Grappling in Karate

[Dobbersky]

Good Analagy my friend,

Are there any "grappling" techniques or "anti-grappling" techniques in Capoeira? I'm not to well versed in the style but would love you to elaborate a little into your style with regards to this question?

[JusticeZero]

Are there any "grappling" techniques or "anti-grappling" techniques in Capoeira?

We have some exercises that have some other use but really look like they are blatantly training the sprawl. If no-one around wrestles, they look a bit like those odd flourishes in forms, but they're sprawls. We have a number of throws, which do not end in submissions; the core dynamic of these throws generally is to prevent the feet from moving backward, then apply force to the kneecap, thigh, chest, or face to trip the target forcefully onto their back. We do a lot of acrobatic techniques which do strange things to stuff like wrist locks. We are also able to move very effectively out of or while laying on the ground.

[honoluludesktop]

For a martial arts to be relevant to modern fighting, it changes with the times. Kata that reflects this is not static. Japanese karate based on Budo however, is fairly static. While traditional form can be applied to contemporary situations, that is not Budo's primary goal. In any case, you should follow your teacher. When you can't, find another, or if you have the ability, open your own school.

[bushido_man96]

The main thing I see here is that grappling seems to be associated with the cultural position of authority and community, while striking is more associated with division and weakness.

If you are the police, it is to your advantage to grapple with someone; you will tangle them up and have any number of tools to submit them without great harm into whatever situation is appropriate, the people around you will not interfere and will be glad for your presence. This is one reason why grappling is favored in MMA; there is no outward threats, no surprises, and nowhere to run.

If you are a fugitive or outlaw in your own land, you do not want to grapple. You want to deal with threats to your person decisively and rapidly, retaining your mobility and ability to act throughout in order to be able to flee to live another day. If a technique tangles you with your attacker, it is useless to you. You would be capturing yourself and delivering yourself to your attackers.

From what little I know of Karate, the original history of at least some forms of the art and many of its underpinnings of thought more resembled the latter state, not the former. This might partly explain why grappling has not previously had the attention in it as that it might have had otherwise.

This is an interesting breakdown. You make some good, valid points here.

[Kuma]

Funakoshi shared a few grappling techniques in his book "Karate-Jutsu". Check out this link for some pictures from it:

http://www.chinte.net/funakoshi.html

[ShoriKid]

The main thing I see here is that grappling seems to be associated with the cultural position of authority and community, while striking is more associated with division and weakness.

If you are the police, it is to your advantage to grapple with someone; you will tangle them up and have any number of tools to submit them without great harm into whatever situation is appropriate, the people around you will not interfere and will be glad for your presence. This is one reason why grappling is favored in MMA; there is no outward threats, no surprises, and nowhere to run.

If you are a fugitive or outlaw in your own land, you do not want to grapple. You want to deal with threats to your person decisively and rapidly, retaining your mobility and ability to act throughout in order to be able to flee to live another day. If a technique tangles you with your attacker, it is useless to you. You would be capturing yourself and delivering yourself to your attackers.

From what little I know of Karate, the original history of at least some forms of the art and many of its underpinnings of thought more resembled the latter state, not the former. This might partly explain why grappling has not previously had the attention in it as that it might have had otherwise.

This is an interesting breakdown. You make some good, valid points here.

A few things to keep in mind when looking at the history of karate and how it has influenced the grappling found in karate. Firstly, despite how karate was once told to be the art of farmers training in secret to resist the Japanese, that's not really the story. Research and accounts of the people who trained with the earliest master put it as a fighting art of body guards to a king, who often served as local constabulary. If you are seeking to protect one individual, or possibly facing more than one, you cannot afford to be tangled up with a single assailant.

Early Okinawan martial influences tended to come from China, not Japan. As such, when an upper class Okinawan with good martial talent was finishing his training, he often traveled to China to broaden his horizons as it were. It was seen as a sort of finishing school for Okinawan martial artists. The cultural exchange among the Okinawan elites would have a large number of Chinese diplomats in court as well and they often brought martial training with them. With that Chinese influence, you will see their grappling styles as well. It tended to be more about standing and manipulating than getting on the ground and being tied up. Chinese thought on ground grappling seems, from what research I've seen, and what I've seen of grappling styles out of China focuses on staying standing and putting the other person on the ground or manipulating their body into a better position to strike. Very much what is seen in karate grappling.

Lastly, the Okinawan people had a completely separate native grappling art. Much like the difference in western Boxing and Wrestling. With that grappling system in place, karate practitioners had, or at least saw, little need to emphasize the grappling in their systems. Especially putting people on the ground and following them down.

Not saying what you've stated is completely wrong. Just that there are historical and cultural differences that are different based on the place and time from which an art originates. The frame work we have now may not really fit with one from 300 years ago and half way around the world. It wouldn't even fit that well for 300 years ago and just down the street. That though, may just be the history geek in me.

[Wastelander]

The main thing I see here is that grappling seems to be associated with the cultural position of authority and community, while striking is more associated with division and weakness.

If you are the police, it is to your advantage to grapple with someone; you will tangle them up and have any number of tools to submit them without great harm into whatever situation is appropriate, the people around you will not interfere and will be glad for your presence. This is one reason why grappling is favored in MMA; there is no outward threats, no surprises, and nowhere to run.

If you are a fugitive or outlaw in your own land, you do not want to grapple. You want to deal with threats to your person decisively and rapidly, retaining your mobility and ability to act throughout in order to be able to flee to live another day. If a technique tangles you with your attacker, it is useless to you. You would be capturing yourself and delivering yourself to your attackers.

From what little I know of Karate, the original history of at least some forms of the art and many of its underpinnings of thought more resembled the latter state, not the former. This might partly explain why grappling has not previously had the attention in it as that it might have had otherwise.

This is an interesting breakdown. You make some good, valid points here.

A few things to keep in mind when looking at the history of karate and how it has influenced the grappling found in karate. Firstly, despite how karate was once told to be the art of farmers training in secret to resist the Japanese, that's not really the story. Research and accounts of the people who trained with the earliest master put it as a fighting art of body guards to a king, who often served as local constabulary. If you are seeking to protect one individual, or possibly facing more than one, you cannot afford to be tangled up with a single assailant.

Early Okinawan martial influences tended to come from China, not Japan. As such, when an upper class Okinawan with good martial talent was finishing his training, he often traveled to China to broaden his horizons as it were. It was seen as a sort of finishing school for Okinawan martial artists. The cultural exchange among the Okinawan elites would have a large number of Chinese diplomats in court as well and they often brought martial training with them. With that Chinese influence, you will see their grappling styles as well. It tended to be more about standing and manipulating than getting on the ground and being tied up. Chinese thought on ground grappling seems, from what research I've seen, and what I've seen of grappling styles out of China focuses on staying standing and putting the other person on the ground or manipulating their body into a better position to strike. Very much what is seen in karate grappling.

Lastly, the Okinawan people had a completely separate native grappling art. Much like the difference in western Boxing and Wrestling. With that grappling system in place, karate practitioners had, or at least saw, little need to emphasize the grappling in their systems. Especially putting people on the ground and following them down.

Not saying what you've stated is completely wrong. Just that there are historical and cultural differences that are different based on the place and time from which an art originates. The frame work we have now may not really fit with one from 300 years ago and half way around the world. It wouldn't even fit that well for 300 years ago and just down the street. That though, may just be the history geek in me.

While I agree with your overall explanation, I have to say that modern police and military forces certainly train groundwork (a great example being MCMAP: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0SB5xlxJIU) and that is generally because as a police officer or soldier you will quite likely have backup. I would expect this to also be the case in Okinawa and so while they may have trained tegumi and te/karate separately I have a hard time believing that they kept them completely separate.

[bushido_man96]

Part of the reason you see more grappling now is because of the increased popularity of it; it has to be dealt with.

Also, LEOs tend to grapple more because we aren't allowed to strike in a Karate or Boxing sense unless we can justify it through the use of force curriculum. So if we can't strike, then be necessity, we are relegated to standing joint manipulation into arrest and detain positions.

[holley]

i just got home from karate and i grappled it was alot of fun.

i took down a white belt, green belt, and i blue belt.

[Wastelander]

i just got home from karate and i grappled it was alot of fun.

i took down a white belt, green belt, and i blue belt.

Congratulations! I actually worked grappling with a couple guys after class last night and was able to submit a blackbelt a couple times, but the brown belt I rolled with is a lot heavier than me and with his wrestling background he kept all of his weight on me and I just couldn't do anything with it--it'll take more practice . To be fair, though, that was all groundwork last night.