Master of Arts
- May 25, 2003
- Reaction score
- Helsinki, Finland
Well it's not, they are not even remotely alike. Unless the Bassai you are referring is totally unlike it's modern form or any of the Bassai/Passai to be found in Japan or Okinawa.I also stated that Passai (Patsai/Pal Che/ Bassai) as done in Moo Duk Kwan and old style American Tang Soo Do appears to be a shortened (no flourish) version of the same ancient root form, NOT this Wushu version.
Evidence such as that the reason for Naifachi/Tekki sidestepping? That it's so that the king or some other high official is behind the bodyguard and therefore he has to step only sideways.The article on the internet that you referred too is an old one that I had read before. It has several mistakes including saying that there is no known picture of Anko Itosu. In McCarthy's 2008 Bubishi, not only is there a portrait of him on page 74, their is a photograph of him on page 33. As for Dr. Bruce D. Clayton, he is a well respected researcher and brilliant scholar. Although he is definitely biased towards Shotokan, he presents his theories with logic and evidence.
Or how about the claim that Azato and Itosu didn't teach Funakoshi the kata bunkai? That was apparently because they were preparing the next generation of guards in case the king returned to Okinawa. But they were pledged to secrecy and because the trainees were not sworn bodyguards, Azato and Itosu could not tell them what the techniques were for because that would have broken their vow of silence. But the last Okinawan king died in 1901, releasing them from their vow. Where's the evidence for that? And if I remember correctly, the reason for Gankaku's/Chinto's straight line embusen is that it was for fighting in the narrow staircases of the Shuri castle. None of these claims hold water
As for the article I linked and Itosu's picture, I'm not sure which years edition of the Bubishi I have, but in my version there's a drawing of Itosu and, like all the photographs, it is assumed that it is of Itosu, so the article is correct on that one. What else is wrong on the article in your opinion?