Groundfighting in karate

[eyebeams]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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—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 (“Enter, counter, withdraw is the rule for torite&#8221 is another I find very interesting. “Torite” refers to grappling (literally "seizing hands") and is used in karate circles to refer to the grappling side of the original art. “Torite” 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 “enter, counter, withdraw” 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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

It's a possibility, but highly difficult.

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]

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

 

[Errant108]

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]

Here's the topic.

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?

 

[eyebeams]

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]

...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]

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]

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]

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