First, please give Bob my best. Our friendship goes way back. Bobby and I know and love each other enough that speaking our minds to each other would never be a problem. I welcome this kind of stimulating discussion.
Second... I am not (yet) committed to any "story" about what this form is or means. That should be obvious from any representation I have made concerning this form. The "lost kata" thing is a marketing ploy in the video layered on the choreography I did for the camera. That "sizzle" would be Mr. Mattson's marketing talents. I deal only in the steak.
Third... I've heard opinions all over the map on this one. While I have not talked with Mr. Tomoyose directly, he has seen me perform the form. In so many words, George tells me he finds it compatible with "the big three" forms we practice.
Fourth... Having practiced the form for a number of years now, I would have to agree. I find it easy to teach simply by showing the parallels to seisan and sanseiryu.
Fifth... I have said again and again that this is a "fluid" form. Simon reports he saw its contents in flux while learning it. Allegedly it would vary from person to person. So even if this was the form that Kanbun allegedly saw and never taught, I doubt that the way it is today is as it was when he saw it. It's kind of like saying that the way someone plays a particular jazz piece would be the same today as it was played 10 years ago. That - by definition - would be impossible. Part of the nature of this form - as I was told - was the practitioner's ability to customize it with the blessings of the old master who was directing its practice.
And if this is all so and factual, could this be a reason why Kanbun threw his hands up and chose not to teach and/or learn it? Who knows? It's an interesting theory to contemplate.
Six... I've temporarily lost contact with Simon. All my e-mail addresses don't work any more. Anyone who can help me, please send me new contact information (I have a few more leads to try...).
Now to some detail.
This is consistent with what I know. Simon told me that there was much confusion in the communication because of the language barrier. Until it was finally communicated to him that content was fluid, there was a time where he thought they might have been yanking his chain. (So he says...)Bob wrote:Simon can not speak Cantonese, Putonghu or Fukienese so it's interesting regarding the language barrier talking with the Master.
Yes.Bob wrote:I know Simon had a lady friend who sometimes interpeted.
Indeed! We can't even get Bob and much of the Okinawan faithful to agree on what Uechi Kanbun was doing in China. Was he studying with established schools, or was he associating with those in the Boxer Rebellion underground? Etc., etc. And we'll probably never be able to settle it, as much information was lost both in the translation and with the lack of good written history not destroyed during the Cultural Revolution.Bob wrote:let us not legitimize anything with out factual, historical proof regarding any matter pertaining to Uechi Ryu.
We do the best we can, and I encourage good debate. We all must be good skeptics, and demand proof.
Wow!Bob wrote:Question : How do you tell an authentic Chinese Origin Form from a Japanese - Okinawa Form ?
Answer : All Chinese Styles are ambidextrous ! Equal use of right and left hand and foot techniques within a given form hence almost all have an equal - number - of - movements.
Japanese & Okinawa Forms are mostly right-handed, Goju & Uechi are heavly favored - right handed
This is a symplistic point but good enough to start one thinking.
Let's ponder what that means...
1) It implies that Uechi Seisan and Sanseiryu were not choreographed in China. This is not a new theory, but it most definitely is putting Bob out on a limb here. (I don't entirely discount that possibility)
2) It implies that the ambidexterous Goju instructional forms (fukyu, geikisai, geikiha, kakuha) are more likely to have been choreographed in China.
3) It implies that my Yang form of Tai Chi isn't a product of China.
4) And finally, it implies that China was a homogenous culture. All those bloody people did things the same way? Hmm...
I'd be curious to see what Jim has to say about the 2 advanced Wing Chun forms. I know Sil lim tao is ambidexterous - as is sanchin. What about the others?
Jim?
Anyhow, good debate. Let's keep everyone honest here.
- Bill
