whassup mah ninjas? observation: something that always bugged me about itosu's bassai dai (as done in ****o-ryu and shotokan, for example) is the "two blocks" sequences that occur three times after the initial movement. more so in ****o-ryu's case, where the second block is done retreating in the first two sequences. i usually interpret yoko/uchi-uke (in-to-out) as a way of doing a slightly curved ura-zuki (which in itself helps bring the block forwards, which actually makes it half-decent as a deflection or bridging technique, instead of just swinging it to the side), which i'd argue is a valid reinterpretation of the techniques, but in the end, it's just that, a re-intrerpretation of a really freaking obscure movement. the third one is after what's usually interpreted as a kick catch, so i believe it can have an application as a leg or ankle lock, if fiddled with a bit. however, take a look at these videos, and compare itosu no bassai dai with its relatives, such as matsumura and tomari no bassai (both of which i'm assuming are older than itosu no bassai), both of which have counter-attacks in the analogous sequences (usually urazuki in matsumura, shuto/nukite in tomari): warning: LOTS of videos Spoiler shotokan bassai dai: [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6IGC--9E7H8"]YouTube - Kata Bassai Dai[/ame] [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EnszkHdatIs"]YouTube - Old bassai dai[/ame] ****o-ryu bassai dai: [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-JpsiKSYKU"]YouTube - Bassai Dai ****o Ryu[/ame] [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLovzICQKkM&feature=related"]YouTube - Inagaki Hiromi does Bassai-Dai 1993[/ame] shidokan shorin-ryu itosu no passai: [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7fHS9gd0tU&feature=related"]YouTube - Itosu no Passai - Kata - Okinawa Shorinryu Shidokan Karatedo[/ame] matsubayashi-ryu passai (a tomari no bassai iteration in shorin-ryu): [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqgWBezNBIw"]YouTube - Matsubayashi Ryu - Passai[/ame] [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0o8X81tb7_U&feature=related"]YouTube - Passai - Nagamine Dojo[/ame] ****o-ryu tomari no bassai: [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxuCwjQAfak"]YouTube - Tomari No Bassai ( por Kyoko Nakanishi )[/ame] seibukan shorin-ryu passai (tomari no bassai from peichin oyadomari via chotoku kyan): [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2wAqLJZnYM&feature=related"]YouTube - Passai[/ame] ****o-ryu matsumura no bassai: [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YxqAt1WlmY"]YouTube - Matsumura Bassai (Shihan Minoru Kanazawa) This Video crested by Aniket Gupta[/ame] oshukai shorin-ryu matsumura passai: [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cr8ko5_KzzA"]YouTube - Kenyu Chinen - Matsumura Passai[/ame] shorin-ryu shinjinbukan passai (matsumura): [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ds8zf2bsLl8&feature=related"]YouTube - okinawa karate video de presentation du DVD 2[/ame] chibana choshin's matsumura passai (by yuchoku higa): [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79RVgtgOSu0"]YouTube - Higa Yuchoku Matsumura Passai[/ame] matsumura seito passai (three passai variations, by hohan soken): [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPJyhEGfsQ4"]YouTube - Passai (matsumura seito)[/ame] [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkctpBLc1_Y&feature=related"]YouTube - Hosan Soken Passai Sho.mov[/ame] so, video barrage aside (i know, i have no life), what are your opinions on that particular sequence and its change relative to the older variants? is this maybe an example of itosu "sanitizing" karate techniques, or something else entirely? does your style or dojo have a particular application for the sequence as done with only the two blocks? discuss away!
I think the most obvious answer is Itosus "sanitizing" to be honest. We tend to use 2 bunkai , either straight forward double block , or block to armbar , i am however , interested in seeing what other people do with it though.
It is clearly sanitising. Nukite is such a dangerous technique that it was hidden from those who were thought unworthy to learn its killing power. Itotsu feared that children would misuse the terrifying nukite so he removed it from all the kata. Apart from heian nidan. And the others. Unless you mean the sequence where the tremendously dangerous "standing in kiba dachi with your arms in the air" bit was replaced with the child-friendly double uchi-uke. Obviously, it was intended to stop amateurs and children maiming each other with the kiba-dachi-hand-wave. :hat:
On the second set of double blocks - soto to uchi uke, I do Shotokan and my Sempai's just go with double blocks..Boring lol At least with the ****o ryu version (the small step back) there is doorway to something more interesting. The small step back shortens stance = raises our height somewhat. Importantly, the step back during Uchi uke lifts and rotates the elbow allowing a chicken wing type lock instead of straight armbar. For this reason i would say ****o ryu has retained the origional intent.
but it's still nothing at all like the older versions! also, MOAR BASSAI: [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ap5JRbz5Hew"]YouTube - Kata TOMARI PASSAI (Old style) - Okinawa Shorinjiryu[/ame] okinawa shorinji-ryu tomari passai kinda reminds me a bit of xing yi
Fish, it is not standard interpretation, but I tend to view the opening blocks as a series of neck cranks and fish hooks pulling the bad guy one way, then the other. It's a stretch, but it is better than "block, block". The rest of the kata is not so removed from the Matsumura or Tomari versions. Which raises the question of why re-interpret the entire form as bassai sho.
Oops, this was meant to be posted to the "Passai sho/bassai kata" thread, which linked to this thread. (http://www.martialartsplanet.com/forums/showthread.php?t=112853). If a mod wants to move it, thanks. Grasshopper wrote: In Chibana systems, it is common to refer to Passai sho as Itosu Passai. It is also common to refer to Passai Dai as Matsumura Passai. I am not sure there is any historical record that states that Itosu created Itosu Passai, or Matsumura created Matsumura Passai. Likewise, it's not uncommon in Kyan systems to refer to Passai as Oyadomari Passai. And, I am aware of no historical record that describes Oyadomari as being the originator of that version. In Chibana systems, there is also a Passai Guwa, or Koryu Passai, or Gusukuma Passai. I do not believe there is any record that a Gusukuma created this kata. Hohan Soken has two Passai kata, Sho and Dai, and I do not believe there is any record as to the originator of these kata. Systems that descend from Nakamura, (notably Oyata), have a Passai, that has it's own uniqueness, and there are no records of its origin as well. He may have learned it from a Motobu. Grasshopper's quote, above, seems to imply that there is some surviving historical information that might shed light on the vintage or origins of these many Passai versions, that would allow us to classify the "Itosu" version as newer, as compared to older more Chinese versions. I strongly doubt that there is anything in the skimpy surviving historical record that would support this idea. Many of the old masters left virtually no record of anything. Motobu's history merely mentions names of kata that are of Chinese origin. Kyan's history mentions virtually nothing. Funakoshi mentions names of Okinawans that studied with Chinese military attaches. Nagamine's history doesn't mention the origins of specific kata, just that they were Chinese. Since we have no real way of evaluating what is older, and what is newer, I think it best to simply accept that we have many versions of Passai and that they may well all be very old. Likewise, I don't think it useful to imply that specific masters created or changed the kata in meaningful ways. We know that Funakoshi adopted deeper, longer stances. But regarding significant changes to the foot patterns (embusen), we really have no way of knowing whether a kata has the name of a master because that master created it, or merely because he taught it. FWIW, the double blocks found in the 2nd, 3rd and 4th directions in Chibana's Passai sho (Mabuni's/Funakoshi's Bassai Dai) are also found in another Mabuni Passai version called [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RlWeruordg"]Ishimine no Passai (****o-Ryu) - YouTube[/ame] I don't believe there is any surviving documentation that states that Ishimine created this kata. What I find interesting is that Chibana's Itosu Passai closely maps to this opening, whereas other elements are similar to other Passai versions. It is not inconceivable that Chibana's Itosu Passai was indeed an Itosu creation in the sense that he may have blended different sequences from two or more Passai into the version this version. But that is not to say he "originated" any new movements. As an example, the three forward steps in Ishimine Passai are done in Shiko dachi. But when looking at other versions of Passai, they are most commonly cat stance or back stance. Chibana's Itosu Passai uses back stance. For me, the most perplexing question about kata variation comes from a comparative analysis of the kata of Itosu's various students. There are, of course, many similarities in what I call the "floor pattern" (often called embusen). Yet there are just so many variations in stance, hand movements, body rotation. How can we make sense of this. It has been my experience that the common answer is to say that the more modern masters made changes. So if you come from a Chibana school, it has been argued that you have the old movements, but Funakoshi, Mabuni and others changed theirs. If you come from a Mabuni school .... That is one way to look at it. But there is another possibility. Let's assume that Itosu learned lots of variation from the Okinawan and Chinese masters of his day. We know he studied under both Matsumura and Gusukuma, and according to Nakama, he learned Channan from a Chinese man in Okinawa. Let's speculate that in his position in the karate community in Okinawa, he had an opportunity, over many decades, to learn from others as well. I would argue he had an interesting challenge. He would have learned many "flavors of karate" through the many kata he had been taught. There likely would have been different length, width and depth of stances, different approaches to similar blocks, body rotations, kicks, etc. If he wanted to preserve the variety he had learned, how would he do it. If he chose to standardize every kata, he might lose that richness in movement. One option is that he could have given to each student slight variations such that the ideas he had been taught could be passed down to future generations. If this did happen, it could help explain why we have the variations we have in the systems that descend from Chibana, Mabuni, Toyama, Funakoshi and Nakamura. It's a speculation designed to allow for the varieties of the movements of his students to trace back to an era long ago. It allows us to break free of the conclusion, so common today, that all variations we see today are uniquely Okinawan creations or modifications. Rather, it allows us to better appreciate that over several centuries, many Chinese in Okinawa had an opportunity to pass down combative arts, and we should expect that they all had their own flavors of movements. Perhaps, just perhaps, the variation we see today is simply the reflection of the many Chinese who passed their kata down to Okinawans.
Hi Cayuga I think you make a good point in that its difficult to be clear which variation is newer and which is older. I have my own personal bias of course, which I think is reasonable - I think there's sufficient evidence to assume that higher kicks and deeper stances stem from Funakoshi's Shotokanisation process. I think you can also see signs of homogenisation if you look at a range of, say, Shotokan kata as compared to their close ancestors/relatives. But beyond that? It is, as you say, largely conjecture. Mike
