# Psuedo-bunkai for the grappling craze



## punisher73 (Sep 24, 2013)

I see this more and more.  Trying to justify and make up applications/bunkai to karate to make it fit for ground grappling.  Yes, the katas had certain ground fighting principles and locks/throws etc.  But, getting into a ground grappling match was not a part of those applications.

I have also seen someone teaching Naihanchi kata and using the crossover step at the beginning to say that it was a hidden triangle choke.

My opinion is, if you want to incorporate ground grappling into what you do then do so.  But say where you got it from and stop saying that it is in the moves of the kata.


----------



## sopraisso (Sep 24, 2013)

Lol. It's really a crazy trend, and it really makes no sense, particularly from a self-defense point of view, where the ground is absolutely the last place where you should be, and the place where you never should remain. By the way, the situation changes drastically when you come to a no rules setting with bites, groin, eyes and back of neck shots. Even the jujutsu and certainly the BJJ taught today doesn't usually represent what it was in the time when the arts were really meant to be deadly force against deadly force.

Enviado de meu GT-I9300 usando Tapatalk 4


----------



## arnisador (Sep 24, 2013)

Preach on! people would find American Sign Language hidden in the kata if that was the latest craze. It's a scam, or at least fooling oneself.


----------



## Takai (Sep 24, 2013)

arnisador said:


> Preach on! people would find American Sign Language hidden in the kata if that was the latest craze. It's a scam, or at least fooling oneself.



I think you nailed it. 

"***** at best" or the immortal words of Master Ken "Bull$%#@"

Now please, excuse I have to get back to teaching my Vang Shoo class.


----------



## K-man (Sep 24, 2013)

arnisador said:


> Preach on! people would find American Sign Language hidden in the kata if that was the latest craze. It's a scam, or at least fooling oneself.


Could I suggest it is not a scam and I'm not sure whether they are fooling themselves or not. This guy has links to Iain Abernethy so I am quite prepared to cut him some slack. There are huge numbers go grappling techniques contained within the kata and there is absolutely no reason why certain of these techniques couldn't be used on the ground. The counter to the idea that kata was designed with the ground in mind is given by *sopraisso. *Why would you *want* to be on the ground. Kata works on the _'if this doesn't work, do this' principle_. In this case the throw was successful so why go to the ground?  I'm not so sure that any kata has as its ideal, '_if you stuff up here and go to the ground, do this_'. The other thing about the video shown was that the technique shown was quite technical. Now that might be fine in a controlled sporting or dojo environment, but on the street with the adrenalin kicking in and the blood flowing, gross motor skills are the order of the day.  In RBSD if you go to the ground you do something really nasty and get up as quickly as possible. Submission holds would make no sense, chokes and strangles ... perhaps.
:asian:


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 25, 2013)

I'm one of those guys that likes to take applications in the kata and start applying them in different situations...including the ground. I think there is plenty of historical research to back this approach up. Perhaps the modern approach is unnaturally devoid of various grappling methods because of the way karate was reconceptualized?

Anyway, I think there is value to practicing Naihanchi on your back. Study it standing, study it on your back. Shake up the creative juices and see what comes of it. If karate can be reconceptualized in the 1900s it can be done again.


----------



## punisher73 (Sep 25, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> I'm one of those guys that likes to take applications in the kata and start applying them in different situations...including the ground. I think there is plenty of historical research to back this approach up. Perhaps the modern approach is unnaturally devoid of various grappling methods because of the way karate was reconceptualized?
> 
> Anyway, I think there is value to practicing Naihanchi on your back. Study it standing, study it on your back. Shake up the creative juices and see what comes of it. If karate can be reconceptualized in the 1900s it can be done again.



I think that there is a big difference between studying a kata in different scenarios and situations and putting it down on the ground and saying that the strikes shown are for ground grappling.  Movement is movement is movement.  So, yes, you are probably able to find motions and applications that can be used on the ground.  But we aren't talking about a joint lock from a kata and learning to apply the same joint lock from the ground.  I have no issue with that.  I'm talking about pure sport grappling applications that were never taught or shown by ANY karate organization until after the grappling craze took hold and now you are seeing sport grappling techniques being taught in a traditional kata.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 25, 2013)

punisher73 said:


> I think that there is a big difference between studying a kata in different scenarios and situations and putting it down on the ground and saying that the strikes shown are for ground grappling.  Movement is movement is movement.  So, yes, you are probably able to find motions and applications that can be used on the ground.  But we aren't talking about a joint lock from a kata and learning to apply the same joint lock from the ground.  I have no issue with that.  I'm talking about pure sport grappling applications that were never taught or shown by ANY karate organization until after the grappling craze took hold and now you are seeing sport grappling techniques being taught in a traditional kata.



This isn't necessarily a counter point, but consider the fact that so much of what gets practiced now as karate was completely absent in the curriculum 100 years ago.  Take line drills for instance.  These are segments of the kata that were chopped out and put on repeat in order to drill school children in a military manner.  These drills have very little to do with grappling or even with the kata if one truly considers the applications.

Noting this, contrast it to the example of people looking at the moves in the kata and "finding" sport grappling techniques.  It might be ********, but at least it's a step in the right direction.  Also, in all honesty, I think there is a level of grappling/ground fighting techniques taught by the kata.  It is not as sophisticated as BJJ, but then you don't need very sophisticated grappling in most SD situations.  

Anyway, to sum up my point, I'd rather point my fingers at the silly things that were passed down through the generations that have absolutely no practical use.  Ultimately, if someone came up with a really cool way to teach some sport grappling using kata, would it be as bad as some of the weird stuff that every accepts as normal?


----------



## RTKDCMB (Sep 25, 2013)

It's not just in Karate and not just ground grappling ether. It happens a lot in Tae Kwon Do. You see a lot of instructors take a movement from a pattern and show an application and believe that it is an application just because it vaguely resembles a movement in the pattern and when they do the application they have to add movements to it and/or modify the movement from the pattern to make it fit (like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole, it will fit you just have to force it in). On a side note the short sequence from the Kata in the video is identical to Toi Gye hyung in Tae Kwon Do.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 25, 2013)

This is a huge problem with Korean variants of karate.  Tang Soo Do, Tae Kwon Do, etc, are even further removed from the source and have spun the material in their own cultural directions.  The problem is that the original method of transmission has been lost.  The original pedagogy of the kata is very different that how these arts are now taught.  Mixing these two approaches does not work well.


----------



## arnisador (Sep 25, 2013)

punisher73 said:


> I think that there is a big difference between studying a kata in different scenarios and situations and putting it down on the ground and saying that the strikes shown are for ground grappling.



This is what I'm saying.

My favorite example is the relatively recent Hwa Rang Do book that says that HRD was _always_ about ground grappling, but people weren't ready for that before now.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 25, 2013)

arnisador said:


> This is what I'm saying.
> 
> My favorite example is the relatively recent Hwa Rang Do book that says that HRD was _always_ about ground grappling, but people weren't ready for that before now.



It would be far better to simply expand the scope of the art to include these things within it's existing philosophy.  That said, I think that if people are developing applications that work in grappling situations based off of kata techniques, awesome!


----------



## Koshiki (Sep 26, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> It would be far better to simply expand the scope of the art to include these things within it's existing philosophy.  That said, I think that if people are developing applications that work in grappling situations based off of kata techniques, awesome!



Likewise. As far as I'm concerned, if it works, than I don't really care whether the teacher picked it up from secret monks living in cave temples in Nebraska, or by watching the UFC. I view kata, not as a tool to figure out what the katas creator was viewing as bunkai 50, 100, 400 years ago, but as a tool to make me think, "hmmm, what ELSE could this be?" You try stuff out, you explore stuff, you find out what works, what works but only with a non-resistant opponent and a lot of luck, and what is just plain bologna. If someone wants to claim that a straight punch in a forward stance in some traditional kata is actually a flying armbar, well, I might not exactly buy it, but if that tool is what flicked the light bulb on over their head to go out and learn the technique, sure, why not, go for it.

That said, claiming that Pinan Sandan was intended to be done rolling around on your back... might be a little... far fetched...


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 26, 2013)

Zack Cart said:


> That said, claiming that Pinan Sandan was intended to be done rolling around on your back... might be a little... far fetched...



I have a killer take down and pin for the opening sequence in that kata!  I need to get it on film soon.


----------



## Koshiki (Sep 26, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> I have a killer take down and pin for the opening sequence in that kata!  I need to get it on film soon.



Do you manage to do it while remaining standing? I enjoy any and all bunkai, even when the connection is so remote as to be unrecognizable. It's a training tool, an exploration prompt. however, my favourite bunkai are the really clever, really unexpected ones which yet hold very closely to the formal movements. Let us know if you get it filmed!


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 26, 2013)

Zack Cart said:


> Do you manage to do it while remaining standing? I enjoy any and all bunkai, even when the connection is so remote as to be unrecognizable. It's a training tool, an exploration prompt. however, my favourite bunkai are the really clever, really unexpected ones which yet hold very closely to the formal movements. Let us know if you get it filmed!



The bunkai I had in mind starts standing and takes the person down.  It ends in a leg lock in a bent leg crouched position.

Here is a video of a standing bunkai that I take to the ground.


----------



## Koshiki (Sep 26, 2013)

Aha. Quite interpreted and involved, that one is.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 26, 2013)

Zack Cart said:


> Aha. Quite interpreted and involved, that one is.



The start of it is the beginning of an action that can play out in a sequence. A whole lesson could extrapolate off this one small section of kata.


----------



## K-man (Sep 26, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> The start of it is the beginning of an action that can play out in a sequence. A whole lesson could extrapolate off this one small section of kata.


My imagination is good, but not that good. This what I would call the interpretation of one technique in the kata, not the application of the kata. 

If you used the kata against the shoot, I don't have a problem. Once you start rolling around on the floor, it is against the main principle of kata being a fighting system where all techniques are potentially fight ending. That is why I believe there cannot be any blocks in kata. If following the take down the next technique was a strike, perhaps with the point of the elbow, then I might see the next part of the kata. You demonstrate the kata through to gedan barai but in the application you stop at the sleeve choke that to me looks nothing like the kata.
:asian:


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 26, 2013)

K-man said:


> My imagination is good, but not that good. This what I would call the interpretation of one technique in the kata, not the application of the kata.
> 
> If you used the kata against the shoot, I don't have a problem. Once you start rolling around on the floor, it is against the main principle of kata being a fighting system where all techniques are potentially fight ending. That is why I believe there cannot be any blocks in kata. If following the take down the next technique was a strike, perhaps with the point of the elbow, then I might see the next part of the kata. You demonstrate the kata through to gedan barai but in the application you stop at the sleeve choke that to me looks nothing like the kata.
> :asian:



If I follow through with the "down block" motion after securing the hand position for the sleeve choke, it becomes a neck crank. If I perform the technique standing, there is a moment where the head becomes secured in the stomach and it becomes a neck crank. Both of those I'm not comfortable putting on YouTube. This application uses the principle, drops to the ground, pins someone down, and is not that extreme. To me, this is an example of how you could apply kata in a grappling situation.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Sep 26, 2013)

*Most of the reinvention I have seen is crap* when compared to actual grappling systems that have been around a long time.  I would advise anyone who is interested in becoming good at grappling to train with grapplers in grappling systems.  Please train with practitioners of Brazilian Jiujitsu, Judo, Wrestling, Sambo, etc.  Learn the proper body mechanics and it will pay of in spades for you!!!


----------



## arnisador (Sep 26, 2013)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> *Most of the reinvention I have seen is crap* when compared to actual grappling systems



I agree, but it's the fact that it's misleading that gets to me. Some here are talking about trying to interpret their kata as expansively and imaginatively as possible, and I have no problems with that--but don't tell me that Chojun Miyagi cleverly hid the De la Riva guard in Gekisai kata.


----------



## Jaeimseu (Sep 26, 2013)

arnisador said:


> I agree, but it's the fact that it's misleading that gets to me. Some here are talking about trying to interpret their kata as expansively and imaginatively as possible, and I have no problems with that--but don't tell me that Chojun Miyagi cleverly hid the De la Riva guard in Gekisai kata.



But it's way cool to teach "hidden" techniques.

Sent from my SHV-E210K using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 26, 2013)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> *Most of the reinvention I have seen is crap* when compared to actual grappling systems that have been around a long time.  I would advise anyone who is interested in becoming good at grappling to train with grapplers in grappling systems.  Please train with practitioners of Brazilian Jiujitsu, Judo, Wrestling, Sambo, etc.  Learn the proper body mechanics and it will pay of in spades for you!!!



I wonder about that. What if you had a guy who trained and those arts and the extrapolated on a kata technique to add some grappling to karate. It wouldn't be as good as the specialists, but then again it doesn't need to be. If you could get a karate BB and roll with BJJ blue belts that would be good enough.


----------



## Koshiki (Sep 27, 2013)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> *Most of the reinvention I have seen is crap* when compared to actual grappling systems that have been around a long time. I would advise anyone who is interested in becoming good at grappling to train with grapplers in grappling systems. Please train with practitioners of Brazilian Jiujitsu, Judo, Wrestling, Sambo, etc. Learn the proper body mechanics and it will pay of in spades for you!!!



Some people don't neccesarrily want to be good at grappling, per se. They want to strike, and be familiar enough with grappling, that against those not trained in grappling, the can do SOMETHING in ranges where their primary training is inefficient, even if it's mostly getting out/up and back to their comfort zone. (Although, I prefer striking from grappling range than from farther away.) BUT, I would say that don't assume that because you're a top striker, you can just figure out grappling. Get the basics from someone who grapples primarily, who has that background. I can out slappy-slappy a good deal of people, but my grappling know-how isn't worth half of a used toothpick. *Especially* not if it's a yummy mint-flavoured toothpick.



arnisador said:


> I agree, but it's the fact that it's misleading that gets to me. Some here are talking about trying to interpret their kata as expansively and imaginatively as possible, and I have no problems with that--but don't tell me that Chojun Miyagi cleverly hid the De la Riva guard in Gekisai kata.



I draw a clear distinction between interpretation and exploration. If I'm looking at interpretation, the technique has to look pretty much the same; stance, height, range, movement, and final position. If I'm looking at exploration, I don't view it as something that is actually IN the form. In that case, the form is more of a brainstorm device, like, "ooh here's a way to deal with ____ that I'd never considered! Fun!" Two different beasts, to me.



Makalakumu said:


> I wonder about that. What if you had a guy who trained and those arts and the extrapolated on a kata technique to add some grappling to karate. It wouldn't be as good as the specialists, but then again it doesn't need to be. If you could get a karate BB and roll with BJJ blue belts that would be good enough.



Good enough for some things, not for others. For example, it may be good enough to avoid un-trained grappling attempts, or even utilize some grappling against the untrained. It's definitely NOT good enough to not get all tangled up by a real grappler. Depends on what you want. If I wanted to learn grappling, I'd rather have some training from BJJ black belts, than get tapped out by BJJ blue belts.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Sep 27, 2013)

*Here is the kicker. * If you want to be good at countering grappling then you should learn how to grapple from a qualified source!  Just like if you wanted to learn to be a good striking martial practitioner you would not go and try to learn it from BJJ.  You see it works both ways!  Just like if you wanted to learn weapons you would not try to learn it from a Tae Kwon Do instructor.  Instead you might search out a Filipino Martial Practitioner or someone from the Bujinkan, etc.  

Learn the proper movement and body mechanics from people who have the experience!  Then make it your own!


----------



## Koshiki (Sep 27, 2013)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> *Here is the kicker. * If you want to be good at countering grappling then you should learn how to grapple from a qualified source!



Oh, I hope you didn't think I meant you could effectively learn to counter decent grappling by guesswork. I meant you can try to become somewhat effective at getting that guy off you who just grabs you and starts tugging wildly, with less idea about grappling than you have. In my experience, trying to counter-grapple a grappler is futile. Unless your counter-grappling is ELBOW STRIKE TO THE HEAD, and AGAIN, and AGAIN. But that's not exactly grappling, that's refusing to grapple. I can't grapple, and if a decent grappler ever gets a hold of me, I'm probably already down and tapping!

What I meant to convey, is that who practices self-created, mediocre grappling, can probably at least disentangle themselves from someone who has never even considered the term grappling, but instinctively grabs on. Anything past that, get a source. I wouldn't self-teach a punch, and I think striking mechanics are a bit more self-evident and easy to build from scratch than grappling. You can learn to hit hard by yourself with a bag, or even without one. You can't learn to manipulate a resisting body without a resisting body...


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Sep 30, 2013)

Leaving aside the issue of whether the application shown in the video was anything ever envisioned by the creators of the kata ...

The application shown is a low-percentage technique that will be difficult to achieve against a resisting opponent.  (Even an unskilled opponent) The actual movements of the kata are sufficiently different from the movements necessary to actually execute the demonstrated ground technique that they will provide exactly zero useful practice for developing the skill necessary to pull it off.  You could argue that the movements in the kata are meant to just be a mnemonic to remind the practitioner of the application, however if the practitioner is a skilled enough ground grappler to pull off such a low-percentage technique against a resisting opponent, then they really aren't going to need such a mnemonic.


----------



## Koshiki (Oct 1, 2013)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Leaving aside the issue of whether the application shown in the video was anything ever envisioned by the creators of the kata ...
> 
> I for one don't particularly care what was originally envisioned, but that's a matter of taste.
> 
> The application shown is a low-percentage technique that will be difficult to achieve against a resisting opponent.  (Even an unskilled opponent) The actual movements of the kata are sufficiently different from the movements necessary to actually execute the demonstrated ground technique that they will provide exactly zero useful practice for developing the skill necessary to pull it off.  You could argue that the movements in the kata are meant to just be a mnemonic to remind the practitioner of the application, however if the practitioner is a skilled enough ground grappler to pull off such a low-percentage technique against a resisting opponent, then they really aren't going to need such a mnemonic.



I think at this point the kata ceases to be a mnemonic, and becomes instead a springboard for experimentation. But I agree, if you practice the Kata and hope to be able to do this, you will be sorely disappointed, at least in my experience. I practice the kata, I can't do this! Mostly due to a lack of skill, but partially because I am wearing a t-shirt. Another reason to always where a thick, durable jacket with wide sleeves when attacked.


----------



## Koshiki (Oct 1, 2013)

You know what should really make an entrance, for grapple-kata junkies? Modern kata which are based around on-the-ground grappling. I'd be very excited to see a single-person, grappling style kata. Not that it would probably be a very great practice method, but it would nevertheless be interesting.


----------



## K-man (Oct 1, 2013)

Zack Cart said:


> You know what should really make an entrance, for grapple-kata junkies? Modern kata which are based around on-the-ground grappling. I'd be very excited to see a single-person, grappling style kata. Not that it would probably be a very great practice method, but it would nevertheless be interesting.


The problem with that is that for kata bunkai to work in a continuous way it often relies on strikes to elicit a 'predictive' response. To an extent that can work on the ground but it is more likely to be relying on strength to apply a technique where in the standing environment body movement can often achieve what physical force cannot. I'll put myself in the basket, 'Yet to be Convinced'.
:asian:


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 1, 2013)

K-man said:


> The problem with that is that for kata bunkai to work in a continuous way it often relies on strikes to elicit a 'predictive' response. To an extent that can work on the ground but it is more likely to be relying on strength to apply a technique where in the standing environment body movement can often achieve what physical force cannot. I'll put myself in the basket, 'Yet to be Convinced'.
> :asian:



There are grappling drills that would qualify for these standards.  Here is a quick and dirty demo of the Osaekomi kata done by yours truly back in the day.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSmsoWPtd9k&feature=youtu.be

I teach this to my beginning students to give them an introduction into grappling.  It's a lot of fun testing each one of these positions and seeing how they change into the next.


----------



## Koshiki (Oct 1, 2013)

K-man said:


> The problem with that is that for kata bunkai to work in a continuous way it often relies on strikes to elicit a 'predictive' response. To an extent that can work on the ground but it is more likely to be relying on strength to apply a technique where in the standing environment body movement can often achieve what physical force cannot. I'll put myself in the basket, 'Yet to be Convinced'.
> :asian:



I'm in the same basket! But, stepping outside the standard realm of kata, I'm envisioning a ground fighter essentially choreographing a grappling match, but performed solo, as a kata is. I realize it's kind of off topic, a little, maybe, but it sure would be entertaining to watch someone attempt!


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Oct 1, 2013)

Zack Cart said:


> I'm in the same basket! But, stepping outside the standard realm of kata, I'm envisioning a ground fighter essentially choreographing a grappling match, but performed solo, as a kata is. I realize it's kind of off topic, a little, maybe, but it sure would be entertaining to watch someone attempt!


----------



## K-man (Oct 1, 2013)

Tony Dismukes said:


>


Love it! :rofl:

...  and so practical!


----------



## K-man (Oct 1, 2013)

Zack Cart said:


> I'm in the same basket! But, stepping outside the standard realm of kata, I'm envisioning a ground fighter essentially choreographing a grappling match, but performed solo, as a kata is. I realize it's kind of off topic, a little, maybe, but it sure would be entertaining to watch someone attempt!


The only two man kata I have seen is choreographed and normally requires the two participants to be roughly the same size. What that means is that the kata actually become drills. I don't have a problem with drills but I almost never use them. To my mind if you were to perform a two man kata then it should work with only one of the participants knowing the kata. That then becomes continuous bunkai. 

If we transfer that principle to the ground and perhaps look at *Maka*'s example, we see a drill that is moving from one position to another really smoothly and for a grappling student I can see the value. Is it a kata? Well not by my definition. I'm not sure from the video that the partner, who was fully compliant, couldn't have resisted in such a way that it would have been difficult to transition from one position to the next. So, a great drill but not a kata. It would be interesting to see it done as a solo performance like *Tony*'s example. 
:asian:


----------



## K-man (Oct 1, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> There are grappling drills that would qualify for these standards.  Here is a quick and dirty demo of the Osaekomi kata done by yours truly back in the day.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSmsoWPtd9k&feature=youtu.be
> 
> I teach this to my beginning students to give them an introduction into grappling.  It's a lot of fun testing each one of these positions and seeing how they change into the next.


I like the drill but it really isn't my idea of kata. A kata for me would start from a common position such as the guard or the mount and work on scenarios from both partners' perspective. I don't know enough of grappling to provide an example but what I would be looking for would be a logical sequence that begins with one move which would be stopped but that that stoppage would expose another opportunity that if stopped would lead to the next. It would assume that each technique would work if allowed so the kata requires the technique to be stopped. What that means is that as you apply a technique, you are applying it with the prior knowledge of how it can be countered. When that counter occurs you are the ready to apply the next technique and so on.
:asian:


----------



## punisher73 (Oct 2, 2013)

Zack Cart said:


> You know what should really make an entrance, for grapple-kata junkies? Modern kata which are based around on-the-ground grappling. I'd be very excited to see a single-person, grappling style kata. Not that it would probably be a very great practice method, but it would nevertheless be interesting.




I think the closest you are going to get are solo grappling drills that will hone in key movements that are foundational to other moves.  For example, two of the better known ones are the "shrimping" drill and the "bridge" or "opa" drill.  

Here are some basic drills that hone this idea.





But, anything further than that and I don't think it would be possible without a partner like Judo's kata.


----------



## Koshiki (Oct 3, 2013)

Tony Dismukes said:


>



Aha. I knew someone must have attempted it. It's every bit as entertaining as I had hoped it would be! Perhaps there's a reason that kata bunkai have not generally been envisioned as grappling...


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 3, 2013)

I train in karate and in Danzan Ryu Jujutsu.  In this jujutsu art, they rely heavily on two person kata.  I like to take a few minutes at the end of my morning workouts to go over the two person kata with myself while repeating the names for the techniques, so that I can remember them in class.  A lot of the jujutsu kata look suspiciously like movements in karate kata, btw.  But anyway, I suspect that this was sort of the point of the Okinawan kata, but things have been hidden and changed over the years because of secrecy and misunderstanding.


----------



## K-man (Oct 3, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> A lot of the jujutsu kata look suspiciously like movements in karate kata, btw.


*Maka*, I spent some time search youtube to find Danzen Ryu kata but all I could find is what I would call prearranged forms, even in competition. If you have one that is similar to a karate kata could you post a link for me please.
:asian:


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 3, 2013)

K-man said:


> *Maka*, I spent some time search youtube to find Danzen Ryu kata but all I could find is what I would call prearranged forms, even in competition. If you have one that is similar to a karate kata could you post a link for me please.
> :asian:



I was referring to the two person kata that is practiced in DZR. If you do the tori side by yourself, you start to see many connections with various sequences in karate's single person kata. There are no single person kata like karate in DZR.

I'm not saying that there is a connection between the arts (there is some interesting history fyi. Okazaki helped to host Miyagi in Hawaii for 8 months).

Anyway, the single person kata is kind of like a book of two person drills.


----------



## K-man (Oct 3, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> Anyway, the single person kata is kind of like a book of two person drills.


Yes but it is one of those multiple choice 'Pick a Path' books that for every kata begins to look like the Encyclopaedia Britannica.  

Even worse, once you have the six or eight collections straining the bookshelf you realise that you can go from one set to another without losing a beat, so in fact you really have infinite bunkai.  

I've seen a lot of those 2 man kata in judo. The only one I have seen in Goju is Gekisai San. I think it must have come from Japan as it is nothing like the Okinawan practice.
:asian:


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 3, 2013)

K-man said:


> Yes but it is one of those multiple choice 'Pick a Path' books that for every kata begins to look like the Encyclopaedia Britannica.
> 
> Even worse, once you have the six or eight collections straining the bookshelf you realise that you can go from one set to another without losing a beat, so in fact you really have infinite bunkai.
> 
> ...



I listen to the Iain Abernathy podcast and he said that when he does seminars for non karate based martial artists, he basically teaches the two person drills in the kata. This is how we practice DZR as well. I think the two person drill practice is probably more important that the kata itself, because this is where the skills actually get practiced. Anyway, this thread was about grappling. I need some time to work on this more. I have some ideas...


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 5, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> I listen to the Iain Abernathy podcast and he said that when he does seminars for non karate based martial artists, he basically teaches the two person drills in the kata. This is how we practice DZR as well. I think the two person drill practice is probably more important that the kata itself, because this is where the skills actually get practiced. Anyway, this thread was about grappling. I need some time to work on this more. I have some ideas...



I worked on this in the Dojo Thursday night. I'm not sure if strict grappling interpretations work well, because the basics of the body movement isn't there. However, if you taught the basics and took kata principles and applied them on the ground, that could work well. For example, there is a hand grip peel off arm bar in the Pinan set. You could do this same technique from the mounted position. It's almost exactly the same except the uke side is laying down and you bar the arm with your thigh.


----------



## K-man (Oct 5, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> I worked on this in the Dojo Thursday night. I'm not sure if strict grappling interpretations work well, because the basics of the body movement isn't there. However, if you taught the basics and took kata principles and applied them on the ground, that could work well. For example, there is a hand grip peel off arm bar in the Pinan set. You could do this same technique from the mounted position. It's almost exactly the same except the uke side is laying down and you bar the arm with your thigh.


I'm sure there are many techniques in kata that can be transferred directly to the floor. They are, at that point just that, techniques out of kata. To make the kata relevant there needs to be a 'fail safe' technique follow up, straight from the kata. If that is in your bunkai, you are using kata. If it is not there, you are just using a technique that just happens to be in the kata.


----------



## Koshiki (Oct 7, 2013)

K-man said:


> I'm sure there are many techniques in kata that can be transferred directly to the floor. They are, at that point just that, techniques out of kata. To make the kata relevant there needs to be a 'fail safe' technique follow up, straight from the kata. If that is in your bunkai, you are using kata. If it is not there, you are just using a technique that just happens to be in the kata.



It's the difference between finding ties to the kata in what you are doing, and learning what to do from the kata...


----------



## K-man (Oct 7, 2013)

Zack Cart said:


> It's the difference between finding ties to the kata in what you are doing, and learning what to do from the kata...


If you are referring to the grappling bit, yes, quite right. Normal kata gives much more information such as position relative to your opponent, direction of attack etc and also assumes a knowledge of vital points. People who dismiss kata out of hand, or even those using for purposes I would say are 'other than intended' are ignoring or ignorant of what kata is really about.
:asian:


----------



## punisher73 (Oct 7, 2013)

K-man said:


> *Maka*, I spent some time search youtube to find Danzen Ryu kata but all I could find is what I would call prearranged forms, even in competition. If you have one that is similar to a karate kata could you post a link for me please.
> :asian:



"Kata" just means formal exercise.  It doesn't always mean a solo form like karate utilizes.  In kendo, they use "kata" that are prearranged two person drills that are done a set way.  In Judo, the "kata" was a set/series of predefined self-defense attacks and defenses that were too dangerous to practice in randori.

In chinese kung fu systems, you had many two person "sets" that were a predefined attack/defense and you would learn to perform both sides.  If done independantly, they would look like what we think of as a "kata" from karate.


----------



## punisher73 (Oct 7, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> I worked on this in the Dojo Thursday night. I'm not sure if strict grappling interpretations work well, because the basics of the body movement isn't there. However, if you taught the basics and took kata principles and applied them on the ground, that could work well. For example, there is a hand grip peel off arm bar in the Pinan set. You could do this same technique from the mounted position. It's almost exactly the same except the uke side is laying down and you bar the arm with your thigh.



Here, I think is where the line starts to get blurred.  A joint lock is a joint lock is a joint lock.  For example, I can do an arm/shoulder lock from standing position and I can do the same thing on the ground (called the 'Americana').  The joints only bend so many ways.  What is going to be different is learning positional control on the ground to actually employ it.  You are only going to learn that from an actual grappling system.  

It is this fine line of learning how to actually move on the ground and control an opponent on the ground that makes any of those standing joint locks viable as an option on the ground.  When it gets to this point, you would be better off learning a grappling system.  Most karate systems taught groundfighting and not ground grappling.  They taught how to cause the attacker to impact the ground at a high rate of speed to take theme out, it taught you how to fall and get back up very quickly and it taught you how to strike to quickly create space to get back up.  Rolling around on the ground went against what they believed as far as tactical philosophy.


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 8, 2013)

punisher73 said:


> Here, I think is where the line starts to get blurred.  A joint lock is a joint lock is a joint lock.  For example, I can do an arm/shoulder lock from standing position and I can do the same thing on the ground (called the 'Americana').  The joints only bend so many ways.  What is going to be different is learning positional control on the ground to actually employ it.  You are only going to learn that from an actual grappling system.
> 
> It is this fine line of learning how to actually move on the ground and control an opponent on the ground that makes any of those standing joint locks viable as an option on the ground.  When it gets to this point, you would be better off learning a grappling system.  Most karate systems taught groundfighting and not ground grappling.  They taught how to cause the attacker to impact the ground at a high rate of speed to take theme out, it taught you how to fall and get back up very quickly and it taught you how to strike to quickly create space to get back up.  Rolling around on the ground went against what they believed as far as tactical philosophy.



This is true.  The strategy employed in karate favors striking, dumping a person at high velocity and/or breaking something in the air or after they hit the ground.  However, it should be noted that many of the old masters who practiced pre-1920 also had experience in grappling.  Okinawan wrestling, or tegumi, was quite common throughout the islands and it was common for young people to challenge each other to matches.  In fact, from the materials that I've read, it was more common for two people to employ tegumi in a match against each other than karate because tegumi was more suited for those types of matches.  Karate was considered for life protection only.  

It seems obvious to me that there was some crossovers.  It seems obvious to me that if a fight ended up on the ground, a well rounded practicioner could apply karate principles and mix them freely with grappling.  This is one of the reasons why I tend to teach more of it in my dojo.  Of course my background is in judo and jujutsu, not tegumi, so I kind of go with with what I know.  In principle, I think this probably matches up more with how the old karateka practiced.  From my research, I'm fairly certain that there was a separation between the strategies employed with tegumi and karate.  I'm not sure how strict that separation was though.  Was it so strict that kata could only be interpreted standing up?  I certainly don't know enough to make that judgement, so I won't rule out the grappling interpretations.


----------



## K-man (Oct 8, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> This is true.  The strategy employed in karate favors striking, dumping a person at high velocity and/or breaking something in the air or after they hit the ground.  However, it should be noted that many of the old masters who practiced pre-1920 also had experience in grappling.  Okinawan wrestling, or tegumi, was quite common throughout the islands and it was common for young people to challenge each other to matches.  In fact, from the materials that I've read, it was more common for two people to employ tegumi in a match against each other than karate because tegumi was more suited for those types of matches.  Karate was considered for life protection only.
> 
> It seems obvious to me that there was some crossovers.  It seems obvious to me that if a fight ended up on the ground, a well rounded practicioner could apply karate principles and mix them freely with grappling.  This is one of the reasons why I tend to teach more of it in my dojo.  Of course my background is in judo and jujutsu, not tegumi, so I kind of go with with what I know.  In principle, I think this probably matches up more with how the old karateka practiced.  From my research, I'm fairly certain that there was a separation between the strategies employed with tegumi and karate.  I'm not sure how strict that separation was though.  Was it so strict that kata could only be interpreted standing up?  I certainly don't know enough to make that judgement, so I won't rule out the grappling interpretations.


We practise Tegumi almost every class. We use it for kumite and to practise all the locks, holds and takedowns. We also use it as the stepping off point into kata bunkai. I have never used it to go to the ground as that is not were we would choose to be. I'm not sure how much grappling Miyagi Sensei engaged in but his successor, Eiichi Miyazato, was a 7th dan judoka.
:asian:


----------



## Koshiki (Oct 8, 2013)

K-man said:


> Yes but it is one of those multiple choice 'Pick a Path' books that for every kata begins to look like the Encyclopaedia Britannica.



I just have to say, I have never considered a kata as a "choose your own adventure," but now that I have, I am in love with the idea!!!


----------



## K-man (Oct 8, 2013)

punisher73 said:


> "Kata" just means formal exercise.  It doesn't always mean a solo form like karate utilizes.  In kendo, they use "kata" that are prearranged two person drills that are done a set way.  In Judo, the "kata" was a set/series of predefined self-defense attacks and defenses that were too dangerous to practice in randori.
> 
> In chinese kung fu systems, you had many two person "sets" that were a predefined attack/defense and you would learn to perform both sides.  If done independantly, they would look like what we think of as a "kata" from karate.


Agreed, and that is why I specified that what I was finding was prearranged. I don't have a problem with that as is is then a clear cut teaching tool. Same thing with judo. I think it is because of those two man kata that people have tried to do the same with karate kata without understanding the principles of the kata to begin with. To me, they are a waste of time and effort (the made up karate ones) because mostly they are impractical. My criteria is; "Can I use this in the pub or on the street?" If the answer is yes, I will look at it and see how it fits in to my training. If the answer is no, then it will join the rest of the ineffective stuff I trained for my first twenty years, in the bin. And, the stuff in the bin is not there because I don't understand it. It is there because the people who designed it didn't understand what they were doing and those of us training it didn't know any better.
:asian:


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 8, 2013)

K-man said:


> We practise Tegumi almost every class. We use it for kumite and to practise all the locks, holds and takedowns. We also use it as the stepping off point into kata bunkai. I have never used it to go to the ground as that is not were we would choose to be. I'm not sure how much grappling Miyagi Sensei engaged in but his successor, Eiichi Miyazato, was a 7th dan judoka.
> :asian:



When you say Tegumi, do you mean Tegumi as the Okinawans practiced, or do you mean the principles behind that practice?


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 8, 2013)

Zack Cart said:


> It's the difference between finding ties to the kata in what you are doing, and learning what to do from the kata...



If you learn the principle from the kata and practice it in different situations, what is the difference? I think the distinction is probably artificial and most likely historically inaccurate. From my research, it didn't seem as if the old masters limited their thinking to just one type of strategy. You had to adapt to your situation!


----------



## Koshiki (Oct 9, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> If you learn the principle from the kata and practice it in different situations, what is the difference? I think the distinction is probably artificial and most likely historically inaccurate. From my research, it didn't seem as if the old masters limited their thinking to just one type of strategy. You had to adapt to your situation!



If you learnt he principle from the kata, then there is no distinction. The distinction is learning something completely outside of the kata, say, a variety of grappling locks, and then completely re-working the movements within the kata to fit the outside technique. It's not bad, necessarily, but more of an awkward attempt to make something fit where it doesn't. If, somehow, you discover, say, a rear-naked-choke takedown by studying kata, and you've never seen the technique before, then I would say it "fits" the kata. If you try to stick the takedown into the kata, and in so doing have to take the kata to the ground, add three extra movements, and render the follow-up and subsequent techniques impossible from your current position, then I would say you're doing something completely different. If you, for some reason WANT it to fit the kata, go for it. It's just not how I, personally, choose to use kata.

And of course, adapt your kata, and practice strategy not found within it. However, even within a very, very simple move in a basic form pattern, you can likely find at least ten or so quite varied application, which all stay true to the original movements, and which follow very different strategies. But hey, whatever helps you learn. I agree that, like most distinctions, it's an artificial one.


----------



## K-man (Oct 9, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> When you say Tegumi, do you mean Tegumi as the Okinawans practiced, or do you mean the principles behind that practice?


Hopefully it is as near to the original as I can determine. An article by Iain Abernethy gives a pretty good description of what we do. 
http://iainabernethy.co.uk/article/tegumi-karates-forgotten-range

For us, it is a more spontaneous type of sparring than our kata bunkai which is far more structured. We don't normally take it to the ground as I am always assuming multiple attackers. So we practise takedowns and if we happen to go down too, we get up as quickly as possible. 
:asian:


----------

