What Was Once Vital...

[sensei8]

...and important, has become a forgotten tool of the MA.

In the PKA days, late 1970 and early 1980, the ridge hand strike, a formidable strike, was the choice for knocking out ones opponent. Having said that, I've noticed that the ridge hand strike is hardly ever used in any venue.

What other techniques, are no longer the tool of the MA in any venue, and I'm including the MA school??

Your thoughts, please!

[Kyonovice]

Certainly in the UK (under certain associations at least), the Ridge Hand got banned some time in the early 2000's for some reason I know not why.

As for other techniques not seen/rarely seen now. In my studies 15 years ago, we used to train the single knuckle fist (Ippon-ken I believe it was called), this is something we don't seem (or I haven't seen) lately.

[Lupin1]

That's funny. When we teach our kids to spar, the ridge hand is one of the first moves we teach them (left punch, right punch, ridge hand is their very first combination).

[The Pred]

...and important, has become a forgotten tool of the MA.

In the PKA days, late 1970 and early 1980, the ridge hand strike, a formidable strike, was the choice for knocking out ones opponent. Having said that, I've noticed that the ridge hand strike is hardly ever used in any venue.

What other techniques, are no longer the tool of the MA in any venue, and I'm including the MA school??

Your thoughts, please!

Not really sure, though how many school have a makiwara

[Kyonovice]

mine does

[Wado Heretic]

I suspect that we can probably blame rule changes, changes in the gear used in competition, and ideas regarding the safety of competitors.

I doubt techniques are not being taught, but one fights how they train, and thus if the technique is not observed in the training environment it will not be seen in the competitive environment. Many competitions will not allow open hand strikes due to the risk to competitors’ hands, but also the risk to orifices and the eyes. So the technique may be taught, but as it is banned why train to use it during sparring? Furthermore, the emphasis on points which are discernable by a judge means an emphasis on techniques which can be seen to be hitting the target. Hence techniques reliant on unusual angles are less popular, in comparison to say safer techniques such as a jab and cross.

Saying all that though, a trend I have noticed and dislike is a failure to acknowledge the difference between throwing a good low kick, and a good high kick. Depending on the height one kick advises what muscles you should be aiming on engaging and how you should shift your weight. In karate shiai, especially in its root years, emphasis was on kicking above the waist only and this trend continued into American kick-boxing and full-contact karate. Similarly, even kyokushin only allowed kicks to the head. Furthermore, Tae Kwon Do and Korean Karate schools have often employed rule sets giving more points to kicking the head. Thus, kicks have evolved in karate circles as a head hunting technique. Only since encounters with Muay Thai, and a renewed emphasis on pragmatic self-defence have I observed a reverse in this trend. Even in Okinawa I was encouraged to always kick as high as possible for exercise purposes, despite the constant statement that in real fights one should aim low.

[JR 137]

I suspect that we can probably blame rule changes, changes in the gear used in competition, and ideas regarding the safety of competitors.

I doubt techniques are not being taught, but one fights how they train, and thus if the technique is not observed in the training environment it will not be seen in the competitive environment. Many competitions will not allow open hand strikes due to the risk to competitors’ hands, but also the risk to orifices and the eyes. So the technique may be taught, but as it is banned why train to use it during sparring? Furthermore, the emphasis on points which are discernable by a judge means an emphasis on techniques which can be seen to be hitting the target. Hence techniques reliant on unusual angles are less popular, in comparison to say safer techniques such as a jab and cross.

Saying all that though, a trend I have noticed and dislike is a failure to acknowledge the difference between throwing a good low kick, and a good high kick. Depending on the height one kick advises what muscles you should be aiming on engaging and how you should shift your weight. In karate shiai, especially in its root years, emphasis was on kicking above the waist only and this trend continued into American kick-boxing and full-contact karate. Similarly, even kyokushin only allowed kicks to the head. Furthermore, Tae Kwon Do and Korean Karate schools have often employed rule sets giving more points to kicking the head. Thus, kicks have evolved in karate circles as a head hunting technique. Only since encounters with Muay Thai, and a renewed emphasis on pragmatic self-defence have I observed a reverse in this trend. Even in Okinawa I was encouraged to always kick as high as possible for exercise purposes, despite the constant statement that in real fights one should aim low.

When did Kyokushin "only allow kicks to the head?" The only techniques allowed to the head in competition are kicks (and possibly knees, but don't hold me to that one); that doesn't mean kicks are only thrown to the head. Kyokushin is notorious for its kicks to the inside and outside of the thigh.

Perhaps I misinterpreted what you were saying.

[Wado Heretic]

As in the only strikes allowed to the head are kicks, as strikes by the hand to the head were banned from the first world championship on-wards. I have heard they allowed hand strikes to the head for some period, but by the first world championship they were definitely banned. As a result, the only way to knock an opponent out is with a high-kick.

Hope that clarifies, not a misinterpretation, a case of me not communicating the point fully so thank you for picking up on it.

[DWx]

I suspect that we can probably blame rule changes, changes in the gear used in competition, and ideas regarding the safety of competitors.

I doubt techniques are not being taught, but one fights how they train, and thus if the technique is not observed in the training environment it will not be seen in the competitive environment. Many competitions will not allow open hand strikes due to the risk to competitors’ hands, but also the risk to orifices and the eyes. So the technique may be taught, but as it is banned why train to use it during sparring? Furthermore, the emphasis on points which are discernable by a judge means an emphasis on techniques which can be seen to be hitting the target. Hence techniques reliant on unusual angles are less popular, in comparison to say safer techniques such as a jab and cross.

Saying all that though, a trend I have noticed and dislike is a failure to acknowledge the difference between throwing a good low kick, and a good high kick. Depending on the height one kick advises what muscles you should be aiming on engaging and how you should shift your weight. In karate shiai, especially in its root years, emphasis was on kicking above the waist only and this trend continued into American kick-boxing and full-contact karate. Similarly, even kyokushin only allowed kicks to the head. Furthermore, Tae Kwon Do and Korean Karate schools have often employed rule sets giving more points to kicking the head. Thus, kicks have evolved in karate circles as a head hunting technique. Only since encounters with Muay Thai, and a renewed emphasis on pragmatic self-defence have I observed a reverse in this trend. Even in Okinawa I was encouraged to always kick as high as possible for exercise purposes, despite the constant statement that in real fights one should aim low.

Good points Wado Heretic. Rule changes have dictated trends in technique usage as most are training under competition rules.

Though saying that, ITF TKD rules allow for "controlled" ridgehands but not many people care to use them.

[JR 137]

As in the only strikes allowed to the head are kicks, as strikes by the hand to the head were banned from the first world championship on-wards. I have heard they allowed hand strikes to the head for some period, but by the first world championship they were definitely banned. As a result, the only way to knock an opponent out is with a high-kick.

Hope that clarifies, not a misinterpretation, a case of me not communicating the point fully so thank you for picking up on it.

Gotcha. Not to get too far into Kyokushin history and all, but in the very early stages (possibly when it was Oyama dojo and not officially Kyokushin), punches and the like were allowed to the head. After too many serious injuries and missed time from training due to it, punches to the head were banned from practice. I read somewhere, possibly Tadashi Nakamura's autobiography or from a Shigeru Oyama interview, that Oyama's students started wrapping their hands in washcloths because they were cutting their knuckles on sparring partners' teeth. They were also throwing uppercuts instead of straight punches to he mouth to protect their hands.

The ban on head punches pre-dates competition by quite a bit. Many Kyokushin schools and offshoots practice head punches/defending them with head gear. Kyokushin fighters get stereotyped as not knowing how to defend it by people who've only watched competition.