progressiveness and market oriented modifikation of the original techniques on Okinawa? Coming to America with a Sandan or so they quickly noticed the necessity (necessities everywhere!!!) to bend to the rules of the market (while having some fun also). The customers simply wanted to be manipulated, they begged for it, and since some time word is spread that all the established styles are doing something wrong: Matayoshi didn't understood Yamani and that's why they put the Bo on the side of their arm; Taira learned too many Kata, so he couldn't do even one good. The tapered Bo are "pigs Bo", and the only real Bo is a straight one; etc. pp. to be continued. The simple fact is that some people were thrown out some dojo from traditional, old older oldest Okinawan traditional reasons, and the Americans don't care, and when the Americans don't care, others also don't care, because what is successful must be good. Greetings from Tyrannosaurus Rex. Good! Just leave Mr. Taira, Mr. Matayoshi, Mr. Inoue, etc. out of it. They are dead and do not deserve this kind of wicked rhetoric.

As this thread was about Saijutsu, I don't even understand bringing those arguments into play. They were meant for giving authenticity to Yamani-Bojutsu, and that's hard enough. Their Sai kata is nothing else but the Kyan no Sai of Matsubayashi-honbu co-founder Kyan Shin'ei, which had been changed and "watered down" for theatralical performance reasons (there is a video of it performed by Kyan Shin'ei for easy comparison to the new Yamani Caruforunia-ha version). And they did it with all the kata: they took them and changed them, telling everybody "this is only true one"... and the fans go crazy!
Here, for example, are the "traditional" Sai kata of Ryukyu Kobudo as found in the BRD (I guess they are called Sai kata of Ryukyu Kobudo because they date back to Ryukyu kingdom times):
Chikin Shitahaku no Sai
Hama Higa no Sai
Chatan Yara no Sai
(Hama Udun) Yakaa no Sai
Hantagwa K?uragwa no Sai
Koj? no Sai
Arakaki-ry? no Sai
Tawada no Sai

Any lineage who has more then 50% of those?

So while everyone is very enthusiastic about tradition, we should not inconsiderately blame those who only made it possible for those who harvest the fruits today. And that's traditional.

Respect[/QUOTE]
"I don't even believe that there was more than Sakugawa no Kun and Shuji no kun in the "original" curriculum. All the rest may just have been re-invented, possible even with the help of the so called "simplified" originals. Also check the Karate department, its the same."

Shikiyanaka
9th November 2005, 18:11
Thank's Shaz for the elaborate explanations. I try to pick out what I think is important.


In everything I'm talking about my ultimate is point is ...you do not have to attack an entire organization to make a point with an individual you may not agree with. […] Address the problem with the particular person… Not the organization which has nothing to do with your disagreement.

Well, I think I did not. The negative things I mentioned were (uncareful) notices brought up to me by students, members of the organization of Mr. Oshiro, while I was enjoying some training here or there. This happened more than once and I became somewhat peeved about that. They are enthusistic about it, that's ok with me. But things like the "pigs bo" is far from fair, because who uses it? And of course the sentences began with "Oshiro said..." So the organization might just chose a better interpreter next time and also sensitize their members in public behaviour (and also maybe a certain amount of standard Budô knowledge).


If you kindly go to this website www.oshirodojo.com there is a link to several articles with Oshiro Sensei commenting on this subject concerning yamanni chinnen ryu. I suggest you read them.

I visited the website, and although the following is not from the interviews, you may be willing to help clearing it up (the exat URL is http://www.oshirodojo.com/kobudo.html):


History
Many of the major modern Okinawan-based bojutsu styles have their roots in Yamanni-ryu, with their founders getting at least some training with Yamanni-ryu masters. As such, many kata, or prearranged fighting sets, of various styles share the same names as Yamanni-ryu kata. And though their sequences are similar, the individual techniques and body dynamics are very different and, arguably, much less sophisticated. Unlike other modern Okinawan kobudo styles, which have become mainstream as a result of successful efforts to propagate them, Yamanni-ryu had remained relatively secretive and guarded.

Just two things:
1. Apart from me thinking it is a quite negative way of rhetoric formulation, I always wondered which those "other modern Okinawan kobudo styles, which have become mainstream as a result of successful efforts to propagate them" could be?

2. "… the individual techniques and body dynamics are very different and, arguably, much less sophisticated."

With 2. we are already at the point making it necessary, or at least fair to discuss whether the argument of the Yamanni Kata being the original techniques or not. And that's what I was talking about: this general argumentation asks for a specific solution, and thus not many lineages other than that of Taira and Matayoshi come to mind.

Considering the letter presented by Mario, for example, it seems thus questionable if the foundation of that above argumentation could be called "true" (in terms of a "logical operator").

The topic needs to be made absolutely clear, because unless it is not, "the organization" and its members (be it just some individuals) may misinterpret the suggestions being made in a way that they conclude that other traditions may not be "the real Okinawan way."

The immanent suggestion of "original" and "watered-down" forms have spread wide in circles concerning Bojutsu and Kobudo; they became a standard argument. And at this point, while prividing the informations given about the "only original transmission" in Yamanni, it becomes very important to prove that the logical operator "true" is really true, because logical operators have consequences.

One consequence is, if it is not true, the whole thing is possibly just vice versa. And that's what I was talking about.

Shikiyanaka
12th November 2005, 15:12
Shaz, I went to www.oshirodojo.com and, as this thread is about Sai, I read the article "The Stories and Practice of the Okinawan Sai".


The Sai in Modern Martial Arts Practice
The sai have been practiced for many years in Okinawa, but it was very
individual practice. Because the sai were used primarily for self defense,
they were not systematically taught as a separate martial arts style. Each
person would have their own places to carry and hide their sai and developed
their own favored techniques. Thus we find that sai does not have as
documented a tradition in Okinawan martial arts culture as either the bo or
karate. The "traditional" sai kata practiced today are of relatively recent invention.

Rhetoricall excellent, this raises some questions. Why is the term traditional set between quotation marks??? Is there any doubt among experts that there were and are traditional Sai kata?

I think the story of the Sai article must lead a lowbrow reader to the notion that there are no traditional kata and that a great part of the Okinawan inhabitants used Sai for self defense, i.e. anybody could have used the Sai. Very promising preliminary, however highly assumptive to say the least.

Let me come to that:
Chinen (Yamanni) family was of Chikudun Pechin rank:

Chinen Ueon Kana (1797-1881) seems to be first in his family to have been promoted to the rank of Chikudun Pechin, those people of the Ryūkyū class system who originally belonged to the farmers class and became "Samurai" by meritorious deeds or contributions, even though they did not originally had the genealogical table necessary for the "Bushi" ranks (remember neither the term Bushi nor Samurai in connection with Okinawan do equal the Japanese Bushi or Samurai. It is just misleading comparison. Chikudun Pechin were engaged in general administrative work as a lower class "samurai".
This person is also known by the name Chinen Chiku Nobori No Shiun Jōshina; this means “Chinen who took up a high position as a public servant.”
He is also known as Chinen Ueon Kana, which principally means the same, i.e “Chinen who achieved office.”

As far as I know, the Chikudun people were the lowest of what we now call "rank" in Ryukyu kingdoms administration. The traditional Sai Kata, which have been suggested to be not traditional (the result of such suggestions we may have seen in this thread) were, however, invented by higher ranking people, and this I assure without seeing any need for giving you the exact bibliographic reference. It seems very likely that the possession of Sai were limited to people of a certain rank upwards.

Again the list of BRD (informations as of 1978, thus not watered down very much). In brackets the rank and some info on the person associated with the Kata, which I have researched:

- Chikin Shitahaku no Sai (Court name: Shitahaku Oyakata. Rank: Oyakata. Real name: Saitaku. He compiled the Chuzan Seifu from 1697 to 1701; was the father of the famous Saion.)
- Hama Higa no Sai (Hama Higa Pechin. Real name: unknown. Went to Edo in 1682 and performed Tode and Saijutsu as a cultural speciality of Ryukyu [Satsuma liked to present Ryukyu persons a s somewhat exotic])
- Chatan Yara no Sai (Said to have been student of Kusanku, the military officer mentioned in Oshima Hikki)
- Yakaa no Sai (the complete name of the Kata is Hama Udun Yakaa no Sai. Hama means "beach", Udun means "palace" or "control palace", Yaka is a place on Okinawa. According to Nakamoto Masahiro, "Yakaa techniques" were evidently employed by young Ōji (princes) in their function as attendants to the king. Thus, these are the Sai-tecniques of the princes from or performed at "Yaka Beach Palace". The Udun were the extended residences, in which Ōji (princes) or Anji ("feudal lord") lived.)
- Hantagwa Kuragwa no Sai (Hantagwa was allegedly born in Urasoe castle town and was one of the persons who are said to have trained in Jigen Ryū Bō Odori)
- Kojō no Sai (Kojo family: Ranks: Oyakata, Pechin. The Kogusuku family of Kumemura in the Naha area is today most commonly known as the Kojō. They were undoubtedly one of Ryūkyūs premier martial arts families, indicated by them being the Shuri castle guards in hereditary succession. The Kogusuku Denka, or Kogusuku family tradition, led to todays Kojō Ryū. Kogusuku Oyakata was a high ranked Ryūkyū official and sent to China in 1665 by his father and is supposed to have studied martial arts at the court of the Chinese emperor. The emperor is said to have granted Kojō Oyakata permission to teach martial arts officially. After returning to Okinawa, it is said that Kogusuku Oyakata taught Kumiuchi-hō or “fighting methods” similar to Kempō only to his family. The Kogusuku martial art had been first formalized by Kogusuku Pechin. The second generation of the Ryū was presented by one Kogusuku Seishoei (1816-1906), who was an expert in weapons.)
- Arakaki-ryu no Sai (Well, Arakaki Seishō (1849-1920), described as a king’s Bushi who seems to have hailed from Sesoko island where his father had been posted by the Shuri government to administer as the chief magistrate for the area. Everybody knows the story of the martial arts program of 1867, when Aragaki and others performed Ryukyu Martial Arts at the royal guest house as an entertainment honoring the Chinese Sappōshi. Arakaki in 1870 was send to China as a translator (Tsuuji Pechin) by the Ryūkyū government. Arakaki was also sought out by others, like Mabuni Kenwa, Chitose Gōchoku, Toyama and Funakoshi and was a notable Bō and Sai expert.)
- Tawada no Sai (Tawada Shinboku (1814-1884))

The knowledge that there have been worn three Sai is known by the simple fact that there is the above named Kata Kojo no Sai. So, to end this, I have no doubt that there are traditional Sai kata. One may use these Kata as what they where maybe meant to be: as a template to study. One may uses these to further develop the technique, and fill some possible technical gaps. Good! One may keep the template alive in its "original form" as a subject of study for generations to come.

After all it is not really comprehensible why there is spread word that there is no such thing as traditional Sai kata and that they all have been only invented more recently. The construction of the assumptions is based on "they fought with Sai and when they fought with it it couldn't have been looking like... well, the traditional Kata". It may be true that the Ryukyu nobles in times of emergency would use other tactics than shown Omote in the Kata, but after all it is kata. These templates have been used again and again to study the martial arts by many different people.

The whole article on Sai to me just looks like rhetorical prank in which "other modern Okinawan styles" are degraded as "unsophisticated" only as a means of authenticating actions taken to promote Yamanni as an overall Kobudo.

You may think about of just point out your strong point without invalid comparisons to (undisclosed) styles, which maybe just have completely different goals.

There is no tradtional Sai kata in Yamanni-ryu (apart from what seems to be based in Kyan Shin'ei's Saijutsu). After all I can't prevent a strong feeling that many things in Yamanni-ryu seems to have been more recent developments. Again, that's absolutely ok with me, and the techniques look great. However, I have some difficulty with the rhetorical part of that all. So to me the style itself has a history of 20 years, starting from 1985 with founding of the Ryukyu Bujutsu Kenkyu Doyukai. So, in this, it isn't even important that other Okinawan styles "differ from Yamanni-Ryu in the fundamentals of their movement", because Yamanni-Ryu isn't the "original style", hasn't the "original Kata" and hasn't the "original movements and body mechanics" of Mr. Chinan Sanda, at least as far my humble opinion is concerned. Also to note: There never seemed to be the traditional (secretive) teaching only to the eldest son in Yamanni lineage.

The Okinawa Dojo list as prepared by the Okinawa Orefectural Board of Education as of 2003, there are about 430 dojo with adress, styles etc. It has two entries which include the name "Yamani", both belonging to an association called "Okinawa Shōtō-ryū Karate-dō Kyōkai"; no "Ryukyu Bujutsu Kenkyu Doyukai" there. I find it interesting that one of those uses the term "Yamani Kishaba-ryū Bōjutsu" for his style, which I may add seems absolutely fitting and correct to me, in terms of naming a tradition according to Bugei customs. It shows the root (Yamani) and it shows the further development (Kishaba). So I keep it with this.

1:
Dōjō: Tamagusuku or Tamshiro Karate
Place: Naha-shi Matsuyama
Association: Okinawa Shōtō-ryū Karate-dō Kyōkai
Martial Arts: Karate-dō, Kobudō
Training: Monday and Friday: Youths 19:15-20:30. Adults 21:00-22:30. Wednesday: Yamane Kishaba-ryū Bōjutsu 21:00-22:30 

2.
Dōjō: Shuri-te ?? Karate Dōjō (Yamane Chinen-ryū Bōjutsu)
Association: Okinawa Shōtō-ryū Karate-dō Kyōkai
Place: Naha-shi Shuri Akata-chō
Martial Arts: Karate-dō, Kobudō (Bōjutsu)
Training: Monday and Wednesday: 19:00-20:30. 20:45-22:30. Saturday: 10:30-12:30.

The explicit Kobudo associations named are the following:
Ryūkyū Kobudō Seidōkai
Ryūkyū Kobudō Ryūkonkan
Ryūkyū Kobudō Yōryū (Eiryū)kai
Kingai-ryū Tōde Matayoshi Kobudō
Ryūkyū Kobudō Hozon Shinkōkai
Okinawa Kobudō Dōshi Renseikai
Okinawa Dentō Kobudō Hozonkai
Ufuchiku-den Ryūkyū Kobujutsu Hozonkai
Ryūkyū Kobudō Hozonkai
Ryūkyū Kobudō Tesshinkan Kyōkai
Ryūkyū Dentō Kobujutsu Hozon Budō Kyōkai

Under "others" are some more like:
Motobu Udun-dî Kobujutsu Kyōkai
Okinawa Ryūei-ryū Karate Kobudō Ryūfūkai

If there are any further doubts of the existence of traditional Sai kata (net recently invented "traditinoal" Sai kata), I would recommend consulting one of these.

One more that looks like if an overwork is nessecary:
http://www.oshirodojo.com/images/sm_yamanni_chart_vert.gif

Soeishi (1752-1825) is placed as a student of Chinen Kana (1797-1881) see above in this post).
According to this, Chinen Kana would have been the teacher of a 45 years older Soeishi. When Chinen became a Bo-master at, hypothetically, the age of 20 (which is young, I guess), Soeishi would have been 65! That would have been 1817. Soeishi would have had the opportunity to study under Chinen for 8 years, until Soeishi's death in 1825, aged seventy-three. Can anybody believe this was possible?
Also, Soeishi is said to have been of Udun rank, which is similar to a governor (Udun are large residences where princes and Anji chieftains lived). He is also called Soeishi Dunchi, indicating a similar higher rank. Whatever it may really have been, it is accepted, that he was a man of high rank. Soeishi is said to have lived in the Onna village in the Shuri region and to has been the instructor of the royal lifeguard, and also that he had been held in high regard by the Satsuma. Inoue described Soeishi as follows:

Daimyō from Shuri. He was a great Bōjutsu master. Chōun, Shūshi and Soeishi no Kun are his product.
So maybe there is a little mistake in the lineage, and in fact Chinen was a student of Soeishi? :p

The lineage also present Kanagusuku Ufuchiku Sanda (1841-1926) as a student of Chinen Kana (this is the only lineage I could find stating this). Kanagusuku became the security commander of the final Shō Dynasty of king Shō Tai in 1879 (the year of the abolition of the Ryukyu-han and the establishment of the Okinawa-ken was finally pushed through). He created techniques with twenty-five ancient weapons, thus creating his Ufuchiku-den or the Ufuchiku tradition. The BRD gives no teacher of Kanagusuku, but as his student Yabiku Moden, one of the important persons responsible for handing over traditional Saikata.

And also Tawada is noticed in the lineage (such entry also found nowhere else), who was the founder of Tawada-ryu Saijutsu (Tawada no Sai), which was handed down by Yabiku Moden, and now being degraded as unsophisticated.

No matter how sophisticated your performing and martial art may be: the jumbled up chaos and constructed suggestive arguing has brought up fruits which I witnessed personally, so I am "educated" to respond to such threads, no matter what you feel.


I normally try to stay out of heated debates as they prove childish, however naive posts tend to coax a response out of me to individuals I feel aren't educated to respond to such threads.

Apart from that: yes, it looks good. :rolleyes:

Rob Alvelais
13th November 2005, 23:43
Andreas,

I had a conversation with Oshiro sensei about Yamanni Ryu and the weapons that were taught. Mr. Oshiro was quite open with me and said that Yamanni Ryu was just the bo. That's all that he knew of Yamanni Ryu and that the knowledge of the other weapons that he learned came from other sources. He tells the story of asking his bo teacher about learning sai and other weapons. He said that Mr. Kishaba told him to go pick up a pair of sai and go find someone to teach him. The point of all of this is that while Mr. Kishaba can wield a mighty fine sai, he only teaches as Yamanni ryu, the bo. The sai tonfa, nunchaku and kama, as Mr. Oshiro said is "MSG", something to give flavor and has come frome other sources, including Mr. Oshiro himself. Of the Sai kata that he taught, the closest thing to a "traditional" sai kata was his version of Kyan no Sai. The others either one of the Kishaba bros made up themselves or Mr. Oshiro made up himself. He was quite up front about that.

I'd be very "interested" if the story had changed from the one that he, himself, told me.

With regard to the bo kata in the video, the Choun No Kon (sho and dai) were authored by Chogi Kishaba. They're not in any way shape or form to be confused with the Choun kata in Matayoshi kobudo. I've not seen the kanji, but I was told by Mr. Oshiro that the kanji in the RBKD Choun kata reflect the characters of Chogi Kishaba's name. Ryubi no kon is also a "fundamental kata" that was brought in to teach the methodology of Yamanni Ryu, but isn't a kata that came from Yamanni Ryu. I belive it was a kata taught in Mr. Nagamine's dojo known as "Shiromatsu No Kon". Again Mr. Oshiro was upfront about that as well. The Shuji no kon Sho in the video is a slightly altered version of the Shuji no Kon of Yamanni Ryu. The differences are that the winding blocks were removed to make the kata a little easier to learn.

With regard to the Yamanni Shuji no kon, I've seen the Shorinkan group do the exact same kata in competitions that I've judged. They call it "Yamane-No-Bo-Shusi-No-Kon". In speaking with Pat Haley, he said that Mr. Nakazato studied with Masami Chinen, so it's not surprising that the two kata are similar. However, while the movements and order of movements are the same, the dynamics of the movements are very different between the groups that come from Kishaba and the Shorinkan group. The Shorinkan group's movements that I've seen seem more consistant with the Shinken Taira and Kenshin Ryu derived groups that I've seen.

Rob

bujutsustudent
15th November 2005, 11:55
Sorry I haven't had a chance to reply to your posts recently Andreas. However, it seems that Rob did an excellent job of cleaning up the misunderstanding regarding sai. One thing Andreas, when you look at Oshiro Sensei's articles, if you are making a point to take everything he is saying in the manner you seem to take it, you will arrive at the conclusions you have arrived at regardless of what myself, Rob, or anyone else who has had the pleasure of studying under Oshiro Sensei. Just to touch up on saijutsu. Sensei is not saying there is NO traditional sai other than his. He isn't even saying that his is the best. He is simply stating that many modern martial artists have devised their own way in using sai. They regard this as traditional. Are they right? perhaps..who am I to tell them what they are doing is right or wrong. However, no matter what weapon you pick up, the weapon is most effective if you use it properly. A good example is, I have seen many individuals gripping their sai incorrectly (like they are making a fist) and stomping about the floor while demonstrating. I've even seen individuals using sai and raising it up to block a bo strike. Now is this incorrect? For the way they swing their bo, perhaps it works and God bless em if they feel it's king or Pope perhaps. However, there is no way for someone who stomps, huffs, and puffs and yells out a lough stiff kiah will ever be able to counter a smooth whip like bo, sword, oar, naginata or whatever strike properly. Sensei isn't attacking anyone however what many people feel is traditional is not. It is this type of "body mechanics" not kata that in fact exist which aren't traditional. As Rob stated, Yamanni-Chinen Ryu is actually just the study of bojutsu and its body mechanics. Other weapons FOR US are incorporated with recent kata added by kishaba sensei and others Sensei has researched. However, what makes our sai different (not necessarily better so don't get bent out of shape again) is that the we still incorporate the same body mechanics of bojutsu in that all strikes are smooth, flowing, and continue in on a rapid succession of strikes....this particular concept is the same for Yamanni -Chinnen ryu bojutsu. As far as sai is concerned, sai as it is currently being taught to me, is not meant for tough, stiff, blocking seen in many kobudo styles. Sai was meant for light parrying and swift countering of powerful sword or perhaps bo swings. As far as the Chinnen and Soeshi bit..ya know him being 73 and all, many many martial artists were and still have the ability to move very well at an older age. Examples? Risuke Otake of the Tenshin Shoden Katori Shinto Ryu is almost 80 and still teaches in Narita. From a friend of mine in Japan, I understand that he is still an unbelievable swordsman. Nagamine Sensei (Shoshin) was still practicing kata in his 90's. I have met Bagua and Tai chi instructors who are all very capable martial artists in their 70's and 80's. Also keep in mind that training then, is not like training now. People trained all day every day. 8 years back then, would be like 16 for most people these days if not more. To add one more thing to that, brilliant martial artists and there are many, find themselves reaching even higher levels after their teacher is gone because they learned how to train THEMSELVES. Ex: Tetsuzan Kuroda Sensei Shinbukan, Yushio Sugino TSKSR, Okamoto Seigo Daito Ryu Roppokai, why should I even keep going? Thank you for the history lesson, however if you changed the angle of your perception of what Sensei is talking about instead of taking everything he says with the thought that he is going after every Okinawan martial artist out there, you would probably find yourself writing a lot less...and I wouldn't have to elaborate so much. Best wishes respectfully,
Shaz

Shikiyanaka
15th November 2005, 17:58
Thanks to both Rob and Shaz for your replies.

Possibly one day we can meet and train (also I'am not so good, but I try). Sorry for that history thing, I just like it, because It's like with Don Quichote: Reading the stories of the knights until you believe being a knight yourself. Selfulfilling Prophecy. It's a good trick for motivation. :)

Cheers

Rob Alvelais
15th November 2005, 21:11
Possibly one day we can meet and train (also I'am not so good, but I try).

I'm in!! Especially, since I've heard such wonderful things about how beautiful Germany is and how the beer is nearly as tasty as the women are beautiful.

Rob

Shikiyanaka
18th November 2005, 17:15
Rob,

we got plenty of both...

Shooter16a2
26th November 2005, 21:52
I have been reading the threads on sai kata and found the information enlightening. My question to the group is as follows, does anyone know of the form [B]Chibana Goten no Sai? I was told that it is an old form that came from the Chibana castle area.
The history of the form as I was told is this: Chuck Chandler from Takaya Yabuku, from Saburo Kochinda. After that I have a list of Kochinda sensei's instructors, but I have no idea who he learned it from.
Unfortunately I became ill a the seminar and had to leave early so I never picked up the form. Heck, I never evan got to see it. Can anyone give me some insight or maybe even get me o video of this form?
Thank you.
Edward A. Harper