Ground fighting in the Takamatsuden

This is interesting, as there are techniques for it in the Bujinkan curriculum. Did you have a reason for not training in groundwork?

 

Not sure what you talking about.:dunno:

What would you call fighting when you are not standing and are either sitting or laying on the ground?

It has been pointed out that our curriculum varies in certain ways from other forms of ground fighting, and some of the ideas and techniques have been explained. If you are expecting to see a no gi bjj match when you look at Takamatsuden groundwork, you will be disappointed. However, there are definitely techniques and principles that could be used in that context as well.

Takamatsuden fighting principles are somewhat different to boxing, but that doesn't mean that you can't compare the two or that one is somehow not standup fighting for whatever reason.

 

There are commonalities in anything good.

Physics and the human body hasnt changed in the last 2000 plus years.

If you see something very unusual with no commonalities its either a) because its so amazingly rare /hidden etc b) its terrible. And its more often B then A!

 

There are rules in the bjkn too, for example any move is fine, but they uke doesnt resist you.

How do you feel about Fubi from SFR. Its essentially jumping guard followed by a double heel backwards sweep. -

 

I think you are confusing groundwork with waza, I learnt plenty of techniques but in a Judo groundwork is actual fighting, randori on the ground. I am guessing you may not have done much of this.

 

What I mean in terms of rules, as to what is permitted to learn and practice in training, for instance you will often see Soke stiking towards the throat, eye or lower region, obviously this has to be trained with, with caution to prevent injury in training. But we are not concerned with injury in real life scenario, quite the opposite.

I am not sure about your question regarding fubi, please can you explain.

 

What do you think about the comment the MMA guys throw around?

"Martial arts has changed more in the last 20 years than the 2000 years before it".

I hear Joe Rogan say that a lot.

 

I would say that it is utter crap. If you would state that they have changed more in the last say 200 years than in the 2000 years before that you could agree, because of the advent of fire arms. But the way the human body, a punch, a knife etc, functions has not changed that much.
Maybe the people proclaiming this have not been exposed to proper martial arts and consider sports like Judo and Karate to be ancient arts. If you compare what they do to that, possibly a comment like that can be explained...

Regards, Tom.

 

I'm not confusing anything. You yourself stated that you didn't do virtually any groundwork for a number of years, I was asking why as there is groundwork in the curriculum.

An almost 20 year break from groundwork… So you either didn't learn the techniques that have groundwork or you didn't practice them. I was asking for clarification on which it was?

I have not only learned the kata, but practiced them and sparred with them, including with people outside our organization. In addition I have competed in competitions that included ground fighting, so I am well aware of the difference between kata geiko, sparring, competition, and actual fighting.

 

Joe rogan says a lot i agree with, and a lot i dont, Popular martial arts have changed a lot since the 60's, but if you compare oldschool judo to todays bjj, sumai to wrestling, old muey thai to dutch kickboxing, gekken to kendo, old jujutsu to new judo etc all the root concepts can still be seen, theyve developed definatly, but physics is physics. (Which helio invented in 1906)

 

Again though, that has nothing to do with this thread or the actual groundwork found in these ryu.

For many, it would seem that the inclusion or reliance of things from outside the Takamatsuden comes from a lack of exposure to what these arts already include, or previous background.

As the first kata in Shinden Fudo's jutaijutsu starts one learning how to move from a seated position to a supine one, it would seem that they considered knowing how to transition to fighting from one's back important. Of course, there is a whole range of zasabaki that deals with moving from this position, the same can be said for Takagi, although the Takagi's curriculum of groundfighitng is a bit more extensive.

 

The way oldschool martial arts are practised has also changed considerably.

Any young badass who wanted to make a reputation wouldnt take up a koryu anymore.

 

Fubi involves jumping onto the ground with a man between your legs soas to sweep him into an inferior position.

You state that the bjkn is about avoiding the ground at all costs. Fubi contradicts this statement.

So you also agree that pretending to strike anywhere is a rule just as only really striking with gloves on is also a rule. So why not do both?

 

I believe fubi also suggests returning to your feet ASAP.

So not sure of your point.

Though I have only skim-read up to now.

 

My point is since their are many sutemi waza In the bjkn his point that their is no newaza is incorrect, as his assertion that bjkn tactics demand always disenguaging asap is also incorrect.

The takamatsuden is a large and varied collection of schools, and as such has a large and varied collection of techniques and tactics..... some of which presuppose a working knowledge of groundfighting, wrestling, and general warrior skills that often todays practitioner doesnt know.

 

I see good point, but I see these as two completely different things, the point I made earlier was getting of the ground as quick as possible, and yes there are good few sacrifice throws and we have no problem hitting and using the ground hence kaiten etc, but as in fubi the idea is to knock your appoinent to the ground and use the heel kick to propel yourself backwards and roll and up before them.

 

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&so...r-gcgD&usg=AFQjCNFKv1ng04p8MC9yOUEgLVnY_-DV_A

owever its the same position as the BJJ open guard vs standing, with mechanically the same sweep which when I hit I always come to the top (forward technical standup not a backwards kaiten like the omoto version) so tactically they are pretty much the same.


Video for people

Their used to be video of manaka sensei showing this in america finishing with a calf crush submission at the end.

Cant find it at the moment.

 

Dunc, I'd say, overall, the first three points of your experience reflect a strategy and approach for those of us with limited Japan/Japanese Shihan exposure, when learning to deal with arts with strong specialization, be it ground fighting, boxing, whatever. This is the classical "don't box a boxer" mentality. By exploring the "stages" of such an encounter, one can learn how to apply Bujinkan principles and techniques at each stage. The success rate is generally higher the earlier in the encounter the attack is controlled. Two things are necessary, in my experience:

1) A Bujinkan instructor who has internalized enough of what he or she has been shown/taught to be able to apply the principles correctly in both kata and henka.

2) An uke who has at least a "middle level" set of skills in the "other" art.

We in the Bujinkan suffer from a lack of these. Too many instructors create "henka" out of nothing, and too few people know how to be good uke, and lack sufficient skills to emulate other arts. Dunc's approach of working with a BJJ purple belt addresses item 2, an approach I've used to learn to work against boxers and wrestlers.

As for necessity 1, it's either do a lot of hunting (there are people out there who do have this capability) or go to Japan and get a relationship going with a Japanese Shihan .

 

This surprises me, as it was not my experience at all. If I may ask what was the context of this sparring?


How do you get on with blue and purple belts now?