Thanks again. The 'agenda' question is neither here nor there - since everyone has one, best just to ignore trying to guess what everyone's is/was and I'll concentrate on mine lol.

last questions for me, but Matt had one for you above as well...
- in your opinion, was at one time the folk tradition of tegumi ever integrated with karate training prior to the 1990's? I mean in the technical sense.
my view is that tegumi was very informal, not drill oriented, just a free-for-all non-instructed rough play...which certainly makes a good base prior to actually training with an instructor since it serves to toughen kids up in general preparation for later training, if they decided to later study an Art.
Which is why it seems a kind of contradiction to see people having formal drills and calling it 'Tegumi'...anywhere for 'push-hands' like exercises to fairly complex technique-driven ground grappling looking exactly like BJJ.
It seems modern "Tegumi" serves as way Karateka can justify in a historical sense that Karate 'always had groundfighting'. When in fact, since actual tegumi faded away a 100 year ago, it might be more accurate to say that people are simply crosstraining their Karate with the current groundfighting Arts available today.

I think thats great - crosstraining in general is a wonderful and wise thing (and I'd even argue that crosstraining is the old way). but by forcing historical connections it could warp the intent of the Art.

for example, what if groundfighting was NOT a wise strategy on a mass melee battlefield for obvious reasons. let's also suppose that some classical kata were designed with at least some priciples intact which were distilled from experience in actual combat in a chaotic battlefield. which, later were likely toned down a bit and modifyied for a more civil setting.

now if we force groundfighting into the interpretation of kata, the principles may be lost since we've changed the intent. same deal with what happened to kata applications during karate's point-sparring popularity. remember that? people using kata to show long-range sparring principles. which led to some pretty rediculous interpretations of kata.

if there is no evidence of kata ever being used for groundfighting, nor is there any texts on H2H combat strategy saying that groundfighting was ever a good choice on a battlefield in the few old Chinese martial training manuals I've read. and, perhaps the most damning of all, is the common sense fact that if you aren't doing kata on all fours, then there really isn't a way to demonstrate groundfighting principles/body mechanics and dynamic with a stand-up solo kata. some overlap of general grappling and locks perhaps, but not enough to use as a training tool in groundfighting. if training in a groundfighting Art is a prerequisite to 'seeing' the groundfighting in kata, then it probably isn't really there.

It's my position that Karate isn't meant to be an overall fighting system covering all basis while at the same time making people better citizens. for that, outside influences are assumed to be better suited.
What if Karate is more a system of 'initial response'? start adding all of the other Arts and incorporating this and that to force it into a 'well-rounded' system of overall duel-fighting, and the core of intent gets lost. The kata gets lost in it's increasingly elaborate interpretations (which frankly, when demonstrated don't resemble the principles to kata at all - naihanchi used for a juji-gatame or omoplata armbar? which came first, learning how to do it from previous training or learning it from doing naihanchi?).

so while you suggest to 'think outside the box', my point is, go too far away from that box and you can no longer even see the box.

anyway, thats my whole 'agenda' with the Tegumi issue.


not criticising or judging anything Patrick, just provoking thought, asking and sharing views....which is pretty much the best people can do on a forum and when not training with each other in-person. pen-n-sword and all that.

peace with.
-E

p.s. if you ever find yourself bored in Western Massachusetts (it's been known to happen to folks passing thru), look for a worn unpainted barn.

IMO... very little! There's little question that the BJJ phenomena has given rise to this [grappling] emphasis, while opening the door to accept a part of Okinawa's other fighting arts [see here http://www.koryu-uchinadi.com/original_five_fighting_arts.htm]

EM: - in your opinion, was at one time the folk tradition of tegumi ever integrated with karate training prior to the 1990's? I mean in the technical sense.

PM: Not that I am aware of.

EM: my view is that tegumi was very informal, not drill oriented, just a free-for-all non-instructed rough play...which certainly makes a good base prior to actually training with an instructor since it serves to toughen kids up in general preparation for later training, if they decided to later study an Art.

PM: There is little evidence to support [or deny] your observation, but I am not in disagreement with you. There is a line of thought that it [Tegumi] was introduced by Tametomo -- if this is so, then it would make it Chinese in origin [introduced to Japan by way of the Kentoshi] and the standard Heian-period based battlefield fighting without weapons.

EM: Which is why it seems a kind of contradiction to see people having formal drills and calling it 'Tegumi'...anywhere for 'push-hands' like exercises to fairly complex technique-driven ground grappling looking exactly like BJJ.

PM: It would seem that you're confusing the historical art/discipline with my innovative collection of drills introduced under the same name.

EM: It seems modern "Tegumi" serves as way Karateka can justify in a historical sense that Karate 'always had groundfighting'. When in fact, since actual tegumi faded away a 100 year ago, it might be more accurate to say that people are simply crosstraining their Karate with the current groundfighting Arts available today.

PM: Okay...I see two separate issues here: #1. I don't believe that "karate" ever had "ground fighting" per se, as the art of karate [as we know it today] was only established on the mainland of Japan in December of 1933. That new/modern practice was based largely upon kata as popularized in Okinawa during the time of Itosu [and Higaonna] when it was used a vehicle through which to funnel physical fitness and social conforminty to condition future conscripts in support of Japan's war machine. Prior to that is an untold story where locally developed and Chinese-based fighting arts were embraced by various elements of Uchinan culture. #2. That folks are cross-training today in a wide range of fighting arts speaks volumes for what's lacking in the modern interpretation of karate...at least to me it does.

EM: I think thats great - crosstraining in general is a wonderful and wise thing (and I'd even argue that crosstraining is the old way). but by forcing historical connections it could warp the intent of the Art.

PM: Ed, I doubt that such deductions could warp it any more than what the JKA and others have already done in the past seventy five years. There is little question that "cross-training" was "the old way."

EM: for example, what if groundfighting was NOT a wise strategy on a mass melee battlefield for obvious reasons. let's also suppose that some classical kata were designed with at least some priciples intact which were distilled from experience in actual combat in a chaotic battlefield. which, later were likely toned down a bit and modifyied for a more civil setting.

PM: No need to argue this point as I am in agreement with you. Such a strategy would be foolish Ed. However, that said, wouldn't you rather posses the skill and never need it then be find your ass on the ground one day and not know what to do?

EM: now if we force groundfighting into the interpretation of kata, the principles may be lost since we've changed the intent. same deal with what happened to kata applications during karate's point-sparring popularity. remember that? people using kata to show long-range sparring principles. which led to some pretty rediculous interpretations of kata.

PM: Sounds as if you're as old as I am!!! OMG...you remember those days, too :-)

EM: if there is no evidence of kata ever being used for groundfighting, nor is there any texts on H2H combat strategy saying that groundfighting was ever a good choice on a battlefield in the few old Chinese martial training manuals I've read. and, perhaps the most damning of all, is the common sense fact that if you aren't doing kata on all fours, then there really isn't a way to demonstrate groundfighting principles/body mechanics and dynamic with a stand-up solo kata. some overlap of general grappling and locks perhaps, but not enough to use as a training tool in groundfighting. if training in a groundfighting Art is a prerequisite to 'seeing' the groundfighting in kata, then it probably isn't really there.

PM: Hmm, I am wondering how you got to "kata-equals-ground-fighting" when I thought we were talking about Tegumi/grappling? It is not my position that kata is about ground fighting. If you want to discuss the fact that kata is a collection of mnemonic templates geometrically choreographed into specific routines and that by virtue of the fact that one could, in theory, apply the same concepts to grappling and produce "a grappling kata" [as strange as that might sound] I'd be prepared to give it a go...otherwise, I think you might be another one of the folks who don't really understand what it is I/we're doing.

EM: It's my position that Karate isn't meant to be an overall fighting system covering all basis while at the same time making people better citizens. for that, outside influences are assumed to be better suited.
What if Karate is more a system of 'initial response'? start adding all of the other Arts and incorporating this and that to force it into a 'well-rounded' system of overall duel-fighting, and the core of intent gets lost. The kata gets lost in it's increasingly elaborate interpretations (which frankly, when demonstrated don't resemble the principles to kata at all - naihanchi used for a juji-gatame or omoplata armbar? which came first, learning how to do it from previous training or learning it from doing naihanchi?).

PM: Once again --- you're preaching to the converted. I am not only in agreement with you I have long preached the same issues...nobody was listening then; I hope someone listens to you.

EM: so while you suggest to 'think outside the box', my point is, go too far away from that box and you can no longer even see the box.

PM: Point taken and, again, I am in agreement with you. I can't help but wonedr, however, if you actually know what it is I/we do, or are you relying too much upon the detractor's criticisms without knowing for sure?

EM: anyway, thats my whole 'agenda' with the Tegumi issue.

PM: Well, thank you for stating your case, and I am very pleased you took the time to make the inquiry.

EM: not criticising or judging anything Patrick, just provoking thought, asking and sharing views....which is pretty much the best people can do on a forum and when not training with each other in-person. pen-n-sword and all that.

PM: Ed, I am and have always been someone who thrives on critical thinking...IMO, it's the only acceptable tool we all have through which to help eliminate the terrible ambiguity that shouds the history and evolution of what brings us together. Moreover, that you are able to conduct yourself in a respectful manner, even when we obviously share different points of view, is IMO, enough to continue on. If you'd like to continue the dialogue until you're able to better understand the nature of what I do, or just, in general, I am happy to do so.

peace with.
-E

EM: p.s. if you ever find yourself bored in Western Massachusetts (it's been known to happen to folks passing thru), look for a worn unpainted barn

PM: Oh, I just returned to Australia from a 6-week teaching assignment in Canada and the USA--much of which was in the NY, DC, MD, area, in fact, we had folks travel up from Boston to participate in my seminars. Perhaps next time :-)

PS: I am off to New Zealand early in the morning for a 10-days seminar tour, followed by a week in Melbourne before heading back off to Europe again until early Dec...I'll try to be on-line and check in as much as I can...don't give up on me :-)

btw, I'm not echoing what your critics may have said in the past, but it's possible my questions have been asked before.

from your site:

Quote:

---

When McCarthy Hanshi first introduced Tegumi-style drills in the early 1990's his detractors promptly criticized him as having fabricated such wrestling practices. However, a few years later, after readers discovered the historical evidence of Tegumi (Okinawa's plebeian form of grappling) in Nagamine Shoshin’s book, entitled “Tales of Okinawa's Great Masters“, critics and cynics quickly retreated back to the safety of their keyboard-laden armchairs, and many have now adopted the practice as their own. With the rise in fame and popularity of the Gracie family and their Brazilian jujutsu, the karate world has finally begun to recognize the importance of what McCarthy Hanshi was openly criticized for and teaches regularly. McCarthy Hanshi has brought together of the most important finishing holds into a single two-person drill.

---

first, being a sceptic does not necessarily equal 'keyboard warrior'. To unqualifyingly assume such is taking a similar armchair approach as that as the accussed. but it does seem true, that people put up their unqualified opinions on forums - I do it all the time. It's a way to learn (at least in an accademic sense -since discussions on forums don't do a heck of a lot to improve technique or substitute for training) by nudging others to correct my misunderstanding.

also in the quote above - it's a little difficult to make a solid case by referencing your own work. It's still not clear if the section on tegumi in "Tales of..." was actually written by Shoshin Nagamine, or by his family, or by the translators, or by the compilation derrived from the translators. what IS known is that his 1978 "Essence.." book does not mention tegumi.

again, not accusing anything...just pointing that out as still undetermined.

website:

Quote:

---

Tegumi blasts open the door to discovering kata application without adversely effecting the signature characteristics of one's own style or system.

---

Quote:

---

Tegumi reflects an ancient and local heritage of wrestling/grappling

---

Quote:

---

Originally a plebeian form of grappling popular during Okinawa’s old Ryukyu Kingdom, McCarthy sensei assigned this defunct name to a collection of two-person
trapping, checking and conditioning drills he’s brought together from a variety of sources in 1992.

---

The mixed messages is that it's a old practice of Ryukyu, however it's also a term to describe your drills/method to help aide students to discover kata principles. therefore suggesting tegumi is contained within kata and is the old way of training kata. the connection between kata and tegumi in a historical sense is therefore sortof artifical constructed. which makes it confusing to separate how tegumi was used then, comparred to how the term is used today.

thanks in advance for any other thoughts you have...

I began training in Matsubayashi Ryu back in 1968. I have had the good fortune to train with Grandmaster Nagamine as well as his son and a long list of other native Okinawan instructors. I was a Judo student from the age of 10 until a friend introduced me to karate.I was told by my American sensei flat out that the Okinawan's deliberatly held back certain knowledge from the "white students". When I went to Okinawa as a teenager I was questioned about my training and background and mentioned that I had quit judo to study karate because I felt judo was useless for "self defense". That was a big mistake. Shoshin Nagamine greatly valued grappling skills and ground work. I never received much training in these techniques while training with the Okinawan's. But I have been on the receiving end of some of their "knowledge". I have only heard brief references to "Tegumi". I know of no one in the Matsubayshi Ryu system today who claims to practice it. I was told very sternly not to abandon my judo training. Over the years I noticed that some of the Okinawan's were very adept at throwing, footsweeps, and jointlocks-chokes and so on. One who comes to mind was Chotoku Omine. He was very fast on his feet and could footsweep or throw you to the deck before you knew what hit you. Zenko Heshiki was another who could put you down and make you go to sleep very quickly. Part of my problem is that I am not fluent in the language. I feel like some of you have already pointed out that a lot gets lost in the translation when we ask the Okinawan's about their "old ways". But you have peaked my interest. I am hosting Grandmaster Kensei Taba here in Florida for a seminar in Jan. I was planning to ask him for some historical info on some other areas while he is here. I have a particular interest in some of the lesser known weapons. Maybe I can glean some info on Tegumi. I can tell you that Taba San is very informative and unlike the instructors of the old days is ready to give you straight answers to relevent questions.

Engineer I was like you had no ideal that ground fighting was a lost part of Okinawan Karate (in regrad to Toude, which is obviously different then Karate = empty hand), in the since of both people on the ground trying to reverse and submit each other. It seems that when trying to systemized each style they left out the obvious apparently because most Okinawan as kids wrestled or as in Soken Hohan described trained in Grappling. And probably the reason Japanese didn't add it because most had Judo background. So somethings were lost in trying to deliever the Do messages of Te-jitsu which became Karate-do. Wheather purposely or culturlaly the difference was given instead of the all.

I guess it does try to cover too much.

That Hohan Soken article was a treasured find, good job Engineer. I've seen part I before thought it was common knowledge and skipped part II.

Also the visit and discussion with Soken Pat McCarthy about his two man drill. I have a video tape of a seminar were he pulls grappling applications out of Kata Bunkia. Unique and ahead of his times, the wonders on 30-50 years of continued learning, training, research and studing, definitely not in a small fish bowl but a world wide Master of facts and probabilities.

Great discussion.

Meadulant your point well made, I like learning myself.

med, if you found out that the quotes you used all throuout the thread from the tegumi chapter in the "Tales of.." book was not Shoshin Nagamine's thoughts, would that convince you that being curious and asking questions sometimes sheds light on a bigger picture?

already in this thread you've learned that what you are doing is not old tegumi....but rather a crosstrain of other grappling and/or groundfighting arts. not that it matters in an applied sense - but it does matter if we are looking for information with the least historical spin.

subtracting historical spin is like an oinion, we peel away each layer, only to find another. then we stop when we get to a version that suits us.

Ed, have you listened to ANYTHING I have said. I never said I did old style tegumi, EVER. Please reread my posts. I said the old school karate masters, such as Nagamine and his teachers did. I said an old style karate practitioner needs a grappling base. Due to the similarities of modern wrestling/submission wrestling, this can be substituted as a useable grappling base for karate training. Ed, I think you are delusional.