Pinan Kata Origin

[hmjoe]

Hello All,

First, I would like to say how much I enjoy this forum. This really is the information age when so many people can collaborate on issues.

Here is my question:

I have heard that the creator of the Pinan kata set is Sensei Anko Itosu. Fine!

Sensei Hohan Sokon has stated in the past that he learned from his teacher Nabe Matsumura (who had only one teacher, Bushi Matsumura). Of the kata he learned was the Pinan set of kata.

How, then could Sensei Itosu have created the kata if these kata were known to Nabe Matsumura, who clamed to have learned them directly from Bushi Matsumura? I also have read the Sensei Itosu was one of Bushi Matsumura's students.

I also know that it should not matter exactly who created what, except to give proper credit. It is far more important to learn the lessons that the kata provides than the origin of the kata.

None the less, I seem to be a Okinawan Karate History junkie and have the need to know.

Thanks in advance to anyone who can help.

Sincerely,

Joe DiBella
Brown Belt

[Tatsu]

Hi Joe:
Hohan Soken, who formalized Matsumura Orthodox Shorin, learned and taught 2 of the Pinan/Pinyon kata- Shodan and Nidan. He stated that these, the "oldest" of the Pinan kata, came from a Southern Chinese form called Chan Nan/Chanan. Some historians claim that Itosu invented all of the Pinan (1-5), and that they are derivative of the kata Kusanku. Others say that Hohan Soken "trained" with Itosu's disciple, Chibana Choshin, and learned Pinan from him. I doubt this is the truth, although I don't doubt that Soken trained with an eminent master such as Chibana. It's a well known fact that Soken "trained" with other famous Shinshii such as Mabuni Kenwa and even the Chinese tea merchant Gokenki.

You made an interesting observation concerning the fact that both Itosu and Hohan Soken's uncle and Sensei, Nabe Matsumura, trained under Sokon Matsumura. This could explain the similarities in the look and feel of Pinan, as well as the obvious differences. To this day, many Matsumura Seito practitioners only learn 1&2 due to the fact that the last three (Sandan, Yondan and Godan) were created by Itosu as a way to introduce students to the fundamental aspects of the more advanced forms. This has been validated by Shuguro Nakazato, Grandmaster of Shorinkan, so I have no reason to doubt it is true. In fact Nakazato Hanshi, stated that Chibana himself created a 6th Pinan, but Nakazato never teaches it.

Hohan Soken insisted that his Pinan were from a different source (his family's system), and that is the reason many Matsumura practitoners who learned all the way up to the late 60s and early 70s, were only taught that which was handed down to Soken (Pinan Shodan & Nidan). I was also instructed in this way. Concentrating on Pinan 1&2, and learning the last 3 as "supplemental" kata is how my Sensei has passed on these kata to me.

Being a former Kobayashi-Shorinkan student (Chibana's style), I can tell you that the performance and execution of the Seito versions of Pinan 1&2, are quite different. The stepping and stances are more dramatic and pronounced in Kobayashi. Matsumura Shorin uses a 45 degree stepping method, almost crescent in appearance, but Shorinkan uses an even more pronounced and exaggerated execution of technique. Many claim that ShuriTe/Shorin uses linear stepping, but to watch a Kobayashi practitoner you would see no real evidence of this. True, the stepping speed is faster than Goju, but you would think that you were witnessing a form of NahaTe. More Goho or hardness is evident as well as powerful, circular blocking and lower, wider stances. The Seito Pinan, are done with shallower stances, speedier movements, and a combination of internal and external power. Less muscle strength is used and tendon strength and sinking power are utilized and trained.

The transition from a Kobayashi background, to the Orthodox style was really easy. I had to learn to quit raising and lowering my body when performing certain techs. Kobayashi teaches power generation in this way, whereas Matsumura Seito teaches one how to generate power in a more subtle manner. My sensei refers to it as power utilization via physics and geometry; Using gravity and proper "structural ki".

There are many, many forms of Pinan/Heian. They are all alike yet can be very different. That is a good thing, I think... Hope this soliloquy helps, hahaha!!!

[hmjoe]

Originally posted by Tatsu
Hi Joe:
Hohan Soken, who formalized Matsumura Orthodox Shorin, learned and taught 2 of the Pinan/Pinyon kata- Shodan and Nidan. He stated that these, the "oldest" of the Pinan kata, came from a Southern Chinese form called Chan Nan/Chanan. Some historians claim that Itosu invented all of the Pinan (1-5), and that they are derivative of the kata Kusanku. Others say that Hohan Soken "trained" with Itosu's disciple, Chibana Choshin, and learned Pinan from him. I doubt this is the truth, although I don't doubt that Soken trained with an eminent master such as Chibana. It's a well known fact that Soken "trained" with other famous Shinshii such as Mabuni Kenwa and even the Chinese tea merchant Gokenki.

Thanks so much for your reply. The thing that confuses me is that I have video of Sensei Sokon's students doing Pinan 1-4, claiming that these were the "Matsumura-Seito" versions of the kata. I got the video from Yamazato on the life of Sensei Sokon. Perhaps, as you point out, sensei Sokon could have gotten the Pinan from Chibana Choshin.

Thanks So Much!

All of my best,
Sincerely,
Joe DiBella

[Tatsu]

Originally posted by hmjoe


Thanks so much for your reply. The thing that confuses me is that I have video of Sensei Sokon's students doing Pinan 1-4, claiming that these were the "Matsumura-Seito" versions of the kata. I got the video from Yamazato on the life of Sensei Sokon. Perhaps, as you point out, sensei Sokon could have gotten the Pinan from Chibana Choshin.

Thanks So Much!

All of my best,
Sincerely,
Joe DiBella

When he says that those were the Matsumura Seito versions he meant the stances, strikes and movements. The only true Matsumura Pinan are 1&2. Rohai (1,2&3) as well as Wanshu, Ananku and other Shuri/Tomari kata are also learned, but the core Matsumura Seito kata are Pinans 1-2, Naihanchi 1-3, Passai Sho and Dai, Chinto, Kusanku Mei (and sometimes Kusanku Shiho), Gojushiho, and Hakutsuru. Still, I wouldn't doubt that what he gleaned from training with Chibana was integrated into his family system. Have a great week...

[Tatsu]

Addendum: I just noticed that the video you saw was of some of Sokon's STUDENTS. Yamazato productions is the brainchild of Sensei George Alexander who trained under my sensei, Kyoshi Ronnie Lindsey. I don't know if he misunderstood the history he was taught, but all Matsumura traditionalists know that only the first 2 Pinans were considered part of the Seito or "koryu" traditions of Shorin. So, as I stated previously, the execution of techniques in Pinans 3&4 are Seito, but the kata are not. They are supplementary forms. Happy and healthy training!

[hmjoe]

Hello Tatsu:

Thank you so much.

You really have cleared it up for me.

Sincerely,

Joe DiBella

[Tatsu]

You are very welcome, sir! Glad to help.

[TimJurgens]

All,

I am not sure if this helps but Morimasu Arakaki Sensei, son and successor of Seki Arakaki Sensei taught Pinan 1-5 in his dojo in 1987 as Matsumua Seito Karate. He also taught the Fukyu Kata that was developed by Nagamine Sensei. For the Pan Asian games that were to take place in Okinawa that year they learned Fukyu Kata Ni and all the dojo's that participated in the demonstrations performed these two Kata. I presume that at joint demonstrations in the past such as this one there would be an influx of kata and cross pollination.

All of the teachers I have met on Okinawa have stated that in the past people would not distinguish one Ryuha from the other as ridgidly as is done now and certainly not as ridgidly as is done in the west. The attitude was to learn from as many good teachers as was possible but to always keep the basics in mind. In our Kobudo association there are several Karate styles represented and it is not unusual to see the members of those systems comparing notes as to how kata was done in each and what the bunkai of the different movements could mean.

Best regards to all.

Yours in Budo,

Tim Jurgens

[hmjoe]

Hello Sir ,
Thanks for your reply.

All of the teachers I have met on Okinawa have stated that in the past people would not distinguish one Ryuha from the other as ridgidly as is done now and certainly not as ridgidly as is done in the west. The attitude was to learn from as many good teachers as was possible but to always keep the basics in mind.

This quote is very interesting to me. One of my Main teachers is Sensei Teriuki Higa (Okinawa Kenpo). I came to him from several different styles, TKD, Shotokan, etc. He had asked me to do Pinan 1.
I did it pretty much the shotokan/TKD way for him. He said, "So you know Pinan 1, do you?" I said, "Yes" (I had been doing this particular kata for over 10 years.) He said, Now do the kata, but only use Cat Stance .... When I was done, he said, Now do the kata, but only use Back Stance .... When I was done, he said, Now do the kata but backwards and in reverse .... Then he said in a straight line ... Then he said, "So, you said you know Pinan 1, do you? By the way, no one ever taught you how do breath correctly when doing kata ..."

Needless to say, I learned alot from not being so ridgid. Being able to have the opportunity to learn from such a great teacher is like winning the lotto.

As for Bunkai, this is a topic that facinates me tremendously. If you know of any great resourses other than this website, please let me know. (books, videos, etc.) As for you comment on basics, I feel that you are absolutly correct. To many schools here in NY don't stress basics enough.

Thanks for everything.

Sincerely,
Joe DiBella

[fuwafuwausagi]

Wow, there is much that could be said on this thread. I have wondered about this for years. For those with archive access this topic was debated strongly on the CD (cyberdojo) around 1997. I do not have the threads or I would post them, as I asked the same question there. In 1997 I believed that Pinan I and II were passed down from Bushi Matsumura --> Nabe Matsumura --> Hohan Soken. I based this on the Estrada interview. Now in a less passionate state, I have had time to analyze the interview, as well as access to new information and my view has changed.

One thing that leaps out to me is that I have yet to “hear” that Soken Sensei ever stated that his Pinan I and Pinan II stem from Bushi Matsumura. Mr. Seers states “Hohan Soken insisted that his Pinan were from a different source (his family's system)”; I would be very interested in a link to this information source.

The Interview is interesting in that Soken Sensei clearly is chronicling the evolution of his kara-te. As a result it is difficult to discern what kata match which time period. For instance in the interview Soken Sensei states:

“Whatever it was, it was the way I learned and the way I taught. It was later, when the Americans came to learn, that I changed my ways.”

Therefore we know for certain there was a dramatic change, and we know that Soken Sensei introduced new kata (that appear to stem from Kise Sensei) in the curriculum.

After mentioning that he (Soken Sensei) had made changes he then states:

“I teach the Matsumura kata. The kata that I teach now are pinan shodan, pinan nidan, naihanchi shodan, naihanchi nidan, patsai-sho and dai, chinto, gojushiho, kusanku, rohai ichi-ni-san, and last, the hakutsuru.”

I note that the fact that Soken states that he teaches the Matsumura kata, not that he only teaches the Matsumura kata. This view is strengthened because of the inclusion of Rohai in the list of kata. Rohai is known not to be a Matsumura kata, and a form added by Soken Sensei.

So I find little compelling commentary in the interview to lend me to believe Soken Sensei was proclaiming that the Pinan I and II are Matsumura kata. In addition the man I view as Soken Sensei’s heir (Mr. Cyr’s Sensei would dispute that), and at a minimum an indoor student and blood relative of Soken Sensei does not teach the Pinan kata as he states they are not Matsumura kata.

However there is no doubt that Soken Sensei taught the Pinans. The question is: are Pinan I and II Matsumura kata handed down through antiquity to Soken Sensei? I doubt it. I have not found clear support in the written interviews (I do not have access to all of them, and I could easily have missed something), but more compelling is the fact that a blood relative of Soken Sensei states they are not.

As far as anything coming form Yamazato productions, the character of the owner (Alexander) is at best questionable. I would not sully my mind with his opinion or productions.

[Tatsu]

Originally posted by TimJurgens
All,

I am not sure if this helps but Morimasu Arakaki Sensei, son and successor of Seki Arakaki Sensei taught Pinan 1-5 in his dojo in 1987 as Matsumua Seito Karate. He also taught the Fukyu Kata that was developed by Nagamine Sensei. For the Pan Asian games that were to take place in Okinawa that year they learned Fukyu Kata Ni and all the dojo's that participated in the demonstrations performed these two Kata. I presume that at joint demonstrations in the past such as this one there would be an influx of kata and cross pollination.

All of the teachers I have met on Okinawa have stated that in the past people would not distinguish one Ryuha from the other as ridgidly as is done now and certainly not as ridgidly as is done in the west. The attitude was to learn from as many good teachers as was possible but to always keep the basics in mind.

Best regards to all.

Yours in Budo,

Tim Jurgens

I learned the Fugyugata in Matsubayashi and the Kihon Kata in Shorinkan. They are good prepratory forms.

I agree that there is much diversity in teaching among various instructors. That is good. Rigidity and regimentation is a mainland trait. Matsumura Seito stylists do learn all Pinan kata. I was just stating that Hohan Soken only mentions Pinan Shodan and Nidan as the Pinan kata that he was taught by his uncle. He did know all 5, but I don't think he learned the last 3 versions from Nabe. The Pinan in general are Itsou-Ha forms. Matsumura Orthodox is Matsumura-Ha, as is all Shorin, but it lacks many of the Itosu Ha training methods and ideologies. So it is MAINLY influenced by Matsumura-Ha.

None of this matters though. We should all be the judges of whether or not learning something is good for us. We are all Shuri or Naha Te, or both, and even those 2 towns are just down the road from one another. There are stylistic differences, but the similarities outweigh them. Have a wonderful week!

[Tatsu]

Originally posted by fuwafuwausagi
Wow, there is much that could be said on this thread. I have wondered about this for years. For those with archive access this topic was debated strongly on the CD (cyberdojo) around 1997. I do not have the threads or I would post them, as I asked the same question there. In 1997 I believed that Pinan I and II were passed down from Bushi Matsumura --> Nabe Matsumura --> Hohan Soken. I based this on the Estrada interview. Now in a less passionate state, I have had time to analyze the interview, as well as access to new information and my view has changed.

One thing that leaps out to me is that I have yet to “hear” that Soken Sensei ever stated that his Pinan I and Pinan II stem from Bushi Matsumura. Mr. Seers states “Hohan Soken insisted that his Pinan were from a different source (his family's system)”; I would be very interested in a link to this information source.

The Interview is interesting in that Soken Sensei clearly is chronicling the evolution of his kara-te. As a result it is difficult to discern what kata match which time period. For instance in the interview Soken Sensei states:

“Whatever it was, it was the way I learned and the way I taught. It was later, when the Americans came to learn, that I changed my ways.”

“I teach the Matsumura kata. The kata that I teach now are pinan shodan, pinan nidan, naihanchi shodan, naihanchi nidan, patsai-sho and dai, chinto, gojushiho, kusanku, rohai ichi-ni-san, and last, the hakutsuru.”

I note that the fact that Soken states that he teaches the Matsumura kata, not that he only teaches the Matsumura kata. This view is strengthened because of the inclusion of Rohai in the list of kata. Rohai is known not to be a Matsumura kata, and a form added by Soken Sensei.

So I find little compelling commentary in the interview to lend me to believe Soken Sensei was proclaiming that the Pinan I and II are Matsumura kata. In addition the man I view as Soken Sensei’s heir (Mr. Cyr’s Sensei would dispute that), and at a minimum an indoor student and blood relative of Soken Sensei does not teach the Pinan kata as he states they are not Matsumura kata.

However there is no doubt that Soken Sensei taught the Pinans. The question is: are Pinan I and II Matsumura kata handed down through antiquity to Soken Sensei? I doubt it.
As far as anything coming form Yamazato productions, the character of the owner (Alexander) is at best questionable. I would not sully my mind with his opinion or productions.

Why wonder? The other Shorin styles teach Pinan. They are very effective fighting styles so learning Pinan can't be all bad. Maybe I misunderstood the history that was told to me, but I thought that Soken learned Pinans 1 and 2 from Nabe. That's what he told Mark Bishop in "Okinawan Karate" at least, and it's what I've been told. Maybe he learned the Pinan kata from Chibana or from Mabuni Kenwa who may have also showed him the Rohai Kata. I dunno for sure. I do know they are a a part of my kata curriculum in Matsumura Seito.

Each Shihan adds personal subtleties to the kata as generations pass. A 6'3" 200+ pound guy can't do kata exactly like a 5'5" Okinawan master. Okinawan karate is tailor made stuff, but the principles stay the same. Adapt to change.

The familial heir to the system may wish to teach in way that he finds compliments his version of the family system. I don't know if my sensei would dispute this legacy or right-of-birth. I don't think so, if the karateka in question had dedicated as much time as others outside of the family had, to this family system. The proof of techniques and training is in the pudding. If you can point to someone as an incompetent in what they profess to know, then you have proof that what they are teaching is not up to par. Actions speak louder than words, and are the final proof anyone really needs. Documentation and history is all relevant, but action oriented things need only practical empirical evidence to back them up.

I would not think of Pinan as being any one person's brainchild except maybe Itosu's, but I do think they are relevant to Shuri Te in general. I like the "Matsumura" versions especially, but I'm biased !

What conclusions did everyone come to in 1997? Why the inquiry then? Why after and not before Soken Hohan's death? Why didn't the karate Sherlocks just ask him when he was alive? No one can doubt Soken's ability, even if you doubt or read into his words; For example he does mention in the Estrada interview that he changed his ways when he started teaching the Americans. This can be interpreted to mean many things. Too bad Mr. Estrada didn't clarify his words, and delve a little, but I construe them to mean that he couldn't teach in the old-school, hard core methods that he remembered. That also isn't an all-inclusive statement. It could mean that, in general, Americans were wimpy and softer, but not all were and some he taught the old way. The same can be said for the Okinawans like Kise, who learned when he "changed his ways". Who knows? It ain't changing the facts as they stand.

One fact is there are good Sensei/Shinshii that can convey an effective combat method based on Matsumura's principles, and there are those that can't. Make that evaluation for yourself. Too much searching is a form of self-doubt to me. After all, we're all just searching for unrealized self-truths.

BTW, horticulture, huh? J/K! I feel you on the Alexander thing. I mean I've heard "stuff"!

[hmjoe]

Hello All,

I just want to clarify a few things.

The main reasons I asked this question:

• I have some need or passion to find out the truth
• I tend to enjoy knowing the history and origins of what I do
• I know about the "Game Of Telephone" where things get changed and
  misinterpreted. So knowing the original get me closer to the source.

Currently, I know three different versions of the same Pinan kata. I just want to know which one is closer to the original, which is why I am interested in the history. (I have read several Okinawan Karate History Books/Internet Resources trying to find the truth. Sometime until my eyes hurt).

I did not intend in anyway to discredit or dishonor any Sensei, including Sensei Sokon or anyone else. Everyone does their own thing, based on their own beliefs, and that is cool. I like to think that People are generally good, honorable and do the right thing. But, I know that sometimes people unintentionally misrepresent things due to mis-understanding and these mis-understandings get amplified with time.

Regardless, I beleive that as long as you can learn something from any kata, it is worthwile. Even if it is made by another stylist. Perhaps someday, I will make an American Kata

Practicing the Pinan is a great study, regardless where it comes from. That's why I do three versions. But, when you really love something, you ache for it's history. ( I do anyway. )

So, with that I put any negitive energy aside, and just hope to grow.

My Sincere best to all of you. Thanks for all of your help with my question in this thread.

[fuwafuwausagi]

Brian wrote:

Why wonder? The other Shorin styles teach Pinan. They are very effective fighting styles so learning Pinan can't be all bad.

And…

What conclusions did everyone come to in 1997? Why the inquiry then? Why after and not before Soken Hohan's death?

My reply:

No one stated that they were “bad” (that I am aware of). The wonderment stems from a number of sources. In my case, one in particular: My job is 100% overnight, out of state travel. I log 60-200 thousand miles a year. So with the seemingly endless amount of waiting I do, riding trains, buses, planes etc. I find myself with limited time to engage in the physical side of that art and nearly unlimited time to engage in the cerebral side. The end result is a whole lot of time to research; in that fashion I feel connected to the “martial arts”.

The other point is, when this was a hot topic, a number of Matsumura practitioners came forth and made several “derogatory” comments about other styles. Stylistic bigotry if ever there was. The “jest” of their argument was Matsumura Seito represented an unbroken chain of “combat” technique and not the sport karate of “other” styles. The succession chain was always Matsumura-->Nabe-->Soken Sensei.

Fine enough, but when you combine this “our elimination essence” does not stink attitude with it, it tends to make others defensive and looking for anything to bring you down with. The Pinan kata became such an instrument, used to bring into question the authenticity and reputation of Hohan Soken. Furthermore the “crane’ connection thing, promoted by people of questionable “crane” lineage in the Matsumura camp lead to the degradation of the style as a whole in many people’s eyes. (This all took place around 1997-to present). Part of the problem was the commercial “selling” of a strong connection between White Crane and Karate, in particular Matumura Seito. It seemed many U.S. factions had there “story” abou the White Crane in Matsumura Seito or White Crane in general and went to very creative extremes to interweave the two. As a result it became more important for other systems to topple the “legend” around Soken Sensei, therefore the Pinans became a target.

In the end, in a very public forum the Matsumura mystic was tainted and a lot of people ended up with egg on their face or feeling cheated (primarily the crane people).

All the best,

[Tatsu]

Originally posted by fuwafuwausagi
Bryan wrote:


The other point is, when this was a hot topic, a number of Matsumura practitioners came forth and made several “derogatory” comments about other styles. Stylistic bigotry if ever there was. The “jest” of their argument was Matsumura Seito represented an unbroken chain of “combat” technique and not the sport karate of “other” styles. The succession chain was always Matsumura-->Nabe-->Soken Sensei.


In the end, in a very public forum the Matsumura mystic was tainted and a lot of people ended up with egg on their face or feeling cheated (primarily the crane people).

All the best,

Hmm, I think I "feel" you. Yes there are a lot of questionable sensei, mostly Americans, involved with Matsumura Seito. I have seen videos of other "Kyoshi" and their adherents doing Pinyon kata and the like and it was just horrendous karate, white crane or black tiger or whatever animal style.

I study with a teacher who learned in the late 60s and early 70s and who continued to strive for perfection of his interpretation of Matsumura Seito. He didn't rest on his laurels when he returned from Okinawa. He kept researching his and other systems to get to this point. He continues to evolve, as do most good practitioners. He never claimed that what he taught was the original Suidi that Matsumura Sokon new, or that his crane forms were 100% of Matsumura lineage. He does try to keep the original intent there and he does often say that he changed this or that because that has always been the natural progression in karate. Now he does teach the noncrane Matsumura orthodox kata as he remembers them being taught to him. That is what I concentrate on and haven't even begun to delve into the more Chinese influenced crane kata.

My sensei is humble and lives a very modest lifestyle. He doesn't charge exorbitant amounts to train with him, and he travels around the country doing seminars for relatively low fees. His life has been Matsumura and he will die with this same mindset. I have never heard anyone that actually talked and trained with him say anything derogatory about him. There are some other Matsumura "senseis" that claim seniority to him, but with the exception of Jimmy Coffman, lack the knowledge and wherewithall to back those claims up. Seniority means ca-ca when it comes to fighting knowledge.

Discrediting an entire art based on a grudge or some personal vendetta is b.s.. It's like saying all Americans believe and behave just like their government and deserve any terroristic acts aimed at the general populace. I grew up in a disadvantaged country and saw this type of bravado from Americans on a daily basis. There is no one panacea for anything whether it be fighting or poilitico-religious ideology. I go by empiricism. I trained in GJJ under the Gracies and Professor Caique. I did Shorinkan in the Philippines under a sensei who learned from Shuguro Nakazato. I sparred with muay Thai guys and actually fought one for real (not proud of that fact). I knew what real fighting was before UFC and the Gracies. I've seen lots of real fights and been involved in some myself. I know what has worked for me, and if someone can fight or they're just fooling themselves and/or others.

Forms are one thing. Proper mechanics, stance length and width, A&P knowledge, hard work, the athleticism of an individual and the real world experience of a person play a great part in learning to protect yourself, not to mention luck and a myriad of other factors. Matsumura Seito or any other form of Shorin is not any more or less traditional than any other Ryukyuan combat art. It's just an "old mans" form of fighting that works for all people if taught in a sound manner. Talk to Sensei Ron Lindsey yourself. Train with him if you're ever in the Austin area. It's like $30 for 7-8 hours. Judge for yourself if his rendering of the "schoolboy" form Pinan has any value. Forget the history and look at the efficacy.

BTW, who was this "mystic"? Have a great one....