Bill,
A little defensive are we?
<Let's start with the following obvious point that needs to be called. I know of no gentleman by the name of "Mr. Lahey." Mr. Campbell repeatedly refers to a gentleman by the name of Mr. Lahey. Lahey most definitely is a valid name; it exists in my phone book. However nobody other than Mr. Campbell has spoken of anyone by this name in this thread. So this begs the following questions.
1) Is Mr. Campbell confused, or perhaps not a very good typer? It happens; been there, done that. SpellCheck isn't going to be much good here.
2) If Mr. Campbell is not confused and intentionally spelled this name in this manner, then what's up? Is this an individual nobody has yet referred to in this discussion or is there a reason why Lahey does not look like Lailey when push comes to shove?>
Isn't this little nudge a bit below you? You certainly know who sensei Campbell meant. There was no need to sink to this patrinization.
<Originally posted by Mike Murphy
Personally, from the history I have seen, if there is a superempei in our style, it hasn't been found yet.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You too, Murphy Sensei. You're the school teacher; you have no excuse! Share your "history" with us. >
Did you read the line at all? It says from the history I've seen. This goes to 30 years in Uechi and the reading of many of the same people you have read (from Uechi backgrounds or not). Do you require a list of them Bill? I don't believe I shall offer any excuses for such a simple statement to understand. Obviously, this is opinion and extremely subjective, as this entire topic is.
<Gentlemen if we want to discuss history and challenge the conventional wisdom, well do it right or go home! Nobody here is afraid of a little paradigm shift. But there will be no shifting if there are no facts or data to consider.>
What are the hardcore facts that you refer to in regards to Kanbun Uechi and the allusive 4th kata? Inquiring minds want to know.
<Originally posted by Mike Murphy
Darin Yee sensei shows different Chinese forms all the time in which he shows me the "Uechi" in them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First... Darin's a good man, and we often think alike. Second... I can show you Uechi in both aikido and Wing Chun. But in doing so, I would never pretend to think that they came from a common origin that is close by in history.>
This is what I'm talking about. You can make anything "Uechi" if you like. What does that mean, that everything is of Uechi history? I don't think so.
<I don't recall you being in any of my Fuzhou Suparinpei classes, Mike. If you had, I would have shown you the many similarities between this form Simon taught me and "the big three" of Uechi. I would also have shown you a couple of moves that are only in the "bridge" kata of Uechi Ryu, and challenge you to think about where those "new" Uechi moves came from. It doesn't prove anything, but it does make the mind race a bit. >
Do you recall all of the students you have taught at the summer camp? Sorry to correct you Bill, but I was there at several of your sessions and ran through the entire thing. AND, you did show the class what you considered similarities. To be honest with you, I didn't buy it then, nor do I buy it now. That's no insult to you Bill. You believe what you want and I'll believe what I want, but don't expect to sell the entire Uechi world on what you consider to be these similarities to be. Just my opinion here.
<I would also be happy to teach you Tsuzkenshitahaku no sai and Hamahiga no tonfa. And I'd be happy to show you "Seisan" ideas throughout those two forms. (It's one reason I teach them in my class.) And we all know that these both are very old, classic kobudo forms. >
Once again, my point. You can find anything you wish to find if you look hard enough. I could find you good Uechi in my jujitsu, or just in good grappling. I could show you good Uechi in Iaido, Kendo, or Judo. It just doesn't mean that much in the long run when you are speaking of style-specific history.
<Originally posted by Mike Murphy
if there is a superempei in our style, it hasn't been found yet.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Had you taken one of my Fuzhou Suparinpei classes, Mike, you would have known that I agree and therefore your statement was not necessary.>
Sorry Bill, but I don't remember you saying that, but I'll ask the three or four students of mine who also attended it and see if they remember.
<As I repeatedly discuss when teaching this form, Simon tells me that there is a core form that most people more or less follow. However individuals in the class (as Simon related) often did their own versions, and the master really never objected very much. This is very much like the PRC crane master that George brought to Thompson Island circa 1985. That man did his crane form different every time he did it, and I saw him demo it perhaps a half dozen times through the camp. He taught us a skeleton, but he never did his form this way. >
There is also the possibility that the man was not that good. Maybe he kept forgetting it? It's possible. Bill, as a researcher, you would have to accept this as a possibility, wouldn't you? Just how well did you know the man and his practice? I would question you using him as a source.
<IF and ONLY IF the form I teach somehow can be connected all the way back to the same Suparinpei that Kanbun allegedly saw in China some time between 1897 and 1910, well the likelihood that I am doing it exactly like the way Kanbun saw it is the same likelihood that George is wearing pinstripe suits and riding around with a tommy gun. >
The key word is "allegedly," but I do agree with the rest.
<If that is true, then some critics of "Mr. Lahey" have some explaining to do.>
Once again, bad form and bad taste. You are better than that Bill.
mike
