MatsuShinshii

Matsumura "Bushi" Sokon

One is not an good fighter over night as well as one is not a pro athlete over night. It takes time to get comfortable and develop timing. You can practice reactionary drills to improve your reaction time and to get your body and eyes working at the same time. Most new students freeze up or react by throwing their arms up to an on coming attack. This is normal and the bodies way of dealing with a quick surprise. If you have a friend that is in class with you, ask them to practice with you away from the dojo with your Sensei's permission. One - there will be less stress and you may calm down. And because he is a friend you will feel more comfortable as you are both there to help each other. Two - if you start slow and gradually build up to full pace Kumite you will find your reactionary time will increase and you will also feel more comfortable facing off.

Try to keep in mind that kicks in traditional Karate before sport were 90% of the time delivered low, targeting the shin, inside and outside thigh, groin region, abdomen and diaphragm and floating rib area's. The crescent kick is typically utilized as an upper region kick. The old Okinawan Karateka did not utilize high kicks unless the opponent was at a disadvantage and could not sweep the standing leg, grab the kicking leg and then sweep the standing leg, duck/move in to counter their kick or take them off balance. Often times if the Kata is taken at face value without taking into context the original fighting style and what the concepts were, the techniques do not make sense and sometime hold little value unless the underlying applications are known.

What Kata are you specifically referring to? The crescent kick is utilized as a removal tool rather than a kick in some Kata. If a stronger opponent grabs your strike, this kick is used to remove their hand/arm and to also damage said arm. It can also be used to pull the opponent down and off balance as the arm is removed thus giving you a split seconds advantage. Can you clarify what Kata?

There are many arguments why not to retreat, no power, can not react as fast, etc. etc. However in my art we practice all directions. We are taught early on that there are 8 directions - north, south, east, west, north east, north west, south east and south west. If you were to look at a watch it would be 12, 1:30, 3, 4:30, 6, 7:30, 9, and 10:30. There is a time and a place to step backwards. As Alan states sometimes you can not move backwards. However if you receive your opponents attack and move backwards at even a slight angle you can un-balance or just redirect their force. I do not care to move forward or backwards in a straight line to or away from my opponent because it gives them the advantage. I rather move off of their line so that I am beside or behind them. In this way it makes it more difficult for the attacker and gives the advantage to me. Just my 2 cents on the topic for what little it's worth.

Chest. In between the neck and sternum.

I know nothing about the school so will not pass judgement on whether its' a McDojo or not. That is for you to decide. I will however comment on 1 instructor teaching Karate, MMA, BKJ Arnis, Ryu Kon Kai Kobudo, Seitei Iaido and Seitei Jodo. First - I am in my late 40's (you could say I'm looking very closely at 50) and can not claim to be competent enough to teach every art I have taken over my life time. Having said that, it's possible I guess. I would ask him how many years and what grade he holds in each art. If he is legit he should have no issue answering these questions. I am sure there are those that have the time and money to pursue many arts and rise to higher levels in said arts that they can teach them. However I have personally found that committing ones self to an art was the best way for me. I like so many others have dabbled in many different arts but always found myself re-committing myself to my main art due to time and money. If he was able to spend the time it takes to be qualified to teach that many arts I tip my hat to him. However I would be leery until you see the proof. Like Sensei8 always says "the proof is on the mat/floor".

I agree with you and think you for pointing this out. This is the same way I was brought up in the arts. Solid point.

For me it's about giving back. The art has given me so much and although it sounds cheesy, it's sculpted me into the man that I am today. It's taught me life's lessons I doubt I could learn elsewhere. For me it's about passing on my passion for the art to my students. I want them to experience the triumphs, to overcome obstacles and realizing that they can push past what they think they can do. It's about passing down what my Shinshii taught to me and maintaining the integrity of the art. It's about passing on a lifestyle that was given to me. I teach because I love the art and I love seeing my students and their students learning and growing. I teach because its rewarding. I have learned more though teaching others than when I was just concerned with learning for myself.

Unfortunately the problem with this is most of this stuff is unintentional. A product of ignorance, of it just not occurring to us. And we reinforce or these habits or scenarios because the people who stick around are the ones who are accepting of them. Like the gym owner in your example, it probably didn't occur to him it could be an issue as there are people who are happy to use those facilities as they are. Reminds me of Hanlon's razor: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity," Not to say we are all stupid, just that we don't know what we don't know. Ideally you want to talk to people who you are driving away. But then how do you do that, especially when half the time you may not have even realised you've done it Solid points.

As others have said most of my knowledge comes from those that came before me. My Shinshii, his Shinshii and so on through our lineage. I also have picked up a lot though my research of my art and in taking other arts. I too use Dr. Google from time to time but I keep an open mind as anything posted on line is skeptical to me and I look for proof before taking the information as the gospel. Anyone, whether credited or not, can post opinions. That in and of itself does not make it worthy of belief. I rely on legitimate sources that have spent many more years than myself training and researching such as Mr. McCarthy or Mr. Lowry and others. There is plenty of knowledge found within bio's or books written by masters like Funikoshi, Nagamine, Motobu, Kano, etc. etc. However the best advice I ever received was to ask questions. I have been studying the arts for over 3 decades and probably ask more questions than 40% of my students and more than 80% of my fellow instructors. This I attribute to thinking you have finally gotten somewhere and you don't have to ask questions anymore. The arts are not just a journey but a never ending learning process for self betterment. I am presently a Rokudan and can tell you that I do not see the end of the tunnel and do not feel I have nothing left to learn. The funny thing is the more time you train in your art the more questions you have and the more you realize how little you truly know. To me that is what makes it so interesting and keeps me coming back.

I would say if the money is more important than the style you have a business just like any other. This is the very definition, in my mind, of a McDojo. The second quote is a little more difficult as the student, if worthy, is the next stage and the torch carrier for the next generation. He will be the transmission of the arts skills and knowledge. So if the arts integrity is kept in tact I would answer the student is more important. However if the underlying question is should you change the art to conform to a student, my answer would be absolutely not. This is for all intensive purposes the main reason for the loss of the true intent of the art. The Japanese as well as Itosu changed it to suit school children. As a result the most important portions of the art, the Jutsu, were removed and replaced with the Do. In effect transforming a highly effective combative/self defense art into a more watered down version. Any time I hear that the art is being changed to suit the needs of a few students I cringe. I know I am very old school and some of my opinions do not resonate with everyone here but the art was good enough when I stated in the 70's for students to seek it out for what it was. Not everyone stuck with it because not every one had what it took. Today it seems like most instructors are trying to alter the art to fit the percentage that doesn't fit or do not have what it takes. This I think is a mistake. Present the art for what it is and let the students decide. If you only have a handful of students, that's ok in my book because they will be the ones that stick with you and truly love the art. By conforming the art to meet all students you degrade it for those that came to learn it as it was taught to us. To me this makes no sense. If proof was needed for how far we have altered from the original path, all one would have to do is visit Okinawa and see how the Kata is performed as to the way it is taught here. Night and Day comparison. The bunkai make no sense with the "modern" Kata. So to answer your question the student is important but not at the expense of the art.

Alan, I wish I had been told what to look for before trying to further my experience in the arts. I had always trained in the Shuri-Te style of Karate and decided to broaden my horizons by trying out new styles. I ran thru three, what I'll call McDojo's, before finding a reputable school with an honest instructor. It took me two months to figure out the first. The second was blatantly obvious, and the third was just a phony that couldn't stand toe to toe with his so called yellow belts much less anyone that had any real training. Unfortunately two of the three are still in business and thriving. Makes no sense to me but these are a few warning signs that I picked up on that might mean you have a McDojo.

This caught my eye, so I thought I'd see how it applied to my own school. I am talking about those schools that test every so many months and everyone tests and passes. I'll answer this by saying that no two people are alike. We all have our strengths and weaknesses. To say that everyone will be ready on a set cycle is ludicrous. I can't honestly answer this as I do not teach children under the age of 16. It may be needed as children develop at different times and the added belts are a way to gauge their progress, or a way to help the instructor see at a glance where they stand due to large classes, or it may just be a way to make a few extra bucks. But again, I don't teach children so it would not be fair for me to pass judgement or to give my opinion. I guess it depends on how the class is ran and whether the ranks are properly targeted. My first experience with the arts was at the age of 12 and I was thrown into class with all ranks up to Shodan. We all warmed up together and we all performed Kihon together. Once that was concluded the CI would take the Yudansha and a few of his senior BB's would take the rest of the class and break them up. The training was targeted to the grades. Well I fear you will not appreciate my answer for this. I will start by saying I am a pure traditionalist and feel that the original Kata convey the true intent of the art. I do not agree with changes to the Kata. Having said this, this does not mean that your sensei changed the Kata. Arts have changed as it was passed down from founder to the next successor and on down. The tendency was to put your mark on it and as a result you will find small differences in arts that are of the same lineage. I can not comment of TKD as I have never taken the art. I do feel that when talking about Kata you have to include Bunkai, Bunseki and Oyo. If not it tends to loose translation on students as just something they have to do for rank. Just my 2 cents. We all instruct as we see fit. I am not saying that you are a McDojo. The intent of my post was things to watch out for and what is very common place in terms of McDojo's. Obviously there are exceptions. Many good instructors fall to the whims of parent/student pressure not to mention financial pressure if this is their only means of income. It does not necessarily mean they are a McDojos. However you hit on a key point and probably the most important point of all. The selling of rank. If the rank is not earned, it is a McDojo pure and simple. Yes it's true that I do not agree with the concept of children BB's. It's my opinion that they are not mature enough and at least in our art this means we start to teach them techniques that are a liability to not only the school/organization but also to the public. That an I've yet met a child that can fight at the level I expect of my BB's. It's a personal thing and my opinion. I would say this... if you are happy and feel that you have gotten solid instruction and have earned your rank then you should be happy. If you feel that your school is more of a business than a place that cares about the quality of their students, essentially a belt factory, you have a McDojo. My view points are because I have seen these issues in my quest for other arts to further my knowledge. These have been warning signs and red flags because these were prevalent markers that I identified and associated with McDojo's and down right charlatans. By no means am I the expert. However the question was asked and I answered as honestly as possible based on my knowledge.

Solid post!! Number 7 above, does that apply to JBB's?? JBB is a SKKA/Hombu thing, and has been that, ever since their doors opened in 1957; I was a JBB for 5 years!! Sensei8, Like the last post, I should have clarified my statements. I understand that there are junior black belts in most styles and no this does not necessarily apply to them unless they are considered true Shodan, Nidan, Sandan. I will be honest in saying I could never promote a child to this rank. It's the way I was taught and the atmosphere I trained in that has sculpted my opinions. I do not personally accept students under the age of 16 and have never had a Shodan under the age of 21. I know not a lot of people agree with me these days but I hold Shodan and above as something more than just another rank and feel that a persons maturity should come into play with the responsibility of being a Yudansha. Having said this I have no issue with this practice or the fact that other arts utilize the JBB system. I do have an issue however when a 10 year old is wearing a BB and is touted as earning it. You are famous for saying proof is on the mat. Well in my world Shodan means you can prove it on the mat and I've yet to meet a child that could rise to this level at these ages. However I understand the intent of having a JBB and understand that this does not mean the same thing as a legitimate Shodan ranking. So no it would not include JBB. I hope this answers your question and hopefully I did not insult you with my statements. I can tend to be a little too old school for some and have a tendency to state my opinion without the proper political correctness that is so prevalent in today's society. I have read many of your articles/posts and have an appreciation for your point of view and it sounds that we have walked a similar journey. Hopefully you take my explanation in the spirit it was given.

Good points to keep an eye on, Thanks MatsuShinshii. Regarding point 4, it has always been a concern for me to be trained with higher ranking at the same time, doing same combinations (which I will struggle with all the time) but I thought that was normal in every dojo ?!I figured this would not be translated correctly. I should have qualified these statements. Yes it is good for you to train with more qualified students, even black belts. However the curriculum is different between the ranks. Point in fact - you would not teach a Hachikyu Kusanku as their first Kata. There is a natural flow to the learning process and it exists for a reason. Having made this statement I need to further explain - a Mudansha student first learns a beginner Kata to learn how to move, transition and how to generate power. These techniques are often times simpler to pick up. If you were to drop a student right into a black belt class they would not be able to defend themselves during Kumite and they would not benefit from learning an advanced Kata before the basics have been taught. Yes it benefits the student to train with higher ranks and this is common place once they have been acclimated. We bring in higher ranks to work with lower ranks and give them pointers and help them progress. However I do not have Shechikyu training with Shodan, Nidan or Sandan students. To further my point you would not force a Shodan to back track every class to practice basic Kata, Kihon. Yes it is always good to go back to the basics and we do this often but I do not force my black belts to take beginners classes nor train at their level. It serves no purpose. McDojo's throw all ranks onto the floor and the training can not be said to be targeted to the specific rank. It slows down progress and this is by design. If you train longer and it takes you longer to learn the requirements for a given rank, the instructor benefits and the student does not. We target our students training to benefit them. I hope this clarify's my statement.

Absolutely no offense taken what-so-ever. I appreciate any discussion on any art or system. I realize I might have come off as irritated by my post. I agree it was kind of a rant. But I can assure you this is not the case. I do not have an issue with someone questioning and trying to find the truth. I do however have an issue with those outside of the art in question claiming facts when their argument is, even on the surface, flawed. It makes one wonder why they are claiming facts when they have no proof one way or another to back it up and makes one wonder further to what end. I really have a problem with those that seek to discredit without at least doing some rudimentary research to verify if what they say even makes sense. Then there are other claims that make me wonder if they thought past their initial thought before making a claim and presenting it as fact. I have no problem with seeking the truth even if that truth slaps what I have been taught right in the face. Truth is truth. I have actually corrected my Shinshii on applications in one of our Kata after learning the applications of the original quan it came from. It turned out it was changed and not for the better. The Quan Fa application actually made sense and utilized the entire sequence of techniques. These things are to better the arts. I think that seeking the truth benefits us as MA'ists. However I tend to look at both sides and analyze. I do not stop once I find a snipit of knowledge and pass it off as the truth. I have heard these arguments for years and have stayed quite and read what others have to say and then do my own research to find the truth. I do not oppose an alternate point of view as long as it is qualified as a point of view. When you pull a rabbit out of the hat and catch an idea out of thin air and pass it off as fact, I have a problem with that. Especially when you seek to discredit one of the great masters of our time with accusations that can not be proven. And the very idea of "you can't prove that it's not true", does not make it true. All we have in many instances is oral history passed down from generation to generation. I absolutely understand and know that if something is told to four people it will change four times. However this is again true of all of the arts no matter Shuri, Tomari or Naha Te. So my question is; if you can not find proof that it's not true does than make it false? If so prove it. That is all I'm saying. If someone can prove it false with real hard facts then I'll be the first in line to accept and tout it as the truth. Until then I feel that the one perpetrating these claims and attempting to discredit other arts/teachers should qualify their statements as their opinions rather than as fact. After all integrity is one of the virtues we aspire to in the arts and as instructors. Simple honesty is the key. Provide the proof and I will be the first to tout it as fact. If not, it's just another opinion. Wastelander, I appreciate your response and understand your point of view. I know I have made broad statements and used words like YOU, that could be taken as if I were talking directly to you. Hopefully you understand that this is not the case and I was merely using these words to illustrate my points.

Thru the years I have read many an article and seen many a post discrediting the correlation between White Crane and Karate, or trying to discredit the integrity of Hohan Soken and whether he learned this from Nabe or from GoGenKi or even while in Argentina from some mysterious Gung Fu master. I have read these articles and seen the overwhelming support for such claims with very little proof but the lack there of as proof of their point. Some of these other websites are more argumentative in nature and any one trying to give an alternate theory is lambasted. Thus I make my comments and observations here and ask for intelligent retorts and opinions here at KF. For many years I have been a huge history buff. I have not been so fortunate as to be able to travel to China and witness the similarities between Quan Fa and Karate as I have never had an endless supply of cash on hand. I have however been to Okinawa on 4 occasions and have spoken with/ trained with Gung Fu instructors in my quest for a deeper understanding of the art that I love. Having said this I have my own thoughts on this subject and choose to answer some of the discrediting claims laid down by some in our martial arts community. First to the argument that "Hakutsuru" was passed down from Matsumura. A few of the most common arguments are that it was named Hakutsuru, a Japanese pronunciation rather than a Chinese or even a Hogan (Okinawan). To this I use simple common sense. Matsumura passed this Kata down only to his family, as was acceptable tradition in those times. It is very possible that he used the Chinese or Hogan pronunciation at the time he was teaching it to Nabe. When this Kata became public was during Hohan Soken's time and the Japanese influence was widely accepted through the Karate circles and throughout the world at that time. Is it not feasible that Hohan used this pronunciation due to the times rather than some conspiracy that it was not passed down because it used the Japanese pronunciation? Another common argument is that Hohan learned this from Gogenki or that Nabe learned it from Gogenki, sighting that there are similarities. My thoughts on this are again common sense based. GoKenki or Wu Xiangui as the history books tell us was a master of whooping crane boxing and as most exponents/practitioners of White Crane will tell you Southern White Crane evolved into many different factions or styles of crane boxing or BaiHe Quan. One of them is Whooping Crane Boxing. By all accounts Fujian or Southern White Crane was what was taught and passed down to Matsumura. Is it not entirely possible that the reason that GoKenki's Kata's resemble Matsumura Hakutsuru because Whooping Crane evolved from it? Seems pretty reasonable to me. The most common argument especially amount Gung Fu practitioners is "it is something but it's not White Crane, because it doesn't resemble White Crane". This can be said of almost every Kata that has a counter part Quan. Sanchin and Sam Chien look similar but are not performed the same. Most Okinawan Kata when compared to it's counter part Quan is shorter and not all of the techniques are represented. There is an easy, I hate to say it "common sense" explanation for this. The Okinawan masters took what was useful and interjected them into their Kata along with Ti or Ti'Gwa. It's not supposed to look exactly the same because it isn't exactly the same. As far as I know the Chinese masters did not know the indigenous Okinawan art of Ti'Gwa and thus would have no reason to inject it into their Quan. I also have two other observation concerning the fact that it doesn't look the same as the Quan practiced today. 1. if you look at the evolution of the original Southern White Crane Boxing created by Fang Qilang (it's been awhile so I may have spelled her name wrong), the original art was based on 15 postures and the Quan were short forms concentrating on transmitting the 15 postures/techniques. The styles that evolved from this original form of crane boxing such as the Northern styles have much longer forms. Is it not possible, again, that you are trying to compare different arts? 2. We know that the founders took snipits from the quan and changed them to fit their ideal. We can see this with Goju Ryu's Kata's as compared to their quan counter parts. Is it not possible that the reason they do not look the same or are not performed the same, is because the individual techniques or Bunkai where incorporated based on what made the most sense to the founders at the time and could be based on the fighting methods or a response to their opponents/enemies fighting methods of the time? I could continue on and on but I will interject this... if the techniques work and they have been proven to work, who cares where they came from or whether they are Fujian White Crane, Fuzhou White Crane, Shaolin Crane, Tai Chi Crane, Wing Chun Crane or any other crane style? I, for the life of me, can not understand the purpose of discrediting an art as old as Matsumura, which gave rise to so many Shuri-Te or Shorin Ryu styles. Most of the naysayers are in fact the recipients of Matsumura's art and within the Shorin Ryu family. Further more I can not understand what purpose one can find in discrediting a dead man that can not answer these allegations for himself. I am sure that this may not be the first time this subject has come up here or the first time you have seen this elsewhere. However I felt a need to answer to just a few of these claims from my perspective. How I wonder are these so called experts coming to the conclusions that they have? I have been researching my art for a little over 15 years and can say with all certainty that there is very little to substantiate their thoughts on this subject and for that matter mine as well. Its not like there is an overwhelming amount of information in the form of diaries, news papers, manuscripts or news videos chronicling what exactly the founders learned and from who and when. We can only go on the small amounts of information that is available to us to form our opinions. Yes there are fallacies and over exaggerations within the history of Karate. However I feel that since none of us where alive then, it's nothing more than guesses and opinions that capitalize most discussions such as this. If any of you have thoughts, comments or even questions I would love to hear them.

In Shindokan, we DON'T treat the block as a block or a strike, but only as a receiver of a technique directed at us. In that, we're deflecting whilst receiving any said technique, and when we receive said technique we're absorbing the energy of said technique. Sensei8, That is the first time in a long time that I have heard the proper description for Uke outside of my style in a long while. The term block is commonly used but this is not entirely correct. To Receive is the proper terminology for Uke. It can be a block, a sweep, a deflection, a re-direction, or a strike. However it is the action of receiving the opponents attack that gives you the edge. By accepting the attack you have the opportunity to choose one of the aforementioned solutions. I love that you used this terminology Bob. Thanks for the correction. You're welcome, MatsuShinshii!! Within myself, I'll shake my head in surprise when I still hear CI's refer to the "block" as a "block", and if I'm asked by that CI of my opinion, well, my opinion usually turns into a 2 hour class on how the "block" isn't a "block"!! By the end of that class, and for the most part, those CI's no longer say a "block" is a "block", especially as in their terminology. I go even further and teach them that it's not acceptable to use that incorrect terminology just for the sake of the student because that student needs to know and understand the correct terminology, as well, as the receivership of that technique. Be correct in technique AND in its terminology, as well!! When I teach receivership, I'll use the term, "block" ONLY ONCE for the beginner, and within that very same breath, they'll learn that that which I'm teaching them is the furthest thing from a "block". It's like a breath of fresh air talking with you and others here. It is tough sometimes to keep your head from exploding when talking to those that do not understand the history, terminology or even the true intent of their art. It's nice to talk to those that understand these things and can talk intelligent about them. I love the fact that there is such a broad knowledge base here with individuals that actually understand the art. Sensei8, I appreciate your wisdom and your willingness to share it.

Although I understand your dilemma I can't say I agree with your methods. My wife is a teacher so I get the whole "everyone gets a trophy". But the cold hard facts are ranks/grades are earned not given. If little Johnny doesn't like to participate why give him a rank? Give him a participation certificate that means absolutely nothing and give the students that work hard and excel rank. No disrespect meant but I have to say this... if your bending to the school and giving rank, even half rank, your selling your hard earned credentials down the river. Essentially, your making all ranks mean nothing. Again I mean no disrespect but this is how I feel about the situation. There has to be a way of making the school happy without loosing the integrity of your art.

That is exactly what I was talking about. Training your students to some day take the reins. After reading some of the posts here I knew that there was still old school instructors that got it. It's one of the reasons I decided to join. WOW! I did not expect to hear that. I guess I can understand the frustration but could never condone the retaliation. The student should have just left the Dojo and found a good instructor.

Are you speaking of pressure point knock outs or strikes to the jaw/head type of knock outs? Either is dangerous but I really don't see any point what so ever in a striking knockout as it does damage to the brain. The pressure point knock outs I could see years ago before the advent of video as you mentioned. However today there is really no need to demonstrate this on your students unless you need to stroke your ego like some Kyusho-Jutsu instructors. Not mentioning names! I see no need ever to knock out one of your students. You can demonstrate without the force necessary to put them down and if they do not have faith in the techniques you can show them video's as proof. I have been knocked out several times back in my youth and it is not a fun time. It seems that the favorite technique for any new instructor is the Brachial Plexus strike. It works exceedingly well but you come to with a splitting head ache and if struck too hard, can do damage to the spinal cord or the root of the nerve complex, not to mention if you strike the jugular or carotid arteries. This can lead to death if damaged. It is definitely not in the students best interests and for those instructors that say that they know what they are doing... accidents happen. The death of a student isn't worth proving something when there are other means by which to show them.

In some cases this may be difficult. However here are some blatant examples as follows; 1. They tell you that everyone tests every (fill in the blank) months. Do they all pass? If so you have found yourself a McDojo. 2. There are twice the number of belts for adults. This is pure and simple, a way to make extra money. McDojo. 3. They require you to buy video's, books, and attend a set number of seminars or you can't test. Pure McDojo. 4. White belts training with Black belts. No separation in ranks. McDojo. 5. If Kata has been changed to win tournaments. McDojo. 6. If Kata is nothing more than a passing thought and only trained for belts. McDojo. 7. If you see children running around with black belts on. McDojo. There are many more but you get the point. If the school is more interested in tournaments and how much they can squeeze out of each student, it's a McDojo. Leave and find a traditional school. The best way to see if an instructor is serious about his students and about the art is to take the class and watch how they interact with them and what they say and do. You'll get a pretty good feel for it pretty quickly.

Alan, I do not like the title of Master because it's very meaning means you have mastered. In most arts Godan is the rank at which you are considered a master. This gives me a chuckle because you still have so much to learn. How then can you have mastered the art if you do not yet know all that the art contains? I personally think this is another term to make Americans feel like they have a leg up on their juniors. Kinda like calling themselves Renshi (don't get me started on this!). I have been studying the arts for over three decades and can not claim to have mastered anything as I am constantly learning. My Shinshii studied the art for well over 6 decades and he always said that to master the art would take a thousand life times and that he was merely a student of the arts. The word master denotes you have mastered. If you have mastered an art and have nothing left to learn then call yourself master. I personally feel this is not possible as there is always something more to learn.

Thanks for contacting your old sensei MatsuShinshii. It does help thank you very much, other pieces of information i heard was that Yamaguchi Sensei created the kata but may be a stretch of the truth??? Well I can not swear to it but I have came across this Kata while researching Hakutsuru history. However my mind/memory is not what it used to be so it is possible I have gotten this mixed up with another Kata. If this is the case, I hope it did not take you too far off your search for history of the Kata. My mind is definitely not what it used to be but I could swear that this was a southern white crane inspired Kata but I could have fudged up the creator/contributor.