Groundfighting in karate

[Makalakumu]

To train in BJJ or wrestle then go back and claim to "see" the movements in kata that were there all along is just rediculous.

Why?

 

[fuyugoshi]

I think this links may be of your interest:

"The original five fighting arts practiced during Okinawa's Old Ryukyu Kingdom Period", by koryu-uchinadi (Patrick McCarthy), in: http://www.koryu-uchinadi.com/original_five_fighting_arts.htm

"Karate on the Ground", by Iain Abernethy, in: http://www.iainabernethy.com/articles/article_1.asp

"Tegumi", by Wikipedians, in: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tegumi

Alfredo

 

[Hawke]

Just thinking if I fell to the ground in ancient days I would die from a spear, horse, another enemy soldier.

A striking art can handle two opponents.

I have not studied BJJ, but going to guess that fighting two guys in BJJ may be a challenge if you're on the ground.

I still think it's good to cross train to fill in gaps. I personally would love to study BJJ for ground work.

I hear people say they have ground techniques as well (using atemi while on the ground), but it's a whole new world when you play with someone that actually spends most of their training on the ground.

 

[fuyugoshi]

Each one of us has a limited experience of martial arts. I find it hard to accept statements such as "there is no ground fighting in karate" from people who has never seen ground fighting in karate. That is like saying: "because i don't know it, it doesn't exist!!!!"

From my limited experience, there is ground fighting in karate, and it was around before MMA or BJJ. Of course, it was --and it is-- different than the BJJ ground fighting. BJJ ground fighting was developed as part of judo, which in turn is the popularized sport version of jujitsu. But BJJ, as judo, can easily be turn into a tough fighting discipline: just forget the joint locks and, instead, break the joints. That small change (from locking to breaking) would lead to a total overhaul of BJJ, and the final product may look like nineteenth century jujitsu.

The same happens with karate: if you change the goal from scoring points to killing or maiming the opponent, then the whole karate training would have to be overhauled too. In that scenario, ground fighting is just too dangerous, and everybody, I think, would try to evade it since the main objective is to finish the fight by incapacitating the enemy, which means, first, killing; second, maiming; last, submission, in that order.

Sport karate has no ground fighting because of the kumite rules they started using during the twentieth century, and those rules were created to promote a sport that ensures the safety of the participants. That is the karate most people practice around the world. Classical karate, as practiced in nineteenth century, has enough ground fighting to win and/or survive in fights with no boundaries. So, it is true, modern ground fighting as developed by Japanese judoka and perfected by BJJ people doesn't exist in karate.

Different purposes, different applications.

 

[eyebeams]

Each one of us has a limited experience of martial arts. I find it hard to accept statements such as "there is no ground fighting in karate" from people who has never seen ground fighting in karate. That is like saying: "because i don't know it, it doesn't exist!!!!"

No, it's like saying, "Because of the documented and researched history of karate, the known Okinawan wrestling traditions and the interpretations of exponents who predated modern MMA, we're pretty sure it doesn't exist."

From my limited experience, there is ground fighting in karate, and it was around before MMA or BJJ.

It's the 21st Century. Karate's origins and ancestor arts are no longer big mysteries. We can see the arts it came from today. There's no sustained groundfighting in them.

Of course, it was --and it is-- different than the BJJ ground fighting. BJJ ground fighting was developed as part of judo, which in turn is the popularized sport version of jujitsu. But BJJ, as judo, can easily be turn into a tough fighting discipline: just forget the joint locks and, instead, break the joints. That small change (from locking to breaking) would lead to a total overhaul of BJJ, and the final product may look like nineteenth century jujitsu.

See above.

The same happens with karate: if you change the goal from scoring points to killing or maiming the opponent, then the whole karate training would have to be overhauled too. In that scenario, ground fighting is just too dangerous, and everybody, I think, would try to evade it since the main objective is to finish the fight by incapacitating the enemy, which means, first, killing; second, maiming; last, submission, in that order.

That was not the historical goal of karate. The historical goal of karate was to provide physical culture and an array of force options to those Okinawan social classes who were primarily employed as a police and bodyguard service, or who had social ties to Chinese communities. If an Okinawan wanted to kill someone he'd beat him to death with a stick or in an emergency, get his sword from home and cut a guy's head off.

Sport karate has no ground fighting because of the kumite rules they started using during the twentieth century, and those rules were created to promote a sport that ensures the safety of the participants. That is the karate most people practice around the world. Classical karate, as practiced in nineteenth century, has enough ground fighting to win and/or survive in fights with no boundaries. So, it is true, modern ground fighting as developed by Japanese judoka and perfected by BJJ people doesn't exist in karate.

Different purposes, different applications.

19th century karate was a form of calisthenics that was designed to conform to Meiji cultural reforms. Before that, karate was a fusion of hequan, Monk Fist and Five Ancestors with influences from Southeast Asian martial arts and the Jigen-ryu, which was taught beside the traditional wrestling that still exists in Okinawa. We can talk to practitioners of al of theses and see that killing some dude is not the main thing, unless you're armed. Even the Bubishi doesn't emphasize killing anyone -- and in fact, it contains admonishments not to escalate a fight's force.

Like I said, this is the 21st Century, not the old era of karate-as-mystery art. There were no "peasants fighting samurai with fists and improvised tools." Anyone can find the Chinese Sanchin on Youtube. There's just no reason to let the old myths stand.

 

[MattJ]

Excellent post, eyebeams. Seen similar discussions ongoing at other forums, too.

BrianS......glutton for punishment. :boing1:

 

[fuyugoshi]

I am willing to accept your statements if you provide some kinf of sources. It may be books or tradition learned at your dojo. I haven't read a lot about ground fighting in karate, just what Abernethy says (check link in previous message. Also the article on "Tegumi") and what Wilder and Kane say in their book "the way of kata" (about Okinawan goju ryu kata). My instructors haven't told me any stories about it, however, we practiced ground fighting in 1984, and I Know that Higaonna Morio sensei has given some information publicly about ground fighting in goju ryu (I think it was in last year gasshuku in the USA). So you may or may not believe Abernethy, Kane and Wilder, Higaonna sensei and my own and small experience.

No, it's like saying, "Because of the documented and researched history of karate, the known Okinawan wrestling traditions and the interpretations of exponents who predated modern MMA, we're pretty sure it doesn't exist."

As I said, if you can refer to any reliable source that proves without a doubt that there wasn't any kind of ground fighting in Okinawan karate, I will recognize you are right.

It's the 21st Century. Karate's origins and ancestor arts are no longer big mysteries. We can see the arts it came from today. There's no sustained groundfighting in them.
See above.

Ok. If you can see the original arts as they were, let me know how you do it. I am willing to learn from those who know more. Just remember that Okinawan karate and mainland Japan karate are different. Most karate (not all), as practiced in mainland Japan, is a sport created in order to educate the youth.

That was not the historical goal of karate. The historical goal of karate was to provide physical culture and an array of force options to those Okinawan social classes who were primarily employed as a police and bodyguard service, or who had social ties to Chinese communities. If an Okinawan wanted to kill someone he'd beat him to death with a stick or in an emergency, get his sword from home and cut a guy's head off.

Karate has never had a historical goal. People train for different reasons. Schools develop philosophies and techniques according to their circumstances. You only need to start reading the books about karate written by 20th century masters to see that there was no agreement.

19th century karate was a form of calisthenics that was designed to conform to Meiji cultural reforms. Before that, karate was a fusion of hequan, Monk Fist and Five Ancestors with influences from Southeast Asian martial arts and the Jigen-ryu, which was taught beside the traditional wrestling that still exists in Okinawa. We can talk to practitioners of al of theses and see that killing some dude is not the main thing, unless you're armed. Even the Bubishi doesn't emphasize killing anyone -- and in fact, it contains admonishments not to escalate a fight's force.

Not really. It was not calisthenics. The change between "toudi" as a martial art and "karate" as a sport starts in 19th century, with Itosu and it was completed a few years after WWII. However, it doesn't mean that everybody adopted the ways of gendai budo. There are still people in Okinawa who keep the tradition. Iit is too bad that I can not say much about mainland Japan karate because I don't know it enough, but I heard that many organizations focus only in kihon, kata and kumite. If you think that is karate, I understand why you feel so confident about not having ne waza in karate.

About the killing, it is reasonable to think that every sensei and also the bubishi contains admonishments against it. However, once you start training how to fight, and once you start getting skills or polishing skills, then you need to level up your training. It means that you have to train how to defeat stronger opponents. It doesn't mean that you have to kill somebody. Sorry my words were not clear enough. On the other hand, I didn't say: "in 19th century people trained to kill", I said, "if we change the rules, and we go from scoring points to killing or maiming, then...". So, it was hypothetical. However, Higaonna Morio sensei in his book "The History of Karate. Okinawan Goju Ryu". Dragon Books, 2001. p22. ISBN 0-946062 36 6 says that in 1905, Higashionna Kanryo sensei had two different ways to teach: at the local high school, he taught an educational version of karate, but at home, he taught Naha-te (or nafadi) whose goal was to kill. He got this story from Miyagi An'ichi sensei, who got it from Miyagi Chojun sensei. Now, you can choose not to believe it, but that is not the only book on this topic.

Like I said, this is the 21st Century, not the old era of karate-as-mystery art. There were no "peasants fighting samurai with fists and improvised tools." Anyone can find the Chinese Sanchin on Youtube. There's just no reason to let the old myths stand.

I don't know why you talk about "mistery". There is no mistery in what I have been saying. I don't know why you talk about peasants fighting bare-handed against samurai, and I don't know why you talk about the Chinese san chien. All that is old news.

You may be surprised to know that Meibukan Goju ryu has some kata created by Yagi Meitoku sensei that starts and finish with the Chinese salute: one fist and one open hand. That way, Yagi sensei recognized the Chinese origins of Goju ryu. Also, some Okinawan goju ryu organizations keep an active exchange agenda with Chinese organizations.

But, hey, I am willing to accept your statements if you can back them up.

 

[eyebeams]

I am willing to accept your statements if you provide some kinf of sources. It may be books or tradition learned at your dojo. I haven't read a lot about ground fighting in karate, just what Abernethy says (check link in previous message. Also the article on "Tegumi") and what Wilder and Kane say in their book "the way of kata" (about Okinawan goju ryu kata).

Read the Bubishi. Look at Fujian quanfa. Learn the rules of Tegumi. Hell, learn what Tegumi is as a cultural practice, instead of as a Karate Magic Word.

My instructors haven't told me any stories about it, however, we practiced ground fighting in 1984, and I Know that Higaonna Morio sensei has given some information publicly about ground fighting in goju ryu (I think it was in last year gasshuku in the USA). So you may or may not believe Abernethy, Kane and Wilder, Higaonna sensei and my own and small experience.

There's a difference between fighting on the ground in a karate class and classical groundfighting techniques. One of them is quite common and based on cross-training and the existence of a few marginal techniques like leg-scissors and single-leg. The other is a fantasy concocted in reaction to the rise of BJJ.

As I said, if you can refer to any reliable source that proves without a doubt that there wasn't any kind of ground fighting in Okinawan karate, I will recognize you are right.

You cannot lay the burden of prof on the skeptical position. You are making the claim; it's up to you to argue it.

Ok. If you can see the original arts as they were, let me know how you do it. I am willing to learn from those who know more. Just remember that Okinawan karate and mainland Japan karate are different. Most karate (not all), as practiced in mainland Japan, is a sport created in order to educate the youth.

It's pretty easy. You can see Chinese Sanchin on Youtube these days.

Karate has never had a historical goal. People train for different reasons. Schools develop philosophies and techniques according to their circumstances. You only need to start reading the books about karate written by 20th century masters to see that there was no agreement.

This contradicts your earlier statement about killing, killing, rah rah rah and such. But we know what the Pechin class was, what they did and how martial arts were transmitted. There's no excuse to be Terribly Mysterious about Okinawa any more.

Not really. It was not calisthenics. The change between "toudi" as a martial art and "karate" as a sport starts in 19th century, with Itosu and it was completed a few years after WWII. However, it doesn't mean that everybody adopted the ways of gendai budo.

When a guys do kata together, it's calisthenics. Enbugata is fairly useless as a fight training method. The Tode Jukun comes right out and says ftness is the goal.

Lots of people have this fantasy that the pure karate is some version of the kata that's original, when the pure karate consists of largely doing away with kata entirely. Few people knew more than a half dozen until recently and fewer still practiced them as enbugata.

There are still people in Okinawa who keep the tradition. Iit is too bad that I can not say much about mainland Japan karate because I don't know it enough, but I heard that many organizations focus only in kihon, kata and kumite. If you think that is karate, I understand why you feel so confident about not having ne waza in karate.

I'm sure that karateka have tried lots of things on the ground. Do something for long enough and you'll try plenty of things. This should not be confused for a systematic or even adequate coverage of the topic. Saying karate has groundfighting in it is like saying draughts has blindfighting in it because when I was bored, I used to toss them over my shoulder as a parlour trick.

But the fact remains that there is no lineal root, textual evidence or consistent testimoney about systematized newaza in karate. There are guys like you claiming they totally did a sweep and a sidekick from the ground once, and guys in the 90s and beyond suddenly discovering they can do the "real" kata on their backs, despite the fact that the root arts *actually* get on their backs to do that kind of thing. And aside from some Matayoshi Shinpo stuff, there's none of that. If there was groundwork it would come from ditangquan/guoquan, but there's no sign of it ever being transmitted.

About the killing, it is reasonable to think that every sensei and also the bubishi contains admonishments against it. However, once you start training how to fight, and once you start getting skills or polishing skills, then you need to level up your training. It means that you have to train how to defeat stronger opponents. It doesn't mean that you have to kill somebody. Sorry my words were not clear enough. On the other hand, I didn't say: "in 19th century people trained to kill", I said, "if we change the rules, and we go from scoring points to killing or maiming, then...". So, it was hypothetical. However, Higaonna Morio sensei in his book "The History of Karate. Okinawan Goju Ryu". Dragon Books, 2001. p22. ISBN 0-946062 36 6 says that in 1905, Higashionna Kanryo sensei had two different ways to teach: at the local high school, he taught an educational version of karate, but at home, he taught Naha-te (or nafadi) whose goal was to kill. He got this story from Miyagi An'ichi sensei, who got it from Miyagi Chojun sensei. Now, you can choose not to believe it, but that is not the only book on this topic.

A single oral source that's three steps away and is about an offhanded comment made 103 years ago? Why *ever* would I suspect that hyperbole might have played a role?

 

[MattJ]

Fuyugoshi -

As I said, if you can refer to any reliable source that proves without a doubt that there wasn't any kind of ground fighting in Okinawan karate, I will recognize you are right.

*sound of buzzer*

As eyebeams noted, it is poor logic to ask the skeptic to disprove YOUR theory - you are the one making the claim, so YOU have to prove it. Not have it "unproven".

The lack of substantial historical evidence to support submission-style grappling as a part of regular karate practice IS proof that it most likely was not in there. Okinawa also had an entrenched culture of youth wrestling, so the perceived need to add in into karate (since wrestling was a common practice in itself) would not seem to be very high.

I do find it amusing that there was practically no mention of substantial groundfighting in karate before about 1991........:lookie:

 

[Makalakumu]

eyebeams - if you have an informative post lurking in your mind about Tegumi, please share. I'm curious to see what you have to write. I've always veiwed it as a separate grappling art from karate that most 19th century karateka were familiar with. I do no beleive the two cross pollinated. Karate's techniques, for the most part, are performed standing, however there are examples of techniques that attack downed opponents.

With that being said, I seem to be reading that you do not think Tegumi was a systemized way of groundfighting or that it was NOT on par with what exists now.

This debate is mostly academic for me as I teach my students a little judo, bjj, and wrestling in order to enhance their ground skills. The only place that it does affect what I do is how I explain myself. I tell my students that I am teaching this because the karateka of old assumed a basic knowledge of grappling and that there was a native grappling art that was practiced in Okinawa called Tegumi. Do you think my reasoning stands up to your information?

 

[fuyugoshi]

Fuyugoshi -
*sound of buzzer*

As eyebeams noted, it is poor logic to ask the skeptic to disprove YOUR theory - you are the one making the claim, so YOU have to prove it. Not have it "unproven".

Sound of buzzer? I thought that it was eyebeams who needed to prove his theory. I said that my statement was based in my experience and some books, which I mentioned. The first paragraph of my post says:

I am willing to accept your statements if you provide some kind of sources. It may be books or tradition learned at your dojo. I haven't read a lot about ground fighting in karate, just what Abernethy says (check link in previous message. Also the article on "Tegumi") and what Wilder and Kane say in their book "the way of kata" (about Okinawan goju ryu kata). My instructors haven't told me any stories about it, however, we practiced ground fighting in 1984, and I Know that Higaonna Morio sensei has given some information publicly about ground fighting in goju ryu (I think it was in last year gasshuku in the USA). So you may or may not believe Abernethy, Kane and Wilder, Higaonna sensei and my own and small experience.
​

Of course it is too bad that "modern" karate has no ground work. But, I don't think that Kane, Wilder, Abernethy, Higaonna and Matayoshi, are wrong just because they don't conform with your beliefs.

The lack of substantial historical evidence to support submission-style grappling as a part of regular karate practice IS proof that it most likely was not in there. Okinawa also had an entrenched culture of youth wrestling, so the perceived need to add in into karate (since wrestling was a common practice in itself) would not seem to be very high.

It is true that karate has no submission style grappling, I have never said otherwise. If that is what you and eyebeams think I said, I agree with you. However, I never said that. The style of karate I practice is very simple: get close to your opponent, take him down, finish him. That is the main strategy. So, if you don't ko your opponent when you are getting close to him, then you use your throws to make him crash against the floor or a wall, so just your nage waza may incapacitate him. If he still fights, then you go to the fallen fighter and you finish him. It means that you need to train how to incapacitate somebody on the floor. Of course that is not submission style grappling, as in BJJ, but it is orthodox goju ryu, as it has been taught in Okinawa during the 20th century, and as it is taught today. According to seniors, that is also the way it was taught before the 20th.
There is a description of normal training at Higaonna sensei dojo back in the 70's, written by Shotokan historian Harry Cook:

GN: So randori was a continu¬ous sparring, not stopping at a point?
HC: Yes, grappling, pulling the hair, arm-locks, fighting on the floor, chokes, grabbing the groin, thumbs in the eyes, what¬ever.(Harry Cook interviewed by Graham Noble in: http://www.kazokukai.com/Harry Cook.html)
​

As eyebeams noted, it is poor logic to ask the skeptic to disprove YOUR theory - you are the one making the claim, so YOU have to prove it. Not have it "unproven".

This is like a mirror, I thought Eyebeams was the skeptic, and I thought he had to prove his statements. In my little experience, there has always been ground fighting in karate. there was when I started, in the early 80's, there was before, as the Harry Cook's interview showsw, there was before, as the Higaonna book shows. It is not the BJJ/UFC style, of course.

You said it yourself: people in Okinawa used to practice their own style of wrestling, and they integrated it into their karate. Also, as a general rule, during the 20th century, and even today, many karateka trains judo in order to develop their wrestling skills. In other words, there was ground fighting in karate. And they did what most people do today, except that most people today choose to teach bjj or wrestling to complement their standing techniques. Karate was systematized for teaching purposes during the 20th century. Before that, Okinawan martial artist were very eclectic and heterodox: they cross-trained a lot, they train whatever they wanted, from tomari-te to shuri-te or naha-te, standing arts, wrestlings arts, weapons arts. Then, they integrated them into their personal training regimes.

And this leads me to eyebeams comment:

I'm sure that karateka have tried lots of things on the ground. Do something for long enough and you'll try plenty of things. This should not be confused for a systematic or even adequate coverage of the topic. Saying karate has groundfighting in it is like saying draughts has blindfighting in it because when I was bored, I used to toss them over my shoulder as a parlour trick.

That is a new restriction you just added: "systematic coverage of the topic", so you are asking karate, which is basically a standing art, to go beyond its needs? As I said from the beginning, there is ground fighting in karate.... but, I add now, ground fighting is not the focus, it is not the specialty of karate. If you need to further develop your ground fighting skills, take bjj, or judo, or wrestling. The karate styles as we know them today, were systematized the first half of the 20th century. Many styles, specially in mainland Japan, transformed their karate into a sport. Later, this sport oriented karate influenced Okinawan dojo, so many Okinawan karate was also transformed. So, the question, as I see it, is not whether there was ground fighting or not, but rather why they didn't include ground fighting anymore in most karate schools. Note, as Cook's interview shows, that it was still practiced by some people: not as a systematic discipline, like bjj, but as a necessity of our fighting style. (by the way, we probably practiced some ground fighting in the 80's because my sensei was one of the students of Higaonna sensei in Tokyo).

I don't think we are in total disagreement. I just think you expect too much from any system that includes ground fighting: karate has no "systematic coverage of the topic", but it has ground fighting.

A single oral source that's three steps away and is about an offhanded comment made 103 years ago? Why *ever* would I suspect that hyperbole might have played a role?

hyperbole? Ok.

 

[fuyugoshi]

Eyebeams

I think you have an idea of what kind of people defend the idea of ground fighting in karate, and that you try to apply it to me. For instance

Read the Bubishi. Look at Fujian quanfa. Learn the rules of Tegumi. Hell, learn what Tegumi is as a cultural practice, instead of as a Karate Magic Word.

1) You think I believe in magic
2) You think I haven't read the Bubishi
3) You think I haven't seen Fujian quanfa (not even in youtube)

There's a difference between fighting on the ground in a karate class and classical groundfighting techniques. One of them is quite common and based on cross-training and the existence of a few marginal techniques like leg-scissors and single-leg. The other is a fantasy concocted in reaction to the rise of BJJ.

4) You think I am reacting to the rise of BJJ despite I purposely mentioned the years I practiced ground fighting as part of my karate training (early 80's), which means you are not reading my post, but rather you are debating with a ghost, not with me.

You cannot lay the burden of prof on the skeptical position. You are making the claim; it's up to you to argue it.

5) Of course, you think you are right, and your claim is not a claim, but the truth; your theory is not a theory, but the truth. Therefore, it is me who is skeptical, not you, since it is you who believe you have the truth. Even if there were no books at all about this matter, I still have my training that proves me that there was ground fighting in karate at least, before the boom of BJJ in the mass-media. I accept my experience is not acceptable for you as a proof, I also think that the lack of information to back your claim, so this is an outlet.

It's pretty easy. You can see Chinese Sanchin on Youtube these days.

6) Both Chinese sanchin and Okinawan sanchin, as practiced today, are descendants of the old chinese sanchin. What is more, today there are different versions of sanchin in Okinawa and different versions in China. It was the same in the past. I am afraid, youtube is not going to help me see how chinese people used to train in the 18th and 19th centuries.

This contradicts your earlier statement about killing, killing, rah rah rah and such. But we know what the Pechin class was, what they did and how martial arts were transmitted. There's no excuse to be Terribly Mysterious about Okinawa any more.

7) No, it doesnt. I will quote the original statement, so you will see you are debating against a ghost, not against me:

From my limited experience, there is ground fighting in karate, and it was around before MMA or BJJ. Of course, it was --and it is-- different than the BJJ ground fighting. BJJ ground fighting was developed as part of judo, which in turn is the popularized sport version of jujitsu. But BJJ, as judo, can easily be turn into a tough fighting discipline: just forget the joint locks and, instead, break the joints. That small change (from locking to breaking) would lead to a total overhaul of BJJ, and the final product may look like nineteenth century jujitsu.

The same happens with karate: if you change the goal from scoring points to killing or maiming the opponent, then the whole karate training would have to be overhauled too. In that scenario, ground fighting is just too dangerous, and everybody, I think, would try to evade it since the main objective is to finish the fight by incapacitating the enemy, which means, first, killing; second, maiming; last, submission, in that order.

Sport karate has no ground fighting because of the kumite rules they started using during the twentieth century, and those rules were created to promote a sport that ensures the safety of the participants. That is the karate most people practice around the world. Classical karate, as practiced in nineteenth century, has enough ground fighting to win and/or survive in fights with no boundaries. So, it is true, modern ground fighting as developed by Japanese judoka and perfected by BJJ people doesn't exist in karate.

Different purposes, different applications.​

So I never claimed that karate groundfighting was a complete system. I also never claimed that the goal of karate was to kill the opponent. I don't know if you are reading the same text.

When guys do kata together, it's calisthenics. Enbugata is fairly useless as a fight training method. The Tode Jukun comes right out and says ftness is the goal.

8) I don't know what kind of karate you practiced, but mi kata practice is much more than calisthenics

9) what is "embugata"? I don't know the term.

10) The ten precepts were written by Itosu in order to promote karate into a school system that has -among others- the task of preparing the future soldiers of the Emperor. I think you should read them, specially the second precept.

Lots of people have this fantasy that the pure karate is some version of the kata that's original, when the pure karate consists of largely doing away with kata entirely. Few people knew more than a half dozen until recently and fewer still practiced them as enbugata.

11) You think I have a fantasy about something called "pure karate". Well, I don't. In classical Karate cross-training was normal, and expected.

12) The fact that most people didn't know more than -as you say- hal dozen kata, proves.... What?

I'm sure that karateka have tried lots of things on the ground. Do something for long enough and you'll try plenty of things. This should not be confused for a systematic or even adequate coverage of the topic. Saying karate has groundfighting in it is like saying draughts has blindfighting in it because when I was bored, I used to toss them over my shoulder as a parlour trick.

13) the ghost again: I didn't talk about a "ground fighting system" in karate.

14) If you need to develop your ground skills beyond what karate demands, then join bjj, judo or wrestling gyms. But despite your ironies, there was. An irony is not a proof of anything.

But the fact remains that there is no lineal root, textual evidence or consistent testimoney about systematized newaza in karate. There are guys like you claiming they totally did a sweep and a sidekick from the ground once, and guys in the 90s and beyond suddenly discovering they can do the "real" kata on their backs, despite the fact that the root arts *actually* get on their backs to do that kind of thing. And aside from some Matayoshi Shinpo stuff, there's none of that. If there was groundwork it would come from ditangquan/guoquan, but there's no sign of it ever being transmitted.

15) I think the keyword in your theory is the word "systematized". As I recognized in my initial posting, in the very first, karate ground fighting practices are not specialized systems as bjj, judo or wrestling, but karate (at least Okinawan goju ryu) trains some ground fighting because it is a requirement of the third stage of the main fighting strategy: first, get close; second, take down; third, finish.

16) Not realizing that some groundfighting is needed for the third stage is extremely blind. Thinking that 19th century masters didn't realized it is a mistake. You can not underestimate people.

A single oral source that's three steps away and is about an offhanded comment made 103 years ago? Why *ever* would I suspect that hyperbole might have played a role?

17) Oral sources is the problem with martial arts history. They are unavoidable.

 

[eyebeams]

eyebeams - if you have an informative post lurking in your mind about Tegumi, please share. I'm curious to see what you have to write. I've always veiwed it as a separate grappling art from karate that most 19th century karateka were familiar with. I do no beleive the two cross pollinated. Karate's techniques, for the most part, are performed standing, however there are examples of techniques that attack downed opponents.

With that being said, I seem to be reading that you do not think Tegumi was a systemized way of groundfighting or that it was NOT on par with what exists now.

This debate is mostly academic for me as I teach my students a little judo, bjj, and wrestling in order to enhance their ground skills. The only place that it does affect what I do is how I explain myself. I tell my students that I am teaching this because the karateka of old assumed a basic knowledge of grappling and that there was a native grappling art that was practiced in Okinawa called Tegumi. Do you think my reasoning stands up to your information?

I think you absolutely have the right idea.

 

[fuyugoshi]

I think you absolutely have the right idea.

I also think upnorthkyosa is right. About grappling being part of karate, I would like to quote :

Karate is much more than simple punching and kicking and blocking. It is the study of weaponry and of grappling. Weaponry and empty hand fighting go together. How can you learn about defending against a weapon unless you are familiar with what the weapon can do?
[Soken-sensei used the Spanish word for wrestling when describing this art-form but I felt that a more apt term would be grappling - much like Japanese-style jujutsu. He stated that many people often referred to the Okinawan grappling arts as Okinawan-style wrestling mainly because it was never systematized and looked like a free-for-all form of fighting.
(Interview with Hohan Soken, by Ernest Estrada, 1978. In: http://www.karate.org.yu/articles/soken_interview2.htm)
​

For Hohan Soken, training included punching, kicking, blocking, weaponry and grappling. By grappling, he referred to tegumi, which, as you said, eyebeams, was never systematized. During the XX century, the practice of tegumi was replaced mainly by the practice of judo, or, as has happened in many places, was lost. I think we both can be satisfied with this conclusion.

There is also some statements made by Hohan Soken about people dying as a result of fights:

Why do you want to know these things -- these old ideas, these old ways. Their old value was to survive a challenge match. You punch me and I will show you ... good karate means you also test yourself through pain. Like pain... in good karate... movements are quick, like a mongoose. If you are slow, you can die. If you are quick, then there is a chance that you and your family (???) will live.
Interviewer: Yes, fighting must have been very different at the beginning of this century.
Sensei: Yes, you don't know these old days. In a fight... if you would lose, the loss would be suffered by your family. They could die. You would work hard to support the family working all day, If you were injured or killed while fighting, then your family would starve... maybe even die. Okinawa life was very hard. (Interview with Hohan Soken, by Ernest Estrada, 1978. In: http://www.karate.org.yu/articles/soken_interview2.htm)
​

In 19th century Okinawa, it was easier to end up crippled or death as a result of a fight, since medicine was not very advanced, and free medical care and medical insurances were not that spread. So techniques that today are not considered killing techniques were extremely more dangerous in those days.

Hohan Soken was born in 1889, and he was one of the few karateka trained according to the old ways who lived during most of the 20th century. He died in 1982.

I hope this settles our differences.

Peace

 

[chinto]

are there techniques that are effective on the ground in Okinawan Karate kata? the answer is yes, but the art is not aimed at submission locks and holds as much as putting the attacker down in such a way he is to injured to be a threat or is dead. the main idea was and is to stay on your feet and take the other guy out.
However, the art was developed in an environment where often the attacker was a trained jujitsu practitioner or trained in one or more other arts! Grappling arts such as jujitsu were not unknown on Okinawa and they knew they would face such arts at times. there is a LOT of stand up grappling in traditional Okinawan karate and locks and brakes and throws as well as strikes and kicks.
I would be very surprised to find out that most traditional arts that are over 130 years old do not have some techniques and strategies for dealing with being on the ground!
I would also bet that most or all of them that age have the intent of being on the ground as short a time as possible and leaving the other guy on the ground badly broken and injured or dead. but staying on the ground in a real fight/combat situation was and is counter productive as his friends are going to kick your head and ribs in while you are there!! and they never come singly do they??

 

[e ship yuk]

Iain Abernethy's newest podcast deals with groundfighting in karate.

Posted April 9, 2008

 

[Tez3]

In Wado Ryu karate there is ground fighting. Otsuka Sensei the founder was also a Jujutsu master so he taught it within his karate. Iain Abernethy is a Wado practitioner, it is very easy to see in the Wado Ryu katas where applications were put for ground fighting.
I think people are getting their knickers in a twist over this, if you don't want to practice ground techniques in your karate then don't, if you want to, do. There is no right or wrong here really. Rather than argue hypotheticals I'd rather train.

 

[Hand Sword]

To save the arguing, I would add, as most of us know, movements crossover. So what can be done standing, can be done on the ground as well. Whether it was or wasn't in there, or put in there by the founders, was intentional or not, it's in there.

 

[DavidCC]

self-defense on the ground is far, far less complicated than sport grappling on the ground. which is why this is a silly thread

 

[fuyugoshi]

self-defense on the ground is far, far less complicated than sport grappling on the ground. which is why this is a silly thread

Brian_S wanted to know whether or not there was ne waza in karate. That is not silly. At least now it seems that most people agree that there is ne waza in karate.

:high5: