# Groundfighting in karate



## Brian S (Mar 27, 2008)

It is my belief that there is no such thing, specifically applications or interpretations of kata moves. However, I have had a long ongoing discussion of such a thing with a fellow that practices Matsubyashi Shorin-Ryu. I cannot find any sources that remotely suggest this pre-1991 when ultimate fighting burst on the scene.

 I have known some people who claim to "see"  the front stance as a sprawl, crossing the legs in Naihanchi as a closed guard, and silly things such as this.

 There is nothing wrong with integrating groundfighting into your karate,but to change history and claim it has always been there is just wrong imo.

 Anyone have experience with this? Opinions?


----------



## MJS (Mar 27, 2008)

Brian S said:


> It is my belief that there is no such thing, specifically applications or interpretations of kata moves. However, I have had a long ongoing discussion of such a thing with a fellow that practices Matsubyashi Shorin-Ryu. I cannot find any sources that remotely suggest this pre-1991 when ultimate fighting burst on the scene.
> 
> I have known some people who claim to "see" the front stance as a sprawl, crossing the legs in Naihanchi as a closed guard, and silly things such as this.
> 
> ...


 
I've had discussions just like this with my fellow Kenpoists.  Now, I've always felt that there are applications to certain things in kata.  Is whats contained the end all, be all of fighting?  IMHO, no, although some will disagree, and thats fine.  The thing is, people need to dig and look for the moves, as many times, they're not apparent at first glance.  

As far as Kenpo goes...well, I'll use this clip as an example.  The Kenpo technique, Crashing Elbows, for a rear bear hug and Locked Wing, for a rear arm lock, are used here for a guard escape.  A valid move?  Sure.  But, for myself, I feel that there are limitations.  If one really wants to get a better understanding of something, you're going to have to go to the source, such as a BJJ school, Sambo, Judo, etc.  

So, my experience with this is that I've said many times that the grappling in Kenpo either isnt there or its limited, while others insist that it is there, you just need to look.  I've played with other Kenpo techs. and have found some variations, but, as I said, I prefer to expand my moves by looking elsewhere.  

Personally, I find that BJJ and Kenpo blend very well together. 

Mike


----------



## arnisador (Mar 27, 2008)

I'm sure you can find a way to shoehorn some techniques in kata in as groundfighting moves, but if your art doesn't include free-grappling practice, it isn't teaching groundfighting. I don't believe groundfighting is there. Some standing grappling, yes--on the ground, no.


----------



## Jin Gang (Mar 27, 2008)

Karate has kicks.  You can deliver kicks from the ground.  Therefore every kick in a kata is potentially a ground fighting technique.  Right?  

This is how I see the argument for groundfighting in kata, in a nutshell.  If the kata was intended to teach principles of delivering ground-based techniques, they would be practiced on the ground.  Karate's basics would include breakfall techniques, moving from a prone/supine position, and fighting from that position.  
there are a couple kata I know that have techniques delivered from a low to the ground position, kusanku and shotokan's unsu spring to mind.  But these are kicks/sweeps, not wrestling/grappling moves.  That's a total of two ground techniques in all of karate, and I don't see people including them in kihon.
This is not to say that you couldn't start practicing this way, and integrate groundfighting/wrestling into your karate, but I don't think it's something the kata teaches in any meaningful way.  

If anyone in Okinawa had been practicing that way in the past, they didn't teach Americans any of their ground fighting skills, and never demonstrated them.


----------



## cstanley (Mar 28, 2008)

Karate is primarily atemi. There are jujutsu and tui te type techniques and some takedowns, but no grappling like you think of in judo or jujutsu. Those who insist that there are ground techniques in karate are reaching.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 28, 2008)

Karate is primarily a standing art.  It shows how to throw or pin someone to the ground or strike them on the ground, but not how to out and out roll.  This doens't mean that some of the locks couldn't be used on the ground however.

The Okinawans did have a native wrestling style, so I have read, it was called Tegumi.  According to some, this was heavily practiced throughout Okinawa and most karateka had a background in it.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Mar 28, 2008)

MJS said:


> I've had discussions just like this with my fellow Kenpoists. Now, I've always felt that there are applications to certain things in kata. Is whats contained the end all, be all of fighting? IMHO, no, although some will disagree, and thats fine. The thing is, people need to dig and look for the moves, as many times, they're not apparent at first glance.
> 
> As far as Kenpo goes...well, I'll use this clip as an example. The Kenpo technique, Crashing Elbows, for a rear bear hug and Locked Wing, for a rear arm lock, are used here for a guard escape. A valid move? Sure. But, for myself, I feel that there are limitations. If one really wants to get a better understanding of something, you're going to have to go to the source, such as a BJJ school, Sambo, Judo, etc.
> 
> ...


 
BJJ blends very nicely with most systems.  That is truly a strength of BJJ.


----------



## eyebeams (Mar 28, 2008)

Early karateka traditionally competed in sport grappling, in what is now called "Okinawan sumo," though it is not actually sumo. The Bubishi has some descriptions of takedowns and sporadic ground methods, but no systematic position game. 

If you want to train like a "traditional" karateka, take up Western wrestling, as the rules are similar to Okinawan wrestling. I know a few training games designed to work this.


----------



## punisher73 (Mar 29, 2008)

It's one thing to apply certain principles to your art to groundfighting so the students have something to base it on.  I used a front stance as a sprawl type move against a wrestler and it worked out, I was never taught that move to do that, it was how my body reacted to the force of him rushing in.  If I teach that type of thing now is it "adding it in" or is it expanding my knowledge of how something can be applied?  On the other hand, I don't agree that doing a traditional form/kata like Naihanchi and saying that the crossover step is a closed guard.  All of the katas have stand-up grappling etc.  Is it wrong or incorrect to practice those locks on the ground and figure out to get a good position and apply them?  Again, I don't think so.  

There are two schools of thought, the principles/concepts of the kata that can be pulled out and applied to alot of things and then you have the literal interpretations of the moves.  I think if you are going to use the concepts teach it as something like "Now in X kata you use your hip to offset their balance for the throw, now if you are taken to the ground and mounted, think of this concept and use it to do a hip escape." or something similiar.  Point out the underlying concept and where it comes from, but don't say it's a "secret application" that is in the kata.


----------



## Errant108 (Mar 29, 2008)

Brian S said:


> It is my belief that there is no such thing, specifically applications or interpretations of kata moves. However, I have had a long ongoing discussion of such a thing with a fellow that practices Matsubyashi Shorin-Ryu. I cannot find any sources that remotely suggest this pre-1991 when ultimate fighting burst on the scene.
> 
> I have known some people who claim to "see" the front stance as a sprawl, crossing the legs in Naihanchi as a closed guard, and silly things such as this.
> 
> ...



There's no groundfighting in karate kata.

Just like there is often minimal groundfighting in traditional jujutsu kata.

Like jujutsu kata, karate kata contain many throwing and joint locking techniques.

From Koryu jujutsu, Kano comes along and synthesizes a system and methodology for training throws and locking techniques in an alive free setting, resulting in capable, confident fighters who defeated many koryu jujutsu stylists because of the practice of randori.

From this system of Judo, we also see the growth of Brazilian Jujutsu (sometimes called Basically Just Judo), which focused newaza, ground techniques, rather than standing throws.  The majority of locks and submissions found in BJJ can be traced in one form or another, through Judo, to Koryu jujutsu.  The innovation comes in the methodology in which these techniques are trained and applied.

There was no Kano for karate's techniques.  Attempting to make the jump from kata bunkai to modern application without going through the decades of development and pressure testing that Judo and BJJ went through is ludicrous, because it more than just "let's do this technique on the ground".  You need a solid understanding of the mechanics that make the ground different from standing on your feet.

Your best bet is to develop a good understanding of the bunkai in your kata, while crosstraining in Judo/BJJ/CAMBO, etc.  Profit from the experience of others, and compare it with the things you find in your kata.  From a solid background of experience (rather than theory), develop your own methodology.  Until then, it's likely you're not grappling...you're just crappling...


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 29, 2008)

In order to give my students a background in grappling, I teach a combination of judo, BJJ and wrestling.  Just some basics from the things that I've studied in the past.  I find that it gives my students a better appreciation for remaining on one's feet.


----------



## punisher73 (Mar 31, 2008)

Errant108 said:


> There's no groundfighting in karate kata.
> 
> Just like there is often minimal groundfighting in traditional jujutsu kata.
> 
> ...


 
What's also interesting is HOW the groundfighting entered into Judo.  Kano combined several styles of jujitsu and had challenge matches.  Well, his students were beating everyone with their throws etc.  One school, Fusen-ryu accepted the challenge and then when the match started just laid down on the mats.  Kano's students had no idea how to fight on the ground or engage them and were defeated.  Kano then learned from them and incorporated that into judo.  It became a specialized branch known as Kosen Judo (Maeda was an expert in it and then taught it in Brazil to the Gracies).

Groundfighting has always been a subset of fighting skills and NOT the main focus because of it's limitations.  Karate would have had the takedown skills (Look at the Bubishi and you will see single leg, double leg takedowns) and joint locks.  But, in karate you would finish your opponent on the ground while you were still standing, you would not have gone down with them intentionally.


----------



## DavidCC (Mar 31, 2008)

It seems to me that karate kata teach ways to stay on your feet against takedowns and throws.

I've also seen how the same movements can be applied to a variety of attacks punches, kicks, grabs of various kinds including grabbing of the legs and crashing of the body mass.




> Attempting to make the jump from kata bunkai to modern application without going through the decades of development and pressure testing that Judo and BJJ went through is ludicrous


 
by "modern application"  does that mean "sport grappling"?  Because I think takedowns and groundfighting is hardly modern, and "decades" is a small sliver of the time that karate has been 'pressure tested'.


----------



## Errant108 (Mar 31, 2008)

DavidCC said:


> by "modern application"  does that mean "sport grappling"?  Because I think takedowns and groundfighting is hardly modern, and "decades" is a small sliver of the time that karate has been 'pressure tested'.



I mean alive training, striking and grappling.

The majority of bunkai that we see being taught has not been pressure tested in an alive environment.  You can tell just by looking at it.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 31, 2008)

Errant108 said:


> I mean alive training, striking and grappling.
> 
> The majority of bunkai that we see being taught has not been pressure tested in an alive environment. You can tell just by looking at it.


 
This, IMHO, is what many karate systems are missing.  We don't live in a violent society, so the stuff can't get tested like it used to.  This doesn't mean that its not impossible however.  You don't have to beat the **** out of yourself or your partners in order to see if something works.  

Look at what people in Judo, Wrestling, and BJJ are doing.  They aren't going balls to the wall all of the time.  They _are_ providing varying degrees of resistence, though.  

Always.  

Karate bunkai need a little bit of bopping and knocking.  Then take it to the ground and see how it works.


----------



## Brian S (Mar 31, 2008)

Most of the thinking here is along the same lines as my own. Kata has grappling applications,locks,throws,etc..we all know this.

 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. To then integrate groundfighting into your training is a good thing,but it wasn't always there.


----------



## Hand Sword (Mar 31, 2008)

I don't know much about the history of this and that, or as much as most of you, so I'll play a little devil's advocate here. Taking the point of fighting, do we think people fought differently way back then as to now? Were the creators completely oblivious to ground fighting? I would venture to say no to both. Considering the creation came about due to a necessity of life and death, could it be possible that it was (is) in there and has just been lost due to the focus being standup? I dunno, I've never been a forms guy, I just don't think it would have been omitted due to the time and circumstances of it's creation and application. I sure groundfighting occurred in those many struggles as it does now. I don't think those early masters/experts would have been useless if taken down.
I dunno.....:idunno:


----------



## DavidCC (Apr 1, 2008)

Errant108 said:


> I mean alive training, striking and grappling.
> 
> The majority of bunkai that we see being taught has not been pressure tested in an alive environment. You can tell just by looking at it.


 
I guess that depends on your teacher.  If he is showing you bunkai and you aren't putting them to the test, why are you complaining here and not looking for a school that does it the way you think it should be done?

Or have I misunderstood and when you say "see being taught" you mean in schools other than yours?  if so, where do you see kata applications being taught if not at your own school?  You Tube LOL???


----------



## Errant108 (Apr 1, 2008)

YouTube, meets with other practitioners, books, magazine articles, etc.


----------



## Errant108 (Apr 1, 2008)

I see you're lurking Shinbushi.

You can't hide from me.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 1, 2008)

Brian S said:


> 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 (Apr 2, 2008)

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 (Apr 2, 2008)

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 (Apr 3, 2008)

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 (Apr 4, 2008)

fuyugoshi said:


> 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 (Apr 4, 2008)

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

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


----------



## fuyugoshi (Apr 5, 2008)

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.



eyebeams said:


> 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.



eyebeams said:


> 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.



eyebeams said:


> 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.



eyebeams said:


> 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.



eyebeams said:


> 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 (Apr 5, 2008)

fuyugoshi said:


> 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 (Apr 5, 2008)

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 (Apr 5, 2008)

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 (Apr 5, 2008)

MattJ said:


> 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.



MattJ said:


> 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)​


MattJ said:


> 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:



			
				eyesbeam said:
			
		

> 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.



			
				eyesbeam said:
			
		

> 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 (Apr 5, 2008)

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



eyebeams said:


> 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)



eyebeams said:


> 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.



eyebeams said:


> 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.



eyebeams said:


> 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.



eyebeams said:


> 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.



eyebeams said:


> 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.



eyebeams said:


> 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?



eyebeams said:


> 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.



eyebeams said:


> 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.



eyebeams said:


> 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 (Apr 5, 2008)

upnorthkyosa said:


> 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 (Apr 6, 2008)

eyebeams said:


> 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 (Apr 7, 2008)

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 (Apr 9, 2008)

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

Posted April 9, 2008


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 10, 2008)

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 (Apr 11, 2008)

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 (Apr 11, 2008)

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 (Apr 11, 2008)

DavidCC said:


> 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:


----------



## eyebeams (Apr 12, 2008)

DavidCC said:


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



Self defense without a basic knowledge of the techniques used in sport grappling (which are not techniques designed for sport, incidentally -- most of them ultimately comes from Fusen-ryu jujutsu) is an excellent way to increase your confidence just enough to get badly hurt. Saying "karate has newaza" without clarifying that it has no efficient techniques for escaping the bottom position or bypassing the guard is essentially deception by omission.


----------



## Hand Sword (Apr 12, 2008)

Though I can see both sides point of views, I think this is a misconception. For a real fight, if a guard position is on, you'll let go, because you'll get bit! That is also apart of the MA's. If were talking ground Fighting over ground Grappling--2 different things. I've seen grappling attempted for real-many times. Bad results in the end.


----------



## fuyugoshi (Apr 12, 2008)

eyebeams said:


> Self defense without a basic knowledge of the techniques used in sport grappling (which are not techniques designed for sport, incidentally -- most of them ultimately comes from Fusen-ryu jujutsu) is an excellent way to increase your confidence just enough to get badly hurt. Saying "karate has newaza" without clarifying that it has no efficient techniques for escaping the bottom position or bypassing the guard is essentially deception by omission.



I don't know what kind of training you have, but we try to test every technique we learn so we don't become overconfident. Before training MAs, I had my share of street fighting, and trust me, nobody engages in mounting exchanges or chess-like matches like those you see in sport bjj. A brawl is a brawl.


----------



## arnisador (Apr 12, 2008)

DavidCC said:


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



A good point in the first sentence, but I see the academic interest in arguing the second sentence!


----------



## exile (Apr 12, 2008)

Folks, the article here is probably very germane to this whole discussion. Abernethy's analysis is based on a completely new, specially commissioned translation of Itosu's original 1908 letter to the Okinawan prefecture education ministry urging adoption of karate in the Okinawan school system&#8212;a translation carried out by experts used to working with original documents (scans of the handwritten letter itself, in his case) who were not martial artists and hence had no possible agenda driving the translation. Note the following part of the discussion in particular:

_The final sentence of the 6th precept (&#8220;Enter, counter, withdraw is the rule for torite&#8221 is another I find very interesting. &#8220;Torite&#8221; refers to grappling (literally "seizing hands") and is used in karate circles to refer to the grappling side of the original art. &#8220;Torite&#8221; was also an old term for Ju-Jutsu and was used in that way in some of Jigaro Kano's writing (Kano being the founder of Judo). Itosu's &#8220;enter, counter, withdraw&#8221; rule would seem to be anti-grappling advice i.e. when grabbed you can't immediately flee the scene, so get in there, do damage, and then get out of there. This is sound advice for civilian self-protection and is totally in accordance with the nature of karate as explained in Precept 1._​
where the key point of precept 1 is


_1. Karate is not merely practiced for your own benefit; it can be used to protect one's family or master. It is...intended to be used...as a way of avoiding injury by using the hands and feet *should one by any chance be confronted by a villain or ruffian.*_​

Meaning, according to IA, karate is primarily intended for self-preservation in unsought violent civilian encounters. Get in, do enough damage to the attacker, fast, to get away, and then... get away! 

IA develops this idea specifically in the podcast accessible from this URL, on the topic 'Karate Grappling: Did it really exist?' Well worth listening to...


----------



## eyebeams (Apr 12, 2008)

fuyugoshi said:


> I don't know what kind of training you have, but we try to test every technique we learn so we don't become overconfident. Before training MAs, I had my share of street fighting, and trust me, nobody engages in mounting exchanges or chess-like matches like those you see in sport bjj. A brawl is a brawl.



You've never seen a fight where somebody straddles somebody else and beats the crap out of them? That's what ground grappling skills are designed to both counter and enable. If you don't know a practical way to reverse the mounted position, you don't know how to fight on the ground, period. A "practical method" does not consist of pain compliance, kyusho, counterstriking or adapting standing grappling techniques. People have tried all of these; they don't work very well. Bridging, shrimping, establishing a rudimentary guard with the legs -- these *do* work and there is no evidence of their existence in classical karate.


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 12, 2008)

eyebeams said:


> You've never seen a fight where somebody straddles somebody else and beats the crap out of them? That's what ground grappling skills are designed to both counter and enable. If you don't know a practical way to reverse the mounted position, you don't know how to fight on the ground, period. A "practical method" does not consist of pain compliance, kyusho, counterstriking or adapting standing grappling techniques. People have tried all of these; they don't work very well. Bridging, shrimping, establishing a rudimentary guard with the legs -- these *do* work and there is no evidence of their existence in classical karate.


 

Oh dear.


----------



## eyebeams (Apr 12, 2008)

I think the guys who believe that Rohai has a triangle choke and that you were meant to do Shikko-Dachi on your knees/back should just say so now and get the embarrassment out of the way.

All these are undoubtedly silly beliefs, but I have this intuition that this is, in fact what some of referring to.


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 13, 2008)

eyebeams said:


> I think the guys who believe that Rohai has a triangle choke and that you were meant to do Shikko-Dachi on your knees/back should just say so now and *get the embarrassment out of the way.*
> 
> *All these are undoubtedly silly beliefs*, but I have this intuition that this is, in fact what some of referring to.


 
Please don't, this is now just arguing fo the sake of it. The people who believe one thing aren't going to be swayed to believe something else by such persuasive comments as the above. The evidence has been presented intelligently and coherently, now lets leave it at that before this turns into a contest with eyebeams sniping at everyone who doesn't believe as he does. It doesn't have to go that way! :asian:


----------



## Errant108 (Apr 13, 2008)

Hand Sword said:


> Though I can see both sides point of views, I think this is a misconception. For a real fight, if a guard position is on, you'll let go, because you'll get bit! That is also apart of the MA's. If were talking ground Fighting over ground Grappling--2 different things. I've seen grappling attempted for real-many times. Bad results in the end.



If you bite me when I have you in guard, it will be very very easy for me to break your jaw.  The guard is not a technique, it is a position from which to perform technique.  Having you in my guard enables me to control your hips and your movement.  If you have limited groundfighting training against someone who knows how to employ the guard (which is not a static position), you will not have much of a chance to bite.

Now, biting in ground fighting does have its place, and it is most easily employed by a trained grappler who can utilize achieving superior position in order to bite from a position where the opponent cannot defend against it.


----------



## Hand Sword (Apr 14, 2008)

Errant108 said:


> If you bite me when I have you in guard, it will be very very easy for me to break your jaw. The guard is not a technique, it is a position from which to perform technique. Having you in my guard enables me to control your hips and your movement. If you have limited groundfighting training against someone who knows how to employ the guard (which is not a static position), you will not have much of a chance to bite.
> 
> Now, biting in ground fighting does have its place, and it is most easily employed by a trained grappler who can utilize achieving superior position in order to bite from a position where the opponent cannot defend against it.


 

Sorry to disagree, but having any real fighting experience you wouldn't make such a statement. There is nothing easy in a fight, let alone "very very easy." People in a guard clamp up. Breaking their jaw, possible, but not likely. Biting--VERY likely and easy and to different areas. Not to mention you clamping them up while defending against raining punches, making their choice easier. Not to mention getting picked up and slammed down on concrete. Skulls and pavement don't go together. Besides, if it's a real fight, forget about the guard and fighting from there, that means you're looking for a submission hold. You don't want to be or stay on the bottom for real!

Ultimately we'll disagree here, but, hey...believe what you want. Good luck. 
Back to the topic of the thread.


----------



## Errant108 (Apr 14, 2008)

Hand Sword said:


> Sorry to disagree, but having any real fighting experience you wouldn't make such a statement.



I've worked as a bouncer for almost a decade.  I have scars on my forearms and back from knives.

If you wish to discuss something with me, avoid ad hominem fallacies and stick to logical discourse.



Hand Sword said:


> People in a guard clamp up.



What does this mean?

I have never "clamped up" when I've pulled guard.  Guard is not a static position, but rather a fluid one, from which I can sweep you so I can mount you, or push you away so I can scramble to my feet.



Hand Sword said:


> Not to mention you clamping them up while defending against raining punches, making their choice easier.



You're going to bite me and punch me at the same time?  This means your head is going to be against my body while my legs are controlling your hips.  Your punches aren't going to have much power in that case.



Hand Sword said:


> Not to mention getting picked up and slammed down on concrete.



It's a possibility, but highly difficult.



Hand Sword said:


> Besides, if it's a real fight, forget about the guard and fighting from there, that means you're looking for a submission hold.



Wrong, you've been attacking a strawman, another fallacy.

I never said I would pull guard as a first manuever on the street.

If I have pulled guard on the street, it's because for some unfortunate reason, I have been taken down, by a tackle, a grab, or a throw.  It is very natural for an opponent to begin pounding someone he has just knocked down.  Pulling guard allows me to control that and prevent getting pounded on.

Strawman #2, you assumed that I would be searching for a submission.  There are many other choices other than submission.

First off, a submission is merely a joint break that I don't perfrom all the way.  If I manage to get you in a submission in a self defense situation, I can just break your arm, and against someone with very little grappling experience, it is very easy to very quickly get them in a submission.

If I am on my back on the street, my first goal is going to be to get to my feet.  If I have pulled guard, it becomes very simple to sweep and roll my opponent, putting him on his back, and then allowing me to stand.  Or, not mounted on top of you, I'm the one who will be raining punches down on your face.

If we're talking biting, pulling guard allows me to control your hips.  From there, I can use an armdrag to pull you into a head lock which will completely expose your carotid to me.  From there, I can bite you in a very lethal manner.


----------



## Hand Sword (Apr 14, 2008)

As I said, believe what you will, and good luck to you. Back to the thread topic.


----------



## Errant108 (Apr 14, 2008)

Hand Sword said:


> As I said, believe what you will, and good luck to you. Back to the thread topic.




That is the thread topic.

Validity of tactics is inherent in a discussion of groundfighting's place in karate.


----------



## Hand Sword (Apr 14, 2008)

Here's the topic.






Brian S said:


> It is my belief that there is no such thing, specifically applications or interpretations of kata moves. However, I have had a long ongoing discussion of such a thing with a fellow that practices Matsubyashi Shorin-Ryu. I cannot find any sources that remotely suggest this pre-1991 when ultimate fighting burst on the scene.
> 
> I have known some people who claim to "see" the front stance as a sprawl, crossing the legs in Naihanchi as a closed guard, and silly things such as this.
> 
> ...


----------



## eyebeams (Apr 15, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> Please don't, this is now just arguing fo the sake of it. The people who believe one thing aren't going to be swayed to believe something else by such persuasive comments as the above. The evidence has been presented intelligently and coherently, now lets leave it at that before this turns into a contest with eyebeams sniping at everyone who doesn't believe as he does. It doesn't have to go that way! :asian:



When the historical evidence and practical technical experience is overwhelmingly slanted toward one point of view, and a few people insist on taking the other, it *does* have to go that way.

It is not my fault that believing these things is silly. It is not my fault that we know that baihequan doesn't have a submission/position game, that we know the Fujianese ground art is both moribund and that its forms look like no modern karate kata, that Chinese grappling culture did not include an involved ground game and that tegumi contests end when you touch the ground with anything above the knee. These are all true things. I did not invent them. Meanwhile claims of a meaningful newaza game require some explanation as to why something totally inconsistent with the known historical trends should be taken seriously as a "traditional" practice, but why it miraculuously escaped general discussion before the 1990s.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 15, 2008)

eyebeams said:


> ...*that tegumi contests end when you touch the ground with anything above the knee*. These are all true things. I did not invent them.


 
I would much appreciate if you would substantiate this claim.  I can't imagine that a clinching and throwing art would NOT have a ground game.  Those techniques don't just crawl out of the darkness.  What other purpose would techniques to project an opponent to the ground have if not to continue grappling.  Games are not a representative sample in order to get the big picture.


----------



## Brian S (Apr 15, 2008)

I think some folks are confusing grappling and groundfighting.

 Kata does contain chokes, locks, throws, breaks, all grappling techniques, all standing techniques that COULD be implemented on the ground from your back or wherever.
 Groundfighting imo is literally ON THE GROUND. 

 The problem is that kata is done on the feet, karate is done on the feet. Karate is not done on the ground,but COULD be implemented there and there is nothing wrong with practicing it that way.

 The main focus of today's karateka is that karate has no weaknesses, kata has the answer to everything if we "look" and "see" the techniques, but people are "seeing" what is not there in order to make their art whole and well rounded. Even if we have to change our idea of history to do so.


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 16, 2008)

eyebeams said:


> When the historical evidence and practical technical experience is overwhelmingly slanted toward one point of view, and a few people insist on taking the other, it *does* have to go that way.
> 
> It is not my fault that believing these things is silly. It is not my fault that we know that baihequan doesn't have a submission/position game, that we know the Fujianese ground art is both moribund and that its forms look like no modern karate kata, that Chinese grappling culture did not include an involved ground game and that tegumi contests end when you touch the ground with anything above the knee. These are all true things. I did not invent them. Meanwhile claims of a meaningful newaza game require some explanation as to why something totally inconsistent with the known historical trends should be taken seriously as a "traditional" practice, but why it miraculuously escaped general discussion before the 1990s.


 
To have a meaningful discussion on anything, one side doesn't have to be right nor the other wrong, it takes people to have open minds and discuss their differences without resorting to childishness like your argment is silly. There's nothing wrong in what you believe but when you state it as fact it would be good to have something to back it up rather than just pooh-poohing the others argument. You ask for expalantions yet give very little yourself other than stating this and this is true. C'mon play the game here.


----------



## DavidCC (Apr 16, 2008)

You will never find BJJ methods inside karate kata.  However you will find very sound ways of dealing with grapplers and groundfighters.


----------



## D Dempsey (Apr 16, 2008)

upnorthkyosa said:


> I would much appreciate if you would substantiate this claim.  I can't imagine that a clinching and throwing art would NOT have a ground game.  Those techniques don't just crawl out of the darkness.  What other purpose would techniques to project an opponent to the ground have if not to continue grappling.  Games are not a representative sample in order to get the big picture.


It really wouldn't be that surprising, a large number of asian folk wrestling styles consider it a loss if your knee touches the ground, so actual ground grappling wouldn't even come up.  Examples include Mongolian Boke, Chinese Shuaijiao, Korean sseiurm, and I believe Japanese sumo is the same.  There are quite a few European wrestling styles that follow a similar rule.  I would imagine that Okinawan tegumi would probably share some similarities with the folk wrestling styles in the surrounding countries.


----------



## Brian S (Apr 16, 2008)

DavidCC said:


> You will never find BJJ methods inside karate kata. However you will find very sound ways of dealing with grapplers and groundfighters.


 

 I hope you are not talking about biting and eye gouges...

 To deal with  BJJ shoots you MUST learn to sprawl. Sprawling is not a part of karate.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 16, 2008)

D Dempsey said:


> It really wouldn't be that surprising, a large number of asian folk wrestling styles consider it a loss if your knee touches the ground, so actual ground grappling wouldn't even come up. Examples include Mongolian Boke, Chinese Shuaijiao, Korean sseiurm, and I believe Japanese sumo is the same. There are quite a few European wrestling styles that follow a similar rule. I would imagine that Okinawan tegumi would probably share some similarities with the folk wrestling styles in the surrounding countries.


 
Here's the thing.  I have know idea what actual tegumi looks like.  I wish that I could get a video of an actual match.  If I could, I think I could tell you if the techniques were meant to continue grappling or if they were meant to just toss someone on their ***.  I've trained in judo, wrestling and bjj, so I've had background enough to see where the focus would lie.  Without actually seeing what is being done, how are we going to assess it?


----------



## D Dempsey (Apr 17, 2008)

I think that's the big issue.  There really isn't any information available on tegumi from a credible source. The only thing I found described it as being like sumo, but you could win by pinning your opponent.  That would lead me to believe that it's probably similar to freestyle wrestling.


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 17, 2008)

Brian S said:


> I hope you are not talking about biting and eye gouges...
> 
> To deal with BJJ shoots you MUST learn to sprawl. *Sprawling is not a part* *of karate.[/*quote]
> 
> ...


----------



## fuyugoshi (Apr 17, 2008)

eyebeams said:


> You've never seen a fight where somebody straddles somebody else and beats the crap out of them? That's what ground grappling skills are designed to both counter and enable. If you don't know a practical way to reverse the mounted position, you don't know how to fight on the ground, period. A "practical method" does not consist of pain compliance, kyusho, counterstriking or adapting standing grappling techniques. People have tried all of these; they don't work very well. Bridging, shrimping, establishing a rudimentary guard with the legs -- these *do* work and there is no evidence of their existence in classical karate.



It is true that sometimes, a brawl adopts the form of a mounting position match. Not that very often, though. Anyway, if all you need to be satisfied with karate is to add mounting position techniques, well, just add them. During most of 20th century, karate took his ground game from judo, and during the 19th, from tegumi. Old Okinawan karateka have always trained ground fighting, regardless the presence or absence of ground fighting techniques in karate kata. It is in the 20th that people starts looking at it as totally separate disciplines, forgetting that karate had been particularly interested and committed in cross-training.

Just to be sure that you are following my reasoning, groundfighting in karate has different purpose than bjj groundfighting, and is part of a different approach in strategy and tactics.

Before going further, could you explain what you mean by "classical karate"?


----------



## Em MacIntosh (Apr 17, 2008)

The style I currently study (Chito-Ryu, Canadian Chito-Kai) has had strong judo influence thanks to our sensei Higashi.  We make no claims to be proficient at the common impression of groundfighting as our material doesn't include sprawling or rolling (other than shoulder rolls and ukemi).  We have plenty of set ups in our bunkai, especially neseishi and nage no kata.  We seem to concentrate on using the stance to break the opponents stance (wedge), wristlocks and armbars.  Grounding somebody with an armbar and using your stance (knee) to keep their arm straight is about as close as we get.  We do remind sharply of any lack of vigilance regarding your downed opponent but we have no illusions about our lack of groundfighting.  I suggest anyone who hasn't to get some ground experience so as not to be totally helpless and blind if you get into unfamiliar territory.


----------



## fuyugoshi (Apr 17, 2008)

There are and have been many different forms of wrestling in Asia (everywhere, actually). What people do, usually, is cross-training. I think it is when Japanese developed sport karate, ground fighting was eliminated from the training. However, some karate kaiha have kept the ground training usually by training judo. 

By the way, Okinawan wrestling ends when your opponent is on his back.

Just remember that what you call "known historical trends" is usually from the Japanese sport version of karate developed during the 20th century, and there are not many books about the previous non sport karate. History is always rewritten and thousands of examples of "known and accepted historical truths" being suddenly dismissed can be quoted. But, I don't think this is the place to discuss the nature of historical research.





eyebeams said:


> When the historical evidence and practical technical experience is overwhelmingly slanted toward one point of view, and a few people insist on taking the other, it *does* have to go that way.
> 
> It is not my fault that believing these things is silly. It is not my fault that we know that baihequan doesn't have a submission/position game, that we know the Fujianese ground art is both moribund and that its forms look like no modern karate kata, that Chinese grappling culture did not include an involved ground game and that tegumi contests end when you touch the ground with anything above the knee. These are all true things. I did not invent them. Meanwhile claims of a meaningful newaza game require some explanation as to why something totally inconsistent with the known historical trends should be taken seriously as a "traditional" practice, but why it miraculuously escaped general discussion before the 1990s.


----------



## fuyugoshi (Apr 17, 2008)

DavidCC said:


> You will never find BJJ methods inside karate kata.  However you will find very sound ways of dealing with grapplers and groundfighters.



I have a curiosity: isn't bjj a form of judo? If so, there are sweeps and throws that can be found in karate kata and judo kata, therefore, there should be *some *common methods in karate and bjj. On the other hand, aren't *some *grappling techniques in karate kata similar to *some *jujitsu grappling techniques? If that is true, and if judo comes from jujitsu, and bjj comes from judo, then there must be *some *grappling techniques common to karate and bjj. Am I wrong, or bjj evolved so much that now it is a totally different discipline with a totally new set of techniques and strategies?


----------



## Em MacIntosh (Apr 17, 2008)

There are many common methods between jiu-jitsu and karate, just not regarding the popular interpretation of groundfighting.


----------



## DavidCC (Apr 17, 2008)

Brian S said:


> I hope you are not talking about biting and eye gouges...
> 
> To deal with BJJ shoots you MUST learn to sprawl. Sprawling is not a part of karate.


 

I am not,  I've never seen any biting or eye gouging in karate, but I am not a karate teacher.

and sprawl is not the only effective counter to a shoot.  It might be the only one taught in BJJ schools... or maybe at your BJJ school... but there are other things to be done and at least some karate and kenpo teachers teach them.


----------



## DavidCC (Apr 17, 2008)

fuyugoshi said:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DavidCC*
> 
> 
> ...


 
I'm probably not familair enough with either style but I think what you re saying has some merit.  I was referring specifically to the grounded submissions and ground-fighting maneuvers.


----------



## D Dempsey (Apr 17, 2008)

fuyugoshi said:


> By the way, Okinawan wrestling ends when your opponent is on his back.


Do you have a source for this?  I was led to the same conclusion but everything I found seemed to contradict other sources.  Now days it looks like it is predominately sumo wrestling with some unorthodox tie-ups.


----------



## fuyugoshi (Apr 17, 2008)

D Dempsey said:


> Do you have a source for this?  I was led to the same conclusion but everything I found seemed to contradict other sources.  Now days it looks like it is predominately sumo wrestling with some unorthodox tie-ups.



Yes, "The History of Karate", by Morio Higaonna. If you look at the end of the book, there is an alphabetical index. check "tegumi", "ground fignting", "ne waza" and "shima". I don't remember the page, but that is the way I read it. If I am not mistaken, in the same book Higaonna also compares rules for Okinawan sumo and Japanese sumo.


----------



## D Dempsey (Apr 17, 2008)

Thank you.  That sounds pretty credible to me, I'll have to look into it.


----------



## Brian S (Apr 17, 2008)

DavidCC said:


> I am not, I've never seen any biting or eye gouging in karate, but I am not a karate teacher.
> 
> and sprawl is not the only effective counter to a shoot. It might be the only one taught in BJJ schools... or maybe at your BJJ school... but there are other things to be done and at least some karate and kenpo teachers teach them.


 

 "other things"???? Are you going to leave it at that,lol??


----------



## DavidCC (Apr 18, 2008)

Yes I am because

1) written descriptions are insufficient unless they are exceedingly long and detailed and I don't have the time to write it out for you.

2) even if I took the time the write-up would probably not be enough to teach you the technique.  Notice I said TEACH it to you, in writing. Is that evne possible?

3) if I had the time, and managed to produce a write-up that COULD teach it to you, you probably wouldn't do anything more than argue about it anyway

so if you really want to know, find a teacher near you that can teach these things and go train with him until he teaches it to you.

I will throw you a bit of a bone though  did you see the last season of TUF, the guy tried a shoot and got his shoulder dislocated?  Well, his shoulder was previously injured and vulnerable, but it wasn't a sprawl that did that to him.  So if you get that video you migt see one possibility for doing something other than sprawl.


----------



## MattJ (Apr 18, 2008)

David - 

With all due respect, that is a huge cop-out. To hint at something and then not explain it is specious at best - especially on an internet forum. Surely you can make SOME explanation; off-angle striking, tai-sabaki, etc. 

This isn't rocket science.


----------



## DavidCC (Apr 18, 2008)

Sorry but it is what it is.  I could give you some pieces or descriptions but I just don't see the point, I won't convince anyone who believes otherwise and the argument is boring...


----------



## DavidCC (Apr 18, 2008)

DavidCC said:


> did you see the last season of TUF, the guy tried a shoot and got his shoulder dislocated? Well, his shoulder was previously injured and vulnerable, but it wasn't a sprawl that did that to him. So if you get that video you migt see one possibility for doing something other than sprawl.


 
Manny G. was his name.


----------



## MattJ (Apr 18, 2008)

DavidCC said:


> Sorry but it is what it is. I could give you some pieces or descriptions but I just don't see the point, I won't convince anyone who believes otherwise and the argument is boring...


 
Why don't you humor us for the hell of it.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 18, 2008)

Just to show that a sprawl isn't the only defense against a shoot, here's a slick little number that will put you in the mount if you roll with it.


----------



## Jim Greenwood (Apr 27, 2008)

Karate and katas are how you perceive them and how much you want it to be. Do you honestly think karate practitioners back in the day didnt go to the ground and finished every fight standing and that a real fight then was that much different than a fight of today? A lot of the real essence of karate has been lost Im sure they werent idiots and they showed how moves from katas can be done from the ground and were practiced and taught as so. I know I teach them that way Even if it was that way and they didnt do any ground fighting at all back then which I doubt Why worry about what they did back then and just use what you train to prepare you for everything you can for todays society.


----------



## PictonMA (Apr 29, 2008)

Not hard at all to describe several options besides sprawling when someone shoots in on you for a single or double leg takedown.

* Knee to the head
* Downward elbow to the top of the head
* Guillotine choke
* Front kick to the face
* Evade / sidestep and kick
* Tomoenage

As with sprawling, success will depend on both the person shooting in and the person attempting to avoid being taken down....


----------



## Explorer (May 5, 2008)

I don't know, maybe I'm old-fashioned ... but when my youngsters try doubles or singles I find a good old cross-face works wonders.  There is nothing like giving your opponent a view of his own hind quarters to peel him off you ... now his center line is facing away from you and you're behind him ... I THINK that's a good thing, right?


xo


----------



## chinto (May 6, 2008)

Okinawan Karateka faced Jujitsu trained men in combat that was to the death... do you really think that there are not methods that work well that are not allowed in sport fighting like the UFC and such???!!??  
when its for real, fights are over in seconds, not minutes, not 5 or 15 minutes.. but seconds!!!!   

Okinawan Karate has brakes throws locks, chokes and strikes.  it always has had them.. it is about survival.. not sport games.   

The military has done some research and found that from first sight of the opponent, in any kind of hand to hand fight, they will take less then 30 seconds from first sight till some one is crippled or dead!......... and they also found that the most often out come was death... and usually in the first 5 to 8 seconds...

Traditional Japanese Jujitsu is not like BJJ its not about going to the ground and laying on your back to fight! that lets the other guys buddies kick your head in or cut it off!!!!  they usually went to one knee from what several JJ types have told me.   and I believe them.. just as Aikido and most traditional Jujitsu systems at least do, they stayed mobile and lethal...  and they  did their best to finish the fight while they were  standing and the other was not, if they could not finish it while both were standing.  
THAT IS HISTORICAL FACT!    because stupid games get you killed when its not about entertainment, but about who is still alive in 10 to say 12 seconds on the out side!


----------



## DavidCC (May 6, 2008)

PictonMA said:


> Not hard at all to describe several options besides sprawling when someone shoots in on you for a single or double leg takedown.
> 
> * Knee to the head
> * Downward elbow to the top of the head
> ...


 


Explorer said:


> I don't know, maybe I'm old-fashioned ... but when my youngsters try doubles or singles I find a good old cross-face works wonders. There is nothing like giving your opponent a view of his own hind quarters to peel him off you ... now his center line is facing away from you and you're behind him ... I THINK that's a good thing, right?
> 
> 
> xo


 

I would like to ADD to what you all have posted and say that these methods are good but you have to address the forward momentum of the attacker in a systematic and anatomically effective manner.  Once you do that all fo these are MONEY


----------



## Explorer (May 10, 2008)

DavidCC said:


> I would like to ADD to what you all have posted and say that these methods are good but you have to address the forward momentum of the attacker in a systematic and anatomically effective manner.  Once you do that all fo these are MONEY



Now you've piqued my interest.  Forward Momentum.  Forward momentum ... forward momentum ... If the attacker is tackling you then forward momentum is most definitely a concern.  However, if we're looking at a classical single or double ... the attacker is closing distance, dropping his center low, putting his hips under his shoulders and either picking you up to dump you or basically tripping you (I always hook an ankle behind my singles ... makes things MUCH easier).  So, in a classical single or double forward momentum is less of a concern.  

All that being said the placement of the defenders hips is exceedingly important.  A lot of grappling arts use the sprawl ... I used to use the 'Pancake' to great effect.  In the pancake you allow the attacker to penetrate a bit to get them to commit fully to the technique then you sprawl on the back of their head and shoulders ... you press your chest into their back and arch your back to maximize the impact.  I've seen matches and fights end at this point.  If that's the 'sprawl' we're talking about, it's a great technique.

However, if you take this to the mat (ground) you've given up your feet and, in my experience, attackers come with buddies.  If you're young and fit you can bounce up pretty quickly ... but as we age ....

I use a hybrid technique these days the both holds off the attacker and leaves me standing.  At the attacker shoots, I place my hands or forearms on his shoulders and shoot my hips back ... I'm on the balls of my feet, driving the attackers upper body toward the ground.  Once I've nullified his attack ... I stand up by pressing on him.  Unless I think I can finish an attacker with the take down or throw ... my tendency is to stay off the ground.

xo


----------



## DavidCC (May 12, 2008)

Explorer said:


> Now you've piqued my interest. Forward Momentum. Forward momentum ... forward momentum ... If the attacker is tackling you then forward momentum is most definitely a concern. However, if we're looking at a classical single or double ... the attacker is closing distance, dropping his center low, putting his hips under his shoulders and either picking you up to dump you or basically tripping you (I always hook an ankle behind my singles ... makes things MUCH easier). So, in a classical single or double forward momentum is less of a concern.
> 
> All that being said the placement of the defenders hips is exceedingly important. A lot of grappling arts use the sprawl ... I used to use the 'Pancake' to great effect. In the pancake you allow the attacker to penetrate a bit to get them to commit fully to the technique then you sprawl on the back of their head and shoulders ... you press your chest into their back and arch your back to maximize the impact. I've seen matches and fights end at this point. If that's the 'sprawl' we're talking about, it's a great technique.
> 
> ...


 
interesting post, I think you'll see Chuck Liddell using that same kind of sprawl.

"However, if we're looking at a classical single or double ... the attacker is closing distance,"  the window is smaller but it is there....


----------



## chinto (Jun 9, 2008)

DavidCC said:


> interesting post, I think you'll see Chuck Liddell using that same kind of sprawl.
> 
> "However, if we're looking at a classical single or double ... the attacker is closing distance,"  the window is smaller but it is there....


a lot of the "shoots" in UFC are only able to be done with any kind of safety or real effectiveness by  and large because of the rules. they always put a knee down so they do not get kneed in the face or kicked in the head.. and you can not bring an elbow down on the cervical spine or back of the head.  the UFC is not ultimate. it is however about as far as you want to go with out crippling or killing people.  in real combat people get crippled and killed in seconds, and that would not be entertaining to watch.


----------



## Errant108 (Jun 9, 2008)

How much real combat have you experienced?


----------



## Brian S (Jun 10, 2008)

Errant108 said:


> How much real combat have you experienced?


 
 Yeah, I hear ya. Death and crippling occuring in real combat in seconds is a bit of a stretch don't you think. Unless you are involving weapons ofcourse.


----------



## chinto (Jun 12, 2008)

Errant108 said:


> How much real combat have you experienced?



i have had to fight for my life 2 times.. hope never to have to again. its not fun!! how many times have you been in a fight you were convinced your life was at stake with out  question?


----------

