"Kobudo Sai - Karate Weapon of Self Defense" VHS
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=woQCVkzflDg
Ken Aligeier
Let me explain, the first Okinawan weapon kata that I learned were from the Penn State Unv. Karate club ( a Isshin Ryu group) .I learned the 3 bo kata
Tokumine no Kon
Urasoe no Kon
Shishi no Kon no Dai
And the 2 Sai kata ,
Chatanyara no Sai
Kusanku no Sai
Four year ago I started to learn Ryukyu Kobujutsu/Ko-buki kata from Mr Glenard Grabow. Some of you may remember Mr Grabow's articles from the old " Bugeisha " and " Budo Dojo " magazines.I would like to the state the Mr Grabow began his training in Okinawa in 1961 and his teachers were Shinjo Masanobu,Kani Katsuyoshi,Toguchi Seikichi,Kiyuna Choyu.
It became quite apparent that, what Mr Grabow teaches in the context of Okinawan weapon kata is Different from some other individuals and groups in America.What Mr Grabow teaches (and his research has shown) is the older version of the Bo Sai and Tonfa Kata.I would like to state that Mr Grabow is vary adamant about the fact that these kata should not be altered in any manner from how he learned them in Okinawa.
For one reason is that these older version of the weapon kata are time capsule into the past and a understanding how these individual fought, and if these kata are modified, their is a lost of historical knowledge of the past.
For example the kata Tokumine no Kon found in Isshin Ryu, is in fact the kata Yonegawa no Kon.I mean no disrespect, but the truth is that Tatsuo Shimabuku ( founder of Isshin Ryu ) took the kata Yonegawa no Kon simplified it and renamed Tokumine no Kon.
What I mean by ' simplified' is that the dififcult waza and combative scenarios are removed within the kata.Thus making the kata easier to preform and learn.
This was also done to the kata Urasoe no Kon and Chatanyara no Sai. I can not comment on Shishi no Kon because I have never learn a older version of that kata.
This situation of simplifying classical weapon kata, I have noticed also has occurred within the Inoue & Sakagami schools in Japan and the The Matayoshi Kobudo( Okinawa) where their Bo kata also have are simplified.
In Motokatsu Inoue Book " Bo,Sai ,Tonfa and Nunchaku " the two Bo kata which are demonstrated Shuji and Sakugawa are lacking in the more difficult wazza found in the older version of thus stated kata , which were taught to me by Mr Grabow.
I am not saying that the individual skill within these schools is poor or substandard, only that the classical Bo and Sai kata have been simplified (from the older version ) over the years by different teachers, why I do not have a answer for that.
Tatsuo Shimabuku "Kusanku-No-Sai Kata,"
1966 Cleveland, USA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=by9Vsm5uO4A
.png)
Ken,
I can not disagree with your points about the general trend of simplifying kobudo kata, but I have a couple problems with your post.
1. Shimabuku is supposed to have learned Tokumine no Kun from Chotoku Kyan. This is well known to be the only Bo kata that Kyan taught. I have not seen the version practiced by the Seibukan or other groups that follow the Kyan/ Zenryo Shimabuku teachings, so I can't say for sure if the Isshin Ryu version is Kyan's Tokumine no Kun.
2. However, Yonegawa no Kun originated in Yamanni Chinen Ryu. It is an extremely complex and difficult kata. Have you ever seen this kata demonstrated by any of the senior members of Yamanni Ryu? If you ever do, you will not believe that Isshin Ryu's Tokumine no Kun has anything to do with Yonegawa no Kun.
Shinken Taira (Shimabuku's primary Kobudo teacher) endeavored to preserve as much of Okinawa's weapon traditions as possible. By sheer necessity, many of the kata that he preserved had to be simplified. At the very least, kata that came from different traditions(with their own distinct and unique mechanics) had to made to be performed with the same mechanics. This is why Taira's kata from sources like Yamanni Chinen Ryu (Shushi, Shirotaru, Yonegawa) bear only the most superficial resemblance to those still taught in Yamanni Ryu.
BTW, I have seen both Isshin Ryu's and Taira Shinken's versions of Chatanyara no Sai, and they are essentially the same. Also, I was under the impression that Taira was responsible for preserving this kata, and that most, if not all, groups doing this kata, learned it from him or one of his students. So, if Mr Grabow has a different source from which he learned this kata, I would be interested to know what it is. Respectfully, can you share this with us?
Regards,
Brian Dunham
【Okinawan Kobudo Series】Saijutsu
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDarp_hS4KM
Not sure if this post really belongs here or the buy & sell section, but I thought I'd take a crack at it anyway as it should be of interest to kobudoka with a passion for sai and love of history.
I received a remarkable pair of old iron sai directly from the late kobudo master, Akamine Eisuke, in Okinawa a couple of years before he passed away as a gift for translating his teacher's (Taira Shinken) 1964 publication, "Kobudo Taikan." I am now considering selling them and am fielding offers. According to the late master they were used by both Yabiku Moden and Master Taira.
Interested parties can see the sai located on this page http://www.society.webcentral.com.au/photo_sai__shi_shi.htm http://www.society.webcentral.com.au/photo_akamine_2.htm
Incidentally, I also have Inoue Motokatsu's three volume set (in Japanese) entitled, "Ryukyu Kobujutsu," in which there appears many sai kata: i.e. Kojo, Ugushiku, Hantaguwa, Yakaa, Tawata, Tsukenshitahaku, Hama Higa, Chatan Yara, etc. My copies are also personally autographed by the late master, who I once studied under.
Yoroshiku Patrick McCarthy
Taira showed Hama Higa no Sai in his "Ryukyu Kobudo Taikan" of 1964. Taira received Menyo from Yabiku in "Ryukyu Bojutsu and Saijutsu".
The details of the account given leave no doubt that the Taira's information's where gathered with the help of learned historians (maybe Higaonna Kanjun, who also wrote about martial arts of Ryukyu elsewhere).
Everybody may agree that this was a quite early event in terms of Ryukyu martial arts.
I saw a video (a dantai enbu) of Chatan Yara no Sai which today looks exactly the same as about in the 1960s. There even was the attempt to let this Saijutsu run under a different name, only to authenticate some different person, who retroactively needs to be made some more important in history (because otherwise, the whole lineage would begin to disintegrate).
There is one thing I agree with: there are people who made up new things with the help of the old kata. But the kata and techniques have not been simplified, but rather have been "upgraded" to the popular customers wants...
It is simply other way around than suggested. Stop betraying those who worked hard and really achieved something, but are dead now. At least this is not the original Okinawan form.
Best regards
Andreas Quast
Just for the record:
Murakami is shown with Tawada no Sai, Matsumura no Sai and Sunakake no Kun in "Ryukyu Kobudo Gekan" (Inoue, 1974). This is no proof that they are much older, however, the trend of taking older names, which Ken referred to, maybe just is patr of the traditional thing. Yabiku, for example, also added some moves to Shuushi no Kun. But didn't he learn it and wasn't it his right, isn't that traditional?
Quote:
I have Motokatsu Inoue first book " Bo,Sai,Tonfa and Nunchaku" ( and the Budosai tape showing the RKHS, Inoue 's group ) and Sakagami's booklets on " Tsukenshitahaku no Sai" and " Hamahiga no Sai ".What I find interesting is that the kata's from both of these sources are a vary watered-downed/simplified versions of the original Okinawan weapon kata. I wonder why they changed the kata so much ?
(Ken, are you sure you have "Hamahiga no Sai"? I only know of Tsueknshitahaku no Sai, Hamahiga no Tonfa and Nunchaku booklet. As far as I know the announced continuation of the series never took place and there is no mentioning of Hamahiga no Sai.)
And here came up the question what original source was taken as a comparison, and that's a fair question.
Inoue and Sakagami were Taira's students, and Taira is usually said to have done this and that with the kata... And he also made his own Kata (traditional or not). Anyway, many of the Sai-kata were lost without his work. So who could say that for example Hama Higa no Sai is not traditional, if there is no other lineage to have adopted it somewhere in the past and with which it is comparable?
John wrote:
Quote:
Really, even in antiquated and seemingly outdated martial arts, to really reach a level of special understanding we may need to innovate still and incorporate creativity into our practice.
That's ok, but the name of the association which has many of the Sai-kata in its curriculum contains the term "Hozon", meaning preservation; conservation; storage; maintenance (as you acknowledged), not re-engineering to assumptive circumstances (like fighting against Samurai). So the Okinawans may not see it as their task to further develop the Kata to keep pace with the performing and tournament arts movement. They adopted them, try to keep them as they were when they learned them and made a tremendous job.
Then Ken corrected " Original " to ' older ' or the oldist ' known version, and talks about Isshin-ryu. Kusanku no Sai, as far as I know, is one of those newer Kata, which just have been made up. And I maybe wrong but I thought at least Shinjo Masanobu and Toguchi Seikichi were Goju-ryu practitioners solely.
Ken wrote:
Quote:
This situation of simplifing classical weapon kata, I have noticed also has occurred within the Inoue & Sakagami schools in Japan and the The Matayoshi Kobudo( Okinawa) where their Bo kata also have are simpilfied.In Motokatsu Inoue Book " Bo,Sai ,Tonfa and Nunchaku " the two Bo kata which are demostrated Shuji and Sakugawa are lacking in the more difficult waza found in the older version of thus stated kata , which were taught to me by Mr Grabow.I am not saying that the individaul skill within these schools is poor or substandard, only that the classical Bo and Sai kata have been simplified( from the older version ) over the years by different teachers, why I do not have a answer for that.
So we have the Taira-lineage, and also the Matayoshi lineage, which are said to have simplified classical weapon kata. Matayoshi was on of those few persons who maybe really had to fight a fight, when he was in China. I have seen excellent bunkai of a senior of Matayoshi Kobudo and his Kata tapes are good to me, also he is said to have altered it a little bit for the taping. So you are maybe just talking about the styles as they are presented in the USA?
Brian wrote:
Quote:
Shinken Taira (Shimabuku's primary Kobudo teacher) endeavored to preserve as much of Okinawa's weapon traditions as possible. By sheer necessity, many of the kata that he preserved had to be simplified. At the very least, kata that came from different traditions(with their own distinct and unique mechanics) had to made to be performed with the same mechanics. This is why Taira's kata from sources like Yamanni Chinen Ryu (Shushi, Shirotaru, Yonegawa) bear only the most superficial resemblance to those still taught in Yamanni Ryu.
Don't forget that people are different. What some are able to do, others aren't. Taira's teacher was Yamani-ryu, Akamine's had four teachers, who studied together with Masami Chinen under Chinen Sanda, and where also Yamani-ryu. Masami himself was consulting member of Taira's group (at least at 1964). So here are five students of Chinen Sanda in this lineage. Of course, the Japanese have a different Budo-approach and one may see this. But also the new styles which use old names have bend to the Japanese idea of sheer jutsu. The one thing you build your argumentation on is that there are kata that are "still taught in Yamanni Ryu." Are you sure? Haven't you had the idea that these maybe the new versions you were talking about, only vice versa (not simplifed, but updated)? Taking as a thruth that others than Yamani have simplified the Kata is an assumption, that directly leads to intended outcome calculated by the representative of the public relations department of Yamani, carrying in its slipstream all the aftereffects of the wrong assumption by itself. (Winning or losing tournaments does not influence this logic).
In fact, wasn't it the Yamani-ryu circles in USA that provided all the arguments against the "old kata", just because they received a cold shoulder for their progressiveness and market oriented modifikation of the original techniques on Okinawa? Coming to America with a Sandan or so they quickly noticed the necessity (necessities everywhere!!!) to bend to the rules of the market (while having some fun also). The customers simply wanted to be manipulated, they begged for it, and since some time word is spread that all the established styles are doing something wrong: Matayoshi didn't understood Yamani and that's why they put the Bo on the side of their arm; Taira learned too many Kata, so he couldn't do even one good. The tapered Bo are "pigs Bo", and the only real Bo is a straight one; etc. pp. to be continued. The simple fact is that some people were thrown out some dojo from traditional, old older oldest Okinawan traditional reasons, and the Americans don't care, and when the Americans don't care, others also don't care, because what is successful must be good. Greetings from Tyrannosaurus Rex. Good! Just leave Mr. Taira, Mr. Matayoshi, Mr. Inoue, etc. out of it. They are dead and do not deserve this kind of wicked rhetoric.
In reality what we have been presented as the original Okinawan waza is a new development of the last 25 years or so. I really don't care if they took a move from Katori Shintô-ryû's Bô vs. Katana or whatever and now call it abcient original and the only true Okinawa Bojutsu. And yes, it looks good and it is good. But in this all you have been put into a chessmate situation because of your way of thinking. Its your own wanting of progression that leads to necessities (again!) unconnected to the subject of being original or not and prevents you from the venturous idea that "old Okinawan technique" maybe just were that "simple" (I don't feel it's simple, it is just not always comfortable).
Just look at the techniques the Inoue group extracted from the kata already over thirty years ago. Quite good for just a watered down version, I would say. Who says he does it better?
As this thread was about Saijutsu, I don't even understand bringing those arguments into play. They were meant for giving authenticity to Yamani-Bojutsu, and that's hard enough. Their Sai kata is nothing else but the Kyan no Sai of Matsubayashi-honbu co-founder Kyan Shin'ei, which had been changed and "watered down" for theatralical performance reasons (there is a video of it performed by Kyan Shin'ei for easy comparison to the new Yamani Caruforunia-ha version). And they did it with all the kata: they took them and changed them, telling everybody "this is only true one"... and the fans go crazy! I don't even believe that there was more than Sakugawa no Kun and Shuji no kun in the "original" curriculum. All the rest may just have been re-invented, possibly even with the help of the so called "simplified" originals. Also check the Karate department, its the same.
Here, for example, are the "traditional" Sai kata of Ryukyu Kobudo as found in the BRD (I guess they are called Sai kata of Ryukyu Kobudo because they date back to Ryukyu kingdom times) :
C h i k i n S h i t a h a k u n o S a i
H a m a H i g a n o S a i
C h a t a n Y a r a n o S a i
( H a m a U d u n ) Y a k a a n o S a i
H a n t a g w a K M u r a g w a n o S a i
K o j M n o S a i
A r a k a k i - r y k n o S a i
T a w a d a n o S a i
Any lineage w h o h a s m o r e t h e n 5 0 % o f t h o s e ?
S o while everyone i s v e r y e n t h u s i a s t i c a b o u t t r a d i t i o n , w e s h o u l d n o t i n c o n s i d e r a t e l y b l a m e t h o s e w h o o n l y m a d e i t p o s s i b l e f o r t h o s e w h o h a r v e s t t h e f r u i t s t o d a y . A n d t h a t ' s t r a d i t i o n a l .
R e s p e c t
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
B e s t r e g a r d s
A n d r e a s Q u a s t
I a m p a r t i a l l y p r e s e n t ing a letter written by my teacher (Minowa Katsuhiko) to myself. Part of the letter dealt with Yamani-ryu and a video I had sent Minowa sensei containing Shushi no kon as performed by Mr. Oshiro. Given the current discussion on Taira and Yamani-ryu, I believe it is relevant.
This section of the letter is NOT presented as an assessment of Mr. Oshiro's' skills, but for the insights Minowa sensei provided in the commentary on his training experience.
Mario McKenna
Letter Begins...
Shushi no kon [Oshiro Toshihiro]
Mr. Oshiro's Shushi no kon is considerably different to what is practiced in the Ryukyu Kobudo Shinko Kai so I can't really comment on whether it is good or bad. A long time ago, we (Akamine, Nakamoto, myself, ect.) all learned the same kobudo kata from Taira Sensei. And although our kata may have differed, the differences were quite small.
However, a long time ago, Taira Sensei stated to us that many of his bo kata came from Yamani-ryu. Taira Sensei had four top students of Yamane-ryu who acted as advisers for his Ryukyu Hozon Shinko Kai I think and they would occasionally come to his home and their names were on the name board. Their kata and Taira Sensei's were essentially the same. I'll say it again, it could have been either Taira sensei taught us incorrectly or his Yamane-ryu juniors learned incorrectly. But at that time I believed in what I was being taught by Taira Sensei, even to this day and practice it to the best of my ability.
Letter Ends...
__________________
Mario McKenna
Vancouver, BC
Kowakai Karatedo
No comments:
Post a Comment