nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Grappling in Karate; Historical Connection???

Damo W

Hi Guys,

Subsequent to pearsquasher mail and mola.mola suggestion
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054961314
that if you want to see more of x them post x... here goes

Excerpts from Nagamine Shoshin's book, "Tales of Okinawa's Greatest Masters."

Tegumi & the Origins of Okinawan Sumo
The Japanese term Sumo, as is defined by the Kojirin dictionary, refers to two people grappling together in a ring. Originally grappling was used as a principal vehicle in martial arts to develop one's strength and promote well being. Later this unique form of grappling was cultivated as a cultural recreation for general amusement.

Actually, there are no accurate historical documents surrounding the origins of grappling in Okinawa. It is believed that grappling ascended from primitive man's instinctive means of self-preservation. In the history of civil fighting traditions here in Okinawa we refer to such grappling concepts as "Tegumi. There is every reason to believe that Tegumi, after being enhanced by techniques of striking and kicking, also served as the progenitor of "di" (or "te" in Japanese).

While the tradition was called Tegumi in Naha, it was known as "Mutou" in both Tomari and Shuri where it remained a popular cultural recreation until Taisho period. In its early recreational form Tegumi was quite a rough and tumble practice. Notwithstanding, it is believed that the tradition was not completely unlike present day amateur wrestling where the victor is the one who conclusively submits his opponent by twisting his joints, sealing his breath, or holding him down so that he could no longer move.

Since those early times Okinawan Sumo has been refined and developed a firm set of rules and regulations. It unfolded as popular cultural tradition and has been handed down to this day. According to island folklore Okinawan Sumo ascended from Tegumi.

It is amazing to see that many TMA (Karate TMA) are unable to accept grappling into their curriculum yet from the testimony of Nagamine Shoshin it suggests that grappling was a director ancestor in a lineage upon which modern karate was built.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

dent

I think Jujutsu was the main combat art in medieval Japan. It has plenty of grappling and the sport version is modern day Judo. No idea why Karate decided to drop that aspect.

Pro. F

i remember seeing on tv about 15 years ago (when i was 10) that karate was formed as a mixture of kara wrestling and te (thai) boxing. i always doubted it was as simple as, or even remotely similar to, this explanation.
i was never really interested in karate so i never really thought about it much but i've always perceived karate as having a large wrestling element. i'm amazed to hear that (some?) karate people are having trouble integrating grappling.

the only karate i've ever done was at a tsunami fund raising seminar in early 2005 in belfast. there were loads of arts there. in the karate section i was taught grappling. the guy (i can't remember his name) showed normal karate movements and how they can be used on the ground. 'twas great!

maybe i have a totally @rseways veiw of karate

SorGan

Pro. F wrote:

i remember seeing on tv about 15 years ago (when i was 10) that karate was formed as a mixture of kara wrestling and te (thai) boxing. i always doubted it was as simple as, or even remotely similar to, this explanation.
i was never really interested in karate so i never really thought about it much but i've always perceived karate as having a large wrestling element. i'm amazed to hear that (some?) karate people are having trouble integrating grappling.

the only karate i've ever done was at a tsunami fund raising seminar in early 2005 in belfast. there were loads of arts there. in the karate section i was taught grappling. the guy (i can't remember his name) showed normal karate movements and how they can be used on the ground. 'twas great!

maybe i have a totally @rseways veiw of karate

A popular opinion from those in the know is that it came from china,Shaolin to be exact..http://www.columbia.edu/cu/jka/origin.html

Pro. F

thanks SorGan, ..kick ass link.

Cake Fiend

dent wrote:

No idea why Karate decided to drop that aspect.

It didn't.

But, unfortunately, most karate schools don't spend much time on its grappling aspect, and those that do don't usually introduce close-quarters techniques until a student has a decent level of skill in striking (say brown or black belt). Since the vast majority of people practicing karate today are not black belts and/or don't train in a good school, people think karate doesn't have any grappling techniques.

If you have a look at some of the older karate styles (e.g. some of the vicious Okinawan stuff) you'll see grabs, throws, chokes, etc, particularly in kata. In fact even in Shotokan kata, probably the most de-fanged forms in all of karate, there are moves that can only be pressure-point manipulation, chokes, locks and so forth. Trouble is, most instructors don't teach these techniques to green belts.

SorGan

Pro. F wrote:

thanks SorGan, ..kick ass link.

nay bother my friend.

Mola.mola

pma-ire is usually pretty helpful in these type of disscussions. i don't like the way karate seems to be always described as some kind of ancient art when in my opinion, it's just japanase PE class. i've seen a few breeds of karate using grappling but it just looks like judo based mma. i personally think it's very difficult to teach more than one rangei n the same system, thai boxing is great for strikes (i don't know anything about thai clinch) bjj is great for "ground fighting" and greco is great for clinch. of these three there use in different ranges is quite poor.

sorry my point was, a karate school trying to teach clinch/ground is probably going to be crap at it. most karate shools struggle to teach striking well. i think the best example would be judo, practiced by millions around the world in every country with very strict rules and the politcs hasn't effected this and the vast majority of judo ppl find difficulty advancing in both stand up and ground grappling usually one is much better in one than another.

SorGan

sorry my point was, a karate school trying to teach clinch/ground is probably going to be crap at it. most karate shools struggle to teach striking well. i think the best example would be judo, practiced by millions around the world in every country with very strict rules and the politcs hasn't effected this and the vast majority of judo ppl find difficulty advancing in both stand up and ground grappling usually one is much better in one than another.[/QUOTE]

:eek:

Mola.mola

sorgan yeah, most karate ppl are crap at striking when it comes to my value scale of striking and my experiecne of karate.

SorGan

Mola.mola wrote:

sorgan yeah, most karate ppl are crap at striking when it comes to my value scale of striking and my experiecne of karate.

yep,
still to each his own.

Mola.mola

Sorry it looks like i've hijacked this thread and am having a go at one particular martial art. Sorry if it seems that way. I've no problems with full contact Karate

Millionaire

There has been a few rough and tough karate clubs in Ireland over there years. I knew of few clubs where sparring was continous with heavy contact. and some pretty tough guys training.

pearsquasher

That Patrick McCarthy interview had in it mention of grappling in Okinawan karate that seems to go along with what Sico said - that it exists but because of poor instruction it never propagated through to what most people practice today - outside classical Okinawan karate.

Another aspect that may be worth considering is the fact that the fighting skills from small provincial islands never developed in an environment where grappling naturally would - i.e the infamous "battlefield". Put 1000's of tired, lice ridden, armour wearing soldiers in a pitch battle and after a while, grappling inevitably occured as weapons became broken and burdensome, the planned auxilary forces never arrived and you're kind of battle weary too. This is where grapplimg arts evolved from, in Japan anyway, and so powerfull striking techniques, such as in karate, didn't have much of a place. Back in Okinawa, local tradition and totaly different conditions favoured the evolution of grappling less so than striking.

I base this mini-theory on reading general martial arts books, studying classical japanese budo (from the mainland) and a tiny bit of intuition and a lot of guesswork!

Millionaire

and maybe as there is a chinese kung fu influence on Okinawan styles (esp Goju Ryu) , maybe some chinese grapping systems got added in, such as Chin-na... ???

Burnt

I maybe mistaken but, it seem to recall that the lad who formalised/popularised karate on main land japan, Funky or
what ever his name is. Had his dojo in the kodokan (judo's home)
for a while and durning this period there was some exchange of
techniques hence the reason why many of the striking techs in
judo KATA have a karate flavour

MartinC2006

For anyone who’s actually interested or in doubt about Karate’s ancient grappling methods they may do well to have a look at some of the articles on www.iainabernethy.com. To say Karate is little more than a Japanese PE class is just laughable, it’s an ancient civilian art but only really came to light in the mid 1600’s. I can understand how modern sporting Karate could be seen in a bad light but sporting Karate and Traditional Pragmatic karate are not the same thing. All be it that the vast majority of clubs are of the sporting variety, as such there is massive misconception of what karate is.

I’ll paste a section from an article which may be of interest, the full version can be found on the link above.

“It was in 1669 that the Japanese invaders issued an edict that forbade the Okinawans from bearing arms. This meant that only those who enforced the laws, and those who broke them, would be in possession of weapons. The remaining citizens, who obeyed this edict, would have no option but to learn effective empty handed fighting skills if they were to assure their safety.
As a civilian living in a country that also forbids the carrying of weapons, one would think that the karate system would be ideal for self -defence. After all, that is what karate was originally created for. However, phrases such as, "95% of real fights end up on the floor" are frequently recited throughout the martial arts community at present. The importance of possessing skills at all ranges is now well understood, after all, a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. If karate is designed for real fighting, then why do the vast majority of karate clubs totally omit ground fighting (and for that matter grappling in its entirety)? Did the past masters get it wrong?
If you study -as opposed to just practising - your katas, you will know that karate does contain a vast amount of grappling (see my book & videos "Karate's Grappling Methods"). Techniques such as Close Range Striking, Throws & Takedowns, Chokes & Strangles, Arm Locks, Leg & Ankle locks, Neck Cranks, Wrist Locks, Finger Locks etc. are all included within the karate katas. But what about Ground fighting? If ground fighting is so important, where is it in the katas? There are a significant number of ground fighting techniques within the katas if you know where to look. One problem that the modern martial artist faces is the difficulties that arise from failing to appreciate the difference between sport ground fighting and real ground fighting. Remember that civilians designed the techniques recorded within the katas for use in the instance of violent and unprovoked attack. No sporting techniques will be found within the katas, nor will you find the sophisticated methods needed to out wrestle a trained grappler.
In a mixed martial arts tournament (such as the Ultimate Fighting Championship) it is quite common to see contestants opt for the fight to go to the ground. This is a sound strategy if the contestant knows that they possess superior ground fighting skills to their opponent. In today's society real fights are rarely one on one for any length of time and hence opting for a ground fight is a sure way to get 'a good kicking' from your assailant's colleagues (or anyone else who fancies a 'free shot'). In the UFC, techniques such as biting, crushing the testicles, gouging the eyes etc. are banned. And yet these are the norm (and a highly effective 'norm') in a self-defence situation. Possibly the most significant difference between sport ground fighting and real ground fighting is the 'intent' behind the fight. In a sporting contest your aim is to win the tournament. In a real fight your aim is to assure your safety. In my dojo, the ground fighting practice revolves around the regaining of an upright position so that student can flee. In a competition match the strategy may well be: A, Take the fight to the floor. B, Keep the fight on the floor. C, Weaken and tire the opponent. D, Get the opponent to submit using the techniques allowed in the rules. In a real fight (and hence the method used in the katas) the strategy would be: A, Avoid going to the floor at all costs. B, If the fight does go to the floor, regain your feet as quickly as possible. C, If getting up is not immediately possible, then hurt the opponent using simple (probably brutal) techniques. D, Once back to your feet, escape and seek shelter or help.”
Apologies for the long paste but the explanation is much better than anything I could write.

Martin.

kenpo_dave

Millionaire wrote:

and maybe as there is a chinese kung fu influence on Okinawan styles (esp Goju Ryu) , maybe some chinese grapping systems got added in, such as Chin-na... ???

Ye this is partly right. Funakoshi acknowledges influences on Okinawan Karate from both Shaolin and Wudang temples. There is a system in Okinawan Martial Arts called Tuite. Tuite is regarded as grappling and uses pressure points for joint manipulation. It is possible that Tuite developed from Chin Na, but I dont know much more about it.

OSU,

Dave.

Roper

Hey, I really don't want to hijack this thread as its an interesting historical discussion:) . I'm starting a new thread on Martin's post above.

On topic,
Judo "strikes" (trying not to sound like Austin Powers there!) are confined to the Katas though aren't they? What I mean is, Judo guys can't, and don't claim to be able to, punch.

Burnt

Roper wrote:

Judo "strikes" (trying not to sound like Austin Powers there!) are confined to the Katas though aren't they? What I mean is, Judo guys can't, and don't claim to be able to, punch.

Roper wrote:

hence the reason why many of the striking techs in
judo KATA have a karate flavour.

like i said roper

Roper

Hey,
Yes I know, I was trying to make a subtle point about grappling in Karate Katas;) ie. Since Judo have strikes in their Katas but don't claim to be able to strike, why do Karateka have grappling but claim to be able to grapple...

I'm wasted here, someone once said I put the "b" in subtle. That must be the problem...

Burnt

my bad...:o

[Deleted User]

Roper wrote:

Hey, I really don't want to hijack this thread as its an interesting historical discussion:) . I'm starting a new thread on Martin's post above.

On topic,
Judo "strikes" (trying not to sound like Austin Powers there!) are confined to the Katas though aren't they? What I mean is, Judo guys can't, and don't claim to be able to, punch.

Some judo clubs have been known to work on their striking. Of course that doesn't imply they have any real knowledge of what they're doing.

ShaneT

Roper wrote:

ie. Since Judo have strikes in their Katas but don't claim to be able to strike, why do Karateka have grappling but claim to be able to grapple...

Because grappling isn't "submission wrestling". "To grapple" is just a verb, it's used to represent the act of gripping or seizing an opponent. From this stem many forms of grappling; close quarter striking, submissions, joint locks, breaks etc.

When a Karateka says he can "grapple", he is not necessarily saying he can "submission wrestle". He is not necessarily even suggesting that he can fight on the ground or has EXTENSIVE knowledge of takedowns..... he's just saying that his is comfortable with being grabbed and he's comfortable with grabbing. He's also likely to know a fair few "standing submissions" (which are typically not allowed in MMA) [Joint locks, known in Karate and Judo as "Kansetsu Waza"])......

But, as Big Jon Bluming puts it (and he has a JAPANESE 10. Dan in Full Contact Kyokushin and a KODOKAN 9. Dan in Judo)...

"Put most Karateka on their backs... ...and they're babies." Not recognising the need for "submission wrestling" rather the need for a fighter to be versed in takedowns (nage waza in Judo) and "ground work" (ne waza in J

For most MMA people though, they hear the word "grappling" and think "BJJ/GroundWork/SubWrestling".

Of course, if you're me, then you don't "sh1te" about terminology and just get on with it...........

:rolleyes:

Who is Jon Bluming? http://www.realfighting.com/0102/jonblumi.htm

Roper

Hey Shane,

I haven't seen every type of Karate, but I've seen a few. In my experience the grappling as you've explained it above takes the form of static, cooperative joint locking and throws and trips.

Grappling takes all sorts (thanks for the unnecessary dictionary definition:D ) into account but my query is less that certain forms of Karate have a grappling element to them, and more that it simply wouldn't be trained properly. Judo, for example (since we can trace everything back to the same origin) derives from the same source but trains grappling properly, my friend is a black belt in Shotokan, and he trains uncooperative throws.

Hope that clears up what I meant. Oh, and as per the John Bluming comment, I reckon you put most stand up fighters on their back and they're babies!

Mola.mola

I've been around judo for about 7 years and once i saw this striking kata. just to make things clear, they're not used by people, people don't usually learn them unless you have a kata fetish (which some do). this particular striking kata of which i only saw a portion before i dismissed it as 100% pointless and not worthy of my time, was really just stretching, especially your fingers. it was being used as a warm up drill. so i'm not saying i'm an expert, or have any knowledge or experience of judo striking, but i'm just trying to make the point it's not a common training drill in judo in my experience.

Burnt

Mola.mola wrote:

this particular striking kata ...was really just stretching, especially your fingers.

mola.mola has ipponed the correct, it was intended as warm up exercise as much as anything else.

what i was trying to get at was that if judo was able to borrow a few bits form karate there is no reason a few sweeps couldnt go the other way.

any interesting comparsion would be boxing which had included much more than striking up 'till the queensburry rules etc... but good look trying to find a boxing coach that will be fit to show you all that old skool stuff

ShaneT

Roper wrote:

Grappling takes all sorts (thanks for the unnecessary dictionary definition:D ) into account but my query is less that certain forms of Karate have a grappling element to them, and more that it simply wouldn't be trained properly....
....you put most stand up fighters on their back and they're babies!

Seems the definition was necessary. Your question didn't mentioned training methods (static/active etc), it just asked "why do they think they can grapple?" Answer; it's in the definition. They don't think they can submission wrestle but they do think they have an understanding of joint manipulation.

Of course, if their joint manipulation training has been 100% static, they may "understand" it but likely can't put it into practise under pressure and with a resisting opponent (etc, etc, etc, etc, etc

). In essence a "false understanding".

To say a Karateka can't grapple is like saying a TKD guy can't punch. Probably true of most, but CERTAINLY not true of all....

Blumings comment refers to all standup fighters. Remember, he's been around for as long has Karate has been in Europe. He brought it here. To him ALL FIGHTING is "Karate", "fighting without external weapons". He calls "all round fighting", "all round karate".

See you tomorrow mate!

Roper

ShaneT wrote:

Of course, if their joint manipulation training has been 100% static, they may "understand" it but likely can't put it into practise under pressure and with a resisting opponent (etc, etc, etc, etc, etc ). In essence a "false understanding".

This was my point. As discussed before there are many, many styles of Karate who train many many different ways.

To say a Karateka can't grapple is like saying a TKD guy can't punch. Probably true of most, but CERTAINLY not true of all....

Again, this is back to the hugely varying standards. I know some excellent TKD punchers but you'll find they generally boxed a bit too.

See you tomorrow mate!

Echo!

pearsquasher

Judo, for example (since we can trace everything back to the same origin) derives from the same source but trains grappling properly, my friend is a black belt in Shotokan, and he trains uncooperative throws.
..

Sorry Roper, what same origion and source do karate and judo a have in common? I'm not sure what you mean here, thanks.

Roper

Hey Pearsquasher,
I'm not one for MA history, but my simplistic reading is that ultimately they were all just "fighting" until they were systematised, and some began to focus on one thing or another.
Cheers,
Barry