Wado Heretic

Congratulations. Well deserved.

With regards to Shōtōkai-ryū (karate as taught by Funakoshi Gichin), and its different modern permeations, if we look to older photos from what Funakoshi was teaching in the 1920s he was already using longer and deeper stances than his contemporaries. Not significantly at first glance, however, his stance in Naihanchi is wider than his shoulders, his kukatsudachi has his back leg behind rather than under him, and his cat stance features an already more pronounced lift of the heel off the floor than many Okinawan styles. My current hypothesis is that this is the influence of his other key teacher aside from Itosu, Asato Ankō. Funakoshi, who is the primary source of much of what we know of Asato, claimed that Asato was also a student and expert in Jigen-ryū Kenjutsu (Sword Method). Funakoshi’s wider, more bladed, and deeper stances, make sense if we consider the influence of swordsmanship on their formulation. Which is to say they make holding a relatively heavy object easier, which Funakoshi would likely have appreciated also being an expert in Kobudo, and they facilitate north-south movement. Funakoshi may have also seen a benefit in the challenge they present in creating the martial body for karate. There are many excellent videos of Jigen-Ryu on Youtube thanks to channels such as Seido Budo. If one finds the time to watch and compare the stances they use and Funakoshi’ 1920s Tode Jutsu, one will hopefully grasp where my hypothesis has come from. Funakoshi Yoshitaka, better known as Gigo, also had a degree of influence due to taking on many teaching responsibilities during the 30s. He has been credited with introducing deeper stances, dynamic kicking, and the focuses on sequential striking techniques with have come to be characterised by modern Shotokan. I am going to quote myself from another time this topic came up regarding the the influence of Funakoshi Yoshitaka: Keep this aside in mind for a later point I wish to make. Moving back to Funakoshi Gichin’s direct teachings, I think that there has also been a fundamental misunderstanding of Funakoshi’s precepts 17 and 18: Kamae wa shoshinsha ni ato wa shizentai - Fixed positions are for beginners: later, one moves naturally. Kata wa tadashiku jissen wa betsu mono - Kata is practised perfectly, real fighting is another thing. Japanese being a tricky language, one can also view 17 as implying that fixed positions are for the youthful and relaxed stances for the less youthful. With Shotokan largely becoming the domain of young men during the war years, and post-war years in the Universities, and then being spread by young men to the world, it was an inevitability that more athletically demanding, and arguably more aesthetically appealing, stances would become normalised. Then these students, as they became teachers, would teach what they were taught. As a teacher you must show what you want from your students to your students. This affects your own growth if you do not find time to train yourself or find someone to take over as the model for you while you evolve your personal practice. Thus, many got locked into repeating what they were taught when young, and this became the model for practice. If we then consider the idea that there is a right and wrong way to do a kata, reinforced by the idea of practicing perfectly, then there becomes a proscribed way to perform kata. Which is going to either be directed by a force of personality, or by democratic means of following what everyone is doing. For Shōtōkan the forces of personalities were Nakayama Masatoshi who formulated the curriculum, and Kase Taiji who held responsibility for teaching aspiring instructors kumite. Kase Taiji’s most influential teacher was the aforementioned Genshin Hironishi, and this is likely where Yoshitaka’s influence truly comes from. Hironishi would have also set the character of the Dojo that Nakayama and others returned to after the war, and they probably had to go with the flow to an extent, rather than try and claw back the practices to what they were doing before they left for the war. Thus, if deeper stances, and dynamic movement had become normal practice, they likely adapted to it and evolved it in their own manner afterwards. Which leads me to what I think is the final ingredient and cause of Shōtōkan’s dramatic stances: Yakusoku Kumite. The Ippon through to Gohon Kumite forms essentially amount to an Oi-Tsuki stopped by a powerful Uke-Waza. If I am trying to stop you hitting me, and you are trying to hit me, but we are moving back and forwards in a line, my only realistic choice to maximise my chances is to move my feet more than you. Which stepping backwards and forwards means long and deeper stances. This is inevitably going to bleed into the performance of Kihon Waza as people aim to develop an edge in kumite. And the forward moving nature of line drills lends itself to people just trying to move forward as dynamically as possible, and longer and deeper stances help this. This may also be why we see more dramatic preparation of uke-waza in Shōtōkan, because when you know what attack is coming you can prepare and deflect with power. Zenkutsu Dachi thus fulfils a very specific tactical role in the practice of Shōtōkan exercise, thus taking on its current character. And when one stance, which is your most basic stance, takes on a deeper and longer nature it is only natural for all other stances to follow along. There is probably a story common to all styles which explain the length of their stances. They will have evolved to meet the tactical needs of the drills being practiced. If those drills become disconnected from actual fighting then we may seem them evolve out of practicality for actual fighting, but exceptionally good at the drills they are used for. And this is not a critique of Shōtōkan explicitly, it is an implicit critique of all styles that we need to remain aware we are training to get good at our Ryuha, and sometimes we may have lost sight of the nature of fighting unwittingly. As long as we remain honest to what we are doing that is fine to an extent, but it should raise a question about whether we are practicing Fighting Arts. But beyond individual dojos, rather than monolithic organisations, I doubt individual characters would have that much impact. My immediate speculation would be that one is Higoanna’s and the other is Miyagi’s. Which is to say Miyagi seems to have tried to make his kata symmetrical. That includes those he learnt from Higoanna If we compare them to the versions found in Toon-Ryu and Shito-Ryu. The only kata he does not appear to have given this treatment is Sanseiryu, which likely contributes to the idea that he did not particularly like it as a kata. Depends on the kata which contextualises the stance. However, the basic idea is that we should be rooted with regards to which hand is in contact with the attacker/opponent for strength. When I was recovering from my knee surgery, which was a two-year period in total, I did use to do some variations to protect. But now it has healed I no longer do so. But that is one of the few reasons I allow variations, or show variations, which is to work around injury to get as close to desired outcome as possible. I explain through showing and adjusting through testing. If the goal is to have strength against front pressure, then we test against front pressure until the compromise we have settled generally works as well as we can get it to. But this is a process I use with everyone anyway to make sure their stances are working as intended. Everyone is different so golden rules are at best useful guides, but pressure testing is the only real way forward.

Apologies for being late to this. I will inevitably parrot some thoughts in my answer that have already been presented, so apologies for a lack of obvious originality, but I will try and introduce some nuances from my own perspective. To parrot the earlier posts to an extent: The perspective of those in the governing body who are responsible for the syllabus, and where they feel kata ought to be placed. In reviewing syllabi, I would say I have observed several factors which seem to have dominated the thinking of the syllabus architects: 1. The length of the Kata 2. The athletic challenges of the Kata 3. The number of novel movements present (Hence novel applications) 4. Relevance to other core exercises (Pre-Arranged Exercises/Drills) 5. Does it introduce knowledge or build upon/challenge existing ability To demonstrate this observation I am going to break down the nine core kata of the Wado-Ryu Syllabus. These, in my experience, are the most adjusted from their Shotokai/Shito-Ryu equivalents which are the origins of Otsuka’s kata. Plus, I only earned a Shodan in Wado-Ryu, and I belonged to a multi-style organisation, so I never really learnt the kata beyond the core nine as my teacher felt the Shito-Ryu or Shorin-Ryu versions were better, and we changed over to a shorin-ryu club at the start of 2013 which was only a few months after I got my Wado-Ryu black belt. Anyway, onto my analysis: Pinangata – Built around Kihon, but contain novel sequences, though they are largely variations on fundamental techniques. They also introduce the primordial shapes of the system (Stances and Postures) in a sequential manner and the kata also very brief. Does include the use of two hands at once, but also predominantly involves hikite. A lot of the movements are also found in the Kihon Kumite of Wado-Ryu. Kushanku – The longest kata in the system. Hironori Otsuka appears, in my eyes, to have made it align much more closely to the previous Pinangata movements that are borrowed from this kata. In the Shito-Ryu and Shorin-Ryu, the Pinangata and Kusanku Dai, have a lot of very similar movements but there are subtle differences. That, however, is an aside point. As a kata it is more athletically demanding because of its length, and it has a couple of athletically demanding moves such as a drop and rise from the floor, and a jumping front kick, but it largely reinforces elements from the preceding kata. Naihanchi – Builds upon Meotode (Hands working together) as introduced in some of the Pinangata. To perform the kata well also requires proper use of posture and the waist because you cannot rely on momentum to give an impression of speed and power. It also has a rooted stance, while the previous kata largely impress light-footedness upon the karateka. Seishan – The first part of this kata largely builds on the lessons of Naihanchi. It works from a rooted stance and features a lot of movement on the spot requiring good use of posture and the waist. One novel element though is the focus on controlled breathing. It also uses a combination of fast and slow movements, where in comparison all the earlier kata focus on sharp and graceful movement. The second half features some challenging movements for someone with poor balance, such as the knee lifts to a step behind, a front kick from a cross step, and a cycle kick near the end. Thus making it more athletically demanding. Chinto – On the surface, Chinto is quite alien to the preceding kata. It contains few examples of kihon waza, unlike the pinangata and kushanku, nor does it have a focus on rooting like Naihanchi and Seishan. However, when one looks closely we can see the points it is building on. There is significant use of the hands working together, as in Naihanchi and Seishan, and it has athletically challenging movements like Kushanku, and a number of the sequences can be seen as variations on novel movements from the Pinangata and Kushanku. Plus, the single leg stance introduces and demands the ability to root, have good posture, and use the waist, to be effective. Chinto, should, in theory challenge you to get better at all the previous lessons. It is also a relatively long kata. I think, based on my observations, I would argue that you can identify the Pinangata and Naihanchi as beginner kata, Kushanku and Seishan as intermediate kata, and Chinto as an advanced kata. They increase in length, athletic challenge, and introduce novel concepts in a progressive manner, before culminating in Chinto where all the prior lessons are needed to perform it well. This can also be seen in the Goju-Ryu core syllabus of 12 kata. Gekisai Ichi and No contain all the core techniques but done in a hard manner, with a focus on forward momentum, north south-movement, and the use of a lead hand. Saifa (Which I believe may be Miyagi’s reorganising and interpretation of Naihanchi) introduces the uses of angles, the blend of soft and hard movement, meotode, and movements on the spot requiring use of the waist and proper posture. Along with Sanchin and Tensho these are Kihongata/Heishugata/Tanrengata which are intended for physically conceptualising principles and developing a martial body. These are all core to progressing to the Kaishugata which focus on applications, and the Kaishugata generally progress in length, athletic challenge, and number of novel techniques, and each generally builds upon the theme of the last. In both examples, the earlier kata are preparatory for the latter kata. They introduce principles relevant to the following kata, and which are needed to perform the following kata properly, and to understand the new principles the later kata are introducing. They prepare the body for the evolving challenges of the later kata. Anyway, in short, and to give a more direct answer to each query To repeat myself - 1. The length of the Kata 2. The athletic challenges of the Kata 3. The number of novel movements present (Hence novel applications) 4. Relevance to other core exercises (Pre-Arranged Exercises/Drills) 5. Does it introduce knowledge or build upon/challenge existing ability Yes, the first kata teaches the process of learning kata. Thus, it should introduce the most essential components to build the learning process on. A poorly chosen initial kata can derail the learning process before it begins. Yes, but different people will determine difficulty in different ways. Depends on the system. Some focus the training of principles through Kihongata/Heishugata/Tanrengata designed specifically for physically conceptualising principles, and isolating them for practice. The later kata should then be performed with these principles while focusing on the novel possibilities for applications. Others will introduce the principles as they become relevant to the applications of the kata. Depends on if the syllabus was built around an understanding of the concept of Bunseki, of which Bunkai is only one element. Without that knowledge a kata syllabus could be purely built around obvious athletic challenges. To give a more personal answer. I do not believe there are innately beginner and advanced kata. There are kata that have been designed for beginners and novices as mentioned about, however, I agree with Wastelander that kata are as complex as what you put into them. As you gain greater understanding, and you revisit kata you learnt earlier, you should be pulling back and applying later lessons to them. To give an example from my teaching approach. With the Pinangata my focus is on Koshi, the use of the waist, as a foundation for the development of Muchimi, Gamaku, and Chikuchi. Pinan Nidan – Use of the Waist with techniques off the front hand Pinan Shodan – Use of the Waist with techniques off the back hand Pindan Sandan – Use of the Waist when using hands in tandem Pinan Yondan – Use of the waist in quick succession Pinan Godan – Using the waist in foot work As the student progresses, they should then, and I do guide them in this, take the lesson backwards as well as forward. I also introduce Naihanchi Shodan early with a focus on Muchimi, and Sanchin with a focus on Chikuchi. As students advance, they should then bring all the lessons together in all their kata. Thus, as they progress their performance of the kata should become more advanced, turning them into advanced kata as they find more innate challenges within the kata to overcome. With that said, another angle to consider is what I call “Flavours” in kata performance. Each system has its own core which is reflected in its kata performance. Shorin-Ryu is often quite staccato, with deliberate breaks between techniques to generate and perform techniques explosively. Goju-Ryu often has a strict divide between hard and soft techniques, giving their kata a fast and slow rhythm. Many systems influenced by the WKF Competition circuit have a more dynamic appearance focusing on kata being done in sequences, and motions being sharp and powerful, or slow and graceful, which give them a percussive flow done well, or lead to looking rushed done badly. Many systems influenced more recently by Chinese sources often have a flowing appearance with the moments of fixture being brief, and the stances often being less defined and more mobile. My point being that, over time, all the kata in your own system might become “beginner” like in difficulty to you. However, were you to try a kata from a system with a different “flavour” their beginner or intermediate kata may feel advanced to you. Because it demands a different kind of martial body, or it places emphasis on different elements of motion you have not trained for. To be lazy, and not make this post any longer than need be, here is a link to a post on a topic on seisan: https://karateforums.com/topic/51847-seisan-kata/page/2/#findComment-574610 Most versions of Matsumura Seisan can be traced back to Kyan Chotoku, and other versions traced back to Ryu Ryu Ko. Personally, Chito-Ryu’s Seisan looks closer to a version of Matsumura Seisan than it does Goju-Ryu’s. And Kyan Chotoku was Chitose’s first teacher. However, I do believe that it is an amalgamation or is Aragaki’s version as Chitose seemed to favour Aragaki’s teachings in his creation of Chito-Ryu. Furthermore, Funakoshi’s Hangetsu looks like Matsumura Seisan, and he got his Seisan from Aragaki. A counter point to this is that Miyagi, the founder of Goju-Ryu, purportedly got his from Higoanna, who reportedly received it from Ryu Ryu Ko. Aragaki Seisho was a senior student of Ryu Ryu Ko to Higoanna. If they both got their versions from Ryu Ryu Ko, then Chitose is plausibly doing Kyan’s versions due to the differences. Alternatively, Miyagi changed his Seisan, which would not have been out of character for Miyagi. Either way, nothing definitive. The following is speculation, and I have little to no evidence. I have been told by a handful of old Okinawan Karateka that kata in old Okinawan Martial Arts, and to an extent Chinese Martial Arts, that most forms have two or three versions. Either a Sho and Dai, or a Sho, Dai, and Gwa set. As in modern karate some of these were taught sequentially. But under some teachers you would abandon the less complex version as you learnt the more sophisticated and comprehensive version. Alternatively, you would be taught the version that the teacher thought suited your level of ability, or the version they were still confident performing if age and injury were a factor. The differences could be because they received different versions from the same teacher, or as you have speculated, the students chose to keep the version they preferred. It is a kata that is both rudimentary and complex. It can be used to introduce effective fundamentals including rooting, breathing, and generation of power through the waste. However, it can present some athletic challenges, if one wants to put them in there. It is easy to break into sections for easier learning, and it contains the majority of the most fundamental techniques. I can see many arguments for it being the first kata of a system Now, I will add some brief thoughts on things I have learnt since in my research which are relevant to the linked post. Patrick McCarthy appears to have been the primary populariser of Aragaki Seisan, and he originally learned the Kata from Richard Kim. Due to Mr McCarthy’s reputation as a historical researcher, I somewhat naively assumed he labelled the kata Aragaki Seisan because of a high degree of confidence it was related to Aragki Seisho. However, two points have since come to my attention: 1. The label of Aragaki Seisan was given by Richard Kim. It could have been arbitrary as there is no evidence this kata is connected to Aragaki Seisho. 2. The current Aragaki Seisan kata promoted by the IRKRS is Patrick McCarthy’s own personal interpretation of the kata based on lengthy study of many versions. Thus, I must discount it as evidence in my original hypothesis. Arguably, Richard Kim may have received the kata from Arakaki Ankichi, hence the choice of kata name, who apparently joined Yabu Kentsu in his brief excursion to Hawaii in 1926, but that is a hypothesis based on very slim documented evidence. I am doubtful the credited Arakaki Ankichi is the famous one, as both the surname and forname are relatively common Okinawan names, and there is no documented evidence of the famous Arakaki visiting Hawaii that I can find. Plus, even were it the famous Arakaki Ankichi, there is no documented connection of him to Aragaki Seisho. Either way, it leaves that trail cold for now. Furthermore, with additional research I have conducted since, I have become sceptical of the claims of Nakaima regarding Ryuei-Ryu’s origins. Again, I have detailed those reasons for doubts in another post: https://karateforums.com/topic/51859-okinawan-ryuei-ryu-karate/#findComment-574680 If Chito-Ryu’s Seisan, which may come from either Aragaki or Kyan, does come from Aragaki it could be considered the “true” Aragaki Seisan. Then my standing theory still holds water but this loss of two key point of evidence has made it leaky. I plan to revisit it in time. I know Seishan, Naha Seisan (Goju-Ryu), Aragaki Seisan, Higoanna Seisan, and Miyahira Seisan. Through all those versions the key point is to have a forward focusing (Not necessarily square) stance, flexibility in the knees, and the hara lowered through the hips. You should be able to bend yourself forward at the hips without losing balance. Sanchin artificially forces this by having the bladed fleet. If you try to stand completely upright with your feet in sanchin position you will immediately feel off balance, and the only way to correct it is to sink. But yes, you are essentially trying to adopt a stance adapted for wrestling. Naihanchi Shodan – the more you learn about karate, the less you feel the need to change it. It, on the surface, contains all the fundamentals needed to make all of your kata better, but the more I study it the more find principles hidden in plain sight, but I didn’t have the vision to see them previously. I have previously created three kata, however, I do not teach them. For various reasons, but I created them when they had a purpose, and then the purpose faded. Kimarite I created for competition training purposes. I based it on 12 combinations/fighting manoeuvres I identified as functionally the same from many different sources. The kata could be performed in a line, or with turns designed to imply throws. Each sequence had a pad-work drill, and application drills. The application drills were based on using the sequence as an offence, as a counter set up or, to use fencing terminology, as part of a counter riposte. I also created variations to adapt to different rule sets and Miai: thus, a variation for sundome, a variation for full-contact striking, and a set which included clinches and the takedowns. I used to teach it to my students interested in competition, or used it as a tool when I did guest coaching. But I have not taught a competition session since before Covid, and I havve subsequently developed shadow work exercises connected to the Pinangata and my organisations basic bunkai, along with pad work drills, which keeps everyone grounded in the traditional karate, but gives flexibility for competition training. I also developed a kata called Shirokuma. A nickname I was given when I was in Okinawa because I was white, but hairier and bigger than a native member nicknamed Kuma. But also I built it around a Kata my Shorei Kempo teacher taught me simply called Bear Kata. I designed it to focus on body-to-body grappling techniques, as at the time I felt traditional kata only really dealt with arm length grappling and striking. Subsequently, as I have learnt more about bunseki, and more about the principles behind kata performance, I have had this erroneous view corrected, and I find plenty of body-to-body techniques in almost any kata now I know what to look for. To repeat myself: the more you learn about karate, the less you feel the need to change it. But I do feel there was a benefit in creating the kata, as they led me to a deep appreciation and knowledge of the old kata. Lastly, I created a kata which became a tribute to a friend called Tsukai. I based in on Wado-Ryu’s Jitte, his favourite Kata, but I incorporated the five fighting combinations of the Kempo Karate system he taught. At the time we were trying to build a club together, and we were going to ground it in the Kempo Karate he taught as he was bringing along the student base, but we were going to introduce exercises and Kata from Wado-Ryu, which we both knew and where we knew each other from. Thus, I was trying to create a unique kata which blended the two traditions, and also sneak in some principles from Shorin-ryu. Sadly, he died during the covid crises, but I completed the kata as a tribute. I taught it to his students, but whether they still practice it I do not know. I try to run through it on his birthday as a private tribute, but it is not part of my regular practice.

Masutatsu Ōyama demonstrates a similar posture in his book he identifies as Maeba. Although, his is more upright with weight off the front foot, and the overall posture slightly bladed rather than square. Motobu Choki also shows a similar posture in his books, although, he tends to have one hand low and the other high. One can argue the posture is somewhat implied in many Goju-Ryu Kata. The opening repeated moves are often done with both arms in front of the self, sometimes closed as in Miyagi's Sanchin Kata, and sometimes open. If you relax the arms, open the stance, close the chest and round the back as done at the end of a couple of Goju-Ryu kata, Sanseiryu springs to mind, then you can argue that is the actual "fighting posture". Many Chinese Martial Arts from the South such as Xingyiquan, Taijiquan, and Baguazhang all have postures involving bringing the hands up in front of the self in a similar manner as described in the opening post. Most importantly so does White Crane which had a significant influence on Karate in the late 19th/early 20th century. I cannot speak for other branches of Shorin-Ryu, but our Kakei Kumite as I was introduced to it in Okinawa basically uses that posture as one of its starting points, along with the wrist-to-wrist pushing hand position. Were I to hypothesise as to why it is not so apparent these days is because of the influence of Jiyu Kumite and Sport Competition. It is not very efficient for point fighting, and has limitations in competitive, full-contact fighting against a trained opponent. It is excellent for intercepting an attempted attack if the attacker commits, and can be great at fending off grabs and wild, swinging attacks. These do not tend to happen in point fighting, or even full-contact karate, where people move in and out very quickly for fear of giving away a point, or are making methodical attacks involving feints and set ups for combinations. When people became more focused on Jiyu Kumite from the 30s onwards, and Yakusoku Kumite against the fundamental techniques of their own systems of Karate, a practical self-defence posture gave way to what worked in sports and what worked best when you know what attack is coming. And bladed stances where you keep one hand back, or a closed stance where you keep the hands in and close, works quite well in both those circumstances. Both work well for moving off line, and getting good explosive power out of the limbs. But they do make it difficult to intercept attacks, do not offer as much protection against strikes you do not see coming, and do little to prevent the collapse of distance. Most, if not all, systems of Karate practice Seisan which implies this posture. Thus, I would not have been surprised if it were more ubiquitous in the past. Plus, it is a fairly natural stance to start Kakedameshi exercises and bouts from. With regards to its presence in Kata, in the Shorin Cannon of Kata as I have learnt it the only fighting posture that readily presents itself in any kata is what Masutatsu identified as Enshin and Motobu as Kaishō Kamae. A bladed stance with the hips pointed no more than 45 Degrees, with both hands in presence, but with back hand held a little back with the hand hovering around the elbow of the lead arm, and the posture offers good protection to the head and body and allows for fairly good north-south and lateral movement. One can argue all of the kata postures can offer primordial fighting shapes you could use as a fighting pose if the context and circumstance allowed. After all, Motobu supposedly used the opening posture of Pinan Yondan in his famed bout with a boxer. Although, I suspect it was his usual open hand stance, but he brought both hands up to head height to account for the boxer's punching, and it bore a resemblance to Pinan Yondan and the journalist had no better idea. But my current operational theory is that the kata often represent a situation where the fight is already under way - there is no time or point of getting in a "fighting stance". Hence, we do not see fighting stances in Okinawan kata very much or at all. An alternative hypothesis that has just struck me is that the karateka of the past already knew the fighting stances and saw no need to put them in kata. And as time has gone by and the basic and fundamental teachings have changed, the stances no one had a use for have gone extinct.

Thank you all. This is quite the honour to have been awarded this five times. It is humbling. Again, thank you all.

When I first started my club, I did not bother with a Dojo Kun, as I was largely teaching adults who had already formed a world view. I saw the dojo kun as largely an educational device. As time has gone by, I have taken on youth students for whom such teachings are invaluable, but I have also realised that they are a statement of intent. They explain to a prospective student what the dojo environment is intended to embody, and they help manage expectations. It means a student knows what I expect out of them more clearly. My choice of five, which has been parsed down from seven in the past, are: Karate wa gi no tasuke - Karate is an assistance to justice Saki Sei Sono Kokoro – Take the Previous Rule to Heart Kazokushugi - Family-Centrism Makoto – Sincerity and Truth Hito no te ashi wo ken to omo - Think of hands and feet as swords Below are my explanations and intended meaning behind each: Karate wa gi no tasuke - Karate is an assistance to justice. I did once have Karate Mu Sente, which I did replace for Karate ni sente nashi, but neither really encompassed what I wanted to transmit. Both being phrases for their being no first attack in karate, it just led to pedantic discussions. What I wanted it to transmit was the idea of not initiating problems. Which is to say the attitude you take to things is a part of the reaction you receive. If you head into situations with an attack first mentality, whether literal or metaphorical, you are going to invite problems. You invite people to be defensive, and then the situation is at once antagonistic. When re-reading Funakoshi’s 20 precepts I was reminded of Karate wa gi no tasuke – Karate is an assistance to justice. I felt it worked on several levels. Someone going and starting fights is not being at all lawful, but it also spoke to a deeper level of the consequences of gaining personal strength: you can use or misuse that strength. Thus, this precept being first. I feel one should use our strength to pursue a better world. Also, my view that as autocratic as the dojo is, it should still be a place of fairness. Plus, I feel the idea of justice also includes values of courtesy and integrity. Saki Sei Sono Kokoro – Take the Previous Rule to Heart Long story short, I had a couple of banners I made years ago which were copies of the banners in the Miyagi Family Dojo in the Karate Kid: Part 2. When I found a regular venue for my current club, I used to take them and hang them to give the place some atmosphere as it wasother wise a rather characterless function room. Someone did recognise them once, and quoted to me the meaning given by Mr Miyagi, and I had to point out the actual meanings: There is no first move in Karate, and senseigoshin: First, have a sound mind. After that, I went and got a banner with Karate ni sente nashi made by a professional to replace my tired, amateur attempt at Karate mu sente, and I retired the second banner. However, when I sat down to figure out my dojo kun I decided to include this seemingly throw away joke for a few reasons. To keep myself humble and take the dojo space seriously: I should not decorate it with things thinking they have no consequence. Everything in the dojo should have a purpose towards training. Secondly, it is a thought device to remind people to consider all the precepts interconnected. None of them exist separately. Lastly, to emphasise how seriously I take the first rule, and that it is the first rule for a reason. Kazokushugi – Can be roughly translated as Family-Centrism. My teacher named his organisation on the concept at the heart of his approach: of members all being part of a family. That it is important that members feel part of the association they have joined, and don’t just feel like a number on a membership list. Thus, I have this as one of my dojo precepts as a reminder to embody this in my dojo too. Plus, to remind people of their other obligations in life beyond the dojo, the association, and karate: their friends and family. Makoto – Sincerity and Truth Depending on context it can be translated either way. However, what I intend in Makoto is sincerity towards one’s training, and to honesty to oneself. Having a clear vision of the intent of your training, being honest with oneself about one’s progress, or lack of, and having a realistic understanding of one’s ability and the purpose and limits of one’s karate. Hito no te ashi wo ken to omo - Think of hands and feet as swords. This is another of Funakoshi’s precepts, but I chose it due to an oft quoted statement for Chibana Chosin: “Your fingers and the tips of your toes must be like arrows, your arms must be like iron. You have to think that if you kick, you try to kick the enemy dead. If you punch, you must thrust to kill. If you strike, then you strike to kill the enemy” Thus, I have this precept as a reminder of the need to train the body effectively. A sword is forged though hard work, the use of the right materials, and expert knowledge. But the quality of the sword produced lies in the efforts of the craftsman. Plus, a sword must be maintained: polished and sharpened regularly. Lastly, to carry on with this metaphor, a sword is only as dangerous as its wielder. A karateka must always be aware that their limbs are their weapons and treat them as such. Similarly, they must remain aware that these are the weapons of everyone else. We must practice awareness of the dangers others pose. And when we train with each other, we must take mistakes in our defences seriously. An error in the dojo should be treated in the same manner an error in a real fight must be treated: potentially lethal. An error should be taken to heart and learnt from.

In that our sources agree. There is no existing evidence that Chibana, or Nakazato, taught a version of Jion or Jitte. However, Kyudokan and its descendent schools have a version of Jion and Jitte. Most likely they came from Higa Yuchoku Hanshi's studies with his first teacher Jiroma Shiro, although some credit his later teacher Miyahira Seiei. Yet, Higa generally credited Miyahira with expert instruction in punching techniques rather than kata. Generally speaking, the original source is not know specifically. Aside from Kyudokan, some of the descendent schools of Shidokan have a version of Jion. The origin of theirs' I am even less sure of. But an interesting aside is that two of Itosu students, Yabu Kentsu and Hanashiro Chomo, are both credited with versions of Jion which are still practiced. Chozu Nakama, a late Kobayashi instructor, reportedly taught Jion as he learnt it from Hanashiro. It is important to note that Hanashiro's only known teachers were Matsumura Sokon and Itosu Anko. Thus, there is a Shuri, and thus by extension a Shorin-Ryu Jion tradition. I have been unsuccessful in tracing it any further back unfortunately.

First thing, good luck going forward Aurik. To answer the opening posts question. My short answer, and perhaps a little facetious, is all of the above. The longer and less facetious answer is that it depends on the student, and the context of the training. To give an example, for relative beginners when doing pad-work or starting on Striking Sparring, I do prefer the use of boxing gloves. When we are just swinging, or we are doing drills with an element of chaos, I prefer they wear the safest gloves possible for punching to limit injury. And when they start striking sparring, we tend to do hands only anyway to get started. Sometimes with my more advanced students, I do still prefer they use boxing gloves when we are doing hands only sparring, because I do usually let them use MMA style gloves for sparring, but sometimes they get into grabbing matches, when I want them working on deflecting and punching smart. Plus, if they end up against a relative beginner using heavier gloves it keeps it more equal. As can be inferred, we do use MMA style gloves, but usually when we are doing Kakei-Kumite and allowing harder hand-strikes, or we are doing Jiyu-Kumite with contact. Sometimes if it is someone’s first time doing a flow-drill, with henka options thrown in, or Renzoku Kumite I might ask them to wear them just to be safe too. I have a supply of the WKF equipment including leg protection, because we do light sparring at least once every eight weeks, and it is good enough for that. The thicker padding also seems to psychologically make people work at a safer distance as well. Why, I am not sure, but it could be the feeling of an added reach of almost an inch or something. Personally, they also feel lighter than my collection of MMA gloves. We also use it is we decide to compete under sundome rules, and we need to prepare for that as well. We tend not to use gloves at all when doing Kiso Kumite, Flow-Drills, Kakei-Kumite, or Renzoku Kumite, but there are exceptions to this rule as mentioned above. Mostly, because the flesh against flesh is good for conditioning, but the rules of the exercises keep them relatively safe and allow for controlled contact. We also do conditioning exercises on pads without gloves or shin-guards to get used to hitting something without gloves. It also helps to gain an understanding of one’s actual reach when not wearing protection, which is essential for self-defence. We do use Kudo style space helmets for head protection when we do full-contact sparring. I find the face mask absorbs a lot of the impact, otherwise absorbed by the neck, and thus the brain, which happens with more conventional head gear. But that is twice a year at most. Plus, I pull people off the mat if they keep taking shots to the head, and not being productive.

My condolences.

Welcome back, and good to see you making content again.

To give a better answer, my first question would be to ask who, and where they were, awarded their Dan grades? I have known some Okinawan Organisations to recognise Dan grades from other systems, though it does not explicitly mean it is an endorsement of a person's skill in the Okinawan Systems. Some unscrupulous people have used this to promote themselves as experts in Okinawan karate despite having a very limited experience of it. With regards to Wado-Ryu and Shito-Ryu having similarities to Shorin-Ryu. To answer this it depends on the branch of Shorin-Ryu: whether it is Kobayashi, Matsubayashi, Sukunaihayashi (Seibukan), or Shobuyashi. In terms of Kata there is similarity between all the branches, and the aforementioned Japanese systems. In the list below I will be focusing on kata I am aware of that exist in Shito-Ryu, Wado-Ryu, and in at least one branch of Shorin-ryu: Pinan kata series: All the systems mentioned practice the Pinangata. Kūsankū: All the systems mentioned practice a version of Kusanku. Naihanchi: All the systems mentioned practice at least Naihanchi Shodan. Seisan: Seibukan, Shito-Ryu, Wado-Ryu, and some branches of Kobayashi. Chintō: All the systems mentioned practice a version of Chintō. Passai: All the systems mentioned practice a version of Passai. Rōhai: Matsubayashi, Shito-Ryu, Wado-Ryu, and some branches of Kobayashi. Wanshū: Seibukan, Matsubayashi, Shito-Ryu, Wado-Ryu, and some branches of Kobayashi. Jion: Seibukan, Shito-Ryu, Wado-Ryu, and Kobayashi. Jitte: Shito-Ryu, Wado-Ryu, and some branches of Kobayashi. Thus, if we were tally the kata in common between Wado-Ryu, Shito-ryu, and the best-known branches of Shorin-Ryu we get the following, in descending order: Kobayashi: 6-9 Seibukan: 8 Matsubayashi: 7 Shobayashi: 5 A lot of the core kata are similar between the Wado-Ryu, Shito-Ryu, and the various branches of Shorin-Ryu. Most begin with a thorough study of the Pinangata and Naihanchi before continuing to Passai and further on from there. However, it should be noted that the Pinangata and Naihanchi were added to Seibukan by the second generation. Beyond the kata we can get into the kumite but that would deserve a book to be fair to all the subtle differences. Nonetheless, I will give a brief overview. Both Matsubayashi and Wado-Ryu have formal kumite forms which were influenced by Motobu Choki, although Wado-Ryu has significantly more two-man exercises, and were also influenced by Shindo Yoshin-Ryu. Orthodox Okinawan Karate methodologies, which most branches of Shorin-Ryu can be called as they come down via shared sources, when you get into applications usually fall into free-style wrestling with dirty boxing, or kickboxing with dirty Judo. Which is to say they focus on arm-controlling or body-to-body techniques and trying to put the opponent on the floor, while utilising percussive techniques to make resisting being thrown even more difficult. Conversely using punching and kicking to control distance, and then throwing when the opportunity presents itself, and using handles and targets to start the throw you would not see in polite competition such as the hair, fingers, dangly bits et cetera. In terms of principles, and using Shito-Ryu terms, we might say a lot of Shorin-Ryu techniques embody Rakka, the use of powerful technique to subdue and stagnate an attempt to attack, and hangeki, defeating an attack with your own. Still using Shito-Ryu terms, In contrast, Wado-Ryu tends to favour ryūsui, flowing around attacks to nullify and stagnate an attack, and ten’I, changing position relative to an opponent to gain advantage. As can be gathered from my using the Shito-Ryu terms we can gather that Shito-Ryu tries to embody all these principles. However, at the higher level, in Shorin-Ryu, there should be use of ryusui and ten’I in conjunction with rakka and hangeki. Plus, in truth, some principles do not work without employing another. Rakka relies on ten’I for best outcome, and hangeki on ryusui to give the base combinations. Plus, to mention the last of the five fundamental principles of Shito-Ryu outlined by Mabuni Kenwa, kusshin: the use of stances and body movements to contract, expand, lower, and rise, as part of a counter attack or technique. This principle should be observed in Shorin-Ryu Kata, and in Wado-Ryu’s Kumite gata, to be performed correctly. There are then other principles which do not carry over perfectly such as gamaku and chinkuchi and so on and so forth. But that is going back to probably requiring a book to do the topic justice. Anyway, I would say most of the kata the systems have in common fall into the Kickboxing with dirty Judo when it comes to their applications. They use a lot of large techniques which expand and collapse the miai, either into or out of body-to-body combat range. From personal experience, I began my study of Shorin-Ryu having essentially just earned my Shodan in Wado-Ryu. The main areas where I felt I had to basically start all over was in the proper use of the waist to generate power, and fixing my stances with intent, but I still managed to earn my Nidan in Shorin-Ryu with just two years of training. Now, I was able to train Four times a week, and did a couple of hours a day of my own training, in that two year period. But the point being, there is a lot that is transferable.

To answer the question of experience with the system my answer must be only a little, and even then, by observation of demonstrations rather than training on the dojo floor. The formal, official history is that Ryūei-ryū is the heterodox, family system of the Nakaima family. Its reported history begins with Nakaima Norisato who studied martial arts for seven years in China under Ryu Ryu Ko. After completing his studies, but before returning to Okinawa in the 1870s, it is stated that Norisato also spent time collecting weapons, scrolls, and experiences across the Fujian, Canton, and Beijing areas. Norisato passed his knowledge onto his son Kenchu, who in turn passed these teachings onto his son Kenko. Nakaima Kenko is the one who decided to teach his family’s knowledge to the public, and he did this in 1971 when he began teaching 20 teachers at the school where he was a janitor. Kenko appears to have in fact named the system out of a need to do so when he made it public. My own teacher was somewhat derisive of this fact. When I brought up Ryūei-ryū once he did remark with veiled critique: “One week he was a janitor, now he is a karate teacher.” That aside, we can study the kata of the system to determine the credibility of the official history: • Niseishi/Nijushiho • Sanseiryu • Seisan • Pāchū • Heikū • Paikū • Ānan • Ohan Niseishi as a kata was also taught by Aragaki Seisho, another student of Ryu Ryu Ko. It is also found in Okinawa Kempo lineages originating with Sakiyama Kitoku, another student of Ryu Ryu Ko. All these versions of the kata are very similar except for some key differences in embusen. However, the general order and selection of techniques are similar. Interestingly, Chito-Ryu, a system greatly influenced by Aragaki as he was Chitose’s first teacher, teaches Niseishi as its second traditional kata after Seisan and Chitose’s various Kihon no Kata. In Okinawa Kempo it is part of the core 12 kata alongside the Pinangata, Naihanchigata, Seisan, Passai, and Kusanku. Similarly, Ryuei-Ryu appears to teach it as their first kata period. In Shi’to-Ryu it is usually the first Aragaki Kata learnt too. This suggests Niseishi may have been taught as a rudimentary kata by Ryu Ryu Ko as Okinawa Kempo, Chito-Ryu, Shi’to-Ryu, and Ryuei-Ryu all treat it as such. However, Niseishi more broadly speaking in Okinawan karate can almost always be traced back to Aragaki. Ryuei-Ryu and Okinawa Kempo are outliers, and other students of Ryu Ryu Ko do not appear to have included it in their approaches. Sanseiryu exists in Shi’to-ryu, Goju-Ryu and To’on-Ryu, and it is highly probable if unarguable that it was taught by Higoanna Kanryo, another student of Ryu Ryu Ko. I have not had the opportunity to see the To’on-Ryu version, and the Goju-Ryu and Shi’to-Ryu versions are virtually identical, but the Ryuei-Ryu version is very much like the Goju-Ryu and Shi’to-Ryu versions. Interestingly, however, I have found no evidence of a Senseiryu attributed to Aragaki, nor does it appear to be practiced in Okinawa Kempo. A version of Seisan exists in every system claiming a lineage from Ryu Ryu Ko via an Okinawan Student. The Ryuei-Ryu version is almost identical to the Goju-Ryu and Shi’to-Ryu versions, and it follows the Chinese Template also found in the To’on-Ryu and Uechi-Ryu versions. Based on these three kata being largely common to proclaimed students of Ryu Ryu Ko we can conclude that Nakaima Norisato was likely a student of Ryu Ryu Ko. A problem is that Nakaima Kenko would not have had to leave Okinawa to learn these kata. He could have learnt Senseiryu and Seisan from studying Goju-Ryu, and the Ryuei-Ryu versions bear a striking resemblance to the Goju-Ryu versions as they include the characteristic Kansetsu Geri. Said Kansetsu Geri does not exist in other versions of Seisan Iam aware of, and as mentioned Sanseiryu appears essentially unique to Goju-Ryu outside of Ryuei-Ryu. Niseishi could easily have been learnt from any number of systems which practice it on Okinawa. These kata are also learnt relatively early, around Sankyu-Ikkyu/brown belt level, in most systems they are studied in. Thus, accessible to a relative novice. However, this is being a little conspiratorial minded, rather than sceptical, so I would prefer to give the benefit of the doubt that the similarities of the kata, and the common cause of the same kata being practiced, is that they indeed come from Ryu Ryu Ko. The rest of the kata, however, do present another problem. They exist nowhere else outside of Ryuei-Ryu in the canon of Okinawan Karate Kata. The versions found in Shi’to-Ryu come from Ryuei-Ryu, and differ purely from adaptations for competition, and differences in fundamental principles leading to different execution of techniques. If we accept the official history, these kata are either part of the Nakaima family tradition that existed before Norisato, or Norisato developed them from his studies in China which were apart from his training with Ryu Ryu Ko. The problem is that Ockham’s razor invites another explanation that Nakaima Kenko has simply made them up. I personally do not think they look very Chinese. Most Chinese influenced kata tend to lack symmetry, use predominantly open hands, and flow between movements. However, the performances of said kata I have seen have largely been by WKF competitors during competition. Thus, could be modified from the original way to do them into a way preferred by judges. Plus, we do have other family traditions from Okinawa such as the aforementioned Kingai-Ryu, Kojo-Ryu, and Motobu UdunDi which have kata from outside the broader Okinawan Kata traditions of Shuri, Naha, and Tomari Te. With regards to competition involvement and success it is predominantly by the efforts and success of Sakumoto Tsuguo. He is a three-time world champion in kata, a two-time winner of the World Games, and a two-time winner of the World Cup. He made his mark in 1987 when he performed Anan, a kata relatively unknown to anyone outside of Ryuei-Ryu, and introduced the Ryuei-Ryu kata to the world. Anan, Pechu, Paiku, Heiku, and Ohan have also since become popular competition Kata. It has been said that Nakaima Kenko disliked Sport Karate, and that he believed karate as Martial Art should be used for building one’s character. However, Sakumoto and other younger masters of the style which have outlived the late Nakaima, see the sport as an excellent tool for promoting karate and getting people interested in it. Sakumoto is one of the most sort out competition coaches in the world and has his hand in training most of Japan’s international competitors. His influence is essentially the answer to your question. Another aside I heard from my teacher is that Sakumoto was a gymnast, and despite Nakaima’s apparent protestations, the word through the grapevine is that Sakumoto was permitted to compete because of his athletic ability, and Nakaima chose him specifically. This, I consider wholly hear say, but Ryuei-Ryu does have a mixed reputation. With regards to Okinawan attitudes to Sport Karate there are trends. Which is to say, many older teachers share Nakaima Kenko’s thoughts, which is that karate is Budo, and should be trained to build character, and trained in a manner fitting actual fighting skills. However, the form this should take is also diverse. Some that this should be done by strict adherence to the hard training of the past, and others that tradition should be respected but fighting skills explored and evolved through kumite. You have some who live on the line, or in the middle ground, that Karate can be a life-time practice, but there is no harm in practicing the sport because karate as a sport and karate as budo are two different things and depending on where you are in life, you will want different things. Also, the pragmatic reasoning that the sport does attract people to Karate, and gives people goals in the short term, and this helps people get started. Finally, you do have people who are very much of the view that Karate is basically a sport and should be practiced as one. The third view is very much a minority in my experience, the second the majority when speaking to most teachers, and the first a handful of the older generation. I hope this has been of help.

The Shōrin-ryū version of Seisan is very much like the version of Seisan in Shi’to- ryū identified as Matsumura-no-Seisan that is historically attributed to Matsumura Sōkon. Most versions of Seisan, or Matsumura-no-Seisan, found in the different schools of Shōrin-ryū can be traced back to Kyan (sometimes spelt Kiyan) Chōtoku. From memory the Kobayashi schools of Shōbayashi, Seidokan, and Shidokan can trace their versions of Seisan back to Kyan. Matsubayashi-Ryū, Shōrin-ryū Seibukan, Okinawan Shōrinji-ryū, and Shōrinji-ryū Kenkokan, all being founded by direct students of Kyan, also inherit their versions from his as well. In short, the Shōrin-ryū Seisan can be easily traced back to Kyan, and most modern systems versions come from him. Where he got it is where the matter becomes confused. Tradition argues Matsumura because he was Kyan’s primary source of what is retroactively known as Shuri Te. Kyan’s Passai is recorded to have come from Oyadomari Kokan. As is his Wanshu although he learnt it from Maeda Pechin who was a fellow student of Oyadomari. Kyan is said to have learnt his Kusanku from Chatan Yara, and Matsumora Kōsaku is said to have taught Kyan his Chinto. In short, it is assumed that Kyan’s version of Seisan comes from Matsumura by product of elimination. The main problem with this being that Kyan did leave a written statement that he learnt Useishi (Gojushiho) from Matsumura with no mention of Seisan. That said, if we are going by written sources, then we only have strong witness testimonials for Naihanchi Shodan, Useishi, and Kusanku being taught by to Matsumura Sōkon. The more complete list regularly given including Naihanchi Nidan, Passai, Seisan, Chintō, and Hakutsuru is again built on a foundation of assumption. Which is to say all, or the majority, of those who claimed to have studied with Matsumura appear to have included those kata in their teachings. However, with regards to Seisan, the historian Hiroshi Kinjo strongly argued that there is no evidence of a Shuri line of Seisan from Matsumura Sōkon. to Anko Itosu, and that the commonly accepted Shuri version must in fact be a Tomari kata. However, this assertion is not universally accepted, and some have offered evidence of a Shuri Seisan lineage including Mark Bishop and Patrick McCarthy. However, it is compelling that most versions of Shōrin-ryū Seisan can be traced back to Kyan, and that most of his teachers were from the Tomari region. Before him, as with Seisan in general, its origins are sadly lost to the mists of time. My operant hypothesis is that the so-called Matsumura variation is the older of the two. This is because of a handful of observation. Aragaki no Seisan most closely resembles Matsumura no Seisan. This version is attributed to Aragaki Seisho who is the earliest person recorded performing Seisan. Aragaki was also a purported student of Ryu Ryu Ko, yet his version follows the embusen of the so-called Matsumura version, rather than the one followed by Goju-Ryu or Ryuei-Ryu, which are credited to other students of Ryu Ryu Ko. Aragaki was Higoanna Kanryo’s first teacher of Martial Arts before he departed for China. This Higoanna famously being the founder of Goju-Ryu Miyagi Chojun’s teacher. Thus, Goju-Ryu’s Seisan is attributed to Higoanna, and in turn Ryu Ryu Ko. Did Aragaki not teach Higoanna Seisan, or did Higoanna have it corrected by Ryu Ryu Ko while in China? Those versions of Seisan which can be traced back to Kyan largely follow the same embusen: Forward, turn to travel to where you started, turn left, turn right, face the back, turn to face the front, turn back on yourself, and then back to the front to finish. However, this is also true of the Aragaki version, who predates Kyan, as well as the version found in Okinawa Kenpo which has no clear historical connection to Kyan. Chito-Ryu’s Seisan, which may come from either Aragaki or Kyan, also follows this embusen. In comparison, the Seisan of Goju-Ryu and Ryuei-Ryu go as follows: Forward, turn to travel to where you started, turn right, turn left, face the back, and then turn back to the front to finish. The Goju-Ryu and Ryuei-Ryu are both directly linked to Ryu Ryu Ko and said to come from China. Higaonna Kanryo and Nakaima Norisato, the teacher of Goju-Ryu’s founder and the founder of Ryuei-Ryu respectively, both studied reportedly studied with Ryu Ryu Ko. Yet, there are two other versions I am familiar with, that are said to come from China, also follow this embusen. That is the Higoanna no Seisan of To’on-Ryu, from Higaonna Kanryu who studied with the Chinese envoy Wai Xinxian, who was reportedly a student of Ryu Ryu Ko, though I have found no clarifying evidence for this claim. The other is the seisan of Uechi-Ryu said to come from Zhou Zihe. Oddly enough, the San Zhan Taolu of Xiang Dian Quan, a form Luohan Quan found in Fujian province, follows a similar embusen though with some instances of moving backwards which is not done in Seisan. There are also a lot of moves in common with Seisan. Some hypothesise that it may be the Chinese version of Seisan, however, it is unproven and uncorroborated to say the least. I can see it being related to the Seisan that Higoanna, Nakaima, and Uechi brought back but I do not think it is convincingly one in the same. The sticking point being that four of at least seven of eight versions of Seisan that have existed on Okinawa since the 19th Century in theory came from China in that century. They are not the ancient Okinawan Seisan. At least four could be attributed to Ryu Ryu Ko: • Aragaki Seisho’s, possibly from Ryu Ryu Ko, which became Chito-Ryu’s version and was the probable origin of Shotokan-Ryu’s Hangetsu. • Higaonna Kanryo’s, probably from Ryu Ryu Ko, which became the Goju Ryu version, • Nakaima Kenri’s, probably from Ryu Ryu Ko, which became Ryuei Ryu’s version. • Kuniyoshi Shinkichi’s, likely from Sakiyama Kitoku who was a student of Ryu Ryu Ko, which became Okinawa Kempo’s version. We could extend this to five if it is true that Wai Xinxian, Higoanna Kanryu’s teacher, from whom the To’on-Ryu version of Seisan comes, was a student of Ryu Ryu Ko as has been speculated. The Uechi-Ryu and Kingai-Ryu could also be directly connected. Kingai Roshi, teacher of Matayoshi Shinko from whom Kingai-Ryu’s Seisan comes, may have been an elder student of Zhou Zihe, the teacher of Uechi Kanbun. Thus Kingai-Ryu and Uechi-Ryu’s Seisan could be directly related. I did once read that Mark Bishop said they were identical; however, I have heard from a reputable source since that although there are some similarities in pattern and technique choice, the versions are not identical. I would mention that I do find Uechi-Ryu and To’on-Ryu’s Seisan very similar in pattern and technique choice as well. Indeed, I think To’on-Ryu’s is closer to Uechi-Ryu’s than it is to Goju-Ryu’s. But that is an aside. Thus, five out of eight versions back to Ryu Ryu Ko, seven versions back to China, and said seven versions back to as little as two sources. Ryu Ryu Ko, and the teacher of Kingai Roshi and Zhou Zihe. Though, that is assuming Wai Xinzian was a student of Ryu Ryu Ko. Our only outlier is Kyan Chotoku’s Seisan, from an unconfirmed source, which became the version in Shōrin-ryū Seibukan, Okinawan Shōrinji-ryū, Shōrinji-ryū Kenkokan, Isshin-Ryu, and several Kobayashi-Ryu schools. But Aragaki’s and Sakiyama’s Seisan, although plausibly from Ryu Ryu Ko, follow the same embusen as Kyan’s version. In contrast, Higoanna Kanryo’s and Nakaima’s follow the same embusen as that of Uechi’s and Higoanna Kanryu’s which come from a different source, but from the same region of China and in the same time frame. One explanation could be that Aragaki and Sakiyama learnt one version of Seisan as they were contemporary, and it was altered by Ryu Ryu Ko by the time Higoanna Kanryo was studying with him. However, Nakaima studied with Ryu Ryu Ko before Aragaki or Sakiyama, and the Ryuei-Ryu and Goju-Ryu versions are fairly similar to one another. We should also consider their similarity to the To’on-Ryu and Uechi-Ryu versions. It is known that there was significant interaction between the traditions of Luohan Quan (Monk Fist) and Bái Hè Quán (White Crane), which produced systems such as Incense Shop Boxing. Ryu Ryu Ko is thought to have likely been a White Crane Teacher, while Kingai Roshi and Zhou Zihe are believed to have practiced and taught Fujian Tiger-Crane. It is very likely their versions of Seisan are similar because they come from a similar point of origin. If we follow that logic, it leads to the conclusion that the Matsumura no seisan embusen is not entirely of Chinese Origin, but rather an Okinawan innovation that may have come from interaction with Chinese Martial Arts. My speculation is that the Matsumura no Seisan Pattern is from an older stream, hence its origins have become so murky. Plausibly, Aragaki and Sakiyama must have seen a benefit in doing things different to what appears to have been Ryu Ryu Ko’s prescribed way. That is if we take Higoanna’s and Nakaima’s performances as reflective on the basis of following what appears to be the “Chinese” pattern when compared to other versions from China. Thus, I presume there must have been an Okinawa way to do Seisan, and then a Chinese Way. But we must beware innovation. Although it is unlikely they both made the same innovation after returning to Okinawa there is nothing to say they could not have, or perhaps agreed to make the change together as they could have in theory known each other. However, I am more inclined to believe they inherited the embusen from somewhere as that most easily aligns with the unknown source problem of Kyan’s. The recurring pattern suggests a tradition we have lost the history of. Oddly enough, in Kodokan we break the rules I mentioned above with our Miyahira no Seisan. We follow the Matsumura Embusen, except we go right, then left, and then back to centre after the sequence of Kake-Uke. I believe this was a change made by Yuchoku Higa based on his training with Shinzato, or Miyahira he learnt it from again was part of a slightly different tradition. It was this anomaly that actually led me to my hypothesis about there being a modern seisan we can track, and an old seisan which is the one that has spiralled into many different versions.

I would like Tyson to win, and if he comes in to the fight in the same shape he managed to come in against Jones four years ago, I think he can win. If he has kept himself in the pink, and puts in a good camp I think Tyson will come in as potentially a higher calibre boxer than Paul has faced yet. But, and this is where I think Fat Cobra hits the nail on the head, Tyson will be 58 going into this match. He had an exhibition bout in 2020 against someone else coming in over 50, but last had a serious bout in 2005. He might be able to come in with heavy and fast hands still, but we need to consider defence: will Tyson have the reactions still to make his defence work? There is only so much one can do against the march of time. Paul is 27, has been very active in his boxing with three fights in 2021 and three in 2023, and he had a match just this month. He only got around to one fight in 2022 for some reason. Even if he has not fought boxers of the calibre Tyson did in his prime, he has fought noted fighters. Paul does not seem to have been dazzled by the reputation of his opponents such as Anderson Silva. Tyson can win if he comes in fit enough, but at 58 I do not see it happening. If Paul does not allow himself to be beaten by Tyson's aura and reputation, and gets in there and does the work I think Paul is more likely to walk away the winner. My breakdown was more to point out Paul can box. He has fought novice boxers, but capable fighters, even if they were aging, over-weight, and from a different sport. His resume is obviously padded, but the traditional boxers he has fought have had equally, if not more, padded resumes. Robinson and Askren are more or less the only two we could call Tomato Cans on his fight card. Woodley had potential on paper, Diaz has potential and went the distance, Silva proved his potential against a former world champion. August and Bourland are inarguably Club Boxers, and Fury puffed up by celebrity and his connection to Fury the Greater, but all traditional boxers with more experience than Paul himself. Yet Paul won two out of three and managed a Split Decision even in defeat. Tyson is a legend and always a point of reference in any serious discussion of a Heavyweight GOAT. Paul will be the lowest rated opponent Tyson will have fought since 1985 during his rookie years. But Tyson is 58, and Paul has knocked people down and out. Speed on the defence is the first thing to get chipped away at by age, and Paul has a dangerous offence.

I am going to go against the grain and vote Jake Paul. I would prefer Mike Tyson to win, but Mr Tyson was last in the ring four years ago for an Exhibition Match against Roy Jones Jr which ended in a split decision. Credit to Tyson in that he is 2 years older than Jones, and Jones was last active professionally in 2018 (Before his fight last year against Anthony Pettis) compared to Tyson's last bout prior being in 2005. But that was four years ago, and Tyson is of an age where 4 years can make a huge difference compared to someone in their 20s or 30s. Jake Paul is not a terrible boxer, even if his record is some what padded: AnEsonGib is a Youtuber. Admittedly he was 2-0 as an Amateur Boxer before facing Paul, so more experienced than Paul, but otherwise a fair competition on paper. Paul securing an early TKO actually speaks in his favour in terms of his talent. Gib has since done well in the controversial Kingpyn High Stakes Tournament but I would take that with a pinch of salt considering the calibre of competitor. On balance, it just suggests Gib was not as easy an opponent as Paul made it look. Nate Robinson was fighting his first fight and was a Basketball player who was basically pushed into an enforced retirement at 33 due to injury. There is no other way to put it except that it was padding Paul's record, and Robinson was in that ring for brand recognition not as a fighter. Ben Askren never knocked anyone out, never mind on their feet: he achieved TKOs via ground and pound. He retired from MMA to have hip surgery, and when it came to the fight Askren came in heavier than he ever had in his previous fighting career. Throughout his MMA career Askren fought as a Welterweight (71 and 77 kg), though he fought a catchweight bout in 2016, but fought Paul in the Cruiserweight Division (80 and 86 KG). And the weight showed in Askren looking bloated and unconditioned. It was more clever padding as Askren was a great fighter in his time, but when one looks at the details more closely, it shows Askren was chosen because he was aging out and not a dangerous striker. The two Tyron Woodley bouts are where it becomes interesting to me. Like Askren, Woodley is a wrestler by training whose victories mostly came from putting people on the floor for submission attempts or ground and pound. However Woodley, from the top of my head, knocked out Josh Koscheck and Robbie Lawler on their feet. An important distinction when considering how dangerous a striker is coming from MMA to boxing: did they ever hurt someone with a punch on their feet? Plus, Woodley went the distance several times against better strikers, at least on paper, such as Stephen Thompson and got decisions in his favour. Woodley's striking acumen and knockout ability were arguably a league above Askren's so he posed a bigger threat to Paul. It is interesting that they went the distance to a split decision in their first meet, but Paul secured a KO in their second. Whether Woodley was not as prepared the second time due to being a replacement, and that made the difference, or Paul had gotten his number from their first bout being the question. I thought Woodley came out a better and more aggressive boxer in their second fight so I have to give credit to Paul for earning the KO personally. Nonetheless, Woodley was a novice at this point so even if I consider him more dangerous than Askren as a cross-over competitor, I am disinclined to consider it a boxing match against a boxer. Plus, as with Askren, Woodley came in heavier than he had during his MMA career. Woodley, as with Askren, was a Welterweight for his MMA career but fought Paul as a Cruiserweight. Personally, I thought Woodley looked as conditioned as he ever had so I do not think the weight made much of a difference to his fitness, but from a fighting weight perspective Woodley was overweight compared to what he once fought at. Plus, as Paul more naturally walks around as a Cruiserweight, all his bouts have been in this class, he is going to have an advantage in conditioning. He does not need to bulk to make weight, and it is unlikely he needs to cut if he keeps himself in the pink. It is not difficult to live at 200 lbs at 6’1 If you keep yourself relatively fit. Anderson Silva out boxed Julio César Chávez Jr. (53-6-1) to a split decision only fifteen months before meeting Paul. Silva won 23 of his 34 MMA victories by knock-out. Silva also finished Julio César Chávez Jr. by KO, and Tito Ortiz by KO, in two of his five boxing matches. The record I can find for Chávez suggests it was his professional debut, and Ortiz's chin has been a little suspect since UFC 66. But those two knock-outs are proof Silva has knock-out power as a Boxer. Paul taking a Unanimous Decision off Silva was no small feat, even if we consider Silva another cross-over fighter, he has been one of the successful ones. This fight alone should make us consider Paul's potential to upset even great fighters. Plus, Silva has fought as a Middleweight and Light Heavyweight meaning he did not come in at an entirely new and unusual weight class to fight Paul. Paul then managed a Split Decision against Tommy Fury. This bout needs a more thorough examination than most. Fury came in undefeated, like Paul, but with two more fights under his belt and seven against Traditional Boxers. Anthony Grant (5-4) was an MMA fighter making his debut boxing match against Fury. On paper, it reads as though Fury is the much more tried and tested boxer because of this as Paul had otherwise only fought cross-over fighters, two of them known more for their wrestling in MMA than their striking and fighting heavier than they ever had before, and all of them aged out passed their peak. However, the only Boxer that Fury fought who came to their fight with a winning record at the time, and who still has one, is Jordan Grant (6-4). Even if we consider Paul's record padded, he largely fought former top talents from the world of MMA. Fury's record, though filled with traditional boxers, is made up of club boxers that between them have a verified combined record of 10-156, which is 6.4% winning rate or roughly one victory in sixteen fights. Admittedly, before meeting Fury said verified combined record was 3-42, however, the average losing streak amongst his opponents before facing him was 7 which is only 1 higher than the average of 6 bouts fought in total before their bouts with Fury. To give credit to Fury, and to balance the argument, each of his opponents had more boxing experience than him coming into their fights. For curiosity’s sake, the reported but unverified combined record is of all of Fury’s prior opponents to Paul is 38-300-5, which translates to an 11.07% winning rate. The reported records give three out of eight of his opponents winning records, though only two verified, and only two with no victories to their names. Nonetheless, it suggests that Fury did not fight a high calibre of opponents. This is not good for Jake Paul because after getting a KO victory over Tyron Woodley and a Unanimous Decision over Anderson Silva he gives away a split decision to Fury. Looking at Fury’s opponents and their calibre he has obviously been protected and has a very padded resume. Thus, this SD loss is either a massive slip up on Paul’s side, or his boxing fundamentals are not as good as they need to be, and his earlier successes came from fighting credible fighters who were nonetheless novice boxers. Fury has since gone on to earn a Unanimous Decision win against KSI (4-1-0) which is not a win to write home about. The Nick Diaz bout was a farce and a catchweight bout. Diaz just did not seem to want to be there from the first second, never mind the first round. I consider Diaz one of the better Fighter-Punchers in MMA regarding his ability with his hands, so I was surprised to see his performance be what it was in this fight. The bug bear of the weight issues rears its head again as with the Askren and Woodley, Paul fought someone who never fought near the Cruiserweight bracket before. With that said, Nate Diaz has a hard chin but he otherwise spent 10 Rounds making Paul look good, though admittedly Diaz did seem to come alive in round 8 and forced Paul to clinch a few times. Nonetheless, I cannot recall seeing Diaz land any flush punches, but I recall seeing him take several. However, having seen Paul knock out Woodley, and knockdown Askren and Silva, I was surprised to see him unable to knock out Diaz. It was a poor performance from Paul rather than a great performance from Diaz from my perspective because Diaz just never seemed in the fight, although Paul still secured the Unanimous Decision. After the slide against Fury and Diaz, Paul seemed to bounce back with a convincing first round knock-out of Andre August. This was, arguably, Paul’s second bout against a traditional boxer. We can discard the previous weight issues as August is a Cruiserweight boxer. Plus, according to BoxRec, August was 10-1-0 with a five-fight win streak going into his fight with Paul. Although, his verified record would be 3-1 if using several sources to confirm rather than one. August’s past opponents, compared to Fury’s, also had a much more even-handed combined record of 42-105-9, which translates to a 26.92% win rate. It should be noted that August appears to have had a significant break between 2019 and 2023 which does not align with Covid-19 restrictions. He is currently 35 so may have been looking to wind down his career, but his trainer has recently said he may retire to focus on his family, so his break from boxing may have coincided with the birth of his children. That aside and said, however, August had a bout in 2023 against the then undefeated, 7-0, Brandon Martin during which August handed Martin his first defeat. After which he fought Paul. One could have attributed the loss to ring rust, but his victory against Martin suggests he had not lost much of his step being out the game for four years. August’s knock-out loss to Paul was only second loss but first loss by KO, and somewhat reaffirms Paul’s potential knock out power. Paul’s last fight was then his third fight against a traditional boxer in Ryan Bourland (17-2-0). A fight which ended with a first round TKO victory for Paul. Bourland had suffered both a TKO and KO loss previously so not an exceptional achievement in contrast to being the first to knock out August in 12 fights. Again, no weight issues to consider as Bourland is a Cruiserweight. However, as with August there are odd gaps in his fight record. Before the 17th September, 2022, Bourland last fought in October, 2018. A gap, again, not really explained by Covid-19 restrictions. Bourland is also 35 and again, the gap aligns with the idea he may have been planning to wind down his career. Nonetheless, he did come back in 2022 and won a TKO victory against Santario Martin, before then facing Jake Paul this month. Unlike with August, where the August-Martin fight could be viewed as a warm-up bout for August after his time out, because he fought Martin on the 11th July and then Paul in the December, Bourland seems to have come into the fight against Paul cold. That said, of the traditional boxers Paul has faced, Bourland unarguably has the most competitive back catalogue of opponents. His opponent’s combined record is 104-129-13, which translates to a winning rate of 42.27%. Significantly greater than the winning rates of Tommy Fury or Andre August’s past opponents. Mathematically, from a chance angle, Fury’s average opponent could win one out of ten bouts, August’s would win two but could win three out of ten, but Bourland’s would win four but could win five. On paper, with maths consider alone, Bourland is the most competitive traditional boxer that Paul has faced, and Paul put him down in one round. In short, I think Jake Paul is a more dangerous boxer than a lot give him credit for because he is a Youtuber, he is a clown for the screen, and he has built his boxing career on PPV Cross-Over bouts against retired or aging MMA Fighters. But he has convincingly defeated two traditional boxers, has a victory against Anderson Silva who defeated former world champion Julio César Chávez Jr. only a short while ago, and he has a 66.67% knockout rate from his 9 victories. But the world of cruiserweight and heavyweight can be very different. The cruiserweight division was created because promoters felt it unfair for men of 190 lbs to be fighting the average, fit, heavyweight of 210 lbs which emerged in the 70s. If Tyson still has his punching power, and sufficient hand speed, then his punches are going to be very different to anything Paul has faced before. Plus, Paul gave away a SD to Fury who has a padded resume, who only gets the attention he does because of Love Island Infamy and bring the brother of Tyson Fury. August and Bourland are at best journeymen boxers who I doubt anyone would be talking about if they were not brought into the spotlight to fight Jake Paul. Mike Tyson in his prime fought the best of the best and was the best of the best. The lowest calibre fighter he ever lost to, in my opinion, was Kevin McBride who was a National Champion and fought for international titles. Paul is dangerous and has a puncher’s chance. However, for Tyson to win convincingly it will require Tyson coming into the fight as fit as can be for a 58-year-old. There in lies my doubt. I do not know if Tyson will manage it, and I think Paul is more dangerous than a lot credit him. George Foreman shocked the world. If Tyson can come back in the shape, he was against Roy Jones Jr, then I think he will win as I want him to. But my instinct is that Paul will upset the world as he often does.