Clearing the Air

[MatsuShinshii]

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.

[Wastelander]

Although I don't completely agree with you, I do thank you for your thoughtful write-up, MatsuShinshii!

Personally, I see no problem with people trying to work out the truth of history. You are absolutely correct that we were not there, and do not have much in the way of solid documentation to point to for karate history, but that doesn't mean we must just accept what we are told. If we did that, we would just keep telling people that karate was developed by farmers to fight samurai, which is a completely false but widespread notion. I also don't think that this is necessarily an indication that we do not honor or respect those who came before. It is human nature to want to understand the past, and how we came to arrive at our present, and karate is not exempt from that.

Now, that does lend itself to opinion and speculation, due to the lack of definitive evidence, as you mention. You even admit that your own point of view is, essentially, opinion and speculation, for the same reason. You have done your research, as have others, and you have all drawn your conclusions based on what you have found, even if you have arrived at different ones. To me, that simply means we cannot discount the possibility of either perspective, outright. We must weigh what evidence does exist and develop our own opinions. I happen to disagree with some of the "standard history" taught in my own organization, for example, because my research leads me to different conclusions. When asked about it, I will generally say "Well, commonly this is what is said, but other information suggests that this different thing may be true, instead," and recommend that the students do research for themselves.

I certainly understand the desire to defend that which you believe to be true, and when someone claims that the style you've dedicated many years to studying isn't what you were told, that can definitely feel like an attack. That was definitely how I felt when I was studying Shuri-Ryu, and people told me it was something other than I was told. Now, over the course of years and research, I see what they were talking about, but at the time, it was hurtful. I don't think anyone intends to hurt others when they bring these things up--on the contrary, I think they are actually trying to help by providing you with more information on a subject that you are passionate about.

I've trained and had discussions with several people, over the years, regarding Matsumura Seito Shorin-Ryu, although I don't practice it. What I have seen in my research, and learned from those discussions, has not given me any sort of definitive answer of whether Soken Hohan Sensei's claims were true or not. I think he was a very knowledgeable and skilled karateka, regardless, and passed down much of value. I don't know that I believe he learned it from Matsumura "Nabe" any more than I believe the stories of ancient masters learning from gods or shipwrecked sailors. Could it be true? I suppose, but without evidence, I can't say for sure. Could Shorin-Ryu have legitimate White/Whooping Crane material as a historical component of its system? Naha-te systems maintained a much clearer connection to their related Chinese arts than Shuri-te systems, in my opinion, but I suppose Shuri-te systems could certainly have the same type of connection I can say that if it does, I (and my Crane-style friends) can't see much of it left, with the exception of various collections of Hakusturu kata, which are hard to trace reliably, and verify the authenticity of. Gokenki was known to make up kata on the spot, when asked to teach people his system, for example, leading to a number of Crane forms that trace back to him, but with no real history behind them. Matayoshi Shinpo said as much, and actually did the very same thing, from what I understand. Does that make the material bad, or the people who taught it bad? No, not really. But I feel it's good to try to work these things out.

When it comes down to it, all people are human--even karate masters--and humans have a tendency to forget, exaggerate, omit, lie, and make mistakes. That doesn't make them bad, or unworthy of respect, but it does mean that we have to take things with a grain of salt. As I said, I even apply this to myself in the system I actively study, so I hope you don't feel that this is any sort of attack on you or your style. I honestly can't even say with certainty that Itosu Anko Sensei trained with Matsumura Sokon Sensei, despite that being a widely accepted fact, for example. Be that as it may, I'll keep training, and studying, and researching. Maybe I'll find out that everything I've learned about the history of my style has been a lie. Maybe I'll find out that everything I've learned about it was perfectly true. Most likely, I'll just collect enough bits and pieces to decide for myself. In the end, that's all you can really do, but I personally encourage people to bring forth all the information and evidence and speculation they have, because without it, we can't develop an educated opinion.

Again, I hope you aren't offended by this in any way--I truly don't mean any offense--and thank you for the discussion!

[MatsuShinshii]

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.

[bushido_man96]

I certainly understand the desire to defend that which you believe to be true, and when someone claims that the style you've dedicated many years to studying isn't what you were told, that can definitely feel like an attack. That was definitely how I felt when I was studying Shuri-Ryu, and people told me it was something other than I was told. Now, over the course of years and research, I see what they were talking about, but at the time, it was hurtful. I don't think anyone intends to hurt others when they bring these things up--on the contrary, I think they are actually trying to help by providing you with more information on a subject that you are passionate about.

This, with TKD. I hear you loud and clear here.