Psuedo-bunkai for the grappling craze

[punisher73]

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

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

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

 

[sopraisso]

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

Enviado de meu GT-I9300 usando Tapatalk 4

 

[arnisador]

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

 

[Takai]

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

I think you nailed it.

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

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

 

[K-man]

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

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

 

[Makalakumu]

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

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

 

[punisher73]

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

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

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

 

[Makalakumu]

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

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

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

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

 

[RTKDCMB]

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

 

[Makalakumu]

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

 

[arnisador]

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

This is what I'm saying.

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

 

[Makalakumu]

This is what I'm saying.

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

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

 

[Koshiki]

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

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

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

 

[Makalakumu]

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

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

 

[Koshiki]

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

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

 

[Makalakumu]

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

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

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

 

[Koshiki]

Aha. Quite interpreted and involved, that one is.

 

[Makalakumu]

Aha. Quite interpreted and involved, that one is.

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

 

[K-man]

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

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

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

 

[Makalakumu]

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

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

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