go no kata reference material?

[Jonesy]

I am a little uncertain in GK's description as he states that the Go-no-Kata has 15, and not 10 ten, techniques. Ochiai-sensei's kata as tought in Tokyo today has 10 techniques.

In terms of the modifications to the ju-no-Kata wittnessed by Kano, were these modifications not made at the Dai Nippon Butokukai in Kyoto, rather than the Budokwai in London?

[johan smits]

It does state 15 techniques and not 10. Budokwai had their own version of kime no kata also. I think Gunji Koizumi was first and foremost a jujutsu practitioner (Tenjin Shinyo ryu amongst others). Only later on the connection between Budokwai and Kodokan became a fact I think. That would give them undoubtedly a very strong own identity with everything that comes with it.

I have been thinking that in connection with Go no kata even respected authors like Kawaishi mention it in connection with atemi. This puzzled me at first. On the other hand if people were practicing the go no kata (the original 10 technique kata from Kodokan) maybe people who would see it without them being taught formally they could mistake attempts at kumi kata for atemi? That may seem a bit far fetched but when judoka try to get a grip and they do it with extra focus (one of the important things of go no kata as far as I understand) well there isn't much difference I think.

best,

Johan Smits

[Steve Delaney]

I have read that Budokwai Quarterly as it was Trevor P. Legget who was the one who tried performing the go no kata before Ochiai or anyone else, as far as I know. I do not recall if it is in the quarterly or the one which contains the Euology or the following one, but there ar two or three pictures "somewhere" showing him "performing the go no kata badly"-TPL.

Just as an aside, it's one of T.P. Legget's old students that is still practicing under Ochiai at the moment and studying the Go No Kata. He had an interest in learning both Tenjin Shinyo-ryu & Kodokan at one time, but the syllabi for both was so large that it was restrictive and he was in his mid-fifties at the time.

[Jonesy]

It does state 15 techniques and not 10. Budokwai had their own version of kime no kata also. I think Gunji Koizumi was first and foremost a jujutsu practitioner (Tenjin Shinyo ryu amongst others). Only later on the connection between Budokwai and Kodokan became a fact I think. That would give them undoubtedly a very strong own identity with everything that comes with it.

I have been thinking that in connection with Go no kata even respected authors like Kawaishi mention it in connection with atemi. This puzzled me at first. On the other hand if people were practicing the go no kata (the original 10 technique kata from Kodokan) maybe people who would see it without them being taught formally they could mistake attempts at kumi kata for atemi? That may seem a bit far fetched but when judoka try to get a grip and they do it with extra focus (one of the important things of go no kata as far as I understand) well there isn't much difference I think.

best,

Johan Smits

GK was certainly a ju-jutsu practitioner more so than a judoka. I am not clear how the Budokwai (a martial arts club (mainly judo and aikido) in London) came to have its own versions of the judo kata? John Cornish may know.

I wonder if the Budokwai and the Butokukai are not getting mixed up? .

[johan smits]

Steve, that's cool!

That means that the go no kata will probably have a follow up in the future. Maybe even become available at one point or another to train in or at least to get more info on.

Llyr,
I was writing from memory on the Kime no kata. I do not know if they have own versions of the other kata.

From Judo Quarterly Bulletin October, 1948 by the Budokwai


Kime no kata - decisive combat forms

"For the purpose of demonstration, the Budokwai has selected the most common forms of attack and most effective and simple methods of defence. For this reason, the kata described in the following paragraphs should be known as the Kime no kata of the Budokwai."

A total of thirteen attacks, the roles of defender and attacker change sometimes. Techniques against, unarmed attack, knife, stick and pistol.

It is shown in very simple linedrawings in oct. 1948, jan. 1949 and april 1949 bulletins.

Best,

Johan Smits

[MarkF]

That's why I have always thought of Goshin jutsu as a system instead of a kata. It is always changing.


Mark

[johan smits]

Yes, there is a lot we just don't know.
Mark, your way of thinking is probably closer to the original intention of kata that most are.

I read somewhere that most judo sensei had their own form of goshinjutsu kata. Those were probably great forms including their own ideas it is just that they were not recognized by the Kodokan as Kodokan kata.

As example Hontai Yoshin ryu has a nage no kata (forms of throwing). Kata as such is just a training method and not an end in itself.

As a jujutsuteacher, there is no reason why I should not create a nage no kata of my own with throws I feel are important. Is this legitimit? Yes of course, within the boundaries of my own school/style.

Will it be recognized by the Kodokan? HAAAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAA!!!!

Aaaaaahhh that felt good.

best,

Johan Smits

[Jonesy]

Steve, that's cool!

Llyr,
I was writing from memory on the Kime no kata. I do not know if they have own versions of the other kata.

From Judo Quarterly Bulletin October, 1948 by the Budokwai


Kime no kata - decisive combat forms

"For the purpose of demonstration, the Budokwai has selected the most common forms of attack and most effective and simple methods of defence. For this reason, the kata described in the following paragraphs should be known as the Kime no kata of the Budokwai."

A total of thirteen attacks, the roles of defender and attacker change sometimes. Techniques against, unarmed attack, knife, stick and pistol.

It is shown in very simple linedrawings in oct. 1948, jan. 1949 and april 1949 bulletins.

Best,

Johan Smits

Hi Johan

It all makes sense to me now.

The kata you refer to is the Budokwai Kata. It is a self-defence kata, but is in no way related to the Kodokan Kime-no-Kata. It is a kata that is performed entirely in the standing position if I remember rightly

I have also seen this kata performed live. It was in 1988 at a special show to celebrate the Budokwai's 70th Anniversary. They held this special show at London's Royal Albert Hall. It was performed by George Kerr (then 8th Dan, now 9th Dan).

The good news is that a video tape of the entire show is available:

1988 Budokwai Judo & Karate Show at the Royal Albert Hall

See:

http://www.fightingfilms.com/acatalo...estVideos.html

Llyr

[johan smits]

Hi Llyr,

You are right. I should have been more precise. Their own version of kime no kata hints at a kata similar to Kodokan's kime no kata used as a substitute for it. That was not the case.

Thanks for the link, I am going to get that video soon.

Best,

Johan Smits

[MarkF]

I am a little uncertain in GK's description as he states that the Go-no-Kata has 15, and not 10 ten, techniques. Ochiai-sensei's kata as tought in Tokyo today has 10 techniques.

In terms of the modifications to the ju-no-Kata wittnessed by Kano, were these modifications not made at the Dai Nippon Butokukai in Kyoto, rather than the Budokwai in London?

The way I understand it, is that it had ten waza orginally(probably two years, a year more or less, as did the nage no kata making the assertion that there were originally ten, at the very least, possible or even probable early on since so many jujutsuans had contributed to the go kyo no kaza even if they did not know it. Those who founded styles of unarmed budo in the meiji era were not very large. There just may not have been a "library card" in which to store unused waza or series of waza, latter to become kata.

Well, as far as the "modified" version of the ju no kata in which Kano was in the audience, I am almost certain it was during a demo at the Budokwai, Llyr. In fact, after the performance, Kano stood and went over to the inside of the mat and said something to the effect (you may know the exact quote, Llyr, but this is a rather common story as told about Kano. The main facts of the story, however, do not change much, if at all). Kano: The Ju no Kata has three parts. I have been doing the ju no kata for forty years and I am pretty sure I am able to do two of them (overstated laughter follows)."

The source I read did not say who was performing it but my guess is GK. As soon as the error was spotted by Kano, he leaned to the person next to him and "That is a modification of the Ju no Kata." I doubt he would excuse his personal students from it that way, but he was a guest. I am pretty sure I read it on the Budokwai or KanoSociety web site but I just do not know for sure as most of my earlier stuff is on an older computer HD. Still, even if no one knows for sure, I thought it a great story. I cannot recall the year, but you may know in which visit Kano witnessed a ju no kata demonstration by the higher ups at the Budokwai at the time, but I also recall that TP Legget may have also been involved, perhaps as the uke for whomever gave this particular demo. He claims to have performed a very broken (as in English) version of the go no kata. How close he was, his direct students would know, I think.

I guess I am partial to such stories and the last thing I want to do is prove it wrong, though a change in venue to the DNBK would not be a blow to the story, I suppose. I just have a picture in my mind as to where and by whom it was done so it would take me a while to make another mental picture of it.

I am also pretty sure that Kano's story has him, perhaps talking about that kata, perhaps saying something like "...This is the way I have always done this kata," or something similar then following with an explanation/demonstration of the ju no kata...or perhaps not. At any rate, it makes for great storytelling. Kodokan Judo, if nothing else, makes for great legends of the art of yielding.


Mark

[Jonesy]

After some time I have finally managed to obtain a copy of the book Go-no-Kata: Reconstructie van een vergeten kata (Reconstructing the forgotten kata) by Jan Muilwijk and also the George Parulski Kobushi Media CD-ROM of The Lost Kata of Judo. The genesis of these (so-called) Go-no-Kata has been a subject of much debate on this forum.

I do not wish to add to those particular debates but what I can suggest (having watched the demonstration of the Go-no-kata on the George Parulski CD-ROM whilst simultaneously turning the pages of Jan Muilwijk’s book) is that the two gentlemen’s Go-no-Kata are identical in every way and are at best an interesting hybrid of karate and judo.

George Parulski does not list out the techniques in his Go-no-Kata, but he does state their names in the instructional segment of the CD-ROM – these are drawn mainly from Shotokan Karate. Jan Muilwijk uses terminology drawn from Wado-ryu-style karate.

Thus it is no surprise that Muilwijk’s Go-no-Kata differs hugely from that taught by Ochiai-sensei in the same way that Parulski’s does.

Llyr J

[johan smits]

Hi Llyr,

That is a huge part of the puzzle solved. It is also a huge minus for my fellow countryman I must say.

If he would have created his own version of go no kata on some notes or information that he found it would have been different I feel but this is definately not good.
As far as I know in the book Parulski is given as a source nothing more.

And it is identical you say. Steal it and call it research that's cool. Not that Parulski is given to thorough historical research but that is another matter.


About research:

Apart from the original go no kata - the one with the 10 techniques from Kodokan, Kawaishi mentions a go no kata consisting of atemi in his kata book.

Although I do not doubt that the original go no kata is described in the article by Anthony Cundy (10 techniques) this reference by Kawaishi is peculiar. Kawaishi was a knowledgeable high-ranking teacher. Now he could have been referring to the solo kata for atemi the Kodokan has (mentioned somewhere earlier in this thread) and named it go no kata by mistake but then is this likely?

best,

Johan Smits

[Jonesy]

Keeping a completely open mind there are three (not-equally) likely possibilities

1. Both Parulski and Muilwijk have the same (unidentified) original source and have independently arrived at the same Go-no-Kata;

2. Muilwijk has used Parulski as a secondary source, but reinforced his work with other primary sources and arrived at the same kata;

3.Muilwijk has simply obtained the Parulski CD and copied it.

Llyr

[MarkF]

Well, in email with Parulski, he claimed his source as his teacher, the very hard to find Isao Obato/Obata. Even more revealing is that he said that what his teacher did show him were "bits and pieces" and that the kata on the video is not "the entire kata." It seems to me that Llyr nailed it on how they arrived at their "versions" of this kata. Add bits 'n' pieces to bits 'n' pieces and what do you get? More bits 'n' more pieces plus some good story telling. There is always a bit of truth in folk lore. (Hey, anyone recall the song "Bits 'n' Pieces" by the Dave Clark Five? I have two of their albums though I think that was the limit of their sucess during the British Invasion. No, not that one!)

As for Kawaishi telling his story on the go no kata the way he does, I think he sets the stage for those who came after to tell the same, basic story to allow for a kata of atemi though there is plenty of atemi in other kata all ready. He is far from the only one to make a valid "guess (I do mean a guess)" as to what it really was, or even what it is.

And who is going to be the witness to tell us that anyone knows what the go no kata really was, or is? Modern days' "real deals" such as Steven Cunningham say the same thing. "The Go no kata has lots of atemi." Well, no one so far has said he was wrong, but the way he tells it doesn't really have the ring of truth. Those who listen to him or read what he writes are also spreading the "word," too, so perhaps with enough story debunking we really will get around to something which really is the real thing. It may not be in my lifetime, but I have hopes.

My only problem with people such as Parulski and his versions of a lot of things can only be purchased, and that is just a three-card Monty deal. On the other hand, if one goes in pretty much knowing what they are getting then it is better but still not ideal as he is counting on those people, too.

He did invite me to go to Japan with him, but only after watching my waza to see if I were deserving. That was really ballsy on his part as that hadn't even come up in the emails, he just brought it up out of the blue right after he failed to answer my question concerning his 7-dan in Tenshin shin'yo ryu.


Mark

[Steve Delaney]

Funny! There are no dan grades in Tenjin Shinyo-ryu at all. There are licences of proficiency, but no dan grades.