I am sure you are really not interested in these questions about Shito Roy Kata Shinpa. I am sharing it because of the level of analysis made by the participants.
IMO they are doing an incredible job.
Shinpa Shito Ryu Karate Do Kata & Bunkai
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiR4ogtVP2M
The Shinpa puzzle (Mario)
From: "Fernando Portela Câmara 24408-8"
Date: Fri Jan 12, 2001 12:14 am
I am interrogating Shinpa (Tang Daiji?) because it is a typical Nafadi style kata without the Mabuni's footprints. Apparently it is not related to Higashionna, Aragaki, Kojo or Gokenki, so, I am interrogating the unknown Tang Daiji by exclusion (a McGuffin candidate). Before all, I would like to say that this is a very important kata and it work very well. Well, now let me to explain my strange reasons:
1. Nothing is known about Daiji, except that he was a tiger fist and a five-ancestor fist expert (Tokashiki Iken). However, he taught something to Okinawans. John Sells in Unante says that Wanduan was created based in the Daiji teachings. However, it is hard accept this while some evidence about the style, reliable sources of information and the teaching concepts of this are lacking. On the other hand, Wanduan was not included in the Shito-ryu syllabus.
2. Mabuni included Gokenki in Shito-ryu syllabus together all important masters in his time, but apparently he didn't include Daiji (If was Shito-ryu the encyclopedia of Okinawan karate why was not Daiji included?) Could be Shimpa the "lost chain" that connect Shito-ryu to Daiji?
3. The story passed on by Konishi cannot be confirmed by any Kanbun students (I will analyse this question forward) and the techniques presented in Shinpa cannot be derivated by morphological and functional transformations of classical
Uechi kata (and also by its modern kata), and I will try demonstrate this. I will put some evidence on this argument in a next post.
4. Kenei Mabuni has not mentioned Kanbun when wrote about this kata, only that it is an amalgam of southern chinese techniques learned by his father.
5. Shimpa is an assymetric kata and has not a regular embusen, as the chinese derivated Nafadi kata. It is improbable that it had been created by Mabuni, because this master (like Itosu, Miyagi, and others creators of kata in this modern age) only created symmetric kata for training, with symmetrical embusen
(his trademark, as was of Miyagi, Funakoshi, etc). My opinion is that this is an original kata modified in its style by Mabuni (that loved revise kata to adapt them to Itosu theory). The question remains: from whom this kata came from?
Now my way of think:
I have not objective evidences until the moment to relate Daiji to Shimpa. Daiji is an element of the set "masters that arised the Shito-ryu kata syllabus", and Shimpa is an element of the set "kata syllabus of Shito-ryu". The problem here is: is there a paired connection between the elements Daiji and Shimpa from
these sets? This question is acceptable because it is based in a sequence of exclusions. But, how can I transform this "acceptable" question in a working hypothesis if I have any reliable information or proof?
The problem here is to challenge a null hypothesis, that is, the hypothesis that destroy my original statement. Consider the following sentences: If 1. Nothing is known about Daiji; 2. Shimpa is the only kata in Shito-ryu that has not a well
established lineage; 3. Daiji taught something to Okinawans karateka; 4. Shimpa can be arised or composed from Daiji teachings; 5. In the two sets (masters and kata) of Shito-ryu, Daiji and Shimpa are the only elements without connectivity.
Now, the null hypothesis here is: < No! Daiji is not the source of Shimpa >. My task is: how can we accept or deny this hypothesis? I don´t need to proof that Daiji is the source of Shimpa, but I need only deny the null hypothesis. This is
one of the wonder of the statistics reasoning.
Well, to maintain the Daiji-Shimpa conection hypothesis I need invalidate the Konishi story to challenge the null hypothesis, because this story is the only element until the moment that invalidate that conection. I will do this in the next post (part II).
Take care,
Fernando
Now, I will invalidate the Konishi story to maintain my working hypothesis by challenge the null hypothesis.
(The Konishi repport on the origin of Shinpa is presented also in his book: Yasuhiro Konishi. Karate-jutsu Nyumon, 1969, p. 156. I will use here your translation found in your website - URL below). We read four important structural elements in the Konishi´s narrative:
First element of the narrative:
- "... the late Mabuni Kenwa and I traveled to Wakayama prefecture to visit the founder of Pangainoon-ryu, Uechi Kanbun to investigate the secrets of Toudi. More than likely Uechi Kanbun too has passed away I think".
Analysis:
Mabuni is dead, Kambun is dead, Konishi tell us this story many years after, There is anyone to confirm or add something to this story. We need accept it by an "argument of authority", not by an "argument of facts", cross information, etc. So, there are no proofs to confirm or deny. This cannot be accepted by any
historian as a fact, it is only an anecdote.
Second element of the narrative:
- According Konishi, Kanbun was a recluse living in a miserable ghetto, he speak very bad japanese (and probably Okinawan hogen): "Unfortunately (...) Uechi Kanbun (...) he could not speak Japanese very well. He appeared to have withdrawn from society completely and saw few visitors. My impression of him
was that he was a very thoughtful and passionate man and I thought I would have more chances to meet and talk with him. Unfortunately I was only able to meet with him once".
Analysis:
Or Kanbun was a squizoid personality, recluse, distant, few words, or he didn´t want share anything with the visitors. Konishi and Mabuni saw him, but there are not explanations or demonstrations performed by Kambun. This story clearly point
us that there was any dialogue among these men, probably Kanbun saw them very briefly and could be said: "get out". There are a criticism of Konishi here: he didn't like of Kanbun personality: to much rough, ill bred man? On the other
hand, they meet Kambun only once time, that is, no friendship was formed among them. Kanbun would be discouraged any attempt of future meetings. Another clear evidence here is that Kanbun didn´t show anything to both men or explained
something to them. There was any type of communication.
Third element of the narrative:
"... I distinctly remember his young and powerful students demonstrating Pangainoon-ryu on the dirt floor of his home. It was a very enlightening experience for both Mabuni Kenwa and myself".
Analysis:
Well, here is the solution to the question: Mabuni and Konishi saw some young students training for a brief time (both men probably delayed very few time here). But, what they saw? Very probably youngs training Sanchin, nothing more (in those times, Seisan was a secret kata, for advanced students only, and these
will not showed it to those two lords).
Fourth/Final element of the narrative:
"Later Mabuni Kenwa and myself created the kata Shimpa
from our meeting with Uechi Kanbun".
- This cannot be accepted by the light of the evidences above. There was not transmission of knowledges or explanations. Both men meet Kanbun only one time and for few time and the dialogue among them was a "deaf dialogue". That is, there was no communication or any semantics between Kanbun and Mabuni-Konishi.
Conclusions:
1. I think that the Konishi's story is invalidated by a simple structural analysis and it cannot be sustained by itself. It is a myth, as many "history" in karate. Konishi probably has created this fable to explain the origin of Shimpa based in some supposition that this incident could be some may be "logical" to him. There are no testemonies from Uechi´s people. This is a common psychological phenomenum: when a story has some gaps, these are filled with creative imagination.
2. Probably Mabuni has created or obtained this kata from another source (I don´t believe that Konishi had contributed in this kata, but it is a polemic thing that I prefer not put here). He didn't reveal it to Konishi, but probably he talk in a generical sense: "a chinese master that I meet...", "chinese techniques from southern kempo...", etc, or some else.
3. See my first post about absence of Uechi people testemonies, the reference of Kanei Mabuni, the asymmetric pattern of the kata, etc.
4. So, who is the source of Shimpa? I remain supported by my challenge to the null hypothesis: Tang Daiji?
Now, I need invalidate or shed severe doubts about the relationship between Shimpa and Uechi kata patterns to reinforce my challenge to the null hypothesis.
I will do this in the 3rd post (pat III).
Be well,
Fernando
---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 02:57:18 -0000
>Fernando san:
>
>I was looking over your web page yesterday and noticed you classified Shinpa as possibly being from Tang Dai Ji's lineage (tiger boxing). What evidence (anecdotal or otherwise) do you have to support this classification. I say this because of the late Konishi Yasuhiro's statement that Shinpa was made by Mabuni and himself after they >visited Uechi Kanbun in Wakayama.
Please refer to the following for a translation of Konishi's
Fernando-san:
Wonderful post!! It certainly has got me thinking about shinpa in an entirely different light. And thank you also for the stats review. Mine are quite rusty since graduate school.
First, I take that you have done a factor analysis or principal
component analysis with respect to shinpa and kumemura lineage kata to deduce that they are not related? Hence your selection of the next most suitable person that it may have come from Tang Dai Ji. You are very correct in stating that there is almost NO information on Tang which makes it very difficult to know what he taught. As for him teaching Wanduan, I can't really say as I am unfamiliar with the kata and can't offer any opinion.
It is strange that Mabuni apparently included Gokenki's kata (e.g. Neipai, Nipaipo, Happoren, etc.) but did not inlcude anything from Tang. But then again, neither did Miyagi, Kyoda, or any other members of the Toudi Kenkyukai. How active was Tang in the Okinawan karate community? We just don't know. His contribution seems to have been lost to history.
As for Shimpa being related structurally to modern Uechi-ryu, it is VERY difficult to see. I practiced modern Uechi-ryu for over three years and attained dan ranking in the style and there is very little to in Shimpa to make me think it is based on Uechi Kanbun's teachings.
You could argue that Mabuni adapted the Uechi techniques to fit his kata curriculum, however even after doing this they still bear a basic resemblance to the original kata. For example, Nipaipo is easily recognizable in terms of basic enbusen, and technique as the To'on-ryu Neipai. Its undeniable. Yet with Shinpa I can find NO resemblance to any of the three classical Uechi-ryu kata of San Chin, Seisan and Sanseru. Zero. Even the modern kata made after BOTH Uechi and Mabuni's death appear unrelated to shimpa.
On a slightly different take. I was rereading Fujiwara's list of kata and he writes that two kata called ROCHIN and UNPIN were first taught by Uechi Kanbun! I have never heard of these kata being taught in ANY modern Uechi-ryu dojo. I have heard that Chitose taught a kata called Rochin and that it was a secret family kata. However, if they indeed were taught by Uechi Kanbun why were they not taught? This is a HUGE
guess on my part, but could shinpa be related to Rochin and Unpin if indeed they were first taught by Uechi?
Sorry for getting side tracked. At any rate, I do not argue that
Mabuni and Konishi would have seen much from Uechi and his students. My guess is that it would have been san chin and there form of "sticky-hands" (heavily influenced by five ancestor fist IMHO). However, I do not think that Uechi was hostile to his visitors. Konishi may have looked down on Uechi as a backwards country boy, but I do think that Mabuni and Uechi would have gotten along fine since they could communicate in HOGEN.
Konishi's account was published in 1955 (Mabuni died in 1953(?) and Uechi in 1947/48), but I see know reason for him to fabricate such a story of meeting Uechi. Admittedly there is always a problem with oral self-report as a valid and reliable source of data, but left with no other conflicting testimony I am forced to take it at face value.
In what book did Kenei mention that Shinpa is an amalgam of Southern Chinese techniques? You've got me very curious about this statement.
You are right in that Shinpa is assymetrical compared to other kata which Mabuni developed (Aoyagi, etc.). It is one interesting clue into its origins. Yet the kata itself is very, very simple in
appearance and most karateka dismiss its as a beginners form (much like Jion). Perhaps Mabuni did revise the form to fit his own ideas about kata. He certainly did enjoy doing this as you have stated.
Obviously the best approach would be to compare Shinpa with other kata that Tang was KNOWN to have taught. With the obvious NULL HYPOTHESIS being that there is no relation between Shinpa and Tang's other kata. Unfortunately this is next to impossible to prove as there are no confirmed kata that Tang taught.
An alternative would be to compare Shinpa to existing five ancestor fist kata since Tang was reportedly a teacher of this style. A cursory examination of the kanji for shinpa and the forty plus kata of five ancestor fist shows no real connection. But I would strongly suspect that the name was created by mabuni himself.
Obviously an important first step would be to determine what kata Tang passed on and to what Okinawan teachers. They may be almost impossible to do as I know NO modern karate style that acknowledges a connection to Tang Dai Ji or his kata.
Thanks again for such a thought provoking post Fernando.
Mario
Is Shinpa derivated from Uechi-ryu? Let´s go to the analysis:
1. Kuri-uke + chudan gyaku-zuki.
Analysis:
- Kuri-uke doesn't occur in Uechi classical kata. In Okinawan karate, besides Shinpa, it occur in Ryuei-ryu Paiku.
- We found in Okinawan karate the combination kake-uke + chudan gyaku-zuki in Unsu and uchi-uke or kake-uke + ren-zuki in Shuri Seisan and Goju Seisan.
Combination kake-uke + ipponken-zuki is found in classical Uechi Sanseru and in the modern Kanshiwa, (the ipponken of this kata was changed to seiken-zuki to "Okinawanize" it). Combination kake-uke + chudan-zuki in Kanshiwa is performed
in 3 directions.
- Combination of one uke (jodan, chudan or gedan) and gyaku-zuki occur frequently in Five- Ancestor Fist, Tiger Fist and others Fujien Gong Fu styles.
2. Kuri-uke + sanren-zuki.
Analysis:
- It occur only in once in Goju Seisan as mentioned above, but instead kuri-uke there is a kake or a grab to the hair in this kata. Combination kake-uke and uchi-uke + sanren-zuki is a classical technique in Five-Ancestor Fist occuring being performed 6 times in 4 directions in the kata Nijuken ("20 punches").
3. Mae-geri, Mae hiji-ate.
Analysis:
- These are strikes occuring frequently in karate kata (Goju, Shorin, and Uechi). However, in Uechi-ryu, mae hiji-ate is performed with the body sloping forward and mae-geri is a left forward leg toe kick performed with both hands in morote kake-uke.
- Modern Uechi-ryu kata has right mae geri performed with reward leg, but this is modern kata created after death of Kanbun and Mabuni and follows an Okinawan influence. Reward front kick are frequent in Fujien styles too.
4. Kokutsu-dachi uchi-uke gedan-uke.
Analysis:
- Occur only in Shito and Shorin-ryu. Some Fujien styles adopt this basis and postures too.
5. Scissors block.
Analysis:
- Scissors block is described in the original Shinpa version found in the Konishi book. Modern version of Shinpa has modified this technique to morote-tettsui uchi, like Passai. This block or double strike is not found in Uechi classical kata, however, scissors block is trypical in Five-Ancestor Fist (ex.: Sanchin). Morote tettsui-uchi occur in Tiger style and others.
6. Jodan wa-uke with open hands.
Analysis:
- One of the prefered techniques of Mabuni. Not found in Uechi classical or modern kata. Some Fujien styles use this technique.
7. Morote hiraken-zuki
.
Analysis:
- Found in Saifa. Absent of Uechi-ryu. Morote kake-uke instead jodan wa-uke followed by morote hiraken-zuki is used in the Saifa version of Shito-ryu.
8. Jodan ko-uke + chudan teisho otoshi-uke.
- Found in Kakufa or Hakucho. A Shito-ryu kata absorbed from Gokenki. However, this combination occur also in Tiger, Monkey, Mantis, and others Chinese styles.
Conclusion:
a) There are any evidences that can point us an Uechi lineage for Shinpa;
b) The emsemble of Shinpa, that is, how its techniques are put together, and its linkage by 3-repetition patterns remind the classical Nafadi style.
c) Patrick McCarthy wrote in an article about Mabuni that this kata is a Tiger style kata. However, he is based in the Konishi's anedoct as a truth. In fact, Fujien Tiger elements can be seen in Shinpa, like Five-Ancestor elements, etc, but the analysis of this kata has not sufficient elements to a definitive conclusion. If this kata is a Tiger kata, so it cannot be came from Kanbun, but
from some other source, and the most probable source here is Daiji, a tiger and five-ancestor master active in Okinawa those times.
d) To Daiji is not mentioned in the lineage of Mabuni, but he knews him and probably has trained with him (like Miyagi and others). Daiji was a friend of Gokenki and both probably share some Gong Fu.
e) Shinpa is the only kata without lineage in Mabuni syllabus. Usually, this kata is mentioned as a Mabuni creation. Is there a possibility that this kata has elements of Daiji Gong Fu? I think so, but this is only a hypothesis.
Fernando
More to think about! Gads I think my brain will explode. At any rate, I am generally inclined to think that Shinpa is NOT related to Uechi-ryu karate for much of the same reasons Fernando has said.
Before addressing Fernando's points, I think it would be best to
describe Kuri-uke. I have only seen the modern Shito-ryu version of Shinpa and base my description of Kuri-uke on their performance.
Jodan Kuri-uke: hand sweeps out to the side with the palm open and fingers held straight (palm facing towards you. Much like the blocking technique used in Goju-ryu's Kururunfa before the elbow strike and arm break). The palm then rotates forward and the arm is dropped down to the chudan level.
Fernando, you have some pretty keen observation skills. Thank you for sharing them with everyone. You are correct in that basically Kuri-uke does not occur in Uechi kata. And thank you for pointing out that it occurs in Paiku, I was not aware of this. As well as the combination of kake-uke and tsuki also occurs frequently in five ancestor fist. For the most part I agreed with your analysis except for (5) Scissors block.
Analysis. I reread Konishi's description and I cannot see him describing a scissor block. All I can find is him describing Morote Tettsui Uchi.
He says (sorry for the romanized Japanese here) on pg. 160, movement no, 25
"Ryokai-te wo ryoken ni nigirikominagara, yoriashi to nari, hidari ashi zenkutsu de, sa-u ryoken wo motte,fukubu no ryogawa wo tsuku."
There is no description that I can see, either before or after this
move, of a scissor block. But I stand to be corrected.
That aside, you are right in that there is very little evidence to
suggest shinpa is related to Uechi-ryu or any of their training
techniques. Perhaps it is related to Tang's tiger or five ancestor
fist boxing. All we need is more information about what exactly he taught. Its interesting that no one on Okinawa claims lineage to Tang Dai Jic.
One more thing. Tang reportedly died in 1937, when was the Toudi Kenkyu kai opened?
Mario
Thanks by the observation about the Konishi description of movement 22 of Shimpa (p. 159-160). I had not understood a morote tettsui uchi here, I had understood that left fist would be next to right elbow!! Do you has noticed a renzuki immediatly after empi-ate, and three ko-uke in the end? This kata is based in
the "rule three", typical of Nafadi. Modern versions use only two ko-uke in the end and has removed the renzuki mentioned.
On the other hand, Konishi describe the first movements of Sochin as in Sanchin-dachi (p. 161) and the same for the three first movements of Unsu (p. 165). Thoughts?
Fernando
Shinpa Shito Ryu Kata
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBqtZSEzugY
Shinpa Shito Ryu Kata & Bunkai
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiR4ogtVP2M
No comments:
Post a Comment