Descendents of Shushiwa

[NEB]

Question:

I have heard recently that a descendent of Cho Tsu Ho (Shushiwa) was located in China and made a journey to the United States. I understand that he appeared at an event held by GEM and that the event was recored on video.

1. How much of this is true?
2. Can the video of this visitation be obtained/purchased?
3. If the answer to number 2 is "yes", how informational is the video and what is presented on it?

I would be interested in checking this out if it turns out to be a compelling program.

thanks...

nb

[Bill Glasheen]

This would be news to me.

The only connection I am familiar with is Simon Lailey's study with the nephew of Shushiwa. That's how I got the Fuzhou Suparinpei. And it's no surprise that this form has a "Uechi flavor" to it.

Other than that, I don't know. We've had quite a few of the Chinese over from the area doing various tiger and crane forms. Most did forms that looked nothing like Uechi Ryu. There was only one crane form (I have it recorded, and once taught it) and Simon's Suparinpei that looked anything like Uechi Ryu.

- Bill

[John Giacoletti]

I believe that Simon Lailey met with and demonstrated his kata for Toyama Sensei last year.

An Okinawan press release stated that Mr. Lailey would issue a statement giving his account of the session.

Does anyone know if Mr. Lailey's statement was released or published? It would be interesting to know Toyama Sensei's views of Simon Lailey's Fuchow Suparinpei.

Also, has Mr. David W. Smith come forward with a statement as to the accuracy of his translation of the Uechi Kyhon relative to the information in the Kyhon on Suparinpei?

Mr. Smith's version may be inaccurate. Or, Mr. Smith's translation may be accurate and the points of view on the Suparinpei kata differ from other accounts as to whether Uechin Kanbun knew at least some of Suparinpei but chose not to teach it? And if this is the case, this alternate point of view was allowed by the editorial committee of the Kyhon and by Master Uechi Kanei Sensei.

The Smith translation reads:

Uechi Kanbun after returning home to Okinawa still practiced Suparinpei but discontinued it for a variety of reasons. Even to this day this Kata is talked about

.

In another section, Mr. Smith's translation reads:

Uechi Kanbun and Matsuda Tokusaburo

"entered into this style together. It was a daily test to see who could find th most useful application for each technique. The most difficult was in the use of tecniques from Suparinpei."

Also ...

If Kanbun had learned more about Suparinpei then maybe today it would be incorporated into the Uechi Ryu style

.

Finally ...

With Kanbun's initiation into Sushiwa's school he learned the three basic Katas: Sanchin, Seisan, and Sanseiryu along with endless drills in body conditioning. In this dojo he and Mr. Matsuda were, it was said, to have learned one other Kata "Suparinpei," but very little is known of this

.

The statements are in the Kyhon. It seems quite within the realm of academic accountability to determine if the statements are accurate translations.

Individuals such as Harry Cook or Patrick McCarthy should
be able to render an objective and scholarly point of view.

[Rick Wilson]

Hi Folks:

I am going to throw my usual unwelcome cold water on the “we found Shushiwa” thing and say that there could not have been a descendent of Shushiwa visiting because Kanbun’s Shushiwa has not been found yet.


But first: Everyone is welcome to tell me I am full of it.

I don’t have answers just some opinions.

I do not believe the Shushiwa picture is the right man!

Shushiwa or Zhou Zi Her (also written or pronounced Cho Zen Ho) is pretty much recognized as Uechi Kanbun’s teacher.

However, the picture that most people have in their dojo and call Shishiwa is what I intend to question.

In 1974 there was a trip to China to find Shushiwa. Tomoyose Sensei was interviewed by George after the trip. See the ninth video clip down:

http://www.uechi-ryu.com/videos/masters.html

In this interview Tomoyose Sensei makes it very clear that he believes what the decedents of this Zhou Zi Her do NOT do martial arts that relate to Uechi Ryu. Tomoyose Sensei does not believe they found the correct Shushiwa.

Can this be possible? Another Zhou Zi Her who did martial arts?

When asked who his teacher was Kanbun would reply “the house of Shu.”

Well first of all, Shu = Zhou = Chow. Do you know how many Chow’s there are in China?

So let’s show a current example of how someone might track down the wrong person based on a name and some information.

If years later some one tried to track down a Kanei Uechi who did Sanchin, Seisan and Sanseirui with a half hard and half soft style that used Sanchin stance primarily and Waukes they may well find him.

In fact you can find him still alive (I believe) and practicing today in Okinawa.

The problem is that it is ANOTHER Kanei Uechi who does Goju Ryu and is not related to OUR Kanei Uechi at all.

So the fact that they found a Shushiwa who did Tiger style in Fouzhou is not that odd at all.

So “a” Shushiwa WAS Kanbun’s teacher.

What I contest is the picture people have of “him.” (I decided to move mine off the front to the side.)

The interview is exceptionally interesting for a number of reasons and well worth the listen. This interview along with other great stuff is available on the “Searching for Shushiwa” tape or DVD from “the store.”

I believe Shushiwa is Kanbun teacher or the main person he learned from.

Interesting note by the way: Bob Campbell’s research on Pwangainuun found it to be a sub-sect of the White Lotus Society and the Hong Kong police records show the head of this organization (at the time Kanbun was in China) to be Zhou Ze Her also written Cho Zen Ho, or in Japanese, Shushiwa.

So if he was the head of a secret society then it is not hard to see why we have trouble tracking anything at all down about him – he would not want to have been found.

So the fact that records are hard to find is really not that hard to understand or believe.

In addition the names are hard to follow. Read any book on the history of a Chinese art. His name was this, his personal name was this, his nickname was this, the emperor then named him this etc. Many names for one person.

The Shushiwa whose picture hangs on our wall has been found and is the place I believe the 108 form discussed on another thread has come form.

What this shows is that the family of this Shushiwa, who was a martial artist, still practice his art today.

Our art, as we know it, is founded in Sanchin then Seisan then Sanseirui.

There is a very very large question if it then goes on to Suparinpei. (I don't think so.)

So finding a Shu family 108 form does not relate that family or that style to Uechi.

If the style still exists we should be able to expect video clips of Sanchin, Seisan and Sanseirui.

I applaud those who have sought out the history and Shushiwa but when Tomoyose looked at the martial art this Shu family does he did not see Uechi in it.

If the family still does martial arts, and their martial art does not include something that looks like Uechi Sanchin, Seisan and Sanseirui, then while it may be a well respected martial arts family, I cannot accept it as the Shu (Chow) family that taught Uechi Kanbun.

Again I know from previously posting this it is not a popular comment but I dislike presenting something that is not true simply because it looks good.

If the Shushiwa whose picture hangs in our dojo has family practicing his martial art today and it is the predecessor of our Uechi Ryu then please video tape their Sanchin and Seisan and Sanseirui.

The 108 form may or may not be anything to Uechi Ryu BUT if it is then they would still have Sanchin, Seisan and Sanseirui too.

Without them they are a martial art family but not the predecessor of Uechi Ryu.

Yet again just my opinion as unpopular as it may well be.

Please note I am not saying that “a” Shushiwa wasn’t Kanbun’s teacher just not “that” Shushiwa.

Sorry folks.

I asked on a thread for any video of the folk they saw that were from this “Shushiwa’s” lineage. I didn’t receive any response.

I have seen one form performed at the home of Shushiwa but it wasn't Uechi.

I also received email from folk saying they did not care if he was the wrong guy they liked having his picture up there.

And that is the problem.

There is such a hunger for “lineage” that we accepted something when we should have either kept looking or given up.

I simply do not accept as proof a name.

I simply do not accept as proof a Kata that does not exist in Uechi.

On another forum it was pointed out that Five Ancestors Samchin looks more like Gojo than Uechi. And I agree. While the styles are similar Five Ancestors is clearly not the root of Uechi as the basic form is just not similar enough.

It may well be impossible to track the truth. This is true for most martial arts. For years the root of Taiji was seen as the Chen village and Chen Taiji only now it seem there is evidence Taiji existed before and outside of Chen village.

Bagua can be traced to one man but he claims he learned it from an old Taoist monk but many think that story was made up.

I once read a book on the history of FMA only to find they could not definitively track their roots either.

So tracking the art is fun but until I see a Sanchin that looks like Uechi Sanchin (in any form even the Wakayama tapes which were so different were clearly Uechi) then I am not convinced.

Just my opinion.

[JaySal]

Dear Martial Art Enthusiast's:

It is very rare I comment on anything regarding Uechi Ryu, on line. I wish to state, for the record, it is totally false that Simon Lahey studied from the Nephew of the person, claimed to be Jou Tse He ( Shishewa ) Further, based on my direct at hand knowledge, the so called lost Kata introduced by Mr. Lahey is a fabrication of his own making and the sooner this is realized, the better.

Any Kata, whether self created of late or from days gone by has merit if it
serves the purpose of teaching the Art. Let us not add folk lure and untruths as a side-path along the road we all travel for better self.

My apologies to all if my words are offensive. I can not stay idle and read yet another word about untruths. Speak up Mr. Lahey!!

Respectfully
Bob Campbell
Hong Kong

[Bill Glasheen]

Thanks for your courier service, Jay. Always a pleasure.

Further, based on my direct at hand knowledge, the so called lost Kata introduced by Mr. Lahey is a fabrication of his own making and the sooner this is realized, the better.

Wow! If that's the case, then all I have to say is that Simon's a pretty good choreographer! Let's just say that the form has served it's purpose on my own martial journey. I'll leave it to the historians to worry about from which source it came. And I think it's safe to say that it wasn't divine inspiration.

I also know for a fact that the form by its nature is "work in progress" like a jazz music piece or a song by the Grateful Dead. In working with Simon over time, he showed me variations of "it", and commented on how individuals would pretty much add what they wanted on the spot when performing. I know for a fact that this way of doing forms is not all that uncommon in China. I witnessed that in a crane master that George brought to Thompson Island circa 1984. He taught us a "skeleton" form. But ever time he demo-ed it, he did it differently. It demonstrated a mastery of movement that Okinawan karate (as we see it today) does not "get."

Actually I've heard theories that say pretty much the same thing about The Big Three kata of Uechi and Kanbun Uechi himself. Some have speculated that he himself choreographed some of the forms. It's all interesting to ponder. We've never met anyone who does these forms in China (yet) and we do know that Kanbun was studying martial arts before he did his China trip. Who knows for sure? All we have to date is an oral recounting of the journey.

I believe Tomoyose Sensei was in the room the same time I demo-ed the "Lailey" form for both Bob and Tommy. GEM was sitting right by Tomoyose. I'm curious to hear (from GEM) what Tommy thought of it. I've heard a little already.

- Bill

[MikeK]

Actually I've heard theories that say pretty much the same thing about The Big Three kata of Uechi and Kanbun Uechi himself. Some have speculated that he himself choreographed some of the forms. It's all interesting to ponder. We've never met anyone who does these forms in China (yet) and we do know that Kanbun was studying martial arts before he did his China trip. Who knows for sure? All we have to date is an oral recounting of the journey.

Bill,
Are there any other Ryu-ha (Okinawan, Japanese or Chinese) that does Seisan the same way as Uechi? I can see a common thread in various Shorin based Seisans but Uechi's just seems to be it's own animal.

[Bill Glasheen]

The first third of the Uechi and Goju Seisan are very similar. (I've done them both.) But once you do the first 180-degree turn, then the content differs as drastically as night and day.

- Bill

[Glenn]

Rick,

I'm in agreement with you, and have raised the same cautions about the connection between the two (see a previous discussion http://forums.uechi-ryu.com/viewtopic.php?p=45069 from 2002)

Given minimal state of documentation throughout most of the history of martial arts, I doubt the connection can ever be conclusively proven or disproven.

[Bill Glasheen]

Speaking of Simon...

I saw an interview with him where he discussed the use of the names of kata. A number of common kata names are numbers, and those numbers have significance in Buddhism. People named their kata with these "special" numbers because that's just what you did. It's like deciding you want your uniform color to be red or something.

In other words, your system wasn't "cool" in certain circles unless you had a Sanchin, a Seisan, a Sanseiryu, and a Suparinpei.

FWIW, Goju and Uechi Sanseiryu look nothing like each other. The only thing common between the two is the name.

NOTE
San*chin = three conflicts
Sei*san = ten three or thirteen
San*sei*ryu = three ten six or thirty-six

The original name Simon gave me of the form he showed me was yi bai lin ba bu or 108 steps. And FWIW, there are 108 steps to enlightenment. The same name (minus the steps part) in the Japanese language would be suparinpei.

They are just names, and nothing more.

I do however find it intriguing that the Goju and Uechi Seisans start out in a very similar manner before the first turn. It almost makes you think someone learned the first part of a form and lost their teacher. They then subsequently choreographed the rest on their own, or tacked on material from another source.

Who knows?

- Bill

[MikeK]

Goju - Miyagi b. 1888
Uechi - Kanbun b. 1877

Did Kanbun study under Kanryo Higaonna or one of his students?

[Dana Sheets]

I disagree that the Uechi and goju Seisan kata are all that different after the turn. They basically turn and do three movements that aren't far from the furi nukite/wauke sequence - they just don't start it until after the turn.

But it is still a basic four direction kata and if you take out the goju knee break kicks there's more than a little that's similar. The last entry/jump back posture is a definite demarcation in the Uechi form but Seisan is goju's most "striking" form I've seen as most of their others have a stronger grappling flavor to them.

When I see the Ryukyu Kempo folks do their seisan it also reminds me strongly of the Uechi seisan pattern.

But mayhap I see with different eyes.

FWIW I believe that Mr. McCarthy has written that the Uechi seisan falls into the world of "Hiragonna" derivates of the form...but he does not indicate that there is any historical evidence that the Kanbun Uechi can be linked to Hiragonna or any of his direct students. However I could be wrong as I'm writing from memory of something that I can remember where I read it.

-Dana

[NEB]

Thanks for all of the interesting commentaries...

Actually, the Goju sanchin, at least to me, seems to be a close-fisted version of the Uechi form. Not that they are identical, but the pattern is quite similar.

1. After the initial opening there are the primary strikes...a certain number forward, backward and then forward again.
2. Then the mawashis...Goju just does 2 going back only, Uechi has 3 going in 3 different directions, as you all know.
3. Finally the nukites. Goju does them to a lower target and with the elbows bent a little. (Different versions are practiced by different organizations and vary slightly. A common occurance, of course, but they are essentially the same.)

The Goju form is of course done slowly, with pronounced and loud breathing-focus and with dynamic tension.

Doing both katas (having both in your repetoir) is pretty interesting.

nb

[Stryke]

First theres a link then theres not , this is a messy marketing phase of Uechi .

Ive not yet heard any proof of shushiwa except the name .

If anyone has anything to tie the connection to a specific Shushiwa please clear it up .

[jkolb]

There was a thread on fightingarts.com about seisan and all of it's variations. I don't have the link off hand but it's very interesting.

Jeremy