Mark,
Was there any reference at all made to Makiwara training at the early school? I know it was done at the Futema dojo, but I don't remember hearing anything about it at the Wakayama dojo.
Research reference : syllabus of Uechi Kambun's school
Moderator: Available
-
M J Brelsford
- Posts: 105
- Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 6:07 pm
- Location: Providence, RI
- Contact:
Hey Dana,
From all my notes and talks with folks, I have not heard of a makiwara used. All my info points to a more “Chinese” approach to what hand conditioning was practiced. Again, Kanei said his dad used just about every available thing to condition himself.
Stryke and all,
As for Tomoyose’s comment, I don’t recall him saying about adding to the kata for demos. I do remember him saying that they did add the kiai to the kata; Kanbun’s Uechi did not have kiai’s.
On another note I came across, when speaking about kumite/sparring in Uechi, Kanei mentioned how the whole outlook of fighting practice had changed on Okinawa over the years. Sighting the fact that most schools have gotten away from “real” application of moves in favor of sport orientated practices. He further said that the modern version was a safer and fast way to learn; yet it lacked any real substance in true application.
(FWIW, I also hold this few; I honestly cannot recall, of all the places I have seen, any dojo doing anything but “safe” fighting training. I was told once at one dojo, I will not mention any names, that when I attempted to introduce this type of fighting, the type done in Naha dojo, that it was to “brutal”. Many American dojos’s to me fight to soft. Now I understand insurance and all but sadly to me we have lost this aspect of Uechi.)
Mark
From all my notes and talks with folks, I have not heard of a makiwara used. All my info points to a more “Chinese” approach to what hand conditioning was practiced. Again, Kanei said his dad used just about every available thing to condition himself.
Stryke and all,
As for Tomoyose’s comment, I don’t recall him saying about adding to the kata for demos. I do remember him saying that they did add the kiai to the kata; Kanbun’s Uechi did not have kiai’s.
On another note I came across, when speaking about kumite/sparring in Uechi, Kanei mentioned how the whole outlook of fighting practice had changed on Okinawa over the years. Sighting the fact that most schools have gotten away from “real” application of moves in favor of sport orientated practices. He further said that the modern version was a safer and fast way to learn; yet it lacked any real substance in true application.
(FWIW, I also hold this few; I honestly cannot recall, of all the places I have seen, any dojo doing anything but “safe” fighting training. I was told once at one dojo, I will not mention any names, that when I attempted to introduce this type of fighting, the type done in Naha dojo, that it was to “brutal”. Many American dojos’s to me fight to soft. Now I understand insurance and all but sadly to me we have lost this aspect of Uechi.)
Mark
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
Stryke wrote:
Also does anyone recall the thread were Tomoyose I beleive was quoted as saying the extra kata were added to lengthen demonstrations ?
I wanted to juxtapose those 2 quotes so folks could see that Mark didn't quite understand what Marcus (Stryke) was asking.M J Brelsford wrote:
Stryke and all,
As for Tomoyose’s comment, I don’t recall him saying about adding to the kata for demos. I do remember him saying that they did add the kiai to the kata; Kanbun’s Uechi did not have kiai’s.
I personally heard Tomoyose Sensei saying (in his humble opinion) that the other 5 kata were added so that they could have better demonstrations. In such demonstrations they were competing for students, and the other styles on the block had more kata to do. Adding the additional forms helped the style look more substantial even though Tomoyose Sensei has felt all along that you only need "the big three" kata to learn the system.
Tommy San also told a story about how a rival master once ridiculed his system because it had "only" three kata. He responded to the ridicule with an offer to "test their skills" against each other. Of course the master declined the invitation.
- Bill
He implies this in one of the interviews on the "streaming video" page of this site. It's in an one of those "Take Charge" segments.Bill Glasheen wrote: even though Tomoyose Sensei has felt all along that you only need "the big three" kata to learn the system.
As for curriculum and kata, I note that there are some variations and techniques found in the so-called bridge kata which are not found in the big three, e.g. koino shippo uke tate uchi and yoko uchi, mawashi tsuki, shomen hajiki. I think the hojoundo dates to Kanei as well, right? I'm wondering where the "extra" techniques came from and how Kanbun worked them in.
Mike
-
Stryke
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
If you talk to Tommy San, his personal bias will show. He's an old school guy. He will support the company line and be a good soldier in the Uechi Ryu Karate cause. He's a good man and a dedicated leader. But if you want his honest opinion, he thinks all you need are in The Big Three.
For the most part he's right. But then it takes a genius teacher to crack the Uechi code. This is one good reason to have supplemental material. And IMO it's a reason to keep exploring, choreographing, and cross training.
To start with... The 5 bridge kata are the work of a committee headed by Uechi Kanei. Uechi Kanbun had nothing to do with it. He taught a different flavor of what we practice today. It's all there, but most (as Mark points out) emphasize a more "sport" flavor of Uechi karate today.
As for the "new" techniques, well... Several sources (including Toyama Sensei and Kanei Uechi's kyohon) verify the existence of "a" Suparinpei kata. Kanbun at least saw it, although it isn't clear that he actually practiced it. And we know he elected not to teach it.
I know "a" Suparinpei kata that I learned from Simon Lailey. While Campbell Sensei has come online to dispute this (and he is entitled to express his points of view), Simon allegedly learned the form in Fuzhou from a distant relative (nephew) of Shushiwa. Whatever "it" is, it has the flavor of Kanbun's style - plus a little more. And for what it's worth, just about every move you see in the bridge kata that aren't in The Big Three can be found in this form.
Authentic "lost kata" or hype, what this tells me is that Kanbun probably taught techniques he learned that weren't literally from the big three. IF Kanbun was responsible for passing these techniques on... He either taught logical extensions of the principles of the kata that manifested themselves as techniques which we see in the bridge kata, or he saw these techniques done while in China. MAYBE he saw them in the Suparinpei kata he saw.
Who knows for sure? All we can do is consider the oral history, The Big Three, and other forms we may see practiced today in the Fuzhou region.
And then we let the historians do their work, and bicker over it.
- Bill
For the most part he's right. But then it takes a genius teacher to crack the Uechi code. This is one good reason to have supplemental material. And IMO it's a reason to keep exploring, choreographing, and cross training.
I'm glad to have Mark or Gordi chime in here and correct me where I am off. But I will share what I know.mhose wrote:
As for curriculum and kata, I note that there are some variations and techniques found in the so-called bridge kata which are not found in the big three, e.g. koino shippo uke tate uchi and yoko uchi, mawashi tsuki, shomen hajiki. I think the hojoundo dates to Kanei as well, right? I'm wondering where the "extra" techniques came from and how Kanbun worked them in.
To start with... The 5 bridge kata are the work of a committee headed by Uechi Kanei. Uechi Kanbun had nothing to do with it. He taught a different flavor of what we practice today. It's all there, but most (as Mark points out) emphasize a more "sport" flavor of Uechi karate today.
As for the "new" techniques, well... Several sources (including Toyama Sensei and Kanei Uechi's kyohon) verify the existence of "a" Suparinpei kata. Kanbun at least saw it, although it isn't clear that he actually practiced it. And we know he elected not to teach it.
I know "a" Suparinpei kata that I learned from Simon Lailey. While Campbell Sensei has come online to dispute this (and he is entitled to express his points of view), Simon allegedly learned the form in Fuzhou from a distant relative (nephew) of Shushiwa. Whatever "it" is, it has the flavor of Kanbun's style - plus a little more. And for what it's worth, just about every move you see in the bridge kata that aren't in The Big Three can be found in this form.
Authentic "lost kata" or hype, what this tells me is that Kanbun probably taught techniques he learned that weren't literally from the big three. IF Kanbun was responsible for passing these techniques on... He either taught logical extensions of the principles of the kata that manifested themselves as techniques which we see in the bridge kata, or he saw these techniques done while in China. MAYBE he saw them in the Suparinpei kata he saw.
Who knows for sure? All we can do is consider the oral history, The Big Three, and other forms we may see practiced today in the Fuzhou region.
And then we let the historians do their work, and bicker over it.
- Bill
-
M J Brelsford
- Posts: 105
- Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 6:07 pm
- Location: Providence, RI
- Contact:
Bill
Let me clear and correct a few of your points
Quote: “If you talk to Tommy San, his personal bias will show. He's an old school guy. He will support the company line and be a good soldier in the Uechi Ryu Karate cause. He's a good man and a dedicated leader. But if you want his honest opinion, he thinks all you need are in The Big Three. For the most part he's right. But then it takes a genius teacher to crack the Uechi code. This is one good reason to have supplemental material. And IMO it's a reason to keep exploring, choreographing, and cross training.”
Well I am glad YOU think Ryuko is correct “for the most part” on what he says. I guess Ryuko and I are “Uechi genius” since we have the “code”…
I will let you in on one of the secrets, ya ready? …
Less is indeed more, all the “supplemental material.” is really not needed and really a waste of time you need to look and learn to “get it”, it is there, really. Many seniors, of the old guard, also share this opinion.
Quote: “ It's all there, but most (as Mark points out) emphasize a more "sport" flavor of Uechi karate today.”
I think you miss understood this to mean “only Uechi”, not true. He was speaking of Okinawan karate in general, again due to an influence from Japan and $$$. Most Uechi schools remain true to “real fighting” to a great degree, except for a few that do the sport scene and the kids programs. Even at Futenma, we only practiced “sport stuff” at tourney time, other wise we fought, really.
As for your suparrinpei, I got to agree with Campbell sensei. That whole kata and all the “fluff” around it, is just to far for me to really get my arms around. I see very little “Kanbun” in it. The bridge kata were created by folks much smarter then I, now I know that might be hard for some to understand, but many of these men had been exposed to other Ryuha’s not only Uechi. They might have adapted moves from other Ryu’s. A fine example of this is Nakahodo sensei’s father; he had a strong Shorin understanding older Okinawans had early exposure to other styles they even had local “village” methods. If you want to stretch it, the new Ryuko kata has some “other ryu” moves in it also.
Quote: “Who knows for sure? All we can do is consider the oral history, The Big Three, and other forms we may see practiced today in the Fuzhou region.”
This I agree with, who are we to say. I am just glad I was able to talk with the folks I did and continue to speak with many others.
Mark
Let me clear and correct a few of your points
Quote: “If you talk to Tommy San, his personal bias will show. He's an old school guy. He will support the company line and be a good soldier in the Uechi Ryu Karate cause. He's a good man and a dedicated leader. But if you want his honest opinion, he thinks all you need are in The Big Three. For the most part he's right. But then it takes a genius teacher to crack the Uechi code. This is one good reason to have supplemental material. And IMO it's a reason to keep exploring, choreographing, and cross training.”
Well I am glad YOU think Ryuko is correct “for the most part” on what he says. I guess Ryuko and I are “Uechi genius” since we have the “code”…
I will let you in on one of the secrets, ya ready? …
Less is indeed more, all the “supplemental material.” is really not needed and really a waste of time you need to look and learn to “get it”, it is there, really. Many seniors, of the old guard, also share this opinion.
Quote: “ It's all there, but most (as Mark points out) emphasize a more "sport" flavor of Uechi karate today.”
I think you miss understood this to mean “only Uechi”, not true. He was speaking of Okinawan karate in general, again due to an influence from Japan and $$$. Most Uechi schools remain true to “real fighting” to a great degree, except for a few that do the sport scene and the kids programs. Even at Futenma, we only practiced “sport stuff” at tourney time, other wise we fought, really.
As for your suparrinpei, I got to agree with Campbell sensei. That whole kata and all the “fluff” around it, is just to far for me to really get my arms around. I see very little “Kanbun” in it. The bridge kata were created by folks much smarter then I, now I know that might be hard for some to understand, but many of these men had been exposed to other Ryuha’s not only Uechi. They might have adapted moves from other Ryu’s. A fine example of this is Nakahodo sensei’s father; he had a strong Shorin understanding older Okinawans had early exposure to other styles they even had local “village” methods. If you want to stretch it, the new Ryuko kata has some “other ryu” moves in it also.
Quote: “Who knows for sure? All we can do is consider the oral history, The Big Three, and other forms we may see practiced today in the Fuzhou region.”
This I agree with, who are we to say. I am just glad I was able to talk with the folks I did and continue to speak with many others.
Mark
-
Rick Wilson
That fourth Kata from Mr. Lailey comes from a group of people who have not retained Sanchin, Seisan or Sanseirui but somehow managed to retain the missing fourth Kata – I don’t think so. They never had them.
They may be descended from a Zhou Zhe Her (Shushiwa) but pretty hard to accept that only the elusive fourth Kata survived in their training where Sanchin did not. And there are evidently hours and hours of tape from that group so if they had it then it would be flaunted by now.
It may be an interesting Kata for those that wish to practice it but it is not Uechi. Where is Sanchin? Where is Seisan? Where is Sanseirui?
I think those unanswered three questions answer the question for me.
They may be descended from a Zhou Zhe Her (Shushiwa) but pretty hard to accept that only the elusive fourth Kata survived in their training where Sanchin did not. And there are evidently hours and hours of tape from that group so if they had it then it would be flaunted by now.
It may be an interesting Kata for those that wish to practice it but it is not Uechi. Where is Sanchin? Where is Seisan? Where is Sanseirui?
I think those unanswered three questions answer the question for me.
-
Stryke
While my personal opinion is along the same lines as Marks
No inference or judgement on the extra material is meant or given .
Why the changes were made is a sideline , and an important one .
But I`m not out to comment on the results , Each must decide there own path .
any help on quotes much appreciated .
MY purpose of the thread is to help collect substantiated quotes on the original syllabus by Kanbun .will let you in on one of the secrets, ya ready? …
Less is indeed more, all the “supplemental material.” is really not needed and really a waste of time you need to look and learn to “get it”, it is there, really. Many seniors, of the old guard, also share this opinion.
No inference or judgement on the extra material is meant or given .
Why the changes were made is a sideline , and an important one .
But I`m not out to comment on the results , Each must decide there own path .
any help on quotes much appreciated .
I found the last move, to nekoashi shuto kamae, unsettlingly like the last move of Kusanku as in Matsubayashi Shorin Ryu. That a Shorin-Ryu kata, brimming with nekoashi shuto uke (uchi) moves, should end this way is hardly surprising, but to see the Shohei Ryu kata end that way, having previously shown exactly none beforehand, just seemed odd, to me, anyway.M J Brelsford wrote: If you want to stretch it, the new Ryuko kata has some “other ryu” moves in it also.
Last edited by mhosea on Thu Apr 26, 2007 3:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Mike
-
Dana Sheets
- Posts: 2715
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2002 6:01 am
Mark,
Was any mention made about the jar work? Is that something from China or is that an addition once Kanbun came back to Okinawa?
There seem to be numerous "jar" execises besides holding them and stepping. We did several single person things at the Kadena dojo and I've also seen two person twisting exercises...but I don't know how far back those traditions go.
thanks,
Dana
Was any mention made about the jar work? Is that something from China or is that an addition once Kanbun came back to Okinawa?
There seem to be numerous "jar" execises besides holding them and stepping. We did several single person things at the Kadena dojo and I've also seen two person twisting exercises...but I don't know how far back those traditions go.
thanks,
Dana
Did you show compassion today?
-
M J Brelsford
- Posts: 105
- Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 6:07 pm
- Location: Providence, RI
- Contact:
Dana,
There is an interesting article in the article section talking about what "hand/grip" devices were used in China, very good stuff, here is the name.
The Training Stones of Pangai Noon/Uechi-ryu Karate, by David Elkins & Lostritto, Ph.D. July, 2000
I would think more then likely they used some type of jars, never really heard otherwise. Also remember they did use a grip developing "machine" that Kanbun learned about and used in China.
FWIW, I would think that many of the "traditional" method were indeed used back then. In speaking with Higaonna sensei of Goju Ryu he told me that the Chinese did in fact use many of the same items that are seen in Okinawa.
As I mentioned earlier, Kanbun was all about hand and grip strength as well as overall conditioning. Kanei often spoke about how strong his dad was.
Mark
There is an interesting article in the article section talking about what "hand/grip" devices were used in China, very good stuff, here is the name.
The Training Stones of Pangai Noon/Uechi-ryu Karate, by David Elkins & Lostritto, Ph.D. July, 2000
I would think more then likely they used some type of jars, never really heard otherwise. Also remember they did use a grip developing "machine" that Kanbun learned about and used in China.
FWIW, I would think that many of the "traditional" method were indeed used back then. In speaking with Higaonna sensei of Goju Ryu he told me that the Chinese did in fact use many of the same items that are seen in Okinawa.
As I mentioned earlier, Kanbun was all about hand and grip strength as well as overall conditioning. Kanei often spoke about how strong his dad was.
Mark
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
I'm going out on a limb here.Rick Wilson wrote:
That fourth Kata from Mr. Lailey comes from a group of people who have not retained Sanchin, Seisan or Sanseirui but somehow managed to retain the missing fourth Kata – I don’t think so. They never had them.
They may be descended from a Zhou Zhe Her (Shushiwa) but pretty hard to accept that only the elusive fourth Kata survived in their training where Sanchin did not. And there are evidently hours and hours of tape from that group so if they had it then it would be flaunted by now.
It may be an interesting Kata for those that wish to practice it but it is not Uechi. Where is Sanchin? Where is Seisan? Where is Sanseirui?
I think those unanswered three questions answer the question for me.
First... Mr. Campbell didn't just question the kata. He personally insulted Simon Lailey's integrity, suggesting he made the whole form up. He did so by passing a note to my forum through a third party. All I can say is...
1) Wow!
2) Either Bob is wrong, or Simon is a damn choreographic genius. Either way, I don't care.
What I learned from Simon is a neat form. Most I teach can't quite get their arms around it. There are however a few Canadians who do, and I've seen some of their progress. One fellow in particular has been winning tournaments with the form.
As I've said about my experience with Shorei Kai Goju from a green beret, I've learned more applications of The Big Three outside of "contemporary Uechi Ryu" than I have within. I've seen Joe Pomfret do more in the mano e mano MMA ring with a BJJ/Uechi cross than I've seen any "pure" Uechi stylist do via any sport endeavor.
Bob Campbell wouldn't be Bob Campbell without his Chinatown experiences. He's a classic Chinese stylist.
Which brings me to this specific remark.
Wow, Rick. You sure know where my buttons are.Rick wrote:
it is not Uechi
Oh well... A man needs a good laugh now and then.
WTF IS Uechi? Please define. And I'm sure you can come up with a definition which will fit the bill.
But here's the thing, Rick. Is it MY Uechi??? To that I answer a resounding "Yes!"
Please show me ANY exercise in "contemporary Uechi Ryu" that teaches the "mochi" (elasticity) that Gushi and Shinjo are telling Americans they lack. Maybe you have one, Rick. I'm betting though that it isn't within the bounds of what YOU call "Uechi."
I have something that opened my eyes up to sequential summation of movement. I have something which taught this slow white boy how to hit someone faster (with more hits per second) than they know how to respond to.
Works for me!
Furthermore...
It PROBABLY comes from the neighborhood where Kanbun studied. And just what the heck DID Kanbun study anyhow? Do you think the environment was anything like Okinawa today where they take great pains to preserve choreography - to a fault? I think not. I think there were LOTS of choreographic geniuses in the region. Everything I've seen about Chinese martial arts screams to the fact that they make forms up and throw them away like we do paper in the US. It's never the form per se to them. The form is the finger pointing at the moon. The knowledge lives in their prolific choreography the way music is a fleeting thing to a jazz musician. They do it the way nobody does.
Where IS Sanchin, Seisan, and Sanseiryu in the Fuzhou region today? Hmm??? Ponder that for a bit.
And meanwhile... I still can listen all day to the likes of Mark. I understand Tommy San, and I understand Mark. I know where they are coming from.
But I didn't walk their paths. I CAN'T walk their paths. But I've found some good ones which work for me.
rant = off
- Bill
-
Rick Wilson
Bill, first of all I was not commenting on Bob Campbell so please direct your comments to him. 
Second, your Uechi can be whatever you wish it to be and if that includes that Kata then good for you.
What is Uechi Ryu?
In the context I was posting was in response to you implying that this Kata is the missing fourth Uechi Kata. This is implied in your comment: “Simon allegedly learned the form in Fuzhou from a distant relative (nephew) of Shushiwa.”
My comment was that those people are not the descendents of Uechi Ryu’s Shushiwa and my belief is based on the fact that I do not believe that only the missing fourth Kata would remain today if the system was OUR system. They would still have Sanchin, Seisan and Sanseirui which they do not.
My comment that it is "not Uechi Ryu" was made in the context of my entire posts which was that Uechi Ryu was based on Sanchin, Seisan and Sanseirui. And for anyone to claim a fourth Kata they had better have the first three and they don’t therefore it is not Uechi Ryu is is some other style.
That it has become part of your Uechi Ryu or some other peoples is of absolutely no concern to me and your Uechi can be whatever you want it to me in my opinion.
However, when you post implying that this might be the missing fourth UECHI RYU Kata then in my opinion is that it is not and therefore it is not Uechi Ryu, it might be some other style and it may be part of your Uechi Ryu but it is not the missing fourth Kata of the system that Uechi Kanbun learned – hence the “not Uechi.”
“Where IS Sanchin, Seisan, and Sanseiryu in the Fuzhou region today? Hmm??? Ponder that for a bit.”
Yeah they don’t exist for those folk or any others we have found to date (of course when people accepted that Shushiwa as the one then the search stopped and perhaps is now lost forever).
The folks Mr. Lailey saw do a particular style and have done it since their Shushiwa and they still do it – what they don’t do is Uechi Ryu.
The thought that these folks saved everything that Shushiwa taught including the mysterious fourth form but did not retain Sanchin or Seisan or Sanseirui a claim not worthy of a wink.
Or how about something even more ludicrous that they shared that but hid the other three – how preposterous! 
Sorry Bill in the context of claiming that fourth Kata you know is the fourth of Sanchin, Seisan, Sanseirui and thus the fourth Kata of Uechi is just wrong and therefore it is not Uechi.
You can have it as part of your Uechi all you want not my place to comment, but when I see it implied that it is the missing fourth UECHI Kata then well I guess I will continue to post it isn’t Uechi (in that context).
Second, your Uechi can be whatever you wish it to be and if that includes that Kata then good for you.
What is Uechi Ryu?
In the context I was posting was in response to you implying that this Kata is the missing fourth Uechi Kata. This is implied in your comment: “Simon allegedly learned the form in Fuzhou from a distant relative (nephew) of Shushiwa.”
My comment was that those people are not the descendents of Uechi Ryu’s Shushiwa and my belief is based on the fact that I do not believe that only the missing fourth Kata would remain today if the system was OUR system. They would still have Sanchin, Seisan and Sanseirui which they do not.
My comment that it is "not Uechi Ryu" was made in the context of my entire posts which was that Uechi Ryu was based on Sanchin, Seisan and Sanseirui. And for anyone to claim a fourth Kata they had better have the first three and they don’t therefore it is not Uechi Ryu is is some other style.
That it has become part of your Uechi Ryu or some other peoples is of absolutely no concern to me and your Uechi can be whatever you want it to me in my opinion.
However, when you post implying that this might be the missing fourth UECHI RYU Kata then in my opinion is that it is not and therefore it is not Uechi Ryu, it might be some other style and it may be part of your Uechi Ryu but it is not the missing fourth Kata of the system that Uechi Kanbun learned – hence the “not Uechi.”
“Where IS Sanchin, Seisan, and Sanseiryu in the Fuzhou region today? Hmm??? Ponder that for a bit.”
Yeah they don’t exist for those folk or any others we have found to date (of course when people accepted that Shushiwa as the one then the search stopped and perhaps is now lost forever).
The folks Mr. Lailey saw do a particular style and have done it since their Shushiwa and they still do it – what they don’t do is Uechi Ryu.
The thought that these folks saved everything that Shushiwa taught including the mysterious fourth form but did not retain Sanchin or Seisan or Sanseirui a claim not worthy of a wink.
Or how about something even more ludicrous that they shared that but hid the other three – how preposterous!
Sorry Bill in the context of claiming that fourth Kata you know is the fourth of Sanchin, Seisan, Sanseirui and thus the fourth Kata of Uechi is just wrong and therefore it is not Uechi.
You can have it as part of your Uechi all you want not my place to comment, but when I see it implied that it is the missing fourth UECHI Kata then well I guess I will continue to post it isn’t Uechi (in that context).
