Maka, I spent some time search youtube to find Danzen Ryu kata but all I could find is what I would call prearranged forms, even in competition. If you have one that is similar to a karate kata could you post a link for me please.
:asian:
Psuedo-bunkai for the grappling craze
- Thread starter punisher73
- Start date
:asian:
I was referring to the two person kata that is practiced in DZR. If you do the tori side by yourself, you start to see many connections with various sequences in karate's single person kata. There are no single person kata like karate in DZR.
I'm not saying that there is a connection between the arts (there is some interesting history fyi. Okazaki helped to host Miyagi in Hawaii for 8 months).
Anyway, the single person kata is kind of like a book of two person drills.
Yes but it is one of those multiple choice 'Pick a Path' books that for every kata begins to look like the Encyclopaedia Britannica.
Even worse, once you have the six or eight collections straining the bookshelf you realise that you can go from one set to another without losing a beat, so in fact you really have infinite bunkai.
I've seen a lot of those 2 man kata in judo. The only one I have seen in Goju is Gekisai San. I think it must have come from Japan as it is nothing like the Okinawan practice.
:asian:
Yes but it is one of those multiple choice 'Pick a Path' books that for every kata begins to look like the Encyclopaedia Britannica.
Even worse, once you have the six or eight collections straining the bookshelf you realise that you can go from one set to another without losing a beat, so in fact you really have infinite bunkai.
I've seen a lot of those 2 man kata in judo. The only one I have seen in Goju is Gekisai San. I think it must have come from Japan as it is nothing like the Okinawan practice.
:asian:
I listen to the Iain Abernathy podcast and he said that when he does seminars for non karate based martial artists, he basically teaches the two person drills in the kata. This is how we practice DZR as well. I think the two person drill practice is probably more important that the kata itself, because this is where the skills actually get practiced. Anyway, this thread was about grappling. I need some time to work on this more. I have some ideas...
I worked on this in the Dojo Thursday night. I'm not sure if strict grappling interpretations work well, because the basics of the body movement isn't there. However, if you taught the basics and took kata principles and applied them on the ground, that could work well. For example, there is a hand grip peel off arm bar in the Pinan set. You could do this same technique from the mounted position. It's almost exactly the same except the uke side is laying down and you bar the arm with your thigh.
I'm sure there are many techniques in kata that can be transferred directly to the floor. They are, at that point just that, techniques out of kata. To make the kata relevant there needs to be a 'fail safe' technique follow up, straight from the kata. If that is in your bunkai, you are using kata. If it is not there, you are just using a technique that just happens to be in the kata.
Koshiki
Brown Belt
It's the difference between finding ties to the kata in what you are doing, and learning what to do from the kata...
If you are referring to the grappling bit, yes, quite right. Normal kata gives much more information such as position relative to your opponent, direction of attack etc and also assumes a knowledge of vital points. People who dismiss kata out of hand, or even those using for purposes I would say are 'other than intended' are ignoring or ignorant of what kata is really about.
:asian:
OP
OP
punisher73
Senior Master
"Kata" just means formal exercise. It doesn't always mean a solo form like karate utilizes. In kendo, they use "kata" that are prearranged two person drills that are done a set way. In Judo, the "kata" was a set/series of predefined self-defense attacks and defenses that were too dangerous to practice in randori.
In chinese kung fu systems, you had many two person "sets" that were a predefined attack/defense and you would learn to perform both sides. If done independantly, they would look like what we think of as a "kata" from karate.
OP
OP
punisher73
Senior Master
Here, I think is where the line starts to get blurred. A joint lock is a joint lock is a joint lock. For example, I can do an arm/shoulder lock from standing position and I can do the same thing on the ground (called the 'Americana'). The joints only bend so many ways. What is going to be different is learning positional control on the ground to actually employ it. You are only going to learn that from an actual grappling system.
It is this fine line of learning how to actually move on the ground and control an opponent on the ground that makes any of those standing joint locks viable as an option on the ground. When it gets to this point, you would be better off learning a grappling system. Most karate systems taught groundfighting and not ground grappling. They taught how to cause the attacker to impact the ground at a high rate of speed to take theme out, it taught you how to fall and get back up very quickly and it taught you how to strike to quickly create space to get back up. Rolling around on the ground went against what they believed as far as tactical philosophy.
This is true. The strategy employed in karate favors striking, dumping a person at high velocity and/or breaking something in the air or after they hit the ground. However, it should be noted that many of the old masters who practiced pre-1920 also had experience in grappling. Okinawan wrestling, or tegumi, was quite common throughout the islands and it was common for young people to challenge each other to matches. In fact, from the materials that I've read, it was more common for two people to employ tegumi in a match against each other than karate because tegumi was more suited for those types of matches. Karate was considered for life protection only.
It seems obvious to me that there was some crossovers. It seems obvious to me that if a fight ended up on the ground, a well rounded practicioner could apply karate principles and mix them freely with grappling. This is one of the reasons why I tend to teach more of it in my dojo. Of course my background is in judo and jujutsu, not tegumi, so I kind of go with with what I know. In principle, I think this probably matches up more with how the old karateka practiced. From my research, I'm fairly certain that there was a separation between the strategies employed with tegumi and karate. I'm not sure how strict that separation was though. Was it so strict that kata could only be interpreted standing up? I certainly don't know enough to make that judgement, so I won't rule out the grappling interpretations.
We practise Tegumi almost every class. We use it for kumite and to practise all the locks, holds and takedowns. We also use it as the stepping off point into kata bunkai. I have never used it to go to the ground as that is not were we would choose to be. I'm not sure how much grappling Miyagi Sensei engaged in but his successor, Eiichi Miyazato, was a 7th dan judoka.
:asian:
Koshiki
Brown Belt
Yes but it is one of those multiple choice 'Pick a Path' books that for every kata begins to look like the Encyclopaedia Britannica.
I just have to say, I have never considered a kata as a "choose your own adventure," but now that I have, I am in love with the idea!!!
Agreed, and that is why I specified that what I was finding was prearranged. I don't have a problem with that as is is then a clear cut teaching tool. Same thing with judo. I think it is because of those two man kata that people have tried to do the same with karate kata without understanding the principles of the kata to begin with. To me, they are a waste of time and effort (the made up karate ones) because mostly they are impractical. My criteria is; "Can I use this in the pub or on the street?" If the answer is yes, I will look at it and see how it fits in to my training. If the answer is no, then it will join the rest of the ineffective stuff I trained for my first twenty years, in the bin. And, the stuff in the bin is not there because I don't understand it. It is there because the people who designed it didn't understand what they were doing and those of us training it didn't know any better.
:asian:
When you say Tegumi, do you mean Tegumi as the Okinawans practiced, or do you mean the principles behind that practice?
If you learn the principle from the kata and practice it in different situations, what is the difference? I think the distinction is probably artificial and most likely historically inaccurate. From my research, it didn't seem as if the old masters limited their thinking to just one type of strategy. You had to adapt to your situation!
Koshiki
Brown Belt
If you learnt he principle from the kata, then there is no distinction. The distinction is learning something completely outside of the kata, say, a variety of grappling locks, and then completely re-working the movements within the kata to fit the outside technique. It's not bad, necessarily, but more of an awkward attempt to make something fit where it doesn't. If, somehow, you discover, say, a rear-naked-choke takedown by studying kata, and you've never seen the technique before, then I would say it "fits" the kata. If you try to stick the takedown into the kata, and in so doing have to take the kata to the ground, add three extra movements, and render the follow-up and subsequent techniques impossible from your current position, then I would say you're doing something completely different. If you, for some reason WANT it to fit the kata, go for it. It's just not how I, personally, choose to use kata.
And of course, adapt your kata, and practice strategy not found within it. However, even within a very, very simple move in a basic form pattern, you can likely find at least ten or so quite varied application, which all stay true to the original movements, and which follow very different strategies. But hey, whatever helps you learn. I agree that, like most distinctions, it's an artificial one.
Hopefully it is as near to the original as I can determine. An article by Iain Abernethy gives a pretty good description of what we do.
http://iainabernethy.co.uk/article/tegumi-karates-forgotten-range
For us, it is a more spontaneous type of sparring than our kata bunkai which is far more structured. We don't normally take it to the ground as I am always assuming multiple attackers. So we practise takedowns and if we happen to go down too, we get up as quickly as possible.
:asian:
Similar threads
