which karate styles have alot of grappling in its system?

[jwmims]

What Japanese karate styles have alot of grappling such as ,takedowns,throws,joint locks in it s system?I been looking for a good Hapkido school but there is not any near to me.Would like to learn something that would be maybe 50% striking and 50% grappling,is there any martial art like that?Any and all advice is most welcome,cheers,
James

 

[arnisador]

Hmmmm. Wado-ryu probably best fits your description among major Japanese karate systems. If you think outside that box there are many more options. By grappling do you mean Judo-style, jujutsu-style, or...?

 

[James Kovacich]

What Japanese karate styles have alot of grappling such as ,takedowns,throws,joint locks in it s system?I been looking for a good Hapkido school but there is not any near to me.Would like to learn something that would be maybe 50% striking and 50% grappling,is there any martial art like that?Any and all advice is most welcome,cheers,
James

It's not your part of Texas but they have what you seek.
http://www.hayashismartialarts.com/Classes.html



Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2

 

[K-man]

What Japanese karate styles have alot of grappling such as ,takedowns,throws,joint locks in it s system?I been looking for a good Hapkido school but there is not any near to me.Would like to learn something that would be maybe 50% striking and 50% grappling,is there any martial art like that?Any and all advice is most welcome,cheers,
James

Unless the instructor has cross trained, most Japanese karate styles have very little grappling. On the other hand, the Okinawan styles are less sport oriented and have more close techniques. :asian:

 

[arnisador]

I agree--Okinawan styles have a lot of inherent grappling. However, many instructors don't bring it out.

 

[Zero]

I'm inclined to agree with K-man, at least regarding the comments on Okinawan styles such as goju ryu. In the goju kata bunkai there are many techniques, or I should say, applications which can be grappling moves, grips or joint locks. However, this will be very much on a club by club basis and many clubs now focus mainly on stand up/striking alone and the kata interpretations of such. It will come down to a large degree on how lucky you get with the club or sensei you have in your locality in what you are looking for. Some goju clubs routinely spar much like MMA or freestyle with striking and takedowns/submissions allowed. A difference being with tradiitonal training is that on your opponent being on the ground a lot of the traditional finishing moves such as stomps and head strikes are applied from a standing or low stance, rather than commited ground work. But as noted above, in my old club we used to spend time freestyle sparing and doing solely ground work sessions.

Only from personal experience of training/visiting other clubs of different karate styles I would say I do not see a lot, if any, grappling or joint work or takedowns - outside of sweeps. Probably due to the high competiton rules focus such as kyokoshin. I don't know much about wado-ryu but that might also be a bet as Arnisador says, maybe due to the initial Okinawan influences...

I wish you luck on your search!

 

[Grenadier]

Wado Ryu generally tends to use more "soft" techniques in it, since Ohtsuka Shihan did have quite an extensive knowledge of Shintoyoshin Ryu Ju Jutsu, and he incorporated a good bit of it into the Wado Ryu system.

That being said, it comes down to the specific instructor of a school, and how he teaches the art.

I've seen quite a few Shotokan schools incorporate a lot of Ju Jutsu into them, and at the same time, a lot of Wado schools that lean more heavily towards the striking aspect.

 

[K-man]

Only from personal experience of training/visiting other clubs of different karate styles I would say I do not see a lot, if any, grappling or joint work or takedowns - outside of sweeps. Probably due to the high competiton rules focus such as kyokoshin. I don't know much about wado-ryu but that might also be a bet as Arnisador says, maybe due to the initial Okinawan influences...

I have the same experience. Most places spend a lot of time on kihon then a bit of kata, a bit of kumite and the session is over. My classes are two and a half hours so we have more time to play around with locks, holds, takedowns etc. Time is the enemy! :asian:

 

[chinto]

It very much does depend on the Instructor. Goju Ryu and Shobayashi Shorin Ryu and several other systems have a great deal of grappling in them when taught properly. brakes throws, locks are actually part of a lot of Okinawan styles.

 

[frank raud]

What Japanese karate styles have alot of grappling such as ,takedowns,throws,joint locks in it s system?I been looking for a good Hapkido school but there is not any near to me.Would like to learn something that would be maybe 50% striking and 50% grappling,is there any martial art like that?Any and all advice is most welcome,cheers,
James

Most westernized jiu jitsu/ju jutsu styles will be closer to that combination of striking and grappling than most karate styles.

 

[arnisador]

That's a good point--jujutsu is the art that has tended to become more balanced in this regard, not karate!

 

[K-man]

Depends on how much time you want to spend on the ground. Technically even aikido has plenty of kicks and punches if you delve below the surface. And the rest is all locks holds and takedowns. :asian:

 

[Kong Soo Do]

What Japanese karate styles have alot of grappling such as ,takedowns,throws,joint locks in it s system?I been looking for a good Hapkido school but there is not any near to me.Would like to learn something that would be maybe 50% striking and 50% grappling,is there any martial art like that?Any and all advice is most welcome,cheers,
James

Karate has everything you've mentioned plus things you haven't mentioned...if it is taught correctly. If it doesn't then it has either been altered or the instructor is lacking in specific knowledge within the art.

 

[arnisador]

Karate has everything you've mentioned plus things you haven't mentioned...if it is taught correctly. If it doesn't then it has either been altered or the instructor is lacking in specific knowledge within the art.

The most popular styles have been altered from the Okinawan original. You won't find much grappling in Shotokan and its main variants. They're being taught as they are--very striking-focused systems. I prefer the Okinawan systems but alteration happens. If karate couldn't be altered there'd be no Tae Kwon Do; and in fact, Okinawan karate is primarily altered Southern Chinese kung fu. In general, evolution like this is healthy--whether a given art fits your needs or not, it creates many to choose from with their own innovations.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

The most popular styles have been altered from the Okinawan original. You won't find much grappling in Shotokan and its main variants. They're being taught as they are--very striking-focused systems. I prefer the Okinawan systems but alteration happens. If karate couldn't be altered there'd be no Tae Kwon Do; and in fact, Okinawan karate is primarily altered Southern Chinese kung fu. In general, evolution like this is healthy--whether a given art fits your needs or not, it creates many to choose from with their own innovations.

I fully agree that most have been changed from the way they were originally taught. And though change can be good in many things, I don't think this would necessarily be one of them. By turning Karate into a predominately strike/kicking art you have in essense watered it down. Now this could have been on purpose to make it more kid-friendly (Itosu), it could have been to make turn it into a sport-oriented art or it could have been simply because the instructor at some point didn't have the full knowledge of the system and in turn taught it to students who later became instructors and so forth. Anyway you slice it, information was removed or not learned. In some cases it was necesary such as teaching children or adjusting the art to a sport environment. We don't really want to be teaching children to choke each other out etc. But I think that, at least originally, the thought was to teach the children the basic movements and later in life they learn more advanced applications from the same movements. That is my personal belief and it makes sense.

I think a lot of servicemen (from the allied countries) learned a form of Karate after WWII and took that basic knowledge back home with them, but were not trained fully in the arts. Whether this was due to lack of training time before rotation back stateside (or whatever country) or a desire not to teach the invaders the full art or a combination of both. This has long been my contention on the art of TKD in that very few Koreans knew the full art and therefore it wasn't passed on in any meaningful way. Rather the block/punch/kick version of the art was learned enmass and passed on to subsequent generations who in turn became instructors and passed it on etc. This doesn't mean a particular art sucks per se, just that it is less than what it came from. Uechi Ryu, in my opinion suffered from something similar. First, I don't believe Uechi Kanbun Sensei learned the full art of Pangainoon. Certainly he did not learn the fourth kata, bringing only three back to Okinawa. Secondly, much information on the art was lost in a house fire after his passing. All Uechi Kanei Sensei had at that point was the knowledge that was passed on to him at that point. So we have two consecutive points of diminishing return so-to-speak.

Learning the block/punch/kick aspect, from the point of the totality of an art, is relatively easy. Learning the the more advance applications such as the OP presented can be quite an indepth undertaking. It requires dedication, experience, patience and all that sort of martial artsy stuff. Some simply don't want to muck around with all that stuff in their quest to become a master or grandmaster or supreme grandmaster. But on the flip side, it is there for those that aren't in a hurry.

 

[arnisador]

I think we're mostly in agreement, though I think the biggest change came as Gichen Funakoshi dealt with his Japanese students who had a certain view of what the art "should" be like. Certainly teaching it to children had an effect too--rows of kids doing a "rising block" is a lot easier to teach. But the typical American servicemen studying for a year or two and returning here couldn't have gotten the whole idea of the art even if they had been shown all the techniques.

I took Uechi-Ryu for a couple of years and found it fascinating, but I too am familiar with the theory that he did not learn the fourth and final form. (I don't know that anyone can be sure of what Pangainoon was.) No doubt it was further modified by the Okinawan students' perceptions of what it should be like once again.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

I took Uechi-Ryu for a couple of years and found it fascinating, but I too am familiar with the theory that he did not learn the fourth and final form. (I don't know that anyone can be sure of what Pangainoon was.) No doubt it was further modified by the Okinawan students' perceptions of what it should be like once again.

Agreed. Look at the changes that Uechi Kanei Sensei instituted such as the addition of the five intermediate kata. Was this necessary? Perhaps it was a great addition to the art and the next logical step. Or, perhaps, with respect intended, he didn't fully understand the three kata his father taught him.

I think we're mostly in agreement, though I think the biggest change came as Gichen Funakoshi dealt with his Japanese students who had a certain view of what the art "should" be like. Certainly teaching it to children had an effect too--rows of kids doing a "rising block" is a lot easier to teach. But the typical American servicemen studying for a year or two and returning here couldn't have gotten the whole idea of the art even if they had been shown all the techniques.

Agreed. I'm not really keen on the changes he instituted in the art, but understand the climate of the times and the compromises that needed to be made in order to accomplish certain goals.

Well, it is what it is these days and like TKD, Karate can be many things to many people. It can be day care for the youngster. It can lighten your wallet if you want to spends large amounts of money on pieces of paper and colored cloth. It can be something to get you off the couch. It can be something to satisfy a competitive streak. And finally, Karate can actually be something you can use to defend yourself. The trick these days is to know which one satifies which goal.
:uhyeah:

 

[donald1]

if you live in texas, there is a tae kwon doe school that also has hapkido- if you are in the area and have questions the website at the bottom has the information you seek[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]
3000 Bellmead Drive
Waco, Texas 76705 (254) 867-1414
http://www.ShinsMartialArts.com

[/FONT]

 

[FullPotentialMA]

Grappling is an integral part of traditional martial arts, be they karate, or be they the Chinese origins of the Okinawan and Japanese karate. Some instructors teach more of the grappling applications, other less. You just, as an example, have to look into karate kata to see that there is a very fertile ground there with lots of grappling. In our dojo in San Diego, we explore those.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Will you be able to dig out how to do a "hip throw" from your Kata that doesn't even have a move that looks like "bending head down to touch your knee"? IMO, "cross training" is better approach.