Karate stereotype - fact or myth??

Bill Glasheen · Post by **Bill Glasheen** » Tue Jul 25, 2000 9:33 pm

Is it true that real karate men don't hold each other? No...this isn't an issue of love and intimacy. This is the subject of karateka as punchers, blockers, and kickers vs. a more general paradigm of fighting empty-handed using a number of skill sets.

* Is it true that karate was not meant to be used against grapplers and wrestlers? And what of the Uechi style?

* Is it true that there aren't supposed to be throws, grappling moves and ground fighting in karate kata? What about Uechiryu kata?

I have definite opinions about this, but I yield first to my distinguished guests and contributors.

- Bill

Bill Glasheen · Post by **Bill Glasheen** » Tue Jul 25, 2000 9:46 pm

For additional perspective on the subject, check out the exchange in the Uechi front kick thread starting with questions by Billy B.

david · Post by **david** » Tue Jul 25, 2000 10:06 pm

My thinking is that if it was a fighting art it would have incorporated some form of grappling to deal with the contingency. Grappling happens now and I am sure it did back then.

The so called "jujutsu" types of locks/throws were not limited to just Japanese art forms. The Chinese had "chin na" which is essentially the same as the moves I've seen in aikido, a derivative of aikido. Darn it, if those Filipinos don't have the same thing. And, shoot, as I read some of the medieval western martial arts, damn if I don't see similar locks and throws.

Now, we know that locks and joints are not widely taught these days in the Uechi curriculum. But whether Uechi-ryu had it or not originally I don't know... Yet, if the style were truly a fighting art, it darn likely would have.

david

[This message has been edited by david (edited July 25, 2000).]

SEAN C · Post by **SEAN C** » Wed Jul 26, 2000 12:58 am

Pantazi sensei just posted about a video of grappling using kyusho, taken from movements in kata. I know from experience (ouch) that the pinan katas, bassai and naihanchi have joint and neck locks/breaks and throws/takedowns in them.

I think if you learn how the body moves, and its vulnerabilities, the only thing left to do is actually practice in different positions, such as on the ground. I think this might help to bring out some of those "hidden" applications. In fact, I wish that my teacher would go into this stuff more. Of course, he probably wishes I could do the kata right, to begin with.

Also, as others have pointed out, the circle block has obvious grappling applications. Someone could probably spend a lifetime exploring the principles embodied in that movement.

------------------
sean

Evan Pantazi · Post by **Evan Pantazi** » Wed Jul 26, 2000 12:33 pm

Grappling is inherent in the Katas, it all depends on how you look at them. A technique should always be observed with Yin and Yang in mind as to the pulling as well as the pushing of a particular motion as it reveals new possibilities. It all depends on how you train and what your focus is, not what Kata you do.
Grappling motions in Seisan- Click Here!

------------------
Evan Pantazi
users.erols.com/kyusho

Panther · Post by **Panther** » Wed Jul 26, 2000 2:21 pm

I understand what everyone is trying to say... especially in defense of styles.

However, given that 1) the original statement/question (as I intended) doesn't seem to be contained here and 2) I just feel like playing devel's advocate...

I'll leap in here...

The statement is: " The empty-hand (kara-te style) arts aren't/weren't meant to defend/attack against grappling arts... and vice-versa."

Let's dissect that contention further.

No one can deny that there are grappling and throwing elements in kara-te style arts just as there are punching, kicking and blocking elements in the ju-jitsu style arts. The difference that is being pointed out by the contention is not in elements, but rather in focus! That is a very important difference that shouldn't get lost in the "jihad" of "my style can handle it all"...

Those who have studied both a kara-te style art and a ju-jitsu style art to at least shodan level in BOTH will have an easier time relating to the concept. The contention has very little to do with the fundamental tools available to the practitioner(s) in question, but has everything to do with which tool will get utilized first in a given situation. Fundamentally, the kara-te-ka has a predetermined mindset on how to respond to a given attack... the same is true of the ju-jitsu-ka... However, that fundamental predetermined mindset/response is very different for the two bushido-ka!

The contention is that when a kara-te-ka and a ju-jitsu-ka square off, that those predetermined mindsets and the fundamental focus of each practitioner's training ensures their dichotomy of response... which, in turn, creates the potential situation for each/either to "win" the confrontation, soley based on which "mindset" gains the advantage.

More later, but that is enough "food for thought" to cause a stir in this boiling pot.

Bill Glasheen · Post by **Bill Glasheen** » Wed Jul 26, 2000 2:45 pm

Panther

I think we have a few folks that meet your specifications. Personally I'm a rokudan in Uechi ryu, a nidan in Goju, and a shodan in aikido. So let me take a stab at this.

I think the biggest problem with emphasis is not necessarily the style but the teachers and the equipment. I also think that not all karate styles are created alike. Personally I can't identify with most of what goes on in taequondo, even though I have long legs, good flexibility, and can do virtually all of the common kicks effectively. Whereas a TKD tournament (and unfortunately even the WKF) will sanction you for grabbing an opponent, grabbing is the raison d'etre of the Uechi system. It is why the sanchin is open-handed, and why the arm-rubbing exercise in kotekitae has a pulling half as well as a pushing half.

I can't count how many times I was taught a karate move and then an application by a karate instructor and a little voice in my head said bull$hit. And then later on I learned a move in aikido and felt the light bulb go on. So, is that the style or the practitioner/teacher? Frankly I think one of the biggest reasons why we don't do more grappling and floor work in Uechi or even other karate styles is because most folks choose to work out on a wooden or other hard floor and aren't willing to plunk down $10,000 for a classroom-size mat. Similarly, the jiujitsu and judo and aikido dojos spend lots of money on soft mats, and then never learn good footwork using the toes lest they get them caught in the mat and broken. When I was teaching at a univeristy and the state paid for the facilities (thank you, taxpayers), I could do a wooden floor night and then a wrestling mat night. The choice of venue was there and I chose to use them all. I even put my hakama on to set the tone of the class. Now that I'm in suburbia and we are working out on these nasty aerobics floors, I have to modify our practice. I have managed to teach my students how to do basic rolls and falls on hard wooden floors - without bruising. No, we cannot do them vigourously. No, the students do not do grappling and throws very often when they spar. The venue sets the tone. But they are ready given a different set of accomodations.

More food for thought.

- Bill

LenTesta · Post by **LenTesta** » Wed Jul 26, 2000 7:28 pm

YES YES YES...

The floor does dictate the training.

My school has a carpet on top of a concrete slab. I can not teach shoulder rolls to the junior students because of this. I can do the shoulder rolls because I have done them on many surfaces. I demonstrated it to the juniors and told them I would teach them when I get some mats. Takedowns without TOTAL CONTROL is out of the question because of rug burns and the hard surface.

The first noticable aspect of working out on a rug vrs a wood floor was the pounding that the heels took when performing the kiba dachi or the seisan jump back. On mats or a wooden floor it is less painful to slam the heel (after the ball of the foot has touched down first of course). The first couple of weeks after I opened my dojo my heels were tingling everytime I walked out the door after classes were over for the night.

I now can perform quite well on a rug surface.

I probably would not fare well on a mat though.

------------------
Len Testa

Kevin Mackie · Post by **Kevin Mackie** » Wed Jul 26, 2000 7:34 pm

The carpet is tough. I got a nasty rug burn on my toe Monday going into a Uechi stance.

I may continue this discussion on the legal forum! Oh... the pain and suffering!

Kevin

Panther · Post by **Panther** » Wed Jul 26, 2000 9:22 pm

Glasheen-sempai,

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Bill Glasheen:

I think we have a few folks that meet your specifications.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Who'd a thunk it! Go figure...

(I is makin' a "funny"...

)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

Personally I'm a rokudan in Uechi ryu, a nidan in Goju, and a shodan in aikido. So let me take a stab at this.

Truly impressive, but I confess that I find aikido to be different from many other ju-jitsu styles... even though the roots are the same.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

I think the biggest problem with emphasis is not necessarily the style but the teachers and the equipment. I also think that not all karate styles are created alike.

Completely agree... I truly want to avoid any "my style is truly the bestest style" jihads. So, while I agree with the statement, I also feel it is only prudent to keep to the generality of the original contention. (Realizing, of course, that this is a Uechi-ryu forum.

)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

I can't count how many times I was taught a karate move and then an application by a karate instructor and a little voice in my head said bull$hit. And then later on I learned a move in aikido and felt the light bulb go on.

I think I was in that class!

Panther · Post by **Panther** » Wed Jul 26, 2000 9:26 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Bill Glasheen:

So, is that the style or the practitioner/teacher?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK, here's where I start to get myself in trouble.

My answer is: BOTH!

The teacher/practitioner for either not knowing or limiting AND the style for not being more specific in teaching. However, while I can understand it from the style (given the necessity in days gone by of keeping certain things secret) and also from the practitioner (who might not have the training yet to understand), I can't forgive it of the unnecessarily vague or bull$hit instructor.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

Frankly I think one of the biggest reasons why we don't do more grappling and floor work in Uechi or even other karate styles is because most folks choose to work out on a wooden or other hard floor and aren't willing to plunk down $10,000 for a classroom-size mat. ...

Hmmm... I can see that, but we always had two areas one HW floor and the other mats. I've also been subjected to ju-jitsu class on the HW floor... Ouch!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

No, the students do not do grappling and throws very often when they spar. The venue sets the tone. But they are ready given a different set of accomodations.

This is my point. Are they really ready to utilize the differences in different circumstances OR is their first reaction based on whatever thing they're practicing "given the venue"? Fundamentally, kara-te-ka respond to any attack in a kara-te manner... blocks, punches, kicks. Whereas ju-jitsu-ka respond in a ju-jitsu manner... locks, throws, grabs. That's my point. If one is mainly trained to block/punch/kick, one won't instinctively utilize locks/throws/grabs... and vice-versa. That's the basis for the contention.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

More food for thought.

Whether I completely agree with the contention or not is irrelevent, the open exchange of ideas on these forums is... well, fantastic!

Thanks...

BILLY B · Post by **BILLY B** » Thu Jul 27, 2000 1:26 pm

Hi,

To me, certain movements in the katas feel like grappling. Some interpretations of strikes in these movements seem ridiculous. MY KATA are full of these movements... As much as things may be influenced by the venue, the instructor, yes - the technical movements, "the mindset of the style", etc...

.. "it" is a living art, the practitioner an artist who creates life in each moment of movement. The artist's mindset is the "big-daddy" of influental factors.

By the way, great posts by everyeone!

------------------
"There ain't no graduation from this kind of education"

Bill Glasheen · Post by **Bill Glasheen** » Thu Jul 27, 2000 2:53 pm

Panther

I don't argue with your premise that there is a unique emphasis with each art.

You wrote <BLOCKQUOTE>quote

I find aikido to be different from many other ju-jitsu styles... even though the roots are the same.

I understand your point of view, but I would contend that some of the differences are superficial. Also...I think this may depend on which aikido style you are talking about. My first aikido instructor taught Tomiki method. We had no lotus eaters or chi-sters in our class. I've heard this called the "rough" style of aikido. My instructor also started with judo, then several styles of karate, and THEN aikido. Yes, we didn't do all the ground work that you see in jiujitsu. But every time I've worked with Jack Summers or seen Mike Murphy teach (both experienced jiujitsu dans), it all looks the same to me. On the other hand, I can't walk into a "Ki aikido" class without wanting to box many of the practitioners upside the head. You'd think you were in ballroom dancing...

Now, getting to the following issue... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote

kara-te-ka respond to any attack in a kara-te manner... blocks, punches, kicks. Whereas ju-jitsu-ka respond in a ju-jitsu manner... locks, throws, grabs.

Where were you when sparring rules were being discussed on these forums? This is something that begins to emphasize specific elements of a style - as opposed to the style emphasizing those elements per se. While I like Gary Khoury a lot, respect his abilities, and understand the desire to have Uechi ryu compete with other stylists, I personally regret that he and others decided to endorse WKF rules for recent "Uechi" tournaments. You may grab in these rules, but you must let go before you hit. And of course you don't get any points for controlling or throwing someone. So guess what the WKF sparrers are going to look like? In TKD, they disqualify you for punching to the head, and give you extra points for kicking to the head. So guess what the sparring is going to look like? In the old All Okinawa Karate tournaments, you got a half point for a typical punch or kick, and a full point only if you controlled the person first and THEN hit. So guess what that sparring is going to look like? In most judo tournaments, you only get points for doing a throw or having someone tap out. So guess what that sparring is going to look like? Etc, etc ad nauseum.

Finis origine pendet. This is why I treat sparring with a grain of salt. It's useful but...

- Bill

Jake Steinmann · Post by **Jake Steinmann** » Thu Jul 27, 2000 3:09 pm

"To me, certain movements in the katas feel like grappling. Some interpretations of strikes in these movements seem ridiculous. MY KATA are full of these movements"

Ah, but here's the big question (and this is for everyone, not just Billy): Do you actually grapple? Do you actually grab a partner (literally), and try out that throw or joint lock that you think is in the kata?

I ask this not as an attack (please don't take it as such), but because I have met practitioners of many arts (not just karate) over the years who professed that their kata, kuen, or whatever, contained grappling, yet never got on the mat, never grappled, threw, or joint locked anyone in their training!

It's not enough to say that you have the principles...you have to go out and do it.

RE: Sparring: The rules will dictate how it looks. If you have a point system in your sparring, people will be looking to gain those points. It's the nature of games. Nothing wrong with it, as long as you realize it.

Many styles do (over?)-emphasize a particular "range" or method of fighting. It's what allows the morons on other, less civilized forums, to have the "striking vs. grappling" debates ad nauseum. If you are aware of the gaps in your training, you can cover them. But the preference of your style will often show through.

Food for thought.

Jake

------------------
Defeat is worse than death. You have to live with defeat - Seal Team Slogan

Panther · Post by **Panther** » Thu Jul 27, 2000 3:23 pm

Glasheen-sempai,

Thanks for the clarification. I humbly admit that I've seen less than a handful of different aikido and aiki-jutsu styles. My reaction to each was about the same as your desire to "box them upside the head".

I could "see" the same roots, but the utilization just wasn't there... but in a harder style (Tomiki... I'll have to remember that)... hmmm...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Bill Glasheen:

Where were you when sparring rules were being discussed on these forums?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Probably still in the forest disregarding the rest of the outside world as I was want to do concerning the martial arts for a large number of years.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

This is something that begins to emphasize specific elements of a style - as opposed to the style emphasizing those elements per se. While I like Gary Khoury a lot, respect his abilities, and understand the desire to have Uechi ryu compete with other stylists, I personally regret that he and others decided to endorse WKF rules for recent "Uechi" tournaments.

Harumph! About that time I spent "in the forest, disregarding the rest of the world concerning the martial arts"... You basically just hit upon one of the reasons I ended up alone in the forest in the first place. (Not the only reason mind you, but definitely one of them...

)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

Finis origine pendet. This is why I treat sparring with a grain of salt. It's useful but...

Yep, yep... completely understand.

I was debating relaying my first and only "Open Tournament" sparring experience on another forum... perhaps this is a better venue.

[This message has been edited by Panther (edited July 27, 2000).]