Double arm block in Heian Sandan

[TheHighlander]

1st post on the forum here.

I have been learning Heian Sandan recently and was wondering what other's interpretation of the double arm block is?

Depending on which sensei I am working with in class, I get a little bit different answer.

The head sensei brings the cocked arm forward hard into the forearm of the extended arm (both arms end up almost elbow-to-elbow), then goes into more of circular double block. All while standing straight up.

One of the assistant senseis does more of a double punch, the down arm aimed for the groin and the up arm toward the neck/chin. He bobs on each switch of the arms to get some power to drive the punches.

[Wa-No-Michi]

If we are talking about the sequence at the start of the kata, they are blocks not punches.

Soto-uke and barai-uke done in unison.

From the brief desciption you have given, I would say your head sensei is more on the money, but remember you will always learn from others, so I would ask the assistant instructor as to his take on this move.

WNM

Ps welcome to the Forums

[Kuma]

Wa-No-Michi: Why couldn't they be interpreted as strikes though? I learned from both of the karate styles I've been involved with (Goju and Kyokushin) that in many cases the preparatory movements of the block can be considered the actual block itself, and the "block" is actually a strike.

There's a great book out called "75 Down Blocks", all concentrating on gedan barai but applicable to every karate technique. A good read.

[Wa-No-Michi]

Wa-No-Michi: Why couldn't they be interpreted as strikes though? I learned from both of the karate styles I've been involved with (Goju and Kyokushin) that in many cases the preparatory movements of the block can be considered the actual block itself, and the "block" is actually a strike.

You can interpret them how you like. But strictly speaking when performing the kata, they are blocks.

WNM

[bushido_man96]

I have read that the Japanese translation of the word "uke" is more practically "to receive" or "to accept," or something along those lines, instead of "block." So, you can take that into account when interpretting movements, as well.

Welcome to KF.

[Wa-No-Michi]

Right Bushido_man.

Uke or Ukemi has its origins in the reference to the person who "receives"a technique in paired kata / waza

The term block in its literal sense does not translate directly into Uke as to block implies to immediately stop something in its path.

Uke to receive on the other hand implies force is not met with force but rather the energy is redirected.

This is why the first techniques in pinan sandan should be approached (in terms of kata performance at least) as redirecting techniques (blocks as we know them in karate) and not offensive techniques.

But a block is a strike and a strike a block etc. There is no reason why a Gedan Barai could not be performed with the intention of using the tetsui (bottom fist) as a strike to the opponents groin.

But now we have moved away from kata performance and are entering the realms of Ohyo.

WNM

[bushido_man96]

Good show, WNM. I'd say we are on the same page there. I do like the term "block" when speaking in generalities for learning a form, as it simplifies things.

[sensei8]

Did someone say Bunkai?

Bunkai can be obvious or elusive depending on the technique(s) in question, the moves preceding and following it, and the individual practitioner.

Funy thing I'm noticing here is that Wa-No-Michi tells TheHighlander..."If we are talking about the sequence at the start of the kata, they are blocks not punches." Many times I've heard practitioners tell other practitioners that the Bunkai their doing is wrong/incorrect! This is the furthest thing from the truth. Why? Because Bunkai is an interpretation belonging to THAT practitioner alone. Whether it's a shared believe between practitioners is another thing, imho.

WNM, does state it right on the money when he says..."You can interpret them how you like." Hence, Bunkai is an interpretation. Different practitioners will learn or discover alternative applications, but the Bunkai, like the Kata, varies based on the style and the teacher. Therefore, TheHighlander's instructors are both right per the Bunkai. But, the bobbing up and down while executing these sequences of the assistant instructor is something to avoid because excessive Sine Wave is the door to trouble, imho.

But strictly speaking when performing the kata, they are blocks.

Yes, this part of Pinan/Heian Sandan can be interpretated as blocks and blocks alone. But, why stop there? Kuma makes a point when he says..."Why couldn't they be interpreted as strikes though?...that in many cases the preparatory movements of the block can be considered the actual block itself, and the "block" is actually a strike." How true and very well said!

This sequence does leave one to wonder and question about the many possibilites in Bunkai. Yet, when one applies Oyo Bunkai, many things come to bear.

For example, WNM is solid as to the first of that sequence..."Soto-uke and barai-uke done in unison." But, the first of the unison doesn't HAVE TO BE a repeat of Soto-Uke and Barai-Uke because this can cause the mind to wonder if I've left my attacker still able to retaliate. Yet, after the first Soto-Uke and Barai-Uke, why can't the end of that sequence be a simultaneous Barai-Uke and Uraken Oroshi Ganmen-Uchi while stepping forward? I don't know, that's why it's Bunkai/Oyo Bunkai; it's an interpretation at best.

This is why the first techniques in pinan sandan should be approached (in terms of kata performance at least) as redirecting techniques (blocks as we know them in karate) and not offensive techniques.

Why? The summation of 'why' is to the summation of 'because'! Interpretation at work. To question is the first step to discovery.

But a block is a strike and a strike a block etc. There is no reason why a Gedan Barai could not be performed with the intention of using the tetsui (bottom fist) as a strike to the opponents groin.

Why? The summation of 'why' is to the summation of 'because'! Interpretation at work. To not question is the first step to err in judgement.

What's right? What's wrong? What's correct? What's incorrect? What's effective? What's ineffective? Only the practitioner knows of this through Bunkai/Oyo Bunkai. It's not for me to say with certainity! I've my opinions, yet, the floor reveals all.

Whatever one might say that fits in that sequence in Heian/Pinan Sandan is up to each practitioner. But to say one's wrong in their Bunkai is not up to me...or anyone else for that matter.

That being said...imho...everyone here is correct in their interpretation of Bunkai! As an instructor, I place the first stone(s) down onto my students path of discovery, then the student places the remaining stones within their path as they see fit!

We all still friends?!?

[Wa-No-Michi]

No one has mentioned Bunkai !

I think TheHighlander, was talking about learning the "embusen" and Waza as it should appear in the Kata, not Bunkai.

The latter is a separate process that exist to extract from Kata. Not the Kata itself.

I deliberately steared way from the B word. My comments were based on my understanding as to how the kata should be performed - and transmitted from master to student.

This is where you need the guiding hand of a good knowledgeable sensei imo. To guide students and allow them to realise their kata without straying too far off the path.

If the lines between Kata performance and the results of bunkai become blured, there is a risk that the intended larger purpose for practicing katas could be lost.

WNM

[Wa-No-Michi]

And why are you referring to me in your post in the third party?