Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet

Posted by: medulanet

Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/21/08 03:31 AM

I couldn't think of a great title, so this is the one I used. However, I know how many discussions we have had on the subject, however, I just came across something. I remember Unyu said Funakoshi talked about Tegumi, so I dug up his book My Way of Life and found his referrences to it. It is very interesting. And it also is interesting to see that what he describes is very similar to the submission wrestling art I believe tegumi to have been. Here is a link. On page 63 beginning with the section Recollection of Childhood. Check it out and let me know what you think. Oh, and yes this post is obviously about my out of control ego and bravado.

http://www.afkka.com/docs/my_way_of_life.pdf
Posted by: Zach_Zinn

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/21/08 03:44 AM

Erm...I gonna venture a guess that alot of us on here have already read this, sorry to be rude but this book is not exactly an obscure one.

It's mildly interesting reading but I hope you aren't thinking this somehow "proves" any of the groundfighting stuff we've talked about, it doesn't even come close.


Basically you've reminded us that funakoshi makes some mention of tegumi in his (famous, well read) book, what were you hoping to acheive with this?

P.S. Do you always have a huge chip on your shoulder when you post, or is that just my impression of your writing?
Posted by: medulanet

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/21/08 04:45 AM

Did you read the pages he wrote on the subject? I know people have accused me of not providing references in the past and I believe Ed said that only Nagamine made any reference to Tegumi prior to the UFC. This is simply a reference that I find interesting and it further shows how integral grappling traditions were to okinawan karate as well as their relation to submission style grappling practices of today. I also remeber that people questioned Jokei Kushi's research in Nagamine's second book and this passage confirms many of the things his research affirmed.

As far as having a "chip" it seems recently I am accused of having alterior motives to my posts. I simply wanted to get that out of the way rather than waiting for someone to accuse me of it because I believe strongly in my convictions.
Posted by: haze

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/21/08 06:43 AM

"another local Okinawan sport, not only because it provided me with many hours of fun when I was young"

Anther, meaning separate,

When I was young, past tense probably not doing it any more, replaced it with karate.

I would think that if it was played/practiced as a youth and was part of his karate training he would have said that the wrestling he did as a youth helped greatly in the ground techniques that are found in his karate.
Posted by: ThunderboltLotus

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/21/08 08:24 AM

http://www.fightingarts.com/ubbthreads/s...e=1&fpart=9

You obviously didn t read this quote then Med.
Funnily after i posted this i found out one of the 'experts' with a Tegumi tape out has supposedly produced his latest podcast on Funakoshi and his link to Tegumi! If only these guys would admit what their doing (however good others think it/they are) and stop trying to link their stuff to a past master or word then the easily manipulated would learn to stand on their own two feet or in this case pull themselves up by their boot straps and be discriminate in their choice of influences.

i feel an article in the making!
Posted by: student_of_life

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/21/08 09:13 AM

thanks for posting a link to that book med! *prints and binds at school*
Posted by: Seiken

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/21/08 10:17 AM

Quote:

"another local Okinawan sport, not only because it provided me with many hours of fun when I was young"

Anther, meaning separate,

When I was young, past tense probably not doing it any more, replaced it with karate.

I would think that if it was played/practiced as a youth and was part of his karate training he would have said that the wrestling he did as a youth helped greatly in the ground techniques that are found in his karate.




Actually, Funakoshi gives a very vivid detailed explanation of what Tegumi is. What you stated is only the first paragraph of his description. He even gives two specific techniques. And he does say certain bouts being with you laying down. Do you lay down standing up?

|
|
The Okinawan name for our style of wrestling is tegumi, and should you write the word, you would use
the same two Chinese characters that are used to write karate’s kumite, except that they are reversed.
Tegumi is, of course, a far simpler and more primitive sport than karate. In fact, there are few rules except
for certain prohibitions: the use of fists, for example, to strike an opponent, or the use of the feet and the
legs to kick him. Nor are opponents permitted to grab each other’s hair or pinch one another. Prohibited
also are the sword hand and the elbow blow used in karate.

Unlike most forms of wrestling, in which the participants are lightly clad, entrants in tegumi bouts remain
fully clothed. Further, there is no special ring; the bout may be held anywhere—inside the house or in
some nearby field. I should note that when I was young the outdoors was generally the scene for tegumi
bouts because they tend to get rather lively and our parents did not like to see sliding paper doors and
tatami mats damaged. Of course, when we held a bout in a field, we first had to remove all the rocks and
stones that are a prevailing feature of the Okinawan rural scene.

The bout begins, as sumo does, with the two opponents pushing against each other. Then, as it proceeds,
grappling and throwing techniques are used. One that I recall well was very similar to the ebigatama (leg
block and three-quarter Nelson) of today’s professional wrestling. When I watch wrestling on television
nowadays, I am often reminder of the tegumi of my Okinawan youth.

The referees were usually boys who acted also as seconds to the opponents, their principal role being to
ensure that neither participant was seriously injured or knocked unconscious. To stop the fight, all that
any boy who felt he had had enough needed to do was to pat his opponent’s body. Some boys, however,
were so dauntless that they would go on fighting until they were knocked out. In such cases, it would be
the duty of the referee to try to stop the bout before that happened.
|
|
Like every other Okinawan boy, I spent many happy hours engaging in or watching tegumi bouts, but it
was after I had taken up karate seriously that I came to realize that tegumi offers a unique opportunity for
training, in that it need not be limited to two participants. One (usually, of course, an older and stronger
boy) may take on two or three opponents or as many as he feels up to.

Such bouts begin with the lone wrestler lying down flat on his back, his opponents pinning down his arms
and legs. Once I had determined to become a karateka, I used to get four or five younger boys to wrestle
with me, believing that such bouts would strengthen my arm and leg muscles as well as those of the
stomach and the hips. I cannot now say how much tegumi actually contributed to my mastery of karate,
but I am certain that it helped fortify my will.
Posted by: Neko456

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/21/08 10:29 AM

Med - I agree with the others it does not prove that ground fighting is intergal part of Karate he mentined that even the Okinawans couldn't prove this but felt that maybe once it was. If wrestling was older then Karate wouldn't its presence be there since it was already being practiced as Karate was being devised. Really showing they were seperate and not a part of Karate training.

Its already been established that Okinawans has a submission wrestling sport or Childhood past time and he mentioned they were serious about it. He only contributed his past wrestling experience to enhancing his fitness and know how when dealing with multiples opponents.

So in essence his experience with wrestling is the same as mines it enhanced my fitness and strengthen my body adding to my ground game. But it was not a part of my Karate training though certain techniques you see comparison as in the fireman carry or kata gauruma which is a throw for example.

Good find but it only prove our point. There is no detailed Ground fighting/Osaekomiwaza in Karate's Kata.
Posted by: JAMJTX

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/21/08 11:22 AM

Just beracause he did not mention tegumi being an integral part of the ground fighting in Karate, does not prove that there is no ground fighting in Karate.

There is in fact ground fighting in atleast some styles of Karate. If you do not have a teacher than can show you the applications you need to either closely examine the movements of your kata and get creative or just find a better teacher.

I have had 2 Goju Ryu teachers that showed me ground fighting applications. I had this discussion with another teacher who asked me if I know the ground applications from Naihanchi. One is an escape from the "mount"

Despite popular opinion, the Gracie family did not invent ground fighting. It's been around for a long long time.

Tegumi most certainly had a strong influence on the development of Karate and Karate includes ground fighting and stand-up grappling. Funakoshi may not have taught it in his "school boy" version of Karate, but that does not mean that it never existed.
Posted by: Neko456

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/21/08 11:27 AM

It doesn't prove that it did either is my point. Hell I teach ground fighting in my Goju-Ryu Karate class so what does it prove. I acknowledge added it from my wrestling, Judo, Jujitsu background not from my Karate Kata system.

I'm not saying you shouldn't have your opinion. You are in good company I admire and respect Shorin's Master Pat McCarthy he says the samething but I don't agree with him.
Posted by: JAMJTX

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/21/08 11:44 AM

I don't know how you can "disagree". It's either there or it's not. It's like arguing over whether the grass is green or red. Not being able to see it or understand it does not mean it's not there.
Posted by: Seiken

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/21/08 12:26 PM

It would take a martial arts historian to actively go out and search real answers and research everything possible for us to ever know a real answer. Then, the people would still need trust & faith in that persons discoveries. But once the map is made it is very easy to travel the path yourself if need be.

We should feel so lucky that someone has done just that. Not only publishing his research but actively teaching it and creating a very easy to follow map in the process. It just takes work on the individuals part to comprehend it all at once and see the whole picture.

This is a good start. http://www.koryu-uchinadi.com/original_five_fighting_arts.htm

And I assure you, if anyone were to take the journey on their own they will find no greater truths than what Patrick McCarthy has presented us.
Posted by: medulanet

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/21/08 01:36 PM

Actually Neko, there are many people on this very forum that do not believe that tegumi was even a form of submission wrestling. They do not believe that grappling was used by karateka prior to the UFC to enhance their skill in karate. Again, my contention has always been that a form of submission wrestling was classically used by okinawans as a supplementary exercise which allows them to gain wrestling skill just like weight training does. I contend that this does make it a part of "karate." In addition, the joint locks, takedown/throws, and chokes in kata when combined with the wrestling skill obtained through grappling practice makes a complete karateka. This IS the old way, not a new way.
Posted by: Zach_Zinn

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/21/08 01:57 PM

Quote:

Actually Neko, there are many people on this very forum that do not believe that tegumi was even a form of submission wrestling. They do not believe that grappling was used by karateka prior to the UFC to enhance their skill in karate. Again, my contention has always been that a form of submission wrestling was classically used by okinawans as a supplementary exercise which allows them to gain wrestling skill just like weight training does. I contend that this does make it a part of "karate." In addition, the joint locks, takedown/throws, and chokes in kata when combined with the wrestling skill obtained through grappling practice makes a complete karateka. This IS the old way, not a new way.




Once again you are being very selevtive with your interpretation of people's words. You keep presenting things most of us would agree on as things we would argue against, then claiming these are you original argument.

Problem is you seem to trying to claim Karate is a totally "complete" art, while simultaneously admitting that cross-training is required to complete it, only you don't like to call it crosstraining for some reason.

Secondly, it really doesn't matter to anyone but historians what the content of Tegumi was, since no one seems to practice it alongside Karate today.

We all know there are grappling techniques in Karate, however it appears that most people still need to gain some exposure to dedicated grappling arts (including the Okinawans, and you) to really flesh out this part of their training.

Problem is you seem to refuse to view it as crosstraining, even though for all practical purposes it sounds like it was even in Funakoshi's time.

Basically I think you are trying to fit Karate into the marketing mold of an MMA world, and then claiming it is "the original".

Obviously I love Karate and I feel it contains alot of what is needed for the broad category of "self defense", however I stop short of pretending my training in other things is magically enveloped under the mantle of "Karate" when clearly it is Ju Jitsu, or what have you.
Posted by: Neko456

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/21/08 02:10 PM

What do you mean you don't know why? Or it's like saying that grass is green or red. If that was the case then we wouldn't be having this conversation it would be a well documented fact and that can be proven.

But this is not the case on this topic in the document Med provide even Funakoshi could only say that some believe it or was connected to the development of Karate, with a ? If you read it and he went on to another topic.

Master McCarthy is well respected and admired but I've followed his career through the 60s- until now the only mention on this topic is similar to whats been discussed by past Masters. None came out and said that his Kata contains the secrets of their submission wrestling like they do the Dim Mak. Most just state it was benificail in their overall development, during their childhood I agree with that.

Med - I agree and see your reasoning how it connects with what you have done and experience personally. I agree it makes a fitter, tougher more rounded fighter that can really use his Karate techniques within other ranges. BUT THEY ARE NOT ONE. Even after seeing Master McCarthy's demonstrations of grappling in Tekki, its not done on your back. To say it could be well so can a front kick, but thats not where you train it and the fk is not part of well documented Osaekomiwaza like work or ground work.

I agree with your principle it does help overall development we differ only if it has documented source in our Katas.
Posted by: Supremor

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/21/08 02:11 PM

Interesting debate, FWIW a school in my local area in Poland(it is a Fudokan Shotokan school) does what it calls "tegumi" practice. From what I have seen and practiced of it while in the class, it seems to be simple groundwork a la BJJ or Judo newaza. Trouble is, they're not very good at it, and coming from a dedicated groundfighting art(judo), I am quite shocked at how easy it is for me to control them positionally and in submissions, even with significant weight disadvantages.

Maybe I am unusual, but I never liked the idea of a "complete" art anyway. Jack of all trades and master of none as they say!
Posted by: Zach_Zinn

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/21/08 02:12 PM

Quote:


Maybe I am unusual, but I never liked the idea of a "complete" art anyway. Jack of all trades and master of none as they say!




I agree 100%, only so much time to train, good to prioritize what's what.
Posted by: ThunderboltLotus

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/21/08 02:19 PM

Quote:

It would take a martial arts historian to actively go out and search real answers and research everything possible for us to ever know a real answer. Then, the people would still need trust & faith in that persons discoveries. But once the map is made it is very easy to travel the path yourself if need be.

We should feel so lucky that someone has done just that. Not only publishing his research but actively teaching it and creating a very easy to follow map in the process. It just takes work on the individuals part to comprehend it all at once and see the whole picture.

This is a good start. http://www.koryu-uchinadi.com/original_five_fighting_arts.htm

And I assure you, if anyone were to take the journey on their own they will find no greater truths than what Patrick McCarthy has presented us.





I m afraid not everyone agrees with that. It could be argued that Mr Mccarthy has just believed what he's been told by some Okinawan masters and ran with that. Mr Mark Bishop could be called a researcher who didn t just believe what he was told but researched the very roots of Okinawan culture including photographing the many unseen castles that dotted the land scape, a number of years on the other islands as a school teacher, islands that preserved part of Shuri culture that was destroyed in ww2 on main land Okinawa. Inside out practice of indigenous 'religous' practises. Interviewing, photographing, and training with the 'older generation' and much more. His next two books will answer alot of questions that have gone around in circles on this and other forums for years (and probably stimulate some more, but at least they will be fresh!)

In the end most will just continue to believe what they want regardless for creative imagination is the fuel of development, positive or negative and if an original premiss is flawed then all that follows must be too.
Posted by: medulanet

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/21/08 02:36 PM

Quote:

Once again you are being very selevtive with your interpretation of people's words. You keep presenting things most of us would agree on as things we would argue against, then claiming these are you original argument.




Huh? If I am talking about stuff we all agree about then why are people disagreeing with me. I put this out to you. If what I am saying has not been my original argument the please quote my posts in which I stated a different arguement.

Quote:

Problem is you seem to trying to claim Karate is a totally "complete" art, while simultaneously admitting that cross-training is required to complete it, only you don't like to call it crosstraining for some reason.




I have said before if supplemental strength training such as push ups and running is cross training then yes, I am cross training. However, I don't believe it is possible to do hardly anything without cross training if that is the case. I don't actively promote myself as cross training in this instance because I don't in the other aspects of karate such as meditation, strength training, etc. So basically the only reason to do so would be to please you guys, right?

Quote:

Secondly, it really doesn't matter to anyone but historians what the content of Tegumi was, since no one seems to practice it alongside Karate today.




Well, its not so much about tegumi but practicing a grappling art to gain certain basic skills. I personally did so for 4 years straigt at the beginning of my karate training as well as on and off since then beginning in 1990.

Quote:

We all know there are grappling techniques in Karate, however it appears that most people still need to gain some exposure to dedicated grappling arts (including the Okinawans, and you) to really flesh out this part of their training.




Correct. I get the impression you don't remember me stating that grappling training is a necessary supplementary exercise to develop effective karate.

Quote:

Problem is you seem to refuse to view it as crosstraining, even though for all practical purposes it sounds like it was even in Funakoshi's time.




Funakoshi didn't call it cross training either. The okinawans in fact didn't use a lot of terms in teaching and training. I like that better.

Quote:

Basically I think you are trying to fit Karate into the marketing mold of an MMA world, and then claiming it is "the original".




Exactly what MMA marketing mold am I trying to fit into?

Quote:

Obviously I love Karate and I feel it contains alot of what is needed for the broad category of "self defense", however I stop short of pretending my training in other things is magically enveloped under the mantle of "Karate" when clearly it is Ju Jitsu, or what have you.




I don't know who is pretending but there is more grappling out their than this "Ju Jitsu" you are referring to. Please read my above comments.
Posted by: medulanet

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/21/08 02:39 PM

Quote:

Quote:


Maybe I am unusual, but I never liked the idea of a "complete" art anyway. Jack of all trades and master of none as they say!




I agree 100%, only so much time to train, good to prioritize what's what.




That's where you are misunderstanding. A jack of all trades does all things equally. A master has developed one aspect to a high level, however, can perform the other areas passably to place himself in a position where he can play to his strengths, not be defeated by his weakness. That is karate's strength putting yourself in a position to use your strengths to your advantage.
Posted by: medulanet

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/21/08 02:46 PM

Quote:

Interesting debate, FWIW a school in my local area in Poland(it is a Fudokan Shotokan school) does what it calls "tegumi" practice. From what I have seen and practiced of it while in the class, it seems to be simple groundwork a la BJJ or Judo newaza. Trouble is, they're not very good at it, and coming from a dedicated groundfighting art(judo), I am quite shocked at how easy it is for me to control them positionally and in submissions, even with significant weight disadvantages.

Maybe I am unusual, but I never liked the idea of a "complete" art anyway. Jack of all trades and master of none as they say!




I am not sure of your point other than crappy grapplers are simply crappy grapplers. Its about understanding solid principles of grappling and training them with resistence. Its one thing to have someone come in, show some stuff, and leave with you left to figure it out. However, if you understand what you are doing there is not so much figuring out, just training. And if you don't know what you are doing then stop doing it or find someone that does.
Posted by: Zach_Zinn

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/21/08 02:49 PM

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:


Maybe I am unusual, but I never liked the idea of a "complete" art anyway. Jack of all trades and master of none as they say!




I agree 100%, only so much time to train, good to prioritize what's what.




That's where you are misunderstanding. A jack of all trades does all things equally. A master has developed one aspect to a high level, however, can perform the other areas passably to place himself in a position where he can play to his strengths, not be defeated by his weakness. That is karate's strength putting yourself in a position to use your strengths to your advantage.




Please don't lecture me, it's incredibly condescending, i have a very good teacher and I don't particularly need your advice on what i'm "misunderstanding" due to not agreeing with you and your ever-changing argument.

Let me ask you a question, since you seem to think your training is somehow qualitatively superior to those who are forced to "crosstrain" in a grappling art (you make some weird distinction betwen what you do and crosstraining if I remember)..how exactly is what you do functionally different from a Karateka with some Judo or BJJ etc?

Freakin' werid semantic argument you have, can you boil your contention down to a single sentence so we can stop going around in circles?
Posted by: MattJ

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/21/08 03:11 PM

Med -

Quote:

I don't actively promote myself as cross training in this instance because I don't in the other aspects of karate such as meditation, strength training, etc. So basically the only reason to do so would be to please you guys, right?




Or just to be honest.

We have been over this before. Your definition of "supplementary" training is laughably broad, and could include damn near anything. Weight training for one is generally *NOT* considered part of karate training, although many do it. Tegumi is a similar concept - not karate, although many did it. I suppose baseball or basketball should be considered "supplementary" to karate in the same sense, by your definition.

Quote:

Well, its not so much about tegumi but practicing a grappling art to gain certain basic skills. I personally did so for 4 years straigt at the beginning of my karate training as well as on and off since then beginning in 1990.




That's great. Crosstraining is a good idea. But there is little effective difference between tegumi being part of karate and me crosstraining BJJ with my AKK. The only reason to make spurious claims of originality/purity is to put down other styles and students. Now THAT you do well.

Quote:

Correct. I get the impression you don't remember me stating that grappling training is a necessary supplementary exercise to develop effective karate.




Case in point. Your "supplementary" keeps trying to become "original part of". Not the same thing. I do agree with your underlying point about needing grappling training, though.

Quote:

Funakoshi didn't call it cross training either. The okinawans in fact didn't use a lot of terms in teaching and training. I like that better.




I'm sure you do. Makes it easier to put other people down.

Quote:

Exactly what MMA marketing mold am I trying to fit into?




The "original art had it all" one, when it seems pretty clear that it didn't.
Posted by: medulanet

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/21/08 03:42 PM

Quote:

That's great. Crosstraining is a good idea. But there is little effective difference between tegumi being part of karate and me crosstraining BJJ with my AKK. The only reason to make spurious claims of originality/purity is to put down other styles and students. Now THAT you do well.




I am not putting any other styles down Matt. And yes, you are right. What you are doing is similar to what the okinawans do. However, the only difference would be if you are using your bjj to get back to your feet rather than pulling guard. Or maybe work to throw strikes and stand up from a position rather than simply wanting to work submissions. Its not always what you are doing but what are you doing with it. The whole guard is a neutral position I hear from bjj guys is a load of crap and if that is a part of your fighting paradigm then what you are doing is does not fall in line with what the okinawans did.

Quote:

Case in point. Your "supplementary" keeps trying to become "original part of". Not the same thing. I do agree with your underlying point about needing grappling training, though.




So that would mean that hojo undo is not a part of karate as well. If that is your belief then you are correct in your arguement.

Quote:

I'm sure you do. Makes it easier to put other people down.




So who did I put down when I was not responding to someone who attacked me first?

Quote:

Quote:

Exactly what MMA marketing mold am I trying to fit into?




The "original art had it all" one, when it seems pretty clear that it didn't.




So just because I believe karate is complete I am using MMA marketing?
Posted by: Raul Perez

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/21/08 03:47 PM

Quote:

Your definition of "supplementary" training is laughably broad, and could include damn near anything. Weight training for one is generally *NOT* considered part of karate training, although many do it.




Matt,

Not necessarily. Okinawan Kara-te was renowned for having weight training as part of the training regimine called Tanren. Old systems of Goju Ryu and Uechi Ryu still employ them today.

take a look at this link:

http://www.wonder-okinawa.jp/023/eng/012/index.html

other than that I have nothing to add.

Peace,

Raul
Posted by: medulanet

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/21/08 03:51 PM

Quote:

Please don't lecture me, it's incredibly condescending, i have a very good teacher and I don't particularly need your advice on what i'm "misunderstanding" due to not agreeing with you and your ever-changing argument.




Listen, check the title. Put up or shut up. You keep saying I am changing my argument but put up no proof. And I am sorry if questioning what you say is a lecture. I guess I am not the only one who is never wrong around here.

Quote:

Let me ask you a question, since you seem to think your training is somehow qualitatively superior to those who are forced to "crosstrain" in a grappling art (you make some weird distinction betwen what you do and crosstraining if I remember)..how exactly is what you do functionally different from a Karateka with some Judo or BJJ etc?




I am not saying what I am doing is better. I am saying it is what I do. However, I don't agree with many of the fighting philosophies of BJJ such as guard is a neutral position as well as learning to grapple with a gi.

Quote:

Freakin' werid semantic argument you have, can you boil your contention down to a single sentence so we can stop going around in circles?





I did. Here it is again. Grappling training is a supplementary excercise of karate used to develop wrestling skill to apply techniques from kata such as joint manipulations, takedowns, and chokes of karate.
Posted by: Zach_Zinn

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/21/08 04:05 PM

Quote:


Listen, check the title. Put up or shut up. You keep saying I am changing my argument but put up no proof. And I am sorry if questioning what you say is a lecture. I guess I am not the only one who is never wrong around here.





You put up or shut up, so far you've "put up" nothing but a link to a book we've probably all read like it's some kind of big revelation, then presented your own opinion and training as a reflection of the overall reality.


Quote:

I am not saying what I am doing is better. I am saying it is what I do. However, I don't agree with many of the fighting philosophies of BJJ such as guard is a neutral position as well as learning to grapple with a gi.





Well I suppose I agree with you on some of that, but i'm certainly not the only one getting the impression that alot of your posts are nothing more than an attempt to put your training above that of others, and to market is as somehow more complete and original.

Quote:


I did. Here it is again. Grappling training is a supplementary excercise of karate used to develop wrestling skill to apply techniques from kata such as joint manipulations, takedowns, and chokes of karate.




Right, so now the argument has become something much more reasonable than what you were posting before on this very same subject. No i'm not gonna go dredge up old posts, everyone following the thread has probably seen them.

Anyway, I don't want to keep fighting with you so i'll leave the thread for a bit, you really are unneccessarily combative about this stuff.

Why do you consistently feel the need to argue with us about groundfighting? How many posts have you made on this subject? We don't need you to educate us on what you think we are doing wrong.

Why are you so interested in arguing with us over something on which there is so little historical data?
Posted by: medulanet

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/21/08 04:24 PM

Quote:

Right, so now the argument has become something much more reasonable than what you were posting before on this very same subject. No i'm not gonna go dredge up old posts, everyone following the thread has probably seen them.




That is the most ridiculous way to prove someone wrong I have ever seen in my life. You refuse to provide proof I have changed my arguement and therefore rely on the fact that everyone who disagrees with me believes the same things that you do.

Quote:

Anyway, I don't want to keep fighting with you so i'll leave the thread for a bit, you really are unneccessarily combative about this stuff.




Yeah, I guess I post things in opposition to what the general forum population believes with the sole purpose of forcing them to disagree with me. Oh, wait a minute, no I don't. I simply post my opinion and some people don't like it.

Quote:

Why do you consistently feel the need to argue with us about groundfighting? How many posts have you made on this subject? We don't need you to educate us on what you think we are doing wrong.




Entertainment maybe. They are obviously quite popular threads, right? People ask me for more references and proof and then people get mad at me for posting it. Strange world.

Quote:

Why are you so interested in arguing with us over something on which there is so little historical data?




You mean as opposed to the other parts of karate which has so much historical data. Hey, wait a minute. 1/3 of Okinawans and most of their records were destroyed in WWII. Not to mention that everyone seems to do things so differently. Basically any and all aspects of karate can end up like this due to a lack of historical data. So wait, now I'm confused. What are you talking about?
Posted by: Supremor

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/21/08 05:48 PM

Hey Medulanet,

You know I can't quite understand what all the animosity is about from many of the members here. You have your theories about how Okinawan karate was a complete martial art, others disagree, that's the nature of debate. I myself don't agree with you, but I'm sure your training is good. I mean, it really doesn't matter where you get your training philosophies from, it could be the biker mice from Mars for all I care, it matters how good the training is.

So here's a piece of advice for everybody in the debate: If you want to disagree with Med then that's fine; but really, to imply that because one issue particularly interests him it implies some sort of marketing strategy or duplicitessness(sp?) on his part is completely unneccessary. I know I'd get really bored on this forum if no one was willing to occasionally post something with real passion for their subject.
Posted by: jude33

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/21/08 06:04 PM

Quote:


Let me ask you a question, since you seem to think your training is somehow qualitatively superior to those who are forced to "crosstrain" in a grappling art





Hey Zach how about taking a break with the constant digs?
Where has he stated his training is superior? I have read back to nearly all the threads and guess what Zach?
Most of his input along with others has been realy informative. Educational. Not my art is superior.
His style does have a lot of research value.





Weight training has been around for years in karate.

Quote:




Freakin' werid semantic argument you have, can you boil your contention down to a single sentence so we can stop going around in circles?





I think a thread as this is how karate was trained years ago and/or what does a karate ka need to do to be effective in fighting/ self defence/ health or does a person just train karate for gradings and their ego? Or just for fun?
might clear the air a bit.
And who on this karate thread trains like this would be a good idea.

That would create some imaginative postings.

Jude

It is not advised for people to train with a Sagi Makiwari unless they have trained with weights first. Hey Zach do you know what one is?
Posted by: Zach_Zinn

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/21/08 06:22 PM

Quote:


It is not advised for people to train with a Sagi Makiwawai unless they have trained with weights first. Hey Zach do you know what one is?




Nope, never heard of a Sagi Makiwawai, is that similar to a Sagi Makiwara? Do you train that along with Sepia?

Sorry couldn't resist, out again.

Posted by: jude33

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/21/08 06:41 PM

Quote:



Nope, never heard of a Sagi Makiwawai, is that similar to a Sagi Makiwara? Do you train that along with Sepia?

Sorry couldn't resist, out again.






Yes Zack I thought that would tickle you somewhat. Very good, forum spell checker. So I presume you know what one is? Otherwise you would have accepted the spelling.

Nope dont train with one. Seems strains of karate did and still do. Be some what like grappling and weapons training
and dare I say it? ground fighting. Maybe they did and now dont. That is the relationship to the thread and the topic.

Interesting when people can call others on here yet when it is their turn they just allow their egos to rebuild while using the ignore button. If you cant take it then why give it?
Posted by: BrianS

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/21/08 06:49 PM

Yes, there is and has always been groundfighting in karate,ALWAYS!!

medulanet is right and jude can quit humping his leg now.

Sheesh.......
Posted by: Neko456

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/21/08 06:49 PM

Though I believe Med has a right to his opinion and he is in good company with McCarthy Sensei and others. But the thought that something is superior or orginal if it has something that another doesn't was established in numerous before mentioned threads. Though Med has left that along he still states his views and this is good when youi look at these threads. Which seems to be because Okinawans practice submission wrestling it had to be a part of early even modren Karate training and some how made it into Kata.

I'm assuming these are not his exact words.

In recent 4-5 threads Med has reframed from talking down to people in my opinion he is just trying to make his point. Some people just don't forget so easily.

As the non GF in Kata people are stating knowledge of ground fighting enhances and makes one a well rounded fighter, but I yet to see it in the Katas practiced such as Naihanchi/Tekki, practice on it's back on the ground is a far scretch for me at least, I got Master McCarthy's seminar tape made in the 199X's good stuff but???

We still say ain't nothing wrong with cross training and calling it that.
Posted by: jude33

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/21/08 07:00 PM

Quote:

Yes, there is and has always been groundfighting in karate,ALWAYS!!

medulanet is right and jude can quit humping his leg now.

Sheesh.......




Wrong brian.
Its not my style.
Although seen as you mentioned it, it might be something you enjoy.
Even if I was that way inclined, then one thing for certain it will never be your leg.

I got taste.

Jude
Posted by: Raul Perez

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/21/08 07:05 PM

Quote:



Wrong brian. One thing for certain it will never be your leg, I got taste.

Jude






yeah... im an instigator LOL
Posted by: shoshinkan

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/21/08 07:12 PM

I will ask McCarthy Sensei directly as im seeing him this sunday coming,

re groundfighting in old style Okinawan Karate (specifically classical kata) and see what he says about it.
Posted by: jude33

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/21/08 07:17 PM

Quote:

.

As the non GF in Kata people are stating knowledge of ground fighting enhances and makes one a well rounded fighter, but I yet to see it in the Katas practiced such as Naihanchi/Tekki, practice on it's back on the ground is a far scretch for me at least, I got Master McCarthy's seminar tape made in the 199X's good stuff but???

We still say ain't nothing wrong with cross training and calling it that.




Hi Neko.

No there isnt anything wrong with cross training. But history is rare on Okinawan anything. So I dont see there is anything wrong with discussion and if it can be in any way proven then great. Seems like some fragile ego's( not meaning you )and people who seem to have a fetish for legs on here dont want that.

Jude
Posted by: jude33

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/21/08 07:22 PM

Quote:

Quote:



Wrong brian. One thing for certain it will never be your leg, I got taste.

Jude






yeah... im an instigator LOL




Glad to hear it. I liked part of your use of naihanchi.( not your legs by the way?) Was that your own interpretation?. Seems like in days gone by part of it was also trained/ intended while using the Bo? That would be interesting. Part of naihanchi for ground work, part for stand up grappling/ striking and part for the use of the bo?

Jude

Posted by: Raul Perez

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/21/08 08:56 PM

Glad you liked my naihanchi.

I'd say about 50/50 as far as interpretation. half mine, half what was taught to me.

As far as the bo... no I wasn't aware of it being used with it and I've never trained it as such.
Posted by: BrianS

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/21/08 09:36 PM

Quote:

We still say ain't nothing wrong with cross training and calling it that.






Nope! As he mentioned, either it was there or it wasn't. Can't sit on the fence Neko!!

It was there, then was reborn in 1991,but it has always been there.

Real karate is a well rounded,all inclusive,all you need for self defense, complete art.

If you don't KNOW this then "put up or shut up".

Bunch of half assed wannabe karate guys!!!
Posted by: jude33

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/22/08 04:44 AM

Quote:



Bunch of half assed wannabe karate guys!!!




Breath in, count to 6, breath out.

I can feel Brians intentions moving away from legs of any description (other than chair legs) and he is relaxing.

Let the wonders of the knowledge of man kind be a learning curve. There are those that train (Brian) and there are those that train and think why is it done this way? Why do I have to cross train to the extent that I should? Surely if karate was ever used for real in days gone by? Was it?
Well there might be some proof of its use if the newspaper reports from the turn of the century were correct.

Then they would have covered most things required for effective fighting against an attacker?
But somehow like the weapons use in certain strains of karate training did the method of specific ground training get lost? And if so where is it now practiced ?
Meanwhile some people will rant and take sides and let ego get in the way. And the thoughts of legs.

Jude
Posted by: jude33

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/22/08 05:01 AM

Quote:

Glad you liked my naihanchi.

I'd say about 50/50 as far as interpretation. half mine, half what was taught to me.

As far as the bo... no I wasn't aware of it being used with it and I've never trained it as such.




From my studies the bo was and indeed still is used on Okinawa (by certain people) with parts of naihanchi with a lineage traced straight back to one of the main creators of what is now known as karate.

Jude
Posted by: MattJ

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/22/08 09:37 AM

Quote:

Matt,

Not necessarily. Okinawan Kara-te was renowned for having weight training as part of the training regimine called Tanren. Old systems of Goju Ryu and Uechi Ryu still employ them today.

take a look at this link:

http://www.wonder-okinawa.jp/023/eng/012/index.html





I was actually referring to karate in general, but I see your point. I know some Chinese systems also used stone weight training as well. But in the same manner I do not generally consider weight training to be part of kung-fu.

Point taken, though.
Posted by: BrianS

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/22/08 11:11 PM

Ok, you guys got me and rightly so,lol.

Sorry for the leg humping remark jude, it was uncalled for.

I'm glad that marcel crosstrains, it's good for any karateka to crosstrain.

Posted by: jude33

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/23/08 11:53 AM

Quote:

Ok, you guys got me and rightly so,lol.

Sorry for the leg humping remark jude, it was uncalled for.








Its ok, doesnt bother me but I am not realy a leg man as such. More of a preference for the upper body. Might change though. I see the breathing exercise and the theraputic lines I posted worked then. Relax and breath.

There is a conversation that should be interesting in PP's on this thread( Karate) so you perhaps might want to consider taking part as well.

Jude
Posted by: Ed_Morris

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/25/08 12:42 AM

referring to your first few posts - because I stopped reading after the first page...

first, by 'submission grappling' I don't mean the on the one knee takedown stuff. I mean the rolling on the ground trying to gain positional and leveraged dominance.


The article mentions tegumi as a form of non-organized activity that kids engaged in and occationally had informal village bouts. I have no doubt thats true, and it's corroberated by a few others of the same generation in interviews. I also have no doubt that a type of activity such as untrained-wrestling can be said to strengthen karate training....probably not as much as a formaly-trained wrestling art could, but thats probably all which was available at the time.

What you don't see is tegumi/ground-grappling listed in karate syllabi as part and integral to karate training until after the 1990's. If everyone thought it so important to the definition of Karate, why exclude it from the syllabus when they first formulated theirs? Where are the pictures/mention of karateka training submission grappling on traditional hardwood floors prior to recent times?

my point is, submission grappling training did not make it's way to you thru an unbroken chain of karateka transmission. it was grafted onto your karate thru outside influence, but you and others try to make it look like it's always been there and transmitted as such.

why? because you are awesome and you'll show us how awesome on your DVD for $49.99 someday.


tegumi in particular appears it has not been technically transmitted thru the ages. it appears it was just an informal local activity - more of less the same as all kids in all cultures of all times: non-trained wrasslin. not a technical art integrated and transmitted from karate teacher to karate student with it's hidden secrets deep within kata. thats hyperbole B.S.

what I think happened is this: After stand-up striking-based karate formed and spread, the style founders mention any and all activities they participated in. If they had a year of Judo, Kendo or backyard play-wrestling, they mentioned it since it's pertinant to their influence that shaped their personal art. doesn't mean they taught Judo, Kendo or tegumi as part of their karate. tegumi certainly didn't make it into any formal syllabi I've seen.

it's only from the 1990's grappling craze did we start to see karate graft more wrestling into it's art to the point of there are karateka who had a year or two of BJJ or MMA training, decided it was 'always there', started force-itegrating it into their karate training - and now teach it as if it's the 'old real-deal stuff'. They similarly force the historical connection to boot.
If there had been a sword-fighting craze in the 1990's, maybe we would be having 20 page threads discussing how kendo has always been part of Karate and quoting Funakoshi's "The hands and feet are as swords..." and drawing from the fact he was formally trained in Kendo.

which would be a stronger case than the equvalent of drawing on his childhood memories of playing king-of-the-mountain like games, and using that as the basis for justifying teaching bodyguard and crowd-control techniques.


It's great that karate-ka today know how to manuver to apply an ankle-lock submission with their back on the ground....but just don't tell me they learned it because of the tegumi contained within naihanchi....it's more likely a grafted BJJ influence post-1990, then going back and 'finding' it within kata. Not a bad thing at all, but the technical training needed to pull off the ankle lock while on the ground, wasn't exactly handed down via karate thru the decades, was it.
Posted by: medulanet

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/25/08 01:40 AM

Interesting Ed, however, it appears that you too have done some grafting. Hopefully your are not referring to me with you BJJ submission reference, because I certainly don't grapple in that manner. However, there is documented accounts of grappling in karate not being a simple child's game. For example Nagamine mentions that Chotoku Kyan's father trained him in "okinawan sumo and karate wrestling" to prepare him for training in classical karate. So maybe there was a prescription for grappling before beginning karate training. In fact, much of the grappling funakoshi describes is what I have been talking about. He talks about working back to your feet when being held down as well as hold down/immobilization techniques from a top position. I'm not sure where you are getting all the bjj references from. There is grappling for fighting other than bjj you know. In fact, I personally know very little bjj. My grappling is more positional wrestling designed to keep/regain my feet and put myself in position to strike when possible. But if I see an opportunity to break or dislocate a few things I will.
Posted by: Zach_Zinn

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/25/08 02:46 AM

Quote:

Interesting Ed, however, it appears that you too have done some grafting. Hopefully your are not referring to me with you BJJ submission reference, because I certainly don't grapple in that manner. However, there is documented accounts of grappling in karate not being a simple child's game. For example Nagamine mentions that Chotoku Kyan's father trained him in "okinawan sumo and karate wrestling" to prepare him for training in classical karate. So maybe there was a prescription for grappling before beginning karate training. In fact, much of the grappling funakoshi describes is what I have been talking about. He talks about working back to your feet when being held down as well as hold down/immobilization techniques from a top position. I'm not sure where you are getting all the bjj references from. There is grappling for fighting other than bjj you know. In fact, I personally know very little bjj. My grappling is more positional wrestling designed to keep/regain my feet and put myself in position to strike when possible. But if I see an opportunity to break or dislocate a few things I will.




Geez, you're presenting that quote as something much more than it is in it's original context, every story about an Okinawan master includes all the stuff they did early in life, if tegumi was that important to all or most Karateka there would simply be more about it in the historical record, regardless of WWII or anything else.

There is very little descriptive info about tegumi.

Once again I think your training sounds great, and i'm guessing no one would argue with that, but you're really grasping at straws, and honestly you're being pretty loose with your interpretation of the scant information available on tegumi.
Posted by: jude33

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/25/08 02:52 AM

Quote:




If there had been a sword-fighting craze in the 1990's, maybe we would be having 20 page threads discussing how kendo has always been part of Karate and quoting Funakoshi's "The hands and feet are as swords..." and drawing from the fact he was formally trained in Kendo.





I dont think it would have been kendo. But defence against swords and using some sword techniques sometimes with other weapons might have been included along with ti.
I am afraid any further questions on this might get stonewalled at this moment in time. It is still in the research stages. I think the question might be is what exactly is karate?

It it what is practiced by people in this day and age ? Or was it the different arts that were practiced in days gone by? The result of/ history of/ might or might not be held in karate kata?



Quote:



It's great that karate-ka today know how to manuver to apply an ankle-lock submission with their back on the ground....but just don't tell me they learned it because of the tegumi contained within naihanchi....it's more likely a grafted BJJ influence post-1990, then going back and 'finding' it within kata. Not a bad thing at all, but the technical training needed to pull off the ankle lock while on the ground, wasn't exactly handed down via karate thru the decades, was it.




From beyond a certain time period I dont think so.
But who is to say what was practiced in days gone by?
At the moment sheer speculation, but that might change.


Jude
Posted by: medulanet

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/25/08 02:59 AM

Definitely Zach. I am being loose with my interpretation because that is what works for me. Think about it. There are allusions all over karate history regarding grappling as supplemental training for a karateka. I personally don't know exactly what tegumi entailed, however, if I wanted to I could probably develop a half assed system based on the scant info there is. But I don't believe that is adequate. Therefore I take it more as a suggestion from the karate masters from the past. If you want to excel at karate you should probably know how to grapple as well. Kind of like if you want to excel at karate you should develop strong limbs and a strong core. Training regimines that develop these things develop the ability to apply the techniques and fighting principles contained within the kata of okinawan karate.
Posted by: Zach_Zinn

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/25/08 03:17 AM

Hey I agree with you 100% in a functional sense, i've been pursuing the same thing in my own training. I've learned a ton about my Karate from just doing newaza against my teacher.

Difference is i'm not gonna credit my kata for my crosstraining, and say it's "part of Karate" for me to practice newaza.

On a personal level it certainly can be, but I think it's intellectually dishonest in terms of public presentation to present outside training as something that has "always been there", even if that's true in some paralell sense, just seems like marketing to me.
Posted by: medulanet

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/25/08 03:43 AM

Quote:

Hey I agree with you 100% in a functional sense, i've been pursuing the same thing in my own training. I've learned a ton about my Karate from just doing newaza against my teacher.

Difference is i'm not gonna credit my kata for my crosstraining, and say it's "part of Karate" for me to practice newaza.

On a personal level it certainly can be, but I think it's intellectually dishonest in terms of public presentation to present outside training as something that has "always been there", even if that's true in some paralell sense, just seems like marketing to me.




Answer this. Are you saying there are no chokes, joint locks, or hooking techniques in kata? Then answer this. Are you saying that no techniques from kata can be used on the floor? If your answer to both questions are no, then what is so dishonest about my views on karate, classical kata, and supplemental training employed by karate men of the 1800s?
Posted by: Zach_Zinn

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/25/08 03:55 AM

Quote:

Quote:

Hey I agree with you 100% in a functional sense, i've been pursuing the same thing in my own training. I've learned a ton about my Karate from just doing newaza against my teacher.

Difference is i'm not gonna credit my kata for my crosstraining, and say it's "part of Karate" for me to practice newaza.

On a personal level it certainly can be, but I think it's intellectually dishonest in terms of public presentation to present outside training as something that has "always been there", even if that's true in some paralell sense, just seems like marketing to me.




Answer this. Are you saying there are no chokes, joint locks, or hooking techniques in kata? Then answer this. Are you saying that no techniques from kata can be used on the floor? If your answer to both questions are no, then what is so dishonest about my views on karate, classical kata, and supplemental training employed by karate men of the 1800s?




Sigh....having chokes, locks, etc. doesn't imply grappling for position on the ground to apply them.

My take on it is (being frank here so don't get upset) is that you have a tendency to be a bit of an elitist about your style and lineage(not uncommon so hey live it up), and you use your own skills somehow as proof that karate, and in particular your lineage of Matsubayashi is utterly "complete", and needs no crosstraining, or rather you attempt to put crosstraining under the umbrella of Matsubayashi.

Again I respect your background, training, I even respect your opinion believe or not!

I just don't agree with your...parsing of skillsets for lack of a better term.

Going to bed now, have fun ya fanatic!
Posted by: medulanet

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/25/08 04:09 AM

Yes, I understand what you are saying, however, there are documented cases of Nagamine's teachers prescribing supplemental (cross)training to improve one's ability in karate. To say that such supplemental (cross)training was purely a modern post 1993 invention would be dishonest or simply misinformed.
Posted by: BrianS

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/25/08 08:01 AM

It never ends.........
Posted by: medulanet

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/25/08 11:52 AM

Quote:

It never ends.........




NEVER!!! Karate 4 Life! No, scratch that. Karate 4 Ever!
Posted by: Ed_Morris

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/25/08 01:21 PM

the only disagreement is what is credited. we agree submission wrestling can be a supplimental to karate training.

The only deceptive part is, to take a modern wrestling art, then apply those skills to karate training (ie kata interpretation) and claim that the kata has been passed down with those wrestling techniques intact.

It's a bit like someone saying they got stronger due to their karate 'hojo undo' training, when in fact they were a member of gold's gym for years before ever touching a chishi.

sure, weight-lifting is weight-lifting I suppose, but the point is, the training didn't come from karate - the person might wish to make people think it did, hence they choose to credit their strength-gains with the term 'hojo undo' instead of saying they cross-trained weightlifting at Gold's.

people want to package and credit their outside influence into and under one name - that way it makes it seem less disjointed and more authentic. But before style names, associated snobbiness, market share, and copyright protections of curriculum, thats what people did - just a hodgepodge of whatever training they got their hands on, and making it their own.

It's great people are still willing to do that today...it's not so great they sell it as if their brand will unlock ancient secrets to you thru tapping into their unbroken chain of transmission.
Posted by: Shonuff

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/25/08 01:22 PM

Med,

I haven't read the whole thread as quite frankly this discussion has gotten so old it needs it's own pyramid, if I cover ground that someone else has already covered I apologise.

Funakoshi seems to me adamant that tegumi, even when he ws a boy(1870's - 80s), was totally seperate thing from Karate. He mentioned no systemisation of tegumi, there was nothing to convey the sense that tegumi was "trained" in the way modern wrestlers train in wrestling, more it seems kids went out and said "lets wrestle".
I used to do exactly this kind of thing as a kid with my friends and yes it meant I could do one or two wrist locks and a couple of trips quite well, but it wasn't something that made my Karate any better.

In addition Funakoshi's only definite benefit from his childhood Tegumi matches was the development of determination. Funny thing is that growing up as someone bigger and stronger than my peers I often engaged in precisely the training he described.

I am completely convinced, Tegumi was just playfighting.


Quote:

Here it is again. Grappling training is a supplementary excercise of karate used to develop wrestling skill to apply techniques from kata such as joint manipulations, takedowns, and chokes of karate.





Here you seem to be saying that just like ippon kumite and sparring, grappling is an exercise done in karate class to improve the overall ability of the practictioner.

Nobody disagrees with this as far as I can tell.
I don't think it was especially common before UFC, but I don't doubt it was done in some places.

Supremor mentioned some Shotokan folk who seemed to be doing this, but noted that they were not skilled. I think this is likely due to their lack of training in a specific grappling art and so missing the specific points that make wrestling wrestling and not karate.

That training in a seperate art for the benefit of overall ability is called cross training, as you cross different arts.

I think the disagreement with you comes from the notion that there are kata techniques which are meant to be used on the ground in the same way BJJ and Judo Newaza uses techniques on the ground.

If you are not saying that then there really is no further basis for argument that I can see.

If you are saying that there are kata techniques meant to be used on the ground as described above, then I disgree due to the kata's lack of ground positioning and a total lack of appropriate context in my eyes.

Med, you have often mentioned that your grappling background allowed you to spot grappling applications in karate kata (although I believe you said that your teacher who had learned under Nagamine didn't teach any of that to you), can you give me examples of specific applications?
Posted by: Ed_Morris

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/25/08 01:40 PM

good points. I picture formal Okinawan sumo matches with kids watching, then going back home and trying stuff out - since it's not formalized, they just call what they do a generic name like 'tegumi'.

sounds like kids fairly recently mimicing WWF and calling it 'backyard wrestling'. same thing.


which is why the 'tegumi' media hype recently is so rediculous. and also why the renaming of Nagamine's chapter title in his English translated book in 'Tales...' from 'Sumo' to 'Tegumi' is ludicrous. The chapter was mainly about Sumo masters with a short paragraph mention of childhood memories wrastling in the dirt. The term 'Tegumi master' is as silly as saying 'Backyard wrestling sifu'.
Posted by: medulanet

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/25/08 02:13 PM

Quote:

It's a bit like someone saying they got stronger due to their karate 'hojo undo' training, when in fact they were a member of gold's gym for years before ever touching a chishi.




And that is where you are misinterpretting what I am saying Ed. Your analogy is incorrect. I never claimed to do tegumi. In fact I stated that there is no way for me to duplicate the okinawan training and I do Okinawan Karate 2K. However, I did state that there are similarities between okinawan grappling traditions and the wrestling for fighting that is seen today. In fact, there are much more similarities from wrestling view of grappling for fighting than a bjj one. Therefore, your analogy would be more accurate to say that I developed strength through through modern weight training much like the okinawans did through their own weight training which utilized hojo undo. Do you see where this analogy is more accurate to what I am saying than yours is? And I believe this really shows how you are not quite seeing what I am saying yet.
Posted by: medulanet

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/25/08 02:22 PM

Shonuff, rather than MEANT to be used it is they CAN be used. For example, karate was not MEANT to be used to mug people, but it CAN be used to do such. I can take the reverse punch as sucker punch a guy and take his money. The principles are there.

As for applications sure. Stacked hands usually imply grappling in kata. In Pinan Yondan, all naihanchi, Kusanku, Rohai, Passai, etc. The commone usage of this can be a guillotine choke or a shoulder lock. Now, these can be used standing, or if the fighters fall can be continued on the ground. Or maybe the knee drop in pinan godan where there is a shoulder throw followed up by a shoulder/wrist lock on the ground with your knee on your opponent or on the ground. Or maybe the leg crossing of Naihachi combined with underhooks used as a way to "shake off" your opponent if they have you down which can force a scramble after you switch your hips.
Posted by: MattJ

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/25/08 02:36 PM

Quote:

Shonuff, rather than MEANT to be used it is they CAN be used. For example, karate was not MEANT to be used to mug people, but it CAN be used to do such.




But that's what WE have been saying all along, about groundfighting and kata.

Because it can be used that way doesn't mean that it was.
Posted by: jude33

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/25/08 02:39 PM

Quote:

Or maybe the knee drop in pinan godan where there is a shoulder throw followed up by a shoulder/wrist lock on the ground with your knee on your opponent or on the ground. Or maybe the leg crossing of Naihachi combined with underhooks used as a way to "shake off" your opponent if they have you down which can force a scramble after you switch your hips.




That is the two I sometimes practice( with variations) and I think are def used in ground work.
The question that is going to get asked is why wasnt it trained that way in karate before 199?

Matt.

Quote:



Because it can be used that way doesn't mean that it was.




It also can mean it can be used that way and it is thought it was used that way in days gone by. There are things that I think I am uncovering in kata that a person would say the same thing about. The differnce is the things I am working on seems to have a lineage that is still in tact and goes straight back to the early days of karate and to one of the creaters of karate.

And I am afraid untill I can totaly verify my findings by contacting the person who has the lineage then any questions will be stonewalled.

But the point is if that can be proven then so might GF in
kata at some time.

Jude

Jude off to work soon while this debate keeps going.

Posted by: Seiken

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/25/08 02:52 PM



Eventually a certain form of proficiency would naturally occur through experience. Should that person be seen in the same light as someone who doesnt do it or just started? No, so they get a label like everything else does. It also does not mean someone didnt formalize the techniques and movements that might have been, into what is Tegumi.

Its clearly evident that alot of people on this board are ignoring some of the recent findings on Karate history. Is it so easy to discredit people like Pat McCarthy? Karate was the okinawan MMA... at least five seperate fighting arts were practiced on okinawa and eventually became Karate, why do so many people deny this?

Is the backyard baseball any less baseball than the majors? Nope.

As for groundcontrol and dominant positions. Do you honestly think the people who achieved submissions were doing so from a bad position? Probaly not, so why would the Okinawans ignore where the winner achieved victory from? They wouldnt.

Funakoshi also states their was more than one way to win a wrestling match, and one specifically being by submission tap out. And he also states they sometimes started with you laying down on the ground being pinned, if this doesnt force you to wrestle for dominant position I dont know what will. If this isnt proof of groundfighting I dont know what is either.

So many people ignore the obvious, positons in BJJ are nothing new. The guard? The mount? Does anyone here have sex? For petes sake, everyone is quick to disregard school karate block/punch applications, but when people give you realistic noteworthy bunkai they are hounded for touting Karate as something its not.

No one here will be happy unless they find it for themselves, no one wants to believe anyone else, no one wants to believe someone who has actually walked the path to find the truth without being biased. You want real information? You got it. You want proof and verification? You got it. It just takes an open mind to stop denying it and listen to what some of these people have to say.

Arts that later became Judo, Muay Thai, Okinawan Sumo, ChinNa, Kobudo. Were a part of Karate before BJJ and MMA were even a thought. Anyone who puts the history together will find it themselves, but most people wont, its easy to deny, its easy to not do the work. Its easy to say Karate groundfighting is a fairy tale, its hard to go out and prove something when so much has been lost and so many people are waiting for you to fail.

How many of you are actively researching and seeking the answer on a daily basis? Most of you probaly made up your mind a long time ago, so nothing will make you sway. How many of you actually cross reference material you find with the historical societies who deal with truisms of the country?

I find it funny how most of you have no clue what Okinawan Sumo even looks like, considering its still practiced today on Okinawa. That just shows how much effort goes into these keyboard Karate masters research.

If all karate was a hodgepodge of whatever training people got their hands on, then why is it so hard to believe wrestling wasnt included? If karate WAS a homemade stew, then we should feel lucky that itosu, funakoshi, mabuni, nagamine and such systemized it for us then. Its our luck we have kata to reflect and draw from then isnt it? This hodgepodge would not exclude groundfighting because BJJ and UFC like most do today, they would have included it.

I dont see little kids in their backyards devising Kata, I see adult fighters doing that. And its the adults that passed on these kata, kata that were made in a time when computers and books, even the ability to read was probaly scarce.

I know a 7 year old who speaks truths about mathematics, because of that should I deny other mathematicians research? Think of Funakoshi as the 7 year old, and McCarthy as the mathematicians, college professor if you will. Hes done the work Funakoshi and most of you are not willing to do.

Even so, if someone like medulanet sees applications of groundfighting in kata based on his wrestling experience, someone most of you seem to think is off his rocker, why would someone like Itosu not see it? I find it hard to believe he wouldnt. There is more proof that groundfighting is as much apart of karate than there is proof it wasnt.

Before anyone replies to me, your not going to believe what I say anymore than the drug addict who thinks hes not a druggie will. You have to put some work into it yourself. Just searching on the internet isnt work either, go, travel, train, read, listen, its the journey that matters remember?

( after reading this I realized how offensive I was ... I dont mean anyone harm, im just passionate about this subject and decided not to erase anything because I took awhile to type it and time should not be wasted, forgive me anyone who is offended)
Posted by: jude33

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/25/08 02:59 PM

Quote:




How many of you are actively researching and seeking the answer on a daily basis?



Not every day but I do. Uncovered some interesting things.
Amongst other things daggers made in other countries centuries ago found in digs on Okinawa?
Then ponder and research those points.


Time will tell

Jude
Posted by: MattJ

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/25/08 03:16 PM

*sound of screeching brakes*

Seiken -

Quote:

So many people ignore the obvious, positons in BJJ are nothing new. The guard? The mount?




No, no. I am not disputing the fact that you may find the mount/guard in karate (or in your bed ) sometimes. You see untrained people fall into them unintentionally all the time. What I am disputing is that dedicated knowledge of using those positions was present in karate in the early days. It does not seem to be. I have seen some of Pat McCarthy's work on tegumi (he has chimed in on some threads here), and while I find it useful and interesting, the historical connections seem as forced as what medulanet tries to do.

Quote:

Even so, if someone like medulanet sees applications of groundfighting in kata based on his wrestling experience, someone most of you seem to think is off his rocker




Again, not disputing that he can find connections, or that it is good training. Just disputing it's existence in karate before 1991.
Posted by: medulanet

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/25/08 03:41 PM

Quote:

Again, not disputing that he can find connections, or that it is good training. Just disputing it's existence in karate before 1991.




Matt, just a side note. I tried to point it out before, but I just wanted you to know that the UFC started in 1993. I'm not sure what happened in 1991 that you are referencing. But I know how picky some people get on here when people mistakenly mistate some facts.
Posted by: Zach_Zinn

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/25/08 04:09 PM

Quote:



Eventually a certain form of proficiency would naturally occur through experience. Should that person be seen in the same light as someone who doesnt do it or just started? No, so they get a label like everything else does. It also does not mean someone didnt formalize the techniques and movements that might have been, into what is Tegumi.

Its clearly evident that alot of people on this board are ignoring some of the recent findings on Karate history. Is it so easy to discredit people like Pat McCarthy? Karate was the okinawan MMA... at least five seperate fighting arts were practiced on okinawa and eventually became Karate, why do so many people deny this?





I appreciate McCarthy's groundbreaking work, and i've certainly never ignored it, but alot of it is very theoretical to my mind, and by his own admission KU is not some unbroken lineage directly from ancient Karate, he was influenced (among other things) by koryu Jujutsu in it's creation wasn't he?

I've never read anything by McCarthy that's so vague as the stuff you guys are promoting, he presents historical findings as what they are and makes clear what is modern interpretation and what is in the historical record, what is probable and what is maybe less probable.


I think you are confusing "recent historical findings" with someone's (admittedly very well-informed) extrapolated opinion of how Karate was once trained.

If there's now some new volume of information on historical tegumi, Ti, and related practice outside of conjecture, by all means i'd like to see it, what you mention above I could just read on the KU site, and honestly it doesn't do alot for the debate we're having here as far as I can see.

I feel that maybe scholars like McCarthy would not appreciate it if we just accepted their words and findings unquestioningly.

I'm really hoping Jim is able to talk to McCarthy and get some feedback on this, any word on that?

Maybe he can explain how we are all being closed-minded idiots by not uncritically accepting what you guys are saying;) Hell, maybe he will say that.
Posted by: MattJ

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/25/08 04:40 PM

Quote:

Matt, just a side note. I tried to point it out before, but I just wanted you to know that the UFC started in 1993. I'm not sure what happened in 1991 that you are referencing. But I know how picky some people get on here when people mistakenly mistate some facts.




And while I appreciate you trying to read my mind, wasn't 1991 the year YOU started karate? But I understand if you didn't get the joke. It was a bit vague.

Posted by: medulanet

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/25/08 04:59 PM

Quote:

Quote:

Matt, just a side note. I tried to point it out before, but I just wanted you to know that the UFC started in 1993. I'm not sure what happened in 1991 that you are referencing. But I know how picky some people get on here when people mistakenly mistate some facts.




And while I appreciate you trying to read my mind, wasn't 1991 the year YOU started karate? But I understand if you didn't get the joke. It was a bit vague.






Well, that's the thing. I would have understood your joke, had I not started in 1990. So to me, it was simply an error. And considering we don't see eye to eye on this point, in my mind it was simply another error regarding this subject on your part rather than an ill conceived joke.
Posted by: medulanet

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/25/08 05:04 PM

Quote:

I appreciate McCarthy's groundbreaking work, and i've certainly never ignored it, but alot of it is very theoretical to my mind, and by his own admission KU is not some unbroken lineage directly from ancient Karate, he was influenced (among other things) by koryu Jujutsu in it's creation wasn't he?

I've never read anything by McCarthy that's so vague as the stuff you guys are promoting, he presents historical findings as what they are and makes clear what is modern interpretation and what is in the historical record, what is probable and what is maybe less probable.


I think you are confusing "recent historical findings" with someone's (admittedly very well-informed) extrapolated opinion of how Karate was once trained.

If there's now some new volume of information on historical tegumi, Ti, and related practice outside of conjecture, by all means i'd like to see it, what you mention above I could just read on the KU site, and honestly it doesn't do alot for the debate we're having here as far as I can see.

I feel that maybe scholars like McCarthy would not appreciate it if we just accepted their words and findings unquestioningly.

I'm really hoping Jim is able to talk to McCarthy and get some feedback on this, any word on that?

Maybe he can explain how we are all being closed-minded idiots by not uncritically accepting what you guys are saying;) Hell, maybe he will say that.




Actually Zach your a little late. McCarthy was on FA.com and research into this very subject was discussed. And Ed in so many words stated that he was mistranslating Nagamine's work to further his own ill conceived studies and as a tool to promote his own DVDs, books, and organization. In fact, McCarthy references many of the things I do. (I just don't have any books or DVDs, or at least not yet, right Ed? )
Posted by: jude33

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/25/08 05:06 PM

Quote:



Again, not disputing that he can find connections, or that it is good training. Just disputing it's existence in karate before 1991.




Hi Matt.

Would you or any others say that karate and traditional Okinawan weapons were always part of the karate ka's training prior to strains of karate being aimed for use in education on Okinawa?

This isnt hijacking the thread because I think it is relevent.

Jude
Posted by: Zach_Zinn

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/25/08 05:12 PM

Quote:

Quote:

I appreciate McCarthy's groundbreaking work, and i've certainly never ignored it, but alot of it is very theoretical to my mind, and by his own admission KU is not some unbroken lineage directly from ancient Karate, he was influenced (among other things) by koryu Jujutsu in it's creation wasn't he?

I've never read anything by McCarthy that's so vague as the stuff you guys are promoting, he presents historical findings as what they are and makes clear what is modern interpretation and what is in the historical record, what is probable and what is maybe less probable.


I think you are confusing "recent historical findings" with someone's (admittedly very well-informed) extrapolated opinion of how Karate was once trained.

If there's now some new volume of information on historical tegumi, Ti, and related practice outside of conjecture, by all means i'd like to see it, what you mention above I could just read on the KU site, and honestly it doesn't do alot for the debate we're having here as far as I can see.

I feel that maybe scholars like McCarthy would not appreciate it if we just accepted their words and findings unquestioningly.

I'm really hoping Jim is able to talk to McCarthy and get some feedback on this, any word on that?

Maybe he can explain how we are all being closed-minded idiots by not uncritically accepting what you guys are saying;) Hell, maybe he will say that.




Actually Zach your a little late. McCarthy was on FA.com and research into this very subject was discussed. And Ed in so many words stated that he was mistranslating Nagamine's work to further his own ill conceived studies and as a tool to promote his own DVDs, books, and organization. In fact, McCarthy references many of the things I do. (I just don't have any books or DVDs, or at least not yet, right Ed? )




Hmmm. maybe he's just much better at explaining things than you..Certainly the stuff i've read by him tends to include more info than snippets from famous Karate books that everyone has read;)

But whatever, I will dig around for old threads when I have time.

Anyway, here's what I want to know: Why does it matter to you guys whether or not old-style Karate had any groundfighting emphasis? Surely you don't think you're going to be able to reconstruct anything functionally useful from what little info is available, you will have to crosstrain to obtain the skills needed for the blend you claim was always there.

So, what does it matter if Tegumi is the ancient lost grappling aspect tof Karate? If you can't train Tegumi you are training something else, why do you guys insist on claiming it is part of your Karate?

Again if you cannot reconstruct something meaningful to train from the little bit that's out there you are cross-training, and I can only come to the conclusion that bolstering the image of your Karate by claiming your grappling skill was "always there" is just some attempt to market Karate in a world that increasingly seems to question the value of traditional martial arts training.

Note the last part is my own observation about public perception, not my opinion.

Basically what I am saying is that to take your own, very subjective personal training experiences and hold them up saying "hey guys, THIS is Karate (tm), a fully complete art" as if your findings are some kind of objective reality not of your own making to which we all should adhere is absolutely ridiculous.

I believe there is room for a wide variety of views, styles, methods, etc. in Karate,

I just don't think it's very honest to pretend the way we train today is some ancient thing, people train the way they do today because it works, and like everything else Karate has changed with the times, and will continue to do so.
Posted by: MattJ

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/25/08 05:28 PM

Quote:

Well, that's the thing. I would have understood your joke, had I not started in 1990. So to me, it was simply an error. And considering we don't see eye to eye on this point, in my mind it was simply another error regarding this subject on your part rather than an ill conceived joke.




Pardon my many errors. Would that I could be completely, totally, error-free like yourself.

Posted by: Victor Smith

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/25/08 05:31 PM

Matt,

I know I've mentioned this before, but in the late 50's Shimabuku Tatsuo was teaching counters to the mount in his Isshinryu. They remain part of Isshinryu's studies.

Karate was never totally bound by what is or isn't in kata, kata is simply the major tool for karate development.

Why did he teach them, likely as much as he had experience working with the Japanese military who frequently would turn to their common judo training and wanted to have a response. Of course that's just supposition on my part, but I can make a logical case.

Now in no case is Isshinryu, which does contain various ground fighting techniques, a system that promotes ground fighting. In fact as I see it the proper use of Isshinryu is to break those who want to go to the ground.

But what happens each time these discussions start making general stements they always 100% wrong because no general statement describes the reality of karate or any art.

They may be accurate to one's experiences, but the arts have always been founded by what happens when something is outside of your experience.

Frankly I get rather depressed at the continual misrepresentation of so many topics. Funakoshi Sensei in his writings was describing his past. I've seen a little of what current Okinawan sumo looks like, and it seems like fun, and if that was where the past on Okinawa was, I can see how karate represented an entirely different tradition.

But a reference by Funakoshi Sensei or by Nagamine Sensei does not really share the depth of what Okinawan Sumo represents.

Likewise if someone translates one's work into English and makes their own choice which terms to use, that't there business. McCartny Sensei did nothing wrong when he translated one way whether's like it or not.

THere's nothing stopping any of you from re-translating the work and getting the Nagamine family permission to publish that translation.

There really is no correct way to translate, any more than there really is a correct way to spell or prounounce a word in English. Your school teachers incorrect opinions not withstanding. The dictionary is actually a society that studies word usage and pronuncation and changes spellings, pronunciaiton and meanings as usage in society does.

It hard enough to keep the eye on the ball without mixing other issues into the discussion.

Back about 100 years ago (the time frame when Funakoshi was already a practicing karate-ka for a long time) there were what 100 or 200 practicing karate-ka? No idea but hard to imagine many of them in 1908.

Now 100 yeras later there are what 90,000,000 worldwide. Do you think many have any link to what the past was in their studies.

Okinawa karate always moved each generation in what the art contains. If you have the time and energy to incorporate say Sambo, fine. If you don't have the inclination, fine.

The truth is it is who does it to whom first, and more simply why does anyont think the purpose of karate was ever to fight someone from the front (as in sport).

Logically the real purpose of karate is to identify when you need to use it and then tactically learn how to do so when the opponent isn't looking or expecting it. Thus striking from behind.
Posted by: Seiken

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/25/08 05:37 PM

Quote:



I appreciate McCarthy's groundbreaking work, and i've certainly never ignored it, but alot of it is very theoretical to my mind, and by his own admission KU is not some unbroken lineage directly from ancient Karate, he was influenced (among other things) by koryu Jujutsu in it's creation wasn't he?


I've never read anything by McCarthy that's so vague as the stuff you guys are promoting, he presents historical findings as what they are and makes clear what is modern interpretation and what is in the historical record, what is probable and what is maybe less probable.


I think you are confusing "recent historical findings" with someone's (admittedly very well-informed) extrapolated opinion of how Karate was once trained.

If there's now some new volume of information on historical tegumi, Ti, and related practice outside of conjecture, by all means i'd like to see it, what you mention above I could just read on the KU site, and honestly it doesn't do alot for the debate we're having here as far as I can see.

I feel that maybe scholars like McCarthy would not appreciate it if we just accepted their words and findings unquestioningly.

I'm really hoping Jim is able to talk to McCarthy and get some feedback on this, any word on that?





Although my conclusion came completely independent of McCarthys work, he is the one at the foremost front of Karates history. The things you read on his site didnt just appear out of thin air, and came as a result of years of study and practice. How can it not have merit on this conversation? His work can easily be cross referenced with many other resources including other historians and some that gain nothing from his findings.

Indeed he was influenced by many arts, but that came because of searching for Karates roots. Those arts influenced Karate in the first place, so technically, its another part of what developed karate. (if TKD was made by mixing taekyun with karate then TKD is no longer either of those is it? it becomes TKD... so all the arts that influenced karate are not karate, put them together and that IS karate.. )

Like I said, if you take a look at what influenced karate, you will find nothing different than what McCarthy, Medulanet, Jude, and others have been saying. But no one is going to just believe it, do the work yourself. Put the whole picture together on your own terms, just make sure you leave no loose ends.

Even if all it is, is someones very well informed opinion on karate. That person probaly knows more about what Karate is then anyone here. So his work should not be taken lightly.

Either way, if this is what Karate is becoming, then why do we have to call it cross training? or mixed martial arts? It IS Karate. And if someone can apply the forms in ways other people cant, well then that person should be considered a higher level KarateKa than the others. They shouldnt be considered a crosstrainer or mixing martial arts. And like others did in the past, if you have students you should recommend them to study that kata with them. That IS karate.

Do I call a peanut butter and jelly sandwich a mixed condiment sandwich? No more than I would a turkey sandwich. ... Once the mixing has begun, it is no longer two separate arts, your just labeling it to satisfy.

If im training at a Karate gym, and I get knocked down and my partner falls into my guard and I lock a choke on him... am I doing BJJ? How about I improvise a shoulder lock? A BJJ guy might think wow.. that guys got good flow, but in my mind im just applying a simple mechanism(a block most likely) to a specific target the opponent gave me. If im doing the same thing but a cage is around me everyone would say im doing MMA. Even people looking at Lyoto Machida dont realize what is or isnt karate in his standup, and thats coming from seasoned vets in the fight buisness. All in all, its another word, another thing to help separate the technique from your mind and body, and essentially your spirit. This is not unlike how racism occurs, we label, we think based on labels as opposed to experience in the moment. I got beatup by a black guy, all black people are thugs... etc.. First, I labeled him black.. so now anyone black has this one experience with one person attached to it... No different than what happened with so called school karate, this is a low block, etc.. now we have thousands of people who think everything is a block that takes too much time to execute and leaves you wide open with your hand on your hip.

I used to think Bruce missed the whole picture. But when trying to make people see or become formless they get stuck on labels. Eventually your studies in any art should lead to this level of vision. Labels get in the way. Labels are the infamous finger pointing at the moon.
Posted by: Zach_Zinn

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/25/08 05:43 PM

Quote:


Like I said, if you take a look at what influenced karate, you will find nothing different than what McCarthy, Medulanet, Jude, and others have been saying. But no one is going to just believe it, do the work yourself. Put the whole picture together on your own terms, just make sure you leave no loose ends.




I've "taken a look" at it, believe it or not i've read a fair amount on the subject myself, and I train with people who are plenty knowledgable who i talk with about stuff sometimes. Nothing you are saying is any revelation to me whatsoever, no offense.

Why is it NOT important to acknowledge the variety of sources from which modern Karate practice comes? I always see people trying to say "no, it's all part of my Karate" instead of saying "I learned this here"....why is that exactly?

Obviously one's Karate is what it is, but whay this move to NOT acknowledge sources?
Posted by: medulanet

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/25/08 05:51 PM

Quote:

Anyway, here's what I want to know: Why does it matter to you guys whether or not old-style Karate had any groundfighting emphasis? Surely you don't think you're going to be able to reconstruct anything functionally useful from what little info is available, you will have to crosstrain to obtain the skills needed for the blend you claim was always there.

So, what does it matter if Tegumi is the ancient lost grappling aspect tof Karate? If you can't train Tegumi you are training something else, why do you guys insist on claiming it is part of your Karate?

Again if you cannot reconstruct something meaningful to train from the little bit that's out there you are cross-training, and I can only come to the conclusion that bolstering the image of your Karate by claiming your grappling skill was "always there" is just some attempt to market Karate in a world that increasingly seems to question the value of traditional martial arts training.

Note the last part is my own observation about public perception, not my opinion.

Basically what I am saying is that to take your own, very subjective personal training experiences and hold them up saying "hey guys, THIS is Karate (tm), a fully complete art" as if your findings are some kind of objective reality not of your own making to which we all should adhere is absolutely ridiculous.

I believe there is room for a wide variety of views, styles, methods, etc. in Karate,

I just don't think it's very honest to pretend the way we train today is some ancient thing, people train the way they do today because it works, and like everything else Karate has changed with the times, and will continue to do so.




It doesn't matter, its just the conclusion I have drawn. It seems to matter to you guys how I state things. If you look through all of the threads of late I simply state my opinion and provide explaination of why I think the way I think. If you look at most of the people opposing my posts they are telling me why I am wrong, why I should not say the things I say, how dishonest I am being, etc. So if you see it is not I who has a problem with anything, I simply have my own opinion on the subject. I am not trying to make anyone adhere to anything I am doing. In fact, it is the reverse. It seems that you guys are obsessed with "making" me believe the way you do and if I don't you want me to stop stating my beliefs. For example I could say that the reason you don't want me to promote grappling training as a part of karate is because you are developing a karate as a striking art only DVD and I will be affecting the sales of your new DVD that is coming out. However, it would be ridiculous of me to say that, right? However, only Supermor has called Ed on such outlandish claims he makes towards me.
Posted by: medulanet

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/25/08 05:54 PM

Quote:

Quote:

Well, that's the thing. I would have understood your joke, had I not started in 1990. So to me, it was simply an error. And considering we don't see eye to eye on this point, in my mind it was simply another error regarding this subject on your part rather than an ill conceived joke.




Pardon my many errors. Would that I could be completely, totally, error-free like yourself.






Matt, the only thing about me that is error free are my jokes. You must admit, they are flawless. And its not about being error free, but communication. It seems you take correction about stuff here as badly as I do.
Posted by: medulanet

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/25/08 05:58 PM

Quote:

Matt,

I know I've mentioned this before, but in the late 50's Shimabuku Tatsuo was teaching counters to the mount in his Isshinryu. They remain part of Isshinryu's studies.

Karate was never totally bound by what is or isn't in kata, kata is simply the major tool for karate development.

Why did he teach them, likely as much as he had experience working with the Japanese military who frequently would turn to their common judo training and wanted to have a response. Of course that's just supposition on my part, but I can make a logical case.

Now in no case is Isshinryu, which does contain various ground fighting techniques, a system that promotes ground fighting. In fact as I see it the proper use of Isshinryu is to break those who want to go to the ground.

But what happens each time these discussions start making general stements they always 100% wrong because no general statement describes the reality of karate or any art.

They may be accurate to one's experiences, but the arts have always been founded by what happens when something is outside of your experience.

Frankly I get rather depressed at the continual misrepresentation of so many topics. Funakoshi Sensei in his writings was describing his past. I've seen a little of what current Okinawan sumo looks like, and it seems like fun, and if that was where the past on Okinawa was, I can see how karate represented an entirely different tradition.

But a reference by Funakoshi Sensei or by Nagamine Sensei does not really share the depth of what Okinawan Sumo represents.

Likewise if someone translates one's work into English and makes their own choice which terms to use, that't there business. McCartny Sensei did nothing wrong when he translated one way whether's like it or not.

THere's nothing stopping any of you from re-translating the work and getting the Nagamine family permission to publish that translation.

There really is no correct way to translate, any more than there really is a correct way to spell or prounounce a word in English. Your school teachers incorrect opinions not withstanding. The dictionary is actually a society that studies word usage and pronuncation and changes spellings, pronunciaiton and meanings as usage in society does.

It hard enough to keep the eye on the ball without mixing other issues into the discussion.

Back about 100 years ago (the time frame when Funakoshi was already a practicing karate-ka for a long time) there were what 100 or 200 practicing karate-ka? No idea but hard to imagine many of them in 1908.

Now 100 yeras later there are what 90,000,000 worldwide. Do you think many have any link to what the past was in their studies.

Okinawa karate always moved each generation in what the art contains. If you have the time and energy to incorporate say Sambo, fine. If you don't have the inclination, fine.

The truth is it is who does it to whom first, and more simply why does anyont think the purpose of karate was ever to fight someone from the front (as in sport).

Logically the real purpose of karate is to identify when you need to use it and then tactically learn how to do so when the opponent isn't looking or expecting it. Thus striking from behind.




Yes, Victor, but you know if you are referencing anything that is done in MMA it was only ever done in any karate derived art after 1993.
Posted by: medulanet

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/25/08 06:17 PM

Quote:


Obviously one's Karate is what it is, but whay this move to NOT acknowledge sources?




Okay Zach, when have I not acknowledged my sources? And who is not acknowledging their sources here in these discussions?
Posted by: Seiken

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/25/08 06:43 PM

Quote:

Quote:


Like I said, if you take a look at what influenced karate, you will find nothing different than what McCarthy, Medulanet, Jude, and others have been saying. But no one is going to just believe it, do the work yourself. Put the whole picture together on your own terms, just make sure you leave no loose ends.




I've "taken a look" at it, believe it or not i've read a fair amount on the subject myself, and I train with people who are plenty knowledgable who i talk with about stuff sometimes. Nothing you are saying is any revelation to me whatsoever, no offense.

Why is it NOT important to acknowledge the variety of sources from which modern Karate practice comes? I always see people trying to say "no, it's all part of my Karate" instead of saying "I learned this here"....why is that exactly?

Obviously one's Karate is what it is, but whay this move to NOT acknowledge sources?




I do acknowledge it. Read my post again. Which was part of my point, if this is what Karate is becoming, it should not be called MMA or crosstraining. It IS karate.

And I dont think you HAVE to crosstrain to learn any usefulness from karate when it comes to groundfighting. That point of view feeds the divinity of martial arts, which is bullpoopy. Man creates martial arts, not gods.

Ill be damned if someone tells me my grappling doesnt work because I call it karate, or tkd, or anything else. When you get choked out or your shoulder pops you wont be thinking BJJ or karate I can promise you that. Its just labels. If I am in my training hall, practicing groundfighting, what gives you the right to call it crosstraining? Thats just stupid, im not training or crossing anything anywhere, you are, in your mind, with more labels. You have no clue where or how those techniques developed into efficient movements applied by me. Do TKD guys run around saying I cross train Taekyun and Karate? Once you mix something you have a new entity. It becomes one. Chem Lab 101 :/

Honestly, do BJJ guys ever create anything new? Yup. Do they ever encounter techniques theyve never seen before? Yup. Do they have to deal with them right then and there? Yup. Thats called improvising, and is a sign of someone who understands principles and their relation to fighting. And those techniques that do develop become BJJ. Just like an application I might find training one night, that application, even if it happened to be in judo or wrestling or BJJ before, is now apart of Karate. And it doesnt take outside influence to come to these discoveries, if thats the truth then how did anything start in the first place? Thought.

How many people are even aware of Rolls Gracies influence on todays BJJ? He added things to BJJ he learned from wrestling. Do the BJJ guys run around saying I cross train in wrestling? Even the famous triangle was taken directly from a position out of a japanese book being studied by one of his students. So now everyone who does BJJ crosstrained in a japanese book eh? lol...

Yes, it is all part of my karate. Why is it exactly that I should give credit to something else, when it was the study of Karate in the first place that gave me my skills? Acknowledge sources? No one deserves any acknowledgement for work I put in analyzing movements and studying human physiology just because you think im wrong, or the gracies wanting to claim they invented gravity. If thats the case, then my karate was crosstrained with the american education system, thousands of articles and publications including books on various martial arts, physics and human biology, a pencil and a notebook. Oh, and I crosstrained in human creativity too. Sorry...
Posted by: Zach_Zinn

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/25/08 07:08 PM

Dude, I have no BJJ training, and I didn't even mention BJJ anywhere, where are you getting the BJJ/MMA stuff from?

I have no training in either, just Goju and a small amount of Judo with my Goju teacher, and some Danzan Ryu Jujitsu.

It has nothing to do with modern MMA stuff, just be honest aboutt he origins of things.
Posted by: medulanet

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/25/08 07:31 PM

Quote:

Yes, it is all part of my karate. Why is it exactly that I should give credit to something else, when it was the study of Karate in the first place that gave me my skills? Acknowledge sources? No one deserves any acknowledgement for work I put in analyzing movements and studying human physiology just because you think im wrong, or the gracies wanting to claim they invented gravity. If thats the case, then my karate was crosstrained with the american education system, thousands of articles and publications including books on various martial arts, physics and human biology, a pencil and a notebook. Oh, and I crosstrained in human creativity too. Sorry...




Posted by: Zach_Zinn

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/25/08 07:53 PM

So hey guys, before we get all bogged down in semantics again, which of you learned your grappling from Kata?

Also which one of you learned your grappling from Tegumi?

Which one of you did some Okinawan Sumo?

Oh yeah that's right, you used modern training methods not directly called "Karate"...so where do you guys disagree with me exactly?
Posted by: MattJ

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/25/08 07:59 PM

Seiken -

Quote:

And I dont think you HAVE to crosstrain to learn any usefulness from karate when it comes to groundfighting. That point of view feeds the divinity of martial arts, which is bullpoopy.




Oddly enough, many people interpret THAT point of view as trying to "feed divinity" about the styles that people train in where they do NOT acknowledge outside influences.

Quote:

Ill be damned if someone tells me my grappling doesnt work because I call it karate, or tkd, or anything else.




No one has said that here.
Effectiveness is not the question - historical accuracy is.

Quote:

Honestly, do BJJ guys ever create anything new? Yup. Do they ever encounter techniques theyve never seen before? Yup. Do they have to deal with them right then and there? Yup. Thats called improvising, and is a sign of someone who understands principles and their relation to fighting. And those techniques that do develop become BJJ.




Again, you are twisting the argument here. No one is doubting evolution within a style. Except when a heretofore non-existant paradigm seems to emerge conveniently the same time another totally different style does.

Quote:

How many people are even aware of Rolls Gracies influence on todays BJJ?




Pretty much everybody that trains BJJ.

Quote:

Do the BJJ guys run around saying I cross train in wrestling?




Many of them do, and yes, they acknowledge it.

Quote:

Why is it exactly that I should give credit to something else, when it was the study of Karate in the first place that gave me my skills?




Because it's the honest thing to do. Did karate give you your groundfighting skills or did you pick those up from wrestling and add them into your karate? Nothing wrong with that - hell, even medulanet admits his wrestling has informed his karate. But to not acknowledge it? Dishonest, IMO.
Posted by: medulanet

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/25/08 08:01 PM

Quote:

So hey guys, before we get all bogged down in semantics again, which of you learned your grappling from Kata?

Also which one of you learned your grappling from Tegumi?

Which one of you did some Okinawan Sumo?

Oh yeah that's right, you used modern training methods not directly called "Karate"...so where do you guys disagree with me exactly?




Well, it would be nice if you let ME answer the question you posed and for some reason answered yourself. In fact, as far as my grappling as it relates to fighting. I learnerd chokes and joint locks from kata. I was able to grapple for position to apply such things with skill I gained from wrestling. I deepened my knowledge a little bit with about two months of BJJ in 2006. Much like I learned to punch from karate, however, as a youth I gained the strength and speed to apply them through weight lifting and eventually learned through my karate training how to apply my punches without using a lot of strength. This is how karate works Zach (oh, I forgot, you don't like when I tell you how karate works, you already know). Techniques and fighting principles from kata are combined with supplemental exercises to gain skill/attributes for application. That is how it has ALWAYS worked since the chuan fa was added.
Posted by: Zach_Zinn

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/25/08 08:15 PM

Stop being so bitchy, it's true I don't like being told "how it is" anymore than you do.

I have opinions too, sorry, so far you guys arguments have failed to sway me. Maybe there's a nuance that i'm missing somewhere but it still sounds like a bit of revisionism to me to suit today's MA marketing world. Sorry, but that's what I see.

Everyone who ever trained in more than art knows they blend together, that doesn't make it any more truthful when you claim it was "always" there, or that somehow your wrestling training was a secret key to unlock ancient secrets that had always been there.
Posted by: Seiken

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/25/08 08:26 PM

Quote:

Dude, I have no BJJ training, and I didn't even mention BJJ anywhere, where are you getting the BJJ/MMA stuff from?

I have no training in either, just Goju and a small amount of Judo with my Goju teacher, and some Danzan Ryu Jujitsu.

It has nothing to do with modern MMA stuff, just be honest aboutt he origins of things.





Sorry. I dont mean to attack you personally. My apologies.

Thats the thing, I am honest about the origins. Its everyone else who wants it to be BJJ and whatnot. If I analyze a movement, and from that movement comes some groundfighting techniques who the hell is the originator? Me, karate, or the elite groundfighters of BJJ and MMA? It doesnt matter if similarities arise or not, I did the analyzing of a karate move, I did the work to test it out etc.. so why on earth would I want to give credit to someone or something else?

Im not going to conform and call what I do post 1991 Karate, or BJJ... it is what it is. KARATE! And I sure as hell am not giving other people credit for my hard work.

Influences are NOT origins. I can be influenced by Steven Tyler and never learn a single thing from the guy about singing. Likewise I can break your arm from my guard with over a dozen variations. Not one of those I learned from BJJ or Judo... but from analyzing a movement from as many perspectives as possible by me.

On one side you have gifted martial artists increasing the depth of their art and on the other side you got average martial artists crosstraining telling you your just doing jiujitsu. Really doesnt matter what karate was, even though its obvious to some. It is what it is now. What do you tell the people who can grapple that never studied a groundfighting art? To tell them they are crosstraining or they are not truthful about origins is ridiculous.

Anyone in BJJ who reaches a high level of proficiency will realize it is the ingenuity of the player that brings the level to that degree of mastery. Same with karate. Its just too bad some people want to discredit what people create or discover based on someone elses discoveries or their own opinion on how they reached that conclusion.

I study forms, from those forms come applications. I do not go anywhere, train with anyone different or do anything but study the form. But I can fight on the ground... more specifically I can grapple on the ground,. and *gasp* even achieve a dominant position. I did NOT cross train to achieve this skill. What do you call me now? What are my origins now? See my point?

I have and will continue to learn from anyone I can. But I know for a fact that proper analysis of karate & kata movements will lead to an understanding of all aspects of combat independently of other combative arts, including ground grappling. Its not my fault other karateka dont spend the time to do such things and disocver this on their own, and want to crosstrain, these people are no more right or wrong than me either. Just different. But that doesnt make my Karate a crosstrained karate, or post 91 karate.

I just recently tossed out a paper with notes on it from 1995 with my personal applications from Naihanchi at the time. One of those just happens to be called the rubber guard in BJJ... another the OmoPlata... At the time, I only knew who Gracie was, never even gave BJJ a second thought... at the time I did not discern a difference between standing or ground, just fighting and applications. Today, I see more and more people independently achieving the same results. This gives me more confidence that I was on the right path before I knew where I was going.

I think people need to meditate more thats all.

All knowledge is ultimately self knowledge right? In the end either you can or you cant, you do or you dont. No one person is karate, no one art is ground fighting. If someone says(medulanet) they can grapple from kata then why not? Just because someone else cant... it doesnt automatically make his or my applications crosstrained or originating from anywhere than the percieved self. Imagine the world if that rang true for all facets of life.

I am getting carried away now, so im going to leave my thoughts at that. My current training is taking on new dimensions anyway, I find I can agree with all sides of the coin, so I end up arguing with other people just to argue with myself
Posted by: Seiken

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/25/08 08:35 PM

MattJ, point taken. Read my recent post though to see where im coming from as far as crosstraining goes.

Im still unsure about historical accuracy myself, I and others I think are still searching, and probaly wont stop. But my search is not specifically to find ground fighting in karate, my interest lies within history itself. I find historical aspects interesting regardless of what they are. It just so happens that some things lead me and plenty of others to believe ground fighting was a aspect of Karate, or at least an aspect of fighting that could have influenced Karate.

I can acknowledge some things I know I learned from other arts and people. But those very same things I also stumbled upon through simple study of kata. Who has the right to say what came first? Especially in someones personal studies. Its only being dishonest because someone else thinks im lieing. Its almost like a Paradox.

Either way, the subject is fun to discuss, and I do get carried away. I do generalize who and what im talking to/about. Sorry about that.
Posted by: Zach_Zinn

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/25/08 08:38 PM

Quote:

I find I can agree with all sides of the coin, so I end up arguing with other people just to argue with myself




I'm feeling that way myself, I also don't take any of this stuff personally, nor do I mean any of my comments to be taken that way, so no harm done.

It's funny if I ever got together with you guys i'll bet we'd have more in common than we'd expect for the bickering we do on FA.com lol.
Posted by: oldman

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/25/08 09:34 PM

You guys are like a bunch of old hens in a nursing home.

"Benny Goodman could really shake it!"

" Girl, you are an idiot. He couldn't shake the last drip off count Basie's weiner!!!"
Posted by: Shonuff

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/25/08 09:53 PM

Seiken,

The problem with perceiving one's self as having found the way, is that it invariably closes ones mind to other possibilities.

I imagine most folks here who hold a firm opinion on this subject hold it because just like you and med and jude they have studied and researched and trained, but they have come to different conclusions.

By your posts, a lack of belief in Ground-Karate is the mark of a lack of understanding, and yet in one of your posts you fail to see how a simple basic block can realisticly be applied as a block.

My training and research brought me squarely to the conclusion that schoolboy block/punch karate is one of the most brilliant and effective self defense methods and that most folk who've jumped on the grappling band wagon have missed the point and instead of learning real karate have stretched and reached with every twisted vain shred of hope and delusioned imagining, (such as the notion that a school boy getting some smaller kids to pin him and fighting them off is evidence of groundfighting training in Karate), to turn Karate into some Uber-MMA that was locking up and choking pretenders from the dawn of time.

So who needs to learn from who?

Actually although I disagree with the historical premise for Karate-grappling I think if those are the applications and training you wish to study thats great. We can all learn from each other, but its no good being open minded in only one direction.
You have in your posts shown yourself guilty of precisely the same closed mindedness of which you accuse those who disagree with you. You've failed to acknowledge that while you've achieved some level of knowledge in a particular direction, the rest of us might have as well.
Posted by: Zach_Zinn

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/25/08 10:04 PM

Well said man! You've prompted me to mention that part of the reason I get weirded out when people go off about all the cool grappling in karate is that all the "school boy" stuff is indeed ALOT more than what people have been led to believe it is.

The best karate I have personally experienced came from guys showing me kihon in a way I had never understood it before, none of it involved groundfighting, and all of it was amazingly simple, elegant, and effective, it was the same "schoolboy techniques" as I assume they were intended to be, and the difference was enough to make me say "wow".

From my own point of view, this kind of thing exemplifies Karate much more than the various armbars or takedowns or what have you in Kata, I study those too, but without the basic fundamental stuff none of those applications mean a whole lot to me.
Posted by: medulanet

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/25/08 10:12 PM

So in essence, Shonuff, you are saying that people who see ground fighting applications are missing the boat on the blocking and striking aspects of karate. Is that what you are trying to say?
Posted by: Zach_Zinn

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/25/08 10:20 PM

Quote:

So in essence, Shonuff, you are saying that people who see ground fighting applications are missing the boat on the blocking and striking aspects of karate. Is that what you are trying to say?





Here's my take: Focusing too much on grappling and groundfighting in the dojo for me confuses the strategic framework of Karate, which is in the end a percussive-oriented discipline.

It's not that I dislike learning the other stuff, I simply try to keep it in the proper context as I believe Karate is a percussive discipline, and thus the centerpiece of it is striking and skils related to giving and receiving strikes.

Is there other stuff? Of course, having a basic knowledge of other things is expected.

There's atemi-waza in Jujutsu and Judo, however if my goal was mostly learning effective atemi-waza and counters to it I wouldn't go to a Judo or Jujutsu school.
Posted by: BrianS

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/25/08 11:03 PM

Quote:

You guys are like a bunch of old hens in a nursing home.

"Benny Goodman could really shake it!"

" Girl, you are an idiot. He couldn't shake the last drip off count Basie's weiner!!!"





LOL!!

Zach,

Ever feel like you are talking to a wall?
Posted by: medulanet

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/25/08 11:25 PM

Quote:

Quote:

You guys are like a bunch of old hens in a nursing home.

"Benny Goodman could really shake it!"

" Girl, you are an idiot. He couldn't shake the last drip off count Basie's weiner!!!"





LOL!!

Zach,

Ever feel like you are talking to a wall?




Brian, don't be so hard on yourself. I don't think talking to you on FA.com is THAT bad.
Posted by: medulanet

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/25/08 11:28 PM

Zach, that's just it. I really don't think you understand the way in which I train and teach shorin ryu. I have a solid knowledge of grappling for fighting and I can post and write pages on the subject. However, my striking knowledge is 10x that of my grappling knowledge. Its one thing to argue a point on the net, but it is another thing to believe that these arguements fully represent our training habits.
Posted by: Seiken

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/26/08 01:36 AM

Quote:

Seiken,

The problem with perceiving one's self as having found the way, is that it invariably closes ones mind to other possibilities.

I imagine most folks here who hold a firm opinion on this subject hold it because just like you and med and jude they have studied and researched and trained, but they have come to different conclusions.

By your posts, a lack of belief in Ground-Karate is the mark of a lack of understanding, and yet in one of your posts you fail to see how a simple basic block can realisticly be applied as a block.

My training and research brought me squarely to the conclusion that schoolboy block/punch karate is one of the most brilliant and effective self defense methods and that most folk who've jumped on the grappling band wagon have missed the point and instead of learning real karate have stretched and reached with every twisted vain shred of hope and delusioned imagining, (such as the notion that a school boy getting some smaller kids to pin him and fighting them off is evidence of groundfighting training in Karate), to turn Karate into some Uber-MMA that was locking up and choking pretenders from the dawn of time.

So who needs to learn from who?

Actually although I disagree with the historical premise for Karate-grappling I think if those are the applications and training you wish to study thats great. We can all learn from each other, but its no good being open minded in only one direction.
You have in your posts shown yourself guilty of precisely the same closed mindedness of which you accuse those who disagree with you. You've failed to acknowledge that while you've achieved some level of knowledge in a particular direction, the rest of us might have as well.




I dont think I have found THE way. I have found MY way. And just like I said in my posts, what other people do is not any more wrong or right than what I do. Just different.

I do not think people who disagree or do not believe in groundkarate as a lack of understanding of Karate, but a lack of understanding of MY karate, and generally like most things, just assumptions. And most assumptions when it comes to ground karate usually relates back to crosstraining in a ground art. Which, in my case, is only correct in certain aspects. Like my boxing, does that mean my karate strikes are crosstrained boxing strikes? Some of them are identical. Which was the point I was trying to make, once youve mixed the ingredients you have a new creation, whatever you call it its just a label.

I agree with you on basic punch/block applications, which is more or less where my current studies are in TKD, but this is just one aspect of what karate has become in many people eyes. And we are talking about ground fighting specifically here. I only brought that up because many people agree that is not the only way to apply the movements, not in anyway a reflection of the effectiveness of that method.

Have I shown myself guilty of closed mindedness? I myself said I agree with all sides of the arguement... Im not saying ive never been content with my conclusions which is not much different than being closed minded, but I really dont feel I am at all on this subject.

See, here we go again with this grappling bandwagon MMA crap. Whos closed minded here? Instead of learning real karate weve twisted what? Hmm...

Ive failed to acknowledge nothing. I think youve failed to read my post clearly.
Posted by: BrianS

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/26/08 01:54 AM

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

You guys are like a bunch of old hens in a nursing home.

"Benny Goodman could really shake it!"

" Girl, you are an idiot. He couldn't shake the last drip off count Basie's weiner!!!"





LOL!!

Zach,

Ever feel like you are talking to a wall?




Brian, don't be so hard on yourself. I don't think talking to you on FA.com is THAT bad.




I'm not the one going round and round with him over my twisted history in karate,Marcel.

Posted by: medulanet

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/26/08 01:58 AM

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

You guys are like a bunch of old hens in a nursing home.

"Benny Goodman could really shake it!"

" Girl, you are an idiot. He couldn't shake the last drip off count Basie's weiner!!!"





LOL!!

Zach,

Ever feel like you are talking to a wall?




Brian, don't be so hard on yourself. I don't think talking to you on FA.com is THAT bad.




I'm not the one going round and round with him over my twisted history in karate,Marcel.






Right, so that would be more like talking to a merry go round, rather than a wall. So if talking to me is not like talking to a wall, then who would the wall be, exactly?
Posted by: Ed_Morris

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/26/08 07:23 AM

you mentioned earlier that you never claimed ties to tegumi, yet you reference the term whenever the topic of groundfighting in karate comes up. P. McCarthy also never claims ties to tegumi, he just uses the term 'Tegumi' to describe his own set of push-hands type drills. also, for the record, he was the translator for Nagamine's 'Tales...' yet doesn't take responsibility for the rewording of 'Sumo' to 'Tegumi'...which he said the publisher/editor Tuttle was responsible for....and Tuttle says they dont know, so I guess we'll never know. All we know is the term 'tegumi' is a term okinawan used for a informal form of childhood playfighting that has less of a direct connection to Karate than Okinawan folk dancing.

...but nobody is inventing a set of drills called 'Odori' or naming chapters in Karate books 'Odori Masters' - I wonder why.

karate masters have demonstrated odori ...none have demonstrated tegumi, nor have they ever demonstrated submission wrestling on the ground. These were masters wishing to spread karate, yet they don't include groundfighting (two on the ground scrambling for dominant position) in it's presentation or syllabus.

Nothing wrong with people adding that kind of groundfighting to their art - but they can't claim it came thru the handed-down karate training with any credability.

before the tactic of switching words is used, karate did and does have stand-up grappling, and tactic of dominating each other's balance - including one throwing another to the ground. It does not and did not pass along the art of groundfighting and submission wrestling where 2 people are on the ground struggling for positional dominance.

people really really want that historical link - but there is none. so what they do is learn these skills from outside influence and call it 'tegumi' since they apparently think using a foreign term for childhood playfighting will confuse the issue enough to persuade that historical link.

thats exactly whats going on when people throw around the term 'tegumi'....either knowingly or unknowingly.

In your case med, you wish to create the image of your karate being 'all that' with historical justification. In the case of authors re-wording things, we ask why, then see seminars and DVD's being sold under the name of the rewording...and the motive starts to make sense.


Let's exclude your karate from the picture for a sec, Med:
before 1993, karate's selling point was 100% as a standing, striking art. after 1993, commercial venturists saw the ground-game that karate was mi$$ing out on.

it's as simple as that. follow the money.
Posted by: Ed_Morris

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/26/08 07:43 AM

btw, the whole reason I bother to argue this every time it comes up is that I think it's important to realize that Karate as a fighting art is (I believe anyway) intended to address an initial attack while standing.

cross-training the ground range is all good stuff for well-rounded defense, but once someone starts muddying the waters by saying it's always been there when it hasn't - it changes the intent and therefore karate's optimization of what (I think) is it's real applied purpose...which is, to defend oneself from initial atack while standing.

but that's only my view. I admittedly have a narrowly focused definition of what karate addresses. however that narrower definition prevents me from having to demonstrate rediculous things like how a ground ankle-lock submission comes from naihanchi.
Posted by: jude33

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/26/08 08:11 AM

Quote:





I imagine most folks here who hold a firm opinion on this subject hold it because just like you and med and jude they have studied and researched and trained, but they have come to different conclusions.



So who needs to learn from who?

Actually although I disagree with the historical premise for Karate-grappling I think if those are the applications and training you wish to study thats great. We can all learn from each other, but its no good being open minded in only one direction.
You have in your posts shown yourself guilty of precisely the same closed mindedness of which you accuse those who disagree with you. You've failed to acknowledge that while you've achieved some level of knowledge in a particular direction, the rest of us might have as well.




Hi Shonuff.


From my studies to date the different methods of empty hand fighting that is now known as karate and weapons were trained together on Okinawa.

This goes back to the known creators of the art we now know as karate.

Teachers were selected on their skills.

So a teacher/ and what would now be termed a karate ka who was proffecient in say the Bo
would be known for this and sought out to teach the Bo.

Kata with and with out weapons were/ are used to transmit/ record the knowledge of techniques and principles.

Perhaps?
With the bringing in and aiming of karate in to the education system weapons werent part of the curriculem.
It seems to be correct.


And perhaps neither were things such the ground fighting recorded in kata that was actualy displayed by the person doing the kata actualy rolling about on the floor.

So the arts that are now known under one term as karate went through changes.

Weapons training didint.

So to my knowledge.

The display of rolling about on the floor

with regards to ground fighing

that is considered should be shown in certain kata

might be held in certain intended empty handed forms that

were also trained along side the weapons forms.


There is one I am looking in to at the present.


There is another line on some parts of kata that is taught in the present day with regards to weapons I am following but that is a different topic.


But like anything else posted on the internet it would have to be proven beyond doubt.

Jude
Posted by: jude33

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/26/08 08:17 AM

Hi

Ed.

Regards the groundfighting in tekki.

A hyperthetical situation but I think an interesting one.
Wouldnt it be interesting if in the future you or another teacher had to demonstrate weapons training techniques, GF and stand up grappling/ striking etc as part of the techniques in certain kata?

Because they might have been the intention of the creator of the kata?

Jude back to research.
Posted by: Seiken

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/26/08 10:35 AM

Quote:



Nothing wrong with people adding that kind of groundfighting to their art - but they can't claim it came thru the handed-down karate training with any credability.


Let's exclude your karate from the picture for a sec, Med:
before 1993, karate's selling point was 100% as a standing, striking art. after 1993, commercial venturists saw the ground-game that karate was mi$$ing out on.

it's as simple as that. follow the money.




Ed, why can it not be handed down through karate? In other words, any bunkai anyone comes up with can not be claimed to be handed down thru karate training with any credability either. Its no different than me studying a movement and coming up with ground fighting techniques. Essentially, the movement I studied was a Karate technique. The technique developed was ground fighting. My karate teacher taught me the movement, not post 1990s marketing, a BJJ or ground fighting expert. Me, studying a movement, that came from Karate.

100% standing striking art pre 1993? Really? Interesting,

Your telling us what karate is and isnt? Is that your personal interpretation also? Your karate is handed down thru what? Your karate instructor teaching you whos applications? Do you study movements and come up with applications? Thats not Karate Ed! Its not an unbroken line in karate anymore than groundfighting is an unbroken line.

Basically you have to be an Okinawan karate master to develop something thru karate then right Ed? Unless someone else taught it to us it couldnt be Karate could it? You might as well throw away the majority of applications you would consider Karate, since most of them are made up by the Bunkai commercial venturist... its as simple as that. follow the money.

Honestly, someone gives you a hammer. With that hammer you can do many things. But the person who gave you the hammer says ONLY NAILS SHALL BE POUNDED! One day you realize what a great tool you have and discover all these things you can do with the hammer. Was the hammer handed down to thru someone else? Or was the hammer giving to me by outside influences?

Technically Ed, you cant argue this anymore. Since I have taught groundfighting applications to new students of Karate. Therefor, now according to you, groundfighting is in karate, it has been passed on to someone. See how easy that is?
Posted by: medulanet

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/26/08 01:19 PM

Ed, let me ask you a question. Do yo believe there are no knee rides, striking a downed opponent while you are on one knee or applying a joint lock to a downed opponent while you are on one knee in karate?
Posted by: Zach_Zinn

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/26/08 03:21 PM

Quote:

Ed, let me ask you a question. Do yo believe there are no knee rides, striking a downed opponent while you are on one knee or applying a joint lock to a downed opponent while you are on one knee in karate?






ARGH!

I think this is ground that's already been covered - so to speak, most folks seem to see techniques such as what you're talking about as not directly part of of the category of "groundfighting".

You can argue the definition all you want, but you are really going in circles here, this is NOT what anyone is talking about when we reference the controversial subject of groundfighting in Karate.

Quit it with the vagueness!
Posted by: Ed_Morris

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/26/08 04:31 PM

lol. yes I do. The intent is downing a standing attack. There are also throws, sweeps, trips and takedowns from a standing position.

let me ask you a question: do you believe karate teaches and has always taught how to defend yourself when you and the opponent are both on the ground and both are struggling for positional dominance? such as is taught in submission grappling arts? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submission_grappling

if so, please correct that and also this wikipedia entry citing your references:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-up_fighting

Karate is for stand-up fighting, med. You can add whatever art you want to it, but Karate has been transmitted thru the generations as a stand-up fighting art....until the 1990's anyway

It's not a coincidence that ALL Karate kata are from a standing position and with various finishing techniques including your 1 kata that has one knee on the ground.

Karate and it's kata are a stand-up fighting art. If you have submission wrestling (as defined in the above link) in your Karate, thats great, but those drills were not passed down thru Karate training/curricula - they are an add-on post 1990's.

besides, most Karate places that have ground-fighting is usually a form of what is known as 'crappling'. want to learn good ground-game? go to a BJJ or MMA gym - people don't go to a Karate dojo with the intent/expectation of becoming good ground-fighters.

...just like someone wouldn't join a BJJ gym, Aikido dojo or Judo dojo if they wanted to learn how to strike hard with their hands and feet.

If you put all arts and ranges into your Karate med, you might be able to invent a new art: MMA with kata. ...oh wait, thats already being done.
Posted by: medulanet

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/26/08 08:00 PM

Quote:

lol. yes I do. The intent is downing a standing attack. There are also throws, sweeps, trips and takedowns from a standing position.




Okay, Ed, what do you think happened in training when a takedown failed and both people hit the ground?

Quote:

let me ask you a question: do you believe karate teaches and has always taught how to defend yourself when you and the opponent are both on the ground and both are struggling for positional dominance? such as is taught in submission grappling arts? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submission_grappling

if so, please correct that and also this wikipedia entry citing your references:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-up_fighting




I am not sure what you want me to correct Ed. In okinawan karate if someone puts you down you stand up. And you use your stand up grappling tools to do it. I know you don't have a lot of grappling experience, but what is so hard to understand about this. And why don't you believe that the old school okinawan karate guys would use this type of strategy?

Quote:

Karate is for stand-up fighting, med. You can add whatever art you want to it, but Karate has been transmitted thru the generations as a stand-up fighting art....until the 1990's anyway

It's not a coincidence that ALL Karate kata are from a standing position and with various finishing techniques including your 1 kata that has one knee on the ground.




In addition to three kata with kneeling techniques not including kusanku which has other ground techniques, there is a lot that kata does that is not so obvious. It is the two man drills which make kata come alive. Why chamber when you don't always have to chamber? If I used your logic I would interpet kata to mean that if there was a chamber then for use in fighting you must always chamber to use a specific technique from kata that has chambering. That may make sense to you but it does not to me.

Quote:

Karate and it's kata are a stand-up fighting art. If you have submission wrestling (as defined in the above link) in your Karate, thats great, but those drills were not passed down thru Karate training/curricula - they are an add-on post 1990's.




I'm not sure if you caught this one Ed, but grappling techniques in kata are not really for submission grappling because it does contain a lot of striking techniques to set up and finish just about everything. Grappling is for training and techniques from kata are for fighting. So obviously using kata techniques in fighting would not carry the same definition of submission wrestling. However, the okinawan tegumi practice would be it practiced by kids or adults.

Quote:

besides, most Karate places that have ground-fighting is usually a form of what is known as 'crappling'. want to learn good ground-game? go to a BJJ or MMA gym - people don't go to a Karate dojo with the intent/expectation of becoming good ground-fighters.




Yes, that's why I tell my karate students, especially the kids, to wrestle in high school and weight train. Karate training is not really for weaklings and people who don't know how to grapple already. And I believe that is also why this was the classical prescription for someone who wanted to learn karate. First learn how to grapple which will increase your ability to fight and build up your body. Then learn karate.

Quote:

...just like someone wouldn't join a BJJ gym, Aikido dojo or Judo dojo if they wanted to learn how to strike hard with their hands and feet.




Actually all three of those styles have effective atemi waza. I guess you haven't seen Helio Gracie teach his self defense drills. They amazingly look very similar to basic karate drills with punches, kicks, elbows, and knees. That's probably because they most likely came from the judo they based their BJJ on. Which in turn came from JJJ. Which influenced okinawan karate. Probably the reason why some of the escapes on the ground from karate are similar in principle to the basic BJJ techniques, except rather than pulling guard we stand up.

Quote:

If you put all arts and ranges into your Karate med, you might be able to invent a new art: MMA with kata. ...oh wait, thats already being done.





Actually Ed, its already BEEN done. In ancient Greece is was called pankration and their art contained kata called pyrrics. But wait, you didn't know that, did you?
Posted by: Zach_Zinn

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/26/08 08:27 PM

Quote:

Actually all three of those styles have effective atemi waza. I guess you haven't seen Helio Gracie teach his self defense drills. They amazingly look very similar to basic karate drills with punches, kicks, elbows, and knees. That's probably because they most likely came from the judo they based their BJJ on. Which in turn came from JJJ. Which influenced okinawan karate. Probably the reason why some of the escapes on the ground from karate are similar in principle to the basic BJJ techniques, except rather than pulling guard we stand up.




Yeah...go take Judo to learn effective atemi-waza, that's a sure path to efficiency

Sure they include strikes in their training to some limited degree, but much like groundfighting in karate the atemi in these arts is NOT a primary weapon.

It is ironic to me that you are arguing this point with Ed after admitting multiple times that you didn't learn your groundfighting from a Karate source.

I wonder how we would look upon a BJJ player with great striking skills who learned some boxing or whatnot, and then came back and said "this was BJJ all along"!
Posted by: MattJ

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/26/08 09:56 PM

Quote:

I wonder how we would look upon a BJJ player with great striking skills who learned some boxing or whatnot, and then came back and said "this was BJJ all along"!




LOL. Good point Zach. I also have a hard time reconciling Medulanet telling people to learn wrestling. I thought he said it was already part of karate. Why does one have to learn it seperate then?

And why is learning BJJ apparently considered "cross-training", but wrestling isn't? I get the impression that Med and Seiken have an irrational hatred for BJJ/MMA - despite wanting to claim that they train the same way.
Posted by: Ed_Morris

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/26/08 10:18 PM

Karate is for defending yourself while standing. however...

since the only constant that karate has is change itself, then I don't think it so strange that people added ground submission wrestling to their karate starting in the 1990's...hell, they probably added judo throws after judo became popular. and before that, they added chinese arts when it was popular.
Karate adds what it lacks and what is popular....it's the nature of the art.

'traditional' karate is sortof like the borg...they assimilate and credit with their own name.
Posted by: medulanet

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/27/08 02:05 AM

Really its about points of emphasis. A punch in BJJ is similar to a punch in any other style. It is all about how much you develop that aspect of your game and what your strategy is. In fact, a guy I know who is a Relson Gracie brown belt told me that the main things he remembers about rolling with relson is the head butt, knee to the groin, and elbow shot he received and not the submissions.

As for arguing the main thing is you guys are having a hard time understanding what I am saying. I get techniques and fighting principles from kata and grappling skill from grappling practice. Maybe you guys don't know, but grappling skill and grappling techniques are a little different. Someone who knows nothing about grappling can have natural talent and have grappling skill, but know nothing about joint locks or anything else. My arguements have not changed. If you look back I have said the same things, and you guys just don't like it.

In addition, you analogy is not a good one because if a BJJ boxed like a boxer that is obviously not in the art. In addition, if a karate man rolled like a BJJ guy that is obviously not in the art. However, if the ground fighting looks very different from how a BJJ guys rolls and contains strategy that is very different, then would we assume that he got his techniques from BJJ?
Posted by: medulanet

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/27/08 02:09 AM

Grappling training is a supplemental exercise for karate much like tegumi was for the okinawans in the 1800s. Like I said before, you call it crosstraining and I do not.

And who said that learning BJJ is cross training and learning wrestling is not? I think you just said that, but I never did.

As far as me hating BJJ, that is not the case. I don't like their strategy. I like to get up if I'm put down, not fight from my back. The guard is NOT a neutral position.
Posted by: medulanet

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/27/08 02:11 AM

Quote:

Karate is for defending yourself while standing.




Ed, I find it interesting that although Victor Smith has also made points contrary to such beliefs, you have never challenged him on that point. I wonder why?
Posted by: Zach_Zinn

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/27/08 04:15 AM

Quote:

Really its about points of emphasis. A punch in BJJ is similar to a punch in any other style. It is all about how much you develop that aspect of your game and what your strategy is. In fact, a guy I know who is a Relson Gracie brown belt told me that the main things he remembers about rolling with relson is the head butt, knee to the groin, and elbow shot he received and not the submissions.




You know, the guys i've done Jujitsu with bring up this kind of stuff all the time, they strike alot, and many of their kata (it's Danzan Ryu, so they have kata) seem to actually include strikes. is it striking? Sure.

Is is striking with the same kind of intent and purpose as Karate or another percussive discipline? Hell no, much the same as most throws, jointlocks, etc. taught in Karate are basic by the standards of an art like Jujitsu, and occupy a different place in the strategy of the art.

It's not what the art specializes in and that's that, obviously BJJ isn't known for it's striking expertise, regardless of what your friend remembers.

Quote:


As for arguing the main thing is you guys are having a hard time understanding what I am saying. I get techniques and fighting principles from kata and grappling skill from grappling practice. Maybe you guys don't know, but grappling skill and grappling techniques are a little different. Someone who knows nothing about grappling can have natural talent and have grappling skill, but know nothing about joint locks or anything else. My arguements have not changed. If you look back I have said the same things, and you guys just don't like it.





Huh? I'm no grappler but I've done enough to have a decent if very basic understanding of grappling for position,and very elementary use of chokes. that doesn't do anything for your argument though, no one needs grappling experience to evaluate or understand your argument.

Some people are naturals at overwhelming someone with a flurry of punches too without much specific training in strikes, what does that have to do with it?

Quote:


In addition, you analogy is not a good one because if a BJJ boxed like a boxer that is obviously not in the art. In addition, if a karate man rolled like a BJJ guy that is obviously not in the art. However, if the ground fighting looks very different from how a BJJ guys rolls and contains strategy that is very different, then would we assume that he got his techniques from BJJ?




I have never once said anything about BJJ specifically, I don't know crap about BJJ and I have no idea what your obsession with referring to it is. I know there is other groundfighting, in fact what little training I have on the ground is from stuff which is not BJJ.

If someone did what you were talking about I would think "hey this guy has learned how to grapple for position nicely and integrated it into his Karate training"...which is great, since hey that's exactly what you did.

I would think you learned the skills outside of a Karate dojo, because in fact you did.

The question of whether you are doing it the "way the Okinawan's did" by cross training is again....sorry to be rude, just a question of how you market yourself, not one of any real meaning.

The bottom line is you learned the skills elsewhere...did it enrich your Karate? Sure.

I'll give you an example from my own experience that'll seem silly but I hope it gets the nuance across:

I learned many of the same escapes in Danzan ryu that was taught in Karate, some of which can even be found in Goju kata....fact is though, the Danzan Ryu guys understand them better than me, because that's their bread and butter.

Am I gonna say "this is Danzan Ryu" if teaching an esacpe from a hold? No, martial arts aren't brand names. I will however be honest and say that my own skill at using these techniques is much the better for having trained these techniques in Jujitsu a little, so i can't sit back and claim they "came from kata" in terms of the nuances i've learned with them.
Posted by: Victor Smith

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/27/08 06:00 AM

Med,

It's simply that Ed doesn't want to read the book of a reply I would give.

You might note I've never been shy defending a point.

These discussions, the internet rendition of the old bull sessions, rarely stick to a topic and flow everywere like a flood on the mississippi.

I guarantee you that nothing that is being discussed remotely describes all karate, or what karate was before the modern era, back when men did their karate in their bdv's and no grappler really wanted to do a shoot on a guy in hs bdv's. (for there are biological defenses that us modern type polite folks ignore). <GRIN>
Posted by: jude33

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/27/08 09:39 AM

Quote:



You know, the guys i've done Jujitsu with bring up this kind of stuff all the time, they strike alot, and many of their kata (it's Danzan Ryu, so they have kata) seem to actually include strikes. is it striking? Sure.

Is is striking with the same kind of intent and purpose as Karate or another percussive discipline? Hell no,






I cant quite see that logic. That is surely down to the person that isolates and practices the strikes? Be from which ever kata they are held in?
Quote:



much the same as most throws, jointlocks, etc. taught in Karate are basic by the standards of an art like Jujitsu, and occupy a different place in the strategy of the art.




Perhaps they are but untill someone works out every intended move available in every karate kata, the history of karate then who knows what was trained.


Sheer speculation but there it is.

Quote:



In addition, you analogy is not a good one because if a BJJ boxed like a boxer that is obviously not in the art.





Wasnt BJJ a culmination of arts worked on by the people who trained it in Brazil? It started with Meada and
then gracie family continued to develop the system throughout the 20th century,as well as often fighting in vale tudo before MMA. bareknuckle boxing? included. Meada had fought boxers.

So I think some form of boxing is in the art. If you would like to look at a modern Book reference Mastering Jujitsu, Renzo Grazie freemovement phase. Boxing is included. Except it is MMA type gloved

It was refered to on here of Okinawan karate ka taking part in a form of bareknuckle boxing.

This is open to speculation but there was also a lot of Okinawans who emigrated to Brasil.
Including karate ka. Bareknucke type karate ka.
Vale tudo? Bareknuckle? Karate-ka in Brasil? Bareknuckle?


Anyway the grappling art you practiced outside of karate. How do you know that part of them werent integrated in to Okinawan karate at some point?

Jude
Posted by: jude33

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/27/08 09:55 AM

Quote:





If you put all arts and ranges into your Karate med, you might be able to invent a new art: MMA with kata. ...oh wait, thats already being done.





Wasnt karate created by a Mixture of Martial Arts?
So I suppose by about 1895 or there abouts it was already falling under that heading

.Jude
Posted by: MattJ

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/27/08 12:22 PM

Med -

Quote:

Maybe you guys don't know, but grappling skill and grappling techniques are a little different.




Actually, some of us here DON'T have a hard time understand things:

http://www.fightingarts.com/ubbthreads/s...page=0&vc=1

Quote:

However, if the ground fighting looks very different from how a BJJ guys rolls and contains strategy that is very different, then would we assume that he got his techniques from BJJ?




Your strategy is NOT to beat the other guy? How different can it be?

Quote:

And who said that learning BJJ is cross training and learning wrestling is not?




You have repeatedly implied that wrestling is part of karate training, despite little evidence that it was. And you seem to imply that BJJ is NOT considered karate, and that it is inferior in strategy to wrestling. But by your logic, wouldn't BJJ be considered part of karate?

Quote:

As far as me hating BJJ, that is not the case. I don't like their strategy. I like to get up if I'm put down, not fight from my back. The guard is NOT a neutral position.




This simply shows both your ignorance and your agenda. BJJ strategy is to defeat the opponent. Many BJJ people train to get up or at least obtain top position if taken to the ground. And the guard is certainly a better position that being mounted. Between being standing and being mounted, the guard is considered a neutral position - despite what YOU think. Had you trained BJJ for more than 2 months, you probably would have been shown the same things that I am talking about. Because beginners to grappling often end up on their backs, that is the first thing that they learn. To imply that wrestling is better than BJJ for the street is questionable logic, considering that BJJ was developed as a street-fighting art in Brazil. But wait - you keep noting that BJJ has good self defense. So which is it?

And wrestling training teaches some bad habits of it's own - giving up the back, not protecting the neck, etc.

Not to slag wrestling, which is a good art to learn. But it's not better than anything else, like some people would have you believe.
Posted by: Zach_Zinn

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/27/08 02:57 PM

Quote:



You know, the guys i've done Jujitsu with bring up this kind of stuff all the time, they strike alot, and many of their kata (it's Danzan Ryu, so they have kata) seem to actually include strikes. is it striking? Sure.

Is is striking with the same kind of intent and purpose as Karate or another percussive discipline? Hell no,






I cant quite see that logic. That is surely down to the person that isolates and practices the strikes? Be from which ever kata they are held in?





Ummm, well, no.

Have you ever seen Jujutsu kata that have atemi-waza? If you have you wouldn't be arguing with me about the place of striking in them.

They don't include striking in the same way that an art like Karate does, so no, it's not just "down to the person", some arts are better at some things than others.

Same with Judo atemi-waza, it is/was such a samll part of the curriculum that you hardly see it anymore, and even in the early days it was (as far as I know) basically reserved for demo and kata.

Do you think all arts can do everything equally? Why even differentiate them at all then?

Here ya go some koryu stuff:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9pu5uv1Z6o

Is there striking here? yep. In fact many Karate dojo teach applications like this, however i'm reasonably sure that in the case of these guys they probably spend alot more time on throwing, locking, than actual practice or refinement of percussive techniques, furthermore if we go by what's shwon here the strikes occupy the place of simply being "extra credit" and diversionary tactics to set up the throws, not exactly how striking works in Karate kata, though it may in some instances.

I find bizarre this argument in the post-UFC ma world where people constantly want to call apples oranges, various TMA have the points they focus on, and the points where only a a more basic form of knowledge is expected, I don't see why that concept is so weird for people.

It's almost as if you guys are trying to say that before the modern era martial arts were all-inclusive super-arts where the practitioners were great at all aspects.

That's called romanticizing the past. In this case though, you seem to be romanticizing the past using the yardstick of modern MMA training...confusing to say the least what exactly you guys are driving at.
Posted by: Ed_Morris

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/27/08 03:01 PM

to my knowledge, Victor doesn't teach groundfighting integrated into his Karate in the sense of the defining link I gave of submission wrestling. Instead, I believe he redefines 'groundfighting' the same way you do: that is, an opponent hitting the floor and finishing/submitting an opponent on one knee - also the philosophy of whatever works standing works on the ground. Therefore bypassing the argument by using redefined terms.

but I could be wrong, and if so, my appologies in advance to you and Victor.

Quote:

Quote:

Karate is for defending yourself while standing.




Ed, I find it interesting that although Victor Smith has also made points contrary to such beliefs, you have never challenged him on that point. I wonder why?




but if you are insinuating some kind of biased cronieism, then you are dead wrong. I consider victor a friend, but I don't think there is a problem that we disagree on points of opinion.
Posted by: Ed_Morris

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/27/08 03:16 PM

Quote:


It's simply that Ed doesn't want to read the book of a reply I would give.




not sure if thats a fair assessment Victor. remember the 600+ page Uechi ryu 'blue book' you gave me in pdf form? I read it all. every page. Thanks again for passing that along, by the way.

your bubishi assesment on your webpage? I read it all. Your translation from french Mabuni's work? read it all.

in fact, Victor, I may be one of the few who actually HAS read your material that you share. but people think what they will...how well does anyone really know anyone, I suppose. - particularly when the communication is a one-way conversation.
Posted by: Victor Smith

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/27/08 04:20 PM

Hi Ed,

Defining ground techniques in what I teach is difficult to define for I teach to the person because it is based on their their range of abilitites.

Historically the Isshinryu system as it developed does include countering attacks on the ground from several different areas. As other Okinawan systems derived from the instructors studying with Shimabuku Tatsuo, it is not illogical to assume they may have retained those studies too.

The most difficult thing to define is what any of the Okinawa systems really were before systems sprang into existence in the 50's. It's safe to assume they followed whatever the instructor felt was reasonable, and almost none of those studies were documented. That an echo of that training became the later systems, does not mean those systems were the original practices either.

It's obvious that modern day goju is not the way Miyagi taught, but a systematic approach to share his teachings. The difference between the original to the derivative is very large, but oftimes difficult to see.

In my study The Isshinryu kusanku kata contains techniques that take a person to the ground, riding them down to complete the attack.

Our approach is not that of wrestling an opponent on the ground. One of my seniors was a very accomplished wrestler, but never included that into his Isshinryu. No need.

Of course as my practice includes multiple traditions integrated into my Isshinryu practice ground defense/attack is also reviewed from an Indonesian and Chinese perspectives.

For those who such instruction is called, it is not something that they begin with, but spend years building skill sets that will eventually work into those studies. Yet at the same time one aspect of our ground fighting begins the first week of training too.

The more important thing is not to let others define what you are, or to share what you do too openly either.

The most important clasical tool in karate was and is deception. Allow others to mistake the purpose of karate is fighting. Allow them to accept karate was not designed to work the low, just the middle or the high.

It makes things far easier in the long run.
Posted by: Ed_Morris

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/27/08 08:25 PM

Quote:

Our approach is not that of wrestling an opponent on the ground.




same here. nor have I seen any evidence of any Karate style (prior to the 1990's that is) with the training method required to gain such skills.

of course, it doesn't mean it can't be done - but I believe it changes the intent of what Karate addresses...perhaps thats why your prior student with a ground wrestling background didn't feel the need to incorporate wrestling on the ground. and who knows, maybe thats why there is also no evidence that tegumi was ever part of the curriculums which the founders established. Even if the curriculums were mere outlines, if wrestling on the ground were critical to the strategy of Karate, you'd think they would at least give it the same importance as supplimentals such as kakie and hojo undo in Goju, for example.

I think most agree takedowns and knee-ride submission techniques are and have been part of Karate. but I don't think that qualifies as wrestling on the ground, by popular definition.
Posted by: medulanet

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/27/08 11:31 PM

Quote:

But wait - you keep noting that BJJ has good self defense. So which is it?




I thought you would know, all BJJ is not the same. There is BJJ for vale tudo, sport grappling, and self defense. The techniques are the same, but the strategies and different. Being you have taken the art for over 2 years wouldn't you knwo this? Their SD stuff is good. Their vale tudo stuff is okay. Their sport stuff ingrains bad strategies.

Quote:

And wrestling training teaches some bad habits of it's own - giving up the back, not protecting the neck, etc.




Correct, sport wrestling does teach these things. Wrestling for fighting does not. But then, if you had ANY experience with it, you would know this.

Quote:

Not to slag wrestling, which is a good art to learn. But it's not better than anything else, like some people would have you believe.




Well, some arts are better for certain people and what they bring to the table. I always say that BJJ and its strategies are not for me. Wrestling as it relates to fighting is much more my fit. Especially because I don't have to learn a lot of knew stuff, just new ways to use the stuff I know.
Posted by: medulanet

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/27/08 11:38 PM

Quote:

Am I gonna say "this is Danzan Ryu" if teaching an esacpe from a hold? No, martial arts aren't brand names. I will however be honest and say that my own skill at using these techniques is much the better for having trained these techniques in Jujitsu a little, so i can't sit back and claim they "came from kata" in terms of the nuances i've learned with them.




That's similar to my approach. When I teach grappling when fighting I say this is wrestling and this is where it can be found in kata.
Posted by: medulanet

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/27/08 11:43 PM

Quote:

I think most agree takedowns and knee-ride submission techniques are and have been part of Karate. but I don't think that qualifies as wrestling on the ground, by popular definition.




So for some reason, when people who your are "discussing" groundfighting in karate/kata inform you that they do include such knee ride submissions in their definition of groundfighting, you still believe they are following your "popular definition."
Posted by: medulanet

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/27/08 11:45 PM

Quote:

Quote:

Our approach is not that of wrestling an opponent on the ground.




same here. nor have I seen any evidence of any Karate style (prior to the 1990's that is) with the training method required to gain such skills.

of course, it doesn't mean it can't be done - but I believe it changes the intent of what Karate addresses...perhaps thats why your prior student with a ground wrestling background didn't feel the need to incorporate wrestling on the ground.




And since we are speculating, maybe it was because karate had an equally effective method of addressing grappling as it relates to combat/fighting.
Posted by: Ed_Morris

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/28/08 12:36 AM

yup...could be. It could be that Karate's intent changes with the times and on an individual basis.

I'm just saying there is no evidence of what you claim (if you are even claiming submission wrestling has been passed down thru an unbroken line of transmission).

post WWII karateka in particular have been eager to document their art. show me any (or even pre-WWII for that matter) Karate publication which point out submission wrestling technique with 2 people wrestling on the ground (as defined in the link I gave) as an integral and technical part of their karate and you've made your point.

childhood memories of playfighting doesn't qualify, a kata that drops on it's knee doesn't qualify. someone stating that a wrestling background prior to karate training helps build the foundation to karate training isn't the same as claiming karate includes it.

I could also say that taking boxing prior to karate training helps a person understand karate....but if someone gains their boxing habits from boxing training, you can't really claim the skill was built from karate. some of the foundations overlap, but the intent and strategy is different.

same with submission wrestling. it's not the intent for karate to be there. you can certainly add the range to your personal art. but those lessons weren't transmitted and learned thru karate training...they were learned from someone cross-trained in submission wrestling.


did your sensei (was it Eihachi Ota ?) teach submission wrestling? did his teacher? (Shima Sensei). did Nagamine teach submission wrestling?

I thought their main intent was to teach to defend from initial attack while standing? again, takedowns and drop to one knee finish/submission yes...but 2-person submission wrestling on a hard-wood traditional dojo floor? - where have you seen/heard or even read about that prior to the 1990's in a Karate context?

Could you let me know which of your Karate teachers passed ground-based submission wrestling techniques down to you in the form of having you practice 2-person submission wrestling with him looking on and correcting your technique while both opponents are on the ground struggling for positional dominance or submission?

That might clear things up.
Posted by: jude33

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/28/08 11:51 AM

Quote:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9pu5uv1Z6o





All of these are my thoughts and the results of my studies.
I actualy like this kind of stuff you posted. I Observe a lot of it. I go through the motions carefully with a willing partner with a couple of techniques.

But they cant be practiced other than using something like a throw dummy.

It is one of the reasons kano created Judo.

He made throwns and techniques as safe as could be made to allow randori.
Quote:


It's almost as if you guys are trying to say that before the modern era martial arts were all-inclusive super-arts where the practitioners were great at all aspects.




Karate, the term is new. What went in to the creation of the term had the nuts and bolts to be an effective all round art. But at that time it wasnt called karate. It was more how certain people in certain areas at certain times on Okinawa trained.

The art you practice daito ryu. I think it had an infleunce along with a lot of arts on karate. My studies of history seem to back this up. In fact they are nigh on positive.

I think that some techniques that were practiced in daito ryu and more that likely other arts that eventualy became known as Japanese Jujitsu found there way in to karate and were recorded in karate kata. Also that the emphasis on throws and grappling and not so much striking in Daito ryu might be because of the prescence of armour, but people arent always going to wearing armour if and when attacked.
So then more than likely striking then takes prescedence.

One of the techniques I know of in daito ryu is also practiced in a strain of Tiger kung fu.
With a slightly different emphasis.

Go back even further and this I think is where Medulanet feels something in common with his karate and his wrestling background. It was thought that before kata was used with ti there was some form of grappling with striking and more than likely weapons use.

There had to be either a certain art that was spread over Asia or even that humans having only certain ways of moving created the same techniques for a specific use. I personly think it was the first one.
Quote:


That's called romanticizing the past. In this case though, you seem to be romanticizing the past using the yardstick of modern MMA training...confusing to say the least what exactly you guys are driving at.




What I might be driving at is that karate was an ongoing development on Okinawa. Different strains of karate were influenced by different events and different people.
It was a fighting art. It was or could be used for weapon less self defence or with weapons if required.
A lot of karate history is thought to be wrong.

From the use of karate in education forward I think a lot of techniques were removed.

MMA doesnt always use all of the specific techniques that were used for real during conflict of one nature or another, so in a way it is something like the art Kano created. Use techniques that are relatively safe.

If karate was an effective art then they would have covered every event. Including if the encounter went to the ground.

At one time the people who controlled the Okinawans and gave them addional ( added to their) skills were battle hardened samuria.

The Satsuma clan and indeed other clans that occupied Okinawa were known to have trained the locals.

So the Satsuma samuria would have known groundfighting techniques both armed and unarmed.Okinawan samuria would have also have recieved additional training from the Japanese samuria.

Also the additional training of the Okinawan peasents

The training was would have been for;

Defence against pirates and bandits, robbers etc who more than likely didint wear armour as such, so first line of defence would be weapons along with perhaps more emphasis on striking, even more so should they be caught with out or even if they should lose their weapons.The striking and some other techniques the okinwans would have known by that time from their native ti and the chinese infleunce.

When called on for military defence so weapons along with armed and unarmed grappling with less emphasis on striking but that would be depending on the opponents.


Just because something isnt emphasised doesnt mean to say it cant be trained. The strikes in any art can be trained to a higher degree. If some one in days gone by who used daito ryu was caught minus a weapon I am sure they would have used and been able to use striking effectively along with the other skills they had.

Jude
Posted by: MattJ

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/28/08 12:35 PM

Quote:

I thought you would know, all BJJ is not the same. There is BJJ for vale tudo, sport grappling, and self defense. The techniques are the same, but the strategies and different. Being you have taken the art for over 2 years wouldn't you knwo this?




Thanks for making assumptions about what I know.

Quote:

Their SD stuff is good. Their vale tudo stuff is okay. Their sport stuff ingrains bad strategies.




What makes you assume that all BJJ schools teach only sport stuff?

Quote:

Correct, sport wrestling does teach these things. Wrestling for fighting does not. But then, if you had ANY experience with it, you would know this.




Again with the assumptions. So I guess I can assume that your wrestling is "bad strategy" sporting stuff, since you learned it in school, right? So how would YOU know anything about "wrestling for fighting"? If you can't use sport BJJ for self defense, you can't use sport wrestling for self defense........right?

Quote:

Well, some arts are better for certain people and what they bring to the table. I always say that BJJ and its strategies are not for me. Wrestling as it relates to fighting is much more my fit. Especially because I don't have to learn a lot of knew stuff, just new ways to use the stuff I know.




Finally something that I can agree with you about.
Posted by: Neko456

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/28/08 12:54 PM

Again an outstanding analyzation that I agree with. Even in your challange debate with Hanshi McCarthy though I respect his opinion greatly he did not nail down the orgin of his new finding except with the occassional argument that Medulant states there are writing that talk about submisson wrestling existing before and during the development of Karate. I saw no tie or kindship to Karate and Tegumi in Kata accept they once existed and was practiced during thr same time but in different enviroments or times in there lives.

No more then Boxing has a link to Wrestling though some say they were linked at one time. And if orgin of Karate or Boxing can be traced to Pankartion maybe thats true.

Some see this as plain as nose on our face but if it doesn't say it plaining or stated it as fact how can it be that plain. Either it existed or it didn't I've seen many pictures of the Unicorn and Spinix but no proof that they existed. Except rumor and the Spinix doesn't have a nose on its Pyramid (trying to funny). These are considered Myths.

But to train both now would be cross training.

I agree with the Engineer and other, "No wrestling in formal katas exponents".

Thats all we are saying call a Ace an Ace.
Posted by: medulanet

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/28/08 06:26 PM

Quote:

Again with the assumptions. So I guess I can assume that your wrestling is "bad strategy" sporting stuff, since you learned it in school, right? So how would YOU know anything about "wrestling for fighting"? If you can't use sport BJJ for self defense, you can't use sport wrestling for self defense........right?




Definitely Matt. I am not a very good grappler at all and I can't use my wrestling skill in my fighting.
Posted by: jude33

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/28/08 06:45 PM

Think this is de-generating in to nothing.

Is there ground fighting in karate?
I think Yes. Others say no.

Can it be proven with conventional kata of which some were said to have been changed?
In a way it can be speculated but it cant be seen 100 percent as such.

Are people rolling about on the floor in conventional kata?
No

Are people rolling about on the floor in the weapon forms that are said at one time nearly all karate ka practiced?
No

Are karate ka/ weapons people rolling about on the floor in a none weaponed kata?

Yes.

Might there be the proof?

Who knows.

Jude
Posted by: MattJ

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/28/08 07:07 PM

Quote:

Definitely Matt. I am not a very good grappler at all and I can't use my wrestling skill in my fighting.




No sir, you don't get to deflect this one that easy. Please explain how you got "wrestling for fighting" from a sport-based academic wrestling foundation, and why someone else would NOT be able to do the same from a sport-based BJJ groundfighting foundation.

I don't see where your way leads to something intrinsically better for "fighting". You DID recommend people wrestle in high school. That is a sport, correct?
Posted by: Ed_Morris

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/28/08 07:11 PM

in case you missed it:
Quote:


did your sensei (was it Eihachi Ota ?) teach submission wrestling? did his teacher? (Shima Sensei). did Nagamine teach submission wrestling?

I thought their main intent was to teach to defend from initial attack while standing? again, takedowns and drop to one knee finish/submission yes...but 2-person submission wrestling on a hard-wood traditional dojo floor? - where have you seen/heard or even read about that prior to the 1990's in a Karate context?

Could you let me know which of your Karate teachers passed ground-based submission wrestling techniques down to you in the form of having you practice 2-person submission wrestling with him looking on and correcting your technique while both opponents are on the ground struggling for positional dominance or submission?

That might clear things up.



Posted by: jude33

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/28/08 07:22 PM

Quote:


No more then Boxing has a link to Wrestling though some say they were linked at one time. And if orgin of Karate or Boxing can be traced to Pankartion maybe thats true.

.



Hi Neko.

Admittedly bare knuckle boxing is said to have contained wrestling. I suppose it is just written so unless the articles are beleived it cant be proven.

Gypsies still practice bare knuckle boxing here in the UK. Havent met one who decribes wrestling techniques yet. Although I have seen articles on people stating they are teaching old bare knuckle boxing including wrestling.

Jude.
Posted by: BrianS

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/28/08 09:09 PM

Why are Ed's questions being ignored Marcel?
Posted by: Neko456

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/28/08 10:16 PM

Jude33 I've heard people saying this is true in some of the illegal street fighting thats boxing based here in the US they say they wrestle and fight on the ground. Like you I've never seen a bout my pockets are deep enough.


Marcel I'm repeating BrainS. Why are you not addressing Ed's Questions? That would clear things up.
Posted by: medulanet

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/29/08 04:29 AM

Quote:

in case you missed it:
Quote:


did your sensei (was it Eihachi Ota ?) teach submission wrestling? did his teacher? (Shima Sensei). did Nagamine teach submission wrestling?

I thought their main intent was to teach to defend from initial attack while standing? again, takedowns and drop to one knee finish/submission yes...but 2-person submission wrestling on a hard-wood traditional dojo floor? - where have you seen/heard or even read about that prior to the 1990's in a Karate context?

Could you let me know which of your Karate teachers passed ground-based submission wrestling techniques down to you in the form of having you practice 2-person submission wrestling with him looking on and correcting your technique while both opponents are on the ground struggling for positional dominance or submission?

That might clear things up.








No, Eihachi Ota is not my teacher. I, however, have known him for 5 or 6 years and he is a good guy with extremely powerful karate and moves better than ANY 60+ year old I have ever seen in my life. In addition, he has taught me a great deal about the striking only aspects of Matsubayashi, how to train kata to produce a superior fighter using combat timing. My teacher is in St. Louis, MO and began his training with Shoshin Nagamine in the mid sixties and has been training ever since. He taught us wrist locks, elbow locks, and shoulder locks. He taught us to apply them standing and take a person to the ground with them. He also taught takedowns, sweeps, and vital point striking. My second teacher taught me the inclose fighting of Matsubayashi Ryu. He taught how to close distance, grapple for position (standing) and how to understand how to use the kata techniques for in close fighting with little alteration. He also taught me how to develop a technique's application. He showed me how a technique can be worked into a variety of applications, some very close to the original movements and some not so close. However, he also taught me how the traditional training methods and kata movements prepare a student to apply the applications that a karateka develops.

As far as what you are looking for I'll explain it like this. In a resistive drill once a person obtains a positionally superior position he strikes and (BLAM!) its over, or apply a lock and (KABOOM!) it ends. Now, if a student is wrestled to the ground is unable to get a superior position when the fight hits the ground and is unable to prevent his opponent from successfully attacking him then he needs to develop that ability. However, such supplementary training is usually to be developed outside of the dojo. In the karate classes I have been a part of if a student needs to develop his skill he usually does so outside of class. Class was a time to test ability. People who did not develop outside of class got broken down inside of class. In class you learn where you are weak and what you need to do to gain strength in that area, however, it was not usually the place this strength was gained. Classical karate was not a combat sports training sort of environment. That's why student frequently struck the makiwara, lifted weights, or worked on kumite (like Motobu's streetfighting) outside of class. So I guess to answer your question no, we didn't do submission wrestling in karate class. However, I already stated that we didn't, didn't I? You learned what you were poor at in class because you couldn't stop your opponent in two man drills or kumite. Then you worked hard outside of class to improve when you got there. Karate class was more a proving ground of sorts. Not too much theory, just sweat, blood, and pain.

And as far as Ota, from what he tells me he doesn't even believe there is any stand up grappling, inclose striking, or throwing techniques in karate. So does this mean that there is/was not any and anyone is a charlatain and is preparing to make $49.99/unit in DVD sales. No, however, his striking at a distance is DEVASTATING and is a part of Nagamine's shorin ryu as well. Its all about what you focus in when training. I still stand by what my teacher and other guys like BuDoc have said here and elsewhere. Okinawan karate is a complete art.
Posted by: jude33

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/29/08 04:53 AM

Quote:



I still stand by what my teacher and other guys like BuDoc have said here and elsewhere. Okinawan karate is a complete art.




I think more the term in most cases was a complete art.
Weapons were trained along side karate.
Now in a lot of cases they are not.
And to revert it back to the complete art then cross training is used.
A complete art would indicate being able to fight from all postitions.
Either the kata were changed or the transmission of knowledge was kept and not given out by the few.
I think untill physical proof can be given the argument is still not proven either way.

Yet!!

Jude
Posted by: jude33

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/29/08 05:05 AM

Quote:

Jude33 I've heard people saying this is true in some of the illegal street fighting thats boxing based here in the US they say they wrestle and fight on the ground. Like you I've never seen a bout my pockets are deep enough.


Marcel I'm repeating BrainS. Why are you not addressing Ed's Questions? That would clear things up.




Hi Neko.

I dont think it would clear things up more that it proves changes were made to karate. Some can be clearly seen some cant. It is the ones that cant be clearly seen that have to be proven.

Okinawans had a strange way of recording their history.

As far back as early Japanese people armed with realy basic swords intergreting in to the then Okinawan population.

Mix bag of population.

Jude
Posted by: Shonuff

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/29/08 05:20 AM

Med,

thanks for the clarification on why you developed ground submission skill.

In my white crane class we were trained in some basic ground work that was in part derived from the style and in part bolted on from another style. One guy in particular really enjoyed this and he went to an MMA school to learn more. After a while he got pretty good and though wasn't miles ahead of the rest of us, he could beat most in the class fairly easily.

This guy was cross-training in another art even though he was in a style which taught ground work (and a number of other things that were "part of the style" if you asked my teacher, though when pressed he would admit where they came from), he could see that by going somewhere else to expand his knowledge he was cross training, gaining knowledge from outside the one style.

I cannot see how what you described is in anyway using Okinawan Karate to submission wrestle. Using wrestling to wrestle in a Karate class, sure, but Karate? I don't see it.
If you are calling those skills Karate, then by rights anyone who visits your class, goes away trains six different arts for 10 years, comes back and holds his own would be consiered a good solid Karateka???

You've said that your grappling training enabled you to unlock the kata of matsubayashi. I think this is true for many folks, myself inclded.
In most cases I've encountered, control/manipulation apps have been worked out via a degree of training in some form of grappling art.

I think the only point most have issue with is the ground element.
As has been stated, to get ground grappling out of standing kata which, did not get transmitted with any accompanying ground training or strategy, is just too big of a stretch.

You have above admitted to cross training to improve your skills (accept it or not). You've explained that within a Karate context you were taught standing grappling. Might not your ability to apply standing kata techniques on the ground be an extension of your wrestling training and not your Karate (which by your own admission did not cover ground skills)?
Posted by: medulanet

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/29/08 05:52 AM

Quote:

Quote:

Definitely Matt. I am not a very good grappler at all and I can't use my wrestling skill in my fighting.




No sir, you don't get to deflect this one that easy. Please explain how you got "wrestling for fighting" from a sport-based academic wrestling foundation, and why someone else would NOT be able to do the same from a sport-based BJJ groundfighting foundation.

I don't see where your way leads to something intrinsically better for "fighting". You DID recommend people wrestle in high school. That is a sport, correct?




As far as where I got wrestling for fighting, I got it from working some of the basic applications of wrestling to the fight game that Randy Couture advocates; in addition, I trained a little bit with a no gi BJJ advocate.

As far as a bjj guy not being able to do the same it is simple, because bjj and wrestling have two different mindsets and main technique sets to draw from. I'll give an example. I rolled with blue belt with 8 or 9 years experience who was no joke. Why he was not at least a purple, I don't know. He trained mainly with Rickson Gracie and smashed purples at various schools on the regular. I was bigger and stronger than him so I was able to take him down, however, he would "jiu jitsu me up" something fierce from the bottom. The first few classes we had I was unable to pass his guard. Therefore, I decided to "wrestle him" rather than play the jiu jitsu game. He would play a high guard and a rubber guard. Rather than fall into his triangles, arm bars, omaplatas, and you name its I decided to use my wrestling pinning combinations. The basis of which are cradles and nelsons (half, power half, 1/4, and 3/4). Every time he would bring his legs up I would inside cradle him, which rendered him immobile, and pass to either half guard or side mount. Again, I would use my superior base from wrestling training and pinning combinations to gain a superior position. From this position you can get up and out or rain down strikes. Now, from the bottom when I tried to work the guard stuff we were drilling I just wasn't feeling it. So I would work my underhooks from half guard and side mount. In fact, I would let him pass my guard and transition all the way to side mount so I could establish my underhook, bump him off me, and get back to a neutral position. In fact, I prefer side mount and half guard to full guard when on bottom, because I can wiggle out using underhooks and bumps to get back to a neutral position.

Now, its not so much about a jiu jitsu guy can't use these techniques (however, on the whole I have not seen jiu jitsu guys who have never wrestled with a stronger base or a strong cradle like someone who has) but its more about falling back on your strengths. When you are in deep trouble on bottom do you go for armbars and triangles from the bottom or do you work your way back to a neutral position? Do you look to pin (not just a leg to the mat but your opponent's whole body) or pass? Do you feel comfortable fighting from your back, or do you like to fight from your feet or at least from a top position better? Its about different fight strategies for different fighters.

Oh, and what's wrong with something being a "sport" Matt? Sport BJJ is not bad because it is a "sport" but because the rules of that sport ingrain bad fighting principles if it is focused on exclusively. Like you said the Gracie's developed BJJ and used it to fight challenge matches against other MAs and on the streets of Rio. That is the SD and Vale Tudo BJJ. Sport BJJ is not quite the same. When high level sport bjj guys just jump into guard from go is when you leave the realm of realistic fighting. Many times fights are decided within the first few movements and moments of a fight. I'd rather go into the fight with a power takedown and slam that a jump to guard. Why do you think many people say wrestling (and more specifically folkstyle wrestling) is the best base for MMA?
Posted by: medulanet

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/29/08 06:01 AM

Shonuff, I have stated many times that grappling skill comes from grappling training just like strength comes from strength training. Did I EVER state that grappling skill came from any other place? If so, please show me where I did so.

I also did not say that okinawan karate is used to submission wrestle. Okinawan karate is used to fight. Grappling skill developed from grappling practice be it submission wrestling or tegumi is also used to fight with. Just like okinawan karate is not used to weight train. Weight training is used to develop strength which also can be used in a fight.
Posted by: medulanet

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/29/08 06:08 AM

Quote:

post WWII karateka in particular have been eager to document their art. show me any (or even pre-WWII for that matter) Karate publication which point out submission wrestling technique with 2 people wrestling on the ground (as defined in the link I gave) as an integral and technical part of their karate and you've made your point.




Actually, I believe Victor Smith did post info about a 1933 publication about karate which illustrated ground based submission/fighting techniques which you dismissed as being influenced from judo, although you had no proof it was.
Posted by: jude33

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/29/08 06:37 AM

Quote:



Actually, I believe Victor Smith did post info about a 1933 publication about karate which illustrated ground based submission/fighting techniques which you dismissed as being influenced from judo, although you had no proof it was.



Interesting.

From my understanding certain early Okinawans during the creation of karate had some quite extensive infleunces from the arts that became known as Japanese Jujitsu.

Later some also crossed trained in judo.

Where was the publication posted? If anybody can bring up the link.

Is this the one?


1933 - Mutsu's "Karate Kempo" - a very complete work describing karate spent the last 1/2 the book showing karate technique applications by style of attack. It does contain technique depictions and descriptions for ground fighting and grappling.


Interesting..

Jude
Posted by: Shonuff

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/29/08 06:49 AM

Quote:


I also did not say that okinawan karate is used to submission wrestle. Okinawan karate is used to fight. Grappling skill developed from grappling practice be it submission wrestling or tegumi is also used to fight with.




Semantics. If your fight ends up in a wrestling situation then for that portion of the fight you are wrestling.

The point of the discussion is that you feel that Karate being a complete art includes ground grappling/submission skills, which historically came from Tegumi, but as that is not practiced they should come from wrestling as its the closest option you can find.

All very plausible but not how you put it originally. And no I'm not going to trawl all the various threads this debate has spanned to find your original assertions. If you had communicated clearly you wouldn't have been so "misunderstood".

The problem with your now very plausible viewpoint is that it relies on Karate to have been an entirely different art, one with an equally important twin art, to that which was passed on by every single style founder.

It effectivly means karate has been split from a half of its self for reasons unknown and passed on utterly incomplete.
Now some might say that this is no different to the current state where applications weren't passed on, but by my best understanding I'm now convinced that only minimal applications were ever passed on anyway, such that the student was relied on to concentrate on his art and develop mentally as well as physically. What was taught was indeed all that was needed for the individual to make the most of their art. What you claim would mean that what was taught was only half of what was required.

I don't buy it because I can see no plausible reason for such a broad and long lasting conspiracy which seems to have sealed the death of an art that most appeared to wih to preserve and spread.

Hence I still believe there is no historical basis for ground grappling in Karate (outside of Isshinryu or other such arts where it is known that the founder taught it).
Posted by: jude33

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/29/08 07:32 AM

Quote:



Semantics. If your fight ends up in a wrestling situation then for that portion of the fight you are wrestling.




Could be combined wrestling and striking.
Against an attacker using osoto gari or one of its terms used in wrestling could be done with a strike to the throat.

Quote:


The point of the discussion is that you feel that Karate being a complete art includes ground grappling/submission skills, which historically came from Tegumi, but as that is not practiced they should come from wrestling as its the closest option you can find.
Quote:



The term wrestling is such a wide term. Wrestling as in folk style/ greco wrestling that is practiced. Is that wrestling as close to its natural historical form?

Quote:


All very plausible but not how you put it originally. And no I'm not going to trawl all the various threads this debate has spanned to find your original assertions. If you had communicated clearly you wouldn't have been so "misunderstood".





If I am correct and early wrestling/ striking/ weapons methods before greco roman/ pankration had an infleunce on early ti and the grappling methods were isolated and transmitted later by independent grappling training or even held in( with or with out striking/ weapons mechanics) kata or dance on Okinawa then I can see where Medulanet sees the connection with his wrestling background.

If the Japanese or Chinese arts were at some point intitialy infleunced by arts before
greco roman / pankration then again this would have to he effect on someone with a wrestling background,

Quote:


The problem with your now very plausible viewpoint is that it relies on Karate to have been an entirely different art, one with an equally important twin art, to that which was passed on by every single style founder.




Not realy. If different arts went in the creation of karate than perhaps different style founders emphasised what they found worked for them.
Quote:


It effectivly means karate has been split from a half of its self for reasons unknown and passed on utterly incomplete.




The incomplete part I think might be valid.
weapons was trained along with karate at some point in the past. It is rarely done today.
Quote:


Now some might say that this is no different to the current state where applications weren't passed on, but by my best understanding I'm now convinced that only minimal applications were ever passed on anyway, such that the student was relied on to concentrate on his art and develop mentally as well as physically. What was taught was indeed all that was needed for the individual to make the most of their art. What you claim would mean that what was taught was only half of what was required.
Quote:


Perhaps. Jigen ryu was studied by style founders. It isnt realy passed on to the extent of sword use?
Quote:



I don't buy it because I can see no plausible reason for such a broad and long lasting conspiracy which seems to have sealed the death of an art that most appeared to wih to preserve and spread.




Might be due to;
Political climate at that time in Japan.
The move of karate and people competing for their strain of karate in to Education on Okinawa and Japan
The demise of the samuria tradition,
Quote:



Hence I still believe there is no historical basis for ground grappling in Karate (outside of Isshinryu or other such arts where it is known that the founder taught it).



So why did the founder teach it?
because it is required.?. And maybe he knew it was and should be there.?
Pure speculation.

Jude
Posted by: Victor Smith

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/29/08 07:53 AM

Sho,

Though Isshinryu's founder incorporated ground defensive traditions as well as the kata's ground offensive traditions he also incorporated kobudo trainin into the art. There were no distinctions that they were not interrelated.

When you're karate follows a full tradition all of them are applicable against any attack.

Following the Isshinryu tradition, and additional studies, I see the full art in play. So if someone wants to attack MMW (whatever that truly means) all portions of my art are in play, including whatever might be in my hands, sticks, stones, bottles or classical weapons.

I don't find one set of force multipliers stronger than another. Appropriately karate empty hand technique should be sufficient to finish any attack (if one trains to the level to address the zone the attack come from), as well as weapons technique should be able to do the same (again providing one's training is to the level to address that attack.

There is just attack, choice of entry into attack and choice of weapons to close that attack.

Little reason to change your art in the least, but lots of reason to make sure your training is sufficient for the challenge, IMVHO.
Posted by: Ed_Morris

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/29/08 08:04 AM

Quote:

Now, if a student is wrestled to the ground is unable to get a superior position when the fight hits the ground and is unable to prevent his opponent from successfully attacking him then he needs to develop that ability. However, such supplementary training is usually to be developed outside of the dojo.




right, thanks for being honest. so not from Karate training.


Quote:


As far as where I got wrestling for fighting, I got it from working some of the basic applications of wrestling to the fight game that Randy Couture advocates; in addition, I trained a little bit with a no gi BJJ advocate.




so not from your Karate training.



Quote:

Quote:

post WWII karateka in particular have been eager to document their art. show me any (or even pre-WWII for that matter) Karate publication which point out submission wrestling technique with 2 people wrestling on the ground (as defined in the link I gave) as an integral and technical part of their karate and you've made your point.




Actually, I believe Victor Smith did post info about a 1933 publication about karate which illustrated ground based submission/fighting techniques which you dismissed as being influenced from judo, although you had no proof it was.



The one from Hawaii? yes I remember and referenced that earlier. If memory serves, I believe it was Judo-trained karate students illustrated in the photo. I wonder if they ever developed and passed on a judo-karate mixed art? that would be interesting to find out.
Posted by: Neko456

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/29/08 09:46 AM

Ed wrote - The one from Hawaii? yes I remember and referenced that earlier. If memory serves, I believe it was Judo-trained karate students illustrated in the photo. I wonder if they ever developed and passed on a judo-karate mixed art? that would be interesting to find out.


One example of such a merger is called Kajuekenbo(<=excuse my spelling) which is an non traditional style devised in Hawaii from Karate, Boxing, Judo and Kenpo among other arts, it went to birth numerous other arts.

I see Marcels point on his personal developement which I totally agree with. We only have a difference in defining the orgin. Karate is not a complete art, no more then MMA is or Thai Boxing or BJJ or Judo. Like anything devises by man it has its strengths/striking and weakness/groundfighting in that it emphasis one over the other. Of course it address these attacks but not with enough training to defend against a Trained grappler.
The same could be said of Thai Boxing, Bando or Silat.

CROSS TRAINING helps we all are in agreement here even if some states that its always been in the Katas, as long as we do it live (Jkogas word) its all good.
Posted by: jude33

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/29/08 11:43 AM

Quote:




CROSS TRAINING helps we all are in agreement here even if some states that its always been in the Katas, as long as we do it live (Jkogas word) its all good.




Hi Neko.
Or perhaps it was displayed some what clearer in other kata that are no longer in existance.


Original Remarks: This essay was written and prepared by Master Chojun Miyagi especially for the club members when he gave us the lecture "About Karatedo" and its demonstration at the lecture hall on the 4th floor of Meiji Shoten at Sakaisuji, Osaka on 28th January 1936.

We also do not know origin of the name "karate", but it is true that the name "karate" was made recently.


In the old days it was called "Te". At that time people used to practice karate secretly, and a masters taught a few advanced Kata out of all the Kata only to his best disciple. If he had no suitable disciple, he never taught them anyone, and eventually such Kata have completely died out. As a result, there are many Kata which were not handed down.

So I dont think at this moment in time ground fighting in karate can be proven or dis- proven.


Jude
Posted by: Seiken

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/29/08 01:57 PM

Question, if I train at Karate dojo A, then I goto Karate dojo B, am I cross training? Because thats what it seems like everyone here thinks is cross training.

Personally, the majority of my working applications came from nothing but me, sitting down, thinking. Then, I would go train.

If I train at Judo club A, then goto BJJ club B, is that cross training? Even though the arts contain the same things?

Likewise, punches, elbows, knees, etc.. are apart of Karate also, am I cross training at a Muay Thai or Boxing gym? Im sure no one here would argue the applications come from Kata and Karate also, and the fact that I know them from karate would mean im simply training, not cross training. Sure the emphasis of the training changes, but do you say your cross training in TKD when you isolate your kicking at your Karate dojo?

Does the fact that you change training areas mean your crosstraining? No. Learning new techniques that probaly otherwise would of not existed had you not trained there would mean your cross training, learning new skill sets etc... that do not exist at all without this training. Otherwise, your just training.

My arguement is basically this. Simple analysis of karate and kata movements in general relation to actual combat. Will lead to the development and understanding of techniques and the skills required for execution in all possible scenarios one may find themselves in.

This does not require you to train in anything other than karate and kata. But, In order for you to study in relation to combat, you must train with varying degrees of resistance, this im afraid, can not be found everywhere. My judo instructor emphasized four throws over everything else, some might say from observing that judo only had 4 throws, would that be true?
Posted by: Zach_Zinn

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/29/08 01:58 PM

Quote:


So I dont think at this moment in time ground fighting in karate can be proven or dis- proven.








No it can't be proven or disproven, but there is a ton of circumstantial evidence in one corner, and not in the other.

I can't disprove the existence of aliens either, but I still don't have a compelling reason to believe in them
Posted by: MattJ

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/29/08 02:13 PM

Quote:

Question, if I train at Karate dojo A, then I goto Karate dojo B, am I cross training?




Yes, unless you are doing the exact same style.

Quote:

If I train at Judo club A, then goto BJJ club B, is that cross training? Even though the arts contain the same things?




Yes.

Quote:

am I cross training at a Muay Thai or Boxing gym?




Yes.

Quote:

Sure the emphasis of the training changes, but do you say your cross training in TKD when you isolate your kicking at your Karate dojo?




No. But if you are training at a TKD school as well as your karate school, then yes.
Posted by: harlan

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/29/08 02:15 PM

Huh. Interesting. I would never consider it 'cross training' if trained in 2 seperate karate styles. Not sure if this is 'karate centric' POV or not.
Posted by: Seiken

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/29/08 03:02 PM

MattJ, Sounds good, I understand where your coming from better now. I think.

What would your style be once it has been put together though? MMA? MattJs fighting system? Karate?

I really dont think Karate in the past ever designated a difference between ranges. I think our modern labels on what things are is what causes opposition on the subject. Like Victor said, 200 or so people before, compared to millions now, whos to say what someone has or will do with mere Karate alone. Someone in Karate who emphasizes punching only would probaly end up fighting like a western boxer, someone who emphasizes grabbing people and fighting from there, wrestling or brazilian jiu jitsu, or judo, someone who emphasizes kicking might look like Bill Wallace or TKD. Someone who likes to just pound away with everything they got, Muay Thai or Tito Ortiz

You see it in the various Karate styles themselves, different emphasis created what appears to be uniquely new styles, but they all contain most of the same movements and katas.

Just like the jiu jitsu school that fought against Kanos Judo, they emphasized grappling on the ground.

Its as if BJJ has a copyright on joint locks and the ground or something. Muay Thai doesnt own the elbow or the clinch either. lol

Im sure many of you can imagine two people, dont speak the same language. One a boxer, one okinawan villager. His first impressions would most definitely be this guy knows how to fight. Same scenario, a wrestler. The okinawan would most definitely think that this guy also, knows how to fight. The distinction, the difference, would not be there. Whatever the guy knew before, this would be integrated into him, that style once passed on to someone else is not a mixture of two styles anymore, it is one style, it always was one style, fighting. This is Karate.
Posted by: MattJ

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/29/08 03:38 PM

Quote:

I really dont think Karate in the past ever designated a difference between ranges. I think our modern labels on what things are is what causes opposition on the subject.




The problem with that argument is this - How is it that karate is associated with stand-up fighting by so many people, for so long? And why are there so few references to groundfighting in karate before the UFC?
Posted by: medulanet

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/29/08 04:47 PM

Quote:

Quote:


As far as where I got wrestling for fighting, I got it from working some of the basic applications of wrestling to the fight game that Randy Couture advocates; in addition, I trained a little bit with a no gi BJJ advocate.




so not from your Karate training.




Ed, now that is masterful out of context quoting. You really should make two different posts when quoting from two different posts of mine. This one was specifically in response to Matt's question regarding bjj vs wrestling for fighting. Believe it or not, I am an athlete and have participated in athletics all of my life. I have done combat sports for a while and have knowledge in athletic areas other than karate. In addition, you are taking the Christoper Columbus approach to quoting. I have stated many times that my grappling is NOT tegumi or any form of okinawan grappling. However, I have related it to that practice by quoting sources that relate it to ameteur wrestling and its technqiues. Such as Jokei Kushi stating that tegumi is not unlike amateur wrestling with joint locks and sealing the breath. In addition to Funakoshi stating that tegumi contained techniques similar to the 3/4 nelson from pro wrestling (which at that time was more similar to its american folk wrestling roots). As I have said before and will say again I will NEVER be able to duplicate what the okinawans did due to my cultural and athletic background and its differences from the okinawans. I do Okinawan Karate 2K. But your memory is very selective, now isn't it. All I do is relate principles and practices. I stand by the assertion that any grappling ability gained and used from tegumi and applied by using karate techniques to grapple with an opponent by okinawans in fighting is similar to what I am doing. Unbroken chain of transmision and the like are your terms, not mine. I simply relate the principles and I see and have been shown grappling principles in kata. Simple. I'll see you on the Mayflower.
Posted by: Neko456

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/29/08 04:56 PM

Jude33 I like your reference to what Miyagi stated but its so vauge it leans me futher to the no wrestling in Karate or Tode or Te Katas. From what I understand Te was just fighting pass down there wasn't any structured Katas until the Chinese mixture was desired. This can't be proven either because WWII destroyed all of the previous records if there were any.

harlan,Seiken and Mattj - Personally I don't think or don't consider it Cross Training if you study 2-3 version of Karate because they are so close you are enhancing your striking/grappling knowledge but not learning a totally different skill or range.

Just like I wouldn't think it would be cross training to box in two separate gyms one that stressed fast foots, start everything with jab combos and the other gym stressing step slide crouched bob & weave slugger style. They are both version of boxing and would have a little bit of both in them. Now Muay Thai would be Cross Training because of the obvious stress of different skills.

And of course any art covering intensive ground fighting is Cross Training imho like Judo/Aiki/Jujitsu/Shuai Jiao as would be Capiero and Gung-fu it requires totalling different methods and skills.

But Karate is Karate you would learn some different things in different style and even like dojos but not different enough that it wouldn't be Karate.

Medualent I don't see that he mis quoted you and it clear up where you actually got your grappling skills, now if you can see these moves in your Kata now is interesting but a Mute point in where your grappling actually came from imho. Ed made his point please make yours if I missed something.
Posted by: medulanet

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/29/08 06:36 PM

Quote:

Medualent I don't see that he mis quoted you and it clear up where you actually got your grappling skills, now if you can see these moves in your Kata now is interesting but a Mute point in where your grappling actually came from imho. Ed made his point please make yours if I missed something.




Clear up what? I have ALWAYS stated where my grappling came from. The point is if anyone did not know that they have not been reading what I have been writing. I am not one of the ones like PM who calls his/her grappling practices tegumi. I call it what it is. I simply relate my practices to those of the okinawans, just as others even okinawans have related similar things. From these relationships I see shared principles and techniques. It is from these that I extract my own application. The funny thing is that when I make a statement like, "principles for groundfighting are contained in classical kata" people begin to assume a lot of things rather than relating to what I actually say. Ed has me hocking DVDs through American Samurai, MattJ believes that I hate BJJ and think Tegumo (an combination of Tegumi and okinawn sumo) is the ultimate grappling art and its instruction manual is buried within the Pinan kata, and a host of other things. The fact is I have been saying the same things from day one. I have challenged people to quote me as saying otherwise. Never have I hid my wrestling and submission wrestling background. Never have I hid my training history. In fact, I was the one who informed you guys about all such things from jump. And infact, it shows me how uninformed most people are about principles in martial arts. Is a punch from a standing position that much different from a punch when on the ground? What about a lock? What about an underhook? I believe that the okinawans had methods to fight after being taken down. People here say they didn't, but refuse to believe that if Sokon Matsumura or Tode Sakugawa were taken down they would give up or not have a strategy to deal with this. Victor Smith reports that Tatsuo Shimabuku addressed this in the 1950's which Victor still teaches. I don't know, its just strange.
Posted by: BrianS

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/29/08 06:39 PM

Quote:

Huh. Interesting. I would never consider it 'cross training' if trained in 2 seperate karate styles. Not sure if this is 'karate centric' POV or not.




IMO if you train in one style,then another, you are cross training. Even if both the styles are karate.

Goju and Kempo= crosstraining
Shotokan and Marcelbayashi ryu = crosstraining
ATA TKD and ITF tkd = crosstraining
Posted by: medulanet

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/29/08 07:00 PM

Quote:

Quote:

Huh. Interesting. I would never consider it 'cross training' if trained in 2 seperate karate styles. Not sure if this is 'karate centric' POV or not.




IMO if you train in one style,then another, you are cross training. Even if both the styles are karate.

Goju and Kempo= crosstraining
Shotokan and Marcelbayashi ryu = crosstraining
ATA TKD and ITF tkd = crosstraining




Interesting. Harlan gets the IMO response and I get the you are simply being dishonest response. Very interesting.
Posted by: Seiken

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/29/08 08:19 PM

Quote:

Quote:

I really dont think Karate in the past ever designated a difference between ranges. I think our modern labels on what things are is what causes opposition on the subject.




The problem with that argument is this - How is it that karate is associated with stand-up fighting by so many people, for so long? And why are there so few references to groundfighting in karate before the UFC?




Good point, I would imagine though the same reason so little stand up grappling is related to Karate by so many people. Some people do it, some dont. References to groundfighting in Karate cannot be discounted because of UFC. Im sure most would agree there is even more things about Karate not documented than just mere groundfighting, so I dont think that should matter. Motobu had two copies of I think a 4 or 5 volume set on Karate he wrote, one is believed to still be in existance somewhere.


Why would the Okinawans not combine ground fighting into their styles & katas? Every other style of fighting encountered was, wrestling and grappling would of been no different. If it was, why is their no documentation of that? And childhood recollections is not proof either way, except that wrestling, and even wrestling from the ground was encountered. Funakoshi did not create karate or tegumi, and he himself knew so little of its history, so where did it come from? And like most kids, who were they copying from? Most likely the adults, who practiced kung fu. It was distinguishable enough to have its own name, and techniques, and eventually turn into a rule bound competition, so it was not just mere childs play going on in all of what Tegumi was. And some would say that sport alone proves it wasnt in Karate, but that is society at its best, just like Boxing was all inclusive.. eventually seperated from its grappling aspects by adding rules, even John L. Sullivans trainer was a wrestler. And people not involved in the martial art, seperate its contents to create a new thing, add a label here, a name here and alot is lost. Just thinking out loud.

If someone can distinguish without a doubt the specific techniques of the styles proven to influence Karate, then the arguement could be settled. Its not impossible, especially with a joint effort.
Posted by: Ed_Morris

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/29/08 09:03 PM

- you learned groundfighting skills from outside sources and related it to Karate. you were not taught goundfighting (in the sense of the submission wrestling link I gave) along with your Karate, nor was it handed down thru your Karate teachers. We already agreed on this, and I thanked you for your honesty.

- stand-up grappling is certainly in Karate and can easily be shown to have been passed down thru Karate lines. I think we've always agreed on this.

- submision westling and grappling have overlapping basis in principles, but the fundamental strategies are different. They are different games. Not to mention a whole different set of body mechanics and leveraging methods. common sense.


therefore, stand-up grappling was passed down thru Karate, but submission wrestling was not- it must be crosstrained for that range of skill. argument over, I agree with you and Victor.


If you are going to try and reword and reopen the argument, then all you'll need to do is tell us which Karate teacher taught you submission wrestling.
Posted by: BrianS

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/29/08 09:09 PM

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Huh. Interesting. I would never consider it 'cross training' if trained in 2 seperate karate styles. Not sure if this is 'karate centric' POV or not.




IMO if you train in one style,then another, you are cross training. Even if both the styles are karate.

Goju and Kempo= crosstraining
Shotokan and Marcelbayashi ryu = crosstraining
ATA TKD and ITF tkd = crosstraining




Interesting. Harlan gets the IMO response and I get the you are simply being dishonest response. Very interesting.




I have no use to argue with dishonest people.

I was just offering harlan my opinion.
The latter added in just shows my true feelings about you and your outlandish claims.

Homeskillet.
Posted by: jude33

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/29/08 09:17 PM

Quote:


If someone can distinguish without a doubt the specific techniques of the styles proven to influence Karate, then the arguement could be settled. Its not impossible, especially with a joint effort.




My thoughts to the thread not just to you Seiken.
That might be being worked on at the moment by different people. The problem is that would mean working out

Every known karate kata.
Every known weapons kata that was trained alongside karate.
Knowing weapons that were trained with karate.
Every known empty hand kata found in the study of weapons Every known Okinawan dance.

Knowing what ti was and the Chinese infleunce.
The original infleunce on ti.
The Japanese influence and any other influence.
The correct history of Okinawa.
Knowing all the kata that are no longer around.

Anything that I have missed because it is 2.07 am and it would join the list

Easy ?

I dont think if groundfighting is or isnt(or even was or wasnt) in karate can be proven or disproven unless a person has an answer to all of the above. Unless perhaps an original Okinawan kata shows a karate ka rolling about on the floor?

Theres a thought?

If techniques from other arts are contained within karate kata and trained then regardless how they are trained how is that crosstraining? If techniques were trained and werent in kata how is that than viewed?

If a form of wrestling exists in karate and some techniques are found in kata and a wrestler trains the same techniques then is that cross training? Or just a method of live practice?

Bit like a mixture of martial arts became karate.
MMA = mixed martial arts?

Is that purely the use of words??.




Zach the conversation isnt realy about aliens.
That question would be easy in comparison.
Jude
Posted by: medulanet

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/29/08 09:54 PM

Quote:

- submision westling and grappling have overlapping basis in principles, but the fundamental strategies are different. They are different games. Not to mention a whole different set of body mechanics and leveraging methods. common sense.




But Ed, I think you are forgetting the nature of application of karate techniques. Defensive techniques become offensive. Blocks strike and strikes deflect. Blocking techniques are then used to apply joint locks. Just like you said, these techniques may have some overlapping principles, however, they are different "games". Yet they are found not only within the same art, but the same technique. Karate is this way. Its application is not as concrete as you may be thinking Ed.

Quote:

therefore, stand-up grappling was passed down thru Karate, but submission wrestling was not- it must be crosstrained for that range of skill. argument over, I agree with you and Victor.




Oh, so you mean that standing grappling matches were commonly trained in karate to enhance standing grappling skill, yet once they hit the ground the exercise stopped. And this was trained as a self/life preservation art? I'm confused Ed. In what way was the training of standing grappling trained and passed on through karate and not through supplemental training exercises. Unless you are talking about goju guys "cross training" in chinese push hands arts and "bolting" it onto their goju. However, they talk about how it has always been a part of that art and are dishonest about their cross training in it.

Quote:

If you are going to try and reword and reopen the argument, then all you'll need to do is tell us which Karate teacher taught you submission wrestling.




Reword? You obviously don't know what words I originally used. If you had you would have used them to show me the inconsistencies. The fact is I NEVER said I was taught submission wrestling by any karate teacher. I was taught joint locks and chokes.
Posted by: medulanet

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/29/08 10:08 PM

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Huh. Interesting. I would never consider it 'cross training' if trained in 2 seperate karate styles. Not sure if this is 'karate centric' POV or not.




IMO if you train in one style,then another, you are cross training. Even if both the styles are karate.

Goju and Kempo= crosstraining
Shotokan and Marcelbayashi ryu = crosstraining
ATA TKD and ITF tkd = crosstraining




Interesting. Harlan gets the IMO response and I get the you are simply being dishonest response. Very interesting.




I have no use to argue with dishonest people.







Wow Brian, that was a shot at Harlan from out of the blue for no reason at all. Basically you have been arguing with me because I am honest, but chose not to argue with Harlan because of her dishonesty by not believing that training in two different styles of karate is cross training. I don't agree, but to each his own.

Quote:

I was just offering harlan my opinion.
The latter added in just shows my true feelings about you and your outlandish claims.




Okay, but really Brian, I don't think I want to know your "true feelings" about me. I don't swing that way.

As far as my outlandish claims. That standing grappling techniques in kata can be used on the ground. And that okinawans used their okinawan style submission wrestling as a preperatory training exercise for karate. And that wrestling for fighting is similar to tegumi. And karte/kata has joint locks and chokes that can be used on the ground. And that kata even has escapes from grappling techniques. You are right Brian. This stuff is "outlandish". Please refrain from worrying about the stuff I write. It obviously doesn't make any sense and is too far fetched to be realistic. Almost like breathing real hard will improve your fighting skill and protect yourself when being struck.
Posted by: Ed_Morris

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/29/08 10:59 PM

Quote:

But Ed, I think you are forgetting the nature of application of karate techniques. Defensive techniques become offensive. Blocks strike and strikes deflect. Blocking techniques are then used to apply joint locks. Just like you said, these techniques may have some overlapping principles, however, they are different "games". Yet they are found not only within the same art, but the same technique. Karate is this way. Its application is not as concrete as you may be thinking Ed.


If the skill is not taught and trained thru the art directly, then you can't really say it's there or say it's always been there.

Quote:

Oh, so you mean that standing grappling matches were commonly trained in karate to enhance standing grappling skill, yet once they hit the ground the exercise stopped.


nobody knows how everyone trained. maybe some groups did, who knows. what I do know is that there is no evidence of a Karate teacher passing on ground submission skills as defined earlier.


Quote:

And this was trained as a self/life preservation art? I'm confused Ed. In what way was the training of standing grappling trained and passed on through karate and not through supplemental training exercises. Unless you are talking about goju guys "cross training" in chinese push hands arts and "bolting" it onto their goju. However, they talk about how it has always been a part of that art and are dishonest about their cross training in it.




Push hands most likely did come from China, when? nobody knows...but at the very least it was part of Goju training at the time of the Goju founder. just as most of Goju's kata. Kobudo however, was likely added as practice to some Goju schools after Miyagi - but that admittedly was due to cross-training the arts.

how and when Shorin schools started to have push-hands drills seems to be after the 1970's. Did Nagamine include push-hand drills in his curriculum? not sure. However, it appears Shorin schools included kobudo before Goju.

I may be wrong on those guesses. but the point is, it's not dishonest to cross-train, blend and include your influences - on the contrary - an Art should be your own and include what makes sense to meet your objective and abilities.
The main thing that is important to try and be honest about is the recognition of where those skills came from.

Ground submission grappling skill doesn't get built from Karate training since it appears it was not taught within the Karate context and passed down within the Art, at least during the time of your style's founder passed on that Art.
Posted by: BrianS

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/29/08 11:00 PM

Twisty little word twister you!

I, in no way shape or form, think harlan is dishonest.

I think I'll follow your instructor's advice.

Train more and post less.

Peace out homeskillet!
Posted by: Victor Smith

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/29/08 11:07 PM

Wow, so much focus and to be frequently referenced...hmmm.

First Mutsu Mizo's 1933 "Karate Kempo" was the 2nd book he had written about karate. He had trained with Funakoshi Sensei (but as I understand it no mention is made of him in his book), trained in Okinawa in 1930 and created a text book with great detail.

For one thing he had a larger karate kata curricula than Funakoshi's 1935 'Karate Do Koyan' (and represented most of the kata the JKA would eventually adopt - but I can't say if the Shotokan folks were practicing them in addition to the Fuankoshi core kata at that time).

But it's most interesting aspect was the last 1/2 of the book was dedicated to karate applications. The techniques are cataloged by type of attack and varieto of responses for them. For example included are dodging, bobing and weaving defensive techniques. And yes there is a section about ground grappling techniques, both unarmed and armed.

Mutsu was Japanese. He might have been including Japanese Judo or jujutsu material or he may have been including actual karate practices he experienced. The book translation into Engish continues so we don't really know what he described, but they clearly are part of what he shows.

I don't think we can spin it either way without a clear translation. Looking at the drawings does not explain context. On the other hand he was published in Japan and other Karate-ka might have paid attention (as perhaps they did for the kata0 or may not have.

That is the core to this never-ending discussion. All everyone's relying on is logic, not evidence such as I'm holding in my hand, as inconclusive as it may be.

The karate tradition (till Japan 1930 onward) was things were mostly undocumented. We can't assume any karate training in Japan (frequently developed for short term college students and not a child among them) had much in common with Okinawa's drills.

In the 20's and 30's, as far as I can see Okinawan karate would not have changed much from it's past. Some school teaching efforts, but no large scale instruction push.

If only a handfull of Okinawan's were doing karate in those days, on an island 45 miles in length, and the only serious grappling was the sport sumo tradition, it is likely little work was done on serious grappling counters.

But karate being done by the few, many of those few may have also practiced family kobudo traditions (not formally in karate studies then) and being logical I'm sure for forced attack they would have likely responde with what they could put their hands on as well as their karate.

Every blinking karate tradition being bandied about is a new tradition. Not one of these systems was in effect in the 20's or before. The rise of schools or systems was post WWII, before that there were just instructors.

No evidence to characterize any of it, just the echos through kata. That isn't bad, for the variety of use of kata is incredibly fast, but does not answer these discussions does it.

Simply if the few who practiced were not really worried about grappling attacks, they would have spent little time on them. Doesn't mean their arts couldn't handle them, just their practice was very different.

On the surface, those who trained, trained hard and if attacked they were likely going for severe damage, not to play with their food.

Modern day karate is an entirely different beast, but I guarantee you whatever you use to draw lines never will describe the reality of systems and instrutors out there. The lines more describe what you belive, not reality.

Going through Joe Swift's recent translation on the time line of Okinawan karate I was struck by how much was written in Okinawa in the past 100 years, and of course none of it avaiable in other languages.

There is documentation, we just don't have much access to it. I paid a fortune for my 'Karate kempo' which was worth every penny to me, but I can't read it.

To answer this definitively you have to dig out the surviving old timers (if any are left) and beg them for answers, and/or actually read what has been written.

It just wasn't written for us, and the Okinawans (and the Japanese) haven't been in a rush to translate it for us either. So step by step some of this comes available.

And of course in the mean time everyone will keep speculating on something they have no evidence to prove either way.

How we actually train is more important, IMVHO.
Posted by: jude33

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/29/08 11:09 PM

Quote:

As far as my outlandish claims. That standing grappling techniques in kata can be used on the ground.




Agreed and can be demonstrated .
So some might argue then why didint a master demonstrate this with a two man drill and record it somewhere in a book.
It would require photos.

The problem is it wont be believed unless it can be shown.
Quote:



And that wrestling for fighting is similar to tegumi.




Ditto
Quote:


And karate/kata has joint locks and chokes that can be used on the ground.





Agreed and could be demonstrated.

Quote:


And that kata even has escapes from grappling techniques




Agreed and could be demonstrated.
Iain aberneathy has come up with a lot of uses for kata.
On other forums some question if what he does has pedigree
being that wado is not to high on Bunkia.

See what a person is up against?

I believe there had to be ground fighting in strains of karate because of the amount of infleunces that went in to the development and the scource of the infleunces and the fact that any kind of encounter can go to the ground.

If empty hand was trained alongside weapons there would have been armed and unarmed grappling/striking at some point.

Other wise it would be the same as saying that samuria arts have no ground fighting.

But I dont think all of the history of Okinawa can be proven beyond doubt at this moment in time.

Its a case of proof. So I think it is still no win no loss as to does ground fighting exist in karate.

Yet

Jude
Posted by: Ed_Morris

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/30/08 07:08 AM

lol...you guys try hard to circle the argument, but the simple question is, did your Karate instructor teach you ground submission wrestling in 2-person drills with him looking on and correcting? so far, I'm reading everyone say no, that skillset wasn't specifically passed on to them thru Karate channels. How about yourself Jude?
Posted by: Ed_Morris

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/30/08 07:49 AM

Quote:

That standing grappling techniques in kata can be used on the ground.


you agreed yourself, they are different games. If it isn't specifically taught and trained on the ground thru Karate, then the ground skill was gained thru external source.

Quote:

And that okinawans used their okinawan style submission wrestling as a preperatory training exercise for karate.


thats deceptively worded. tegumi was not 'training'. no where do I see a reference to tegumi masters teaching tegumi, or karate masters teaching tegumi. it has been described as the type of informal playfighting that kids usually do. a trial-and-error learning - not taught by a teacher in the form of techniques and drills. then if they happen to later take karate, and in retrospect, they realize the playfighting helped them to toughen up. I used to really like running as a kid, I don't consider that a "preperatory training exercise for karate". If a kid later took Judo, then you could say tegumi is a prepatory exercise for Judo.

In fact, tegumi was very likely born out of kids imitating sumo matches they publically watched. not born out of public Karate matches. (karate was practiced secrectly at night, remember? ). So if anything, it would probably be more acurate to say that informal tegumi was prepatory to Okinawan Sumo. similar to how kids use backyard wrestling to prepare them for their later WWF career. lol

goofiness aside, see my point?


Quote:

And that wrestling for fighting is similar to tegumi.


H.S. wrestling, MMA, BJJ, etc are also similar to wrestling for fighting - why use a foreign cultural word of an activity not formally passed down? if you learned HS wrestling, then took Karate - then thats what it was. you didn't learn tegumi from Karate or tegumi in preparation for karate - you learned HS wrestling and Karate separately from 2 different sources. Did your karate instructor say HS wresling was a pre-requisite for training? or did he start his classes with HS wrestling prepatory exercises?


Quote:

And karte/kata has joint locks and chokes that can be used on the ground. And that kata even has escapes from grappling techniques.


see first quote remark.
Posted by: CVV

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/30/08 07:52 AM

When I started karate (1980), we would wrestle during warm-up. Usually sitting down back to back. At hajime, try to get top position and have control on opponent. very good warm-up. I think it came from judo.

Specifically instructed was fighting while one would be on the ground and one would be standing. Attacking hip/groin/knees/feet including take-down and submission techniques/locks. Goal was to get up as quickly as possible.
This made clear that fighting strategy in karate was standing, at least how we trained it. I have never seen it otherwise. I later saw a book on Fukien dog boxing, and recognised a lot of techniques.

We also studied 5 sanbon kumites wich would all end taking down the opponent, 2 of them fighting while both would be on the ground, but strategy would be to take out opponent by hitting or kicking and get up, although initiated by throw or lock or both.

I first heared of cage fighting in 1992.

Links to tegumi/ground wrestling.
Tegumi was a sport teached in the schools. Miyagi did it in highschool. It was a sport for commeners and keimochi. And there would be bouds during festivals. As of 1901, karate is teached in the highschools on Okinawa. I have no reference if tegumi was still teached at that point.
However many karateka also studied judo in the 1920-1940.
For those in law enforcement, it was mandatory.
I do not feel tegumi is incorporeted in karate. But it was studied as seperate art, later replaced by judo to some degree.
Posted by: CVV

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/30/08 08:40 AM

We find reference to training tegumi/shima in the early 20th century in Morio Higaonna 'History of karate'. Chojun Miyagi was thaught Okinawan sumo wrestling(shima) by Soei Makishi a local champion. He also studied judo at highschool.

Shoshin Nagamine describes how Motobu Choki encounterd an Okinawan wrestler (tegumi) who stopped wrestling at age 30 and had a friendly bout with him (See tales of Okinawan Great Masters).

Morio Higaonna also describes in 'Traditional Karate volume I' how in China Kanryu Higashiaonna would train close fighting techniques and choking with partner in a large bamboo basket called Uki. The basket insists fighting in clinch wich will eventually end on the ground.
Posted by: Neko456

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/30/08 10:54 AM

CVV that was good information but even with those details you come up with the same conclusion that we do. And I know thats the point you are making so we are in agreement.

Karate and Tegumi where two separate training, even if Tegumi was formally trained and it seemed it was. It was different from Karate.

Karate training seems to always to have been thought of as serious training and Tegumi was a fun challenging sport. Even if practioners sometimes got hurt or broke something, it was an accident or they didn't tap when they should have.

No one questions if Karate has takedowns, Locks, Throws, breaks or chokes. What is questioned is that it doesn't have sustained groundfighting. One of the formal two men drills that we do both you lock and break the arm in shikodachi while throwing him head 1st to the ground and after he comes out of the roll you strike the eyes. This is different then seeking to mount and lock an arm or take back an choke or counter that. To me it seems far more serious, get it done quickly.

I agree that Okinawans would have used their past training in wrestling if taken down or if they wanted to mount. But it was not past down through Kata.

And seriously Naihanchi/Tekki's ground applications (the ones I've seen) are far inferior to Judo's/BJJs or Submission wrestling's rolling. Whereas its standing application seems to have less flaws. Almost like thats the best place to apply its principles maybe thats just me because I'd changed gears wrestle instead of Karate at that range rather then think my horse stance was a guard???

I'm a non believer what can I say.
Posted by: CVV

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/30/08 11:47 AM

Quote:

No one questions if Karate has takedowns, Locks, Throws, breaks or chokes. What is questioned is that it doesn't have sustained groundfighting. One of the formal two men drills that we do both you lock and break the arm in shikodachi while throwing him head 1st to the ground and after he comes out of the roll you strike the eyes. This is different then seeking to mount and lock an arm or take back an choke or counter that. To me it seems far more serious, get it done quickly.





Neko, what you describe here is a technique of the first of the 5 sanbon kumites I mentioned in my earlier post. Maybe rhey are the same drills as you use.
The purpose is either he dislocates/breaks his schoulder or he rolls through and gets one in the face and groin. Either way, you get up after thsi technique. You do not continue to roll with the opponent. I believe thsi strategy was devised to always take into account multiple opponents. Take one down and reevaluate your position standing.
Posted by: Neko456

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/30/08 12:01 PM

CVV sounds like the same drill but its close to groundfighting in that you both are on the ground not kneeling hips on the ground. But as you mentioned you roll up quickly never staying down to ground fight. Being that you have broken a limb, smashed his face into the ground and stabbed him in the eyes!! Whats the use of choking him out or anyother manuver unless you want to go to jail.

Sounds like the same drill. If thats Tegumi I wish there was more in Karate, but really thats just old style Goju-ryu Karate which is known and documented to like to grapple.
Posted by: jude33

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/30/08 12:49 PM

Quote:

lol...you guys try hard to circle the argument, but the simple question is, did your Karate instructor teach you ground submission wrestling in 2-person drills with him looking on and correcting? so far, I'm reading everyone say no, that skillset wasn't specifically passed on to them thru Karate channels. How about yourself Jude?




In wado there are traditional jujitsu techniques called idori.

They are in the main defence when both people are on their knees.
Some do involve rolling about on the floor.

It was taught in the wado karate syllabus. I was shown some of them but didint realy take a lot of interest at the time namely because the expertise in using the knowledge in that area is held by a very few.

If the same techniques found in idori are in Okinawan kata then there is proof of groundfighting in Okinawan karate.

The Japanese infleunce on certain strains of Okinawan karate.

So I am afraid it would be for someone to do a lot of research, learning all the techniques in wado and all the katas available before that line to groundfighting in Okinawan karate could be established or not.


Master Ohtsuka
Trained in Shinto Yoshin Ryu Ju-Jitsu
and other strains of jujitsu.
He trained with
Master Funakoshi, Mabuni Sensei and Motobu Senei
He then trained in
Yagyu Shinkage Ryu Kenjitsu


In 1934 'Wado-Ryu Karate Jitsu' was created by Master Ohtsuka.

On April 29th 1966, the Emperor of Japan gave Ohtsuka the rank of "Kun Go To" and decorated him with the "Soko Kyokujitsu Sho" Medal for his effort to spread the practice of Karate-Do.

He was also the 4th headmaster of Shindo Yoshin Ryu jujitsu.

Quote
By the early 1930's Ohtsuka sensei had parted company with Funakoshi.
It was his belief that Funakoshi had over-simplified and modified several karate techniques and katas in the interests of teaching large groups of beginners.

He had also wanted to incorporate what is now known as Jiyu kumite (free fighting). Funakoshi was against this form of training. Ohtsuka sensei combined knowledge of Funakoshi's karate with his new knowledge of Okinawan karate, and added several of his own adaptations from the samurai martial art of jiu-jitsu, to form Wado karate.


End of quote

Jude
Posted by: Neko456

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/30/08 01:00 PM

Jude33 we all know that Wado-ryu and its variants came long well after Okinawan Karate.

You brought up another question if Tegumi/Submisson Wrestling was already incoroperated in Funakoshi's Karate why did Ohtsuka Wado-ryu's Soke think that Jujitsu needed to be added. I mean if he was taught right it was already in his Katas. Right?
Posted by: Ed_Morris

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/30/08 01:00 PM

so Karate crosstrained with JJ is evidence of ground submission grappling in Karate if you can find it in stand-up kata. got it.

I think I'll bow out of here, until more people show signs of knowing what circular logic is.
Posted by: MattJ

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/30/08 01:01 PM

Quote:

Jude33 we all know that Wado-ryu and its variants came long well after Okinawan Karate.

You brought up another question Tegumi/Submisson Wrestling was already incoroperated in Funakoshi's Karate why did Ohtsuka Wado-ryu's Soke think that Jujitsu needed to be added. I mean if he was taught right it was already in his Katas. Rights?




Bingo.
Posted by: jude33

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/30/08 01:29 PM

Quote:

so Karate crosstrained with JJ is evidence of ground submission grappling in Karate if you can find it in stand-up kata. got it.

I think I'll bow out of here, until more people show signs of knowing what circular logic is.




I hope you dont bow out for to long. The kind of feedback is good. If ever someone published anything then some of you guys are the best kind of critics.
You asked I told. Ed there isnt going to be 100 percent proof at this moment in time. I have already posted that.

And who is to say that all parts of every Okinawan kata are purely standing up?
There is one practiced by Okinawan karate ka where in parts the practioner is rolling about on the deck.

This kata is at the moment being looked at in greater detail
As to the reasons the practioner is rolling about.
I am afraid further questions on that specific kata are stonewalled untill such times it is worked out what is happening. Others with more knowledge about the kata are being requested.

With the stand up kata there are so many variations of the same kata.

So no proof against and no proof for.

Still

Jude
Posted by: jude33

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/30/08 01:39 PM

Quote:

Jude33 we all know that Wado-ryu and its variants came long well after Okinawan Karate.

You brought up another question if Tegumi/Submisson Wrestling was already incoroperated in Funakoshi's Karate why did Ohtsuka Wado-ryu's Soke think that Jujitsu needed to be added. I mean if he was taught right it was already in his Katas. Right?




Cant answer that question correctly right now Neko. I am still a student remember. I will however come back to it at some time in the future. Might have something to do with Funakoshi.

Still doesnt mean groundfighting didnt exist in Okinawan
karate.

Jude
Posted by: student_of_life

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/30/08 03:56 PM

jude.....buddy.....no one said ground fighting didn't exist in okinawa. why would you say that? that has nothing to do with anything thats been said on the previous 20 pages.
Posted by: jude33

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/30/08 05:31 PM

Quote:

Quote:

Jude33 we all know that Wado-ryu and its variants came long well after Okinawan Karate.

You brought up another question if Tegumi/Submisson Wrestling was already incoroperated in Funakoshi's Karate why did Ohtsuka Wado-ryu's Soke think that Jujitsu needed to be added. I mean if he was taught right it was already in his Katas. Right?




Cant answer that question correctly right now Neko. I am still a student remember. I will however come back to it at some time in the future. Might have something to do with Funakoshi.

Still doesnt mean groundfighting didnt exist in Okinawan
karate.

Jude




What you on about SOL?
Posted by: MattJ

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/30/08 05:37 PM

Jude -

Quote:

Still doesnt mean groundfighting didnt exist in Okinawan




What sol means is that we're not debating whether the Okinawans did wrestling or groundfighting. It's pretty clear that they did. The question is whether groundfighting was historically part of the karate tradition. It does not appear that it was.
Posted by: jude33

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/30/08 05:40 PM

Quote:

Jude -

Quote:

Still doesnt mean groundfighting didnt exist in Okinawan




What sol means is that we're not debating whether the Okinawans did wrestling or groundfighting. It's pretty clear that they did. The question is whether groundfighting was historically part of the karate tradition. It does not appear that it was.




For some reason both you and SOL have missed out the word karate from the quote I gave.
Unless I missed it out?
dont think I did?




Either way


I think groundfighting was historically part of the karate tradition.

This can be debated and get nowhere untill proof is got for both sides of the argument.

Jude
Posted by: medulanet

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/30/08 06:37 PM

Quote:

Quote:

That standing grappling techniques in kata can be used on the ground.


you agreed yourself, they are different games. If it isn't specifically taught and trained on the ground thru Karate, then the ground skill was gained thru external source.




Correct Ed. You are big on circular logic, however, when I make statements you seem to like to make it appear as if you are pointing out things I didn't say. Read my posts. I said grappling skill is gained through supplementary exercises. Grappling training is no more a part of karate than weight lifting is as both as supplementary exercises to gain skill to use techniques and apply fighting principles found within karate.

Quote:

Quote:

And that okinawans used their okinawan style submission wrestling as a preperatory training exercise for karate.


thats deceptively worded. tegumi was not 'training'. no where do I see a reference to tegumi masters teaching tegumi, or karate masters teaching tegumi. it has been described as the type of informal playfighting that kids usually do. a trial-and-error learning - not taught by a teacher in the form of techniques and drills. then if they happen to later take karate, and in retrospect, they realize the playfighting helped them to toughen up. I used to really like running as a kid, I don't consider that a "preperatory training exercise for karate". If a kid later took Judo, then you could say tegumi is a prepatory exercise for Judo.




Well, Ed just look at Nagamine's book. Chotoku Kyan's father was a karate expert as he was in the same group of karate men as was Sokon Matsumura and Oyodomari. Kyan told Nagamine that his father trained him in "okinawan sumo and karate wrestling" to prepare him for study of classical karate. I believe that karate wrestling was very similar if not identical to tegumi. However, to please you I will refer to old style karate preperatory grappling practices as karate wrestling hence forth.

Quote:

In fact, tegumi was very likely born out of kids imitating sumo matches they publically watched. not born out of public Karate matches. (karate was practiced secrectly at night, remember? ). So if anything, it would probably be more acurate to say that informal tegumi was prepatory to Okinawan Sumo. similar to how kids use backyard wrestling to prepare them for their later WWF career. lol




See above Ed. If tegumi was prepartory grappling training for okinawan sumo and okinawan sumo was prepartory grappling training for karate as it apparently was for Kyan's karate, then tegumi is prepartory for karate. No circles here.

Quote:

goofiness aside, see my point?




Do you see mine?


Quote:

Quote:

And that wrestling for fighting is similar to tegumi.


H.S. wrestling, MMA, BJJ, etc are also similar to wrestling for fighting - why use a foreign cultural word of an activity not formally passed down? if you learned HS wrestling, then took Karate - then thats what it was. you didn't learn tegumi from Karate or tegumi in preparation for karate - you learned HS wrestling and Karate separately from 2 different sources. Did your karate instructor say HS wresling was a pre-requisite for training? or did he start his classes with HS wrestling prepatory exercises?




Ed, maybe you are not reading all of the posts, but I stated this freely. I guess you are recapping in the form of a question. I am not the one who ever stated to know or have learned tegumi. You should address the ones that do with this stuff. In addition, I never said I learned how to grapple from my karate teachers. And as we have seen, this is very similar to how the okinawans trained. They came to their instructors with grappling skill. Who wants to train someone to fight for real who can't grapple worth a lick? Apparently the okinawans didn't.


Quote:

Quote:

And karte/kata has joint locks and chokes that can be used on the ground. And that kata even has escapes from grappling techniques.


see first quote remark.




See all of my above remarks.

In addition, I also find it odd that you are a proponent of the standing grappling connection with karate, however, what sort of standing grappling did YOU learn from karate teachers. Even your boy Brian said he does not believe there are over or underhooks in karate/kata. And its pretty hard to have effective standing grappling without those. And if you are talking chinese push hands exercises that Miyagi cross trained in and bolted onto Goju, then that is about as valid as Mitsu's book that Victor referenced. Especially since you believe that he got them from Judo and added them to his karate, much like Miyagi did with push hands drills.
Posted by: Shonuff

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/30/08 06:46 PM

Well Med, you wanted quotig so I'll give it a try.

Quote:

"principles for groundfighting are contained in classical kata"




You've stated that by this you actually mean there are principles for standing grappling in kata which can be applied on the ground if you understand how. Problem is what you mean is totally different to what you said.
What you said implies that within Karate kata all the mechanics etc that one needs to apply them on the ground.
What you've explained is that only with extra training outside of your art can you get the skills to apply said techniques.
If you have to go outside your art to learn how to apply the techniques on the ground then how can you state that they are "for" ground fighting?
Your justification: Tegumi was a prerequisite of Karate on Okinawa.
My problem with this is as I stated. Why would such a vital part of understanding Karate that all the Masters seemed to know, not get transmitted by even one of them?

Quote:

But Ed, I think you are forgetting the nature of application of karate techniques. Defensive techniques become offensive. Blocks strike and strikes deflect. Blocking techniques are then used to apply joint locks.




However, beyond the labels we are given all these "applications" are down to individual perception.
Why is this a problem? Because we see what we want to see. Only by further dispassionate reasoning can we filter what we want to be there from what is plausible.

Quote:

Its (karate) application is not as concrete as you may be thinking




And here-in lies the truth of the matter. Application can be what we want and I (you) want ground work to confirm my (your) impression of Karate being complete historicly as well as personally.


Quote:

Oh, so you mean that standing grappling matches were commonly trained in karate to enhance standing grappling skill, yet once they hit the ground the exercise stopped.




Actually yes, why not. Jujutsu-ka managed it for a long time, hence Kano's Judoka beat them. Most of the standing grappling i.e. control/manipulation techniques I have seen, regardless of art, have been trained in a 1-step format where control is taken and the attacker neutralised
And as occured in my old Karate school, on the occasions fights went to the floor we carried on making the best of what we knew, but we never explicitly drilled ground work. The skills developed in this way were more than enough to out-grapple someone untrained and even enough to escape people who were trained (long enough to hit them really really hard).

Sorry Med, your modern un-okinawan perception (as you have so readily admitted it is) of what a complete art is or needs is not reason enough to assume techniques and teachings not seen by anyone anywhere ever.

And yes I did read Victors post. 1) Until it is translated into English the book in question is useless as evidence as anything (to us). If an English translation comes out stating that the ground grappling techniques are derived from Okinawan Karate kata and are commonly trained on Okinawa through Tegumi practice then I am totally wrong. But I doubt it will happen quite like that if at all.

2) Funny how the only karate book pre ww2 with ground applications is written by someone who seems likely to have had a Judo/jujutsu background.
Posted by: MattJ

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/30/08 06:55 PM

Med -

I'm curious. How many instructors in your style have ever taught or were known for dedicated, submission style groundfighting, especially before the advent of the UFC's?

Observational evidence alone says that few were - in any karate style, including my AKK. Written evidence is sparse, and kata transmission of ground techniques apears to be non-existant.
Posted by: medulanet

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/30/08 08:10 PM

Quote:

Quote:

"principles for groundfighting are contained in classical kata"




You've stated that by this you actually mean there are principles for standing grappling in kata which can be applied on the ground if you understand how. Problem is what you mean is totally different to what you said.
What you said implies that within Karate kata all the mechanics etc that one needs to apply them on the ground.
What you've explained is that only with extra training outside of your art can you get the skills to apply said techniques.
If you have to go outside your art to learn how to apply the techniques on the ground then how can you state that they are "for" ground fighting?
Your justification: Tegumi was a prerequisite of Karate on Okinawa.
My problem with this is as I stated. Why would such a vital part of understanding Karate that all the Masters seemed to know, not get transmitted by even one of them?




Karate kata doesn't have "all" of the mechanics to do anything but perform kata. That is why there have always been two man drills. That is also why there were two man training practices long before forms from chuan fa were ever added.

You are right I did and do say kata has principles for ground fighting. My explaination was for the guys on where who don't know how to use common grappling techniques on the ground. I could have said that you can use the ground grappling techniques when you are standing as well. If you are on the ground on your back you better get and under hook, over hook, or double neck tie to control your opponent's position. This is ground grappling 101. It is also standing grappling 101. So I don't understand the problem you have with this.

Quote:

Quote:

But Ed, I think you are forgetting the nature of application of karate techniques. Defensive techniques become offensive. Blocks strike and strikes deflect. Blocking techniques are then used to apply joint locks.




However, beyond the labels we are given all these "applications" are down to individual perception.
Why is this a problem? Because we see what we want to see. Only by further dispassionate reasoning can we filter what we want to be there from what is plausible.




Uh, no, I don't see the problem. The problem is only if your apps don't work and you train in and teach your students garbage. And infact, this is exactly my point. Once you understand the principles of kata you can apply them in a variety of ways. And the creators of kata understood this. They are specifically designed with anatomically sound structured movements. However, these movements are very general in nature. They are so general that their applications are not always obvious and can be utilized in a variety of different situations and "games."

Quote:

Quote:

Its (karate) application is not as concrete as you may be thinking




And here-in lies the truth of the matter. Application can be what we want and I (you) want ground work to confirm my (your) impression of Karate being complete historicly as well as personally.




Come on now, I only speak the truth. In fact, application can be what you want it to be, however, if it is crappy application then you are doing crappy karate. In addition, if you say that a straight punch is a flying spinning cresent whirl kick, then that is taking things a bit too far. However some people here believe using an underhook both standing and on the ground is taking things too far.

Quote:

Quote:

Oh, so you mean that standing grappling matches were commonly trained in karate to enhance standing grappling skill, yet once they hit the ground the exercise stopped.




Actually yes, why not. Jujutsu-ka managed it for a long time, hence Kano's Judoka beat them. Most of the standing grappling i.e. control/manipulation techniques I have seen, regardless of art, have been trained in a 1-step format where control is taken and the attacker neutralised
And as occured in my old Karate school, on the occasions fights went to the floor we carried on making the best of what we knew, but we never explicitly drilled ground work. The skills developed in this way were more than enough to out-grapple someone untrained and even enough to escape people who were trained (long enough to hit them really really hard).




That's interesting, especially because all of Kano's techniques came from JJJ. And of course I assume you will provide the proper references for your assertions that JJJ practioners did not do any ground training of their ground grappling techniques as Ed "Logic Master" Morris has required. In fact, it was the randori practice and resistive (sportive) nature of Judo that allowed it to best people who were trained in non resistive methods. However, if training in a life preservation art then your training must mimic the threat to your life. I guess bad guys on okinawa stopped fighting when the fight hit the ground.

Quote:

Sorry Med, your modern un-okinawan perception (as you have so readily admitted it is) of what a complete art is or needs is not reason enough to assume techniques and teachings not seen by anyone anywhere ever.




Oh really. I didn't know you knew everyone on the plant who is currently living or has ever lived. But what you really means is people on FA.com and all the other forums. Sorry, Nuff, my training reaches beyond cyberspace.

Quote:

And yes I did read Victors post. 1) Until it is translated into English the book in question is useless as evidence as anything (to us). If an English translation comes out stating that the ground grappling techniques are derived from Okinawan Karate kata and are commonly trained on Okinawa through Tegumi practice then I am totally wrong. But I doubt it will happen quite like that if at all.

2) Funny how the only karate book pre ww2 with ground applications is written by someone who seems likely to have had a Judo/jujutsu background.




Yes, it is funny. Kind of funny that many grappling adepts were drawn to karate. Kano seemed to like it as well. Why would a grappling man like such an art? But that is a subject for anther post. Nuff said.
Posted by: medulanet

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/30/08 08:14 PM

Quote:

Med -

I'm curious. How many instructors in your style have ever taught or were known for dedicated, submission style groundfighting, especially before the advent of the UFC's?

Observational evidence alone says that few were - in any karate style, including my AKK. Written evidence is sparse, and kata transmission of ground techniques apears to be non-existant.




That's just it Matt, there is no dedicated submission style ground grappling in karate just like there is not any power lifting, or olympic style sprint training, or marathon level long distance running. However, there is running, weight lifting, and grappling training which are a part of karate preparation.

As for karate/kata transmission of ground techniques as you say. To believe there are no arm bars (karate style not bjj), shoulder locks, wrist locks, or chokes in karate that are finished on the ground is naive.
Posted by: MattJ

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/30/08 08:29 PM

Quote:

As for karate/kata transmission of ground techniques as you say. To believe there are no arm bars (karate style not bjj), shoulder locks, wrist locks, or chokes in karate that are finished on the ground is naive.




Thanks for the insult. Great debating style you have!

And Med, we have been over this before. Finishing those moves on the ground is not the same as positional submission ground fighting. Very tiresome the way you keep changing your point.
Posted by: jude33

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/30/08 08:32 PM

Quote:




That's interesting, especially because all of Kano's techniques came from JJJ. And of course I assume you will provide the proper references for your assertions that JJJ practioners did not do any ground training of their ground grappling techniques as Ed "Logic Master" Morris has required.





From my readings.
Takeda Motsuge sort of made a mess of kano,s Judo at one stage in the formation of judo. He was said to be of Fusen ryu although some state it was Takeda Motsuge ryu that made the mess of Judo.
In fact kano brought him in to Judo purely on the fact he was so good at live groundwork.

Jude
Posted by: medulanet

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/30/08 08:57 PM

Quote:

Quote:

As for karate/kata transmission of ground techniques as you say. To believe there are no arm bars (karate style not bjj), shoulder locks, wrist locks, or chokes in karate that are finished on the ground is naive.




Thanks for the insult. Great debating style you have!

And Med, we have been over this before. Finishing those moves on the ground is not the same as positional submission ground fighting. Very tiresome the way you keep changing your point.




Yes Matt, but you said and I quote, "kata transmission of ground techniques apears to be non-existant." It seems that you are changing your point. Why do you ask for something and then get mad when it is given to you?
Posted by: student_of_life

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/30/08 09:21 PM

betcha 10 bucks you can't have the last word.

*edit*

every one in the forum, hands up who trained karate on okinawa before world war 2?
Posted by: jude33

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/30/08 09:25 PM

Quote:

Yes Matt, but you said and I quote, "kata transmission of ground techniques apears to be non-existant."




If two people are in a confrontation and a grappling technique found in Okinawan kata can be used standing and while two people are on the deck then kata transmission of ground techniques is existant.

How can it be said otherwise?

The thing is, is there proof that the intended technique was used by Okinawan karate ka in the past both standing and on the deck and trained in both manners? With both karate ka rolling about. Or even indicated in an Okinawan kata by the person doing the kata rolling about and did someone learn to use ground grappling purely from Okinawan karate kata?

Are the questions I think are being asked.

Or am I missing something.

I think the next thing will be that if someone states that a specific technique is a grappling technique found in Okinawan kata that can be used standing or on the deck then
certain people will dis agree as to that technique being in that kata.

I think in the main some karate ka might find grappling on the deck a strange sensation. So they deny it happens.


Jude
Posted by: jude33

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/30/08 09:30 PM

Quote:

betcha 10 bucks you can't have the last word.

every one in the forum, hands up who trained karate on okinawa before world war 2?






We dont use bucks here. So no point betting.



so you found my correct posting then? The one that stated Okinawan karate? hard to see how you and Matt missed it but I suppose it can happen. I mean most of the points made on the thread seem to have been missed as well.


"Last Word"

So I take it you are now convinced about ground fighting being in Okinawan kata?

Good man, see one learns

Jude
Posted by: Zach_Zinn

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 04/30/08 11:07 PM

Quote:


"Last Word"

So I take it you are now convinced about ground fighting being in Okinawan kata?

Good man, see one learns

Jude




You guys really need to go take a logic and crit course or something, in all the hundreds of pages on threads on this subject all you guys have is what you started with, your own opinion and a vague, ever changing argument.

You guys still haven't ponied up any evidence whatsoever to support your central ideas about submission grappling being a part of Karate which was somehow mysteriously "lost" to everyone but enlightened souls like yourselves.

Gimme a break!

I swear....why are we still talking about this? People post more interesting threads and they're quickly abandoned for these stupid groundfighting threads...pointless bickering forum-ryu!
Posted by: MattJ

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 05/01/08 05:52 AM

Quote:

Yes Matt, but you said and I quote, "kata transmission of ground techniques apears to be non-existant." It seems that you are changing your point. Why do you ask for something and then get mad when it is given to you?




Mad like when you call people say.........naive? That what you mean?

You haven't given me anything to get mad about anyway.

That has been my point the entire time. YOU are the one that keeps changing your point. And now you can't even come up with a rational defense. Trying to turn my questions to you around on me? Please.
Posted by: medulanet

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 05/01/08 03:25 PM

Quote:

That has been my point the entire time. YOU are the one that keeps changing your point. And now you can't even come up with a rational defense. Trying to turn my questions to you around on me? Please.




And once again, show me where I said (not your interpretation of what I said) conflicting things regarding my stance on this issue. Just repeating that I changed my my point does not make it so. In fact, once you have argued with me for however many pages and start to get my "drift" you are starting to realize I may not be as wrong as you thought. Either that or I am changing my point, right?
Posted by: MattJ

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 05/01/08 03:48 PM

Yes, you keep changing your point. And yes, "drift" is exactly the word I would use to describe your ideas.

Freudian slip, perhaps?
Posted by: Neko456

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 05/01/08 03:59 PM

Medulaent/Jude33 - 20+ pages everytime you post something about this topic, people want to know. The only problem is that I join in hoping to learn something new and really only get some good assumptions and probabilities.

Interesting but nothing concret except obviously they already knew how to wrestl so it was no need to document it categorize the techniques or put it Kata as was with Te until Te became a commondity. With Judo and Jujitsu you could see why Japan wasn't interested in Tegumi.

Interesting but vauge, I'm usually not a nay sayer, but this time even though you stand in fine company Hanshi McCarthy, I'm with Shonuff, Mattj, Ed and others I say nay.
Posted by: medulanet

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 05/01/08 04:02 PM

Quote:

Yes, you keep changing your point. And yes, "drift" is exactly the word I would use to describe your ideas.

Freudian slip, perhaps?




No proof yet? I see, it figures.

As for my common use of "drift" actually its a pun. That's why its in quotations and many times I say drift in quotes and many times put in parenthesis (pun intended). You might have remembered that if you read my posts closely. I come at people hard sometimes, yet use subtleties that are sometimes missed. Anyway, everyone has their own "style" as we see from our discussions. Of course some people are villified because of it. Go figure.
Posted by: jude33

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 05/01/08 04:29 PM

Quote:

Medulaent/Jude33 - 20+ pages everytime you post something about this topic, people want to know. The only problem is that I join in hoping to learn something new and really only get some good assumptions and probabilities.

Interesting but nothing concret except obviously they already knew how to wrestl so it was no need to document it categorize the techniques or put it Kata as was with Te until Te became a commondity. With Judo and Jujitsu you could see why Japan wasn't interested in Tegumi.

Interesting but vauge, I'm usually not a nay sayer, but this time even though you stand in fine company Hanshi McCarthy, I'm with Shonuff, Mattj, Ed and others I say nay.




I suppose at some time more points will come up. There is a fair bit of history about Okinawa. The problem is it isnt just written in a History book.

I actualy enjoy these thread as it brings up new topics on both sides of the conversation such as the point you brought up. Then actualy reading between the lines, techique information, although put in a subtle way.

The questions of why?
Although some might not see these conversations that way.

Jude
Posted by: MattJ

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 05/01/08 06:29 PM

Quote:

No proof yet? I see, it figures.




Anyone can scan your posts for proof if they like.

Quote:

You might have remembered that if you read my posts closely.




Yes, of course, more little insults. Anyone that disagrees with you is stupid, lazy, etc.....

Excellent debate tactic.
Posted by: jude33

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 05/04/08 09:44 AM

At the time of the inclusion of the dan system in to karate and giving dan grades were an indication of level, then I suppose minus ground fighting skills that would mean a 4th dan karate would hold a 4th dan standing up but still be a white belt if they ever found themselves on their backs.
Weapons
Running
weigth training/ restistance training/ conditioning.
Grappling/ striking all postitions I think was part of the make up of the art that became known as karate.

Just thought I would post this so the thread doesnt dissapear in to the abyss.

Jude
Posted by: student_of_life

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 05/04/08 12:41 PM

a 4th dan in karate means just that. he's not a 4th dan in anything else, what does that have to do with anything?
Posted by: BrianS

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 05/04/08 10:26 PM

I was hoping the thread would disappear into the abyss,lol.
Posted by: jude33

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 05/05/08 11:46 AM

Quote:

a 4th dan in karate means just that. he's not a 4th dan in anything else, what does that have to do with anything?




It means all the thought and consideration. The excellent work people did putting together an art like karate. And some of you guys make out they were foolish enough to leave gaps.
I dont think so.

Running in karate is it part of the art?
weigth training in karate is it part of the art?

Jude
Posted by: shoshinkan

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 05/05/08 01:51 PM

Jude,

I admire your hope on this subject and in many ways I agree that tegumi was indeed a part of early karate practice,

the simple fact is that it was not transmitted, and the art transformed into karatedo - without wrestling.

This is supported by absolutly no solid lineage, no written or pictorial records at all showing wrestling proper.

Along with no Okinawan Masters demonstrating the art of Tegumi, that any of us, and any of the significantly more resourced historians and visitors to Okinawa have seen or indeed trained.

What does remain is a small ammount oral history/written legend referencing the art of tegumi and of course the absolutly obvious fact that it would have had a place in an effective martial art like karate.

I found this out a few years back and in line with my Seniors guidence decided to develop and practice tegumi as I understood it, I felt karatedo deserved that (and was inspired by McCarthy Sensei and Bill Hayes Sensei)

it works for me and has its place but im in no position to claim lineage, and of course I have no proof that it is how it was done many years ago,

outside of the fact it works and delivers basic stand up wrestling ability to link in the other techniques of the classical kata, something karatedo sorley lacks in relation to application potential.

for me this thread is done, I will keep one eye open and of course keep searching but to argue with people like Ed is pointless as their logic is correct on this matter, as far as I can see.

It's been a good thread, but for me the subject has now run it's course until solid evidence can be produced, and im almost convinced it would have by now if it exsisted.
Posted by: jude33

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 05/05/08 02:52 PM

Hi Jim.

Well other than the scant stuff which wont suffice there is nothing new. So I will cross train and see what happens.

Speak soon

Jude
Posted by: shoshinkan

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 05/05/08 03:40 PM

good idea Jude, and cross training is so very traditional anyhow
Posted by: student_of_life

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 05/05/08 04:14 PM

there are so many arts and dojo's called "karate" now a days its hard to keep track of whats practiced by karate-ka in general. an example would be pat mcarthy's group, how many other karate dojo's have you seen pratice the ground kicking (ne-keri) drills they do?. i love the stuff i see thoes guys doing.

i don't think that "gaps" were left in karate, more like the own's is on us to fill our own gaps. that seems to be the only real "tradition".
Posted by: medulanet

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 05/05/08 04:26 PM

Quote:

for me this thread is done, I will keep one eye open and of course keep searching but to argue with people like Ed is pointless as their logic is correct on this matter, as far as I can see.




Well, Ed does say that goju has stand up grappling, however, you seem to believe that "karatedo" does not and have added it to yours. And that stand up grappling is not a derivative of crosstraining, however, any other karate other than his goju that has grappling is a result of crosstraining. Ed also believes that I believe what I believe to sell DVDs. As a matter of fact Ed believes that PM fabricated much of his translations and research to promote his own business of hawking DVDs and books and seminars; the same PM from whom you draw inspiration. Is this Ed's logically correct thinking? I was pretty much done with this thread, but Ed has put out just as much crap as anyone else on these groundfighting threads. Don't give him any more or less credit than anyone else.
Posted by: shoshinkan

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 05/05/08 06:16 PM

hi Marcel,

my point is centered around effective methods of standup wrestling training methods, they are not in any karatedo system I have seen, heard of or been told about from a lineage perspective.

in relation to Ed and McCarthy Sensei - they are big tough guys and have their own thoughts, research and experience and also there own voices so I shall step aside on that.

I also by the way agree with much of what you beleive to be true, just not the ground game element found within kata, and the lineage element of effective wrestling techniques being passed from Okinawa.

I also step aside from personal pointless battles online these days, having had my fun with Paul Hart and Graystain...........

this subject has got to personal for me with several online friends (ie you, Ed, Brian, Matt etc etc) so I am withdrawing form the debate until I find or see something worth continuing to discuss.
Posted by: BrianS

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 05/05/08 08:12 PM

Well said Jim!
Posted by: Ed_Morris

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 05/06/08 02:10 AM


Quote:

Ed also believes that I believe what I believe to sell DVDs.


you believe you will sell DVD's? whatever floats your boat. -doesn't matter what I believe, people do what they want.


Quote:

As a matter of fact Ed believes that PM fabricated much of his translations and research to promote his own business of hawking DVDs and books and seminars;



not at all. In fact, I've always said good things about PM's work. People are allowed to disagree on particular points without taking it personal and trashing everything else. So I disagree with some on the subject of tegumi and/or commercialization, no big deal. I put PM's quote in his own words right there. He clearly states that he uses the term 'tegumi' to describe HIS own set of drills - NOT as a description of the historical folk wrestling. So you tell me what the logical conclusion is. Someone uses a historical term to describe a modern interpretation of it, is using the historical term for what purpose exactly? Would it have sold as well if he called it: "Pat's wrestling drills" ? Would a chapter title in a Karate book sound better to use 'Sumo masters' or 'Tegumi masters'? which is more accurate vs. which sounds better?


besides, as you said, no extra weight need be added to anyone's posts here - this is all just a collection of disembodied opinions....there is no *I* here.


You seem to get very defensive and take disagreements personal. You should be more aware of that and try to control it.
Posted by: medulanet

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 05/06/08 02:44 AM

Quote:

You seem to get very defensive and take disagreements personal. You should be more aware of that and try to control it.




Nothing personal, I'm just not PC. I don't tip toe so as not to step on the toes of others. I don't post to be liked or for others to think I'm a swell guy. Maybe you are not accustomed to people relating to you in this manner, I don't know. If I took things personally and was mad you would know it, you would not have to guess and assume it. Maybe you should be aware of this and try to control those assumptions.
Posted by: Seiken

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 05/06/08 03:11 AM

Quote:

hi Marcel,

my point is centered around effective methods of standup wrestling training methods, they are not in any karatedo system I have seen, heard of or been told about from a lineage perspective.






In that regards though, training methods can be different and achieve the same results/techniques. Hikite and close in fighting alone would make alot of applied Karate look like standup wrestling. Which to the outside observer, would be related directly to what they know. In this case, wrestling. So from that persepctive mind any standup wrestling done by a karateka isnt karate but wrestling. And they relate the skills to training methods which they were exposed.

Much of the principles wrestling relies on, base, posture, hip control & movement. Are some of the most important things in Karate as well. Good base alone will keep you on your feet.

Wrestling also has different goals attached to it depending on where it comes from, and why its being used. Sport wrestling looks different than pro wrestling, catch wrestling looks much different than sumo wrestling, sumo looks nothing like shootwrestling. And all of the above would look completely different if your life was on the line.

Karates wrestling and striking IMO is about killing. My goals as a martial artist is self preservation, and the quickest way to my attackers not so glorious outcome. But, if given rules, other goals, even basic striking Karate looks much different IE: Sport karate, Full contact karate like Sabaki, Pro Karate. etc.. And any aspect of Karate wrestling cease to exist.

Honestly, I dont have any answer other than karate & kata have as many uses as eyes which look upon them.
Posted by: Shonuff

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 05/06/08 03:38 AM

Quote:


Nothing personal, I'm just not PC.




Note: this is a tangential point not directed at anyone in particular.

I've always felt that anti political correctness is just people looking for an excuse to be lazy.
There is no opinion however offensive that cannot, with a bit of consideration, be phrased in a civilised way.

It is my personal feeling that if one does not have the wits or intelligence to be polite and inoffensive when speaking then they should not be allowed to speak at all.
Posted by: shoshinkan

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 05/06/08 04:12 AM

Seiken,

please don't misunderstand me, I see a huge range of locks, trips, throws, takedowns, strangles, pokes and shunts in classical kata (it's okinawan presented chin-na),

what I don't see is an effective method of partner work to develop those skills to be applicabile in a stand up wrestling format,

and ultimatly to assist the deployment of all the above stated methods and of course all the strikes, kicks, blocks etc etc in relaity.

Goju is nearer than the rest of the pack but even their excersise set and 2 man work is not nearly enough similair to known wrestling methods, used all over the world in different basic wrestling (often historical) arts and traditions, hence my personal development of what I choose to call 'tegumi' practice.
Posted by: MattJ

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 05/06/08 07:49 AM

Quote:

You seem to get very defensive and take disagreements personal. You should be more aware of that and try to control it.




Quote:

Maybe you should be aware of this and try to control those assumptions.




Nice try, Ed!
Posted by: jude33

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 05/06/08 07:56 AM

Quote:

good idea Jude, and cross training is so very traditional anyhow




Hi Jim.
Doesnt mean I am giving up looking for a higher percentage of proof , or should I say more proof to over whelm the nay sayers thought process.

I mean in a self defence scenario.
Two people fighting
Fall to the floor
One finishes the other off with an arm bar/ break after striking while being the subject of the pull of gravity


(had to include that part being as it seems karate had internal and external power methods included)

(No S.O.L its not me being random)

The S/D encounter finishes in a Ground Fight.
Arm bar and striking are in karate kata.

One day when I reach the dizzy heights I might post a video of such a method of explanation.
They say pictures are a better explanation than words.
There again seeing as Barad seems to be the better looking I could ask him to take part.

Jude
Posted by: jude33

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 05/06/08 08:12 AM

Just a suggestion.

Couldnt we reduce the amount of nitpicking by having paragraphs or sentences of logical( or even none-logical) thought/ proof countered by logical(or none logical) thought and proof then a seperate part of only 15 words to nitpick at the bottom of the posting .?

That way it doesnst turn into total nit picking and then people get a chance to nit pick.

Random thoughts nothing to do with the topic
Nit pick? Interesting how that term came about?
End of random thoughts.

Jude
Posted by: oldman

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 05/06/08 08:28 AM

Jude,
A nit refers to the egg of a louse (Lice) or other parasitic insect; also : the insect itself when young. Nitpicking refers to looking eggs or young insects on your or someone elses body. Nit picking can mean minute and usually unjustified criticism
Posted by: jude33

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 05/06/08 08:31 AM

Quote:

Jude,
A nit refers to the egg of a louse (Lice) or other parasitic insect; also : the insect itself when young. Nitpicking refers to looking eggs or young insects on your or someone elses body. Nit picking can mean minute and usually unjustified criticism


Posted by: medulanet

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 05/06/08 01:06 PM

Quote:

Quote:


Nothing personal, I'm just not PC.




Note: this is a tangential point not directed at anyone in particular.

I've always felt that anti political correctness is just people looking for an excuse to be lazy.
There is no opinion however offensive that cannot, with a bit of consideration, be phrased in a civilised way.

It is my personal feeling that if one does not have the wits or intelligence to be polite and inoffensive when speaking then they should not be allowed to speak at all.




Or maybe some people have always been able to see through the PC BS and realized it means squat for those at which it is aimed. It is simply designed to make those who use it to feel better about themselves. For me it is useless.
Posted by: CVV

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 05/07/08 01:27 AM

Quote:

Quote:

good idea Jude, and cross training is so very traditional anyhow




Hi Jim.
Doesnt mean I am giving up looking for a higher percentage of proof , or should I say more proof to over whelm the nay sayers thought process.

I mean in a self defence scenario.
Two people fighting
Fall to the floor
One finishes the other off with an arm bar/ break after striking while being the subject of the pull of gravity





And there is for me the difference between karate and a system that continues on the ground. The arm-bar is not the end, getting up is the end and as quickly as possible. If you eliminate the thread by breaking his arm, great. If you cannot break his arm, you are not continuing with the arm bar in a stand-off where eventually opponent would give up. You do not try to get a dominant position to continue on the ground but you finish it and get up or you get up and reevaluate your position.

In goju-ryu there are drills where both persons end on the ground. Finish it by striking or kicking and get up. The arm-bar or take-down or submission technique is befor the ending strike or technique. Not the end technique. In wado-ryu I have seen parter drills where it ends in the arm bar etc but these came from ju-jitsu.

I think the Okinawan strategy, at least in karate, is to fight standing as much as possible. Against multiple opponents (with or without weapons) it is not good strategy to fight them of while on the ground. Karate and kobudo always take into consideration multiple opponents. Although the exploration of techniques is in the 1-on-1 scenario. But positioning and strategy I have been thaught take into consideration multiple opponents.
Posted by: Seiken

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 05/07/08 02:41 AM

Quote:

Seiken,

please don't misunderstand me, I see a huge range of locks, trips, throws, takedowns, strangles, pokes and shunts in classical kata (it's okinawan presented chin-na),

what I don't see is an effective method of partner work to develop those skills to be applicabile in a stand up wrestling format,

and ultimatly to assist the deployment of all the above stated methods and of course all the strikes, kicks, blocks etc etc in relaity.

Goju is nearer than the rest of the pack but even their excersise set and 2 man work is not nearly enough similair to known wrestling methods, used all over the world in different basic wrestling (often historical) arts and traditions, hence my personal development of what I choose to call 'tegumi' practice.




I did misunderstand, I apologize. Thanks for clearing it up, but I think I might misunderstand you on one aspect still, sorry beforehand . You disagree that certain practices utilized in karate may lead to the same skills? Like push hands, one steps, and free sparring? Or even solo kata?

I remember during gym wrestling we were learning the firemans carry, I would be fine until the moment of lift my posture would break. My teacher had me practice by myself slowly always making sure my hips were aligned and visualize the best I could everything happening. It wasnt ten minutes later I was pulling it off after only a few reps. This is not much different than kata and one steps.

To me, the practices involved in Karate can lead to development of skills and abilities to wrestle and strike. I guess I just dont think that something has to be constructed using the same method as something else to be proficent. Resistance in push hands is not much different than pummel drills, the abilities gained are similar therefor applicable under the same context as long as intent is given. One steps and sparring is absolutely no different than cooperative partner work and rolling. Of course depending on styles and the actual techniques your working, your never going to pull anything off unless you know it, or get lucky.

If you were to take a wrestling technique, put it into a kata form. Then practice the technique visualizing your performance a few hundred times. Continue to go over the hold in typical one step fashion with a completely non-resistant partner. Now go spar and try to do that technique. I would be willing to bet a B to A+ performance within a couple minutes. Im not talking pro level, or being able to pull it off against better fighters but within the skill range.

Blah, sorry.. my mind wandered slightly.
Posted by: jude33

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 05/07/08 04:07 AM

Quote:


I mean in a self defence scenario.
Two people fighting
Fall to the floor
One finishes the other off with an arm bar/ break after striking while being the subject of the pull of gravity





And there is for me the difference between karate and a system that continues on the ground. The arm-bar is not the end, getting up is the end and as quickly as possible. If you eliminate the thread by breaking his arm, great. If you cannot break his arm, you are not continuing with the arm bar in a stand-off where eventually opponent would give up. You do not try to get a dominant position to continue on the ground but you finish it and get up or you get up and reevaluate your position.

In goju-ryu there are drills where both persons end on the ground. Finish it by striking or kicking and get up. The arm-bar or take-down or submission technique is befor the ending strike or technique. Not the end technique. In wado-ryu I have seen parter drills where it ends in the arm bar etc but these came from ju-jitsu.

I think the Okinawan strategy, at least in karate, is to fight standing as much as possible. Against multiple opponents (with or without weapons) it is not good strategy to fight them of while on the ground. Karate and kobudo always take into consideration multiple opponents. Although the exploration of techniques is in the 1-on-1 scenario. But positioning and strategy I have been thaught take into consideration multiple opponents.




I can see your points. If I fell to the ground with an opponent in a S/D scenario on a one on one and if I could pound and attempt a break I would.
If I couldnt I would try to get up. I wouldnt be fighting for a better/ dominant position.

Yes my first art was wado.

Still that is G/F. And it is in kata regardless if it is shown while standing up. It can still be applied on the deck.

Jude
Posted by: jude33

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 05/07/08 04:10 AM

Quote:

[Or maybe some people have always been able to see through the PC BS and realized it means squat for those at which it is aimed. It is simply designed to make those who use it to feel better about themselves. For me it is useless.




So are we guys going back on proving G/F in karate?
Just a thought.

Jude
Posted by: shoshinkan

Re: Tegumi, Funakoshi, FA.com, and medulanet - 05/08/08 04:53 AM

hi Seiken,

you said - 'You disagree that certain practices utilized in karate may lead to the same skills? Like push hands, one steps, and free sparring? Or even solo kata?'

in the main yes I do disagree,

this is why wrestling works excersise sets in a different way, mainly range led and of course tactically, but there is an intent that is different as well from most (not all) karatedo.

sure a degree of skill and application is developed from karatedo practice in the grappling range, but it clearly is a striking led art and thus developed that way,

historically I beleive this to be different however these skills and drills simply were not transmitted in any Ryu I have seen, or heard of.

So to clarify, good karate (a rare thing) does develop some skills in the grappling range (no where near to the level grappling specific arts do however), however IMO this does not include tactical ground grappling which is strategically not karate.