Grappling in Karate article

Michael O Leary · 22-07-2006 12:27AM

john kavanagh wrote:

yeah and i saw this WT dude beat up an older WT guy and his strategy was to take it to the ground straight away

i guess it depends on the situation....who'd have guessed!!!

Hi John,

Regarding your last sentence I 100% agree with you. In WT we say that in nearly 100% of self-defence situations groundwork/grappling is bad whereas with Matt he would say that in nearly 100% of self-defence situations groundwork/grappling is good. I know that SBG International encourages independent thinking which I reckon you are guilty of, so back to your last sentence, I agree with you. (Who'd have guessed!!!

)

P.S. Don't tell anyone.

PPS. I am not slagging Matt with my last post. I was merely contradicting what Roper said. As (I think) you know I have found "some" of Matt's writings inspirational and enlightening.

Michael O Leary · 22-07-2006 12:41AM

MartinC2006 wrote:

That video is heavily edited.

Saying that with the advent of mma etc Embas version of WT has incorporated some very basic ground work although I think he claims it was there all the time

Martin.

Hi Martin,

Welcome to the forum by the way. Twill be nice to discuss things with you.

Defences against groundwork are a part of Wing Tsun and have been for many years. Whereas a major part of MMA competitions over the past few years have favoured taking the opponent to the ground, WT by contrast favours stand-up fighting and merely shows you what to do "if" taken to the ground so that you can strike while on the ground and then get back up again before his friends kick your head in.

Maybe we are paranoid for focusing on multiple attackers, maybe not but we have been focusing on this aspect way before EBMAS was formed.

Regards,

Michael O'Leary
www.wingtsun-escrima.ie

Michael O Leary · 22-07-2006 12:46AM

MartinC2006 wrote:

The 'Old' guy got a few knees landed in the clinch before Boztepe took him down

The "old" guy was 44 years old, roughly the same age as Bostepe is now and probley about the same age as Matt Thornton, neither of whom would be pleased to hear themselves described as old.

Regards,

Michael O'Leary
www.wingtsun-escrima.ie

MartinC2006 · 22-07-2006 01:03AM

Cheers :P

A few friends of mine train in Embas, although originally traditional WT as they call it. I've read up on Boztepe and nearly got convinced to go to his summer camp. From what I’ve learned from my friends it looks like a good system and I'd hate to meet a WT guy face to face in the street who wanted to do damage to face, its some scary face mashing. The problem I have though is this ground work that’s always been there? I've heard that some Kung Fu guys say it’s an insult to take things to the ground and I think it’s widely accepted that Embas ground work came from Boztepes background in Turkish wrestling etc?

I also think the ground defense they have shown is quite basic and unpractical, it’s just not viable to apply the standing fence concept to the ground when some guy is mashing your face from a mount.

Mola.mola · 22-07-2006 02:14AM

that little kid is deadly! so cute. i love the sucka takedown. vgg.

john kavanagh · 22-07-2006 08:41AM

MartinC2006 wrote:

By the way your opinion on kata is way out, its allot more than you actually give it credit for. You need to understand someone displaying a Kata in a sporting enviroment, as aposed someone breaking down the kata into real life drills and techniques.

oh i think i understand it alright just dont agree its a good training method

"The "old" guy was 44 years old...probley about the same age as Matt Thornton"

:eek: lol matt would not be happy

"In WT we say that in nearly 100% of self-defence situations groundwork/grappling is bad whereas with Matt he would say that in nearly 100% of self-defence situations groundwork/grappling is good."

Irony : you base your whole system around the idea of striking, anti-grappling. "if you go to the ground you get stomped on" etc etc. but then in one of the only 'live' fights available (not just rehearsed demo) with 2 of the highest practicioners it goes straight to Clinch followed by Ground. even though a lot of his friends were there and could've "stomped him on the ground" he still thought it was a good idea to take him down

Michael O Leary · 22-07-2006 09:59AM

MartinC2006 wrote:

The problem I have though is this ground work that’s always been there? I've heard that some Kung Fu guys say it’s an insult to take things to the ground and I think it’s widely accepted that Embas ground work came from Boztepes background in Turkish wrestling etc?

Hi Martin,

I have not heard anything about groundwork being insulting in Kung-Fu. We just feel that in a lot of self-defence situation it is a dodgy tactic. I am not aware of the groundwork in EBMAS being different from Leung Ting WT and I dont think even the EBMAS lads would say otherwise. Rightly or wrongly Bostepe is saying that he is teaching and practising traditional and original WT and it is his main selling point so this whole thing about incorporating Turkish wrestling only muddies the waters (for him) so I think it is untrue.

I am not sure what video clips you saw that you disagreed with but again it is very easy to pick holes in something when you don't understand the context. Why don't you go to one of the EBMAS seminars this week and ask the same question?

Hi John,

Back to the videoclip. Fight goes to the ground with all the mates there ready to kick heads in. Bostepe claims that the room was full of William Cheung's students and Cheung claims the room was full of Bostepe's students. I don't know, I don't care, it was 1984 and I was 13 practising bunnyhops on my chrome BMX bike at the time.

Regards,

Michael O'Leary
www.wingtsun-escrima.ie

crokester · 22-07-2006 12:18PM

I find the whole multiple attackers argument is really clutching at straws for some people. The chances are that if its handbags outside the nightclub or chipper on a satarday night well then you will be with your friends aswell, and if your an MMA athlete the chances are your going to be out with similar people. Who stands more of a chance; a group of street thugs or a group of guys/girls at the peak of their physical ability? And yea i suppose multiple attack situations when your friends arent about do happen. But like everyone repeats on this forum; best training for that is sprint training.

Cake Fiend · 22-07-2006 02:10PM

john kavanagh wrote:

so you basically freestyle your own kata...until it becomes similar to shadow boxing.

Or shadow boxing is similar to good kata... Controversy!

john kavanagh wrote:

hmmmm, and would you pass your grading or win a comp by completely mixing up the moves and doing your own thing?

Who cares? I don't do karate for gradings or competitions.

Roper · 22-07-2006 02:50PM

Okay, i can see whats going on here by using my critical eye;)

Group 1:
Propose that Kata training is useful for combat.
Group 2:
Say no it isn't.
My question would be to take a look at the professionals, not just in MMA but also boxing Thai, Kickboxing, wrestling, and see if they do Kata to prepare for fights. My guess would be no.

Group 1:
Kata is akin to shadowboxing
Group 2:
No.
I'm with group 2 here. Combination punching is not kata. Watch someone go through a jab-cross-hook motion when shadowboxing and you'll probably see that reflected in his next fight. Watch someone do horse stance hip punch front kick in a kata, and I doubt you'll see that in a real combat situation. (note I said real, ie. not points kratty or similar)

Most guys I see doing Kata in deep stances, sharp movement etc,, once they glove up, if they know how to fight, then they sensibly shorten the stance, put their hands up and get on their toes and look fluid. How can these two be reconciled as being part of the same goal?

Patterns are fine if you enjoy them as part of your tradition, but don't try to give them powers they don't posess.

john kavanagh · 22-07-2006 04:13PM

Sico wrote:

Or shadow boxing is similar to good kata... Controversy!

Who cares? I don't do karate for gradings or competitions.

lol if you want to move around on your toes, with your hands up throwing boxing combos, knees, sprawls etc and call it Kata then ok

john kavanagh · 22-07-2006 04:21PM

Michael O Leary wrote:

Hi John,

Back to the videoclip. Fight goes to the ground with all the mates there ready to kick heads in. Bostepe claims that the room was full of William Cheung's students and Cheung claims the room was full of Bostepe's students. I don't know, I don't care, it was 1984 and I was 13 practising bunnyhops on my chrome BMX bike at the time.

Regards,

Michael O'Leary
www.wingtsun-escrima.ie

well considering it was Cheung's seminar not too hard to work out who's mate were there but thats really not the point

2 high level proponents of a system which markets itself as anti-grappling, 'avoid the ground' etc have a fight and it looks nothing like how they train and instead looks like a poor example of grappling.

pearsquasher · 23-07-2006 02:41AM

Getting waaaay back, to the topic at hand:

Is there grappling in Karate?

1) As practiced by those on this board who practice Karate?
2) In Okinawan styles?
3) In "advanced" kata and or teachings?

That Patrick McCarthy interview sugested that there was grappling in Karate but he had to go to Okinawa to see it and study it. He also suggested that solo Karate kata practice, which usually involves striking over grappling, i imagine, became the prominant feature of Karate as it left Okinawa, and this is why people seem to align solo kata practice with karate when there is, according to him, much more too it.. including paired practice and grappling. Local Karate practicioner, ShaneT backs this up,if you resd his posts on this thread.

Thoughts from Karate-ka?
Have any of your teachers gne back to these same roots to see the grappling methods?
If they did, and are passing on what they learned, have they found it's application, if any, usefull? (I don't mean in competition, but YOU could!)

Scramble · 23-07-2006 05:46PM

Suppose someone realises that his particular Karate organisation does not teach grappling, and there is little prospect of it being taught in the future. He decides to address this on his own.

Does he:-

(a) Stay within the Karate community and travel to Iain Aberneithy / Patrick McCarthy seminars, and then host them. Eventually, he begins training the material with his fellow Karate-ka at home on some basis?

or

(b) Find a reputable club which coaches grappling to a high standard, be it Judo, BJJ or whatever else, and immediately begin training there in conjunction with his own continuing Karate training?

As far as I can see, if they are genuinely motivated only to become better at grappling, then where they are training is going to be of secondary importance to the quality of the training. If the training is quality, then it won't matter whether the sign on the door says 'Karate', 'Judo' or whatever else.

On the other hand, if they feel they have to stay within the Karate community in order to begin learning about grappling, then I think it is hard to argue that they are only interesting in becoming better at grappling from a purely pragmatic point of view. If going outside the Karate community to learn is a deal-breaker, then why is this the case? Either they are in love with the history and culture of Karate that much (can't fault someone for this), or there is a less healthy reason.

Cake Fiend · 23-07-2006 06:23PM

pearsquasher wrote:

Is there grappling in Karate?

There are two answers to this:

In most karate, no. But bear in mind that most people in the world who practice karate don't take it too seriously. It's a hobby they spend an hour or two a week at. Most people in your average dojo don't want to seriously learn how to injure someone, they just want to dress up in pyjamas and get a bit of exercise.

In more traditional karate, e.g. some of the Okinawan styles, you'll see far more close-quarters stuff. Also, practitioners of various styles who take their art more seriously and have more time to dedicate to it might well study some of karate's 'lost' techniques. You can find instructors like these if you look hard enough.

john kavanagh wrote:

lol if you want to move around on your toes, with your hands up throwing boxing combos, knees, sprawls etc and call it Kata then ok

OK, that comment was a bit tongue-in-cheek, but if you think about it, shadow boxing could be thought of as a modern equivalent for part of the reason for kata. Kata was originally intended for someone to learn karate on their own a hundred or more years ago, before there was the kind of widespread school or strip-mall dojos we have these days. For someone out in the arse end of rural Japan, kata would be the only way for them to practice karate at all, just doing moves in the air after the day's work or whatever. IMO kata in those days were supposed to bridge the gap between basics and 'actual fighting' techniques.

Naturally, there's not the same need for this kind of practice anymore, seeing as most karate these days is done with an instructor. People still do their kata of course, but I think it's usually more for the craic than for a real purpose. Applicable techniques are learnt through sparring, or shadow boxing when you don't have a partner.

judomick · 23-07-2006 07:24PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rP30tbN3-s8&search=judo%20kata%20

Judo is an alive art its a combat sport, but also has kata as shown above ground katas too!

Thing is the only time its ever practised is for grading when training for competitions kata is the last thing someone would do! why? can anyone honestly tell me that practising the above would give them the edge in competition, i think im backed up by about a million judokas around the world!

In some circles uchikomi i.e practising a throw continously just to the point of breaking balance, is considered kata as its a repetive action, but imo the fact your actually breaking balance and using strength and speed to achieve this seperates it from traditional kata

Michael O Leary · 24-07-2006 12:35AM

john kavanagh wrote:

well considering it was Cheung's seminar not too hard to work out who's mate were there but thats really not the point

2 high level proponents of a system which markets itself as anti-grappling, 'avoid the ground' etc have a fight and it looks nothing like how they train and instead looks like a poor example of grappling.

Hi John,

Cheung claimed that it was not really his seminar but that he was a guest instructor at an "open" seminar and that he had no back up. Bostepe claims that he grappled to stop Cheung running away.

Anyway you say that is not the point. "Your" point is that it is ironic that two stand up guys end up grappling. My point is that life is ironic and I personally don't care. What two guys did in 1984 in Germany has no relevance to what I did today.

My other point is that I recognise that sometimes it is more appropriate to grapple with someone on the ground that to strike them. I don't know if you recognise that I 100% agree with you on this point and that when my learning curve in Muay Thai levels off I wouldl like you to teach me some BJJ.

Regards,

Michael O'Leary
www.wingtsun-escrima.ie

john kavanagh · 24-07-2006 03:49AM

Michael O Leary wrote:

My point is that life is ironic and I personally don't care. What two guys did in 1984 in Germany has no relevance to what I did today

cool and the gang! personally i would just find it hard to train in a system that when two of the tops guys fought it looked nothing like the training. but hey thats me!:)

Michael O Leary wrote:

My other point is that I recognise that sometimes it is more appropriate to grapple with someone on the ground that to strike them. I don't know if you recognise that I 100% agree with you on this point and that when my learning curve in Muay Thai levels off I wouldl like you to teach me some BJJ.

Regards,

Michael O'Leary
www.wingtsun-escrima.ie

i would love to!

judomick · 24-07-2006 03:53AM

Hi Michael, as you, im sure, are well aware i have pretty much no knowledge of WT, watching the fight vid (boztepe vs cheung) is there any WT used at all?

for me it looks like a fight were 2 people dont know what there doing, im probably mistaken, but surely two high level exponents of WT would use a little WT if they got into a fight?

Lookin forward to seeing how you view bjj from a cross training perspective! although im sure your busy with the tax studies at the moment would be good to see you down training!

Michael O Leary · 24-07-2006 04:12PM

john kavanagh wrote:

cool and the gang! personally i would just find it hard to train in a system that when two of the tops guys fought it looked nothing like the training. but hey thats me!:) /QUOTE]

Hi John and Judomick,

Lets just put things into perpective for a minute. Roper, who is a colleague of yours started this thread and in his second post stated that not even the best BJJ practitioners claim that in a self-defence situation you should go to the ground and that it is common sense.

I merely pointed out that this is untrue. Roper runs an affiliate SBG training group and the head of this organisation, Matt Thornton, feels that in the majority of self-defence situations going to the ground is the best option.

Both of you would be better off raising this issue with Roper rather than (again) dragging up the issue of a fight that happened in Germany 22 years ago in order to make disparaging remarks against my art. John, you have claimed in the past that you do not have an emotional attachment to what you do. Prove it and don't shoot the messanger.

Anyway,,,thanks for the kind offer of training and I look forward to taking you up on it.

Regards,

Michael O'Leary
www.wingtsun-escrima.ie

24-07-2006 04:14PM

Hang on when has Matt T ever said that? It doesn't sound like something he'd say?

Michael O Leary · 24-07-2006 04:42PM

columok wrote:

Hang on when has Matt T ever said that? It doesn't sound like something he'd say?

At the seminar of his that I went to in February he said that in the majority of self-defence situations you will not have to worry about multiple attackers. He has a student who works as a bouncer who is tall and skinny and anytime he has trouble he grapples to the ground. Matt also says (and John) that the body is very tough and can take a lot of punishment from strikes, not so with chokes and locks.

Good to hear from you again Colum.

You have been quiet recently.

Regards,

Michael O'Leary
www.wingtsun-escrima.ie

john kavanagh · 24-07-2006 05:04PM

Michael O Leary wrote:

Matt also says (and John) that the body is very tough and can take a lot of punishment from strikes, not so with chokes and locks.

its true. going back to the video fight (dont see why it matters when it was? - doubt they've changed their training methods) you can see even though they both train devasting strikes neither could use them to any effect and instead went for the ole school yard headlock.

the example matt was talking about was one of this guys (very good BJJ guy) is a bouncer who weighs about 9stone soaking wet and yet still is able to handle himself. very few other arts would allow him to do that job considering his size

this is a good clip of a small bjj guy schooling a VERY big strong professional footballer. the first tap comes within 30secs to a knee bar (a tech which would break the leg if he didn't tap out). it takes the MUCH smaller man just 30 secs to incapacitate a big 'attacker'. now imagine him trying to do the same thing with strikes:eek: i dont think so. so for him, regardless of what circumstances they fought, grappling would be by far the best option for him.

you tube clip

Michael O Leary · 24-07-2006 05:14PM

john kavanagh wrote:

its true. going back to the video fight (dont see why it matters when it was? - doubt they've changed their training methods) you can see even though they both train devasting strikes neither could use them to any effect and instead went for the ole school yard headlock.

If you have a point to make about grappling in a self-defence situation why are not addressing Roper? Why are you still going on about this WT/WC fight? Don't shoot the messenger. Surely my point is valid. Even Columok is surprised at Matt's position on the matter.

All the best,

Michael O'Leary
www.wingtsun-escrima.ie

Roper · 24-07-2006 05:14PM

Michael O Leary wrote:

Hi John and Judomick,

Lets just put things into perpective for a minute. Roper, who is a colleague of yours

Colleague?:eek:

Seriously Michael, I think you misinterpreted what Matt was saying that day. What I got from it was "striking not the best option", you seem to have got "always go to ground". Now I wouldn't agree with Matt on everything he says or writes, or on everything John K says or writes, but from hard, painful experience in the gym and on the STREET I know that to be true.

And just because I run an ATG doesn't mean I represent SBG when I speak, or that Matt Thornton represents me when he speaks, except of course on matters of training methods on which I totally agree;)

Peace Michael, and I don't think anyone is trying to run WT down, it is a bit of a silly fight in the video I'm sure you'll agree. I'd expect a lot better with their credentials.

Look forward to training with you someday,

Barry

kenpo_dave · 24-07-2006 05:18PM

john kavanagh wrote:

it takes the MUCH smaller man just 30 secs to incapacitate a big 'attacker'. now imagine him trying to do the same thing with strikes:eek: i dont think so.

1. Its a nice save environment.

2. How long have each been grappling?

3. If the big guy had been striking theres very little the smaller guy could have done regardless of his grappling skills.

Show me a clip of a small guy only using grappling against a larger guy whos striking and grappling with the same skill the larger guy in that clip had. Im not saying it cant happen, but its a lot less likely.

OSU,

Dave.

Roper · 24-07-2006 05:22PM

kenpo_dave wrote:

3. If the big guy had been striking theres very little the smaller guy could have done regardless of his grappling skills.

:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:
I can't :eek: that enough Dave.

UFC1? Anyone? Anyone?

kenpo_dave · 24-07-2006 05:28PM

Roper wrote:

:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:
I can't :eek: that enough Dave.

UFC1? Anyone? Anyone?

Ok, perhaps it was a bit exagerated, but it would have been alot more difficult for the smaller gut to incapacitate the larger guy if he had been striking and knew how to strike . The larger guy was not an "attacker", he was a grappling opponent.

OSU,

Dave.

Roper · 24-07-2006 05:37PM

kenpo_dave wrote:

but it would have been alot more difficult for the smaller gut to incapacitate the larger guy if he had been striking and knew how to strike

:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: All this would do would be to increase the chances of a ko on the way in, which still aren't high with a shooting or crashing opponent who knows what he's doing.

The larger guy was not an "attacker", he was a grappling opponent.

Surely this makes it MORE difficult for the smaller man to submit him. I think you're arguing against yourself here Dave.

john kavanagh · 24-07-2006 05:43PM

kenpo_dave wrote:

Ok, perhaps it was a bit exagerated, but it would have been alot more difficult for the smaller gut to incapacitate the larger guy if he had been striking and knew how to strike . The larger guy was not an "attacker", he was a grappling opponent.

OSU,

Dave.

lol dave. have you ever seen UFC1? are you saying gerard gordeau didn't know how to strike? it didn't seem to work out too well for him...

you think the average street fighter 'knows how to strike' any better than him?

Grappling in Karate article

Comments