Carl Heinzl's young son joined my youth program, shortly there after Carl Heinzl approached me to join the adult program. As normal I asked him to first watch a class to be sure this was what he wanted. When we talked later, I discovered as a teen he trained in isshinryu in the Pittsburgh area with James Morabeto and that was in the late 1960's. The next class I asked to watch his Seisan, if he remembered it. He did and performed Seisan kata. That was the first time I saw Isshinryu performed with twisting punches as strikes. Carl trained with us about 4 years before work travel meant he had to stop training.
This is a discussion we later had about his Pittsburgh training. I believe this might have been the first open discussion about this training.
.png)
Victor,
I'm still training...
The proper spelling is James Morabeto. From what I've seen, there is at least one other person who trained with me back then who owns a very respectable dojo.
I have heard many stories about the trip from people with first hand experience. Rather than dredge up the past and cause lots of bad vibes between people and/or groups, I believe it is better to not focus on the past... because... as much as you'd like, you can't change it. Even off the cuff remarks and conjecture tend to tilt and focus events, reshaping them to what you have heard,. Virtually all of the people on this list have at best 3rd or 4th hand knowledge and we all know about what happens as stories change hand multiple times.
Like Sensei Harrill was famous for saying - don't concentrate on the differences, focus on what we do that is the same.
Carl Heinzl
Dan:
I found the statement about the straight index finger interesting. I learned that way of making a fist while training in Shuri-ryu. I was already a brown belt in IR but had moved and couldn't find an IR dojo. Anyway, it is one of the things that I find myself doing even today, 20+ years later. For me, it feels almost more natural. I guess body differences come into play here. in fact , my fist is smewhat of a hybrid between the Shuri and IR fist. I still stack my thumb but many times I find my index finger straight against my palm.
I don't teach that fist in my classes as I had never heard any of my previous IR sensei use it.
Regards,
Carl Heinzl
Hi Steve,
A truly interesting comment:> Make sure he was treated properly when he came to the States.
It's a shame we've never gotten a clear picture of either of his visits. Everyone who has commented has their own point of view..
For a time I had a former student of James Morabeto (host of the Pittsburgh trip) train with us. He wasn't a student in 64, but from the school you have one version of what happened. Others have a different version.
The only clear answer is nobody outside of those there really knows the truth of what happened in 64 (and in 66 for that matter). And the parties alive today are intensly in dislike of each other it seems.
So you have Shimabuku Tatsuo, choosing to come to the states in 64 to teach, who didn't know that would mean doing all the teaching, not knowing the cultural standards of the states about bathroom behavior are very different from Okinawa's. The family members living in Muribito's house didn't understand their house guest was from a very different culture, both in home use, food requirements, and the family members, who had no say, probably didn't like him been there either, as he was basically abandoned each day during the day, no place to go in a very cold climate for him.
I question if there was any way to treat him correctly for that situation.
It would seem the correct answer for each party would be not to let it happen and for him not to make the trip.
I'm not going further with the details I've heard, they offer no sane answer for 64 from either point of view.
And the 66 trip seems to be based on the same different cultural interpretations of what to do.
Outside of not doing it, I'm not sure what would have been the correct way to treat him?
It's obvious nobody should enter such arrangement without taking the time to set up expectations in detail from both sides.
But that apparently didn't happen.
Victor
Sat Sep 2, 2006 7:53 pm
Everything is relative.
Was Isshinryu a minor system on Okinawa? Truthfully, probably yes, but you have to take things in perspective.
1. Okinawan's are as catty as everyone is. They will take potshots at any other group just as quick as everyone does today on the internet.
Shimabuku Tatsuo was recoginzed in the Okinawan establishment. How much, who knows, for until Isshinryu's lifetime there literally was no Okinawan establishment, just instructors. There were no systems.
Over 20 years ago I had a chance to train one time with Shimabukuro Zempo (today the head of his father's Seibukan, of the Kyan lineage). Talking with him, after he explained he knew many Isshinryu seniors in the states from when he lived here in the 60's, he explained on Okinawa that there were 90 Shorin dojo, 60 Goju dojo and 3 Isshin dojo. Literally true, but also a polite way to put Isshinryu down.
Many years later I met George Donahue, who was raised in Japan, and was in the Matsubayshi-Kashiba Juku lineage and told him that story. He laughed and told me, Victor, 'that's true, but the thing to know is if you visit each of those 90 Shorin Dojo, they're all different from each other, too'. (Which has been confirmed by others in Shorin too.)
Drop the names and there are just dojo, that may sightly resemble each other, but are each different. Which by extension begs are the all minor systems? perhaps....
2. From the great Depression (and before) many Okinawan's had to leave to find work, the islands were a poor place and difficult to find a way to survive. After the devestation of WWII, the American occupation, and an even more brutal depression in the 40's and 50's, the new trend to teach karate openly was perhaps led by Shimabuku Tatsuo.
Couple this with his choice to pick from his instructors teachings and craft an Isshinryu that was both similar and different from his teachers teachings, many Okinawan students who really wanted to study old style karate, and have nothing to do with the Americans left him. They wanted nothing to do with those who destroyed their families, and they wanted their studies to be the same as they had
been.
Shimabuku had a revolution. He tried to quell it and allowed the Okinawan's to do it the older way, and taught the American's the new way, but it didn't go over well.
Then rank was as much a new thing as Associations of karate were on the island. Shimabuku came from a time were there was no rank, just instructors and students. He literally gave it away, probably because he knew it had no meaning.
But the Okinawan's who had come up in the Japanese dominated school system saw it differently. The American's were given the whole thing, and they resented it, more left Shimabuku.
Well Shimabuku was made relatively wealthy because of his teaching the Marines. while others copied him, his choosing making the Ameican's happy, over the Okinawan's didn't go well either.
In 1961, he tried to meet with those former students to get them to come back, they countered that he had to return to the new ways.
In 63 when he taught in Pittsburgh, he was teaching the twisting punch, both here and on the Island. (reference earlier discussion where Sherman Harrill's brother experienced this on Okinawa in 63 too).
Though later in 66 Shimabuku returned to the vertical strikes, the insurgence of his son to take over his system, made even more Okinawan's leave.
Isshinryu (on Okinawa) after his death, IMO, seems to have focused on spreading the word to America and very less on developing strong Isshinryu on Okinawa.
But there is Isshinryu to this day on Okinawa, and I suspect it is neither major or minor, just there as we all are here.
3. I don't know the story about Shimabuku's brother,Ezio. They had a falling out. Maybe it was concerning the creation of Isshinryu, or maybe it was just younger versus older brother. But Ezio didn't become a 10th dan in any old established way (of which there was absolutely no tradition to do that on Okinawan anyway). Simply a Japanese big-wig, who wanted to organize and control karte on Okinawa held a big meeting. Nobody showed up but Ezio. This made the Japanese dude lose big face, and he in turn promoted Ezio to 10th dan. As far as I know it, the guy wasn't even a karate-ka. But I'm sure he got in his brothers face about it.
Stories are more complex. Ezio also taught the Americans (like Joe Lewis but most of you probably have little idea who he was today), and I have no idea how large his group is on Okinawa. just another dojo.
On the whole I bet the average Okinawan karate-ka gave Shimabuku Tatuso little thought. Isshinryu like all the rest were doing just what they did.
Each of Kyan's students who taught, did so uniquely differently. Most maintain they were the true way.
That would be the Isshinryu legacy too. With extremely little time as a student, the system populated itself across the United States at an unbelievable pace, that no one on Okinawa could appreciate. And each dojo is both soundly rooted in Isshinryu and also totally unique and growing more so each year.
The truth is more complex than we can ever understand.
But it also make no difference. If the entire Okinawan karate community held, holds and will hold Isshinryu as a minor system, who cares. Statistically there are likely more Isshinryu karte-ka than all of the karate-ka on Okinwa combined.
Major, minor are each questions of perspective, where do you stand when you look, and what are your standards.
victor
Hi Steve,
I suppose what I find most interesting is the desire to capture the original Isshinryu.
For over 25 years I had almost no association with others in Isshinryu. Not exactly the same as the seniors returning to the states, but still on my own. I had no money to travel, the available movies and books added nothing to the Isshinryu I had received, nor did the meetings with others in Isshinryu do more than be pleasantly neutral.
In turn I wasn't taught to look at Isshinryu's past (that became a personal hobby), but instead to take the Isshirnyu I was taught and live it. When I became acquainted how others within Isshinryu performed, I didn't give it a good or a bad, just it wasn't what I studied and taught.
I learnt there was flex in the kata execution from my very beginning, so I didn't see what others did as inappropriate, just their way.
When I did learn how I wanted to shape our execution of technique, again what I started doing became personal, built on my instructors foundation, but in my direction.
And when I encountered my first Isshinryu practitinier who turned his strikes and blocks, I didn't see that as an anomaly but just Isshinryu. And in turn later encountered Jim Keenan who experienced both in his original training days in the Pittsburgh area. So the range of what is Isshinryu is pliable, and almost all of it goes back to source in many ways.
I encountered Harrill Sensei before my acquaintance on the internet, and that was the first instruction I had in over 20 years, but because I wasn't his student, the focus was on his application analysis of Isshinryu technique.
When I encountered the internet I first saw those with desire to go back to the origin. As that had never been part of my Isshinryu training and/or experience. While I can understand the desire logically it never made any difference to how I see Isshinryu.
In turn my adult students care even less about Isshinryu outside of what they practice in the dojo. My repeated attempts to share the history and what others are doing has made no impression on them.
They only see Isshinryu as what they practice, and that is where their future lies (though I have done my best to document my studies and experiences and have made that available to them if the future changes).
The truth is, I can't even prove what I was shown. It was undocumented and just is reflected in my instruction. An Isshinryu that is crafted over the decades in their and my own practices.
victor
Hi Steve,
Again some interesting discussion.
For your point "Which is fine, though it begs the question that has been getting bantered around on the ITOL, if there is some higher lesson of the kata, has that also been changed?"
From my perspective I don't acknowledge any higher purpose to the kata than their existence and use. Anyone can ascribe any other meaning they wish and I wish them well, but what I see is what I use.
You also make the point "In less than one generation the kata has changed 10%. Now multiply that by many generations. Regardless of others versions I don't see any need or rational for changing
what also works."
Actually I fully agree with you but consider the following. [Of course all of this is personal, as your own reasons are. I'm not challenging your right to hold reasons, just want to clearly state my thinking, pleasantly of course <GRIN>]
1. My suggestion that my kata are within 90% of what other Isshinryu kata are doing is just conversation. They may be 100%, or 96% or 0%, depending on how you map what the 'correct' execution of the kata represents.
My instructors changes actually came from those of Shimabuku Tatsuo, which I understand Advincula Sensei in part describes on his dvd series [but my ability to spend any more money in my Isshinryu pursuits is nill]. -
When Mr. Lewis trained on Okinawa he saw Shimabuku Tatsuo teaching different people the same kata with different ways. (this was also confirmed by Mr. Harrill).
- Mr. Harrill's brother went to Okinawa in 64 and showed Shimabuku Sensei how he was taught by his brother, and Shimabuku Sensei explained that we don't punch that way anymore (the twisting strike was being used). He was told it was ok, just not used any more.
- When Shimabuku Tatsuo taught in Pittsburgh in 64 he taught the entire system using the twisting punch. Then reportedly in 66 he decided the vertical strike was right.
- Mr. Lewis was in friendship with Senior East Coast instructors who met each returning Marine to see what they were being taught. Mr. Murray told me that from those meetings, Mr. Lewis would shift the kata technique to follow what he saw, technique changes that originated from Shimabuku Tatsuo.
- In 71 Mr. Murray trained in the Agena Dojo, the Okinawan one not the one on the Marine base. He saw variation of the kata there, as much as anywhere, and he shifted to what they were doing.
- When I began under Mr. Lewis many of his students, from other Easter Shore dojo came in and taught us, each of them with different kata versions (from the version they studied). Mr. Lewis never made a distinction one was more correct than the other, and at times he would change the version for specific public appearances.
- When I trained in other IKA dojo, the kata remained different, and when Mr. Murray trained me his kata were somewhat different from what I studied. His decision I should do my earlier kata as I studied in Salisbury and the newer kata as he taught them.
The point of all this is the real source of these variations was mostly Shimabuku Tatsuo. To my understanding no one has expressed the real why, nor in my opinion presented any compelling reason why one version is better or worse than the others.
For almost all of my kata I know various versions, any of which are more or less like others performances.
I wasn't trained to shop around to find the correct version. Both of my senior instructors are still alive and kicking. Both of them are satisfied with the shape of my karate and have no desire to change what I do.
In fact when I met Harrill Sensei it was obvious his kata was somewhat different from mine. While I truly appreciated what he shared, he was never my instructor, Mr. Lewis was. In turn Harrill Sensei would show what he did, ask us to show what we did, and didn't comment further. I'm sure he had private opinions, so do we all.
I did recognize the difference in his kata, and preparing my students for a year before our first clinic with him, made a small change to our SunNuSu, so the seniors could more clearly understand his application studies. That took a lot of work, and all of them didn't train for that so a decade later I still have discussions about that change. In that piece my kata technique came from Harrill Sensei (who also got it from Shimabuku Sensei).
This does get involved.
2. Why in the hell does anyone believe we can do any better than the Okinawans. They have been spectacularily unsucessful at keeping their kata intact from generation to generation. The record is an open book, each generation the kata changed. Shimabuku Tatsuo is a perfect example of that. His kata are not the same as his instructors either, and it can be demonstrated that his instructors had different versions of their kata over time too.
IMO, if anything is the correct transmission of Okinawan karate, the proof is each generation MUST change the kata to be pure Okinawan.
The fable of keeping kata intact is a nice song for beginners, not long term karate-ka.
But their changes, even when they were spectacular, still had those changes rooted in a large part of the past.
And this is the current Isshinryu state, there are changes, but there is still a large part of the past in them, also the true Okinawan root.
3. We have absolutely no evidence of what Shimabuku Tatsuo felt about anything. He left no direct evidence. He choose not to speak English, and the translation or lack of translation of whatever he did orally express is often open. That is the curse of all oral transmission.
What we do have is second hand, from Kichero, from Angi, from old no longer practicing Isshinryu karate-ka remembering what they experienced, and from those American students of his.
Each answer is believed of dis-believed as the listener chooses.
4. "What it makes it is Victor Smith-ha Isshin-ryu. Your students will then take your teachings and add their own influence, intentionally or unintentionally."
Steve this is all anyone has to show. It is all any Okinawan has to show either. It is the highest goal of an instructor, that what they share inspires a new generation to keep training.
Of course such things don't make for easy answers what Isshinryu is, which is why I believe we let that to the dojo, and just work on friendhship and sharing.
Or let me make it more personal.
When I was a beginner I was taught the front stance should only be performed one way, and in turn the method of stepping was the crescent step.
Then one day I got out into the world and discovered all sorts of Isshinryu doing all sorts of things.
Then I got to see the movies of Shimabuku Sensei violating those rules.
Then I got to see the movies showing Shimabuku Sensei following those rules.
Then I questioned my instructors and was told what I was taught was how they were taught.
Then I began to look at how other outside karate-ka derided Isshinryu over the lack of technique in their stances.
Then I began to really focus on my own stances, and in turn as an instructor insisted on my students working towards perfect stances in each kata execution, and when the time came that I began my own steps towards kata application I discovered it more critical that working towards perfection is stepping even more important in the study of technique application.
I'm far from perfect (excuse I am getting older) but year by year I force my students towards more stance work, and year by year I demonstrate to them why it is critical.
Long, long, long ago I also learned the secret how to learn movement almost instantly, and it was always concentrate on where the feet go, and then the hands take care of themselves.
So have I changed things or am I simply focusing on what I was originally taught to a greater degree.
In turn my students kata has changed (I have video record of some of this), even without changing a movement.
I kind of guess that means to even suggest considering looking at anyone elses kata as the standard, I'd first have to be impressed that their stance was moving towards my theoretical goal.
So we remain seeking or working.
I have absolutely no question about the path you describe. I also have absolutely no question why I do what I do.
And I maintain it is Isshinryu, following the highest Okinawan standards, following Shimabuku Tatsuo's standards.
Accepting our common origin, and fully following my instructors, and even more fully following my own experience.
in friendship,
victor
#6958 Sun Dec 11, 2005 8:28 pm
The other day Rich posted some terribly thought provoking comments on whether a kata from a different system changed to just use Isshinryu style techniques would be Isshinryu or not. As I've been thinking on this, it really goes hand in hand with other discussions as to what Isshinryu truly is or isn't.
In my own meandering manner it struck me the discussion is very similar to linguistic quandaries addressed by the late Ludwig Wittgenstein to his students and in his books.
How do we really know the meaning of something? How can we prove it? Whether it's the riddles of a words usage, or the meaningful discourse on the nature of Isshinryu they are similar in core.
So as not to get esoteric, the nature of what Isshinryu is or isn't is likely not really something that can be answered, in the sense an `ultimate authority' can define it for us.
For one thing there is no dis-interested neutral party who would wish to sanely try and decide the issue. I would suggest any such party who would choose to listen to evidence and then make the `decision' is likely non-sane to begin with. [Non sane or more likely a hidden interest group.]
Is that harsh. What if Rich proposed such a group, how many would accept their decision? Or if I did the proposing would others consider it fair?
A large part of that is because except for those of us who proclaim to be doing Isshinryu, there are very, very few others who care one way or another.
Which leaves us with our personal answers.
It's Isshinryu because my instructor says its Isshinryu. It's Isshinryu because of the group or senior instructors I train with say its Isshinryu. It's Isshinryu because I say it's Isshinryu.
Personally satisfying I'm sure, but rarely acknowledged by anyone else.
And perhaps that's all we can agree on, ultimately. Unless any of us are willing to change our basic assumptions, such as change instructors and knowledge sources.
If you really want to think on this here are a number of interesting points of view. (I don't think I'm giving them in order of my preference, just as they pop into mind. If you don't like the order, feel free to re-arrange it for our own internal argument.) Also for sake of discussion, let's just accept all of the people we're discussing are adequate technicians for their art. Issues such as their technique isn't good enough, really don't bear in the discussion. For those individuals they're not part of this. I'm also not going to entertain Isshinryu kobudo within the scope of this discussion either.
1. I remember long ago Fluffy Bunny (Kevin Mathews) suggested Isshinryu died with Shimabuku Tatsuo. I would infer that his art was just what he did, and those carrying on with the name, out of loyalty, were not really doing his art, but their reflection of it.
The funny thing is long ago I remember somebody discussing that there was a custom on Okinawa to rename your style after the Seniors passing. If I'm not having a memory lapse, maybe somebody (such as Joe Swift) might know if there's any truth to those words. It's just a memory to me.)
If there is merit to that argument, then Isshinryu died with its founder.
2. Isshinryu might be any expression of the founder. There's much evidence his art changed over his teaching years. Many arts experience the same such as Usheiba's Aikido, where entirely different expressions of the art existed depending on when instructors changed with the founder. Kyan's students certainly all took his teaching in different directions. So perhaps each view acquired from Shimabuku Tatsuo might be his real Isshinryu.
In this the time he taught in Pittsburgh, when he was in his rotating punch years, that version from the James Morabeto Dojo would be as valid an Isshinryu as any of the others.
3. The real Isshinryu might be the acquired knowledge from teaching Shimabuku Sensei developed and expressed as what his full art should be. So the real Isshinryu might be the accumulated vision of the founder.
Miyagi apparently abandoned, in theory, his decades of practice of only 2 or 3 Goju kata a student towards the end of his life, and proposed teaching all of them. Apparently with or without his blessing, that's what happened among his students anyways.
4. The real Isshinryu might be a single instructors training with Shimabuku Sensei, or it may be an accumulation of various instructors sharing (as in an association).
5. The real Isshinryu might be what the son, Shimabuku Kichero acquired the right to define by becoming the Grand Master. [Isn't it a funny observation, you can only be grand master of other s allow you to be one?]
6. The real Isshinryu might be the expression of the founders son-in-law. Of course the observations of no. 5 apply here to. Even more so, those who choose to honor him with their associations 9 or 10th dan rank, which to me seems to imply he would be in charge, in turn seemed to not be willing to accept his decision who should replace him at the top.
As in all these ideas there are layers and layers of stories. But to my humble point of view, it's that nobody really has the right to be in charge, even those who appoint them seem to hedge the authority they grant.
7. The real Isshinryu might reside within those associations that define what is the real Isshinryu for them. There certainly have been many of them from the original American Okinawan Karate Association. [Note interesting the name was formed in Alphabetical Order (at least in English)].
8. The real Isshinryu might reside within each instructor who takes up the mantle.
Just limiting ourselves to American Isshinryu practitioners, we're talking a span of at least 50 years of possibilities.
But lets not stop there. There are other Isshinryu points of view.
Who are real Isshinryu is an interesting one?
1. The Okinwan possibilities.
a. Okinawan Students who choose to move away from Isshinryu. Are they credible sources of Isshinryu history? Does the reason matter such as:
i. Dislike of foreign students
ii. Dislike of changes to the earlier technique
iii. Dislike of changes to the meaning of rank
iv. Dislike of the transition to the new style head
b. The founders son.
c. The founders son in law
2. American possibilities
a. First generation students
i. They cover the range of pre 60's, early 60's, mid 60's, late 60's to early 70's. From students who were stationed there and trained as possible, from students who kept returning. From students who trained elsewhere and then traveled to Okinawa to receive more training.
b. Second generation students
c. Third generation students
d. Fourth generation students
e. Fifth generation students
f. Sixth generation students and beyond
g. American students who chose to move away from Isshinryu.
Let's take a nice, strong historical example, the late Rick Nemera, a student of Don Nagle who eventually became a Bando practitioner and was regarded within both circles. Does the reason matter?
What is the real Isshinryu core content?
1. Whatever Shimabuku Tatsuo taught.
2. Only what the founder taught in a specific period.
3. The final conclusions from the founder as to what the system could be.
4. Whatever Shimabuku Tatsuo demonstrated.
5. Only the applications the founder taught with the kata. [The following analysis is a quick one from Seisan's opening.]
a. Such as step in side block and reverse punch for Seisan's opening.
6. Any application that can be done with the core technique without change.
a. Example Harrill Sensei's applications to that.
b. My step in with the side block, reverse punch and then take the next step to sweep their leg out for the takedown.
7. Any application that can be done with the core technique with change.
a. Step in with the side block, then change the order, and use the right crescent step to step in and pin the attackers foot, then reverse punch.
8. Any application that can be done in addition to the core technique.
a. Step in with the side block then reverse punch, then change the step to a right front kick to the inner thigh followed by a right outside crescent kick to the head. Theoretically an extension of a crescent step, but in this case a Sutrisno family Shotokan application that fits the Seisan movement.
9. Any old thing at all, especially if borrowed from another system or the tournament competition floor during bunkai competition, such as the European's tend to use their judo traditions within their bunkai.
10. Isshinryu technique only as a blocking, striking, kicking percussive art.
11. Isshinryu technique as a locking and throwing art.
12. Isshinryu technique as a counter to a locking and throwing art.
13. ** There truly is no end to this, just layers of abstraction as to what one wans to review **
14. Can outside material be added and Isshinryu remain Isshinryu?
a. Does it make a difference if that material is called Isshinryu versus it being called subsidiary training and clearly not Isshinryu?
b. Does it make a difference if those subsidiary studies are included in testing/evaluation, or if they are never included in testing/evaluation.
15. The real Isshinryu is always taught 100% the same way
16. Isshinryu can be taught in stages, with kata changes occurring as the student adavances till eventually they reach the real Isshinryu.
17. Isshinryu can move beyond a standard to develop as a students individual abilities manifest themselves. [I think of Karl Hovey's incredible flying kicks in Chinto Kata back in the early 70's.]
Yep, Were is `it' Isshinryu? Where is `it' not? After all one might theoretically pose the true meaning of Isshinryu is to drop the attacker, and if whatever you do drops an attacker, it's theoretically the same thing. Where does the theory stop and where do the lines get drawn?
Of course all of us have simple answers to this don't we. We know what Isshinryu is, even if we don't always have a clear vocal definition.
That's because we live or Isshinryu. It's never a theoretical debate.
Moving back to Rich's original discussion about whether an imported kata, changed with Isshinryu technique is Isshinryu or not I have some observations on that too.
Living an Isshinryu with nobody telling me where the lines were drawn, an Isshinryu that had no others around to train with and in turn I had to seek out instruction as I could to help push myself further than just teaching youth could achieve, and always trying my best to learn anything I was shown, for various reasons (related ad nausum on this list I'm sure), other studies have been added.
The first two studies have been `Isshinryu-Ized' by myself, to prepare my students for Seisan Kata studies. The other studies are just that, other studies in Goju, Shotokan and Pai Lum Kung Fu (at the kyu level).
I have changed Nagamine' Fukyugata Sho to a bushi no te issshinryu `Kata Sho'. I continue to find it a powerful way to integrate the newest students into the class for group drills. I find it a powerful tool to help students of more advanced kata to understand the implications of mistakes in their training that bind over to their advanced kata study. I also use it for advanced dan studies of other concepts.
Everything is Isshinryu technique. Nothing is original Isshinryu.
I also teach Shimabuku Ezio's Annaku kata (a descendent of Kyan's Annaku kata). The original version used both vertical and twisting striking. All of the techniques today are standard Isshinryu. It is shorter than Seisan, contains some Seisan similar technique, and is longer than Kata Sho.
They're tools. My students will eventually master them, and I'm content they assist the manner in which I teach Isshinryu.
I've practiced them for at least 25 years, and have incorporated them in our program solidly these past 20 years. And my students from day one know where they came from, and their place in traditional Isshinryu (yes even the 7 year olds).
And from what I've seen there are many times many others that have reached their own conclusions. I've seen those who teach ½ of Seisan as a kata. I've seen, long ago, Isshinryu from what I remember as the NJ area, use the Pinan kata before Seisan.
Some things to think about, pleasantly of course.
Victor
And for the record none of what I do is Victor-ryu, ever. It's bushi no te Isshinryu because I dislike how karate has been Kleenex-ed by everyone in the McDojo's. bushi no te an older name for the Okinawan arts mentioned by Funakoshi Ginchin in his writings. From over 26 years ago decisions. And of course Isshinryu because that's what my instructors taught me I'm doing.
For the further record I am the creator of Smith Te (a minimialist sytem of 4 ½ moves) and Smith Te II (a minimalist system of 6 ½ moves and a form `The Return of the Son of Magnetic Monser' <name borrowed from Frank Zappa>, a study in creating a form after the applications of the systems techniques were defined).
But Smith Te isn't pleasant. It was the result of my earliest studies on kata application potential, taking what seemed to be the dumbest movements from various forms I knew, and discovering they can wrench necks, break arms, evade and other nasty stuff that really works. The prime focus was the surprise that those techniques had meaning (I hadn't been taught them), and that I was having some fun at the same time. Of course having fun while performing one's art is sometimes lost in general.
'Gain – pleasantly, Victor
#5206 Wed Jun 30, 2004
I think the spelling of the name is "Morabeto".
I started my Isshinryu training with Bill Duessel and Chuck Wallace in 1969 and was doing the vertical punch. When Bill and Chuck split with the Academy of Oriental Defenses, the new Isshinryu instructors who were brought in all taught the twisting punch. So my original learning up through Chinto was vertical that I had to re-tool to twisting, then Kusanku and Sunsu were twisting that I later had to re-tool to
vertical. Sometime in the early '70s I got a copy of the Armstrong film (I still have the original film but no longer have a projector to project it with) and Jim Lynn told me don't deviate from the syntax of the kata in that film (with one exception - the well-known Seiuchin technique omission). Since 1975 I haven't changed it (and I periodically review the 1987 kinescope I made from the film just to make sure. (A VHS version of the Armstrong film is available - and has been for quite some time).
I've seen some clips of TS doing the kata at different periods but haven't seen anything in them that I would identify as fundamental syntactical differences with the Armstrong film.
My experience learning the kata both ways, though, I think was ultimately enriching for me because it was easier for me to make the connections with the Chinese approaches that I began to be exposed to.
The experience also helped me understand how easy it is for people to trivialize the difference between the two and not understand the profundity of the implications of performing one way or the other.
In the end, although additional TS movies have some attraction to me, I'm more interested in the Isshinryu of U.S. practitioners that is often alive and growing rather than the moribund and virtually non-existent Okinawan Isshinryu.
Regards,
Jim Keenan
Dotokushin-kai
Isshinryu Karate
Wed May 4, 2005
#6263
Hi Jim,
Thank you on your observations on kata drift, I think you're very on the mark.
Several weeks ago I described some of the developmental drift that occurs in some students during their training. And the work I do with my 'instructors' to limit and correct changes that slip into some indviduals (at almost the same places each time.
But training instructors there are a number of issues about kata drift that should be considered.
Among them how will individual ability modify kata as time progresses. What changes have they observed over their decades with our shared training and what was the reason behind those changes. Where have changes occurred consciously, and the reasons why.
At some point they will be on their own recognizance as to how they develop and pass bushi no te isshinryu, and the more they are sensitized to the issues behind drift, the more they can stay in control of the process.
From my beginnings, there never was one right way to perform the Isshinryu kata, rather multiple right ways.
Not associating with others in Isshinryu for several decades, no documentation on what my instructors taught me, except for my memory and practice, and a desire to work out how karate could be used, caused various issues of drift over the years.
At times I might change the kata version because I felt the other version offered better use potential. Or a slight change in execution for the same reason. This was during the decade before my research and meeting Sherman Harrill, worked out why those changes were unnecessary.
Then developing the underlying principles of our movement and the vast application potential in a version, many of the reasons change was considered years before evaporated.
But with students different potentials, even with the same underying energy principles, students with vastly different potential will still influence their kata as they work to make it fit them.
I believe kata drift can be a healthy development in the art, if one has worked consciously to bring it about, and the underlying structural dyamics are preserved and utilized.
And more specifically the drift I'm talking about is far less than 5%
of the kata technique.
On the whole:
My instructors made changes on my kata from previous versions (as in Wansu).
I've made changes trying to develop stronger applications. I've returned kata back to previous versions.
I've allowed drift due to extreme student abilities.
I even consciously changed my students SunNuSu to conform to the manner in which Harrill Sensei was going to be teaching it. The techniques remained unchanged, but the manner of stepping was reversed in one section, because I was trying to help them obtain as much from Harrill Sensei as possible, and afterwards I didn't change back. And I even drift. For decades I teach Nihanchi one way, but in practice I've been known to shift between two different variations I was originally shown, and I can't remember which one came first.
My goal developing instructors isn't to dictate the 'correct' way. I instead it to allow them to understand my and their past as far as possible, and in turn allow them to work for a stronger future by consciously understand what they teach and will choose.
Change is a fact of life.
Victor
You may want to check out this video:
http://www.isshprod.nxs.net/shop/default.asp?action=_top
Alas no longer available
Description:
In 1964, Master Tatsuo Shimabuku, founder of Isshin-Ryu Karate, traveled from Okinawa to Pittsburgh, PA. During this visit, he was filmed performing Isshin-Ryu Kata with an 8mm movie camera. This historic movie has the Master performing all eight Isshin-Ryu empty hand kata, Chatan Yara No Sai and Urashi Bo.
In 1966, Master Shimabuku returned to the United States where he was once again filmed performing all Isshin-Ryu Kata in Tacoma, WA. The Master also demonstrated some self-defense techniques as well as techniques using the Bo, Sai, and Tuifa. Both historic films are included on this single VHS video tape. These videos can now be found on YouTube.
William McKeehan
Other posts to consider:
https://isshin-concentration.blogspot.com/2022/09/tatsuo-shimabuku-goes-to-pittsburgh-in.html
https://isshin-concentration.blogspot.com/2021/10/james-morabeto-and-pittsburg-visit-of.html
https://isshin-concentration.blogspot.com/2024/08/tatsuo-shimabuku-and-turning-punch-in.html
No comments:
Post a Comment