We simply can’t function to the best of our abilities without advice and help, and this is where a sempai comes in. In any traditional dojo the sempai system is an inherent part of the complexity of the art being taught there. It is his/her contribution to furthering not only the skills of the kohai (junior student), but also to assure that the art will be carried into the future with all the valuable traditions.

The title sempai may be carried by yudansha (blackbelts) or mudansha (kyus). By this standard there will most likely be more sempai than kohai in the dojo. The system breaks down, however, when a sempai does not take it upon himself to single out a new or struggling student to help. Furthermore, it is the responsibility of the kohai to humbly ask for assistance from a sempai.

All too often during the time before a class officially begins, there will be small groups sitting on the floor engaging in idle conversation or lounging in the spectator area sipping a soda or snacking. This is a waste of your time. There is always somebody with whom you can train or assist or, even ask for assistance. In an established dojo it is common that the more senior students and the sensei become close – this adds to the desired family feeling. All students in the dojo in the various echelons should make an effort to solidify that “family feeling”. One major caveat however; the rank gradation must be clearly maintained. If we fail to do this, what is happening around the world today will prevail. I have visited and taught in many dojo and I am sad to say that most are more like social clubs. This is demeaning to the sensei, his predecessors and the art. The role of the sempai can be instrumental in forestalling this eventuality.

The sempai system is an essential part of a traditional dojo, yet it has, in recent years, been degraded often to oblivion. As in most things, a collective mind has a far greater reach than the single mind of a leader.

I am proud of our OGRKK as we have kept faith with the principles in a miasma of a weakening society which is slowly, but surely penetrating the cracks of human frailty. We must be ever aware of the importance of our legacy and invite others to join in our efforts and by all means, not weaken in our resolve.

I can remember the first day I stepped on the floor as a student, green in every way, older than most in class, and my only aspiration was to stay long enough to earn my black belt. As most students today believe, I saw rank as the measure of my success, and as a student I knew that we were going to be taught disciplines that require the execution of techniques, forms, and history which were all part of the ranking system.

This internal conflict as a student went on for several years before I won, and to the winner go the spoils of the conflict; in my case, humility. I had finally come to realize that I needed to learn humility in order to improve and once I accepted it, learn I did. No longer did rank measure my improvement.

I realized that while learning techniques we are also being taught principals and concepts regarding our system. These concepts can take a lifetime to fully understand and master. I realized that I did not need to master the art in order to teach the art.

When my family and I relocated from Colorado to Washington to begin a new journey, we felt excited but scared. We realized that we had received good instruction and we knew that we would not be happy training with anyone else. This left us two choices; teach what we had learned or just train by ourselves. I told myself that maybe this is part of my growth as a practitioner, to teach what I yet do not fully understand.

I had come so far, yet there is so much further to travel, but this is the way it is supposed to be. If our training has been in principal, then we must have an understanding and if I have an understanding of the principal then I can teach that principal to others successfully and learn in the process what I have yet to understand. So we decided to open a dojo and began our transition from students to instructors.

We (my family and I) had taught classes for our teachers and we had regularly taught one another. I felt that we were more fortunate than most who decide to open a dojo, because all four of us were Yudansha (black belts), and we could rely on one another. Four people who receive the same lesson retain much more than an individual can retain. Although nervous, I was confident that together we could do this.

So in a community where we did not know anyone, with very little funds, new jobs, new schools; and only desire on our side, we built and opened Goju Ryu Karate-Do of Vancouver. Now several years have passed and we are in a new, bigger, and better dojo. We have a wonderful group of students and teaching them has taught us a lot!

Now I realize that there is no such thing as being a student and transitioning to an instructor, as all of us will always remain a student. The main difference in being a student, and now spending most of my time teaching; is that I used to focus on my own training and now I focus on how to best convey our art while trying my best to guide, support, and encourage my students. Opening and operating a dojo is difficult but well worth the effort. I would love to see the OGRKK grow and I hope other Yudansha in the future find a way and the desire to share what they have been taught. Sayonara.

Some karate researchers have suggested that the only four kata Higaonna Kanryo brought back from China; and subsequently taught were Sanchin, Sanseiru, Sesan, and Suparinpei (the original four). This bodes the question, where did the remaining kata derive from?

By using a simple comparative chart that categorizes similarities and dissimilarities between the original kata of Goju Ryu (analysis does not include Gekisai or Tensho) we may be better able to understand the kata. This comparative chart clearly demonstrates that some of the kata of Goju Ryu seem to fit into specific groupings based on solid similarities. These groups “may” indicate that some of the kata originated from the same system(s) in China or were even formed from the indigenous fighting methods of Okinawa. However, it also clearly demonstrates that one kata stands alone and doesn’t seem to really fit anywhere. Yet this kata depicts the very essence of Goju Ryu.

By the above categorization based on similarity or lack of similarity, coupled with the kata containing or lacking the prevalent three repetitive Sanchin movements; it appears that Shisochin belongs with the original four kata and “may” be from the same family, style, or system as the original four were derived.

The above table also demonstrates that Saifa, Seiyunchin, and Kururunfa all contain three repetitive movements, but those movements do not contain Sanchin. The three beginning movements of Saifa, Seiyunchin, and Kururunfa kata are dissimilar. However, they are similar in that they contain three repetitive movements that are no Sanchin. Reflecting on these three kata from physically practicing them, it is possible to also conclude that these three kata may contain more “Chinese” influence than the original four, thought to have been brought back from China by Higaonna? Take a moment to reflect on your personal performance and practice of these kata. The supposed original four all contain Sanchin. Sanchin depicts rooting. Saifa and Kururunfa are very flowing kata and in fact emphasize sidestepping and angles. You cannot effectively achieve angles on an opponent if you are rooted. Seiyunchin also contains a form of rooting via the deep Shiko dachi and emphasis on sinking. However it is very different than the rooting contained in Sanchin. I feel that Seiyunchin contains too many dissimilarities to the original four kata to place it into the same catergory. Yet, it is also different from Saifa and Kururunfa, but due to its emphasis on angles and the fact that it contains three repetitive movements, I placed it in the same category as Saifa and Kururunfa. These three kata may (or may not) be from the same family/style/system.

Based on the above table, which simply categorizes the kata, by similarities or lack of similarities, it is obvious that Sepai does not fit in with either of the other two categories and in fact is very unique. Sepai does not begin with three repetitive movements of any type. Its movements are “whipping” type movements, not thrusting techniques, which can be seen by the Furi Uchi and even Uraken Uchi in the kata. From physically practicing the kata it becomes very obvious that Sepai is very unique and may not fit into any category. It may be the most flowing kata in the system that “could” indicate the most Chinese influence in the entire system?

Categorizing the kata by whether or not they contain Zuki techniques (not counting Ura Zuki), results in Sanchin, Sanseiru, Sesan, and Suparinpei being categorized together (notice a similarity); and Saifa, Seiyunchin, Shisochin, Sepai, and Kururunfa being categorized together. It could be argued that the thrusting Nukite contained in Shisochin qualifies it to be placed in the first grouping of kata. I personally feel that Shisochin belongs with the first group (the original four) based on the three open-hand Sanchin (rooting) movements at the beginning of the kata. Remember the Kamae (posture) is exactly like the original four (Sanchin) only it is performed with open-hands; which makes even more sense because the original Sanchin was done with open-hands.

From this table of comparative information, I feel that two distinct groups, types, or styles of kata emerge:

Group 1: Sanchin, Shisochin, Sanseiru, Sesan, and Suparinpei. Notice that each of these kata contain Sanchin Dachi and Zuki technique (Suparinpei contains morote zuki).

Group 2: Saifa, Seiyunchin, Sepai, and Kururunfa. Notice that none of these kata contain Sanchin Dachi or Zuki (aside from the Age Zuki in Kururunfa and Seiyunchin) technique.

• If we remove Sepai from group two, then we have three groups or categorizations.

It is my own personal opinion that Group 1 is more derived from the indigenous Okinawan Te systems and Group 2 is more representative and influenced by the Chinese Martial Arts. Based on what these kata emphasize and their similarities, it seems that Group 2, not Group 1, originated in China. Also remember that Sesan and Sanchin existed in Okinawa “before” Higaonna Sensei went to Fukien Province China to study.

So where did Saifa, Seiyunchin, Sepai, and Kururunfa come from? I believe that Higaonna Kanryo learned and perhaps altered the forms that he had learned in China, to more closely adhere to Okinawa’s indigenous martial arts. This theory would coincide with several older (first generation students of Miyagi) Okinawan Karate-ka, who have stated that there were at least two Suparinpei (Pechurin), and that the original form was so long that Higaonna Kanryo made it into two forms. Another version of the story is that there were always two Suparinpei, one easier than the other, with the simpler version being the one most commonly practiced today. It is also well known that Higaonna Kanryo Sensei closed the fist in Sanchin kata when he introduced Naha-te into the public school system in 1905; so there is no doubt that Higaonna Sensei did in fact change what he had learned. He also did not teach the weapons study he learned while training in China.

It is my personal opinion that Higaonna Kanryo Sensei is either the creator of all of the original nine (9) kata or he learned all nine kata between his studies in Okinawa and China, and then altered them forming his own system. I base this opinion in part, on several of his first generation students stating that Miyagi Sensei personally told them that he learned all of the kata from Higaonna Sensei. Those students who made this statement include Matsumura, Miyazato, Itokazu, Aragaki, and Miyagi (An’Ichi). I see know reason why Miyagi would have lied about the source of these kata, especially since he claimed being the creator of the non-turning Sanchin, Tensho, and the Gekisai kata. Some researchers feel that Higaonna Sensei and his Naha-te only contained the original four kata and that Miyagi Sensei created the remaining five kata, plus the four we know that he created (Gekisai 1, 2; Tensho, and the non turning version of Sanchin). I disagree with this theory as Miyagi Sensei had no reason to claim that his teacher taught him all nine kata unless it were true. “All” of his personal students have shared with their students that Miyagi Sensei personally told them that Higaonna Sensei taught him all of the kata. His word was good enough for them and it is good enough for me.

Using an analogy; O’Hara Sensei created Buchin. His students know that he created this kata and his family knows that he created this kata. Now fast-forward thirty years from now. If some martial artist or researcher showed up and asked his students and or his family where Buchin derived from, we would all respond that he created it. We would not state that he learned it from one of his teacher’s who brought it to America from Japan, because O’Hara Sensei personally told all of us that he created. I feel that this is the exact thing that has occurred regarding the kata of Goju Ryu. Higaonna Sensei told Miyagi where the kata were derived and Miyagi Sensei told his students.

Unfortunately, most written records regarding the original Te of Okinawa was destroyed during World War II. As such, it is difficult if not impossible to prove theories regarding its history, other than by believing what Miyagi Sensei’s first generation students told us. Comparative analysis or even simple charts can help us to categorize the kata and techniques of a system. Once categories or similarities are determined; we can then research systems that emphasize those similarities, which may led us to the source or system that the kata or techniques originated. Or, these efforts can simply be over analyzing something that does not exist or even matter… You are free to decide for yourself.