JAMA - Historical Influences on ..goju-ryu

Narda,

No problem but I don't really worry about most Karate, just what I teach and what my friends have shared with me.

I think it is quite exact that the Okinawan's aren't spending any time today researching their Chinese origins, if any (I'm always leaving that open without absolute proof). They have no reason to say don't study our art and instead go to the Chinese to train do they?

Regardless of roots, a system works by the effort put into it by its practioners. Great roots and incorrect practice might leave as little as shallow roots and good practice. But effort is the key.

We can't tell much about any system from the shape of its forms, and it is really difficult without spending time with a training group to understand how their efforts shape their art.

Hence my answers.

I think during the lifespan of each person's training, everyone shapes their Art - consciously or 'by accident' based on their technical influence(s) and/or their changing view on what their training is for.

but there is another factor which manages to shape people's Art that is easy to forget, since we live in a much different political and social climate than WW2 Japan/Okinawa....or any other period in history where some overt or subtle manifestation of political oppression, national conflict, social assimilation, economic pressures, etc is large enough to influence the shape and propegation of Arts to varying degree.

Like any other living thing, Art itself adapts to what it needs to in order to survive in it's environment.

The question is, what survives?

Ed,

Consider how today's politics of money shape the arts everywhere. The interesting History Channel Human Weapon is an exmaple what a drive the politics of money has.

Politics and Money are truly interchangeable in the end.

Some say that Superimpei is an near exact version of the Chinese form Pechrin. So Goju offers a close look at the applictaions of Southern crane Gung-fu not an copy of their kuens but the movements application and its done in a Gung-fu like method most times. Almost all the advance Goju forms have that Chinese flair, that links them to Southern Chinese, 5 ancestor, Blk tiger and Monk style Gung-fu.

Really in the basic-intermedate forms I remember being told to flow like closed fist Gung-fu. Some Goju schools are different stressing more of a Japanese flair longer stance, less focus on flow and snap and more on tension. As in most system diversity exist.

To me Goju & Uechi Sanchin in length and overall movement looks more like 5 ancestor Semchein kuen then S crane's shorter version. Except for the turning steps, maybe Toon-ryu's version could verify if Hagashiona or Miyagi added it?

Its commonly thought that there is less seen common ground is in the Shorin small pine system then in the Chinese Shaolin sps, except in some of the method of delivery in some techniques, such as the straight punch. Its said that Shuri-te & Tormai-te is closest to how Toude was once trained.

Goju and the Chinese system mentioned here, are linked visual in its hard & soft movement, structure/high stances, the stress in using breathing principles, iron body and application of flow just to name a few things. Goju's connection with Gung-fu is more then just in end of the technique principles or in distance past orgin.

No I was really being simplistic nothing that deep. What I was trying to say is that the whipping principle of Shaolin Gung-fu is the basic pricinple of Shorin punching. But to look at it applied by each it looks different but its based on the same concept.

Whereas ALMOST the exact same application and principle can be found in Goju's punching and breathing and Iron body training as in Monk, 5 ancestor, Black tiger or S.cranes Gung-fu. Hshing-i cannon punch can be seen in Seipai's application of course theres others.

The reinventing is just what men do, good or bad, sometimes enogh of the good still exist, sometimes there is improvement, other times well look at our melting polar ice caps.

Neko, you raise an interesting point that has been tossed around since...well since as far back as karate's supposed creation, most likely.
You can take just about any style and find similarities between it and any other style (on the most basic of levels). If you look at Long fists footwork, and that of any karate style that uses sanchin dachi, they look identical pattern-wise, for the obvious exception that Long fist's stances are extremely elongated.

There are also similarities between Karate & Sing Ye's two man drills & Ngo Cho's conditioning drills and applications. Does this mean there is a direct link between karate and any of these styles? No one can honestly say, without a doubt, yes OR no. There just isn't enough documented proof, but plenty of educated supposition over the years by many an expert.

What has been mentioned before here by others is that what needs to be kept in mind is that each "style" has it's own basic underlying principles. Those principals are what make each individual style unique from its counterparts. If someone were to change any of those basic principals within the style that they practice (for whatever reason), then my question that I pose to you is this: Is it then the same style, with said changes?

I'm not arguing the fact that changes occur, (that's a given) or that said changes are either bad or good from a functional stand point. My point is that when you make any drastic changes to a system's basic underlying principals, that is when you get your hybrid/off-shoots or new styles. (Of course, politics also plays it's part in said occurance)

Sorry for my rambling, when I get to typing, I just can't seem to shut up.

Yes its been noted that Okinawan Karate exact history is sparsed and is assumed by the practictioner and word of mouth or brochuer given out. But what seems obvious is the connection appearance and principles that the Naha system still maintain in most schools to the Chinese system that the word of mouth/brochuers/Goju dojo's claim. Like the 2 man bunkias kumite and kiso-kumites and application and development of Chi/Ki.

Now the point I'm making is that the Shorin sps doesn't look and is not trained at all like Chinese sps, unless you pull out common techniques that exist in most any self defense system. But I note it is said that Shuri-te maintained a closer resembles to Toude, prior to outside influence. I find some Shorin closer to its sibling Shotokan with higher stance or stances just like its Japanese brother or cousin.

For example there are no Shorin katas that looks like Shaolin kuens, in pattern or method of training. Maybe Teki or Passai, but not really, not from what I've seen.

You are right no one knows for sure but if looking for a Chinese trail, Goju would lead you right up its butt.

Harlan if you look at the Chinese arts mentioned they deliever their techniques in a Ju-Go method still hard and soft just in reverse soft hard method. To me 5 ancestor gung-fu looks and feels like Chinese Karate for example.

I agree some modren Goju schools are Goju by Name alone, stressing hard over the subtle soft powerful techniques.

In our dojo the softer the more vital/deadly, the harder the more deliberate. What did Oldman once riddle, how many Gojumen does it take to agree on what is Goju? As many as there are opinions. I'm not as concises as he was.

But the same could be said about TKD or the more then 17 recongnized Shorin off springs.

bump

So much for flying under the radar. Looks like Giles sensei has been 'outed'.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLG2YpNerYs

Huh, can you explain the last comment Harlan? I'm not sure what you meant in context of thye larger thread.

Sorry. In the context of the larger thread, doesn't mean much. Just a video to put put faces to names, as the kata being peformed is just a training kata. However, that youtube site seems to be putting up stuff that might eventually have something more pertinant to the thread.

The video link said one of the guys is Kimo Wall, is other one Giles?

Anyway yeah that's just the standard Gekisai bunkai-oyo that's taught to beginners in alot of schools,

What people think of those "flow" drills is pretty subjective anyway and I don't think of them as the height of bunkai exploration or understanding, regardless they are a good training tool in the right context. How are they related to Chinese origins though? This is a pretty modern drill as far as I know.

I don't remember where, but I read that civil unrest and wars were caused of great destruction and a huge migration from Fuzhien in the XIX century. That may explain why there was not any student of Ryu Ryu Ko in Fuzhien in the XX century. In any case, saying that goju ryu as we know it, is different of all Southern Chinese boxing styles suggests that Okinawan goju may be the only descendant of a now dead branch of Southern kung fu.

Maybe