40 posts / 0 new
Last post
Dash3
Dash3's picture
Does kata teach ground techniques?

Over on the self-defense forum, we're talking about ground skills for self defense. I was wondering if anyone of you believe that the kata you practice teach ground fighting/defense techniques? If not, why not? If so, what techniques from which kata? If you were to author a kata for ground techniques, what would it look like?

Mark B
Mark B's picture

Personally I think no. That said Kata teaches principles that can be transferred to the ground.

As kata practices are always based around real self defence considerations I'm not sure a ground fighting form would fit, as the only aim is to regain ones footing, and in that vein there are usable principles and techniques enough in the existing kata.

Regards 

Mark 

Dash3
Dash3's picture

And that's about 95% where my thinking is as well, but some part in the back of my head won't let go of the idea that, even if it's just getting back up, kata (as a way of teaching a comprehensive fighting system) should have something to say. But several occasions in kata where one goes down or very low (kanku dai, unsu) the manner of getting up does not strike as particularly impressive, so if it's not where it would be obvious to include, maybe it's not there...

Kevin73
Kevin73's picture

To me, I don't believe that they taught "ground grappling" techniques.  There were techniques that took people to the ground and how to get back up from the ground was taught, but not really the type of ground grappling that we see in Judo/BJJ/Sambo etc.  Karate and kata were originally designed to hurt/maim your attacker and get away as quickly as possible, it was not designed to stand and go toe to toe with an opponent to see who was best like we see in modern combat sports.

One of my pet peeves is when I see someone taking BJJ and then finding a move in a kata and trying to say that it is a secret/hidden technique.  For example, I have seen people teach the cross over step found in the opening of Naihanchi/Tekki kata and teach it as a triangle choke.  Nope, don't buy it.  I think that the concepts that are pulled from kata can be translated into ground techniques, and many of the standing grappling techniques have their counterparts on the ground, so again the principles could be applied.  But, be honest where you are pulling your material from.  If you like the triangle choke, then train your students in it, just be honest where you got it from and don't say that it is a long lost hidden super secret temple technique.

Dash3
Dash3's picture

Before there's anymore talk about what I'm not talking about, perhaps I should clarify what I am talking about. I am talking about, as we were in the self defense forum, a set of ground skills to allow a person to get up safely in order to strike or get away; I am not talking about the level of grappling one might see in a BJJ competition. 

Dash3
Dash3's picture

Kevin73 wrote:

There were techniques that took people to the ground and how to get back up from the ground was taught

And do you see that being taught through kata or as something else?

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Ground techniques have always been a part of karate; but we are generally talking about simplistic methods to regain the feet should we be knocked over. We do not see the more sophisticated methods needed to submit grapplers in consensual fights.

We can see self-defence based ground-work in kata such as unsu / unshu; where we are kicking up from the floor. We can also find it old texts such as Kenwa Mabuni’s 1938 book “Kobo Kenpo Karate-Do Nyumon” (A) and the Bubishi (B & C).

Additionally, we also have the likes of Gichin Funakoshi talking about live practice of fighting back up from the floor to your feet (against both single and multiple opponents) as part of his training as a youth in Okinanwa (Karate-do: My Way of Life). So the simplistic self-defence stuff is well established historically.

We also have some evidence of more sophisticated holds such as the photo of Seiyu Nakasone (D). And there is the photo of Funakoshi teaching a class in 1935 where he is overseeing a couple who seem to be fighting on the floor (E).

Nothing anywhere near as sophisticated the groundwork associated with BJJ, Judo, Wrestling etc, but lots of simple self-defence stuff.

Mark B wrote:
That said Kata teaches principles that can be transferred to the ground.

I would agree that there there are common principles which can be extrapolated.

Kevin73 wrote:
One of my pet peeves is when I see someone taking BJJ and then finding a move in a kata and trying to say that it is a secret/hidden technique.  For example, I have seen people teach the cross over step found in the opening of Naihanchi/Tekki kata and teach it as a triangle choke.  Nope, don't buy it.

Me neither. It’s one thing to say a common principle can be applied both vertically and horizontally; it’s another to say that sophisticated BJJ methods are “hidden” in kata. They are not there and they are not part of the art's objectives.

Kevin73 wrote:
I think that the concepts that are pulled from kata can be translated into ground techniques, and many of the standing grappling techniques have their counterparts on the ground, so again the principles could be applied.

I agree.

Kevin73 wrote:
But, be honest where you are pulling your material from.  If you like the triangle choke, then train your students in it, just be honest where you got it from and don't say that it is a long lost hidden super-secret temple technique.

I also agree, but would add that these methods will eventually become an intrinsic part of karate. If you ask most karateka to name a traditional karate kick, my guess most would say “roundhouse” … despite the fact that the first of Gichin Funakoshi’s books that it appears in is the 1958 reprint of Karate-Do Kyohan. No mention of it in any of the books before then; including the original version of Karate-Do Kyohan (1935). The time passed from the publication of that book to me walking into a dojo and being taught roundhouse kick is only a few years different from the first UFC to now. So had someone co-opted some BJJ into their karate back in 1993 then that material would have been more or less as “traditional” now as the roundhouse kick was when I first learnt it.

Karate has always been a fusion of all kinds of differing systems, and one would hope it will continue to grow as it moves forward. One of the strengths of many modern systems is that they do this without giving it a second thought. We need to get back to that.

While many sophisticated submissions would run counter to the karate objective of civilian self-protection; there is much that we can learn from dedicated grappling systems when it comes to the methods of last resort should we end up on the floor. The need to regain the feet has always been there, but we can pick up some additional skills to achieve that traditional objective from dedicated grappling systems. That’s certainly what the past masters would have been doing today. I would suggest it is “traditional” for us to do just that.

In my case, my time in Judo certainly has made some contributions to the escaping from the ground part of what is now my karate. I still give credit to Judo for those methods, just as I talk about the originators of the kata (both people and systems) that have also been synthesised together into my karate (most of whom will have never considered themselves karateka because many kata predate the term).

Much of our grappling comes from the kata and the older methods, but I’m not adverse to improving, refining and adding more following exposure to outside systems. If it works, I’m having it.

Gichin Funakoshi wrote in “Karate-Do: My Way of Life” that, “Times change, the world changes, and obviously the martial arts must change too”. We should not try to “fossilise” an unchanging art because that’s about as untraditional and un-pragmatic as you can get.

When talking about his two main karate teachers, Funakoshi said, “Both Azato and his good friend Itosu suffered at least one quality of greatness: they suffered no petty jealousy of other masters. They would present me to teachers of their acquaintance, urging me to learn from each the technique at which they excelled.

We can therefore follow that lead and learn from good ground fighters and good ground fighting systems. The only caveat would be to remain objective focused and to label consentual fighting techniques, concepts and tactics as such.

All the best,

Iain

JWT
JWT's picture

I would agree with Iain that ground techniques have always been part of karate, but in an art that supposedly originated for self defence they are naturally a minority element of the training, though one that all 'self defence' clubs should teach in an extended syllabus (as opposed to a short course).  

We do naturally see some glimpses of ground techniques in texts such as the Okinawan Bubishi, but these are more naturally focused on taking the other person down to the ground as well if you are on the ground (so as to maximise your opportunity to escape and minimise their advantage) rather than engaging in ground v ground physical techniques.  

In terms of kata I think we need to be very careful how we choose to interpret the movements. I have a great video which I could upload to youtube of Paralympian Judoka Ian Rose demonstrating a takedown and arm bar/break for me at a charity event earlier this year. For me the movements clearly show a valid application for the complete striking and kicking sequence leading up to the kosa dachi in Heian / Pinan Yondan. The technique however is a sacrifice throw. Imagining it in a one v one dirt road in 18th or 19th century rural Okinawa (given the movement occurs in variations in older kata) it is a sound self defence arm break. It is not however an application I would teach in 21st century Britain as there are no environments where I would want my sudents to risk making a sacrifice throw dropping backwards to the ground.  

The Karate Culture videos show a great number of excellent throws found in other arts that are clearly in kata, but a number of them (in the main the sacrifice ones) are less suitable for a non competitive arena. Although I can recognise them as good and maybe even the 'original intended' applications, a number of them are ones that I do not feel are appropriate for the context in which I teach.  

Groundfighting is a controversial topic because it has not been taught in mainstream karate in a lot of places for a long time.   

24 years ago I started practicing the Naihanchi / Tekki kata. It's only in the last 12 months that I've realised that all the ground fighting skills I've learned for dealing with people in the mount or guard from cross training with a number of excellent people are moves that I also do in those kata if I lie on my back instead of stand up. Now I'm not talking about chokes or leg locks, I'm simply looking at simple effective strategies to defend or escape while someone is in my guard (shielding against punches, wrapping arms, counter striking), defending and escape against a person in the mount (counter striking, shielding, arm wrapping, shrimping, bridging), and gaining the mount myself  for escape or counter controlling/striking.   

I would not say these are THE INTENDED or SECRET applications for the two Naihanchi kata that I practice, they are MY applications for them. However the enbusen of movement of the kata does make sense as a ground based kata. I am aware of many good stand up applications for the same movements, and I've enjoyed an excellent seminar with Iain on one occasion where he taught his stand up applications and I had great fun. Personally I don't need to focus on stand up applications for the forms because I already have a very comprehensive stand up repertoire from the Pinan / Heian forms.   

Ultimately though it is much harder to rehearse in your mind the stimuli of ground based violence while rehearsing a standing kata than it is while lying on your back doing the same movements. The stand up solo act (as with stand up techniques) can improve elements of your biomechanics, but the real thing you need is the paired training.   

I think it is nice when you can relate a bit of your groundwork to a kata you practice, but I think it is important to understand that the commonality is one of biomechanical principles and not necessarily one of intended application. But with that said, the intended application of a kata is fairly immaterial. What is important is whether you have an effective application that you drill.  

All the best  

John Titchen  

diadicic
diadicic's picture

I don't have a problem with people using kata as a means work and or  teach fighting princables weather it's on the ground or standing up.  Here's one from a karate guy who also trains in Jiu Jitsu.     

He dosen't go into advance BJJ with it but does use it for escape and self defense. To me this is what the kata is for.  If its not, then I am not doing karate I must be doing some other made up art.

Dom

Dash3
Dash3's picture

That video was one of the inspirations for my question.

-Dale

Tau
Tau's picture

Principles from kata can be extrapolated and used in a multitude of ways and this includes on the ground. However this is a tertiary (at best) skill set.

Consider that the first thing that the Pinan/Heian kata teach is covering and then hitting the off switches. My oppinion is that the most important ground skill is what I call the combative stand up which might have been in Iain's ground video. I forget. Certainly videos of that movement are on this forum somewhere and easily found on YouTube. This movement is not found in kata and that really should tell you everything.

For me, understanding kata now as I do, I see "bunkai" across many Martial Arts. I filmed a video not long ago of a movement in Pinan Yondan that Aikidoka know as Rokukyo (immobilisation number 6.) A couple of years ago I covered it with Iain in seminar on Saturday and then in Aikido class two days later. Hence I filmed them together. There are several grounded movements that look exactly like kata bunkai. For example a crucifix double armlock that Iain attaches to Pinan Shodan I attach to Pinan Sandan. I was recently asked to teach some groundwork in a Karate class and so did knee-on-belly. One black belt student identified it as being part of Kushanku. I actually disagree and knowing the dynamics as I do I see in Kanku Sho / Unsu. But the point remains.

Kata can be used to teach groundwork but that's by no means their primary purpose.

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Tau wrote:
Principles from kata can be extrapolated and used in a multitude of ways and this includes on the ground. However this is a tertiary (at best) skill set.

I’d totally agree with that. Grappling is secondary to the striking and the ground fighting sub-set would be further down the list.

In Ando’s video above – which I think is very well done – he is taking vertical kata and applying it horizontally. Traditionally, we are supposed to run with the principles of kata in any way that was functional, so such practice could be considered “traditional” in that sense. However, I think it is unlikely the masters of the past indented for sequences of the kata to be directly applied horizontally. There is certainly no evidence of that.

Tau wrote:
My opinion is that the most important ground skill is what I call the combative stand up …. This movement is not found in kata and that really should tell you everything.

It is found in Shotokan’s Unsu (following rising kicks from the floor) and the Shito-Ryu version of Unshu (following backward kicks). Regardless, I think it would be inaccurate to infer that kata was the totality of practise.

The Bubishi was a hugely important book to the masters of the past; having a direct influence on Mabuni (great swathes of it repeated in his writings), Miyagi (the name “Goju” being lifted from the Bubishi’s pages) and Funakoshi (lots of the content of Karate-Do: Kyohan being taken from the book).

We know Anko Itosu – creator of the Pinans – had a copy and that Mabuni hand copied it from him. The Bubishi shows a few methods related to getting up from the floor when the enemy is standing (the ones I posted above and a few others); and Mabuni went on to also show these methods in his own books. I think we can be confident that equivalents of the “tactical stand up” were being practised in the past because they are recorded in the literature of that time. It’s true the method is not widespread in kata, but I think we can nonetheless be confident it was a common practise.

Additionally, Gichin Funakoshi – also a student of Itosu’s – talks about the live practise of regaining the feet when actually held down when reminiscing about the training of his Okinawan youth in Karate-Do: My Way of Life.

The evidence is clear that regaining the feet from the floor was definitely a part of past practise. We therefore need to be careful about making conclusions based on a given method not being widespread in kata. It would also be an error to say that “karate = kata” and more accurate to say that kata is a major part of karate; but not it’s totality.

To give a modern example, there are no traditional kata with the roundhouse kick in them, and yet no one would suggest roundhouse is therefore not practised in karate. It is widely practised and I would suggest that was the same with the “stand-up methods” shown in the Bubishi, the writings of Mabuni, and as described by Funakoshi.

So the fact the “tactical stand up” is not widespread in kata may tell us “something” (at best) but it certainly does not tell us “everything”.

Tau wrote:
Kata can be used to teach groundwork but that's by no means their primary purpose.

Totally agree with the sentiment, but allow the bald man to split hairs :-) I don’t think kata can teach anything in and of itself. The kata is a physical repository of combative drills and methods chosen to illustrate the core combative principles of the system. It is also a supplementary form of solo practise. To be fully realised, these principles need to be practiced in many different ways in set drills and live practise. The “kata process” teaches things: the solo-kata alone does not.

So we can apply the kata process to ground work and explore how those principles can manifest from a horizontal position. That process will bring home the need to acquire movement skills, know holds, know escapes, etc.

Ground work is a small part of karate due to the nature of the art; so it would be obvious and actuate to say the kata are not intended to primarily teach ground work. It’s also accurate to say that vertical combative skill is by far and away the focus of the karate and the kata that inform it. However, the primary propose of kata is to be the genesis of a process that sees sound combative habits become intuitive such that they can be applied freely irrespective of circumstance.  Ground work should be part of this. We are not seeking a skill level comparable with MMA, BJJ, Judo, Wrestling, etc. Instead we are seeking a basic back-up should all go wrong in self-protection scenarios.

Kenwa Mabuni wrote a piece called “How to Correctly Perform Kata” in 1934 in which he stated, “It is impossible to create two-person drills containing all of the techniques and their variations. However, if one practices kata correctly, it will serve as a foundation for performing any of the large number of variations that may be needed.” That is the traditional process. If we accept that basic ground skills are needed (they are) then we should be looking at how kata principles can be applied on the floor. This won’t give us the skills needed to out grapple grapplers, but it will provide a backstop for self-protection should all else fail.

To sum up my view: Karate does not seek to make people skilled on the ground. However, basic skills such as may be required for self-protection have always been a part of practise. The methods needed to submit skilled fighters on the floor were not included and are beyond karate’s remit. Kata principles can and should be applied on the floor; but it is an inaccurate stretch to say that the motions of kata were “intended” to be used “as is” in a horizontal position. Until relatively recently, karate was always an eclectic art that would synthesise all that it found useful into practise. We should therefore be studying the methods of dedicated grappling arts – which are concordant with the goals and ethos of karate –  and bringing them into practise.

One extra thought: Peter is right that specific examples of ground fighting methods are few and far between in kata … so maybe someone should create a modern ground kata? It should include the elements of getting up off the floor (as per the videos here) and maybe simple escapes from the mount, side four-quarter, scarf-hold and maybe even a basic method of escaping guard? Striking from the ground from various positions should also be part of it. It should also be something that can be done alone or with a partner. I don’t think we need to have a dedicated ground kata to practise such stuff (I’ve managed this far without it), but it could be an interesting project?

All the best,

Iain

Tau
Tau's picture

Firstly, yes that video from Sensei Ando is indeed very well done and provides some great technical information.

Iain Abernethy wrote:
It is found in Shotokan’s Unsu (following rising kicks from the floor) and the Shito-Ryu version of Unshu (following backward kicks).

I've not learned Unsu, so I just looked it up. https://youtu.be/X-Dq32yOvSY

At around 35 seconds in there is indeed a stand up... but it's far from the tactical/combative stand up that we know is optimally effective.

Ditto the Shito Ryu version:https://youtu.be/NwYhpb9ZESI

Iain Abernethy wrote:
One extra thought: Peter is right that specific examples of ground fighting methods are few and far between in kata … so maybe someone should create a modern ground kata? It should include the elements of getting up off the floor (as per the videos here) and maybe simple escapes from the mount, side four-quarter, scarf-hold and maybe even a basic method of escaping guard? Striking from the ground from various positions should also be part of it. It should also be something that can be done alone or with a partner. I don’t think we need to have a dedicated ground kata to practise such stuff (I’ve managed this far without it), but it could be an interesting project?

There are Judo two-person kata that tick some of the boxes here. Still, an interesting project.

I would suggest that in doing so we should look to the past masters. Look at how the Pinan kata systemetise everything. I can therefore tell you that  Abernethy-Forum-Ground-Kata Shodan will start with a sprawl, then a back breakfall, then a combative stand up. Abernethy-Forum-Ground-Kata​ Godan will conclude with a berimbolo.

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Tau wrote:
At around 35 seconds in there is indeed a stand up... but it's far from the tactical/combative stand up that we know is optimally effective.

I see it as being the same. You get up in a way that keeps the head away from the enemy, crossing the legs to stand, and use your arms as back up cover. There’s no “running backward” due to momentum but that’s typical of the formalisation of kata.

Tau wrote:
There are Judo two-person kata that tick of the boxes here. Still, an interesting project.

Which judo kata would that be? I’m not aware of any that include striking, escaping from the top position (when held down from underneath), that emphasise the regaining of the feet (which would be the surrendering of a position of advantage in judo), etc. I can’t say I’m familiar with all of the judo kata, but I can’t recall seeing one that would tick the boxes from a low-level self-protection perspective?

Tau wrote:
I would suggest that in doing so we should look to the past masters. Look at how the Pinan kata systemetise everything. I can therefore tell you that  Abernethy-Forum-Ground-Kata Shodan will start with a sprawl, then a back breakfall, then a combative stand up. Abernethy-Forum-Ground-Kata​ Godan will conclude with a berimbolo.

I like the simplicity in starting with a back break fall (replicating being knocked down). That’s a good idea! I’d probably not include a sprawl though as that more of a defensive standing method (so I’d put it outside the remint of the kata) and it can frequently result with both people being on the floor. While the sprawler is in a position of advantage relative to the person who attempted the tackle, third parties would have a free kick. We also see tackle defences – that are more likely to retain an upward position – in the classical kata; so it would be a bit of repetition.

Purely initial thoughts: Following the backward fall, I’d have the assuming of the defensive posture, spin right while kicking, spin left while kicking, switch sides so the other hip is down, left / right as before, shuffle back while kicking, stand … drop (possibly another type of fall), a similar sequence with an attempted rise, a drop (due a rush forward from the enemy), another attempted rise this time reaching the knees, an elbow to thigh and uppercut to the groin while regaining an upright position … drop (another type of fall) roll into the soccer kick / stamp from the right side and tackle (grip ankle, knee into shoulder) while standing … repeat on the opposite side. Something like that would be “Ground Kata Shodan”.

I’d have a flow through the core holds (mount, kneeling, side 4-quarter, scarf and guard) complete with strikes from every position as “Ground Kata Nidan”.

The final kata – “Ground kata Sandan” – would be one or two simple escapes from the common holds (trap and bridge for mount; scissor sweep for guard; create a box with arms and shrimp away and push into space, bite, hammer-fists, press into neck, rise for scarf-hold etc) and breaking guard (groin punches, pressure knees apart, slip knees over one at a time, press face away, knee, dropping elbow, stand); again complete with strikes and an upright position being gained after each one.

You could even put them together as “O-Ground Kata” :-)

Again, not enough to make one anywhere near good enough to take on a skilled ground fighter in a consensual exchange, but enough for a self-protection back-up.

Time always being the limiting factor, but the more I think about this the more tempted I am to complete the process and put such a kata series together. Short and simple and it would be a good way to integrate things in a “karate way”. I’ll leave it to percolate some more :-)

All the best,

Iain

Dash3
Dash3's picture

And that is exactly what I meant when I originally asked what it would look like if you authored a ground kata! Never imagined it would grow into a sandan set!!

I'll have to think about it as well...

I am reminded of a drill by Mark Hatmaker which he called the "Ground Round", which was oriented towards a sporting context. It's easy to see from this conversation how a "drill" becomes a "kata".

Thanks, everyone!

-Dale

JWT
JWT's picture

Iain Abernethy wrote:
Time always being the limiting factor, but the more I think about this the more tempted I am to complete the process and put such a kata series together. Short and simple and it would be a good way to integrate things in a “karate way”. I’ll leave it to percolate some more :-)

Or you could just adapt the way you think about Naihanchi. :)

If you were to do a 'new' kata would it be designed as a paired flow drill or as a solo ground drill? Or would you take your paired drills and merge them with principles in a particular order to create something that acts as many overlapping and coathanging drills but also as a solo exercise as I did with my two kata?

diadicic
diadicic's picture

So would you still say that the "Karate on the ground" article is still relevant? If so I would think that could have answered this question right away. Dom

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

diadicic wrote:
So would you still say that the "Karate on the ground" article is still relevant? If so I would think that could have answered this question right away.

I would. That article was written around 10 years ago, but it essentially reflects the points I’ve made throughout the thread i.e.

Kata not concerned with / not sufficient for out-grappling grapplers. Ground fighting is a “back stop” should all go wrong and is never an active choice in self-protection. Principals of kata are also applicable horizontally. Live practise of applying those principles is needed. Methods from other arts can be synthesised within to karate to engender utmost efficiency.

That’s just my view though and articles are always “one way discussions”. The good thing about this thread is the interaction of views which ensures things are explored in greater depth. So I’d hope this thread provides more information than the article alone.

All the best,

Iain

diadicic
diadicic's picture

Iain Abernethy wrote:

That’s just my view though and articles are always “one way discussions”. The good thing about this thread is the interaction of views which ensures things are explored in greater depth. So I’d hope this thread provides more information than the article alone.

I wasn't trying to come off with an attitude.  So please don't take it that way.  I just had the thought and it came out.  The artical could have been used as a reference. It answered most of my questions as to weather Kata taught floor fighting.  I feel it does through principles. I also feel that the grappling principles it does teach are used to get you out of a grip so you can strike or get up as quickly as possible.  This is the training I ve been working on.   Get up,  Get out of grip, Get back to striking,  Get away.  Does not have to be in that order.   Getting away being the number one on that list.

I hope all this came out right.  

Happy Days.

Dom

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

JWT wrote:
Or you could just adapt the way you think about Naihanchi. :)

I don’t think that would meet the objective I’ve put forth because we already utilise kata principles in a horizontal position; therefore, the thinking is already as you suggest. I’m suggesting something new in addition to that. My point is that Naihanchi (and all other kata) are not “ground fighting kata” and I think there could be place for dedicated kata designed specifically and solely for ground fighting. Karate has no dedicated ground fighting kata, and maybe that is something to correct?

JWT wrote:
If you were to do a 'new' kata would it be designed as a paired flow drill or as a solo ground drill?

Neither. It would not be a paired flow drill or a solo-ground drill.

Just like the traditional kata, I envisage a sequence of solo movements that will also be drilled with a partner.  You generally don’t do the full kata as a continuous flow (you can, but generally it’s the decisive application of a given section that we are aiming for) so I’m not thinking of a solo version of a ground fighting flow drill; but instead a serious of motions, put end to end to form the kata, that can be used individually and will cover the basics of ground fighting from a self-protection perspective.

So folks would drill it solo, and they will also have a set of paired exercises to go with it, but not a continuous flow because I want getting the feet to future regularly. If the kata was to continue to flow on the ground when they could have got up, then it would be counter to the objectives I have in mind.

JWT wrote:
Or would you take your paired drills and merge them with principles in a particular order to create something that acts as many overlapping and coathanging drills but also as a solo exercise as I did with my two kata?

Not 100% sure what you’re describing, but if I am reading you right, then that’s more in tune with what I’m envisaging.

We did have a little play with the concept last night and the dan grades figured it would make for a fun project. The consensus was that “Groundwork kata shodan” (寝技型初段) should be safety getting up when the enemy is standing and you are down. We had a clear idea for that one and pretty much had a first draft in minutes.“Groundwork kata nidan”(寝技型二段) would be moving through the common holds with strikes. A few more options on how that would be constructed, and lots of experimenting to do, but the concept was straight forward enough. “Groundwork kata sandan”( 寝技型三段) would be one high-percentage escape from each of the holds (to illustrate principle) and we would always be escaping to the feet; not to a dominate position still on the ground. Naturally this would also include escaping from the top as a result. We had a play with how that may look for a scarf-hold escape – with the very helpful input from one of the dan grades who is also a judo coach - and we could see how that would work.

These kata would be very short, but combined they would give the basics needed and an education on how to move on the floor (spinning, shuffling, sitting through, shrimping, bridging, etc). The dan grades thought it could be a fun project so we may have a play with things and see how they go. The kata provide nothing “new” to our syllabus, but it could be nice to have solo kata to organise / provide a supplementary form of solo practise for that side of things. We will see :-)

Either way, I’m grateful to all thin this thread for sparking the idea!

All the best,

Iain

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

diadicic wrote:
I wasn't trying to come off with an attitude.  So please don't take it that way. 

Fully understood and I didn’t :-) I was just saying that I think this tread has superseded the article, and that this thread provides more information than the article did. Therefore, in my view, if I had said “refer to the article” I don’t think it would have “answered this question right away.” Or at least not as thoroughly answered it as this thread has.

Apologies if anything I wrote inferred any kind of offence being taken. That’s certainly not that case and I merely want to say what a good and useful thread I think this has been. Essentially, I think our collective efforts have bettered my solo effort to address this issue.

All the best,

Iain

Dash3
Dash3's picture

I look forward to what you and your crew come up with, Iain. It sounds like your kata would cover the skill set discussed in the self defense thread on ground skills. I wonder if there's some room for this entire group to collaborate - perhaps a specific problem is posed and people submit their preferred solutions and then everyone can piece them together as best they see fit, so my kata may not look exactly like your kata which may not look like Mr. X's kata... And we'll benefit from seeing a wider range of solutions.

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Dash3 wrote:
I wonder if there's some room for this entire group to collaborate - perhaps a specific problem is posed and people submit their preferred solutions and then everyone can piece them together as best they see fit, so my kata may not look exactly like your kata which may not look like Mr. X's kata... And we'll benefit from seeing a wider range of solutions.

That’s a really good idea! If people have ideas to share, posting a YouTube link will be the way to go. Collective efforts always tend to yield something quite special.

All the best,

Iain

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

JWT wrote:
I know where you are coming from in this, but for me Naihanchi 1 & 2 (I don't bother any more with 3) cover the full repertoire of everything I have learned, developed and want to do on the ground (with the exception of the get up) so from my perspective they are 'ground fighting' kata even if that was not their original intent. If I were to design a kata solely for groundfighting it would not look dissimilar to a fusion of Naihanchi 1 and 2.

For me, it is the fact that Naihanchi is performed upright that means it will not fulfil my objective. I agree the principles of Naihanchi can certainly be applied horizontally – and we will keep doing that as before – but I want something that directly has students practicing the ground fighting movement skills as they will be applied i.e. pivoting, bridging, shrimping, etc.

JWT wrote:
I'm intrigued as to why you've split them into so many stages. Is this because at this stage you're looking at techniques rather than principles?

I’m thinking principles. I see three VERY short kata; and if any of the content was missing then they would be deficient in my view i.e. they would not adequately convey the core principles needed.

If you added all three together, it would still be short when compared to the traditional kata. So the three stages are not to do with length of the kata, or the volume of content, but the teaching structure of my group i.e.

First you learn to get up when knocked down (kata 1).

Then you learn the holds and how to strike from them (kata 2).

Now you learn to escape from those holds (kata 3).

I want getting up to be the first skill taught, and you can’t learn to escape from the holds until you know the holds; so this structure is inevitable. I therefore want a kata for the skills they are learning at that time. If it was one kata, I’d have them learning only part of it at a time, so it makes more sense to make those parts discrete in the first instance.

Of course, when all elements have been learnt sufficiently, they can combine them into one kata (as per previous post); which would still be shorter that Pinan Yodan, for example.

We played with the idea at the class yesterday too and, whether we eventually stick with it or not, it’s an interesting process.

All the best,

Iain

JWT
JWT's picture

Thanks for the clarification Iain.   

For the record, I view the Nami-gaeshi as shrimping as soon as I'm on my back. :)

Kevin73
Kevin73's picture

diadicic wrote:

I don't have a problem with people using kata as a means work and or  teach fighting princables weather it's on the ground or standing up.  Here's one from a karate guy who also trains in Jiu Jitsu. 

He dosen't go into advance BJJ with it but does use it for escape and self defense. To me this is what the kata is for.  If its not, then I am not doing karate I must be doing some other made up art.

Dom

Apophenia: is the human tendency to perceive meaningful patterns within random data.

To me, this is what alot of the ground grappling/kata stuff is.  People are just looking for patterns and saying that is what it is used for.  In all of the oral traditions and writings that we have, there is no suggestion that the kata are designed the way he suggested.  

Now, if he showed the standing grappling applications of Naihanchi/Tekki and then showed them on the ground, I don't have issue with that.  But, trying to say that the crossover step as a lateral closing gap is REALLY teaching me how to "pinch my legs" to hold a guy in guard is intellectually dishonest.   

diadicic
diadicic's picture

On this subject, Has anyone ever change a kata move a little because of another arts influence.      For instance changing the way a grip is made on your own hand because the reason a different art did it made more sense and is more practical? <--- just an example  

Dom

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

diadicic wrote:

On this subject, Has anyone ever change a kata move a little because of another arts influence.      For instance changing the way a grip is made on your own hand because the reason a different art did it made more sense and is more practical? <--- just an example  

Dom

That's a really interesting topic and the basis of what could an enjoyable thread! But I would suggest that it probably needs own thread. Maybe you could kick that off in the kata application section?

All the best,

Iain

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Kevin73 wrote:

Apophenia: is the human tendency to perceive meaningful patterns within random data.

To me, this is what alot of the ground grappling/kata stuff is.  People are just looking for patterns and saying that is what it is used for.  In all of the oral traditions and writings that we have, there is no suggestion that the kata are designed the way he suggested.  

Now, if he showed the standing grappling applications of Naihanchi/Tekki and then showed them on the ground, I don't have issue with that.  But, trying to say that the crossover step as a lateral closing gap is REALLY teaching me how to "pinch my legs" to hold a guy in guard is intellectually dishonest.   

I would tend to agree with that. It's one thing to say that a given motion can be applied horizontally; it's another thing to say that it was intended to be used horizontally.

Principles transcend specific manifestations / techniques, but again I think this is a different issue. Principles, by their very nature, can be applied in lots of different ways. However, when we are talking about specific movements being designed specifically for use on the floor, even when demonstrated from a vertical position, I think that we are stretching things to breaking point. 

All the best,

Iain

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

JWT wrote:
Thanks for the clarification Iain.

You are most welcome! Of course, there are many different ways to approach this issue, and I'm not saying my way would be the optimum way, but it would seem to be the most logical way for me and mine.

JWT wrote:
For the record, I view the Nami-gaeshi as shrimping as soon as I'm on my back. :)

I can see how the motion could be applied that way :-) Although, as I think has been discussed in this thread, I don't think any of us are saying it was intended to be used that way. A screwdriver is intended to turn screws, but nevertheless it can still be used to open paint tins :-)

I do think I would like to see a modern kata which actually has people directly shrimping on the floor in a horizontal position. And, come to think of it, the judo classes I was a part of often began with "kihon" where we would perform exactly such movements up and down the dojo :-) Stick a few such basics together and we would have the kind of kata that I'm envisaging.

I still think the traditional kata have much to offer when it comes to imparting combative principles that can be used irrespective of specific location; but some short supporting kata for specific horizontal movement skills may be of value? If nothing else, asking the question has provided an interesting forum thread, and has begun what is shaping up to be a fascinating thought experiment in my dojo :-)

All the best,

Iain

Andi Kidd
Andi Kidd's picture

Firstly, thanks to Iain who alerted me to this thread. I have been a bit busy of late and haven’t been on the forum, just not enough hours in the day.

There have been a lot of replies and I can’t address everything fully but I think kata can show some interesting ideas on the ground. As Mark B says, some principles from vertical can be applied when on the floor.

I do a Heian Shodan/Pinan Nidan ground drill. I say drill but it is actually several drills that are all put under this one banner. I have been putting these up recently in my bunkai bites series.

The first one shows how it works from the top 

Then we work it from the bottom

Then we do a flow

Next month there will be some talk about pads

Then we will look at some pressure work

And then there will be a competitive element

I usually add in an escape element as well which, in my reckoning, comes from Heian/Pinan Sandan, but this would make sense in the progression of the kata.

Was this how the original kata was intended to work? Unlikely but there is no proof either way and we aren’t going to get any! So does it matter? Well that surely depends on your perspective.

Kata is there to give us principles, the way we interpret it and get ideas from it, does appear limitless and therefore the fact that you can do something on the floor that appears in kata is great and hopefully will lead you to look at more groundwork and then to sort out your own system that works for you (your own kata).

The fact we are doing it, as my dad would say, ‘arse about face’ means that this confusion arises. If we were learning how to fight first and then those methods were coded into an easy to remember fashion, there would be no confusion.

Other things I want to pick up on

Tau wrote:

Consider that the first thing that the Pinan/Heian kata teach is covering and then hitting the off switches. 

This is only one interpretation of what the Heian/Pinan teach first and we need to remember  that we do not know this for certain any more than we do/do not know that there are ground fighting techniques in kata.

There is also a lot of talk about the ‘combative stand up’ which I do teach and believe is important but I think we also need to think about the possibility of being dragged down when attempting to dump or throw some when any sort of clash happens. For this you will need the positioning skills to either get out from underneath or move yourself on top so that you can escape. Again, this is not high level Ju-jitsu and striking is still key, but I see this as just as important as a ‘combative stand up’ if not more so.

As a finisher, I also have used this method from Bassai Dai to regain top position, which I also discussed in an article I wrote for Jissen some years ago, that you can read here. http://www.jissenmag.com/documents/Jissen_Issue_6.pdf

Sorry I can’t spend more time on this response and I hope to get back to this discussion soon!

Take Care!

Pages