I am not sure if you mean technical differences or not. Essentially, Fukuda's jū-no-kata
is how it was done at the joshi-bu
when she left Japan, and I would call it a 1955 version. Kanō-shihan
's description is limited as is usual in Japanese kata description. It is far more Westerners who always want to know if a hand or a foot has to be like this, and who rather than understanding the intention and essence, then stare themselves blind on that detail and consider everything different as wrong, or as a 'change'.
There are errors in the new Fukuda book. One has to understand that it is no longer Fukuda herself who performs everything but pupils who are good but not as good as she. I will give two differences between Fukuda and Kanō. One of the reasons of differences in the US is not just Fukuda's tradition, but misunderstandings between some of her students sometimes as well as Saito Eiko who is responsible for kata
in the US and Fukuda. In other words, it happens that Saito Eiko will claim that Fukuda does it this or that way or teaches it this or that way, when in fact that is not true. When you ask Fukuda she will often say something quite different from some of her students and something quite enlightening actually. In the US, we have gotten quite used to the fact that if you are clueless about something, then you simply say "Fukuda says that"
or "Fukuda does"
and you'll get away with it without anyone actually verifying if Fukuda truly said that or did that. Usually she never did.
does the American style jū-no-kata
not withdraw the left foot first. Nihoshi and Kōdōkan do.
Another difference. At the end of ryō-kata oshi
(second technique, second series), the American style and Fukuda style go stand on the tip of their toes. The Kōdōkan, and Umezu and Sameshima consider that wrong.
At the beginning of obi-tori
(first technique, third series), American style jū-no-kata
insists that the fingers are bent to the extent that there is a round opening in between thumb and index, and that the reason for that supposedly woul be that uke
would be grabbing the supposed swords of uke
. This is an explanation sometimes given for the attacks in Koshiki-no-kata
(techniques 2 & 3), although really it only applies to one of the variations of the attacks of Hiki-otoshi
No such stipulation exists in Japan, and after I had presented this explanation to Abe Ichirō (in charge of jū-no-kata
) and Umezu Katsuko, they both laughed at it. There is indeed nowhere any reference by Kanō-shihan
about such supposed grabbing of swords in jū-no-kata
, and as far as I am concerned it is one of the many creative fantasies produced by the mind of others. One question that a logically thinking person might ask is … why call it Obi-tori
instead of Daitō-dori
. These exercises do actually assume one wears a belt just like in Koshiki-no-kata
there is actually a thick belt on top of the yoroi
. Anyhow, this is another difference between the Kōdōkan version and the US which is attributed to Fukuda (although incorrect).
There are some other differences that though not prescribed are often done differently. In the US, many tori will stare to heaven for one reason or another when they lift uke like in Naname-uchi
. Why ? I have no idea. They really look like the exp
ression you find on the face of an angel on baroque or classicist paintings of Christianity in Europe. Very, very strange.