# Crossing the Hands While Blocking



## Makalakumu (Mar 28, 2007)

Sensei Robert M. Rivers, of Motobu Ha Shito Ryu, has taken the time to put together this video regarding the crossing of the hands while "blocking" in kata.  Please take the time to view this and let us know what you think.

http://www.virginiakempo.com/martial minute crossing hands.mov


----------



## exile (Mar 28, 2007)

Absolutely classic `realistic' bunkai/oyo. If you look at Iain Abernethy's DVDs on `Applied Karate', you'll see he makes repeated use of this `slapping away' of a thrown strike (typically the attacker's untrained roundhouse punch) with the `chambering' motion, followed by a severe strike to the head or arm by the `blocking' hand/arm. Often the slapping motion is converted into a capture of the limb with the other hand, followed by a renewed series of striking actions by the hand which performed the original deflection. The techs illustrated here fit right into that combat framework.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 28, 2007)

IMHO, this is what these techniques always should have been.  I find myself baffled by all of the explanations that have surfaced in the absence of this knowledge.  How could people completely ignore the fact that this was an ineffective way to block a technique and that it might be something else?


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 28, 2007)

Now appreciate that I'm speaking outside of my 'knowledge envelope' here (I'm black sash Lau Gar Kung Fu and Shodan MJER Iaido) so my words are purely based on what I saw rather than what I 'know'.

I'm very impressed by that chap as a teacher, first off.  He gets across the 'why' as well as the 'what' and his interpretation of bunkai is quite illuminating.

What he demonstrates makes absolutely perfect sense to me.  In Kung Fu I used to do something very similar i.e. step off the line of the punch, do a 'crossing hand' block/strike with the closest hand (usually with a wrist grab at the end if you could get it) and strike to the exposed ribs/neck/cheek with the other hand.

And they say karate and kung fu are different :lol:.

Thanks for posting that *Upnorth* ... now you make me feel really frustrated that I can't do empty-hand stuff any more because of my bike accident  :wink:.


----------



## exile (Mar 28, 2007)

Sukerkin said:


> Now appreciate that I'm speaking outside of my 'knowledge envelope' here (I'm black sash Lau Gar Kung Fu and Shodan MJER Iaido) so my words are purely based on what I saw rather than what I 'know'.
> 
> I'm very impressed by that chap as a teacher, first off.  He gets across the 'why' as well as the 'what' and his interpretation of bunkai is quite illuminating.
> 
> ...



That's a classic karate-type tech sequence. Fascinating that KF does the same thing... it's a natural counterattacking line, but as usual, the decorative packaging story obscures some of the fundamental on-the-ground similarities in nominally distinct MAs. 



Sukerkin said:


> Thanks for posting that *Upnorth* ... now you make me feel really frustrated that I can't do empty-hand stuff any more because of my bike accident  :wink:.



Wha' ??? What _happened_??? Why can't you do empty-hand MA stuff??



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> IMHO, this is what these techniques always should have been. I find myself baffled by all of the explanations that have surfaced in the absence of this knowledge. How could people completely ignore the fact that this was an ineffective way to block a technique and that it might be something else?



But UpNKy, we _know_ why and how that happened... starting with Itosu's packaging job on the classic kata to make the techs they encoded acceptable in the Okinawan school system (which they wouldn't have been had he not done that); the role of karate in Japan as a kind of `training calisthenics' for future cannon fodder for the Japanese military (hence the kihon-based, robotic group drill format of training) and the gradual loss of those apps over the several generations separating Matsumura from Funakoshi's students... after all, weren't you the one who was telling me, many months back, that the Kwan founders never learned the proper bunkai because their own instructors were none too sharp about the practical application of those kata techs? :wink1:


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 28, 2007)

exile said:


> But UpNKy, we _know_ why and how that happened... starting with Itosu's packaging job on the classic kata to make the techs they encoded acceptable in the Okinawan school system (which they wouldn't have been had he not done that); the role of karate in Japan as a kind of `training calisthenics' for future cannon fodder for the Japanese military (hence the kihon-based, robotic group drill format of training) and the gradual loss of those apps over the several generations separating Matsumura from Funakoshi's students... after all, weren't you the one who was telling me, many months back, that the Kwan founders never learned the proper bunkai because their own instructors were none too sharp about the practical application of those kata techs? :wink1:


 
I understand the history behind what actually did happen.  However, I often wonder what happened to people's critical abilities?  Why couldn't the kwan founders realize that what they were doing was an inferior combative technique?  It's not like these guys were novices on fighting.  

It makes me wonder if the answer truly is cultural.  This brings up a few troubling thoughts.  This is "what if" type of question...


----------



## exile (Mar 28, 2007)

upnorthkyosa said:


> I understand the history behind what actually did happen.  However, I often wonder what happened to people's critical abilities?  Why couldn't the kwan founders realize that what they were doing was an inferior combative technique?  It's not like these guys were novices on fighting.
> 
> It makes me wonder if the answer truly is cultural.  This brings up a few troubling thoughts.  This is "what if" type of question...



Well, this gets back to a family of questions I have been (fairly publically) wondering about for a long time: just what where the Kwan founders actually thinking about what they were doing? What was their conception of MAs? What did they think their training was giving them training _in_?

The central question in this case is, what did the Kwan founders believe to be the content of the kata they were taught? If you visit any TKD dojang (with a minute number of honorable exceptions) and a fair number of dojos, you'll see a very large percentage of the clientele who are happy to learn the kata movements as don't-ask-why-just-do-it choreography, with belt advancement the straightforward answer to the question, why are we learning this? Is there any reason to believe that the Kwan founders viewed the kata that became the hyungs of TKD and TSD any differently? Should we expect them to have been any more critical than students in the classes I've alluded to? What would they have had available as a standard of comparison that would drive them to rebel against their training regime and demand something deeper?


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 28, 2007)

exile said:


> Well, this gets back to a family of questions I have been (fairly publically) wondering about for a long time: just what where the Kwan founders actually thinking about what they were doing? What was their conception of MAs? What did they think their training was giving them training _in_?
> 
> The central question in this case is, what did the Kwan founders believe to be the content of the kata they were taught? If you visit any TKD dojang (with a minute number of honorable exceptions) and a fair number of dojos, you'll see a very large percentage of the clientele who are happy to learn the kata movements as don't-ask-why-just-do-it choreography, with belt advancement the straightforward answer to the question, why are we learning this? Is there any reason to believe that the Kwan founders viewed the kata that became the hyungs of TKD and TSD any differently? Should we expect them to have been any more critical than students in the classes I've alluded to? What would they have had available as a standard of comparison that would drive them to rebel against their training regime and demand something deeper?


 
Perhaps environment is the key.  Now, I'm not certain about the environment of post WWII Korea, but I would surmise that it was much more peaceful then feudal Japan or Okinawa.  With that being said, I would theorize that the motivation towards skepticism would be lacking.  

Also, I would say, the open markets and the influxs of lots of people (American GIs) with lots of time on their hands, promoted an explosion of "oriental" traditions in response to American curiosity and money.

And when you couple THAT with nationalism and an overall militaristic ideology, I think that it may have created an perfect storm against critical thought.

Thoughts?


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 29, 2007)

exile said:


> Wha' ??? What _happened_??? Why can't you do empty-hand MA stuff??


 
It's a painful story involving me, a GSX-750R, an Audi Quattro, a drunk driver and a 90mph impact.

I don't want to hijack the thread with the details but suffice it to say that it ended up with me being left for dead in the middle of the road.  

My right arm was annihilated from the elbow down (the doctors were surprised I *wasn't* dead as it was pure luck that one of the bone fragments didn't puncture a major artery (I'd tried to get up and my arm telescoped inside itself)).

They were going to amputate but one of the doctors had recently read an article in an American medical journal about using titanium bars to replace missing bones ... so they had a go at bridging from the stubs of my wrist to the bits downstream of my elbow.  

As it was the first time this sort of thing had been attempted in the area, it was a bit of a 'dogs dinner' and they cut away most of my outer forearm muscle to do it.  The upshot is that I still have two useable hands and arms but my right is very weak and painful (not seeking sympathy there, you get used to it after a few years (tho' it's a bit embarassing when it cramps up and my hand twists into a 'hooded claw' kind of shape)).  

Also, the metalwork is not strong enough and bends if too much stress is placed on it.  Add to that that the whole assembly swells up alarmingly (and hurts like mad) if it gets knocked, then you can see why I was forbidden from returning to MA .

My iai I can do without too much trouble (apart from those techniques requiring a large wrist rotation) and indeed it has helped improve the general condition of the limb and reduced the constant pain level a great deal.

Anyhow, having said I wasn't going to elaborate ... sorry *Upnorth* ... back to your topic


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Mar 29, 2007)

exile said:


> Absolutely classic `realistic' bunkai/oyo. If you look at Iain Abernethy's DVDs on `Applied Karate', you'll see he makes repeated use of this `slapping away' of a thrown strike (typically the attacker's untrained roundhouse punch) with the `chambering' motion, followed by a severe strike to the head or arm by the `blocking' hand/arm. Often the slapping motion is converted into a capture of the limb with the other hand, followed by a renewed series of striking actions by the hand which performed the original deflection. The techs illustrated here fit right into that combat framework.


 

This was a really nice video to post with some good instruction and key framework that was missing out in many dojo/dojang in the past. (way back as many have incorporated this training in the last ten years)  It is funny though that as more systems evolve/rediscover their roots that many, many systems look so similar in oh so many way's.

Why would the Kwan founder's have not critically thought thing's through?  One can only wonder but I would guess that they were pursuing vigorously what was available (teaching's) to them and they were tweaking it and then getting it out to the public at large to promote nationalism.  In other words many of them were new martial artists or so new to a certain way of movement (Japanese Karate) that they were without the depth to critically see these movements early on.  Just a guess on my part but I think it is pretty close to the mark.


----------



## exile (Mar 29, 2007)

Sukerkin said:


> It's a painful story involving me, a GSX-750R, an Audi Quattro, a drunk driver and a 90mph impact.



Sukerkin... I don't know what to say. You've heard it all before, of course... but I'm very, very sorry for the horrible pain you went through... it must have been bloody agonizing and terribly frightening too, at times, to face the prospect of having to lose a limb. I'm speechless... with relief that we've still _got_ you!



upnorthkyosa said:


> Perhaps environment is the key.  Now, I'm not certain about the environment of post WWII Korea, but I would surmise that it was much more peaceful then feudal Japan or Okinawa.  With that being said, I would theorize that the motivation towards skepticism would be lacking.
> 
> Also, I would say, the open markets and the influxs of lots of people (American GIs) with lots of time on their hands, promoted an explosion of "oriental" traditions in response to American curiosity and money.
> 
> ...



Very suggestive, UpNKy. The role of a major influx of external capital cannot be underestimated, in terms of the creation of bogus traditions oras on the Northwest Coast of North America, amongst the native societiesextreme exaggerations and distortions of previous traditions.

Some of the posts on other threads, from people who are in a position to know, suggest that things were pretty grim and violent in Korea during the decade or two following the Korean War, and that there was a good deal of kwan rivalry.  But it's hard to imagine anything much more violent than what happened in feudal Japan, with the endless civil wars and constant battling between warlords and powerful families, for centuries without letup...

The thing is, everyone knows there was a dilution of the martial combat of karate from the time of Matusumura onwards. And it's also true that there is a fairly strong element of unquestioning acceptance of your teacher's pronouncements as a cultural virtue in many of the societies where TMAs originated. So probably the default would be that lack of skepticism you mention...


----------



## JT_the_Ninja (Mar 29, 2007)

my comments on this subject can be found here (I'd prefer not to have to repost them):

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=29570&page=4


----------



## robertmrivers (Mar 29, 2007)

I responded on the other thread as well...

JT

 	Quote:
 	 	 		 about the leaning, you're absolutely right that if you keep your shoulders square in a nice, upright stance, your punch is never going to make it to your opponent, with any power at least. That's why TSD focuses so much on rotating the waist. The waist rotates for extra reach on the punch, then pulls back to shoulders square -- and then onto twisting the other way for the other hand to punch, or staying forward for a kick, or whatever. We don't lean over, though, because TSD does a lot more high kicking, and leaning forward makes you a huge target.  	 	 
Just remember, we don't lean forward into a punch or block...when you see the forward stance...leaning or otherwise, with a block or punch, it is not what you think it is. It is just what it looks like in kata. Therefore, we would not be in the forward stance when there is an imminent kick. 

Also, and this is really hard to notice, we do not square up on the forward stance. Many people have their feet shoulder wide when in the stance. We have our feet almost on the same line. We also do not have our toes pointing forward. We have our feet, front and back, pointing almost 45 degrees. Then, the shoulders are turned with the lead shoulder aimed at the opponent. This turns the body at an angle to the attack, therefore, you are never squared to the attack, you are always "angled in", minimizing your opponent's target picture and taking your vital targets off of the center line. 

Then...

We have to talk about the power line. Basically, if you think about a horse stance, the power angle is connecting the centers of my feet. Any attack perpendicular to the stance will put you off-balance. The forward stance is no different. 

If your feet are shoulder wide and you punch so that the fist ends up on the centerline or you're blocking an attack that is placed on that centerline, you are working a weak line of the forward stance. THE power line on a forward stance is, if you are looking at your feet, connecting the centers of your feet with a line. That is it. Then, punch so that your fist follows that same angle. This gives you more power, more rigidity, and more reach. This will be demo'ed on the next video. Just think about what the angle of a football players feet would be at if he was blocking. One in front of the other leading with the shoulder...this is where your maximum resistance is going to be. Resistance going the other way is power.

Anyway, it is going to seem that every point one makes concerning the execution or explanation of a technique within a form (from a Korean stylists POV) is going to have about a million contradictions. This comes from someone teaching within the generation gap trying to "standardize" techniques and all explanations became "cookie cutter" in approach. Unfortunately, those researching the history are going to have to wade through this mess.

Essentially, the forward stance used in a punch is different than that used in a down block, which is also different than that used for a middle block. Add to that, they are slightly different when moving forward versus moving backwards. In most Korean and Shotokan applications, there is no differentiation between the moments when a forward stance is used...they are all interpreted as having the same meaning, thus, the same execution. 

This goes for all stances. Cat stances moving forward are done differently than those moving backwards. It is not just the applications that CAN be different...it is that they are actually performed differently in the kata depending on what the upper body is doing. 

It is indeed a can of worms, brothers and sisters. But, this research (whether the source is me, literature or other instructors who know) is going to put you all at a different level than the typical Tang Soo Do Instructor. Most would just rather keep the blinders on...

Regards

Rob


----------



## robertmrivers (Mar 29, 2007)

All

I posted the video page...but forgot to post the page about our free educational classes.

http://www.virginiakempo.com/bridging_the_gap.htm

Check it out. It would be an easy way for us to get together.

Regards

Rob


----------



## exile (Mar 29, 2007)

robertmrivers said:


> THE power line on a forward stance is, if you are looking at your feet, connecting the centers of your feet with a line. That is it. Then, punch so that your fist follows that same angle. This gives you more power, more rigidity, and more reach. This will be demo'ed on the next video.



I'm very anxious to see this!



robertmrivers said:


> Essentially, the forward stance used in a punch is different than that used in a down block, which is also different than that used for a middle block.



Rob, could you elaborate on this a little bit? Or will it become clear when you post the next video? And, was this (originally) the case in Shotokan as well?


----------



## robertmrivers (Mar 29, 2007)

Hey

Quote:
 	 	 		 			 				 					Originally Posted by *robertmrivers* 

 
_Essentially, the forward stance used in a punch is different than that used in a down block, which is also different than that used for a middle block._



> Rob, could you elaborate on this a little bit? Or will it become clear when you post the next video? And, was this (originally) the case in Shotokan as well?



It will definitely clear up...but...

Basically, if I am going to hit you, I am going to be in a fighting stance. If you see a punch from a forward stance...knowing that it is inefficient, then something is being overlooked...in this case, the purpose of the stance. In a nutshell, here are a couple of basic applications.

1. Punching in forward stance: The deep stance and bent front knee is used to off-balance your opponent's stance. Therefore, the timing between when my knee bends and the punch launches is important.
2. Down block in forward stance: If you notice the arm bar (kansetsu waza) in one of the videos, the stepping into the stance and leaning into it is to add your body weight to the pressure on the joint. Therefore, in execution, there is a little more lean in the stance.
3. Middle blocking in forward stance: The middle block is at times a strike which is moving parallel to the ground. Therefore, the hips engage a little more than the leaning motion, leaving the back a little more upright. On an inside to outside middle block, the "blocking hand" starts low and travels up to the middle position. Therefore, there isn't always the heaviness in the stance, as the block comes up, your body "lightens" making a more relaxed forward stance.
4. You always kick...therefore when you see the coupled forward stance/ technique, are you seeing it pre-kick or post-kick? Post kick is going to result in more of a dropping/ heavy stance. Pre-kick means the body is on its way to lightening up to execute the kick. 

As I said, it will be on video soon enough. I am actually happy I got motivated to do this...my typing sucks!

Regards 
Rob


----------



## exile (Mar 29, 2007)

robertmrivers said:


> Hey...
> 
> _Essentially, the forward stance used in a punch is different than that used in a down block, which is also different than that used for a middle block._
> 
> ...



Great, this is just what I was looking for. And the role of the weight stances in the various blocks, particularly the arm bar imposed in the course of the down `block' prior to the hard strike, is what I've been suspecting for a long time. The movement into the stance is really the projection of the body weight as part of the crucial leverage behind that tech....

brilliant stuff!


----------



## tellner (Mar 29, 2007)

There are still a few things I disagree with, but on the whole this shows better understanding than the other clips. The appreciation of timing and independent motion of the limbs is more developed.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 29, 2007)

This is a very interesting video.  If you distill the actual movements of the crossing hands, then you end up with all of the real blocks in karate.  Check out the videos I attached.  All of these basic movements are the intermediate positions of all the "classical" blocks many karateka were taught.  

And when you understand this, it changes everything about how you view and use kata.


----------



## Chizikunbo (Mar 29, 2007)

Again very interesting points...


----------



## JT_the_Ninja (Mar 30, 2007)

robertmrivers: a linear front stance may be okay for your style, but that wouldn't fly for me, for two reasons:

1) the balance issue; both feet in a line gives you an unstable stance. In TSD, at least as it's taught to me, the front stance is for when you're going straight forward. If both your feet are in a line, it's incredibly easy to be swept off your feet, or to be knocked backwards. Keep your feet just shoulder width apart, both feet facing the same direction, and your back foot locks you in place, at least to the extent that it's harder to sweep you or push you backward. You still have both feet pointed straight at your opponent, and this leads to 

2) TSD kicks high, and a lot. No better or faster way to bring up a front snap kick than when your foot is already set and doesn't have to come around your body. 

Again, I respect your karate style, but I'm just explaining why there's never 100% congruence between styles. 

Oh, and I'm still interested to see your videos.

upnorthkyosa: not sure I completely understand your videos. mind explaining with a little more detail? You say those relate to the main topic at hand (no pun intended), so I'm interested to see what you mean.


----------



## exile (Mar 30, 2007)

JT_the_Ninja said:


> 2) TSD kicks high, and a lot. No better or faster way to bring up a front snap kick than when your foot is already set and doesn't have to come around your body.



Karate or TSD or TKD, it's all ultimately intended to end a brutal street attack fast. And kicking high is about the worst thing you can do in that situation. Those high kicks are artifacts of tournament scoring systems, period. Very CQ fighting with some guy who's out to knock your teeth down your throat? Don't even think about a roundhouse or even front snap kick to the head. You'll get the family jewels handed to you....



> Again, I respect your karate style, but I'm just explaining why there's never 100% congruence between styles.



`Style' is irrelevant. Fighting effectiveness is what the MAs were constructed for. They aren't decoration. They either take care of business or they don't. It's not an exercise in art criticism, eh?


----------



## robertmrivers (Mar 30, 2007)

JT

Again you are missing it. I am not punching or kicking from a forward stance. The forward stance is used at the end of the technique (as an example) when you execute the joint lock , throw, or pin. 

If I am in my forward stance applying pressure on my pwer line and you are in your forward stance applying pressure on your center line I will have better balance every time. You are still blocking kicking and punching from your stance. In karate we fight from a natural stance. 

I have drawn a picture to better illustrate. It is awful but I think will get the point across. Putting it in the next post...

Rob


----------



## robertmrivers (Mar 30, 2007)

Ok

here is the link:

http://www.virginiakempo.com//images/Power_line_copy.jpg

The stance on the left represents you. The black line is your power line. The red line is your center line. The blue line is your break line...where your balance is at its weakest. It is pretty simple geometry. You are closer to being off balance than I am.

Its hard to grasp because there is so much information in your head that is forcing you to try to make sense out of stuff that doesn't make sense... Once you realize that you do not use that forward stance to fight...it will all start to come  a little easier...

If you use Naihanchi to back it up it starts to make more sense...when you step to the side and set your stance with the "hooking punch" still there...just look at your feet and look at your fist. Which way is everything facing? Our naihanchi, we even lean into the punch a bit...as taught by Choki Motobu. 

The other element that I didn't explain is that in the forward stance, or naihanchi stance, feet on the power line, feet turned in 45 degrees, you also turn your knees the other way, creating a spiral-spring-like tension in your lower leg, as in the way the Sanchin kata and stance-work is done. This tightens up the stance.

Anyway...as ALWAYS, this is hard to explain in written form and it is possible that you may just want to dismiss everything. That is fine. I am just giving you the tools...take what you want and throw away the rest. But, the standing point is this...what I am explaining is Karate. It is the root of what you do. Even if you would rather live with the contradictions, at least having an appreciation for the method and not resisting every comment might make you a better TSD instructor. 

My $.02

Rob


----------



## robertmrivers (Mar 30, 2007)

Exile

I am going to have to start putting you on the payroll!! I  am in Steubenville every now and again. Maybe I can swing by and drop off that envelope of cash  on my next trip...

Regards

Rob


----------



## exile (Mar 30, 2007)

robertmrivers said:


> Exile
> 
> I am going to have to start putting you on the payroll!! I  am in Steubenville every now and again. Maybe I can swing by and drop off that envelope of cash  on my next trip...
> 
> ...



It's OK, Rob&#8212;I view it as community service in reparation for a misspent youth! . Besides, the stuff you're posting now is good as gold&#8212;what you're offering is core stuff that needs to be understood by everyone who practices a striking MA. 

But if you ever _are_ in Columbus, please do come by; it's be a pleasure to talk with you about karate and its KMA offshoots, _really!_

I think the point JT is still not getting is that a front `stance' is an encoding in kata/hyungs of the information, `project your weight forward into the tech'. And a `back stance' is a way of encoding, `keep your weight back to _anchor_ the tech'. A knifehand `block' is typically associated with a back stance, because you are securing the attacker with the `chambering' hand while you turn 90º to establish a lock on his arm; the back weight shift is part of immobilizing him while you deliver the strike to his throat or wherever. As you say, you don't fight _from_ these `stances'; you move into them as a way off applying the leverage that goes with the tech at very close range. The whole terminology of `stances', like that of `blocks', etc. was part of Itosu's strategy for disguising the nasty apps that the kata encode. You don't want kids applying wrist/elbow locks to set up an armbar movement to their training partner's throat...


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 31, 2007)

JT_the_Ninja said:


> upnorthkyosa: not sure I completely understand your videos. mind explaining with a little more detail? You say those relate to the main topic at hand (no pun intended), so I'm interested to see what you mean.


 
If you look at the list of basics that you were taught as a white belt.  You have low block, high block, inside outside middle block and outside inside middle block.  These movements appear again and again in the forms and many people have interpreted them to be blocks.  They are blocks and they are not.  

In order to understand where the blocks are, you have to understand where the intermediate position in each technique is.

See the example I posted below.

The set of pictures takes the inside out middle block and breaks it down into its intermediate position and its end position.  The intermediate position is what I am using to actually block my uke's kick in the video I posted along with the pictures.  And in that video, you can see how my hand could immediately come up and lash out with a backfist, which would correspond to the posture in the second picture.

These are the real basic blocks in TSD.


----------



## JT_the_Ninja (Mar 31, 2007)

upnorthkyosa: I think I get what you're saying. You're saying that the "final result" position of the block is just the followup to actually blocking, and that the "intermediate position" is where all the action really happens? (Sorry if that sounds nothing like what I mean it to say) I think I see that. 

Two things, though: First, why are your hands open in the intermediate position? I hardly think you'd be catching your opponent's attack at this stage of the move. Is there another reason, then? 

Second, in the video you posted ("Block 4"), you don't think it'd be wiser to keep your hands closer in on your body? In that situation, my instructor has me jump forward diagonally, hands still in front and close in, so that the opponent's kick (from either leg) either misses or is blocked by my elbow/arm, at which point I'm free to counter. I don't see how an ahneso pakhero mahkee comes into play here. Assuming a different situation: the opponent comes at you with a center/face punch. Where do you see this intermediate position having effect? I agree that part of the reason the blocking hand punches down and the other hand crosses over is so you don't take it in the face; are you saying, then, that the block takes the attack in that position and then finishes the move (in the next half-second) with the final position? Again, I can see how that might have some application, but I'm just looking for clarification from your POV. 

robertmrivers: Forgive me if I don't agree with you on the stability issue, especially when you're talking the final stance (for the arm lock, which I understand from ho sin sul combinations). TSD chungul jase has both feet facing forward (the direction of the motion), so if both feet are in a line, there's an unstable base. It's the same reason a step ladder is built with an A shape: keeping the feet shoulder width apart means that, while still facing forward (wherever this stance is implemented), I have more stability. Naihanchi stance this is *not[/i]. Naihanchi, or keema, stance is what you seem to be showing me here. That could also be used for the final part of the combination you showed, but you were trying to make a point about front stance. Again, I have honestly no clue how stances are broken down in your style, so I honestly can't call you "wrong" on any count; we just seem to be having another one of those misunderstanding gaps. 

exile: You don't have to speak for me. I can answer for myself.*


----------



## exile (Mar 31, 2007)

JT_the_Ninja said:


> exile: You don't have to speak for me. I can answer for myself.



I wasn't speaking for you. You're confusing my making an observation about the (mis)conceptions underlying your comments (which is what I was doing) with putting words in your mouth. If, for example, you tell someone the earth is flat and revolves around the sun, I'd be putting words in your mouth if I said that what you really thought, or meant, was that in the end, everything returns to the One. What I was doing was more like saying that your view of astronomy has been a dead duck for the past 500 years.

_Do you understand the difference?_

Let me try again: I wasn't trying to interpret your remarks. I was saying what was mistaken about them. Is that all cleared up?


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 1, 2007)

JT_the_Ninja said:


> upnorthkyosa: I think I get what you're saying. You're saying that the "final result" position of the block is just the followup to actually blocking, and that the "intermediate position" is where all the action really happens? (Sorry if that sounds nothing like what I mean it to say) I think I see that.


 
Yes, that is what I'm saying and that is what Robert was showing us all.



JT_the_Ninja said:


> Two things, though: First, why are your hands open in the intermediate position? I hardly think you'd be catching your opponent's attack at this stage of the move. Is there another reason, then?


 
If you have the proper distance and timing, catching a kick with this move isn't as difficult as it would seem.  Also, you have to remember that this technique can be used for other things.  Many of these require open hands.  Regardless, blocking in the way that I have demonstrated, works with hands open or closed.  In fact, I teach my beginning students to do it with their hands closed in order to protect their fingers incase they miss.



JT_the_Ninja said:


> Second, in the video you posted ("Block 4"), you don't think it'd be wiser to keep your hands closer in on your body? In that situation, my instructor has me jump forward diagonally, hands still in front and close in, so that the opponent's kick (from either leg) either misses or is blocked by my elbow/arm, at which point I'm free to counter. I don't see how an ahneso pakhero mahkee comes into play here. Assuming a different situation: the opponent comes at you with a center/face punch. Where do you see this intermediate position having effect? I agree that part of the reason the blocking hand punches down and the other hand crosses over is so you don't take it in the face; are you saying, then, that the block takes the attack in that position and then finishes the move (in the next half-second) with the final position? Again, I can see how that might have some application, but I'm just looking for clarification from your POV.


 
The second part of this block is a strike and it can be delivered immediately after the block.  Further, it can be followed up with a strike from the other hand simultaineously or right after the first strike.  

In a different situation, this technique may not apply.


----------

