Has anyone else notced that you Uechi-ryu guys practice xing

Bill's forum was the first! All subjects are welcome. Participation by all encouraged.

Moderator: Available

User avatar
Bill Glasheen
Posts: 17299
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY

Has anyone else notced that you Uechi-ryu guys practice xing

Post by Bill Glasheen »

Glen

I have a friend that practices Japanese arts and once showed me an open-handed sanchin he was taught from an obscure source not related to Uechi Ryu. This fellow (Bill Stockey) is a bit of a kata historian and I have good confidence in his ability to represent what was shown to him with a good degree of precision. In fact he can often look at someone doing a form from any number of systems and tell you whom the teacher was. Needless to say, I'll check with him and see if what he says sheds any light on your question about Shuri-te and sanchin.

George Mattson spoke of Goju being related to the Kingai system in his book Uechi-Ryu Karate-Do. Let's see if his source is independent of Mr. Bishop's source.

To all you budding historians out there, can you now see the need for documentation and references in martial arts publications? In spite of the fine work already available in the popular press, the lack of good documentation (even if only to reference a conversation with an individual) leaves plenty of room for future work. One might even choose to take present-day books and create future editions with better references (while the authors and sources are still around). Hint, hint.... Image

- Bill
User avatar
gmattson
Site Admin
Posts: 6073
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 1998 6:01 am
Location: Lake Mary, Florida
Contact:

Has anyone else notced that you Uechi-ryu guys practice xing

Post by gmattson »

I must admit that my books lack good documentation. The role of writer/historian was not my aim. I tape recorded hours of conversation with Tomoyose sensei and Uechi, Kanei sensei over the years and carefully transcribed those tapes for my second book. However, translations by Tomoyose might be inaccurate or flawed and often times, names were phonetically given rather than spelled out. By the way, the Kengai reference was by Tomoyose.

I still have the tapes, but the quality has deteriated over the years. John Spenser had someone try to salvage them with some success. I'll have to find them in my storage section (4 floors of my house! Image)and listen to them again.

------------------
GEM
User avatar
Bill Glasheen
Posts: 17299
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY

Has anyone else notced that you Uechi-ryu guys practice xing

Post by Bill Glasheen »

Obviously (hopefully) no disrespect was intended. Those that do contribute much more in life than those that comment on the doers. And in making first steps, we all learn where to go for the next.

In the era of digital sound, this might be the time to consider ways to permanently document those valuable primary sources.

Much of the problem of writing about Okinawan karate rests with the "oral tradition" of Okinawan culture. The good news is that you documented a piece of that oral history. Going much farther than that is difficult, although occasionally not entirely impossible. Understanding the flaws inherent in oral history can teach us much about the nature and value of the information contained.

- Bill
User avatar
Bill Glasheen
Posts: 17299
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY

Has anyone else notced that you Uechi-ryu guys practice xing

Post by Bill Glasheen »

George

As you probably know, Journal of Asian Martial Arts is often considered the gold standard (best available) as far as a peer-reviewed source of information for martial artists. I took a quick visit there and found these items which substantiate what I wrote above. The first is on their main webpage. The emphasis (bold italics) is my own. <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>EDITORIAL POLICY
The Journal of Asian Martial Arts publishes three types of materials: (1) scholarly articles based on primary research in recognized scholarly disciplines, e.g., cultural anthropology, comparative religions, psychology, film theory, and criticism, etc.; (2) more informal, but nevertheless substantial interviews (with scholars, master practitioners, etc.) and reports on particular genres, techniques, etc.; and (3) reviews of books and audiovisual materials on the martial arts.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> And then there is the following article worth reading.

Silvan, J., Oral traditions of Okinawan karate: Journal of Asian Martial Arts; vol. 7, no. 3, 1998.

- Bill
Rick Wilson

Has anyone else notced that you Uechi-ryu guys practice xing

Post by Rick Wilson »

Joe:

Excellent post and a good history of Xing I.

You commented: "While Xing Yi can have the flavour of Uechi-ryu (and vice versa) the 'feeling' is different. Principles stressed in Xing Yi are not unlike Uechi-ryu but in most Uechi-ryu dojo's are not taught, effectively. Dai Long Bong's 6 Harmony treatise written in 1750 accounts the use of full body use, and often times power is segmented in Uechi-ryu. (Doesn't have to be, but it often is, my opinion)"

Yes! I agree. I think that is why the reading I did on Xing I seemed to strike a cord with me. At that time I had just become a student of David Mott Sensei and was working very hard on my body mechanics. The whole body use of Xing I seemed to reflect for me the phenomenal focus I found in David Sensei's techniques.

You commented: "Again, these are my personal opinions and I'm not trying to flame anyone. I've done a lot of Uechi-ryuand in recent years a lot of internal. In most cases, Uechi-ryu isn't internal by what I understand what makes a style internal. At least, it's not taught in that manner. And for the record, there are other styles considered internal on the mainland. As long as the system adheres to what consists of internal principles, it can be considered internal. Let's remember that Sun Lu Tang was the guy at the turn of the last century the term 'internal' in his 1917 text on Bagua Zhang. He referred to the 3 sister arts (Bagua, Xing Yi and Tai Ji) but these are the arts that HE was familiar with."

I would definitely agree that most of the Uechi Ryu I have seen is not what I would consider internal. I also agree with Dragon that "no martial art has to remain external". I also agree that the terms can hang people up, often due to what Bill has pointed out is a misalignment of definitions. (I am such an agreeable person.) Image

Which other styles do you consider inherently internal?

We have had the internal/external discussion before but I think a thread on what makes a style internal might be interesting to have again. Maybe you could start it off with what you consider the internal principles?

Thanks for the post I enjoyed it.


Rick

[This message has been edited by Rick Wilson (edited December 27, 2001).]
J. Bellone
Posts: 39
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 1999 6:01 am

Has anyone else notced that you Uechi-ryu guys practice xing

Post by J. Bellone »

Rick,
This is written by my good friend and Martial Art teacher (one of them) Tim Cartmell. Believe it or not, on his website (www.shenwu.com) there has been discussions on what makes something internal or external also. There’s also some good information on Xing Yi for Dragon.

Good training,
Joe

When people ask me the difference between so-called "external" and Internal" martial arts techniques (although I dislike the categorization) I always answer that all Internal styles base their techniques on sticking to and following the opponent. Sticking starts in the mind, and is extended to making actual contact with the opponent's limbs and body. To stick and follow basically involves maintaining various amounts of pressure on the opponent to control his movement, limit his options and eventually control his center. All the techniques I teach (including striking, wrestling and grappling) are based on this principle.

Herein lies my problem with labeling arts as "internal" or "external." "Martial Arts" don't exist until someone moves, and only the points of commonality in body motion and technical application allow us to even have a point of reference to call these movements and techniques a certain style. The Arts that I teach are all taught based on a set of specific principles (natural, whole body power, avoidance of force against force, sticking to and following the opponent...) which I learned from practicing arts generally labeled as "Internal" in China. Brazilian Jiu Jitsu follows the exact same principles, as do many other arts. The point is this; ANY martial art can be considered Internal OR External, based not on the name of the art, but on how each individual practices and applies the art.

So, I make no distinction between striking, wrestling or grappling as far as how the power is generated or the techniques applied. Look at it this way, there is only one 'best' way to use the body (like any machine, using it according to its design will produce the most efficient results). Discover which alignments and movements are the most stable and produce power most efficiently, and design your solo training around these parameters. A bigger, stronger man will always beat a smaller weaker man, there is no 'Art' to it. So, a "Martial Art" should allow a TRAINED smaller man to defeat a larger and stronger man. Figure out what strategies and techniques will give the little guy a chance, and practice them. The Chinese chose to call these arts "Internal." I call them martial ARTS, you can call them whatever you want. But realize they are principles of body use and application, not "styles."

As far as teaching forms in the Shen Wu curriculum, any movement one makes with a specific intent (in our case, to produce whole body power applicable to our techniques) IS a form. "Forms" don't have to be linked together artificially and named after animals, bugs or drunken immortals to be effective (although labels are convenient, and it's probably a lot of fun to think up those fancy names). I don't teach any linked "sets" of forms in the Shen Wu class. I teach single, repetitive movements (both standing and on the ground), footwork and tumbling skills, which serve both to develop whole body power and condition the student. Combinations are taught as techniques (although I do encourage free form 'shadow fighting').

Every movement taught has potential applications as a defensive movement, a strike (usually many strikes), a chin na technique, a throw... Cultivating power in specific, generic movements is like earning money, once you put in the effort to earn it, you can spend it however you like.

Finally, I believe the discussion around Xing Yi & Uechi-ryu there was a question asked about striking in the percussive based arts. Xing Yi Quan has a famous saying: " Never reach out without finding a target, and never return empty handed." Strikes are made usually with the closest available anatomical weapon, without breaking the forward momentum, and almost invariably both hands (or other parts of the body) are active and in contact with the opponent at all times (one hand or other body part striking while the other hand checks, pushes, pulls...). The basic concept is to leave no 'space.' (Sounds familiar in a Uechi-ryu sense) - Tim Cartmell

There's some good food for thought. Again, best wishes,

Joe
Post Reply

Return to “Bill Glasheen's Dojo Roundtable”