throws and ground work in shotokan?

[elbows_and_knees]

that's because you don't want to be on the ground when there's hundreds of people swinging swords and halberds around. in JJJ the focus is to try and win the fight while still standing up to give you the best chance of survival, but if it does go to the ground then there is also a wealth of ground fighting methods.

no doubt. IMO, they are still inferior on the ground to a wrestler, for example, but we are talking about untrained attackers, yes, this is fine.

then you use karate's ground fighting methods. the reason there isn't much of it is because you don't need much of it to defend yourself. karate won't teach you how to beat an experienced grappler, but it does contain the methods needed to win most ground fighting situations.

No, it doesn't. Having the "principles" in the kata does nothing for you on the ground. you have to train the ground game to get good at it, and I'd bet money that most karate schools don't do that. I know that the ones I've trained at / been in contact with don't do it with enough frequency to be good at it. And striking from the ground won't always cut it. However, you have aroused my curiousity - you say you don't need much to be able to defend yourself - what do you think you need?

also i'm not talking about ending things with one strike. most karate techniques involve an entry, a clinch grapple of some sort, and then strikes or a throw, which then leaves the opponent either completely disabled or very vulnerable.

there's the assumption again... completely disabled or slightly vulnerable.

1. there is an assumption that you will be able to clinch the guy off your entry

2. that you are able to throw him

japanese throws, unlike chinese, tend to put someone on their back. that will not disable them unless their head bounces off of the ground pretty hard, or unless they try to catch their fall with their arm or something. Any other type of injury is incidental. Chinese throws aim to throw you on your head. With those, it's a safer assumption (yet still an assumption) that the attacker is disabled.

in principle you can develop any style into anything with enough thought, but i'm talking about actual ground fighting principles here: not stand up principles which can then be developed into ground fighting, although they are also in the kata.

you are re-inventing the wheel here. principles don't translate to applications unless you know how to apply them. I can teach anyone how to do juji gatame within 10 mins, but until they actually try to apply it, they will not know. It's like what jeff speakman's teacher said in "the perfect weapon": "I have shown you the dragon, but you have not seen him"

ok let me clarify what i'm saying. the karate-do styles are mostly practiced as kick/punch-block systems today. however, these styles still practice the old kata which have mostly come from the okinawan karate (or ryukyu kempo or whatever you want to call it) which was a complete self defence system. so if you look in the kata, you'll see there is more to karate than the punch-block stuff that is commonly practiced in karate-do.

I realize that. But as I said before, principles are useless if you can't apply them. you can train kata all day and still not be able to fight with them. even bunkai - unless you are actively training and drilling applications on a regular basis, the principles in kata mean nothing. This is why a kata will not help you with groundfighting.

[bushido_man96]

I believe the difference between a do and a jutsu is how it was related to actual combat situations in a war. After the advent of the firearm, and the decline of close quarters combat in warfare, the need to study as much hand to hand combat began to fall away. This can even be seen in Western Martial Arts as well.

When the jutsu fell away, in order to somewhat preserve them, they started to become the dos we now know of.

after the meiji / tokugawa (always forget which, that's why I put both) there was a time of peace. Samurai were not needed anymore. MA were taught mainly for fitness and for preservation of the art. That was the end of jutsu and the beginning of do. The wartime styles were considered koryu - classical martial arts. peacetime arts were more for enhancing your way of life, hence the term do.

Yeah, that is kind of what I meant.

[elbows_and_knees]

unless you're very lucky and find a school that teaches combative karate, you'll probably have to take your training outside the dojo in an informal setting as i and another guy from my old dojo have done.

I was one of those. the guy I trained with was born and raised in japan and only taught a few kata - even though he knew all of the shotokan kata and actually helped me with them, as I was also training karate under someone else at the time - he himself only taught taikyoku shodan and sanchin. everything else was drilling and sparring.

[elbows_and_knees]

after the meiji / tokugawa (always forget which, that's why I put both) there was a time of peace. .

things started to get peaceful after tokugawa, when meiji was made emperor.

Thanks.

[alsey]

that's because you don't want to be on the ground when there's hundreds of people swinging swords and halberds around. in JJJ the focus is to try and win the fight while still standing up to give you the best chance of survival, but if it does go to the ground then there is also a wealth of ground fighting methods.

no doubt. IMO, they are still inferior on the ground to a wrestler, for example, but we are talking about untrained attackers, yes, this is fine.

a modern JJJ practitioner, perhaps, but that's just due to the teaching methods used today, not what is contained in the art. an actual samurai who trained realistically would be a different story, and i'm sure would hold his own against any wrestler from that period of history.

but a karateka would have nothing on a wrestler on the ground, and nothing on a kickboxer standing up. karate just isn't made for fighting other fighters.

then you use karate's ground fighting methods. the reason there isn't much of it is because you don't need much of it to defend yourself. karate won't teach you how to beat an experienced grappler, but it does contain the methods needed to win most ground fighting situations.

No, it doesn't. Having the "principles" in the kata does nothing for you on the ground. you have to train the ground game to get good at it, and I'd bet money that most karate schools don't do that. I know that the ones I've trained at / been in contact with don't do it with enough frequency to be good at it. And striking from the ground won't always cut it. However, you have aroused my curiousity - you say you don't need much to be able to defend yourself - what do you think you need?

of course, you have to practice a lot. doing kata and nothing else won't make you a good fighter. you do the kata, identify the techniques and then practice them against an opponent. a compliant opponent first, then a resisting opponent. you're right though, most karate schools don't do that. all i'm saying that the techniques are there in the kata, whether or not they are practiced realistically is another matter.

what do i think i need? i think i need to know how to get into a favorable position on the ground, how to apply chokes, and how to apply a few joint locks. i don't think i need to know, for example, everything a judoka knows. in my experience, with a bit of ground fighting knowledge you can easily beat someone who has no ground fighting knowledge. however, if i tried to ground fight a judoka i would get destroyed.

also i'm not talking about ending things with one strike. most karate techniques involve an entry, a clinch grapple of some sort, and then strikes or a throw, which then leaves the opponent either completely disabled or very vulnerable.

there's the assumption again... completely disabled or slightly vulnerable.

1. there is an assumption that you will be able to clinch the guy off your entry

2. that you are able to throw him

japanese throws, unlike chinese, tend to put someone on their back. that will not disable them unless their head bounces off of the ground pretty hard, or unless they try to catch their fall with their arm or something. Any other type of injury is incidental. Chinese throws aim to throw you on your head. With those, it's a safer assumption (yet still an assumption) that the attacker is disabled.

if your technique doesn't work, then you try another, and another until something works. that's how you fight. but the idea is that against an untrained opponent, if you're reasonably skilled, your first technique will work. some of the kata movements i believe actually contain 'contingencies' in case your first technique doesn't work; the opening of heian nidan for example.

sorry if i'm wrong but you seem to have the position that if there is a chance of a technique failing, then the technique is worthless. all techniques from any style can fail, and if they do then you just try another.

japanese throwing techniques are very varied. some put the opponent on their back, some on their front, some on their side. a lot of them, if you drop to your knees while throwing will land the opponent on their head. a lot of jujitsu throws are made while the opponent is already locked; a lot of shoulder throws for example. when you do this, its quite likely that the locked joint will be seriously damaged during the throw.

i don't know anything about chinese throws, but all the japanese throws i know result in you being in a position of complete control. the opponent may have landed quite safely, but their arm will be locked up and they will have a knee waiting to drop on their head.

you are re-inventing the wheel here. principles don't translate to applications unless you know how to apply them. I can teach anyone how to do juji gatame within 10 mins, but until they actually try to apply it, they will not know. It's like what jeff speakman's teacher said in "the perfect weapon": "I have shown you the dragon, but you have not seen him"

surely though that is just a matter of training and practice?

i think i should clarify my position again: i don't think that by practicing kata you will automatically be a good grappler. the original topic was whether or not there is grappling and groundwork in karate. i said that there are grappling and ground fighting techniques in the kata. and essentially, that is all i said. of course, if you want to be proficient with these techniques then you have to practice them in a realistic training scenario with a resisting partner.

[elbows_and_knees]

a modern JJJ practitioner, perhaps, but that's just due to the teaching methods used today, not what is contained in the art. an actual samurai who trained realistically would be a different story, and i'm sure would hold his own against any wrestler from that period of history.

I dunno, I don't get caught up in nostalgic views of the past anymore. speaking from a view of specificity though, the samurai would dominate standup, the wrestler would dominate the ground.... the samurai would have been inferior on the ground even then. Heck, we saw it when kano's guys were beating jjj guys in shiai. randori wasn't a big part of jjj at the time in most schools, because they taught crippling techniques and couldn't practice them safely.

but a karateka would have nothing on a wrestler on the ground, and nothing on a kickboxer standing up. karate just isn't made for fighting other fighters.

one of the best fighters I know is a karateka. Also, there is a kyokushin guy who is dominating in K-1. Any style is made for fighting other fighters. What's important isn't the style, but the training methods.

sorry if i'm wrong but you seem to have the position that if there is a chance of a technique failing, then the technique is worthless. all techniques from any style can fail, and if they do then you just try another.

No, I don't. but you are making assumptions of what will or won't end a fight. I'm merely posing the question of, it that fails, then what?

japanese throwing techniques are very varied. some put the opponent on their back, some on their front, some on their side. a lot of them, if you drop to your knees while throwing will land the opponent on their head. a lot of jujitsu throws are made while the opponent is already locked; a lot of shoulder throws for example. when you do this, its quite likely that the locked joint will be seriously damaged during the throw.

IME, it's mainly a sweep or takedown that puts them on their front, not a throw. However, you are right about being able to modify a technique to drop them on their head instead of their back, and also about the throws with a locked joint.

surely though that is just a matter of training and practice?

exactly. and with weapons, ki, kata, bunkai, basics, bag work, etc... when do classes really have time to fit in groundwork?

i think i should clarify my position again: i don't think that by practicing kata you will automatically be a good grappler. the original topic was whether or not there is grappling and groundwork in karate. i said that there are grappling and ground fighting techniques in the kata. and essentially, that is all i said. of course, if you want to be proficient with these techniques then you have to practice them in a realistic training scenario with a resisting partner.

gotcha.

[legkicker]

unless you're very lucky and find a school that teaches combative karate, you'll probably have to take your training outside the dojo in an informal setting as i and another guy from my old dojo have done.

I was one of those. the guy I trained with was born and raised in japan and only taught a few kata - even though he knew all of the shotokan kata and actually helped me with them, as I was also training karate under someone else at the time - he himself only taught taikyoku shodan and sanchin. everything else was drilling and sparring.

Sounds like you were very lucky to have someone that focused on a couple of kata. I believe heavily in quality over quantity. I have kind of broken away from my shito ryu roots when I teach kata now to only teach about a dozen, max. Even though I "know" around 40 but only feel comfortable in about 4.

[alsey]

I dunno, I don't get caught up in nostalgic views of the past anymore. speaking from a view of specificity though, the samurai would dominate standup, the wrestler would dominate the ground.... the samurai would have been inferior on the ground even then. Heck, we saw it when kano's guys were beating jjj guys in shiai. randori wasn't a big part of jjj at the time in most schools, because they taught crippling techniques and couldn't practice them safely.

the reason i'm talking about things historically is because i'm trying to point out that there are a lot of things in certain martial arts which aren't commonly practiced today. karateka used to train grappling, and samurai used to do plenty of randori. these days, you have to be lucky to find a karate school which teaches grappling, and you also have to be lucky to find a JJJ school that does a lot of randori. at my current JJJ dojo, the senior students do randori most of the time.

by the time kano came along, the samurai and hence JJJ were already in decline. nevertheless, in 1900 the kodokan representatives were defeated by fusen ryu students.

when the samurai were still active and important at the height of the edo period, jujitsu was practiced quite differently to how it is today. the samurai training methods would match up to anything modern MMA fighters do, minus the modern knowledge of medicine, nutrition, psychology etc.

now while this is all history, its only history by choice. the techniques the samurai practiced are still known today, its just not that common for a JJJ school to do much realistic training. the same goes for karate: the techniques the old masters practiced are still there in the kata, they're just not practiced much now.

one of the best fighters I know is a karateka. Also, there is a kyokushin guy who is dominating in K-1. Any style is made for fighting other fighters. What's important isn't the style, but the training methods.

K-1 is essentially a kickboxing competition, yes? sorry i don't know much about these things. now we're talking about something quite different. karate as it is taught today is meant for fighting other fighters, but under certain rules: i have spent most of my karate training fighting other karateka. modern karateka can do well in competitions where the rules prevent serious grappling (i'm working on the assumption that this is true for K-1, correct me if i'm wrong), because modern karate is effectively a form of kickboxing.

try to use karate or kickboxing in the UFC and you get beaten (unless of course you know some grappling as well). again, try to use modern karate or kickboxing on the street and you run the risk of getting into a grapple and not knowing what to do.

now traditional karate training will give you what you need to fight against untrained attackers on the street: striking, grappling, throwing and ground fighting techniques from the kata. however these techniques aren't advanced enough to beat, say, a UFC fighter.

i really want to keep this discussion on the subject of traditional karate, and perhaps i should be using the term ryukyu kempo instead. the kind of karate used in competition is something rather different.

sorry if i'm wrong but you seem to have the position that if there is a chance of a technique failing, then the technique is worthless. all techniques from any style can fail, and if they do then you just try another.

No, I don't. but you are making assumptions of what will or won't end a fight. I'm merely posing the question of, it that fails, then what?

i could say the same about the chinese throwing you mentioned. what if the throw fails and the opponent doesn't land on their head? no doubt the practitioner of that style will then try a different technique until the opponent is disabled. the same goes for karate.

IME, it's mainly a sweep or takedown that puts them on their front, not a throw.

ok that's technically correct i guess, i was including sweeps and stuff under 'throws'.

[elbows_and_knees]

the reason i'm talking about things historically is because i'm trying to point out that there are a lot of things in certain martial arts which aren't commonly practiced today. karateka used to train grappling, and samurai used to do plenty of randori.

I've never heard or seen that - do you have a reference for it?

by the time kano came along, the samurai and hence JJJ were already in decline. nevertheless, in 1900 the kodokan representatives were defeated by fusen ryu students.

yeah - they were ground fighters.

when the samurai were still active and important at the height of the edo period, jujitsu was practiced quite differently to how it is today. the samurai training methods would match up to anything modern MMA fighters do, minus the modern knowledge of medicine, nutrition, psychology etc.

I disagree that it would, for the very reasons you stated - all of those things are so far advanced compared to what they were like then that The only natural end-result is a better fighter.

now while this is all history, its only history by choice. the techniques the samurai practiced are still known today, its just not that common for a JJJ school to do much realistic training. the same goes for karate: the techniques the old masters practiced are still there in the kata, they're just not practiced much now.

for the most part. Not all of the techniques are still known, however. A perfect example is yama arashi. four different people will show you four different ways, and those was are different from the way they are done in judo and aikido. Nobody is really sure what the original yama arashi was anymore.

i could say the same about the chinese throwing you mentioned. what if the throw fails and the opponent doesn't land on their head? no doubt the practitioner of that style will then try a different technique until the opponent is disabled. the same goes for karate.

which is true, but I'm not the one making the assumptions - you are.

[bushido_man96]

This post is in response to the idea that karate is not meant for fighting other skilled martial artists.

My response is: Why not? Don't you (karatekas) train with other skilled karatekas? If this is the case, then any karate practitioner should feel somewhat comfortable in an engagement with another skilled martial artist. Saying that training in the art will only prepare you to combat an untrained "street thug" is a little demeaning to your own style, in my opinion. Now, there is the detriment to the lack of ground work, but that is to be expected, and it can be changed. But claiming that it is not intended for combating skilled martial artists is another incorrect assumption, I feel.