A discussion on FightingArts.com from 11/24/07
.png)
Tou / Tang = China (Uchinaguchi)
Te = hand (Japanese)
Di / Ti = hand (Uchinaguchi)
Just using, referring to and defining things in older terms doesn't shed light on what the actual Arts and training methods were or looked like.
Whenever you see someone claiming to show/teach 'old ways' (as prior to 1900's), the silent disclaimer is that what they are teaching is THEIR interpretation of what 'old' is and looked like.
The only thing you have is what is passed down to you in person over many years. Where you want to believe it ultimately came from, will not add anything to what was passed down to you or add to skill/understanding level.
There are more and more people publishing their Arts today which have diverse experience in a host of modern Arts, then package it with an old label. They can call it whatever they like, but it does not necessarily make the history so.
Add Jujitsu and grappling to your Karate experience for a couple years, then claim it "Ryukyuan Te". nobody will know, nor will it be disprovable. hence there is money to be made by simply redefining the past and marketing to the perception that older is better.
However, if you like someone's teaching and what they have to offer, isn't it regardless of what they call it?
to address the thread question - there are examples of 'Te' all over the place - in fact, there are as many examples as there are who claim it as a name for what they do.
...for instance, is this the Defacto standard of what old Te supposedly looked like? what about the Japanese 'aiki' art influence that was obviously later added to this branch of Motobu's family system?
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mv_oR5Ifm_o Video deleted
Ed Morris
Ed,
I totally agree that just referring to things in older terms does not shed let on what earlier Te, di or ti systems may have looked like. The terms are generic to describe a particular type of fighting system that may not be classified as a form of Karate. There is also a Te aspect referred to in some styles of Okinawan Karate as a particular principle, in this context use of the term and what it describes varies. I began looking into this stuff back in the 1980's, firstly as a martial artist and in more recent years from a more academic perspective as well. So this is going to be a fairly long post and will end with some of the current questions that researchers in this area are interested in concerning one line of di.
Below I summarize many of the bug bears I myself and others who have shared this interest have come across over the years and which have become something of an issue with this di/ti/te phenomenon and which are of particular relevance now to any discussion on Ti/di/te.
1. The term di/ti/te
As stated the terms Te/Ti/Di simply means hand. For example certain Branches of Japanese Ju Jutsu have what is called Tori-Te, which simply means to take hands, the Okinawan equivalent is tuite, made popular by Mr.Oyata.
I think that much of what is often mistakenly labelled Te is as you say simply individual interpretations of what Ti/ti/di might have looked like makes a good a point.
we have to ask whose Ti is it, that of Kishomoto (Seitoku Higa's and Shukimune's teachers)or that of the Motobu's (a Family system) or a concept that Onaga uses in his Shorin Ryu are examples of this. So how we have to prefix the term di is important to get anywhere near as to what these old Ti might be. For example we have Higa's ti, Motobu udun di, Onaga's ti or even Oyata's RyuTe.
2. Some of the more modern uses of the label Ti/Te
There is as you a say people adding grappling from Ju Jutsu or Aiki systems to their Karate and then calling it Ryukyuan Te, which I see as a modern syndrome. As you say what they call it is up to them, unfortunately this is often based on poor research. Too much so-called Te is simply hybrid Ju Jutsu or Aiki mixed in with modern Karate.
3. Well known lines of old Ti
Apart from the Motobu Udun di of Seikichi Uehara, which claims (including its so called aiki aspect)to be quite old, there is also the Bugeikan line from Seitoku Higa, which originally came from Kishomoto, who was also the teacher of Shukimune, the founder of Gensei Ryu.
4. Kishomoto's Ti
We know as a certainty that the grappling aspect of the line of Ti that came from Kishomoto (and perhaps originally from Takemura) is only part of di. There are other aspects of di/ti/te which serve to define it: The way of movement being a particularly important aspect which is to be seen in Bugeikan Kihon and the following Kata: Nidanpabu, Sanpabu,Takemura Naihanchi and Takemura Kusanku.
5. Bugeikan and Motobu Udun di
There are some similarities of Bugeikan with Motobu Udun Ti but given the close relationship that Seitoku Higa had with Seikichi Uehara, it is hard to say what influenced which and when.
6. Aiki aspects of Motobu Udun di
Interesting what you say about the Aiki aspect of Motobu Udun Ti being added later, I recently came across a source that stated that in December 1962 Seikichi Uehara attended a series of seminars at Naha High School with Okuyama, the founder of Hakko Ryu.
7. Further complications with old lines of di/ti/te:
Although there is clear evidence of Motobu Udun Ti influence on the Bugeikan, some of the Bugeikan Ti grappling aspects are not from Motobu Ryu. However, having said that Kyohiko Higa, who now heads the Bugeikan, also has a background in Aikido and this has also become an influence....But certain aspects of that style (Bugeikan) can clearly been distinguished from Aikido and Ju Jutsu.
8. Purity of Ti/di/te and glimpses
However pure Ti/di from the Bugeikan, especially since the advent of Seido now seems virtually non-existant. Although there is some possibility of extracting what is not (i.e. the Karate of the Hanashiro line, the Aikido and Seido) from it and comparing the commonalities with what is available of Motobu Udun Ti and in early Gensei Ryu of Shukimune to get a climpse of what one old line of Ti may have looked like.
9. Summation:
So, in short, I agree with what you are saying and suspect that some Aiki type stuff may have been added later in the Motobu Udun Ti line and as this style was also learnt in part by Seitoku Higa we have to consider the consequences of this for the Bugeikan line as well. However, I do not accept that old Ti was a grappling art but was only a component part of it.
10. Other problems with examining and defining di/ti/te:
There are however numerous other problems when looking at Ti/te/di. What we call Aiki Jutsu is a relatively modern concept, although people will claim it is older than it is, Aiki is a concept in many old Ju Jutsu systems. The term Ju Jutsu is also generic and covers a wide range of things and not all so-called Ju Jutsu systems involved grappling some were predominately striking based. To add to the complications Ju Jutsu was generally the secondary empty hand aspect of a larger fighting system. The term Ti/di especially in relation to Motobu Udun di has been used in the same way to describe a fighting system that included a whole range of things including weaponry and empty hand aspects which encompass strikes, kicks, grappling and weapons.
At the current time research on old Okinawan di has thrown up the following questions in relation to the Takemura-Kishomoto- Higa and Shukimune line which still need to be answered:
1. Who was Choku Matsumora what relationship if any did he have with Kosaku Matsumora, if any?
2. Who was Kijun Kishomoto? We suspect that he was related to Soko Kishomoto.
3. Kishomoto's teacher, Takemura had a son who was sent to Kagoshima to learn Judo (this could have been Ju Jutsu) and supposedly introduced this Judo to Okinawa (Source: Ryukyu Shinpo January 17, 1914) what else is known. i.e.
a. Who was Takemura's son's teacher,
b. At which Dojo and under whom did he train?
c. How long did he study there?
4. Related to the last question and its subsets. Is there any records in Jigen Ryu of a Takemura ever having studied with in that Ryha?
Regards
Chris Norman
No comments:
Post a Comment