would you mind sourcing your plagerism please? it gets tiresome to have to do it for you:http://www.kua.com.au/Data_pages/katadata.htm
and the info about Seisan is incorrect.
these rumors get started by people taking a version they know (yet there are many versions), and visually compare it to Chinese forms, then take the meaning of what that Chinese form is called and apply it to their form. thereby establishing a fake link to the past.
why would they do that? because the perception of 'older is better' sells. you know what 'sells' for me? something that works and someone available to teach closeby so I can study often and long-term.
want to talk about something verifiable and current about Gojushiho? an interesting book by Bill Burgar called "Five years, one kata". I've never been taught the kata but the main theme was: take a classic kata, throw away all of the applications that you've been taught - then using Pat McCarthy's 'Habitual Acts of violence' sensability, apply defenses using the basic shape of the form.
personally, I didn't agree with the conclusions. The defenses looked ok, but the correlation between application and kata were not close enough to the form to make the learned form of any use. ...why not just practice the defenses themselves as in Ashihara or another non-kata based system? but I liked the moxie of giving a higher priority to application rather than form....THAT was the breakthru in printed material available on kata analysis in that book IMO.
a question I have for this thread is: why did he choose Gojushiho to be the one to study and analyize in this manner exclusively? and does that decision base itself upon the kata's believed origins?