Kung Fu or MMA?

[Doctor_Armorum]

see this is why I'll go back to my earlier statement about operationally defining "grappling" (which seemed to be ignored). Takedowns and throws, while being a form of grappling, aren't what most wrestlers and BJJ practitioners are talking about. Too me, since I now have a better understanding of being on the actual ground from the start, I'd call that transitional work or clinch fighting (muay Thai does trips and throws from the clinch often http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RuIWD...eature=related) and yes, I'd call it a form of grappling, but it's not what most guys are defining as grappling her when they argue against you.

For what it's worth, when I speak of grappling, I am referring to all aspects of the grappling game--eg., shooting in for takedowns while in the free movement phase (i.e., when both fighters are standing & without grips on each other); clinchwork--throws & takedowns from the clinch; takedown defense (sprawling, etc); and groundwork (positional hierarchy, scrambling, submissions & submission defense).

[Doctor_Armorum]

Any martial art must be trained as realistically as safely possible: Grappling is far from unique in this regard. I am having a very hard time understanding why you think I disagree with that.

I am not saying that I think you disagree with that. However, you have argued passionately in favor of karate's supposed grappling component, but most of the evidence you have given us relates purely to kata, and prearranged routines. Therein lies the problem.

[Doctor_Armorum]

There are ground techniques in karate and it is believed that it was derived from some styles of chinese wrestling honed by palace guards in the Ryu Kyu kingdom they.

An interesting theory, though I'd like to know what it's actually based on. I say this because there is no groundwork in Chinese wrestling. Shuai jiao is a throwing art, rather similar to Mongolian boke. I have yet to find evidence of any sort of ground grappling in any native Chinese systems. If "Chinese ground grappling" ever existed, it is now so rare as to be essentially non-existant--this is clear due to the fact that some shuai jiao exponents have turned to non-Chinese systems (like judo) for groundwork.

I'm not saying that what you posted isn't true. I would simply like to know more about the claim. Ground grappling has been comparatively rare, in the history of martial arts. The only examples of ground grappling I know of are:

1. The ground wrestling depicted on the tomb illustrations in Beni Hasan, Egypt, which date from c. 2000 B.C./B.C.E.

2. The ground wrestling used in ancient Greek and Roman pankration.

3. The military groundwork found in Feudal Japanese grappling (sumai and kumi-uchi).

4. The military groundwork found in some Medieval European schools of wrestling. In Hans Talhoffer's 1467 fechtbuch, the limited amount of groundwork shown is referred to as "knave wrestling", which suggests that, at the time, ground wrestling was somehow seen as "tricky" or "deceitful". Similar cultural biases against groundwork may have existed elsewhere.

5. The ground wrestling used in various schools of kushti (Indo-Pakistani wrestling).

6. The ground wrestling used in modern (19th century onwards) freestyle, folkstyle, Greco-Roman, and Lancashire/catch-as-catch-can wrestling (catch being the great living groundwork tradition of the West).

7. The groundwork found in judo (aka the "ne-waza of the Kansai region"), which supposedly originally came from Fusen-Ryu jujutsu. This is the great living groundwork tradition of the East.

8. The groundwork of Brazilian jiu-jitsu, which comes principally from #7, but with some elements of #6 as well.

9. The groundwork of Russian sambo, which likewise comes primarily for judo (though there are elements of around 20 indigenous Eurasian wrestling styles in sambo as well).

10. The groundwork of Japanese shootwrestling/shootfighting, which comes from catch wrestling and judo.

What differentiates karate's grapplng is that it is fully integrated with stand up fighting and this makes it quite different from other forms of grappling. Think about the strategic differences from BJJ and Judo. They are both heavy grappling styles. One focuses on throws more and the other on ground grappling.

Prior to 1925, judo focused much more heavily on groundwork, much like BJJ. After 1925, various rule changes made Kodokan judo more of a standing grappling game, with the emphasis on throws.

It should also be pointed out that there is a sub-style of Kodokan judo known as Kosen (or Koshen) judo, that still focuses on groundwork.

[psytaco]

already been said but MMA. much more practical

[NYkarate]

I am not saying that I think you disagree with that. However, you have argued passionately in favor of karate's supposed grappling component, but most of the evidence you have given us relates purely to kata, and prearranged routines. Therein lies the problem.

Can you clarify your philosophy for me? Do you believe that only techniques that can be sparred live and full force are worth learning and training? In other words, are grappling techniques only worthy if you can actively use them full force in randori?

[NYkarate]

already been said but MMA. much more practical

If you are fighting in a ring for sport, I would agree. If you are fighting for life and death, I would not.

[NYkarate]

An interesting theory, though I'd like to know what it's actually based on. I say this because there is no groundwork in Chinese wrestling. Shuai jiao is a throwing art, rather similar to Mongolian boke. I have yet to find evidence of any sort of ground grappling in any native Chinese systems. If "Chinese ground grappling" ever existed, it is now so rare as to be essentially non-existant--this is clear due to the fact that some shuai jiao exponents have turned to non-Chinese systems (like judo) for groundwork.

I'm not saying that what you posted isn't true. I would simply like to know more about the claim. Ground grappling has been comparatively rare, in the history of martial arts. The only examples of ground grappling I know of are:

1. The ground wrestling depicted on the tomb illustrations in Beni Hasan, Egypt, which date from c. 2000 B.C./B.C.E.

2. The ground wrestling used in ancient Greek and Roman pankration.

3. The military groundwork found in Feudal Japanese grappling (sumai and kumi-uchi).

4. The military groundwork found in some Medieval European schools of wrestling. In Hans Talhoffer's 1467 fechtbuch, the limited amount of groundwork shown is referred to as "knave wrestling", which suggests that, at the time, ground wrestling was somehow seen as "tricky" or "deceitful". Similar cultural biases against groundwork may have existed elsewhere.

5. The ground wrestling used in various schools of kushti (Indo-Pakistani wrestling).

6. The ground wrestling used in modern (19th century onwards) freestyle, folkstyle, Greco-Roman, and Lancashire/catch-as-catch-can wrestling (catch being the great living groundwork tradition of the West).

7. The groundwork found in judo (aka the "ne-waza of the Kansai region"), which supposedly originally came from Fusen-Ryu jujutsu. This is the great living groundwork tradition of the East.

8. The groundwork of Brazilian jiu-jitsu, which comes principally from #7, but with some elements of #6 as well.

9. The groundwork of Russian sambo, which likewise comes primarily for judo (though there are elements of around 20 indigenous Eurasian wrestling styles in sambo as well).

10. The groundwork of Japanese shootwrestling/shootfighting, which comes from catch wrestling and judo.





Prior to 1925, judo focused much more heavily on groundwork, much like BJJ. After 1925, various rule changes made Kodokan judo more of a standing grappling game, with the emphasis on throws.

It should also be pointed out that there is a sub-style of Kodokan judo known as Kosen (or Koshen) judo, that still focuses on groundwork.

Here is an article on the subject:

Tegumi - Okinawan Grappling
TEGUMI - OKINAWAN GRAPPLING Forerunner of Karate and the key to understanding the grappling technqiues hidden in the kata of Okinawan Karate

The great Karate Master Shoshin Nagamine wrote in his "Tales of Okinawa's Great Masters", there are no accurate historical documents surrounding the origins of grappling in Okinawa. Like most other forms of grappling it appears that tegumi evolved from a primitive form of grappling self defense, which was constantly being adapted and enhanced as it was exposed to outside influences.

It is believed by some, Nagamine included, that tegumi was probably the original form of fighting in Okinawa and, as it was enhanced by striking and kicking techniques imported from China, the progenitor of Te, which is the foundation of modern Karate.

Known as tegumi in Naha, and mutou in Tomari and Shuri, Okinawan wrestling remained a popular cultural recreation until the Taisho period (1912 – 1925). There is little evidence of how tegumi evolved but the result was a rough and tumble bout where the winner was decided by submission, through joint locks, strangles or pinning. Today tegumi has a strict set of rules and is still practiced widely.

Island folklore is full of references to tegumi and it is believed that the islands version of sumo can find its roots in the rural wrestling of the past.

Tegumi was widely practiced as a sport much like Sumo Wrestling in mainland Japan. It was also, however, practiced as a self defense art that included joint locks, throws and chokes. Eventually, the Chinese Chuanfa (Kenpo) influenced the practice of Tegumi and what we now know as Karatedo evolved from that.

Before 1900, karate placed just as much emphasis on the Tegumi elements of the art as it did upon the striking. Karate training would include throws, joint-locks, chokes, strangles, grips, counters etc. In fact, in karate’s early days many practitioners would test their skills in bouts of Kakedameshi (see 'Tales of Okinawa's Great Masters' by Shoshin Nagamine - Translated by Patrick McCarthy). The combatants would interlock their arms and the aim was to knock your opponent to the floor using both Tegumi and striking techniques. These bouts would include a wide array of karate techniques (grappling & striking) and were very different indeed from the striking only sparring of today.

In the book, ‘Ryukyu Karate Kempo’ Choki Motobu wrote, “Kumite is an actual fight using many basic styles of kata to grapple with the opponent.” It is apparent that the karate practitioners of the past would utilise grappling techniques from the kata in their training and sparring.

http://awhelan.blogspot.com/2009/01/...grappling.html

[Horny Goat Weed]

Do you believe that only techniques that can be sparred live and full force are worth learning and training?

I find this hard to believe. If true almost all eastern martial arts would be worthless.

[NYkarate]

I find this hard to believe. If true almost all eastern martial arts would be worthless.

Let him answer the question. I am really trying to get my head around where he is at, as he is so fixated on randori.

[Mr Armageddon]

What's dope about San Soo, Okinawa Te, Karate, etc. (what I call base styles because they cover a wider range of fighting aspects in one go, instead of having to train in multiple styles to cover the bases) is that they can easily adapt more specialized styles to their arsenal (like pure ground styles, or weapons defensives like gun disarms and retention techniques taught to most law enforcement).

Would you say it is similar to Hapkido in this regard? I have been thinking about starting Hapkido to go with my kickboxing,would it be a good idea?

[Doctor_Armorum]

Can you clarify your philosophy for me?

I'll do my best to do so, bro.

Do you believe that only techniques that can be sparred live and full force are worth learning and training? In other words, are grappling techniques only worthy if you can actively use them full force in randori?

I do not believe that only techniques that can be sparred live and full force are worth learning and training. However, I do believe that the majority of techniques of any given art should be able to be trained as such. Ascertaining the overall efficacy of a given art should not be based on the techniques that are "too deadly" to be trained in a "live" manner. I feel this way about both unarmed and armed martial arts.

I should also stress that the "foul" or "illegal" techniques so often touted by both traditionalists and "street lethal" types can likewise be employed by exponents of "sport" methods--eg., a BJJ player, judoka, or freestyle or Greco-Roman wrestler can likewise make use of eye pokes, groin strikes, biting, et al.--the main difference is that the grappler (in such cases) can, if anything, make better use of such techniques, because the grappler already knows the fundamentals of what goes on, in the clinch, on the ground, and so on.

[Doctor_Armorum]

I find this hard to believe. If true almost all eastern martial arts would be worthless.

Evidently you're not familiar with the training methodologies and modalities of various Eastern martial arts.

There are many Asian fighting systems that use various types of free-play (full-contact sparring, randori, et al) as a part of their training. Many styles of Filipino eskrima/arnis place great emphasis on free-sparring. Sparring is a crucial component in both Thai and Burmese boxing. The Feudal Japanese samurai made use of various types of free-sparring formats, along with the accompanying tools--eg., the tampo-yari (mock spear), the fukuro shinai (leather- or cloth-covered bamboo mock sword), etc. Grappling systems (eg., sumo) were invariably trained with free-play. The same goes for other Eastern grappling styles, like shuai jiao (Chinese wrestling), boke (Mongolian wrestling), and kushti (Indian wrestling). The randori that Jigoro Kano made so famous in judo was not invented by him; he merely reintroduced it, as a major training method. And Chinese boxers tested themselves in contests on the lei tai (public fighting stage, not unlike that used by early modern English swordsmen, stickfighters, and pugilists).

[Dmaul]

Can you clarify your philosophy for me? Do you believe that only techniques that can be sparred live and full force are worth learning and training? In other words, are grappling techniques only worthy if you can actively use them full force in randori?

I know you didn't ask me but I will give my input anyways

I believe the vast majority of your techniques and time has to be devoted to something that can be sparred with full force (doesn't mean you have to spar it full force every time). That is the stuff that will actually teach you how to fight.

Fighting is very dynamic and flowing, you need to do it to get better at it.

Randori gives you instant feedback on weather your move works or does not. You gain real experience in using that move and you learn what kind of counters/responses you will see from your opponent.

This "alive" nature of training is very much present in the sportive martial art styles, wrestling, judo, boxing, muy thai, bjj etc. . . That is the real reasons practitioners of those styles had so much success in MMA as opposed to the styles that had little or no "alive" training.

[Horny Goat Weed]

Evidently you're not familiar with the training methodologies and modalities of various Eastern martial arts.

There are many Asian fighting systems that use various types of free-play (full-contact sparring, randori, et al) as a part of their training. Many styles of Filipino eskrima/arnis place great emphasis on free-sparring. Sparring is a crucial component in both Thai and Burmese boxing. The Feudal Japanese samurai made use of various types of free-sparring formats, along with the accompanying tools--eg., the tampo-yari (mock spear), the fukuro shinai (leather- or cloth-covered bamboo mock sword), etc. Grappling systems (eg., sumo) were invariably trained with free-play. The same goes for other Eastern grappling styles, like shuai jiao (Chinese wrestling), boke (Mongolian wrestling), and kushti (Indian wrestling). The randori that Jigoro Kano made so famous in judo was not invented by him; he merely reintroduced it, as a major training method. And Chinese boxers tested themselves in contests on the lei tai (public fighting stage, not unlike that used by early modern English swordsmen, stickfighters, and pugilists).

How about arts like Japanese JuJitsu,Aikido,Tang So Do and Hapkido?

[Doctor_Armorum]

Here is an article on the subject:

Tegumi - Okinawan Grappling
TEGUMI - OKINAWAN GRAPPLING Forerunner of Karate and the key to understanding the grappling technqiues hidden in the kata of Okinawan Karate

The great Karate Master Shoshin Nagamine wrote in his "Tales of Okinawa's Great Masters", there are no accurate historical documents surrounding the origins of grappling in Okinawa. Like most other forms of grappling it appears that tegumi evolved from a primitive form of grappling self defense, which was constantly being adapted and enhanced as it was exposed to outside influences.

It is believed by some, Nagamine included, that tegumi was probably the original form of fighting in Okinawa and, as it was enhanced by striking and kicking techniques imported from China, the progenitor of Te, which is the foundation of modern Karate.

Known as tegumi in Naha, and mutou in Tomari and Shuri, Okinawan wrestling remained a popular cultural recreation until the Taisho period (1912 – 1925). There is little evidence of how tegumi evolved but the result was a rough and tumble bout where the winner was decided by submission, through joint locks, strangles or pinning. Today tegumi has a strict set of rules and is still practiced widely.

Island folklore is full of references to tegumi and it is believed that the islands version of sumo can find its roots in the rural wrestling of the past.

Tegumi was widely practiced as a sport much like Sumo Wrestling in mainland Japan. It was also, however, practiced as a self defense art that included joint locks, throws and chokes. Eventually, the Chinese Chuanfa (Kenpo) influenced the practice of Tegumi and what we now know as Karatedo evolved from that.

Before 1900, karate placed just as much emphasis on the Tegumi elements of the art as it did upon the striking. Karate training would include throws, joint-locks, chokes, strangles, grips, counters etc. In fact, in karate’s early days many practitioners would test their skills in bouts of Kakedameshi (see 'Tales of Okinawa's Great Masters' by Shoshin Nagamine - Translated by Patrick McCarthy). The combatants would interlock their arms and the aim was to knock your opponent to the floor using both Tegumi and striking techniques. These bouts would include a wide array of karate techniques (grappling & striking) and were very different indeed from the striking only sparring of today.

In the book, ‘Ryukyu Karate Kempo’ Choki Motobu wrote, “Kumite is an actual fight using many basic styles of kata to grapple with the opponent.” It is apparent that the karate practitioners of the past would utilise grappling techniques from the kata in their training and sparring.

http://awhelan.blogspot.com/2009/01/...grappling.html

Extremely interesting, NYkarate. Thanks for posting that.

However, it seems that the groundwork/submission aspect of tegumi could have come from Okinawa itself. There is nothing in the above article to suggest otherwise.

[Dmaul]

Randori is also ESSENTIAL to developing your techniques.

Let's say you are taught a particular move, but it is so deadly you can never use it in sparring and since you don't fight for your life daily you literally never use it. You "know" the move, but do you really know it? Do you really know how it's used and what to expect when using it against different opponents?

Compare that to another move you learn, this move you can use at 100% intensity against your sparring partners. You use this move on a daily basis, you learn all the counters to it and you work on beating those counters. You learn what type of opponents it works better on, you learn how to better use it with your body type, you get real experience with the technique. Now when you teach this move to someone else, you really know it works and how it works.

[Horny Goat Weed]

This "alive" nature of training is very much present in the sportive martial art styles, wrestling, judo, boxing, muy thai, bjj etc. . . That is the real reasons practitioners of those styles had so much success in MMA as opposed to the styles that had little or no "alive" training.

Arts like Japanese JuJitsu and Hapkido have been used for 100s of years in battle.

Why is modern mma with its whole 25 years of history the yardstick for proof of an arts effectiveness?

[Doctor_Armorum]

How about arts like Japanese JuJitsu,Aikido,Tang So Do and Hapkido?

It's quite clear that at least some Classical Japanese jujutsu schools made use of randori. Jigoro Kano didn't pull that idea out of thin air. The Fusen-ryu (from which judo supposedly sourced it's ground-grappling syllabus) certainly used it, as did some select other schools. While the majority of Classical jujutsu schools in the late 1800s relied principally on kata (which explains why they were defeated by the Kodokan in 1886), there were some schools that made a rather liberal use of free-play. In fact, some of it was arguably too liberal, as indicated by jujutsuka/judoka, Sakujiro Yokoyama. In E.J. Harrison's classic Fighting Spirit of Japan (originally published in 1913, and reprinted in a modified form in 1955), Yokoyama noted:

"In the old feudal days, jujutsu was divided into many schools... In those days contests were extremely rough and not infrequently cost the participants their lives. Thus, whenever I sallied forth to take part in one of these affairs I invariably bade farewell to my parents, since I had no assurance that I should ever return alive. Competitions were of such a drastic nature that few tricks were barred and we did not hesitate to have recourse to the most dangerous methods in order to overcome an opponent. I have had experiences of this kind without number."

Clearly, then, prior to the establishment of the Kodokan, there were basically two schools of thought, regarding proper jujutsu training methodology in Japan. The majority of Classical jujutsu schools relied on kata (and still do, apparently), while some other schools (like that which Sakurjiro Yokoyama trained at) emphasized free-play with little or no restrictions. Jigoro Kano was apparently the man who sought some sort of compromise, where free-play (randori) could be utilized, without it resulting in the deaths of the participants.

[Doctor_Armorum]

Arts like Japanese JuJitsu and Hapkido have been used for 100s of years in battle.

Actually, for most of the history of the Feudal Japanese bushi (samurai), the grappling/HTH arts used were sumai (the more combative version of sumo wrestling) and yoroi kumi-uchi (grappling in armor). The term "jujutsu" dates only from the 16th century, and was, in fact, more popular when Japan was finally at peace, during the Edo period.

As for hapkido, it is derived from jujutsu, and is a product of Japan's occupation of Korea from 1910-1945. Thus, hapkido is not "100s of years" old, nor does it have much of a battlefield pedigree.

Why is modern mma with its whole 25 years of history the yardstick for proof of an arts effectiveness?

Because it has been proven in actual competition. MMA and its various component arts have been tested time and again, in minimal rules competitions.

[Horny Goat Weed]

As for hapkido, it is derived from jujutsu, and is a product of Japan's occupation of Korea from 1910-1945. Thus, hapkido is not "100s of years" old, nor does it have much of a battlefield pedigree.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Your knowledge of martial arts history is impressive.

I am particuarly interested in the history of eastern martial arts, are the any books or websites you could recommend i look at?

[parkerbro1]

Ok.

So excuse my skepticism, but I've still yet to see this "complete" form of fighting used against a non cooperative training partner. Do you really think all of that standing flow grappling will work against a resisting opponent? Can you show some evidence this actually works in real fighting, or at least real sparring? Or is this going be another example of not being able to back up an arts claims, like Aikido? Seems like all of these traditional martial arts have a lot of theory and not much application. Ill admit I'm ignorant to Karate as a whole, but I do know there aren't any consistently successful mma fighters that are PRIMARILY using Karate. I'm also not as nice o forgiving as Parkerbro. Muay thai, boxing BJJ, Judo, wrestling etc have all proven their effectiveness, now its Karates turn....so put up or shut up.

I know you didn't ask me but I will give my input anyways

I believe the vast majority of your techniques and time has to be devoted to something that can be sparred with full force (doesn't mean you have to spar it full force every time). That is the stuff that will actually teach you how to fight.

Fighting is very dynamic and flowing, you need to do it to get better at it.

Randori gives you instant feedback on weather your move works or does not. You gain real experience in using that move and you learn what kind of counters/responses you will see from your opponent.

This "alive" nature of training is very much present in the sportive martial art styles, wrestling, judo, boxing, muy thai, bjj etc. . . That is the real reasons practitioners of those styles had so much success in MMA as opposed to the styles that had little or no "alive" training.

Randori is also ESSENTIAL to developing your techniques.

Let's say you are taught a particular move, but it is so deadly you can never use it in sparring and since you don't fight for your life daily you literally never use it. You "know" the move, but do you really know it? Do you really know how it's used and what to expect when using it against different opponents?

Compare that to another move you learn, this move you can use at 100% intensity against your sparring partners. You use this move on a daily basis, you learn all the counters to it and you work on beating those counters. You learn what type of opponents it works better on, you learn how to better use it with your body type, you get real experience with the technique. Now when you teach this move to someone else, you really know it works and how it works.

I'm not nice really, just try to treat folk I the way I wish to be treated. I don't act any different here than I would in person (except I make more dumb jokes in person). The few times I might come off as an e-thug it's because I'd do that in person (and 'cause jack azz pissed me off enough I'd fight him win or lose). I'm a martial artist who believes in all forms of fighting (for different reasons obviously), each has various good things needed to learn and crap that needs to be filtered out. I'm a huge believer in many of Bruce Lee's philosophies slightly modified for myself one of which is to make your own style, harder for folk to train against a style they don't know. Ambush is a bitch. I know that some of the traditional stuff I studied way before there was mma as a sport, when being a mixed martial artist meant that you studied multiple styles only, can be used in a live situation to pretty devastating effect because I DID it. I strongly believe that you can modify or alter how you train traditionally to make those "death" moves (for lack of a better term) applicable and able to pull off in a real fight.

I honestly think that some of these can be modified to use against a resistant partner (like a randori or sparring session allows) so that you can easily use the "death" version in a live fight well and with full understanding of all the little details of what can go wrong, which to me is the whole f'ing point of "live" work. Drilling is a way to get that pattern learned into muscle memory. Once that's done (what's the saying 10,000 hours until done right), one can turn around and use it in a real situation to iron out anything that could and does go wrong in a fight. The reason why sport fighters do so well is because with a much smaller arsenal they start working live from the go. Take any sport fighter that's been doing it well for a while and I bet you could easily make him/her bad azz in a traditional style. In point of fact, there are already guys that like to supplement their mma with tmas. Professor Liborio 9name dropping right now) told me in person that he feels that's where we'll see the next big move or technique come from a couple years ago. Not that running up a wall and kicking a guy in the head is a specific traditional technique, but...up until Pettis pulled it off, everyone would have said it wasn't applicable to mma (a couple pros I know still say that and with disdain lol), it was a movie move. But the dude's at Duke's place try dam near anything and keep their imagination alive. I know for a fact that Nick Diaz still trains in whatever Escrima he can get and even some Karate.

Would you say it is similar to Hapkido in this regard? I have been thinking about starting Hapkido to go with my kickboxing,would it be a good idea?

Honestly broski, it would seriously depend on the place that's teaching it. Many are McDojos that do the opposite of what I just said above and are the reasons for the harsh judgement of guys like Jager. Most I've seen teach a version of TKD. The one place I knew of that taught the real thing was in Falls Church, VA. The Master's name was Parks. He was a multiple black belt holder in TKD (8th dan), Kendo (4th d), Judo (4th d), and Hapkido (8th d) as well as a competitive body builder back in the 70's. Dude started when he was a little kid, I think 6 or 8 yrs old. He wouldn't allow anyone under 18 to learn Hapkido, and kicked everyone out, drew the shades and locked the doors. He told me that he started TKD first as a sport and Hapkido later as serious self defense and street combative style. This was back in 1984-5. I have no idea what happened to him, but the Master in charge now was a scary black belt back when I knew him (got his freakin bb in 6 months of living and breathing it all day every day and was like Master park's lieutenant or some such). I remeber him telling me all this and being very cool 9but kinda scary) to me after I had a teenage hissy fit for some dumb azz reason and ran away from class (like all of a couple blocks away lol when they found me). Master Parks sent out a small army to come get me. Freaked me out something fierce and I never did anything like that again, but they acted liek it was no big and were super supportive. If I still lived there I'd probably be just like NYK about Hapkido and TKD to be honest.
Here's the website (don't have any clue whether or not what was taught back then is still as good today, but I have a ton of respect for the memory of the place):
http://www.umsmartialarts.com/
Judge the place you check out as harshly as you can, but make sure you actually try a class before making a decision. Some McDojos still end up being good for some folk (yeah I know, heresy and all that).

[parkerbro1]

For what it's worth, when I speak of grappling, I am referring to all aspects of the grappling game--eg., shooting in for takedowns while in the free movement phase (i.e., when both fighters are standing & without grips on each other); clinchwork--throws & takedowns from the clinch; takedown defense (sprawling, etc); and groundwork (positional hierarchy, scrambling, submissions & submission defense).

I know brother, just like Dmaul and Jager. I wanted to clarify for NYK since it kinda seemed to me that he was referring to grappling as more of clinch work , hand fighting from clinch, and throws/take downs, not actual ground work as much.

[NYkarate]

I'll do my best to do so, bro.

I do not believe that only techniques that can be sparred live and full force are worth learning and training. However, I do believe that the majority of techniques of any given art should be able to be trained as such. Ascertaining the overall efficacy of a given art should not be based on the techniques that are "too deadly" to be trained in a "live" manner. I feel this way about both unarmed and armed martial arts.

I should also stress that the "foul" or "illegal" techniques so often touted by both traditionalists and "street lethal" types can likewise be employed by exponents of "sport" methods--eg., a BJJ player, judoka, or freestyle or Greco-Roman wrestler can likewise make use of eye pokes, groin strikes, biting, et al.--the main difference is that the grappler (in such cases) can, if anything, make better use of such techniques, because the grappler already knows the fundamentals of what goes on, in the clinch, on the ground, and so on.

I don't think your position makes sense. Here is why. Those techniques that you can train full force are obviously by their own definition less lethal and effective. Therefore, if an art is loaded with such techniques, then you are by definition training a less lethal and effective art. Do you have to do an arm bar full force to know how and when to use one full force? It is very important for any fighter to spar. It gives them a sense of how to deal with blows or other attacks coming at them in rapid succession and one must be hardened to some level toward the pain from impacts. Further, there is no substitute for what I think of as a live real time high speed chess match, to teach you how to fight. That said, in a self defense situation, I would much rather have techniques I could apply that would as swiftly as possible disable my opponent. The very last thing I want to have to do is wrestle someone to the ground and work them into a submission.

As for karate and "randori", many schools spar in multiple ways that simulate combat close enough. You would have to be a fool to think that they don't, especially with throws and ground techniques.

[NYkarate]

Extremely interesting, NYkarate. Thanks for posting that.

However, it seems that the groundwork/submission aspect of tegumi could have come from Okinawa itself. There is nothing in the above article to suggest otherwise.

No one really knows the origin. If I can remember the supposed Chinese ground art, I will let you know. That theory was from another source.

[NYkarate]

Randori is also ESSENTIAL to developing your techniques.

Let's say you are taught a particular move, but it is so deadly you can never use it in sparring and since you don't fight for your life daily you literally never use it. You "know" the move, but do you really know it? Do you really know how it's used and what to expect when using it against different opponents?

Compare that to another move you learn, this move you can use at 100% intensity against your sparring partners. You use this move on a daily basis, you learn all the counters to it and you work on beating those counters. You learn what type of opponents it works better on, you learn how to better use it with your body type, you get real experience with the technique. Now when you teach this move to someone else, you really know it works and how it works.

There are many techiques you can train to the point of expertise and never use in a sparring situation. Do you need to snap a neck in randori to know when and how to do so in a real life fight?

[Croaker]

There are many techiques you can train to the point of expertise and never use in a sparring situation. Do you need to snap a neck in randori to know when and how to do so in a real life fight?

Yes, that was kind of the point of his post..

[NYkarate]

I know you didn't ask me but I will give my input anyways

I believe the vast majority of your techniques and time has to be devoted to something that can be sparred with full force (doesn't mean you have to spar it full force every time). That is the stuff that will actually teach you how to fight.

Fighting is very dynamic and flowing, you need to do it to get better at it.

Randori gives you instant feedback on weather your move works or does not. You gain real experience in using that move and you learn what kind of counters/responses you will see from your opponent.

This "alive" nature of training is very much present in the sportive martial art styles, wrestling, judo, boxing, muy thai, bjj etc. . . That is the real reasons practitioners of those styles had so much success in MMA as opposed to the styles that had little or no "alive" training.

Just because your techniques work against one oppenent in randori, certainly doesn't mean it will work against the next one in randori or real life. It is very important to gain a sense of fighing and learn how to effectively deal with blows flying at you with counters or blocks. However, you can have a much larger repertoire of techniques you know very well that you never employ in randori or sparring.

[NYkarate]

Yes, that was kind of the point of his post..

Read both our comments again.

[NYkarate]

I know brother, just like Dmaul and Jager. I wanted to clarify for NYK since it kinda seemed to me that he was referring to grappling as more of clinch work , hand fighting from clinch, and throws/take downs, not actual ground work as much.

Grappling by definition is any sort of grabbing in a combat situation. It is a term that includes ground, fighting holds and throws. All of these techniques are within karate so the definition of grappling the way you and others are trying to use is completely erroneous anyway.

[parkerbro1]

Grappling by definition is any sort of grabbing in a combat situation. It is a term that includes ground, fighting holds and throws. All of these techniques are within karate so the definition of grappling the way you and others are trying to use is completely erroneous anyway.

maybe but I needed to be sure, because you seemed a little reluctant to state pure on-the-ground grappling as part of the term everyone was throwing around.
With that being said, and us all agreeing to the definition...I've never seen or heard of Karate utilizing ground grappling. Only transitional grappling (holds, take downs, throws, etc. anything except for staying on the ground and working a guy there). I've lived and trained in multiple states including HI, Mass, VA, and CA and have dabbled at the minimum in multiple styles of tma, rma, and mma. I'm not saying it doesn't exist or that you don't train in it and even appreciate that you relented a little with Jager, but I don't think just because it existed at some point in history or even that you're lucky enough to have a Sensei that knows and teaches it, means that it part of Karate as it stands world wide today. At this point it would seem more an off shoot/specialty that a traditional part of Karate. mayne someone from your school can and should compete and win in mma to make a serious point, but it doesn't mean that others can, should, or will. Both GSP and Machida, arguably the strongest proponents for Karate in popular mma will say they had to go learn ground and transitional ground fighting in wrestling and BJJ.
Very cool holding conversation with you and Doc A here, so hopefully you won't take offense by anything I said or say. I appreciate your love of your style, but I honestly think you display a little too much closed mindedness to other styles because you take the disdain people feel towards Karate personally.
You shouldn't. It's their loss. Even if it was as crap as people think it is (which it isn't), I believe there'd still be something of value somewhere there. Ignorance can be frustrating as all hell, but never taken personally.
If you ever make it to the other coast, lemme know. I'd love to trade techniques and training (srs).