# Vertical Outward vs. Extended Outward Blocks



## MJS (Dec 29, 2005)

Curious to hear everyones thoughts on the vertical outward block. I would think it would be more practical when blocking a straight punch, to use the inward block, and for a hook punch, the extended outward. For me, its feels much stronger.

Thoughts?


----------



## Blindside (Dec 29, 2005)

In general I agree, but against straight punches I usually use inward blocks.  The only time VOB really come into play in my self defense is versus grabs, and that is more like related motion rather than actual execution of a block.  Extended outward and inward feels much more instinctual to me, I essentially never use a VOB in sparring, but inward and EOB are very common.

Lamont


----------



## JamesB (Dec 29, 2005)

MJS said:
			
		

> Curious to hear everyones thoughts on the vertical outward block. I would think it would be more practical when blocking a straight punch, to use the inward block, and for a hook punch, the extended outward. For me, its feels much stronger.
> Thoughts?


 
When you said "inward block" did you really mean "vertical-outward" as this was the subject of your post? I'm guessing you did...I see the choice of block dicated by what stance you happen to be in. The majority of people would favour their right-side (strongest side) so the blocks would be with the right arm, from a right-neutral-bow. 

Having said that I get the impression that there is a large variation between schools as to how the basics are actually performed and what emphasis is placed on them in a technique....so for some people an outward-extended might be preferred to an outward-vertical, purely because of the way they execute their basics, regardless of which would actually be the most effective.

In particular there seems to be variation as to how people perform the outward-extended...some use the "teapot spout" formation of the arm in a sweeping outward-horizontal motion, whilst others choose a vertical alignment in their arm. Understanding these two variations is quite difficult I think if one has only been exposed to one way.

So this is how I execute these blocks:

My outward-vertical block first rises up so that my forearm is parallel to the ground, my elbow at shoulder height. My shoulder then rotates outwards so that my forearm rises to vertical, at the same time my forearm also rotates outward, so that the palm of my hand rotates back towards me....all this time my elbow is inline with my shoulder joint.

I see this type of block being effective against a straight-punch as you say. "Unfurling Crane" uses this as the first block, at least the way I do it  

I execute an outward-extended by first transitioning through an outward-vertical. I then rotate my shoulder outwards so that my right elbow is directly inline with both my shoulders (i.e. directly to the side of my body-structure) I then rotate my forearm so it is also aligned the same way as my body (i.e. little-finger farthest away), stabbing my forearm out to form the outward-extended. At the time my block connects with it's target (i.e. the attacker's arm for this discussion) my whole arm is in a vertical alignment, there is no horizontal motion at all - purely an outward+downward hammering motion. 

Using the clock principle, I would say that my outward-extended is executed to about 1 o'clock. I would use this block against a hooking punch. My target for this block is the inside of the attacker's arm at the bicep, hitting this target straight-on at 90 degrees. I don't see this block being nearly as effective against a straight-punch as it would just glance off+up the arm towards the inside of the shoulder....hmm maybe this would be ok I'm not so sure now.

However I think the range of the attack would be a factor in what block you would use. 

Taking a hooking-punch attack. If the attacker was very close I would use the outward-extended and block at the bicep, halting the attack so that the attacker's body-frame was wide-open.

If the attacker was further away my outward-extended would not reach as far as his bicep. And I would have to over-rotate my shoulder to block the forearm. So I would simply use an outward-vertical, blocking on the inside of the forearm or even at the wrist.

But really I think it really depends on how one performs these blocks, what range you are dealing with, and also what attack you perceive is coming next.

james


----------



## Touch Of Death (Dec 29, 2005)

I have come to generaly consider the verticle outward to be any thing you ckeck on the return motion and extended outward to be the extension back to outward motion. Doc pointed out on another thread that this extension is simply an inward block if you look at it from another angle (9 and 3:00). If this is the case then the transition is crucial.
Sean


----------



## MJS (Dec 30, 2005)

JamesB said:
			
		

> When you said "inward block" did you really mean "vertical-outward" as this was the subject of your post? I'm guessing you did...I see the choice of block dicated by what stance you happen to be in. The majority of people would favour their right-side (strongest side) so the blocks would be with the right arm, from a right-neutral-bow.


 
No, I was referring to an inward block. Sorry for the confusion. I tend to keep my hands up in more of a boxing style. Therefore, it does not seem natural to me, when blocking a straight punch, to move my arm across my body, and then come back across to perform the block, when its quicker to do an inward block.




> Taking a hooking-punch attack. If the attacker was very close I would use the outward-extended and block at the bicep, halting the attack so that the attacker's body-frame was wide-open.
> 
> If the attacker was further away my outward-extended would not reach as far as his bicep. And I would have to over-rotate my shoulder to block the forearm. So I would simply use an outward-vertical, blocking on the inside of the forearm or even at the wrist.
> 
> ...


 
When you say very close, how close are you talking? If you're talking more in a clinch range, the bicep or shoulder stop would come into play. For the longer range, hitting in the forearm area is my usual target. Sword of Destruction for example is hitting in that area.

Mike


----------



## jdinca (Dec 30, 2005)

MJS said:
			
		

> Curious to hear everyones thoughts on the vertical outward block. I would think it would be more practical when blocking a straight punch, to use the inward block, and for a hook punch, the extended outward. For me, its feels much stronger.
> 
> Thoughts?



Yes, body mechanics wise, the inward block is the stronger of the two. as you probably know, which one you use depends on what side the punch is coming from, opponents position and what you're going to do after the block, etc. Do you want the punching arm to go across the attacker's body so he can't respond with the other arm, or do you want to open up his core for some body shots, with the potential of the other arm coming into play. But, the purpose of the block is to keep you from getting hit in the head, so all a block has to to is move a punch to the side a few inches to be effective. "Soft hand" blocks are very effective for this and are more speed than power.

The outward extended block does have more power but it's also going to change the body reaction of the attacker. The above points come into play.

Good question.


----------



## Doc (Dec 30, 2005)

JamesB said:
			
		

> When you said "inward block" did you really mean "vertical-outward" as this was the subject of your post? I'm guessing you did...I see the choice of block dicated by what stance you happen to be in. The majority of people would favour their right-side (strongest side) so the blocks would be with the right arm, from a right-neutral-bow.
> 
> Having said that I get the impression that there is a large variation between schools as to how the basics are actually performed and what emphasis is placed on them in a technique....so for some people an outward-extended might be preferred to an outward-vertical, purely because of the way they execute their basics, regardless of which would actually be the most effective.
> 
> ...


Very good sir. Clearly you have an excellent teacher.


----------



## Doc (Dec 30, 2005)

jdinca said:
			
		

> Yes, body mechanics wise, the inward block is the stronger of the two. as you probably know, which one you use depends on what side the punch is coming from, opponents position and what you're going to do after the block, etc. Do you want the punching arm to go across the attacker's body so he can't respond with the other arm, or do you want to open up his core for some body shots, with the potential of the other arm coming into play. But, the purpose of the block is to keep you from getting hit in the head, so all a block has to to is move a punch to the side a few inches to be effective. "Soft hand" blocks are very effective for this and are more speed than power.
> 
> The outward extended block does have more power but it's also going to change the body reaction of the attacker. The above points come into play.
> 
> Good question.


All of the blocks have the same structural integrity with no disparity between them when properly executed, therefore one is not stronger than another in use.


----------



## Doc (Dec 30, 2005)

Touch Of Death said:
			
		

> Doc pointed out on another thread that this extension is simply an inward block if you look at it from another angle (9 and 3:00). *If this is the case then the transition is crucial.*
> Sean


You are correct. The transition is everything.


----------



## JamesB (Dec 31, 2005)

MJS said:
			
		

> No, I was referring to an inward block. Sorry for the confusion. I tend to keep my hands up in more of a boxing style. Therefore, it does not seem natural to me, when blocking a straight punch, to move my arm across my body, and then come back across to perform the block, when its quicker to do an inward block.


 
Ah I see....in that case I'd agree....if the configuration of your arms are already in that position then it makes sense to use the block which can move into position quicker. 

So I guess you were really asking, "would you prefer to block on the outside of the attacker's arm with in inward block, or on the inside of the arm with an outward block"....

each method creates different opportunities and presumably also depends on how the attacker's feet are positioned too...i.e. was the attacker in a "reverse" stance when he threw the first punch, what is the predicted follow-up going to be etc..



			
				MJS said:
			
		

> When you say very close, how close are you talking? If you're talking more in a clinch range, the bicep or shoulder stop would come into play. For the longer range, hitting in the forearm area is my usual target. Sword of Destruction for example is hitting in that area.
> Mike


 
well I guess the range depends on how one controls the distance between themselves+attacker. If you step back (away) out of range then the forearm target would seem the obvious (only?) choice. If you moved in towards the attacker as he moved towards you then you would be able to stop the attack much earlier by blocking to the upper arm and control the attacker's body frame much more effectively.

james


----------



## JamesB (Dec 31, 2005)

Doc said:
			
		

> Very good sir. Clearly you have an excellent teacher.


 
thankyou Sir, yes I certainly have a great teacher, of that there is no doubt


----------



## MJS (Dec 31, 2005)

JamesB said:
			
		

> Ah I see....in that case I'd agree....if the configuration of your arms are already in that position then it makes sense to use the block which can move into position quicker.


 
This is just what I found best for me due to the way I'm holding my hands.  I suppose this will differ depending on the hand position.



> So I guess you were really asking, "would you prefer to block on the outside of the attacker's arm with in inward block, or on the inside of the arm with an outward block"....


 
Yes.  I'm just looking for everyones thoughts, feedback, etc.  There have been many excellent replies!   Depending on what my goal is, I have blocked on the inner side of the arm, I'm just going about it in a different way.






> well I guess the range depends on how one controls the distance between themselves+attacker. If you step back (away) out of range then the forearm target would seem the obvious (only?) choice. If you moved in towards the attacker as he moved towards you then you would be able to stop the attack much earlier by blocking to the upper arm and control the attacker's body frame much more effectively.


 
Agreed.


----------



## jdinca (Dec 31, 2005)

Doc said:
			
		

> All of the blocks have the same structural integrity with no disparity between them when properly executed, therefore one is not stronger than another in use.



Then we may be talking about different blocks. To me, a basic outward block starts with the fist face down, arm across the body, swings up past the face as the fist rotates inward. The block stops the arm is straight off the shoulder and 90 degrees to the body.

Maybe it's just me but this block doesn't feel nearly as strong as an inward block or an outward extended block.


----------



## Doc (Dec 31, 2005)

jdinca said:
			
		

> Then we may be talking about different blocks. To me, a basic outward block starts with the fist face down, arm across the body, swings up past the face as the fist rotates inward. The block stops the arm is straight off the shoulder and 90 degrees to the body.
> 
> Maybe it's just me but this block doesn't feel nearly as strong as an inward block or an outward extended block.


Your description sounds fine sir, it is your statement I disagree with. Technically and anatomically, all basic blocks are actually the same. The only significant difference is their relationship to the torso and the application. The upper and lower portions of the arm essentially maintain the same physical relationship and proportions relative to each other throughout. Of course in a forum such as this, the finite execution can only be discussed in general terms without the ability to lay "hands on" to illustrate and instruct the point. If one block is stronger than another, then then I can only surmise there is a glitch somewhere in your execution matrix.


----------



## jdinca (Jan 2, 2006)

Doc said:
			
		

> Your description sounds fine sir, it is your statement I disagree with. Technically and anatomically, all basic blocks are actually the same. The only significant difference is their relationship to the torso and the application. The upper and lower portions of the arm essentially maintain the same physical relationship and proportions relative to each other throughout. Of course in a forum such as this, the finite execution can only be discussed in general terms without the ability to lay "hands on" to illustrate and instruct the point. If one block is stronger than another, then then I can only surmise there is a glitch somewhere in your execution matrix.



I agree it's difficult to discuss finer points without being able to see what you're talking about. I'm going to have to play with both blocks and see if I can figure out what's different. Thanks again for your input!


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jan 2, 2006)

jdinca said:
			
		

> Then we may be talking about different blocks. To me, a basic outward block starts with the fist face down, arm across the body, swings up past the face as the fist rotates inward. The block stops the arm is straight off the shoulder and 90 degrees to the body.
> 
> Maybe it's just me but this block doesn't feel nearly as strong as an inward block or an outward extended block.


Try that with the palm toward your body to start and you will feel its relation to the uppercutt. You will feel your arm become compact a lot sooner, a sense of directional harmony will set in, ect.
Sean


----------



## Doc (Jan 2, 2006)

Touch Of Death said:
			
		

> Try that with the palm toward your body to start and you will feel its relation to the uppercutt. You will feel your arm become compact a lot sooner, a sense of directional harmony will set in, ect.
> Sean


Actually that won't work, and has the opposite effect of recruiting max structure.


----------



## jdinca (Jan 3, 2006)

Okay, did inward and outward blocks on a pad today and, properly executed, they felt about the same in power. Go figure, Doc was right. 

Next question on the power of the blocks. As the inward block goes through 180 degrees of torque, and the outward block only 90, do you feel that even though both blocks feel just as powerful, that the inward block could be more powerful do to the extra torque?


----------



## Doc (Jan 3, 2006)

jdinca said:
			
		

> Okay, did inward and outward blocks on a pad today and, properly executed, they felt about the same in power. Go figure, Doc was right.
> 
> Next question on the power of the blocks. As the inward block goes through 180 degrees of torque, and the outward block only 90, do you feel that even though both blocks feel just as powerful, that the inward block could be more powerful do to the extra torque?


Anatomically sir, they are the same block and utilize the same muscle/skeletal recruitment in execution. Touch of Death (Sean) and I had this conversation previously and I think he can help you with that one.

They both are "equally as strong in execution," however the outward actually has the additional stability along the radial line of the shoulder reference points in "static" tests. But in execution done correctly, no difference.

Note: the torque for both is the same as well.


----------



## jdinca (Jan 3, 2006)

Doc said:
			
		

> Note: the torque for both is the same as well.



Your other points are well taken. Slight confusion on the torque as the inward block we use goes from fist facing away from you to fist in, 180 degrees of rotation. With the outward starting fist down and finishing fist facing in, it only goes through 90 degrees of rotation. On the surface, it would appear more torque is generated on the inward block as a result.


----------



## Doc (Jan 3, 2006)

jdinca said:
			
		

> Your other points are well taken. Slight confusion on the torque as the inward block we use goes from fist facing away from you to fist in, 180 degrees of rotation. With the outward starting fist down and finishing fist facing in, it only goes through 90 degrees of rotation. On the surface, it would appear more torque is generated on the inward block as a result.


Both blocks torque in two directions. First one, than reverse themselves and torque in the opposte direction.


----------



## bujuts (Jan 26, 2006)

Doc said:
			
		

> If one block is stronger than another, then then I can only surmise there is a glitch somewhere in your execution matrix.


 
I respectfully disagree on this one, if I might.  The vertical outward block, operating on only the width zone, has at its end of motion little ability to withstand a force imparted in your depth zone.  The reason is that the force can only be sustained by the tricep or the deltoid, depending on the direction of the imparted force.

The vertical outward block forms a transition to the extended outward block.  The extended outward block, like the inward block, operates in the depth zone as well as width.  By any block operating in depth in addition to another dimension, a bracing angle is established to divert imparted force down the structure of the body.  By that reasoning then, (and by very simple observation with a partner), the vertical outward block is structurally inferior to the vertical outward or the inward blocks in its inability to divert an imparted force to larger muscle groups.  This is why its a transitionary block.

Cheers, good topic.

Steven Brown
UKF


----------



## Doc (Jan 27, 2006)

bujuts said:
			
		

> The vertical outward block, operating on only the width zone,...


Incorrect.


> has at its end of motion little ability to withstand a force imparted in your depth zone.


Incorrect


> The reason is that the force can only be sustained by the tricep or the deltoid, depending on the direction of the imparted force.


Once again, that would be incorrect.


> The vertical outward block forms a transition to the extended outward block.


That is correct sir, but it does not have to.


> The extended outward block, like the inward block, operates in the depth zone as well as width.


That is incorrect. The inward blocks is functional in height and depth, NEVER width, when done properly.


> By any block operating in depth in addition to another dimension, a bracing angle is established to divert imparted force down the structure of the body.


Your understanding of Bacing Angle is not anatomical nor does it have a sound bio-mechanical basis.


> By that reasoning then, (and by very simple observation with a partner), the vertical outward block is structurally inferior to the vertical outward or the inward blocks in its inability to divert an imparted force to larger muscle groups.  This is why its a transitionary block.


Sorry sir, but your reasoning and therefore "observations" of "blocks" are incorrect. I stand emphatically by my statement, and have demonstrated such regularly. The vertical outward block strength lies in width AND depth when executed with the proper understanding of body mechanics and the appropriate 'index' to recruit the entire body, including the sub-skeletal structure, and not just a couple of muscle groups. The inward and extended outward blocks operates in depth and height, not width.

If your understanding is that the vertical block is "transitional' because of some structural flaw, then the flaw is in your understanding of its proper execution - and I prove it in the student body regularly as Mr. Parker taught me. the vertical outward block is a stand alone block that need not be "transitioned" to become effective. However, the vertical outward block position is unique in that it can be configured to be structurally sound in height AND width OR depth AND width. 

The reasons are quite simple. All of the blocks sir are essentially the same, and share the same structural relationship forearm to biceps/triceps. The only difference is the relationship to the torso at the shoulder, and the desired application which will determine in which zone (height, width, or depth) the block will NOT be effective. No block is anatomically effective in all three in real time simultaneously sir.


----------



## MJS (Jan 27, 2006)

In the long run, it should come down to A)what the person feels more comfortable doing and B) what block is best suited for the given situation.

Mike


----------



## Doc (Jan 27, 2006)

MJS said:
			
		

> In the long run, it should come down to A)what the person feels more comfortable doing and B) what block is best suited for the given situation.
> 
> Mike


While I agree with your second assertion, one of the problems with commercial kenpo is making students too "comfortable" with everything. I don't make my students comfortable. I give them what they need. I teach them to block correctly and effectively. More likely than not, 'comfortable' probably means wrong.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jan 27, 2006)

Wrong by your way of thinking but right by his. I believe because the UKF guys fight right on top of their opponents the the Outward block does provide a width cancelation at that distance. Many things you consider wrong can be done at contact manipulation stage that would not seem practical at a boxing range. In other words wrong is relative.
Sean


----------



## Doc (Jan 27, 2006)

Touch Of Death said:
			
		

> Wrong by your way of thinking but right by his. I believe because the UKF guys fight right on top of their opponents the the Outward block does provide a width cancelation at that distance. Many things you consider wrong can be done at contact manipulation stage that would not seem practical at a boxing range. In other words wrong is relative.
> Sean


There are "different applications," alternative philosophies, different methodologies, etc., but in the "anatomical universe" of proper human anatomy skeletal algnment (which is what I presumed the thread was about), there is a clear delineation between right and wrong, correct, and incorrect. By any measure, description, or philosophy, anatomically he's dead in the water wrong. We are talking about "blocks" correct? 

If there is a difference in the interpretation of the vertical outward block that allows the described relative differences between blocks, than all of them are suspect. If someone cannot have their vertical outward block "figured foured" in a two-handed lock by someone and still sustain it, than its anatomically configured incorrectly. You either do a "block" right or you don't


----------



## bujuts (Jan 28, 2006)

Doc said:
			
		

> There are "different applications," alternative philosophies, different methodologies, etc., but in the "anatomical universe" of proper human anatomy skeletal algnment (which is what I presumed the thread was about), there is a clear delineation between right and wrong, correct, and incorrect. By any measure, description, or philosophy, anatomically he's dead in the water wrong.



No problem, I believe we're operating on different paradigms here, and on the mats we'd find that we're probably going to agree on most things.  Much of this requires a physical demonstration to see where the other person is coming from, and I don't have the time to explain it in writing, but suffice it to way I'm dead right, based on my teachers explanation of the blocks, and our way of executing them.

Cheers,

Steven Brown
UKF


----------



## Doc (Jan 28, 2006)

bujuts said:
			
		

> No problem, I believe we're operating on different paradigms here, and on the mats we'd find that we're probably going to agree on most things.  Much of this requires a physical demonstration to see where the other person is coming from, and I don't have the time to explain it in writing, but suffice it to way I'm dead right, based on our execution of the blocks.


As long as you don't suggest it's anatomically correct because it isn't. And if you have a measure of success using it as described, the other blocks have to be incorrect anatomically as well. But as long as it works for you.


> But to at least address my angle on the VOB.  Execute a VOB and have someone push on your wrist towards you, you will feel the strain in your tricep.  Have them push on your wrist from the side, you will feel the strain on your deltoid.  Execute the EOB and repeat these, the strain will be diverted to your larger structure.


Not the way I teach it sir. They both feel the same regardless of their direction of resistance, and the energy is spread ala Fa-jing because of their correct anatomical execution and completed structure.


----------



## bujuts (Jan 28, 2006)

Doc said:
			
		

> As long as you don't suggest it's anatomically correct because it isn't. And if you have a measure of success using it as described, the other blocks have to be incorrect anatomically as well. But as long as it works for you.
> 
> Not the way I teach it sir. They both feel the same regardless of their direction of resistance, and the energy is spread ala Fa-jing because of their correct anatomical execution and completed structure.



Fair enough, Sir.  No harm, no foul.  I'm operating from the mode I have been taught, and that mode works well for my teacher.  My thanks for the cordial discussion, though.  I submit up front learning can never be replaced with the written word.  I'm in So. Cali alot.  Where do you train / teach, if I might ask?

Cheers,

Steven Brown
UKF


----------



## Doc (Jan 28, 2006)

bujuts said:
			
		

> Fair enough, Sir.  No harm, no foul.  I'm operating from the mode I have been taught, and that mode works well for my teacher.  My thanks for the cordial discussion, though.  I submit up front learning can never be replaced with the written word.  I'm in So. Cali alot.  Where do you train / teach, if I might ask?
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> ...


Give me a call when you come in. I'm in the south bay most of the time.
213.506.1027. I look forward to learning something. Just got off the phone with old friend Gene LeBell. 74 years old, can still put you down, and still learning. Ain't life grand?  Not if I can just sell one of daughters ......


----------



## celtic_crippler (Jan 28, 2006)

In my experience the main difference is in how your oppoenent is positioned after the block is executed. The extended outward block tends to turn the attacker more due to the "extended" angle. So, IMHO, which block you use depends on how you wish to follow up. My $0.02 =)


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jan 28, 2006)

bujuts said:
			
		

> No problem, I believe we're operating on different paradigms here, and on the mats we'd find that we're probably going to agree on most things. Much of this requires a physical demonstration to see where the other person is coming from, and I don't have the time to explain it in writing, but suffice it to way I'm dead right, based on my teachers explanation of the blocks, and our way of executing them.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> ...


I shall be attending a Mike Pick seminar soon to better get my head around what you guys are doing. At present I'm with Doc on some concepts but I understand the basic distance to target differences negate some of his concerns. I believe the key lies in the basic understanding of the elbow and its function. Neither is wrong, but they are both radicly different in basic use. 
Sean


----------



## bujuts (Jan 28, 2006)

Touch Of Death said:
			
		

> I shall be attending a Mike Pick seminar soon to better get my head around what you guys are doing. At present I'm with Doc on some concepts but I understand the basic distance to target differences negate some of his concerns. I believe the key lies in the basic understanding of the elbow and its function. Neither is wrong, but they are both radicly different in basic use.
> Sean


Good to hear, I hope you enjoy it.  Will this be the seminar in FL, WA, or AZ?  One basic tenet behind our blocks is that they are not so much blocks against punches as they are motions to clear particular paths of actions within the Outer Rim.  The debris within the Outer Rim might be an incoming attack, but it may also be other body parts wherein the paths of action of the blocks consequently effect contact penetration, impact manipulation, contact manipulation, or even contact maintenance.  All motions are executed through 12 Points, as I may have mentioned before.

From this perspective, Block Set becomes a white belt's first introduction to dominating the Outer Rim through 12 Points.  What Block Set does not address in terms of paths of action and targets w/in the OUter Rim, Strike Set brings to the table.  What those two together do not address in terms of paths of action and targets w/in the Outer Rim, Elbow Set brings in.  Then comes Finger Set .  Everything is tied together through his Sticky Hand Sets, and 12 Points serves as the common denominator.  Also, a rock solid understanding of 12 Points (10 - 15 years) becomes critical for understanding his work with the blade.

You may hear him refer to him describe kenpo as a Set based system and not a technique based system.  This notion of dominating the Outer Rim through the motions in the Sets via 12 points forms the basis for all of the techniques.  The reason I brought this up is because 1) this is some insight as to where we place Block Set, part of which has been the discussion here, and 2) he will likely be addressing what in his mind really makes kenpo tick. 

Bloody hell, its 8:00 am and you've got kenpo on my brain.  Thanks for the thoughts.  Have a good time.

Steven Brown
UKF


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jan 28, 2006)

I shall be attending the Washington one. Its the whole stiff arm never back up that is foreign to me. I'm very used to anchoring the elbows after each shot. In block ,for instance, the outward is done as sort of a clearing motion, where as I am used to pulling it back for personal structural reinforcement. The way you do it provides a shielding effect not seen in my method. And I see lots of opportunity to use the elbow as a fulcrum also not seen with my method.
Sean


----------



## bujuts (Jan 28, 2006)

I hope you have a good time.  If you get a chance, pair up with John Fitzgerald, Mr. Pick's brother in law, who's helping put it on.  A 3rd or 4th BB, I think.  He's a top notch guy and can seriously bop.  Please tell him hello for me.

Cheers,

Steven Brown
UKF


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jan 28, 2006)

I know John.


----------



## Doc (Jan 29, 2006)

celtic_crippler said:
			
		

> In my experience the main difference is in how your oppoenent is positioned after the block is executed. The extended outward block tends to turn the attacker more due to the "extended" angle. So, IMHO, which block you use depends on how you wish to follow up. My $0.02 =)


??????? I respectfully suggestsyou re-think some of your "ideas."


----------



## celtic_crippler (Jan 29, 2006)

Doc said:
			
		

> ??????? I respectfully suggestsyou re-think some of your "ideas."


Always. =) 

I take it you feel that both blocks are capable of positioning the attacker in the same way or at the same angle? What about the aspect of follow ups? Would not the position of your palm and angle used dictate, or at least influence what follow ups would be more logical to use?


----------



## jfarnsworth (Jan 29, 2006)

celtic_crippler said:
			
		

> In my experience the main difference is in how your oppoenent is positioned after the block is executed. The extended outward block tends to turn the attacker more due to the "extended" angle. So, IMHO, which block you use depends on how you wish to follow up. My $0.02 =)


So when I'm on the inside of a left or outside of a right I can still have my choice of which block due to what I so choose to follow up with? Have you tried a right vertical outward block against a left punch? If so how did it work for you?


----------



## Doc (Jan 29, 2006)

celtic_crippler said:
			
		

> Always. =)
> 
> I take it you feel that both blocks are capable of positioning the attacker in the same way or at the same angle? What about the aspect of follow ups? Would not the position of your palm and angle used dictate, or at least influence what follow ups would be more logical to use?


I think sir this conversation would better serve you by returning to dialog that would find common ground in the execution of basics first, before venturing into your ideas and many different areas of the mine field of effective applications.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Jan 29, 2006)

jfarnsworth said:
			
		

> Have you tried a right vertical outward block against a left punch? If so how did it work for you?


 


			
				celtic_crippler said:
			
		

> The extended outward block tends to turn the attacker more due to the "extended" angle.


 
...therefore upon executing an outward block I observed it did not/or not as much. 



			
				Doc said:
			
		

> I think sir this conversation would better serve you by returning to dialog that would find common ground in the execution of basics first, before venturing into your ideas and many different areas of the mine field of effective applications.


 
Sure. When I execute an extended outward block I tend to apply more torque as I tend to rotate my torso upon execution more so than when I execute the outward block. After observing the effects of this on various students/uke's it seemed to me the that they tended to turn away more when I executed the extended outward than when I executed the outward. Do you believe I am executing the extended outward block improperly or do you believe I should also be applying as much tourqe to the vertical outward block as is applied when executing the extended outward block?


----------



## Doc (Jan 29, 2006)

celtic_crippler said:
			
		

> Do you believe I am executing the extended outward block improperly ...


Very much so.


> do you believe I should also be applying as much tourqe to the vertical outward block as is applied when executing the extended outward block?


Neither. The vertical outward block when executed correctly provides the torque for the extended outward block. At the time the extended outward block is executed, there is absolutely no torque involved. Anything else is contrary to proper body mechanics, anatomicl alignment, and multiple healthy joint longevity.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Jan 29, 2006)

I see...at least somewhat I think. I've been considering what you're saying and looking at how I've been executing the two. I think I may have been exagerating my movements and seeing this as a result. If I shorten my movements;try to be more effecient and not "reach" I see no real difference in the amount of torque. I'll keep this in mind when practicing the blocking sets and see what happens. =)


----------



## Michael Billings (Jan 30, 2006)

Doc said:
			
		

> Very much so.
> 
> Neither. The vertical outward block when executed correctly provides the torque for the extended outward block. At the time the extended outward block is executed, there is absolutely no torque involved. Anything else is contrary to proper body mechanics, anatomicl alignment, and multiple healthy joint longevity.


I concur with this, but I highlight the counter-rotation is very important to me for the relaxed power I look for.  

The "slap check" has been described by one of Doc's student's as a "cap", which to me means it provides resistance, allows you to close a circuit that is open, and prevents overxtension that can damage the rotator cuff.  I am also playing with the idea of the inward-vertical outward and inward-outward extended blocks making certain that the inward action "slap-checks" as the outward portion of the block makes contact.  This requires only a slight orbital shift in transition, and I feel a difference.

Thanks Doc,
-Michael


----------

