Sho

Hi Karim,

I think that Itosu was the originator for all the Sho versions of kata.

Dai and Sho is generally translated as "big" and "small". Karate historian Henning Wittwer came up with the following. According to him Dai and Sho were used to distinguish two persons that have the same name. For example Kyan Chotoku was also know as Kyan Gwa to distinguish him from his famous father. So if there is John Sr. and John Jr. then they were refered to as John Dai and John Sho or in uchinaguchi John Sho would be John Gwa. So Bassai Sho, Kanku Sho or Gojushiho Sho were the younger ones, hence newer.

I have three theories why the Sho versions came into existence.

1. Itosu learned the original Kata (Passai, Kushanku, Useishi) and compiled the newer versions to illustrate other possibilities or his own fighting methods.

2. Itosu learned a version of the kata first from Matsumura, Nagahama or one of his other teachers. And then went on and learned another version from another teacher. So maybe he named the version that he knew longer the older version (Dai) and the version he learned recently the younger version. Matsumura no Passai first and then Tomari Passai for example.

3. That is an amalgamation of my first two theories. Itosu learned the original kata e.g. Matsumura Passai and then saw other versions e.g. Tomari Passai and took the best things out of them and compiled them to his Sho version.

And maybe all my theories fit to one kata. Theory 1 to Kushanku, theory 2 to Gojushiho and theory 3 to Passai.

Just my 2 cents and I hope that makes sense.

Regards Holger

I find this a very interesting topic!

karim_benakli wrote:

And I heard an explanation of them being: they would record these elements that are found in the "Dai" versions but that are not overlapping with other katas of the curriculum...  My problem with that explanation is that I retrieve in both Kanku and Bassai-Sho lots of movements not found in the Dai versions.

There is another way to look the desire to avoid overlapping. It could be that the methods in the Dai versions are found elsewhere in Itosu’s new kata collective (i.e. the Heian series, etc) and hence he avoided repetition and included alternatives in the Sho versions.

As Itosu is brining all the various kata together he would seek to avoid lots of repetition. It would therefore make sense to have the Sho versions contain alternatives. As an example, if a student already has learnt Heian Nidan, then they have the three shuto-ukes going forward. So to avoid repetition the Sho version has alternative motions and the shuto-ukes are omitted. On the cases where we do have similar motions, they are nevertheless shown in different contexts. So the desire to avoid overlap seems very probable to me.

We still have the original Dai versions designed independently, by different people, and hence are meant to be used separately. And we also have the Heians and the Sho versions, all designed by Itosu, and that were designed to be used together?

Holger’s points about alternative versions and Itosu’s desire to show his own methodology make perfect sense to me. I’m sure that’s a big part of it.

I feel there are two key elements (which are linked) that stand out:

1 – The need to bring all the separate kata together in a workable collective.

2 – Itosu summarising and expressing his personal take on karate as a whole.

I think it could be a really interesting thread this and I look forward to reading what other people think about the Sho versions.

All the best,

Iain

Some recent research suggests to me that Shotokan's Gojushiho Dai (neko dachi) is a modified version of a Gojushiho version that comes down from Chotoku Kyan and the Sho version from Itosu. There is some confusion about which version should be called Dai and which Sho, but this issue seems not to be present with the other dai-sho pairs.

This obviously creates the question, are all the dai-sho's made from different linneages of the same kata?

Very interesting information; I would like to go on a bit further, but knowing this:

DaveB wrote:

Some recent research suggests to me that Shotokan's Gojushiho Dai (neko dachi) is a modified version of a Gojushiho version that comes down from Chotoku Kyan and the Sho version from Itosu. There is some confusion about which version should be called Dai and which Sho, but this issue seems not to be present with the other dai-sho pairs.

I propose that we then focus on Bassai and Kanku-Sho (maybe we should create a specific post for the Gojushiho ?)

Iain Abernethy wrote:

We still have the original Dai versions designed independently, by different people, and hence are meant to be used separately. And we also have the Heians and the Sho versions, all designed by Itosu, and that were designed to be used together?

So this would mean that in the Sho versions of Bassai and Kanku, we retrive what is found in the Dai versions but with elements overlapping with the Heian/Pinan series removed. In other words, Sho = Dai - Pinan.

The point is that, as also indicated earlier, there are techniques found in the Sho versions that we do not retrieve in the Dai versions of the kata ... e.g. in bassai sho, all these open hands techniques, and the particular end of the kata ... in kanku sho the whole series of morote ukes at the beginning ...

This looks like Itosu as integrated in the Sho versions his own techniques ! And this would then mean the following:

Pinan + Dai = complete fighting system, including techniques of Itosu, but with overlappings, while

Sho + Dai = complete fighting system, including techniques of Itosu, but without overlapping !!!

Thus, for people already knowing the Dai versions of these katas, they would not necessary have to learn the Pinan/heian series because all what they would be missing (from Itosu's methods) is collected in the Sho versions !!!

This would thus be an alternative for the students, depending on their existing background at the time they arrive in Itosu's dojo. Indeed, it would not be surprising that some of the new students of Itosu already knew the Dai versions, so instead of imposing the Pinan and all the overlapping, Itosu decided to create Sho versions for these students.

For all students having no basis at all, he would start with the Pinan ...

karim_benakli wrote:

This looks like Itosu as integrated in the Sho versions his own techniques ! And this would then mean the following:

Pinan + Dai = complete fighting system, including techniques of Itosu, but with overlappings, while

Sho + Dai = complete fighting system, including techniques of Itosu, but without overlapping !!!

Thus, for people already knowing the Dai versions of these katas, they would not necessary have to learn the Pinan/heian series because all what they would be missing (from Itosu's methods) is collected in the Sho versions !!!

This would thus be an alternative for the students, depending on their existing background at the time they arrive in Itosu's dojo. Indeed, it would not be surprising that some of the new students of Itosu already knew the Dai versions, so instead of imposing the Pinan and all the overlapping, Itosu decided to create Sho versions for these students.

For all students having no basis at all, he would start with the Pinan ...

I don't know the versions of the kata to make this analysis - but it would be an outstanding piece of logic if it were true - can anyone confirm?

Hello

This is my first comment - hopefully not the last. I want to appologise but english is not my native language, so sorry for my mistakes.

I'm practicing SKI Shotokan - the lineage established by kancho Hirokazu Kanazawa. I have learned that the Sho versions where created/modified by master Itosu. I was thought that the Sho versions are more "advanced" and contain hidden tehnics and principles. From my limited experience, the Bassai Sho kata contains many trows, "fighting against a stick", sweeps... But i have not found a good explanation even for Heian katas. They are so many different valid meanings for almost any movement.

We all "know" that every kata is a complete fighting system. But it is a lifetime work to understand even the principles of any kata, to be able to move, strike, grab, trow... aparently effortless. I have learned that the kata where changed - open hand stikes have became closed fist strikes, the tehnics and stances were modified and so on. So, the originaly meaning where lost, also thru the transformation of a deadly martial art into a form of education and healt/character development and also lately of the aspect of sport karate from today.

Fortunately they are today people who want to know if they can apply the tehnics and principles from various kata and recreate the originaly meanings that were lost in time. So my opinion is not to bother yourself with the question "why Dai and Sho" - just try to think out of the box (not just block/punch/kick). I personaly try to integrate all i can learn and adapt in my "Shotokan karate style". 

We practice the kata for they correct form (we have also kata and kumite competitions) but we also try to study the self-defense applications. So i try to learn and adapt ("We are the BORG - we will adapt") to broaden my horizon.

Best regards

Radu Munteanu

Hi

Just to put my 2c in...

The -dai form represents the completed teaching of the teachers curriculum, the -sho version is lesser than this and is incomplete. Just because the technique (as in solo movement in kata performance) does not appear in both does not mean the application principle (eg an arm entanglement) does not appear in both - just think how many ways the same joint manipulation or strangulation appear in kata, reperesented by different solo movements.

There was a conversation back in 2006 about this, and the following little hypothetical story helped to explain how I think (based on explanation to me) the sho forms came around:

Tom asks me to teach him the techniques I (as an experienced teacher) I have found to me most valuable to me in fighting/self defence typ situations. Tom is 6'4" and 220lbs of muscle. He stays for a week and I teach him all that I can think will be of use to him, he is extremely strong and powerful, and develops very direct way of applying what I teach. Tom and I can't read well, we dont have the skill to draw diagrams and photos, DVDs etc havent been invented yet so we follow our cultural lineage and devise a way of recording this information in a pattern that he can repeat himself in part or full to help him remember what I taught. He leaves happy on his travels to find more teachers and  refers to my teaching as "Ben's Techniques" - a kata.

The following week Dave appears at my dojo, he is 5'9" and thin, but still an experienced and capable martial artist. He wants me to teach him too, but he can only stay three days. I teach him what I can in that time, focussing on the things I find most valuable first.  Again we can't read well, we dont have the skill to draw diagrams and photos, DVDs etc havent been invented yet so we follow our cultural lineage and devise away of recording this information in a pattern that he can repeat himself in part or full to help him remember what I taught. I remind him that I hadnt finished teaching him yet, but I recognise its imporant for him that he remembers what he has been taught. Dave respects me and names his 'kata' "Most of Ben's Techniques"

Tom has been taught everything, but I didnt have enough time to finish teaching Dave so he has learnt less, and can teach less of what I think is useful than Tom.

Dave and Tom never meet eachother but learn off several teachers and collect techniques, training methods and the 'records' of what they have learned. They each have their own groupings of these records and open their  own schools, teaching what they find most useful and refering them back to me and their other teachers. They have students who go off and do the same, and so do their students. But then the students move away and to keep control of what is being taught a rule is made where the teaching can never change (unless the person that does change things is related to me or at least is from the same place), and this causes mass confusion some years later as different people are doing things differntly, though in a familiar way, but calling them the same thing! People are constantly arguing about who's is right, better, more accurate, the oldest etc and argue so much they spend too much time debating and not enough time training.

Sound familiar?

Now if you already have the -dai, why bother learning and teaching the -sho? Because the kata were not added because they were more functional etc, but because the training chnaged so much from a very deep level of understanding by relatively few people, to a more superficial understanding by a relatively larger number of people. The number of kata became associated with the value for money the customer gets if they sign up because it is just a sales ploy to attract in the naive student...to use another metaphor to illustrate this point...I sell paint, I have more colours of paint than the guy down the road, and more tin sizes and brush types so you can apply my paint to more surfaces than his...also my paint is made organically, and I learnt how to make this paint from a guy with historical links to people who used to paint on the walls of caves...so my products are better than the other guys, so come get your paint from me...

Hope this makes sense, and helps a little!

Regards

Ben

Iain Abernethy wrote:

There is another way to look the desire to avoid overlapping. It could be that the methods in the Dai versions are found elsewhere in Itosu’s new kata collective (i.e. the Heian series, etc) and hence he avoided repetition and included alternatives in the Sho versions.

Hi Iain

What a great explanation! I love the way you think. Sounds really logical and intuative...although Sod being what he is.. probably means it's not the case.

Anyway I am now going to have to rush off and revisit my sho kata (they never have been my favourate)

Does this also apply to Tekki Nidan and Tekki Sandan where they also Itosu's?

Cheers

Tom

DaveB wrote:

... There is some confusion about which version should be called Dai and which Sho, but this issue seems not to be present with the other dai-sho pairs....

The story I head was that when filming his famous video's Kanazawa got the name's muddled up for Gojushiho Sho and Dia. Given that this was the early 80's, no one dared raise the question (Kanazawa being clearly infaluable) which resulted in the SKI boys quickly swapping the names of their Gojushiho kata's, much to Kanazawa's surprise when he next visited....