9th kata

[NEB]

Hello everyone,

According to what I've heard Takamiyagi sensei developed a kata for the Shohei system, in addition to the current 8 in the Uechi system.

Is anyone familiar with this form? Are there videos availble of it?

Could be interesting.

nb

[f.Channell]

I've seen it.

Not interested in learning it.

Haven't seen a video of it. Some Shohei people still train Dan Kumite as well and haven't taken to the new kumite.

F.

[Bill Glasheen]

I believe there may be a misunderstanding here.

I have what amounts to the "official" Shohei Ryu book - a pair of books published in a manner similar to Uechi Kanei's Kyohon. In that book are actually not one, but two additional kata.

These are not "new" kata. They are Fukyu kata number 1 and number 2. These kata were choreographed by the Okinawan Goju karate people. In the Shorei Kai Goju system (in which I have a nidan), these are the first 2 of a series of instructional forms, where one builds on the next. They start with the Fukyu series, then go to the Geikisai series, then to the Geikiha series, and then to the Kakuha series. One form in the series differs from the next in only a handful of new elements added on. So essentially if you can do the highest Kakuha form, you have literally (not figuratively) each and every element of every form before it.

The Fukyu, Geikisai, Geikiha, and Kakuha series are the instructional (NOT classical) forms of Goju Ryu.

Many Goju styles don't even do the Fukyu kata, but instead skip right to the Geikisai series. If you have to go through each and every one of these, it gets a bit tedious.

The only advantage in adding these forms is that it helps teach the student elements of "vanilla" Okinawan karate, and that's not necessarily a bad thing. It's a lot easier to teach these to beginner students than it is to teach the superficially simpler but eminently more subtle and difficult Uechi Sanchin kata. But again, these are the beginner beginner forms in the series.

If you've never done them but are already into Kanshiwa, you're not missing anything.

- Bill

[NEB]

Actually....This is, I believe, a different form from the two fukyu katas, which I've seen references to before.

Apparently there is a new form over and above these that is much more recent. I will look into this a bit more and make sure I've heard it right.

Interesting thing about the Goju fukyu forms. Even the Gekisai forms are not original Higashionna Kanryo katas, but created by Miyagi based on forms taked from Shuri te (Shorin Ryu, I think).

[f.Channell]

Not that one Bill. Got this from a Shohei senior.

The NEW KATA 'RYUKO' (Dragon and Tiger) the 9th kata was created in 2000. taking 4.5 years of joint research by Senseis Takara 10th dan, Nakahodo 10th dan, Takimiyagi 9th dan, Yonamine 9th dan, Omine 9th dan, Asato 9th dan, and Higa 9th dan.

The Ryuko is the highest authoritative kata of Shoheiryu karate. Basic fundamental of this kata is keeping a low seated stance. Seventeen new techniques were introduced to make Ryuko the highest of Shohei kata. The performance time is longer than any of the other Uechi Ryu kata It is considered to be equivalent to the highest kata Superrinpei of Gojuryu and Kusanku of Shorinryu.

This will soon be introduced to the public in a DVD along with all other documented kata kumite and bunkai as well as performences by the masters as a means to preserving the system.

[Bill Glasheen]

Fred

Thanks for the "heads up."

I don't know... I guess maybe it's an issue of keeping up with the Jones. We teach a Fuzhou Suparinpei at camp, I put together a form for my Renshi title (38 Special), and Nestor Folta (student of Kanmei) starts winning tournaments over here with his own choreographed "super Uechi" kata. Next thing you know, Taki and the gang have their own superduper form.

It's all good. Competition makes life interesting and fun.

So here's the thing. If the following is true...

Basic fundamental of this kata is keeping a low seated stance. Seventeen new techniques were introduced to make Ryuko the highest of Shohei kata.

...well then I ask the following.

1) From whence did these "new techniques" come? I'm thinking that the likelihood that they are truly "new" is slim to none, but they certainly have my attention. Inquiring minds want to know.

2) What is the focus of this form?

* Self defense?

* Military combat (per the Boxer Rebellion era from whence came Kanbun's style)?

* Sport karate?

* Fitness and/or gymnastics? (i.e. wushu)

* Length for length's sake? (You should hear Tomoyose Sensei's rather funny description of the reason for the additional 5 Uechi forms. )

3) What are the goals of those who choreographed this form?

4) Is there continuity between the previous forms and the new one?

5) Does the form address issues such as the psycophysiologic responses to the survival stress response?

6) Does the fom focus on principles or specifics? And if the latter is true, does it address issues such as targeted sequential striking?

7) Does the form address both grappling and striking issues? Ground and standing issues?

8.) Does the form acknowledge the force continuum?

It's certainly a reasonable set of questions. I know why Nestor choreographed the form he did, and what it's about. I know the reason for and the principles taught in my 38-Special. I have a really good idea what Fuzhou Suparinpei is about.

If anyone practices this form already, by all means speak up. I'd love to drop on by in my travels and see what it's about.

- Bill

[Dana Sheets]

I haven't done the form but I've seen it several times. It is "classical" in the sense that it uses postures that are very recognizeable as Okinawan karate with a strong Uechi influence.

I said some other stuff about the form here:
http://www.uechi-ryu.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=102131

Hatsuko Machita Sensei performed the kata at the Women's Martial Arts Festival during the Women's Friendship Tour in 2004.

There are points in the form where I feel I can see the influences from the various seniors involved.

My understanding is also that there were a few more people involved in the development as well so perhaps that list represents the team leaders. I know the complete form was performed as early as 1999 in the US so it was probably already known and trained in Okinawa a few years before that but may have still been "in development" at that time and not yet officially adopted.

[Bill Glasheen]

Thanks for the link, Dana.

It's funny reading something you wrote 1.5 years ago, and realizing you forgot you had the conversation. Must be Alzheimers...

So I guess I'm still waiting for the delivery of this. Are we all waiting for Gidot? Will it ever "stick", or is this just going to be another interesting experiment that dies out?

Well they say time loves a hero
but only time will tell
If he's real, he's a legend from heaven
If he ain't he was sent here from hell

[Raffi Derderian]

Since I am on the forums today I thought I'd poke around for topics to throw my two cents into.
I have not seen the Shohei kata. I have heard many American Shohei BB's (the really high ranking ones) say they aren't going to bother to learn it. I found that kind of amusing since they haven't had anything new to Uechi-ryu in decades so I would think they would be anxious to challenge themselves again. Yes, they do have the new kumite, which I learned from Mark Brelsford years ago. I really like it and do teach it to my students. If I ever learn the new kata and feel it offers something, I'll likely learn it.
I think the only reason they created it was to provide a signature kata for Shohei-ryu to seperate it from Uechi-ryu. Just my opinion there.
Hope you are all well.
Raf

[Bill Glasheen]

Maybe the real issue(s) here are the following:

1) Is or was there an unmet need?

* As Raffi pointed out, the Shohei gang may have wanted to distinguish themselves from "those other guys" - SOKE, Kenyukai, Pangainoon, IUKF, etc.

* With the history of a "missing kata" (even Toyama Sensei acknowledges this today), was there a conscious effort to complete the package? "Everyone" in China (back then) knew that you needed to have your super-dooper (suparinpei) kata to complete the package. And truth be told, the choreographers from the past are potentially no more or no less brilliant than those of the present or future.

* Is there a marketing issue here? Will one more kata make you look better in Okinawa compared to the Goju guys down the street? (Talk with Tomoyose Sensei about this theory some time... ) Will one more kata keep folks in the dojo learning and paying dues a bit longer?

* Possibly a bit more critical... Are there principles not properly introduced or reinforced in "the big three" and would a fourth form help in this matter? Personally I never really "got" this whole stretchy rice thing (mochi) until I started playing with the Fuzhou Suparinpei I now practice and teach. For me personally, this one form helped me advance the learning process.

* Would another form help link the material to other culturally or functionally relevant information? My own 38 Special helped my people deal with the Jhoon Rhee crowd. Now we know what they do, but not the other way around. What about Okinawa? There are many more interesting fighting principles floating around this culturally significant community. Can they weave some of these into the base material with a new form? Can it help bring people into kobudo more easily? Etc.

2) Does this new form address any of those needs?

Now... Juxtapose all this to all the contemporary learning venues floating around today. We've got all the RBSD gurus, the LEO community, the warrior (e.g. MCMAP) communities, the new-wave grapplers, sport venues, advanced training methods not available before, better understanding of the psychophysiological aspects of martial arts, etc., etc.

Is your plate full? How big is your appetite?

What are your own personal needs?

How are you now judging the relevance of your art?

All this plays into whether or not a "new form" is going to "stick" in this art.

And let's not forget that there isn't some charismatic guy with the name of Uechi telling us that this is really good stuff...

- Bill

[Stryke]

Hey Bill would you mind applying your 8 questions to the five filler katas

there very similar to the questions Ive asked about them .

In fact just questions 2 and 3 would be cool

I figure if anyone could come up with a new kata that group could , I doubt it was competition that made them do it . I hope it was just a attempt to express lessons they`ve learnt .

[Bill Glasheen]

I figure if anyone could come up with a new kata that group could , I doubt it was competition that made them do it . I hope it was just a attempt to express lessons they`ve learnt .

I agree that they very well may be as qualified as any group of folks who took it upon themselves to choreograph forms. My only issue would be whether or not anyone in the group ever had military and/or law enforcement experience, and understood many of the issues about performing under stress that either past warriors understood or present modern researchers do. When you look at "The Big Three", there's a brilliance in the choreography that we're just now beginning to understand.

But you know... Einstein never traveled close to the speed of light, and yet he was able to come up with the theory of relativity. The least we can do is applaud the group for trying. Then we just need to take a look at the material, and see if it speaks to us.

As to the bridge kata, well... I find them useful to some extent. If you teach large groups of people at a time as I once did in the University setting, you find that these bridge kata can help a lot to teach the material in The Big Three. Part of the issue IMO is codifying decent teaching methods. Any really good instructor has most anything (s)he needs in The Big Three to teach a whole system. But the problem is in knowing how to teach the lessons within. A lot of teachers lack imagination, and so may need a script to read off of. The bridge kata show other valid examples of how to mix and match the material. Over time, the student makes the transition from rote learning of patterns to deep understanding of the material.

One thing the bridge kata (and other supplemental material) do is guarantee that students in multiple settings get at a certain minimum level of competence. And for the good of the style, that's not a bad thing.

Frankly, a good teacher needs to go well beyond what is in the basic curriculum. But if you start requiring more and more stuff, then it takes time away from the good teachers getting imaginative in their methods, or taking the material in a unique direction.

It's worth mentioning that Seichin in particular speaks to me. That kata has a few unique techniqes in it, and a flow not found in the other kata.

- Bill

[NEB]

What about the possibility that the "big three" were not the only forms in Pangainoon gung fu? I don't want to be blasphemous here, but it could very well be that Kanbun learned 3 forms out of pool of many more. He wes, after all, a foreigner learning a Chinese art, and the Chinese weren't known to be good sharers.

Also, its interesting to note that many Chinese styles contain a huge amount of forms. There are exceptions, of course (Wing Chun being one), but just take a look at the various Crane styles. Wow! They have a lot of forms, and many are very complex.

Doesn't it seem like a big stretch from Sanchin to Seisan? At least in terms of the sheer number of techniques involved? The overall length is much greater, the introduction of the jump at the end....

The progression is apparent, but I could imagine one or two additional forms bridging the gaps from Sanchin to Seisan, and Seisan to Sanseiryu. Its no surprise to me that Kanei developed the additional forms practiced in mainstream Uechi today.

Of course, one simple reason is boredom. Its human nature to crave variety. And it is human nature to express creativity.

[Stryke]

I dont see the problem with new forms .

I however always have issues with why .

I dont see a big jump from sanchin to seisan , I think it`s much more prominent from seisan to sanseiryu .

But I think difficulty going from one form to the other is only a matter of general skill level .

I can see how more material may bridge that , but I`d prefer more understanding , rather than more co-ordination and memorisation .

Uechi is very unusual in it`s clear progression . It is a treasure of the style that should be appreciated .

Many other styles IMHO could teach there higher katas in any order ....

the need for more is IMHO a modern phenomenom .

Knowing more kata however IMHO is not understanding more mechnaics/application

I know to perform over 30 kata , however I study 8

and I do feel that three or four would be plenty .

I`ve seen Bills new from and it doesnt strike me as deffinately uechi , of course it can fit , but Ive seen a few kata that IMHO fit Uechi .

when you start down that path , labelling what you do one style or another becomes difficult and missleading .

I think karate would be a fairer label at that point .

this new kata however is of and by the organisation , and can be ethically labelled there styles kata .

[benzocaine]

Bill,



PM for you