naihanchi/tekki ground fighting

I'm certainly not adverse to people 'creating' function from kata, and this would be a great example of it.

In truth to most of us, precious little Bunkai of any real note was passed on, and looking at the majority of evidence from the early 20th century we wern't alone.

However one thing that doesn't help this chaps Bunkai (im not sure he is making any claims apart from working it this way of course) is that there is very little, or no evidence to suggest Naihanchi kata had this function on Okinawa, where I believe the kata (as we have it) was 'made' (clearly from Chinese Sources).

Also fundamentally Naihanchi Dachi is about grounding, power generation etc etc and these things do not relate to ground fighting in the same manner as stand up as defined in the kata.

However I read his blog, and enjoyed his presentation it certainly was interesting and valid in many ways.

That's a great article. Thanks for posting the link Ron. We practice a small number of ground fighting drills inspired by Naihanchi, one of which looks very much like this one. We find that they work well against an uncompliant partner. Their authenticity isn't a consideration. They are short, simple and low skill/high percentage, which suits our approach perfectly. We take Iain's lead that kata are a record of principles, not techniques. We don't claim to do what the masters of old did, but to seek what they sought.

shoshinkanuk wrote:

However one thing that doesn't help this chaps Bunkai (im not sure he is making any claims apart from working it this way of course) is that there is very little, or no evidence to suggest Naihanchi kata had this function on Okinawa, where I believe the kata (as we have it) was 'made' (clearly from Chinese Sources).

Also fundamentally Naihanchi Dachi is about grounding, power generation etc etc and these things do not relate to ground fighting in the same manner as stand up as defined in the kata.

I don't know of any kata that are performed from a prone position. Does that mean that the ancient Okinawans didn't practise newaza? We know that they did. Funokoshi writes about practicing grappling in his youth in Okinawa. Why would they record the principles of self-protection from a standing position and not from a prone one? My suggestion (and I feel sure I'm not alone in this) is that the principles of both vertical and horizontal grappling are found in the kata.

Hi Lee,

There is of course cross over, kata CAN be used for many things and ground fighting does share principles with stand up, but it also has it's own requirements that differ. (one of the main ones being how base is made in terms of being on your back, not on your feet).

I would be interested in your sources re Funakoshi Sensei and grappling, from memory he talks about Tegumi/Okinawna Sumo and not specifically ground fighting (However I do believe Tegumi contained ground fighting, essentially just like any other historical wrestling method).

There is little evidence to suggest the esscence of Tegumi was contained in kata, looking at the historical evidence there would seem to be little/no real evidence to support that it was? Okinawan Sumo clearly has different training methods to Okinawan karate, but some people do both.

However and for the record I have no issues with anyone creating Bunkai that works, it's actually very much part of old karate IMO - I do it myself.

In our dojo ground fighting is a small, simple component of what we do - landing well, getting position, and getting up - all with strikes and dirty tactics, we all know wrestling on the floor is not where we want to be most of the time for self defence, but we might end up there if our primary strategies fail.

I'm fortunate as I have a good Judo and a good Jujutsu student who work this area with us all. We do teach some locks on the floor of course as they do have utility in the right situation - we could reverse engineer most of these back into kata but choose not to as I found some of the core principles simply do not match, they are not part of our Traditon.

Sometime ago I thought of what it would look like if you took Tekki shodan and did it off of your back. Feet standing on the opponents hips. It was fun. Don't really see it as the original concept for the kata but it works. 

On that note, I've also found that Unsu is a heavy grappling kata in the same way. Another fun one to experiment with. 

 Remember,  Most of the historical examples we have for stand up techniques using kata concepts are for the most part impractical. But yet we understand really pratical applications for them.  A lot of the stuff Iain shows in his examples are very practical and are only hinted in some of what ever documentation has survived.   Shoshin Nagamine hinted about mma like fighting in his second book,  the Real Tegumi.  If we are to believe that any todi martial art was really meant for fighting then it would have to contain all ranges of fighting because that's what a fight is. The practitioners of the day may have not been specialist in the are of Ground fighting but it would have contained what was absolute essential to know to servive enough to bring the fight to where you want it and get out of the situation. An arm bar standing, sitting, or liying down would still be use to break and arm or move assailant to where you want them. (Not submission) Naihanchi was taught to be fighting with your back against something. The floor is something. As a practitioner you are supposed to learn to adapt the concepts you gain from kata to some other situations. Just how I understand it . 

Dom

diadicic wrote:

The practitioners of the day may have not been specialist in the are of Ground fighting but it would have contained what was absolute essential to know to survive enough to bring the fight to where you want it and get out of the situation.

Funakoshi talks about training to get up from the ground as part of the Tegumi of his youth (getting up being the key self-protection ground skill). Ground work will never have been a big part of training (i.e. nothing close to Judo and Jujutsu levels), but any effective civilian system needs to include the basics.

diadicic wrote:

An arm bar standing, sitting, or liying down would still be use to break and arm or move assailant to where you want them. (Not submission)

It could break an arm, but that’s not guaranteed to be a fight ender. I know of a member of this forum who completely snapped a guy’s arm on the floor just to have him continue fighting. In the civilian environment it’s not locks, pins, etc we should be concentrating on, but getting up to facilitate escape. Strangles and chokes are fight finishers, but they take time to work (5 seconds or so), during which time you could be stabbed or kicked dozens of times by any third party.

Getting to the feet is a very relevant self-protection skill, chokes and strangles can have a use if it is one-on-one (and guaranteed to stay that way), but I would personally put them and locks under the banner of “fighting”. Still something we should all train and have in our repertoire, but we need to shift tactics when the environment shifts.

diadicic wrote:

Naihanchi was taught to be fighting with your back against something.

It’s common to hear that, but it’s not something I subscribe to. It’s one of these “latter day myths” that in my view arises from people not understanding how kata functions combatively. I’m unaware of anything that supports this assertion.

diadicic wrote:

As a practitioner you are supposed to learn to adapt the concepts you gain from kata to some other situations. Just how I understand it

That’s how I understand it too. Kata is made up of combative techniques that illustrate combative principles. We can adapt and fight in line with those principles and that should include ensuring we understand the application of those principles in both vertical and horizontal positions.

Back to the orginal post: I see Naihanchi as a stand up kata, but the principles on which those technique rest can be applied on the ground. Saying that the principles are applicable on the ground is different from saying the techniques are directly applicable though. I don't therefore think that Naihanchi can be considered a "ground fighting kata". The example Ron links to is very interesting though.

All the best,

Iain