Karate blocks

[balloo]

Thank you all very much for your input.

[balloo]

thank you all very much. I also agree with the idea of using arms for arms and legs for kicks. I do not like blocking kicks with my arm. The bigger mass will win. I know you can parry in such a way that it redirects rather than using force with force, but even so, I do not like taking that chance. Most of the ideas I apply come from Wing Chun, so I am trying to understand Karate a bit more. I understand all arts are great and have things to contribute.

[tallgeese]

I also look at blocking as something that is almost overemphasized in some circles. Defense is good, but many schools spend far too much time on training it with only a secondary thought given to attack, or counter attack if you will.

Many one steps I've seen are constructed around a block then a single strike, thus giving them equal weight. Certainly, I've seen many karate practitioners that will string together multiple blocks in response to an attack. Ok, they aren't getting hit, but they're not progressing the fight either. They aren't winning.

I utilize trapping maneuvers quite a bit and the same criticism can apply. Far too many people who use them start working multiple traps for apparently no other reason than to trap the same attacking arm multiple times.

Defense is important, no doubt, but it only serves to keep you in the fight so you can become the predator in the encounter. I try to stay in a "cover and crash" mentality. In other words, if attacked, I'll stifle the first attack if I can't preempt it, after that my focus become delivering offense. It's the overwhelming application of force, within reason, that wins fights, not blocking.

So, to me, one of the big differences between this and the karate mindset I've often seen is that blocking (or parrying or trapping, ect.) is merely a tool to facilitate offense. It's not an item to be practiced separately or as an item into and of itself.

[Kuma]

I get what you all are saying. In a few years that movement might come to mean more, or one might understand it better. I'll grant you that.

Respectfully, I just don't get why you'd spend that long to fully comprehend a movement. I might be in a fight tonight. That's a far cry from the 12+ years we're talking about to decode a mid-level blocking motion. Now no one, studying any sort of fighting art, will go from 0 to high speed killer in a day, but if we teach practical movements, that can increase someone effectiveness in short order, isn't that easier for a student to wrap their head around and make meaningful progress more quickly?

I also understand the concept of teaching from simple to complex tasks. Check out the progressions I use in training on that thread. They start basic and build. The problem is that every step in the chain must be effective at every level, or the whole chain becomes suspect with applied by an advanced practitioner. So step one can't be indecipherable to a beginning student or be questionable on the face, regardless of the final product.

I also think that conceptual understanding behind each movement is important. We call in principle based training, but the idea is the same. The thing is, those underlying principles must be unified and work together and be conducted using sound movements that progress one's strategy. This must be applicable from start to finish, beginner to advanced student.

So I see where you're coming from in the wait and see group. But that's too much of a time investment with too far a delayed return for practical application. Minor modification to a)movement and b) mindset will ensure quicker and more effective response to attack. Granted, the more traditional blocking patters will look different than they do now if you go down this path. It' a matter of you're focus in the ma's and what you place most of your efforts into.

I agree 100%. Admittedly I tend to roll my eyes a bit at arts that proclaim it takes 10 years to get good at it, because what if you don't last that 10 years because you get into a fight today? A person can become competent enough to defend oneself in approximately 6-12 months of boxing training, yet it takes someone else 10 years to do so? Obviously it's the training METHODS rather than the art itself.

This is where a training partner or an open-minded sensei comes into play. Going back to that chudan soto uke to straight arm bar example, I'm sure there's some individuals in karate circles who will disagree with me immensely and some who may have never even considered that as a possibility. For some, they don't look any deeper than the outside. But let's say you wanted to train in that straight arm bar idea. Grab a partner and get at it! Do them stationary and then in floor drills, then start slowly going through the mechanics of it. Once you get the mechanics down, go a bit faster. Once you can adequately do it, start utilizing it in a sanbon kumite and ippon kumite mindset. Eventually get to the point where you can use it in sparring, but with control (it puts a lot of pressure on the elbow and injuring all your sparring partners means no more extra training for you for a while too). You now have a viable working technique which you can have well ingrained in just a matter of weeks or months depending on how much effort you put into it.

[bushido_man96]

I get what you all are saying. In a few years that movement might come to mean more, or one might understand it better. I'll grant you that.

Respectfully, I just don't get why you'd spend that long to fully comprehend a movement. I might be in a fight tonight. That's a far cry from the 12+ years we're talking about to decode a mid-level blocking motion. Now no one, studying any sort of fighting art, will go from 0 to high speed killer in a day, but if we teach practical movements, that can increase someone effectiveness in short order, isn't that easier for a student to wrap their head around and make meaningful progress more quickly?

I also understand the concept of teaching from simple to complex tasks. Check out the progressions I use in training on that thread. They start basic and build. The problem is that every step in the chain must be effective at every level, or the whole chain becomes suspect with applied by an advanced practitioner. So step one can't be indecipherable to a beginning student or be questionable on the face, regardless of the final product.

I also think that conceptual understanding behind each movement is important. We call in principle based training, but the idea is the same. The thing is, those underlying principles must be unified and work together and be conducted using sound movements that progress one's strategy. This must be applicable from start to finish, beginner to advanced student.

So I see where you're coming from in the wait and see group. But that's too much of a time investment with too far a delayed return for practical application. Minor modification to a)movement and b) mindset will ensure quicker and more effective response to attack. Granted, the more traditional blocking patters will look different than they do now if you go down this path. It' a matter of you're focus in the ma's and what you place most of your efforts into.

I agree with tallgeese's asssesment here on the time involved. I do think that seeing applications early on can lead to improved technique, especially if it gives the practitioner something to visualize during practice.

I also like some of the approaches taken to blocking in accordance with what guys like Abernethy and Anslow have done. It gives a good feeling of what the body mechanics involved with the motions is supposed to help accomplish, in my mind.

[KarateOx]

It is my understanding that Karate was a much different art before it got introduced into the Okinawan school system. Ankoh Itosu introduced it to the schools as a way of helping children develop as they grew. However, in order to do so, he had to change alot of what was practiced. The more damgerous applications had to be removed or modified. So what was a system of grapples, joint locks, and atemi waza became a simpler system of strikes and blocks. A middle block might have been a wristlock. Or a back fist to the ribs. A punch might have originally been a finger lock, etc. Of course this is all theory, but it is what I have read. Also, if you look at the moment before a block, many times, in many styles there is a cover, then block. Theory has it THIS was the block, or parry, followed by the offensive techniques, which now are a block and strike.

Again, this is all theory I have read, but it does make a little bit of sense. For a style as respected historically as Karate, it does seem too ritualized and impractical. This would explain it.

[joesteph]

f you look at the moment before a block, many times, in many styles there is a cover, then block. Theory has it THIS was the block, or parry, followed by the offensive techniques, which now are a block and strike.

 

My teacher, and her teacher when she guest instructs, make it a point to have us perform a body cover before moving forward into what would be called the block. It's most noticeable in forms, although when we do Ki Cho (callouts of moves) exercises, we're to cover before blocking as well.

 

In a Soo Bahk Do form, Chil Sung E Ro Hyung, there is a series of moves that start with a body cover (the ribs and upper abdomen), then an inside-outside block--which could easily be a grab instead--and then a front kick. Perhaps it can be interpreted, for more realistic purposes, as a covering of the mid-torso, a seizing of the opponent's pushing or punching arm, and then a kick to his ribcage.

 

An interesting theory.

[ojisan]

The karate of Okinawa pre 1900 dealt for the most part with engagement distances of arm's reach or less. This was generally far too close to utilize blocking techniques. For example, inside to outside arm movement might indicate for the: hand (finger bending, fish hooking the corner of the mouth from around the head etc.) elbow (arm bar against the tricepts, dropping elbow to an opponent below you, etc) whole are motion (wrapping trap etc.)

[sensei8]

there are NO blocks in Karate. "Uke" means "to receive".

Most laymen only know a Uke as a block, nevertheless, as one becomes more experienced with the martial arts, then, the laymen starts to realize that the Uke DOES mean "to receive".

Block...receive...call it what one likes, just as long at "IT" doesn't hit me!

[joesteph]

[A]s one becomes more experienced with the martial arts, then, the laymen starts to realize that the Uke DOES mean "to receive".

This makes me think of a sparring exercise (one of the non-required fun ones, as I like to think of them), working with a partner on the first moves, then the next moves will be added on, and so on.

I remember (from long ago) seeing a video of Fumio Demura instructing, and that he didn't say the high (or "rising") block was force-against-force, but pointed out that when the forearm reaches its uppermost height, it "rolled" the attack towards the end. I don't think it's something you train directly; I think it's something you pick up on and becomes part of you.

When doing the first part of the sparring exercise, something seemed weak about the block I was to use before punching back with the other hand. Then something started having me dip down a bit while performing it, helping the "roll" along. It even made it easier for me to strike (to his midsection) much sooner after I'd blocked. (Ideally, I guess you'd do the two simultaneously.)

I think this fits in with what Bob is saying about "receiving."