Talk:Uechi-Ryū

Kanji Source for the Junbi Undō, Hojo Undō, and Kata

Here are photos of the poster-list of the junbi undō, and hojo undō taken with permission by the Okinawa Karate-Dō Association that shows the kanji. The rōmaji has been corrected: note the "karete" misspelling! ^^,

Japanese English List of the Junbi Undō

Japanese English List of the Hojo Undō

TheDoctorX (talk) 03:04, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Tsu Zu You Think You Are?:

 The change of pronunciation of 突 from tsu--つ--to づ--zu

In response to an edit I undid, the pronunciation of 突き--"tsuki"--changes to "zuki" WHEN combined with preceding kanji as in 正拳突き--seiken zuki. This is confirmed not only in the pictures I added, but in a book written in Japanese for Japanese readers where the furigana--tiny hirigana pronunciation put above or below more obscure kanji to aid in pronunciation--demonstrates that 突 is pronounced づ--"zu." This is similar to the kanji for "kick"--"keri"--蹴り--being pronounced "geri"--げり--when preceded by kanji for, say, "front," "side," or "DOOM!" ^^,

If anyone doubts this, I can scan a page from the text.

TheDoctorX (talk) 08:32, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Since offering these persuasive words of persuasion that persuade, an anonymous user twice reverted the "zuki". I directed him to this discussion. If he or anyone else wonders, I can post a scan from an Okinawan textbook that shows the furigana--the 小さい/tiny hirigana placed above kanji to help pronunciation.

TheDoctorX (talk) 06:16, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Showing how the Japanese pronunciation of kanji changes in combination.

Having nothing better to do, here is a scan from the aforementioned textbook's section on 突き(つき・tsuki). It shows the furigana for the pronunciation of the kanji when in a combination. Notice the given English pronunciation:

TheDoctorX (talk) 20:41, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Fish-Tail Blocks . . . or . . . Strikes?

An anonymous user made a bunch of changes. He did not understand the shift from "tsu" to "zu" as explained above. Fine. Whatever. However, he changed what most consider "wrist blocks" to "wrist strikes." That is not incorrect. It all depends on how the technique is used. So I edited the section to reflect that. TheDoctorX (talk) 09:06, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

References

"A Kata has a Name!"

Uechi-Ryū Kata

I do not know where the "i" entered into kata that end properly with "ryū" entered into the English, but I have been guilty of mispronouncing it as "rui" and have been corrected on Okinawa. I probably am responsible for some misspellings in the main article! The picture I added comes from a dōjō whose teacher gave me permission to take to help clear up this!

Part of the problem is a lot of people have a problem rendering the long "u" at the end: "ū" Even translated Japanese occasionally misprint it as "ryu" rather than "ryū."

I will add it to the main article. I have other references published in Okinawa if necessary. TheDoctorX (talk) 02:11, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

What You Sei?!!

I corrected this earlier but, typically, forgot one other mention of hanshi-sei in the article. To avoid dyspareunia, there have been references to a hanshi-sei instructor/master title for 10th dan and I am aware of them. The problem is that none of the holders of that grade in Okinawa claim that title and depictions of them do not have it either. Actual 10th dan certificate attest to hanshi--kanji: 範士. I can try to post pictures if anyone objects. TheDoctorX (talk) 07:28, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

The kanji for the title "Hanshi"--範士--depicted on a "Hanshi-Jūdan" certificate conferring the title "Hanshi" and the 10th dan grade.

TheDoctorX (talk) 05:54, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject Karate Proposal at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Wikipedia:WikiProject Karate

Dear editors, I am proposing a new WikiProject Karate to bring together editors with knowledge of this martial art specifically, especially due to Karate becoming an Olympic sport I think it is time to focus energy on the roughly 3500 main space articles associated with Karate. Full description of the rationale and goals can be found at the link above, please comment, discuss (and join if you support this project!) All the best, Mountain^{cirque · Join WikiProject Karate?} 09:06, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

What About MOAR Kata?!!11!

By Way of Introduction

I reverted the edits of another and invited him to come HERE to discuss/argue about it in a message on his Talk. Basically, he listed modern/additional UECHI kata. The problem is these are not UECHI kata. I will explain the specific reasons below and invite others to heap praises upon my rational argument or throw fish.

"Uechi-Ryū has three kata!"--Ryuko Tomoyose

Officially, as per the major organizations in Okinawa and the major US organization IUKF, Kanbun started with three kata. There exists not only no evidence that he learned a fourth kata there is no evidence that such exists. I am happy to expand on that since I do not expect Readers and Editors to "take my word for it." I would review the recent publication listed in the references by Fujimoto where surviving students of Kanbun--yes, they exist, they also include Mr. Tomoyose, deny that he ever indicated that such exist.

After his death, his son Kanei and Kanbun's senior students who all had their own dōjōs developed "bridging kata" to help students between Sanchin, Seisan, and San Sei Ryu. In a way, the Big Three as I call them are Torah/Gospel/Game of Thrones Books and the rest are outside of that. This is not a problem. Some schools have made up additional kata for whatever reason. George Mattson can tell stories about his "Yankee Kata" which he, last I asked, has forgotten. Do we list all of these? None of the organizations would consider them "official."

So . . . without further ado:

Ryuko

Was a kata invented by one teacher in Okinawa, a member of OKK, back when due to political reasons OKK could not use the "Uechi" name. I will spare readers THAT mess. Bottom line, this teacher based this kata on a particular Shorin kata he saw. It was never "official." With the ease of political problems, as indicated in the main Article, OKK has returned to using "Uechi." With the death of its creator, this kata has disappeared. It is no longer practiced. The OKK seniors rather vehemently deny it was ever a "Uechi kata." So I do not see the justification for its inclusion. Might as well include every additional kata various teachers and schools have played with over the decades! Where do we "draw the line?"

Suparimpei

Pour a cup of coffee . . . or something stronger.

Bottom line, as the recent book--see Article--by Fujimoto indicates, there is no evidence the Kanbun ever learned such or it existed. On Okinawa there are kata that share names but little else.

When politics got bad, there was a drive to try to have "one more book in our Torah/Gospel/I have the galleys for Winds of Winter!" The teacher who created Ryuko wanted it to be "better" and "more advanced" than San Sei Ryu. This never happened.

I could now create a Horrible Wall of Text explaining the actual history of both types of "Suparimpei." If someone wants that, I will give it. The bottom line is NEITHER derive from Kanbun, OR Uechi.

No organization officially recognizes such as Uechi kata. IUKF--the American organization under George Mattson--allows a teacher to "play" with something he picked up from a guy who made up something based on Goju-Ryū much like OKK tolerated Ryuko.

Nevertheless, it is not a recognized Uechi kata. IUKF does not consider it a testing requirement. No Okinawan parent organization recognizes it.

There is also no Santa Claus.

TheDoctorX (talk) 09:27, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
The other editor left a response on his Talk and indicates he is not sure how to respond on these Article Talk. I offered to post his response HERE. My response is . . . well . . . long-winded. If he agrees, I will try to cut my down to the essentials. TheDoctorX (talk) 00:15, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Not to mention the fact that if Kanbun himself never learned Suparempei, who are Uechi students — i.e. those who consider him, in an ancestral sense, their Sensei (literally translated to "one who has gone before") — to go where he has not? —CsBlastoise (talk) 14:25, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

_____

That is a very good question that proponents of such "Higher ″kata″" should ask themselves. Pursuit of such lets them ignore practicing the basics. TheDoctorX (talk) 10:37, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

The suparinpei that some Uechi practitioners play with was learned from a grand-student of the Fujian tiger fist teacher who is believed to have been Shushiwa (albeit the version of this form circulating among the Uechi style has been influenced by the Goju and Uechi practitioners who have played with it). The form is primarily explored to get a better sense for the tiger fist milieu in which Kanbun Uechi learned, not to supersede anything official in Uechi Ryu and it certainly does not detract from the basics. As for 'going where Kanbun Uechi has not,' the official Uechi Ryu of today is already a product of that.Sccgeography (talk) 23:31, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, but unfortunately there is zero evidence that it was "learned from a grand-student of the Fujian tiger," and considerable evidence, particularly negative evidence, that it was not. Basically, you cannot find it "in the wild" or any other independent support for it. The form is, as one expert the originator tried to get to endorse it deemed it, "Gojū Ryū done badly."

As for whether or not Uechi "of today" has gone "where Kanbun Uechi has not," that would be like claiming a music performance has "gone where the rudiments have not." Per an explanation from a man who knew him, the late Ryuko Tomoyose, Kanbun would take a technique from kata--waza--and play with it in application. As he explained, "some times it work, some times it not work!" Further, Kanbun was happy to reverse techniques. He offered the following example: if you are familiar with Seisan, he would reverse the "triple boshiken strikes--migi sayū boshiken basamiuchi (右左右拇指拳挟み打ち)--as if they were downward blocks. As Mr. Tomoyose explained, Kanbun did not mean to imply that one should perform that sequence in kata that way, or that it was the "original" meaning, or anything other than simply exploring and applying techniques. TheDoctorX (talk) 20:37, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Now it is my turn to apologize for the delay! I would be very interested in the evidence that the Suparinpei in question was not learned from a grand-student of Shushiwa, right now all I have to go on is information such as https://www.facebook.com/TheRealShushiwa/posts/there-is-a-story-that-in-the-1970s-two-elderly-chinese-gentlemen-traveled-to-oki/2393978000646903/ documenting that is was.

My comment about 'the official Uechi Ryu of today being a product of going where Kanbun did not' is actually in reference to the Uechi Ryu of today being the creation of Kanei Uechi, not that there are multiple interpretations of moves in the kata. Think for example of the additional "bridging" kata that include techniques not found in the original three, or even the addition of the three nukite to the beginning of seisan. Think also of the addition of the seiken and mawashi uke techniques as well as junbi undo into the style by Kanei, all borrowed from Okinawan karate styles and seemingly having nothing in common with what Kanbun brought back from China and taught. Kanei took what his father taught him and added to it to create his own style, Uechi Ryu as we know it. That is what I meant by my statement, sorry to be so vague initially. Sccgeography (talk) 20:57, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

(Hey, could we indent our replies so that the flow of a conversational thread is easier to trace? Thanks!)
As the one who first brought up the notion of (not) going where Uechi Kanbun has not (even though it was years ago I said it), I feel like I should clarify. What I meant was not intended to refer so broadly to things that Kanbun did not do; what I meant was more like, "Who are we to go more advanced than Kanbun did if he is our ancestral sensei?" Therefore, curriculum introduced by Uechi Kanei is not included in that scope because, although not all of it came from Pangainoon, it was all designed to be less advanced than Sanseirui, so there is no issue. The point of my original comment was that Suparimpei is problematic because it is supposed to be more advanced than Sanseirui, so it would be pretentious for a Uechi-ryū student to make claims about it.

Hope that helps.

—CsBlastoise (talk) 07:18, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

The information comes from a senior practitioner with decades of experience with Chinese martial arts as well as living in China. He was interviewed by the "discoverer" of this supraimpei who sort of wanted his endorsement of it. He recognized it for what it was; hence, his summation of it.

To pick up on CsBlastoise's comment, martial arts becomes a religion. Practitioners, like zealots, strive to find new teachings, new texts, something that will elevate them above the others. There will always be those willing to sell such to them.

It becomes rather silly, actually. One has to assume that somehow, in some way, Kanbun was aware of a kata that was so much more awesome and with dancing cats and probably lasers than San sei ryu that he did not bother to study it. That he spent thirteen-odd years in China ignoring it. And, somehow, maybe with a magical girl transformation, we are all going to learn it and become greater than the Grand Master!!11! [! – Ed.]

TheDoctorX (talk) 06:41, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Hong Kong kung fu movie plots aside, it's just a form, nothing more, nothing less. First off I do want to emphasize that I am in total agreement with what started this Talk section, that Ryuko and Suparinpei are not Uechi Ryu kata and should not be thought of as such. However I do not subscribe to the idea that Uechi Ryu practitioners should not attempt to become "more advanced" than their sensei and the founders, instead I subscribe to the martial arts tradition that the student should surpass the teacher.

There have been recent developments that make much of the original discussion above in this Talk section obsolete. Interesting information has been appearing about the two Chinese lineages that descend from Shushiwa's teachings, Huxingquan and Huzunquan, including videos on Youtube. One of the teachers in these lineages even participated in one of George Mattson's summer camps.

I have a copy of the manual that was published in China on one of these lineages, Huxingquan, that talks about Shushiwa as well as the Uechi family's 1980s search for the style's Chinese roots discussed from the Chinese perspective. This manual diagrams a Suparinpei form that bears many similarities to the one introduced into Uechi Ryu in the 1990s, which comes from the Huzunquan lineage. So Suparinpei did exist and still exists "in the wild" and the version introduced to Uechi practitioners appears legit, particularly when comparing it to videos of other forms from these lineages.

But we will never know whether Kanbun learned it or not, or why he did not teach it if he did. According to Keisuke Fujimoto's research Kanbun only ever publically taught Sanchin and Seisan, Sanseiryu was only taught privately to Kanei. So maybe Kanbun knew Suparinpei but did not feel the need to pass it along to Kanei, or never got the chance since the Asian theater of what would become World War II was starting when Kanei had only about 10 years training.

I do not see any issues with Uechi practitioners exploring Chinese forms and arts, and interest in such is growing. George Mattson has been particularly promoting this. In Fall 2020 he hosted a months-long, roughly bi-weekly training session via zoom that taught Suparinpei to an international group of Uechi practitioners, during which he covered the Fujian origins of the kata and expressed that he would like to see interest in it grow within Uechi Ryu.

Exploring the Chinese roots can be particularly useful given how far removed the Uechi Ryu of today appears to be from what Kanbun taught. To me one of the most amazing revelations by Fujimoto was when he was asked during an interview about his research and book what he thought Kanbun would think of Uechi Ryu as practiced today:

"I think he would be most surprised by the circle block (mawashi uke) that is currently used in Uechi-ryu. Kanbun sensei did not teach a circle block and would instead use an inside-out parry (kake uke) for mid-section attacks and an upper block (hajiki uke) to defend against attacks to the head. I personally believe he would question why a circular motion should be used to protect against a strike to the face. Kanbun's students I talked to iejima [sic] who were with him in Wakayama sometimes said, 'It may be that times have changed, but a lot of the karate used today doesn't seem to have much practical application.'"

In other words, one of the most fundamental and identifying techniques of Uechi Ryu did not come from Kanbun, it was added later in Okinawa. Then there are the vivid differences in Uechi Ryu Seisan as taught in Okinawa compared to that taught in the original Wakayama, Japan dojo. Mainstream Uechi Ryu was made very Okinawan at some point, as Fujimoto discusses in the interview about his book. I do not say that to imply a negative, just stating what is.

The bottom line is that all of this research coming to light by Fujimoto, Chinese sources, and others is revealing that there is a lot we do not know about the origins and transformations of Uechi Ryu, which makes the Huzunquan Suparinpei form somewhat relevant to get some sense of what Kanbun learned and maybe taught (keeping in mind that Chinese styles transform just as Okinawan ones do). But again, I agree that it is not a Uechi kata and does not need to be included in the Uechi Ryu Wikipedia page, it is still very much a novelty at this point. Sccgeography (talk) 20:12, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Let me see if this works. Okay, it indents on preview. Good thing I looked tonight, or I would not have seen this.

One should never discount the authority of Hong Kong movies! The U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled them as dispositive. [Citation Needed – Ed.]

To take your first point seriously, absolutely. I mean, do people think if Kanbun saw a set of free weights he would have denounced them, clutching his jars and "stick in a can with cement?" So if someone gains benefit from any of these forms, more power to him. Though you are not making this argument, too many want to pretend these are legitimate Holy Grail kata. Then there are those who just would like to know. Moving along. . . .

You write This manual diagrams a Suparinpei form that bears many similarities to the one introduced into Uechi Ryu in the 1990s, which comes from the Huzunquan lineage. So Suparinpei did exist and still exists "in the wild" and the version introduced to Uechi practitioners appears legit, particularly when comparing it to videos of other forms from these lineages.

I cannot comment on what I cannot view. The form was not in BRUINS WIN . . . sorry . . . not introduced into Uechi-Ryū so much as presented to a practitioner by its creator, which the practitioner, who does know Chinese forms very well, discounted it. But let us leave that aside: if someone gets benefit from practicing the one you describe or even the one now being reoffered through video lessons et cetera, more power to him. Now this next quote is instructive: According to Keisuke Fujimoto's research Kanbun only ever publically taught Sanchin and Seisan, Sanseiryu was only taught privately to Kanei. Well, students of Kanbun contradict that. According to the now sadly Late Tomoyose, Kanbun only taught Sanchin and Seisan to his father because his father was not interested in kata. That is what he told me directly. Personal anecdotes and $5 will get you a bad coffee I understand.

But that is the problem with martial arts history; it is very hard to document and verify. You have a lot of other interesting information that I will have to get back to and will later.

TheDoctorX (talk) 02:41, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Right, continuing with your point on Wakayama we have a major historical problem. To begin, comparisons of video and film over the years reveals they have changed things. So one cannot point to their practice and pretend it is unchanged and "original." Next, one of the films has the Late Tomoyose arguing with his Late father.

One would have to explain why students of Kanbun, such as Shinjo, Uehara, as well as the younger Tomoyose would agree to modify the practice. Not very likely, particularly when Tomoyose was happy to explain how things were done.

Regarding what Kanbun would think, I fear it perilous to assume the thinking of those no longer with us. Kata are rudiments. They are not fighting. You would not be expected to do a full mawashi uke for a punch to your face! You use only a portion which is rather what Fujimoto describes. One weakness of pre-arranged – yakusoku – kumite is it is practiced to highlight those basics. In kata movements are combined. For example, you would not necessarily perform the horizontal elbow strike (yoko hijizuki) then a back fist (uraken) and then a shōken. Those are all options combined. TheDoctorX (talk) 07:55, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I have no real quivels with your various most recent posts. Ultimately you are giving the benefit of the doubt to someone you respect who says the Suparimpei form that Uechi Ryu practitioners are playing with was made up by the person who showed it to them while I am giving the benefit of the doubt to information presented online and in publications by people I do not know that indicates otherwise. Six of one, half dozen of another. As you say, martial arts history is difficult to document and verify. Speaking of which, if you have not seen it, I highly recommend "The Creation of Wing Chun: A Social History of Southern Chinese Martial Arts" by Benjamin Judkins and Jon Nielson (2015) for an effective elaboration of that very point and what it means for the official histories of martial arts styles. Just to clarify one of my points: Regarding my comment on the different performances of Seisan between Okinawa and the original Wakayama dojo, I am referring to the 1960s video of Seisan (and Sanchin) performances by Ryuyu Tomoyose's students at the Wakayama dojo (this is also the video that shows Ryuko Tomoyose arguing with his father over how the kata moves are supposed to be performed). But as you say, it is possible that Ryuyu had also made changes by then and I never meant to imply otherwise (my use of "original" referred to the dojo and not the kata performances). As we both have been saying, changes were made. To your point about buy-in, most of that came from the alliance that developed among Kanei's students, and as that Wakayama video demonstrates not all of Kanbun's students fell in line with the style Kanei developed. From anecdotal comments, such as Takashi Kinjo talking about both what his teacher Seiki Itokazu (a student of Kanbun) told him and his own early experiences, it appears that in the 1950s and 60s there was 1) strong loyalty to Kanei as Soke, 2) a feeling that standardization was needed, and 3) agreement that changes needed to occur to accommodate mass teaching the influx of new students, particularly American servicemen. As to your last point, I agree with what you focused on but that does not change the fact that students of Kanbun state that he did not teach mawashi uke at all, in kata or otherwise. As for not doing a full mawashi uke for a punch to the face, have you not seen the original Karate Kid movie?!?! Now that is an authoritative, dispositive movie if ever there was one! Sccgeography (talk) 22:41, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Good timing! I, also, have no quibbles with your point either. The senior practitioner wishes to remain anonymous, even though he freely discusses it, which mean . . . with $5 you have a Starbucks coffee! As you note, the actual historical accuracy is now practically impossible. But, to quote Do as Infinity's song Rakuen "we walk on!"

Now your point on Wakayama in 1960ish is awesome because, if you look at more modern videos from the dōjō, you will see . . . changes! Anyway, if I can add another $5, Ryuku Tomoyose was quite clear that his father really was not interested in kata; he wanted to learn how to fight. For this reason, Kanbun Uechi never bothered to teach him San Sei Ryū. Again, I understand that is an anecdote.

On changes, here is a fun one. I – and my $5 – visited frequently a dōjō frequently from a smaller organization proud to be started from one of Kanbun's senior students. As an aside, they had an odd way of doing the "triple boshiken" from San Sei Ryū. When I visited his teacher in Okinawa, I performed it that way. He immediately corrected me to the way we all know. When I went back, my friend griped: "He changed it!" Anyway, he had a picture of said teacher who appeared to be doing the final movement of San Sei Ryū.": Crane Strike of Death!

Except . . . he is in a cat-stance. Or at least that is what the picture showed. My friend said his teacher gave it to him, but he had no idea where the picture came from. We rationalized it was just a posed picture.

Years pass.

A lot of Okinawan seniors are bringing it back. Apparently, originally, you did not do a "cat stance," you stepped on the foot of an opponent as you drove your crane strike into their neck to pull their heart out and show it to them.

Why were we not doing it?

With another $5, one explained, "we forgot!" Basically, WAY back, too many practitioners would "mirror beat" and make a BIG stepping/stamping move as they did the crane strike. So they were told not to do this and teachers sort of forgot to reintroduce it! After a recent discussion between Old Men, they sort of realized, "hey, remember when we use to do this?"

I am also happy you brought up Karate Kid because if you have NOT seen the Cobra Kai series, you need to IMMEDIATELY. Seriously. Even those who know nothing about "karate" love the series. Sorry if you already know about it, but they have done a fantastic job. Anyway, to take your point more seriously, "paint the fence" and "polish the car" are smaller elements of the "Big Block" we all know.

Back to your point, from what Mr. Tomoyose told me – and that $5 – the mawashi uke and many other complex movements, are sort of rudiments. Your then apply elements as needed. I think I may have pontificated that Mr. Tomoyose explained that Kanbun often would take a piece of a kata and play with applications. To quote him: "sometimes it work . . . sometimes it not work."

Additional Meaning of Sanseirui as "Tiger coming down from the mountain"?

I have heard from reliable sources at my dojo and its former parent association that Sanseirui, the final kata of Uechi-ryu, alternatively translates to "Tiger coming down from the mountain", with connotations of humility. However, I am unable to properly add this information to the article myself because I do not know the details and I don't have any sources to cite on this. Can anyone help?

—CsBlastoise (talk) 14:37, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, you might want to finish creating your page then people can add information to your talk. That being written, pour yourself a cup of coffee and find a comfortable chair.

The kanji--Japanese and Chinese--三十六--means "36." What that is appears lost. We can make up claims--like one I alway here that it is the 36th CHAMBER OF SHAOLIN kata!!!11!Eleventy!--but there is no evidence to support that. Further, other styles have a Sanseirui kata which look utterly different from Uechi's. You can divide it up to pretend it has 36 MOVES!, but that is just analyzing it in order to come up with "36." If you do the same process for Seisan--"13"--you would come up with far more moves than 36!

Anyways, while I have heard that rumor, I have not heard it from anyone reliable: I am aware of no evidence that Kanbun referred to it in that way, as in the meaning of the NAME, and that meaning is not reflected by the meaning of the kanji in either Japanese or Chinese. It is possible that he described its practice as such, but that is like one very senior teacher who suggests students practice a kata like an accelerating wheel--he would never say that analogy is contained in the names of the kata.

Anyways, feel free to put HERE, in TALK, what you find, and people can discuss it. With martial arts there is always a problem with sources. I have paragraphs of "stories," but "stories" do not fit the criteria of evidence. TheDoctorX (talk) 10:50, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Some version of 'tiger descending from the mountain' is a common name for forms found in tiger fist styles in Fujian. As this site (http://www.taipinginstitute.com/courses/jiangnan/huzunquan, scroll down to "Quan Tao (拳套练习, Boxing Routines/Forms Training)") shows, it is not necessarily the same as sanseiru (36). I personally think the forms that refer to numbers have more to do with Chinese numerology than with counting the number of techniques in the form. Sanchin refers to 3 while seisan refers to 13, both of which are important/influential numbers in traditional Chinese culture. Then (3 X 13) - 3 = 36 (Sanseiru...no clue why 3 is subtracted here) and 3 X 36 = 108 (suparinpei). Trying to count the techniques to come up with these numbers is thus a waste of time in my opinion. Sccgeography (talk) 23:45, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

That makes sense. The more reliable sources on and from Kanbun Uechi sort of suggest that he had a description of a style rather than a formal name. There are versions of Sanchin which we could spend ages sorting out the comparisons; the point is there may be a connection. The other three kata are less certain, and his teacher may have simply given them the names based on numerology or who knows!

That does not prevent me from tormenting students by demanding they perform the "17th" move of "36" and other such nonsense! TheDoctorX (talk) 10:00, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Organizations

I reverted some changes where an anonymous user added organizations with about two paragraphs of biographical detail for each. Unfortunately, one of them admits to no longer being a Uechi organization.

JUST list the organization with a referenced link to a webpage. If it is "major" it has a webpage at least. No need to add a biography! If someone objects, take it here, and then the biography can establish the organization's legitimacy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheDoctorX (talk • contribs) 06:43, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Recent Edits 8/2021: To avoid politics and subjective opinion, unfortunately the head of one organization has passed away. I have not found who is taking over. So I left it blank. Should I find out who his successor is, I will naturally edit accordingly. Obviously if anyone else knows, please do!

In the other case, the head resigned, and their page does not list a replacement. There is politics involved which we need not wade into. When a "head" is named, if ever, will edit accordingly. TheDoctorX (talk) 07:37, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

One of the organizations has a "Chief Shihan," then a "Chairman" underneath him. Went with the "Chief" until hierarchy clarified. TheDoctorX (talk) 18:35, 28 August 2021 (UTC) Seems to be clear that the "Chairman" is the leader and the "Chief Shihan" is more of an honorary position. TheDoctorX (talk) 07:07, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

The organization in question no longer has listed offers or a head. It has decreased to a single dōjō and is no longer a major organization. Please post evidence when this changes.

Ryuyu Tomoyose = Ryuko Tomoyose?

Just wanted to check if this was just a spelling error or if Ryuyu, under early history, is an actual separate person from Ryuko. I'm only familiar with Ryuko Tomoyose, but all my knowledge of PGN/Uechi-ryu is currently anecdotal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onabear (talk • contribs) 15:08, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in reply. To explain, "Ryuyu" is the first name of Ryuko Tomoyose's father. He was the man who convinced Kanbun Uechi to resume teaching. To further add to the confusion, the kanji of his last name was pronounced differently, which is why some references list him as "Ryuyu Tomoyori." This is not uncommon; the kanji of the grandson of Kanei Uechi looks like it should be pronounced "Kansho"; however, newspapers and people who know him affirm that it is pronounced "Sadanao." TheDoctorX (talk) 19:18, 13 March 2019 (UTC)