# Tekki Shodan Kick Application



## oldnewbie (Sep 22, 2003)

Can anyone explain the application on would use with the kicks to one's thigh in the kata?

Thanks


----------



## arnisador (Sep 22, 2003)

We've had a lot of discussion of this and similar issues before--you might search for Tekki or the alternative name Naihanchi on this site.

Applications include kick blocks by blocking a groin kick with the shin once it's up there, or blocking a low kick by sweeping it out of the way with the side of your foot as it moves up there. Also it could be avoiding a sweep or kick, or avoiding a weapon strike aimed at your shin. It could also be a sweep of your opponent, with a little imagination.

Some people imagine that the kata is for fighting on your back and it's something like a hooking move from Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu. I am skeptical of that, personally.


----------



## oldnewbie (Sep 22, 2003)

Thank you for the reply. I will do some searching as you suggested.
(I forget about that feature)


----------



## D.Cobb (Sep 26, 2003)

> _Originally posted by arnisador _
> *We've had a lot of discussion of this and similar issues before--you might search for Tekki or the alternative name Naihanchi on this site.
> 
> Applications include kick blocks by blocking a groin kick with the shin once it's up there, or blocking a low kick by sweeping it out of the way with the side of your foot as it moves up there. Also it could be avoiding a sweep or kick, or avoiding a weapon strike aimed at your shin. It could also be a sweep of your opponent, with a little imagination.
> ...



Or what about, you are on your back. Your opponent is attempting to choke you from the side and sliding across and on top at the same time.
You bring your leg up, so that your knee is pressing into his arm pit, or even his chest. This would be the kick.
The step down in the kata, would be the same move that you make to move him with your knee. And your foot would land on the floor between his legs, controlling the leg closest to you.If you put your hips into the move, it becomes almost impossible for him to maintain his grasp.
The hand positions would be that the lower hand is grabbing his arm to hold him in position as the upper hand/ elbow, slams into the pressure points on the side of the neck.
If you were to pull your hands down beside you, as you would in the kata, with a firm grip on his clothing, his face would hit the floor at a great rate of knots, thereby acheiving the required result.

I have actually learnt this application in a ground fighting class, and found it to work on some very unwilling opponents. We were actually under instruction to choke the person on the floor. I can't speak for anyone else but I know my attacks were real, and I was beaten every time. When it was my turn on the floor, I pulled it off every time. I just hope I typed it out so that you can understand what I'm trying to say.
--Dave

:asian:


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 31, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> It could also be a sweep of your opponent, with a little imagination.


 
I think that a sweep like deashi harai takes a little imagination, however, hiza garuma pretty much looks exactly like the move in the form.


----------



## kenpojujitsu (Jan 21, 2006)

arnisador said:
			
		

> We've had a lot of discussion of this and similar issues before--you might search for Tekki or the alternative name Naihanchi on this site.
> 
> Applications include kick blocks by blocking a groin kick with the shin once it's up there, or blocking a low kick by sweeping it out of the way with the side of your foot as it moves up there. Also it could be avoiding a sweep or kick, or avoiding a weapon strike aimed at your shin. It could also be a sweep of your opponent, with a little imagination.
> 
> Some people imagine that the kata is for fighting on your back and it's something like a hooking move from Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu. I am skeptical of that, personally.


 
All pretty good answers.
But don't be skeptical of the ground application.
people think BJJ invented ground fighting.  But they did not.  They got the idea from Judo and other Japanese Martial Arts.  There has always been ground fighting applications applied to the kata.


----------



## BlackCatBonz (Jan 21, 2006)

kenpojujitsu said:
			
		

> All pretty good answers.
> But don't be skeptical of the ground application.
> people think BJJ invented ground fighting. But they did not. They got the idea from Judo and other Japanese Martial Arts. *There has always been ground fighting applications applied to the kata*.


 
lol


----------



## BlackCatBonz (Jan 22, 2006)

ok......i received an unsigned negative ding for the above post claiming it was "not helpful" (sense of humour much?)

this statement just seems to pop up more and more these days......yet it was kind of weird how you never ever heard of the secret groundfighting bunkai before the whole mixed martial arts craze.
thats not to say that the principles that the kata demonstrates cannot be made applicable to something taking place on the ground.....but some of these same people also said that karate never had any throws either.

i think John (upnorthkyosa) is hitting the nail with his explanation.


----------



## arnisador (Jan 22, 2006)

BlackCatBonz said:
			
		

> it was kind of weird how you never ever heard of the secret groundfighting bunkai before the whole mixed martial arts craze.



Yup. I was talking about that in this thread.


----------



## Andrew Green (Jan 22, 2006)

BlackCatBonz said:
			
		

> .yet it was kind of weird how you never ever heard of the secret groundfighting bunkai before the whole mixed martial arts craze.



That is because it is not there 

But, kata are like inksplots, you can see anything in them depending on what you are looking for.  The human body only moves in so many ways, and I'm sure I could find arm bars and sweeps out of a pop music dance routine, but it doesn't meant the choreographer put them there.

I also think it is a little insulting to karate to try and put these thing there when they clearly are not.  It's a fine art, Grappling is not a part of it though, and things which are a part of karate are not in MMA.

We got all these different arts for a reason, everyone wants different things out of them.  

Anyways, back to the topic.  I would suggest looking at other versions of the kata.  Specifically Okinawan ones which are a little closer to the original form then the Shotokan variation.  The "kick" you will not likely find in any other branch, well, not that sort of kick anyways


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 22, 2006)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> That is because it is not there


 
This is what I'm wondering...did people not fight on the ground hundreds of years ago in Okinawa?  Also, i've read right here on MT that there is a direct connection between Okinawan Te and Minamoto Ryu Jujutsu.  Thus, I don't think it is inconceivable that some of these applications had duel purposes.  Don't ask me to explain why some of this stuff wasn't taught because I don't have any good answers...:idunno:


----------



## BlackCatBonz (Jan 22, 2006)

i definitely believe there are ground techniques, but not in the way people think about ground techniques these days.
there are grappling applications in those kata....but not in the way people think about grappling applications these days.
this stuff was based on chuan fa.....especially kata like naihanchi and sanchin....so it's important not to forget that there are most likely chin na applications within the kata.
taking someone and tossing them on the ground is about as old as fighting gets.......but not a lot of karate teachers are taught the throwing applications or locking applications, so it ends up getting lost......that doesnt mean it isnt there.
throwing and locking - yes
groundfighting MMA style - no


----------



## TheBattousai (Jan 22, 2006)

The Naihanchi kata, as with other kata, true applications are really only known by creater or person doing the kata (for those who do freestyle). Unless you ask them what they percieve, you'll never really know. But as it has been said; for others, they can see other applicable techniques in any given movement whether the practitioner knows it or wasn't thinking of that way to apply it during the kata. Its mainly about perseption, I know people who take what looks like a side kick and they show that it can be a throw, and very effectively too I may say. Its just a matter of bunkai (analyzation) and oyo (application).


----------



## bignick (Jan 22, 2006)

kenpojujitsu said:
			
		

> All pretty good answers.
> But don't be skeptical of the ground application.
> people think BJJ invented ground fighting.  But they did not.  They got the idea from Judo and other Japanese Martial Arts.



Got the idea?  How about having an instructor who was blacklisted from the Kodokan from teaching judo, so he started calling what he did "jujutsu" and teaching it to the Gracie family.


----------



## Andrew Green (Jan 22, 2006)

bignick said:
			
		

> Got the idea? How about having an instructor who was blacklisted from the Kodokan from teaching judo, so he started calling what he did "jujutsu" and teaching it to the Gracie family.



Or Catch as catch can... or pankration... 

Fighting on the ground is not a bright idea someone had, it has always been there.  But never been in Okinawan Kata.  

Did the Okinawan's do Groundfighting? maybe, but not in their kata.


----------



## BlackCatBonz (Jan 22, 2006)

TheBattousai said:
			
		

> The Naihanchi kata, as with other kata, true applications are really only known by creater or person doing the kata (for those who do freestyle). Unless you ask them what they percieve, you'll never really know. But as it has been said; for others, they can see other applicable techniques in any given movement whether the practitioner knows it or wasn't thinking of that way to apply it during the kata. Its mainly about perseption, I know people who take what looks like a side kick and they show that it can be a throw, and very effectively too I may say. Its just a matter of bunkai (analyzation) and oyo (application).


 
this is why understanding form is important.
this is also why you do not need to learn 600 techniques.
if you ask me what a good techniques is.....i would probably tell you its the one you can use to work on a straight punch, hook punch, front kick or head butt.


----------



## TheBattousai (Jan 22, 2006)

Again, you are my hero BlackCatBonz........except maybe that last part . But in ones understanding of bunkai, the understanding and mastery of the basic movements become great. Besides you can only say that you mastered any single technique by doing it one million times. BTW,BlackCatBonz, do you practice freestyle, pre-set or both types of kata.


----------



## BlackCatBonz (Jan 22, 2006)

both. the first system i studied had a few forms, but we were also taught about free-style movement.
i think its important to be able to move outside of a pre-set routine on the fly and with fluidity, while demonstrating effective movement.
if you think of something like escrima that would have you practicing set routines with a partner, this allows you to become familiar with attack and defense in a pre-arranged movement, it also allows you to work outside of the boundries of the set as you become comfortable.
the same can be said about kata......but this is going off topic.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 22, 2006)

One of the things that I've often wondered is whether or not MMA is something unique to our time.  We often hear that people "back then" fought just the same as we do now...but what if that isn't true?  Perhaps grappling on the ground was not something that people trained in for whatever reason.  Or maybe it really is knowledge that failed to transfer...


----------



## eyebeams (Jan 23, 2006)

kenpojujitsu said:
			
		

> All pretty good answers.
> But don't be skeptical of the ground application.
> people think BJJ invented ground fighting. But they did not. They got the idea from Judo and other Japanese Martial Arts. There has always been ground fighting applications applied to the kata.


 
No there hasn't. There is no ground grappling in stand-up kata applications, and anybody who says so is trying to sell you something you don't want to buy.

Karate kata are designed as compelments to indigenous Okinawan grappling systems. If you want to learn to grapple like an Okinawan, learn what is called Okinawan sumo and was called Tigumi. Alternately, learn Greco-Roman, which is played alnost the same way and has very similar techniques.

Kata do have standing grappling techniques, but if they were designed to teach you to fight on the ground, you would do them on the ground.


----------



## eyebeams (Jan 23, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I think that a sweep like deashi harai takes a little imagination, however, hiza garuma pretty much looks exactly like the move in the form.


 
Yep. The full movement is also a leg counter technique. You rotate and set your stance against the opponent's other, rooted leg. If you are on the inside it's a fairly straightforward trip. On the outside, it's a variation on the throw at the very beginning of the set.


----------



## eyebeams (Jan 23, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> One of the things that I've often wondered is whether or not MMA is something unique to our time. We often hear that people "back then" fought just the same as we do now...but what if that isn't true? Perhaps grappling on the ground was not something that people trained in for whatever reason. Or maybe it really is knowledge that failed to transfer...


 
No, back then, wrestling was a universal sport among males. The reason striking systems seem to omit groundfighting is because grappling was universal, and striking and standing controls were the exotic systems. The ability to maintain distance and deliver what is now called an effective "ground n' pound," or a rapid submission while retaining a weapon were what many traditional arts are about. For instance, the Bubishi includes illustrations describing defences against common takedowns.

If you're a martial artist, you should consider training in basic grappling of any kind to be just as "traditional," since your arts were designed under the assumption that you'd know what to do. Martial arts were designed for violent athletic people; we aren't usually those people any more, so we have some catching up to do.


----------



## kenpojujitsu (Jan 23, 2006)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> No there hasn't. There is no ground grappling in stand-up kata applications, and anybody who says so is trying to sell you something you don't want to buy.
> 
> Karate kata are designed as compelments to indigenous Okinawan grappling systems. If you want to learn to grapple like an Okinawan, learn what is called Okinawan sumo and was called Tigumi. Alternately, learn Greco-Roman, which is played alnost the same way and has very similar techniques.
> 
> Kata do have standing grappling techniques, but if they were designed to teach you to fight on the ground, you would do them on the ground.


 
Tegumi was incorprated into a lot of Okinawan Karate.  And we do get on the ground and practice.  This has always been done to my knowledge - long before the BJJ craze.  This is considered "advanced" and some might want to call it "secret" to add more appeal to it.  Perhaps if more people stayed with thier teachers longer before going out on thier own, they would have advanced more and seen it.

Just because you don't know something doe snot mean it does not exist.
Go back to your teacher or find another one if he can't teach you these things.


----------



## BlackCatBonz (Jan 23, 2006)

kenpojujitsu said:
			
		

> Tegumi was incorprated into a lot of Okinawan Karate. And we do get on the ground and practice. This has always been done to my knowledge - long before the BJJ craze. This is considered "advanced" and some might want to call it "secret" to add more appeal to it. Perhaps if more people stayed with thier teachers longer before going out on thier own, they would have advanced more and seen it.
> 
> Just because you don't know something doe snot mean it does not exist.
> Go back to your teacher or find another one if he can't teach you these things.


 
lol


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 23, 2006)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> No, back then, wrestling was a universal sport among males. The reason striking systems seem to omit groundfighting is because grappling was universal, and striking and standing controls were the exotic systems. The ability to maintain distance and deliver what is now called an effective "ground n' pound," or a rapid submission while retaining a weapon were what many traditional arts are about. For instance, the Bubishi includes illustrations describing defences against common takedowns.


 
I read an interview with Hohan Soken that stated this.  I am wondering, however, if there are any scholarly books on this subject?  It would be nice to read this and be able to check some verifiable sources...


----------



## BlackCatBonz (Jan 23, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I read an interview with Hohan Soken that stated this. I am wondering, however, if there are any scholarly books on this subject? It would be nice to read this and be able to check some verifiable sources...


 
i think i read the same interview.......but i cant remember where.


----------



## kenpojujitsu (Jan 23, 2006)

BlackCatBonz said:
			
		

> lol


LATF
(LAUGHING AT THE FOOL)


----------



## Andrew Green (Jan 23, 2006)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> For instance, the Bubishi includes illustrations describing defences against common takedowns.



Yep, as well as takedowns.  But no where does it contain guard or mount or anything on the ground.  Those things are not there, but some basic takedowns and defences are.


----------



## BlackCatBonz (Jan 23, 2006)

kenpojujitsu said:
			
		

> LATF
> (LAUGHING AT THE FOOL)


 
show us some verifiable proof that the kata's applications included groundfighting.


----------



## BlackCatBonz (Jan 23, 2006)

here is a link to a website that has the interview with Hohan Soken in which he talks about Okinawan wrestling.

http://budoway.com/HohanSoken.htm


----------



## kenpojujitsu (Jan 23, 2006)

BlackCatBonz said:
			
		

> show us some verifiable proof that the kata's applications included groundfighting.


 
What do you want me to do, get in my time machine and become a senior student of one of the masters and secretly take photos?

The arts were handed down person to person by oral tradition.  Some Kata and applications were taught only to certain individuals.  Little by little things were let out to those who agreed not to teach them publicly.

Again, your lack of knowledge does not consititute proof that something does not exist.

Just go to a dojo that teaches the old way and earn your education, you'll see for your self.

I trained with 2 unrelated Goju teachers, who I know for sure had different teachers, from different lines directly back to Miyagi,  in different countries and never met.  They both teach ground fighting applications of Goju Ryu Kata.


----------



## BlackCatBonz (Jan 23, 2006)

kenpojujitsu said:
			
		

> What do you want me to do, get in my time machine and become a senior student of one of the masters and secretly take photos?
> 
> The arts were handed down person to person by oral tradition. Some Kata and applications were taught only to certain individuals. Little by little things were let out to those who agreed not to teach them publicly.
> 
> ...


 
i am not debating that the okinawans did groundfighting as an "indigenous" type of art. i did study a kempo system in the old way that was rife with groundfighting that my teacher learned before the whole mixed martial arts craze; this groundfighting however, was much different than the groundfighting you see in brazilian jujutsu.
what i am debating is the fact that some people say that groundfighting has been hidden in the kata all along. there are certainly principles present in the kata that are applicable to the ground, but, the grappling and throwing techniques present in the kata are not groundfighting.


----------



## kenpojujitsu (Jan 23, 2006)

BlackCatBonz said:
			
		

> there are certainly principles present in the kata that are applicable to the ground, but, the grappling and throwing techniques present in the kata are not groundfighting.


 
This goes back to the ridiulous statements in the Kosho Shorei thread like "We don't have techniques, we have principles"

The technniques are there to put the principles into practice.  If there is a principle behind that is applicable to ground fighting, then when you practice the technique you are practicing the principle which includes ground fighting.  So like I said, there has always been ground fighting in the kata.


----------



## BlackCatBonz (Jan 23, 2006)

okie dokie


----------



## eyebeams (Jan 24, 2006)

kenpojujitsu said:
			
		

> This goes back to the ridiulous statements in the Kosho Shorei thread like "We don't have techniques, we have principles"
> 
> The technniques are there to put the principles into practice. If there is a principle behind that is applicable to ground fighting, then when you practice the technique you are practicing the principle which includes ground fighting. So like I said, there has always been ground fighting in the kata.



Yet, there are no kata where you are actually lying on the ground. How can you put it int practice without practicing it in a body posture that even faintly resembles reality? This not only contradicts your statement, but it contradicts the Chinese base of the sets, wherin you actually lie on the ground to work on groundfighting as per drunken and dog boxing. As dog boxing is fujianese, it would have been known among karate's founders -- but there are no guoquan sets in karate. See:

http://cclib.nsu.ru/projects/satbi/satbi-e/martart/wushu/gouquan.html


----------

