> So if then decide to train these kata in Wado why
> wouldn't it be possible to make one wado kata...in
> stead of all the variations.

Why?
If variations are not permitted, there will never be change, there will never be
advancement. Even if you take suhari into account, variations should be
permitted in order
to have a `live' ryu.
Not every change is for the better, obviously. But no change is worse because it
means
dead wado.

I'd say even the 9 `basic' katas aren't written in stone. Heaven help us if we
keep on
repeating Ohtsuka sensei for generations to come. After all, wado came about
because
Ohtsuka did NOT exactly copy previous masters.

Don't get me wrong. Change is tricky, very tricky business. To change things you
first
need to understand them. And who is to say who understands what? sometimes I
think I
understand. Only to realize later I merely scratched the surface.

And there is a distinct difference in status between the 9 `basic' katas and the
rest. The 9
katas arrived to us through Ohtsuka. To understand Ohtsuka is to understand the
9 katas.
Or so I suppose...
But the other katas came through various sources. To understand a kata, you need
to
delve into the source. Delving into the source of -say- Jitte from two different
lineages
may prove quite difficult. So how would you know what to keep and what to get
rid of
when `flattening out ' two variations of Jitte? Where did these extra teishos
come from?
Why? Are they perhaps the result of brilliant inspiration, or are they simply
wrong? And
what is the 'original' anyway? Who is to say?
I'd say flattening out variations isn't all that important and should only come
as a result of
comprehension, certainly not for the sake of politics.

Igor A