13 posts / 0 new
Last post
Anf
Anf's picture
Kata / hyung / forms on the ground and other weak positions

Hi all.

Since migrating to the grappling arts, and regularly seeing karate but from the perspective of 90 degrees to the vertical, my overactive mind has been going crazy. I'm wondering if there's any logic to my thoughts on this. I've been very, very wrong before when it comes to martial arts theory. I might be just as wrong this time. Or I might have had an epiphany. Let's see what we all think.

Some of the techniques I had previously dismissed as highly impractical with a high energy cost and low probability of success, suddenly make a lot of sense when laid on your back. Consider for example, jumping scissor roundhouse kick. Probably nidan mawashigeri if I remember the Japanese terminology right, or e Dan tollyo chaki in Korean. We fling the left knee up, kind of twist and jump, then roundhouse with the right. I always thought I can get more speed, power, accuracy from the vanilla roundhouse, and being more stable, just as much height. Therefore this kick is pointless. Switch to a ground game, now the left knee comes up to protect you from being kicked in the ribs, and to double as counterbalance as you fling the right leg over to kick, or simply generate the momentum to quickly get back onto your feet.

I keep seeing kata elements in grappling too, often on the ground. What I previously thought of as an utterly pointless sort of side on awkward downward backfast while twisting from horse stance to a long front stance as found in passai for example, appeared in my first ever bjj class as a way of breaking guard.

So I get to thinking. Given that everyone knows that you can't fight unless you can fight on the ground or from a weak position, why are forms predominantly standing up?

If forms are combat moves, why are some moves done very slowly, or in some exaggerated way?

OK, if I'm training solo, I don't really want to roll around on the floor. Apart from getting my clothes dirty or damaged, I don't want passersby to think I'm completely weird. Tai chi folks get more than their fair share of stock, and they're upright.

Why do so many karate folks think that the chin should be up and back straight at all times? Why do we bow? Bowing is an act of making the other person bigger than you. You make yourself lower than them.

So what if kata / hyung / forms equally represent ground work and standing? But what if the reason they are predominantly done upright is simply a matter of convenience or perhaps a cultural element?

What if then, when looking for applications to forms, instead of looking exclusively for standing applications, we get down on the mats and see what we can use them for when someone is trying to submit us?

deltabluesman
deltabluesman's picture

Anf,

I'll share my thoughts.  It's certainly a question worth asking, and I do think there can be some carryover.  Ultimately, though, it's my strong opinion that only a few kata maneuvers are directly applicable to the ground.  Yes, there are a handful of exceptions: 

• For example, there's a sequence in Heian Godan where you apply a lock to a downed enemy, and it's something you could also pull off from side control (or from the guard, if you adapt it).

• There are wrist locks that work just as well (if not better) on the ground. 

• If your kata has a pressure point manipulation (like grinding into the weak spot behind the ear), you can sometimes get that to work on the ground. 

• Some of the trapping will work on the ground (as we mentioned in another thread).    

• Some of the strikes in kata can be adapted for use on the ground.  (For example, you learn hammerfist from Heian Shodan, so then you start striking with it from top side control.)

• Once you learn a collar choke from a kata, you can figure out how to do it on the ground.

Having said that, I would say that the principles of kata can work on the ground . . . so they are indirectly applicable.  For example, once you learn the standing armbar in Heian Nidan and other kata, you could say that a standard armbar from mount or guard is an expression of the exact same principle (only you're using the hips instead of your hands).  If we wanted to be overly careful with language, we might say that those applications are consistent with the principles of the kata, even though they're on the ground.

I don't want to come across as dismissive, but in my experience, even these indirect applications tend to only give you surface-level material that doesn't go very far.  Since there are so many cutting-edge BJJ and MMA practitioners active in 2019, I think it's better to start with their material for the ground.  The positional details tend to matter much more than the actual maneuver itself.  For example, I've understood the basic principle of locking the shoulder with a kimura for a long time.  I've seen the connections that run with some kata applications and with other techniques (like omoplata).  But it wasn't until I went deeper, focusing on the position and the set-ups, that I started to get reliable results.  And those deeper details are usually best taught by experts in those subjects.  On the positive side, this is why I think BJJ is such an excellent complement to karate.

At the end of the day, I just think that fighting on the ground is a different beast to fighting on the feet.  I've done both for a while now, and I can't say that practicing one makes me much better at the other.  They really are separate worlds.

(I have a totally different view of karate's interaction with stand-up clinch fighting.  In that range, karate has direct application and can be very useful on its own.)

Still a question worth asking though, and an analysis worth doing.    

Dennis Krawec
Dennis Krawec's picture

It certainly would seem that ground fighting applications in karate kata are few and far between, overlooked in favour of stand up fighting, and mostly used as a means of escaping/getting up from the ground (from the viewpoint that being on the ground is not beneficial for self defence).

Though this is not a new topic on this forum either, here is a prior post I found; https://www.iainabernethy.co.uk/content/does-kata-teach-ground-techniques

I found a video series by Jesse Encamp  https://gumroad.com/l/newaza, and Other videos I found take some elements from Tekki/Naihanchi and apply them to ground fighting;

https://www.iainabernethy.co.uk/content/naihanchi-tekki-ground-punch-drill

 

I’ve come to view that karate is what you make of it;  a sport, means of meditation & health, self-defense, and a means of killing (from military perpestive). It all depends on how you wish to use it. For the extremely little western boxing experience I have, I have found myself more readily seeing applications related to boxing from the kata; just as you (Anf) have started seeing relations from kata to your current MMA training. To that end I say keep exploring, keep reviewing and working kata for ground applications. I vaguely remember reading something from ‘Tao of Jeet Kun Do’ that goes along the lines of making use of kata, but not to blindly follow it. Who knows perhaps in a couple of years you could be travelling and giving special seminars on karate and ground fighting applications.

Anf
Anf's picture

Hi

Thanks for the insights and input. Certainly there is plenty to think about and explore.

But just to clarify though, I'm not saying that I try to apply kata to the ground. In fact after a few months I think I've just about managed to get my mind to stop trying to compare arts. What I'm saying is that while focusing 100% on what I'm being taught and shown in grappling, trying to view it entirely with fresh eyes, I keep recognising things from karate. And it's not kind 9f a little bit like it if you use your imagination, it's pretty much exactly the same.

What I've found though is that when viewed from outside, ie when I'm watching our instructor and one other on the mat, sometimes I'll see the movement immediately but when I go to do it, for no other reason than that I'm on the ground and gravity is obviously acting at different angles so it feels different, I struggle to remember the motion. For example, the instructor once showed us how he moves around the opponent in side control, to move to a better position to acquire an arm bar. I watched his legs move through various stances, his hips shuffled, arms moved all exactly like an element of one of my most basic beginner forms that involve a rather exaggerated turn into a block. I wasn't looking for that, that's just what I spotted. I couldn't make it work though when it was my turn to try. Why? Simply because it feels different and I've practiced for so long to feel the movement rather than simply mimicking mechanical movements. Perhaps that's just one of many things I've not got quite right.

deltabluesman
deltabluesman's picture

Sure, I see what you mean.  I think that's a different animal:  it sounds like you are focusing 100% on what is being taught, then going back after the fact to connect it with karate.  Plus, there's a teacher to correct you.  That could be helpful and may help you remember some of the motions.  

My primary problem is with the other direction:  taking kata bunkai and trying to apply it to the ground.  Or, learning the basics of a groundfighting technique and then trying to backfill details from kata.  It's a case-by-case basis, but most of the time it doesn't work well on its own. 

I realize you are talking about a different approach, but let me just clarify what I mean.  For example, karate sensei teaches standing armbars from Heian Nidan and Heian Sandan.  In the same class, he teaches armbars from guard, from mount, and side control.  At first glance, it seems like a great class.  He applied the principles of kata to different positions.  And for a few talented students, that might be enough.  But in my view, even this approach is flawed.  

Better approach:  karate sensei teaches essential kata (over a fairly long period of time).  At some point, advanced students start to learn the basics of position on the floor (guard/mount/side control for now).  They learn some transitions and escapes.  They introduce striking.  This soaks in for a while.  Then, after that's understood, karate sensei goes back and spends 45 minutes teaching the kimura from guard to those students.  He connects it with a similar shoulder lock from a kata sequence.  Just one variation, broken down into detail.  For the next two weeks, they drill it against varying levels of resistance (maybe for the last 20 minutes of their karate class).  They connect it with a sweep (quick example:  https://youtu.be/vPNx9jWz1qc?t=191).  They work in strikes.  They problem solve.  Then, for the next month, they look at basic strikes from mount and side control.  Later on, they learn the kimura from side control.  And so on.  At the end of that, the student might draw a connection with parts of kata.  But that's backed up by a deep understanding of the details.    

Even better approach:  karate sensei devises simple curriculum for ground fighting.  He does the best he can to provide useful material that can be covered in a reasonable amount of time.  He uses whatever is most effective for those purposes, even if it doesn't link up with kata principles.  Every now and then, he may draw a connection to kata, but only if it comes up on its own, and only after the fact.  I think this is the ideal way to do it.  So that's why I draw a sharp line between ground fighting and kata bunkai. 

(In your case, I know you are cross-training in different arts.  So my examples won't apply 100% to your situation, because you'll have to develop skill sets for different contexts.  And if you can use kata principles as a way to remember the stuff you're doing in class, so much the better.)

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Hi All,

Anf wrote:
Given that everyone knows that you can't fight unless you can fight on the ground or from a weak position, why are forms predominantly standing up?

I’d say it because the vast majority of situations start standing up and the ground is a very bad place to be tactically when third parties are always a possibility ( https://youtu.be/apahr0ujVJU ).  Karate’s civilian nature mean stand up methods are strongly emphasised and favoured.  

Funakoshi talks about practising fighting his way back to his feet as a boy in Okinawa; Itoman tells us there are ground techniques in karate, but they are not as well developed as the methods in Judo; there are also photos of the likes of Seiyu Nakasone showing ground-fighting locks, and Funakoshi overseeing a class where two student are fighting on the floor; etc. So, Karate did include elementary ground-fighting (worst case scenario stuff), but we don’t see the nuanced and highly developed ground methods we would associate with BBJ, MMA or Judo.

I think it is a stretch to claim that a significant number of vertical methods in the kata were intended to be applied on the ground. That’s not to say they can’t be adapted for use on the floor, or that it’s not an interesting thing to explore, but I’m unconvinced the kata, by design and intent, are effectively turned 90 degrees such that the vertical is horizontal. There’s not the historical info to support that idea; and it makes little sense to practise techniques in that fashion.

Anf wrote:
If forms are combat moves, why are some moves done very slowly, or in some exaggerated way?

Sometimes it is to make a detail clear. Sometimes it is to emphasise that the motion is applied with steady pressure and not ballistic force i.e. it’s a push not a strike. Sometimes it’s simply because someone thought it looked cool. And so on.

Anf wrote:
So what if kata / hyung / forms equally represent ground work and standing? But what if the reason they are predominantly done upright is simply a matter of convenience or perhaps a cultural element?

We can use the kata that way, but I don’t think they were intended to be used that way for the aforementioned reasons. There’s nothing to support the idea historically and functionally I think it would be a highly questionable practise. There are lots of key ground motions you can’t replicate standing up because only the soles of your feet are in contact with the ground. The mind boggles at what things like shrimping and bridging would look like if you tired to replicate them standing up … we certainly don’t see anything like that in kata.

deltabluesman wrote:
Having said that, I would say that the principles of kata can work on the ground . . . so they are indirectly applicable.  For example, once you learn the standing armbar in Heian Nidan and other kata, you could say that a standard armbar from mount or guard is an expression of the exact same principle (only you're using the hips instead of your hands).  If we wanted to be overly careful with language, we might say that those applications are consistent with the principles of the kata, even though they're on the ground.

Totally agree.

deltabluesman wrote:
I don't want to come across as dismissive, but in my experience, even these indirect applications tend to only give you surface-level material that doesn't go very far …

… But it wasn't until I went deeper, focusing on the position and the set-ups, that I started to get reliable results.  And those deeper details are usually best taught by experts in those subjects.

I agree again. The principles of striking, limb control, gripping, locking, choking etc can be applied horizontally as well as vertically. However, that does not give you the “delivery system” needed to apply those methods in an efficent way.

The self-defence focused karateka does not need the highly level skills that grapplers need when they grapple each other; and devoting a disproportionate amount of training time to ground-work would mean there is less time for the primary methods; and that could lead to unfocused training. However, learning solid fundamentals is important.

Anf wrote:
What if then, when looking for applications to forms, instead of looking exclusively for standing applications, we get down on the mats and see what we can use them for when someone is trying to submit us?

I think we should be looking to apply the kata vertically as presented by the kata. We can explore how the principles of the kata can be applied horizontally, but to do that effectively we need fundamental ground skills to be in place. I’d also say that if the other person is “trying to submit us” then we are in the realm of consensual fighting and hence outside the scope of the traditional kata.

When we keep it in the realm of civilian non-consensual violence, advanced grappler vs. grappler skills are not relevant; just as advanced striker vs. striker skills are also not relevant. It’s the combative skills relevant to non-consensual violence that the kata focuses on (Itosu, Motobu, et al) and they should be understood in that context. As modern karateka we may wish to expand our remit and also include consensual fighting methods too (we do), but kata would not be part of that.

All the best,

Iain

Anf
Anf's picture

Great input as always on here. Many thanks. But there are still things that don't quite fit for me.

Karate is an excellent, well rounded art and combat system. That much is clear. Even the MMA folks, some of whom dismiss it, show plenty of karate in their style. Old masters of bygone times could never form a system of combat and pass it off as effective if it wasn't effective. Yet with no training at all, your average dude who maybe grew up in a less than perfect neighbourhood not only knows how to fight, but also knows that real fights are rarely a striking contest and will often end up with two or more people trying to throw each other, drag or otherwise man handle each other, even if it's just to get someone into a more convenient position to repeatedly hit them. A combat system that ceases to exist as soon as the practicioner is on his back is not a combat system at all, but rather a sport or game. I find it difficult to believe that a system that enjoys global popularity as a practical self defence system can ignore the reality that fighting is incredibly hard work and absolutely requires the ability to get out of a weak situation. So taking these factors into account, and seeing karate movements in grappling, I find it hard to believe its pure chance.

I do recognise that being on the ground is a terrible idea. It's nearly as bad as it gets. But we have to acknowledge that unless we're some sort of machine, if we get into a fight, there is a high probability that despite our skills, we will at some point end up grappling, possibly from the floor.

The way I see it, you have two chouxes from the floor. 1. Get back up as soon as possible, while doing your best to prevent getting beaten while you do so, or 2.cover up as best you can and pray that your attackers will get bored or show mercy or get chased away by someone else before you stop being at least approximately person shaped. I find it hard to believe that a combat system as successful as karate would not choose option 1, and gave well practiced skills to enable it.

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Anf wrote:
A combat system that ceases to exist as soon as the practitioner is on his back is not a combat system at all, but rather a sport or game.

We do need to cover worse case scenarios … and they did as per the references in the above post.

It is of course possible to turn being on your back into a highly elaborate game; as has been done. Ending up on the floor is something that all self-protection focused practitioners need to address. However, they don’t need to cover things like ankle locks, knee bars, passing guard, counter-submissions, etc. That’s not part of criminal behaviour and statistically highly unlikely. What we do need to cover is getting back up, avoiding kicks and strikes when downed, etc.

Anf wrote:
I find it difficult to believe that a system that enjoys global popularity as a practical self defence system can ignore the reality that fighting is incredibly hard work and absolutely requires the ability to get out of a weak situation.

They didn’t ignore it. The requirements of the situations they were training for where covered. They did not focus on out-grappling grapplers in a consensual fight though. Trying to “win” on the ground is highly dangerous in a self-protection context.

 

Anf wrote:
The way I see it, you have two choices from the floor. 1. Get back up as soon as possible, while doing your best to prevent getting beaten while you do so, or 2.cover up as best you can and pray that your attackers will get bored or show mercy or get chased away by someone else before you stop being at least approximately person shaped. I find it hard to believe that a combat system as successful as karate would not choose option 1 and gave well practiced skills to enable it.

They did. Definitely something covered. Funakoshi describes doing it in live drills in Okinawa (singles and multiples); Mabuni shows some examples in his writing; There are examples in the Bubishi; Itoman talks about it; etc. There are some a small number of such methods in kata too (i.e. kicks and takedowns from the floor in Unsu). Karate definitely addressed the basics of getting up. It’s there, but the logical way to practice ground-work is on the ground. We have descriptions, drawings and photos of that. We don’t have evidence of numerous horizontal methods being practised in a vertical way in kata. Basic ground-work was covered on the ground: not in the vertical movements within kata.

There is absolutely nothing that suggest numerous techniques shown vertically in the kata were intended to be applied horizontally. Not a single one of the past masters mentioned this. When you add this complete lack of supporting evidence to the practical fact that it would be a terrible way to record and reinforce ground methods, I think the logical position to take is that vertical methods in kata are meant to be applied vertically. There maybe some coincidental similarities, but that’s it. To paraphrase Sigmund Freud, sometimes a cross step in kata is just a cross step [not “pulling guard”].

All the best,

Iain

Anf
Anf's picture

I don't doubt that escaping from weak positions and defending from the ground is karate. It simply must be. Karate is just too successful over too broad an audience and too wide a span of time to be lacking something so fundamental.

But I never really saw it until I moved away from karate and its variants.

This might simply be because I never trained for long enough. But I struggle with that as a reason, because if a self defence system takes many years to learn even the basics, then it is ineffective.

It may also be because the schools I attended didn't cover such things at all. The last one I left openly admitted that they didn't because their focus was 'on not ending up on the floor in the first place'. I could accept this as a reason except for one thing. I and many others have also trained in other styles of karate and under different instructors at different points in time, yet all those I know personally, which I fully understand is only a very small percentage of katateka, accept that they have no ground skills, and those that want to plug that gap invariably look outside of karate to do so.

Yet the fact remains, karate is successful. Most katateka with more than a few years experience could easily kick my butt, and I believe that is still the case now I've started to add in ground work and grappling. And I regularly see the exact physical motions that I did as a karateka, that I could never rationalise at the time, but in a different context in which their efficacy is clear.

I'm happy to concede that kata is supposed to be taken as is. In considering otherwise I'm merely exploring ideas.

So we are left with a puzzle.

We know that karate is a successful and diverse system of self defence.

We know that old masters would not be revered for their fighting skills if the local chavs could easily floor them then stamp on them.

We know that the old masters were humsn, and as such had the potential to lose their balance, be caught off guard, make mistakes, or simply be overpowered and end up on their backs.

Yet we don't really see much I'm the way of ground work in kata, certainly at the kata that are typically taught to lower or intermediate grsdes.

So the thing I struggle with is this. If kata is to be taken literally, quite simply, where is the self defence from a weak position, particularly from the ground?

Dennis Krawec
Dennis Krawec's picture

Anf, I would still say keep working kata to see what and how something may fit for ground application. Particularly escapes and manouvers that allow you to quicky gain the upper hand apply a few strikes, and move away, from the context that being on the ground is overall a detrimental position to be in unless the fight is for sport, or strictly consensual one on one violence.

However, for the four real fights I have been in, only one has been mono a mono combat. All the others involved, or the had the possibility of multiple adversaries.

Anf
Anf's picture
Dennis Krawec wrote:

Anf, I would still say keep working kata to see what and how something may fit for ground application. Particularly escapes and manouvers that allow you to quicky gain the upper hand apply a few strikes, and move away, from the context that being on the ground is overall a detrimental position to be in unless the fight is for sport, or strictly consensual one on one violence.

However, for the four real fights I have been in, only one has been mono a mono combat. All the others involved, or the had the possibility of multiple adversaries.

I totally agree. And just for clarity, I'm not saying that BJJ or any other specialised ground system is suddenly the be all and end all. Not for one second. I've seen my fair share of fights and been in one or two to know that one on one consensual rolling on a mat with no broken glass on it and no spilled beer and nobody else trying to kick you in the head is nothing like fighting. But it's not in thd advanced stuff where I see movements that are familiar to me from karate. In fact I'm not advanced in grappling in any way. I see it throughout the basics. Furthermore, I only train the ground stuff with the objective being to get back to my feet.

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Hi Anf,

Anf wrote:
So the thing I struggle with is this. If kata is to be taken literally, quite simply, where is the self defence from a weak position, particularly from the ground?

In other drills:

Iain Abernethy wrote:
It’s there, but the logical way to practice ground-work is on the ground. We have descriptions, drawings and photos of that. We don’t have evidence of numerous horizontal methods being practised in a vertical way in kata. Basic ground-work was covered on the ground: not in the vertical movements within kata.

Here are some photo examples that I have ready access to from this laptop that show karateka involved in ground-work in varying contexts:

Top Left: Gichin Funakoshi (on the left in black) teaching in Wasada University in the 1930s. The pair on the right are fighting on the floor.

Top Right: Kenwa Mabuni showing a tripping possibility to facilitate regaining the feet.

Bottom Left: Seiyu Nakasone showing a ground-based lock (martially interesting; but not relevant to self-protection).

Bottom Right: Tatsuo Suzuki showing Juji-Gatame from one of Wado-Ryu’s drills (a consensual fighting method in my view).

The groundwork in true traditional karate is very basic – and nowhere near as well developed as in dedicated grappling systems; a point that Itoman makes in his book – but it’s there. It’s just not in kata, in a widespread way, for the aforementioned reasons.

Anf wrote:
But I never really saw it until I moved away from karate and its variants. This might simply be because I never trained for long enough.

It depends who you train with; more than how long you train. Not all modern karate dojo include ground-work. We start on it at yellow belt level and all subsequent levels include some ground-work; including holds, escapes, locks, chokes, and, of course, live practise. We also have a two-person ground fighting kata which I have taught to some members here at seminars (it’s also on the app). Ground-work is also a part of pretty much all of the karate groups in the British Combat Karate Association and the World Combat Association (the groups I belong to); with the only exception being those groups in the process of making the transition from a more 3k approach.

Anf wrote:
… and those that want to plug that gap invariably look outside of karate to do so.

It’s wise to consult with the experts and see if we can improve what we have within karate; and to plug gaps if an element is missing from our specific version of karate. It’s what karate should do:

“[My teachers] would present me to the teachers of their acquaintance, urging me to learn from each the technique at which he excelled.” – Gichin Funakoshi

Today, this could mean a karateka studying under a BJJ / Judo instructor to learn the ground-work at which they excel. Half of the instructors in my dojo have also studied judo.

Again, as pragmatic karateka, we are not primarily interested in the methods designed for out-grappling grapplers in a consensual fight; so we need to select what is useful in that regard and contextualise appropriately. Most of what we learn for a consensual fighting context will have no relevance to non-consensual violence; but the skills that are relevant are extremely well developed in systems like BJJ, Judo, Wrestling, etc.

Pragmatic karateka also need to remember how ground-work fits within the wider training program. It should not be over emphasised to the detriment of other skills. We need to get the solid basics in place that would help us regain our feet should the worst happen. If I had to put a level on it, I would say that a karate dan grade should have ground skills comparable with a judo orange belt. Correctly contextualised, we don’t need skills beyond that for self-protection purposes. We seek to excel at striking and close-range vertical combat; but we don’t need to excel at ground-work. We can’t be experts in everything: the key is to focus on the most relevant skills and ensure we are beginners at nothing.

All the best,

Iain

 PS From a wider martial arts perspective, there is much that can be gained from also studying consensual ground fighting skills. However, in this thread I want to remain focused on how ground-work relates to both kata and self-protection.

Neil Babbage
Neil Babbage's picture

We have occasionally tried out Iain's bunkai for the Heian series from different positions: one knee on the ground, both knees, lying down, pressed against a wall, etc. Some of them work very effectively, some are useless or can't actually be done at all. To give an example of a useful one is the fourth drill from Heian Yondan (opponent grabs clothing in the area of the chest, you grab their hand, apply a partial wrist lock while rotating their arm to enable a takedown / elbow strke). If this is performed from a position of one knee on the ground, it enables the opponent to be brought down to your level then taken down with a modified version of the side kick used in the normal drill. I'm not implying the kata intended this application, simply that some movements have useful applications from non-standing positions.