throws and ground work in shotokan?

[alsey]

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?

other than what i've been told by various instructors, most of what i know about jujitsu comes from this book:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0804830274/ref=pd_rvi_gw_1/103-0057504-8379038?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance&n=283155

i don't actually have it at the moment, so i can't quote it but there are several descriptions of samurai training methods in it. its more of a history book than a martial arts book as such.

plus think about the fusen ryu guys. they couldn't have beaten any decent judoka unless they'd done plenty of randori themselves.

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.

yes, a modern MMA fighter would most likely beat a samurai in the ring. what i meant was that samurai did a lot of realistic combat training.

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.

ok, but for the most part we know the techniques the samurai practiced. of course there will be a few things we don't quite understand.

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

i'm not really assuming anything. kata teaches you methods of self defence. if you are very good at this then the technique will most likely work in a fight. there is a chance that it won't, certainly. if it doesn't work then you just try another technique. but the idea is that you train enough so that the chances of the technique failing get smaller and smaller. this is true for any martial art and any fighting technique: if you're good at it, it will probably work. if it doesn't then you do something else. i don't see what the big deal is here.

[alsey]

bushido man, i think the word 'karate' is causing a lot of confusion in this discussion because there are a few rather different things it can mean.

modern karate-do is mostly competition based. karateka today learn how to fight other karateka under certain rules. because of this, modern karateka get very good at fighting other karateka (and kickboxers, TKD practitioners etc). however this type of karate, which is really just a stylised form of kickboxing, isn't much use once the rules of competition are removed. everyone has seen it: strikers get beaten in the UFC (unless they also know grappling). on the street, a striking-only guy stands a good chance of getting into a situation where long range striking doesn't work. this is karate-do as it is mostly practiced today.

now, in modern karate-do you find kata. these kata are a remnant from much older systems: the okinawan systems or ryukyu kempo. anyone who has done a bit of karate can see that the kata are a completely different style of fighting to competition karate. they are for all intents and purposes two different martial arts. so try to think of it is kata-karate and kumite-karate.

in kata-karate, you have the fighting methods of the old masters. these are self defence techniques for use on the street. nearly all of them are actually very simple, compared to say a lot of jujitsu techniques. for the karateka of old, their enemy was the thug on the street. this is why the techniques are simple; you don't need complicated fighting methods to beat thugs. now, if you try to use these methods on a trained fighter, e.g. a modern MMA fighter, they will first know how to counter your techniques, and second they will know how to get through your defences with feints and combinations. kata doesn't contain feints or punch combos, and its hard to beat a trained fighter without them. neither does it contain advanced grappling methods.

in kumite-karate, there is no grappling or groundwork, but there is a lof of feints and combinations! in this type of karate you learn exactly how to beat the defences of a trained striker, and how to counter the attacks of a trained striker. but this type of karate isn't much good in a fight without rules.

so to summarise, a karateka today who practices both kumite-karate and kata-karate (with realistic drills) will be trained to fight other strikers in the ring, and untrained attackers on the street.

[bushido_man96]

bushido man, i think the word 'karate' is causing a lot of confusion in this discussion because there are a few rather different things it can mean.

modern karate-do is mostly competition based. karateka today learn how to fight other karateka under certain rules. because of this, modern karateka get very good at fighting other karateka (and kickboxers, TKD practitioners etc). however this type of karate, which is really just a stylised form of kickboxing, isn't much use once the rules of competition are removed. everyone has seen it: strikers get beaten in the UFC (unless they also know grappling). on the street, a striking-only guy stands a good chance of getting into a situation where long range striking doesn't work. this is karate-do as it is mostly practiced today.

now, in modern karate-do you find kata. these kata are a remnant from much older systems: the okinawan systems or ryukyu kempo. anyone who has done a bit of karate can see that the kata are a completely different style of fighting to competition karate. they are for all intents and purposes two different martial arts. so try to think of it is kata-karate and kumite-karate.

in kata-karate, you have the fighting methods of the old masters. these are self defence techniques for use on the street. nearly all of them are actually very simple, compared to say a lot of jujitsu techniques. for the karateka of old, their enemy was the thug on the street. this is why the techniques are simple; you don't need complicated fighting methods to beat thugs. now, if you try to use these methods on a trained fighter, e.g. a modern MMA fighter, they will first know how to counter your techniques, and second they will know how to get through your defences with feints and combinations. kata doesn't contain feints or punch combos, and its hard to beat a trained fighter without them. neither does it contain advanced grappling methods.

in kumite-karate, there is no grappling or groundwork, but there is a lof of feints and combinations! in this type of karate you learn exactly how to beat the defences of a trained striker, and how to counter the attacks of a trained striker. but this type of karate isn't much good in a fight without rules.

so to summarise, a karateka today who practices both kumite-karate and kata-karate (with realistic drills) will be trained to fight other strikers in the ring, and untrained attackers on the street.

I still don't agree with you. Almost every system of martial arts in practice today have some sort of "sport side" that is trained, along with the kata practice. You talk of fighting with rules, and then compare it to fighting a UFC fighter, who still fights with rules, just a different set.

Now, here's the deal. When you train like this, it is decent training for preparing for a fight. Not the best training, but it is decent. You learn to move, block, counter, and adapt to your opponent's strategies. I get to spar in class with rules. And, I know that if it goes to the street, I can adapt to street fighting, i.e., kick to the legs, strike to the throat or eyes, and otherwise. If you can kick a pro fighter in the groin, or get to his eyes, then you can successfully defend yourself against a skilled opponent.

And another thing you may want to consider is to not under-estimate "street thugs." Take Tank Abbot, for example. There are lots of skilled fighters out there, who have never had a lick of training. It is beneficial to never under-estimate anyone.

[elbows_and_knees]

plus think about the fusen ryu guys. they couldn't have beaten any decent judoka unless they'd done plenty of randori themselves.

yeah, but they were predominantly ground game guys. It's easy to tap from an arm bar. you can't tap if your arm is locked and breaking as I throw you. At one point in time, there were over 700 styles of jujutsu. As far as I know, most of them did not randori.

i'm not really assuming anything. kata teaches you methods of self defence. if you are very good at this then the technique will most likely work in a fight. there is a chance that it won't, certainly. if it doesn't work then you just try another technique. but the idea is that you train enough so that the chances of the technique failing get smaller and smaller. this is true for any martial art and any fighting technique: if you're good at it, it will probably work. if it doesn't then you do something else. i don't see what the big deal is here.

I agree with this. I'm referring to the assumptions I pointed out earlier.

[Shui Tora]

modern karate-do is mostly competition based. karateka today learn how to fight other karateka under certain rules. because of this, modern karateka get very good at fighting other karateka (and kickboxers, TKD practitioners etc)

Yes, that is true; however it is up to the Karate-ka to learn how to switch between street defensive and kumite.

in kata-karate, you have the fighting methods of the old masters. these are self defence techniques for use on the street. nearly all of them are actually very simple, compared to say a lot of jujitsu techniques. for the karateka of old, their enemy was the thug on the street. this is why the techniques are simple; you don't need complicated fighting methods to beat thugs. now, if you try to use these methods on a trained fighter, e.g. a modern MMA fighter, they will first know how to counter your techniques, and second they will know how to get through your defences with feints and combinations. kata doesn't contain feints or punch combos, and its hard to beat a trained fighter without them. neither does it contain advanced grappling methods.

Simple methods against street thugs... Yeah; its great that you can use some techniques, but if you do not understand how they work, and not use your body effectively with the moves; then you are stuck...

Not every martial artisit will know how to defend against the moves... Don't forget that you have different styles. A Tae Kwon Do artist will not know how to defend against the first moves of Heian Nidan as they do not cover it! Everything is different, and that is why you cannot have set defence techniques...

What of Bunkai? The use of Kata is to understand how to use techniques together... Now this may not mean in using the whole kata, but (for example; Heian Nidan) the first three moves can be used effectively IF you understand how they work.

It doesn't always come down to using moves... You have to understand how they work, why they work and if they don't; then is there a solution? Katas were designed for training, but also to get you to think Strategy wise as well... At the end of the kata Heian Sandan, the move isn't hitting someone over your shoulder (it could be, but not very effective) as before the Yori-ash, you are striking into someone's arm (when they have a hold on your shirt) and then striking them with the tate-zuki. (Got me? )

Sorry if I have gone off topic!

Think outside the box...

[legkicker]

I admit I'm not really following this thread much but why does Alsey keep bringing up Samurai into this? Samurai had very little or practically nothing to do with Karate. Legit Karate draws it's roots/lineage to Okinawa. Okinawans weren't really known to be Samurai, they were known to be fishers and farmers. Samurai were typically Japanese, enough said.

If you study an art like Wado Ryu you have some jujutsu in the art, ok...even Konishi's Ryobukai has some aikido/jujutsu qualities in it. All other stles have some newaza bunkai in the kata, sure. Traditional Okinawan bunkai in Karate kata isn't jujutsu.

Kano and Funakoshi were friends, yes...Ueshiba was friends with Funakoshi too...I don't think Aikido is in Shotokan, do you? Some of Funakoshi's senior students trained in other arts. Many of them trained under Mabuni to learn Kata that Funakoshi did not know. Many of them also came from Kendo backgrounds into Shotokan. The simple fact is if you want to learn good newaza go into BJJ or Judo. Don't rely on your Shotokan training.

[elbows_and_knees]

you don't need complicated fighting methods to beat thugs.

Then why do many karateka get owned in street fights?

Not every martial artisit will know how to defend against the moves... Don't forget that you have different styles. A Tae Kwon Do artist will not know how to defend against the first moves of Heian Nidan as they do not cover it! Everything is different, and that is why you cannot have set defence techniques...

any MA with a decent understanding of principles and enough fighting experience will indeed be able to defend against those techniques. Although the TKD guy may not know the specific technique, he will be familiar with the angles and principles behind it from similar techniques in his style.

[Shui Tora]

Then why do many karateka get owned in street fights?

Because they use the stuff that they learnt inside the dojo. Like blocking in the same line as the enemy, instead of moving out of the direction of the enemy's force.

[bushido_man96]

Then why do many karateka get owned in street fights?

Because they use the stuff that they learnt inside the dojo. Like blocking in the same line as the enemy, instead of moving out of the direction of the enemy's force.

It is the instructor's job to teach his/her students to be prepared for self-defense situations. It is their job to teach the differences between the forms, and the applications used in the forms. The students should be learning some kind of footwork in the sparring as well, even though they spar under rules.

[Shui Tora]

It is the instructor's job to teach his/her students to be prepared for self-defense situations. It is their job to teach the differences between the forms, and the applications used in the forms. The students should be learning some kind of footwork in the sparring as well, even though they spar under rules.

That is what I was trying to get at (but you put it better! )

Kumite does have some advatages to using it in the street, but mainly I would use footwork to get outta the way of the attack and then counter, rather than prance about like in Kumite. The odds of a street thug knowing how to do kumite is slim. They're gonna come in wtih a hook punch (etc) and you're gonna have to move outta the way of it. I don't want to get hit!

Self-defence is more realistic and pratical than Kumite. I still do Kumite for health, but more than often you'll see me practice self-defence. (I don't prance in kumite! [j/k])