Since the 90's when 'bunkai' and kata application started getting wider exposure, it seems like Karate has gone through a number of phases as regards 'grappling' interpretations of kata.
I've seen everything from a simple shoulder lock to Osoto gari, to a supposed complete groundfighting set for naihanchin. Like everyone else, i've learned and employ plenty of throws, locks, etc. in Karate, so this is not a thread about whether that stuff is "in kata", or whether we should know some of it... i'm guessing almost everyone will agree on those things.
Sometimes I wonder thoughj, when does "grappling" in Karate go too far? Do we sometimes give too much time to a secondary skillset?
If you look up some random youtube videos, you can find whole grappling sets' for some kata, some of these videos are quite good technically, and some are just strange. Some fit well with the kata movements, and some are a big stretch.
This isn't a question about whether you should know that stuff, or about whether Okinawans knew how to grapple, I go on the assumption that the answer is yes to both of those on some level. However, sometimes I do wonder with Kata application whether obvious and quite effective uses of technique are being overlooked in favor of (often more complex) grappling-centric ones. The thing is, some say that Kata can be whatever you want it to be, this is true..but i also wonder if maybe it isn't worth thinking a bit about what the kata creators actually intended, or at least our version of what they intended. In this case, do we really think that someone ever intended a groundfighting set for Naihanchin, or intended Karate to emphasize complex lock flows and similar?
Again, this is not advocating block-kick-punch "3 k" kata application, it's a larger question of strategy in how people view kata.
P.S. Apologies is this is a thread that has been done to death already, if so we can call it quits!