Isshinryu legit?

[Sanchin-E]

I was reading somewhere that some karate practitioners do not consider the American version of Isshin-ryu legitimate because the GI's that learned it in Okinawa got their blackbelts in less than a year then came back to the states and started teaching. There was even something about how Shimabuku gave some people higher dan ranks with the expectation that they would grow into those ranks. Instead those people started to use those ranks immediately upon returning to the states.

My question: what makes a style legitimate? If those American Isshinryu practitioners took what they learned then researched new bunkai to the Kata; bunkai that works and makes sense, then isn't that as legitimate as any other style?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I was reading somewhere that some karate practitioners do not consider the American version of Isshin-ryu legitimate because the GI's that learned it in Okinawa got their blackbelts in less than a year then came back to the states and started teaching. There was even something about how Shimabuku gave some people higher dan ranks with the expectation that they would grow into those ranks. Instead those people started to use those ranks immediately upon returning to the states.

I think this basic set of statements are more-or-less true. Keep in mind that I am a simple student, a brown belt (san-kyu) in Isshin-Ryu, but this is what is stated openly in my dojo.

However, that is not the entire story.

The various 'first-generation' students were also visited by Master Shimabuku years later, and he approved of what was being taught, and as I understand it, reconfirmed the advanced ranks of the American senseis whom he had taught and given advanced rank to.

As well, some students spent more time with Master Shimabuku than just one year; Master Mitchum being a prime example.

My question: what makes a style legitimate?

I beg your pardon, but that was not the question you asked in your subject line. You asked if Isshin-Ryu was legitimate. My answer is, yes it is.

In the first paragraph of your statement, you insinuated that American Isshin-Ryu is not legitimate. My answer to that is that yes, it is legitimate.

If what you are asking INSTEAD is an entirely different question (what makes a style legitimate), then my answer is 'general acceptance' in the case of practitioners, and recognition by a body that itself is recognized, such as governing bodies.

If those American Isshinryu practitioners took what they learned then researched new bunkai to the Kata; bunkai that works and makes sense, then isn't that as legitimate as any other style?

Bunkai is not what defines the style, as I understand it. Many Isshin-Ryu practitioners have their own bunkai, which they either came up with on their own or learned from various instructors. However, if they belong to a particular organization (mine is UIKA), then they teach the kata and the base bunkai that the organization dictates.

Although there are many Isshin-Ryu organizations in the USA and even in Okinawa, I have not seen that much variation in Isshin-Ryu techniques or teachings that would make anything I've seen utterly alien to me. We all use the vertical fist, the snap kick, the same kata - even if practiced slightly differently from place to place. I honor and respect them all.

As to the what I *think* you may be asking, which is the legitimacy of Sanchin-Ryu, as the founder of Sanchin-Ryu was at one time an Isshin-Ryu student? I have no comment other that to say it is not Isshin-Ryu. Is it legitmate as a style of its own? Sure why not? That's not up to me to say, however.

 

[punisher73]

I always quote my old roommate in college with questions like this... "Everyone sucks to somebody."

Meaning that people will always find fault with what someone else is doing.

If you look at the history of almost ALL asian martial arts, you will see this trend.

Choki Motobu publically criticized Gichin Funakoshi for not knowing real karate (fighting).

Okinawan styles criticize Shotokan and other Japanese offshoots as being "kiddy karate" and not learning the real stuff as it had been altered for school children with what they were taught.

Goju/Shori-Ryu stylists both criticize Shimabuku as not having stayed long enough to learn the real secrets of their styles and only had the surface teachings.

Japanese stylists criticize okinawan styles as not having power like theirs.

Many stylists criticize chinese styles as being too flowery and not having power.

Chinese stylists criticize karate for not learning the true meaning of kung fu and only learning the surface.

Many criticize non-asians as not having learned the real secrets of their art, which were only taught to them.

This isn't even getting into which branch of which style is the "most authentic" or "truest to the founder's teachings" that all of these styles have as well, and how it is THEIR branch/teacher who has the real secrets of the style.

Literally, name a style and you can find people who will dislike the style for any reason. Doesn't prove or disprove what a style can do.

The only questions you really need to ask are...

1) Do you enjoy doing it?
2) Do you find it effective for YOU?

Your teacher isn't going to be there in that dark alley to do your fighting for you. It doesn't matter how tough Motobu was, or Shimabuku was, or anyone else was. What matters is did they leave you a template within their teachings that you can apply those techniques and strategies to your own personal study/growth to protect yourself.

 

[punisher73]

As to the what I *think* you may be asking, which is the legitimacy of Sanchin-Ryu, as the founder of Sanchin-Ryu was at one time an Isshin-Ryu student? I have no comment other that to say it is not Isshin-Ryu. Is it legitmate as a style of its own? Sure why not? That's not up to me to say, however.

Correct, CGM Dearman was a Ni-Dan under Alex Furda in Isshin-Ryu (as were all of his ranks in Isshin-Ryu). As to other rumors, he never lived/studied in the Detroit area or trained with any other Isshin-Ryu instructors in that area.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Correct, CGM Dearman was a Ni-Dan under Alex Furda in Isshin-Ryu (as were all of his ranks in Isshin-Ryu). As to other rumors, he never lived/studied in the Detroit area or trained with any other Isshin-Ryu instructors in that area.

As I stated in my PM to you, I think information I had previously heard was incorrect, and you are correct. I have nothing negative to say about Sanchin-Ryu, and I apologize for any negative comments I have made about it in the past. I do not know anything about Sanchin-Ryu that would allow me to criticize it in any way. I wish the best of luck to all, Isshin-Ryu and Sanchin-Ryu practitioners alike.

 

[Sanchin-E]

The reason why I posted this topic is that I was looking up information on Ninjutsu (who doesn't want to be a Ninja?) I live in Ann Arbor, MI which apparently is a mecca for Ninjutsu.

So there is a To Shin Do place along with a few more traditional places. I was looking at some Ninjutsu threads (can't remember if it was here or on MAP) and what struck me is that a lot of people were posting things like (to paraphrase) To Shin Do is watered down Ninjutsu, why bother studying that?

That got me to thinking what makes a legitimate style. I don't know anything about Ninjutsu, but I've done some research on Karate. I admit that the title was a little inflamatory, but it was really to just grab people's attention. Isshinryu was just a specific example from the Karate world. I remember that the wikipedia post for Isshinryu even had something about it being an Americanized version of Karate that real Japanese people didn't recognize. So this example isn't far fetched. I don't believe that, but obviously somebody does.

I personally believe that a martial art is good if it is based on sound principles, regardless of its origins. The problem is how does a beginner know what are sound principles?

 

[Tez3]

I always quote my old roommate in college with questions like this... "Everyone sucks to somebody."

Meaning that people will always find fault with what someone else is doing.

If you look at the history of almost ALL asian martial arts, you will see this trend.

Choki Motobu publically criticized Gichin Funakoshi for not knowing real karate (fighting).

Okinawan styles criticize Shotokan and other Japanese offshoots as being "kiddy karate" and not learning the real stuff as it had been altered for school children with what they were taught.

Goju/Shori-Ryu stylists both criticize Shimabuku as not having stayed long enough to learn the real secrets of their styles and only had the surface teachings.

Japanese stylists criticize okinawan styles as not having power like theirs.

Many stylists criticize chinese styles as being too flowery and not having power.

Chinese stylists criticize karate for not learning the true meaning of kung fu and only learning the surface.

Many criticize non-asians as not having learned the real secrets of their art, which were only taught to them.

This isn't even getting into which branch of which style is the "most authentic" or "truest to the founder's teachings" that all of these styles have as well, and how it is THEIR branch/teacher who has the real secrets of the style.

Literally, name a style and you can find people who will dislike the style for any reason. Doesn't prove or disprove what a style can do.

The only questions you really need to ask are...

1) Do you enjoy doing it?
2) Do you find it effective for YOU?

Your teacher isn't going to be there in that dark alley to do your fighting for you. It doesn't matter how tough Motobu was, or Shimabuku was, or anyone else was. What matters is did they leave you a template within their teachings that you can apply those techniques and strategies to your own personal study/growth to protect yourself.

Only if we are really lucky.

 

[punisher73]

Only if we are really lucky.

It's the nature of people. We try to find people, things, or ideas that we are better than. Or, we want what we do to be "the best" so we will try and justify that by tearing something else down.

 

[Bruno@MT]

It's the nature of people. We try to find people, things, or ideas that we are better than. Or, we want what we do to be "the best" so we will try and justify that by tearing something else down.

No, I think Irene made a Joke and you missed it.
Or she didn't and I misunderstood. That's always a possibility as well

 

[Chris Parker]

The reason why I posted this topic is that I was looking up information on Ninjutsu (who doesn't want to be a Ninja?) I live in Ann Arbor, MI which apparently is a mecca for Ninjutsu.

So there is a To Shin Do place along with a few more traditional places. I was looking at some Ninjutsu threads (can't remember if it was here or on MAP) and what struck me is that a lot of people were posting things like (to paraphrase) To Shin Do is watered down Ninjutsu, why bother studying that?

That got me to thinking what makes a legitimate style. I don't know anything about Ninjutsu, but I've done some research on Karate. I admit that the title was a little inflamatory, but it was really to just grab people's attention. Isshinryu was just a specific example from the Karate world. I remember that the wikipedia post for Isshinryu even had something about it being an Americanized version of Karate that real Japanese people didn't recognize. So this example isn't far fetched. I don't believe that, but obviously somebody does.

I personally believe that a martial art is good if it is based on sound principles, regardless of its origins. The problem is how does a beginner know what are sound principles?

Hmm, legitimacy in Ninjutsu cirlces is a different kettle of fish, to a fair degree. You may want to visit our little area and ask again.... or just check out threads like "What Is Ninjutsu?" as that deals with the issue from our perspective.

For the record, though, Toshindo is Stephen Hayes' interpretation and adaptation of the material he learnt as an integral part of the popularising and introduction of Ninjutsu to the Western World. The only way it is considered not "legitimate" is if you are after the Bujinkan specifically. In that it is a personal choice, really.

But the Koga guys? Uh, no.....

 

[Sanchin-E]

Thanks for the info. I didn't want to bring Ninjutsu into this, but since my motivation for the original post was questioned I thought that full disclosure was in order.

Speaking of Ninjutsu, on one of those threads sombody posted a video of Steve Jennum in UFC 4 (I think). He fought a boxer, had a nice take down, did some ground and pound, took him down again, then submitted him with an arm bar. Looked kinda like modern day MMA But then again, somebody said that he wasn't trained in real Ninjutsu

 

[punisher73]

No, I think Irene made a Joke and you missed it.
Or she didn't and I misunderstood. That's always a possibility as well

Could be....darned British humour! :idunno:

 

[Victor Smith]

Sanchin-e,

Well I think the basic issues have already been covered by group.

First if you're going to suggest sources, name them! Let's know who is actually saying what.

Second who has the authority to declare anything letigimate? Anybody can make a statement but on what authority. Okinawa remains on Okinawa and operates in friendship with the other Okinawans.

As only Shimabuku Tatsuo can answer for the legitimacy of those he taught are other's thoughts relevant? Shimabuku Sensei creating Isshinryu and training Americans (among other issues) caused many of his Okinawan students to leave training. Are their opinions relevant to the founder’s.

Frankly he accomplished something very few others could do. He trainied young US Marines in his art and shape his teachings to cover 1 to 1 ½ years. Certainly that does not equate to spending 20 continuous years training under one instructor. On the other hand now 55 years later those short term students are still teaching and passing their art, certianly an American form of Shimabuku’s Isshinryu, in many different similar variations. Some strongly linked to current Okinawan Isshinryu, some simply Isshinryu with no longer linkage to Okinawa.

He proved to Okinawa that his answer worked (and gave impetus to other instructors to share with those not from Okinawa. In the 1950 the adoption of rank and rank standards was something new to all Okinawan karate groups. Many of them chose to use the standards originally created in Japan, he chose his own answers, and as there were no historical model in Okinawan history his answer isn’t worse than the others. Again his students have continued for 55 years mostly on their own so perhaps his choice was the right one for the times. While I would not do what he did today, I recognize the validity of his choice.

As for short time rank, when Funakoshi Ginchin went to Japan and and borrowed the Judo idea of the black belt, his first students were awarded the black belt in about one year too (from past reading, I didn’t note it and don’t have a reference on tap now). It suggests this might be a common approach.

My personal instructors trained in Okinawa 59-61 and 71-72 or there abouts. I’ve been practicing those studies for about 37 years now. I’m hardly unique but I’d say Isshinryu was as legitimate as an instructor chooses to make it to be.

An issue such as ‘bunkai’ is not a standard for Okinawan legitimacy. From my understanding the term ‘bunkai’ is Japanese (and adopted first by Mabuni to try and explain karate to the Japanese in the early 30’s, using a term commonly used to explain takings something apart to fix it, and crafting a new meaning for the term. It was the Japanese who crafted single answers on how to use kata technique with the term Bunkai. Other Okinawans in the 30’s in Genwa Nakasone’s “karate Do Taikan” clearly show different answers than ‘bunkai’. Some Okinawan systems don’t formally include the use of kata technique in their studies (again unfortunately not documented but very frequently discussed) and some of them even criticize that ‘bunkai’ should even be practiced.

Others around the world have developed different paradigms on the use of kata, where any movement can be applied dozens and dozens of different ways without changing anything, or even following the older Okinawan approach and adding the kitchen sink with a kata technique.

With so much variety in approach why worry about legitimacy.

What is legitimate is that which continues, whether each of us appreciate their existence or not! Legitimacy stops and ends with my fist intersecting with your face after all.

Actually many of the oldest Okinawan Seniors have a very strong standard for legitimacy. If you don’t live into your 90’s your karate was weak. As the Okinawan’s live longer than any other group in the world I can understand their feelings. Legitimacy not on style, bunkai, strength or fighting ability but based on true survival by outliving the rest!

Frankly by that standard I know my art won’t become legitimate, but I don’t care. Feel free to invite any 90 year old Okinawan to come to my dojo and make that point……. Sounds interesting doesn’t it?

Rather that worrying about legitimate I suggest we’d be better off worrying about how to remain polite in everything.

 

[Sanchin-E]

@ Victor Smith

I'm not suggesting sources, I'm stating common knowledge as Bill Mattocks can attest to. As to who has the authority to declare anything legitimate, apparently a lot of people since it happens all the time on these boards.

The only person so far to answer the question is Bill Mattocks, I wonder why? You would think that there would be more thoughtful people here.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

@ Victor Smith

I'm not suggesting sources, I'm stating common knowledge as Bill Mattocks can attest to. As to who has the authority to declare anything legitimate, apparently a lot of people since it happens all the time on these boards.

The only person so far to answer the question is Bill Mattocks, I wonder why? You would think that there would be more thoughtful people here.

Thank you for the kind words, but please be respectful. Victor Smith is a very thoughtful and intelligent person who doesn't have to answer your comments at all; he is being kind to you. He is a fount of knowledge about Isshin-Ryu's rich history; and I have much to learn from listening to him.

 

[Sanchin-E]

@ Bill Mattocks

I don't see how I was any more disrespectful to him than he was to me. But then again, these boards aren't known for a lot of respect. I just answered his questions, but he didn't really answer mine. In any case, I'm not trying to be uncivil so appologies to all.

 

[Tez3]

No, I think Irene made a Joke and you missed it.
Or she didn't and I misunderstood. That's always a possibility as well

You're correct! We don't use the expression that something 'sucks' because it means something totally different here. If used by an American it brings slightly shocked looks to people's faces here then people start laughing in that embarrassed sort of way one does when someone has made a faux pas.


MMA isn't modern you know, it's traditional martial arts used as a whole so therefore old.


I know people get their knickers in a twist about history, lineage etc ( I was told on here once that Americans having a short history themselves are keen to have a long history in something hence the worry about their martial arts) but if an art is effective surely it's 'legitimate'? What anyway would be an illegitimate art?

 

[Sanchin-E]

@ Tez3

What about arts that practice no touch knockouts? What about arts that use other chi manipulations? What about cardio kickboxing?

 

[punisher73]

You're correct! We don't use the expression that something 'sucks' because it means something totally different here. If used by an American it brings slightly shocked looks to people's faces here then people start laughing in that embarrassed sort of way one does when someone has made a faux pas.


MMA isn't modern you know, it's traditional martial arts used as a whole so therefore old.


I know people get their knickers in a twist about history, lineage etc ( I was told on here once that Americans having a short history themselves are keen to have a long history in something hence the worry about their martial arts) but if an art is effective surely it's 'legitimate'? What anyway would be an illegitimate art?

Is the british meaning of "sucks" probably due to an "oral fixation" by the person? Sorry, trying to word it without being crass or kicking in the filters. It does mean that here as well, but also includes something being bad or a loser of a person.

I agree about lineage, looking at the history of karate it is filled with people training with one or two people and then creating their own style/approach based on their experience and ideas. Again, it seems that if the creator was asian than he must have known what he was doing and it is ok. Even in Funakoshi's autobiography he talks about people creating new styles in Japan so it is definately not something new and has been going on since the introduction of karate in Japan.

 

[dancingalone]

( I was told on here once that Americans having a short history themselves are keen to have a long history in something hence the worry about their martial arts)

I don't think it is that. It's a desire to learn the 'good' stuff from qualified instructors. You see the same concern for lineage in Chinese martial arts, really any art. People brag about studying Gracie Barra, do they not, despite the relative infancy of BJJ?

In my travels over the years, I've noticed a tendency for those in karate with a good lineage to be more knowledgeable about the 'whys'. Why is this done this way? Or what is the reason why you place your feel just so here? Those with more muddled connections may be excellent karate-ka in their own right but they tend to lack this type of understanding or they are unable to verbalize it for the benefit of others, even if they might innately understand it with their bodies.
.
Of course none of this matters if we've not mastered the basics of karate themselves and indeed most never reach that point even when they wear a dan belt