# Traditional Blocks



## Hand Sword (Oct 20, 2004)

I'm a newbie here, and would like to throw out this question. Do traditional blocks truly work in a real self defense situation?


----------



## Mark Weiser (Oct 20, 2004)

SGM Parker in his books and thur his black belts always stressed learning the basics because all the Techniques in Kenpo are just extensions of basics. So I have to say a big YES


----------



## Doc (Oct 20, 2004)

Hand Sword said:
			
		

> I'm a newbie here, and would like to throw out this question. Do traditional blocks truly work in a real self defense situation?


What "traditional" blocks are you speaking of? Your question is extremely broad and very non-specific in information.


----------



## loki09789 (Oct 20, 2004)

Hand Sword said:
			
		

> I'm a newbie here, and would like to throw out this question. Do traditional blocks truly work in a real self defense situation?


Yes, they can work.  The question is can you as practitioner make them work?

The thing about Kenpo is functionallity.  The 'blocks' are not just 'blocks' but are mechanical structures/force generators.  At first you learn to apply them to a stimulus of a strike as a way to stop the strike from connecting cleanly (I specify cleanly because sometimes you will still catch a piece of it).

As time goes on in training, hopefully, you begin to realize that you are not 'blocking a strike' so much as using force to 'disrupt the limb/attack'  and therefore causing pain/temporary or permanent dysfunction of that tool/weapon for attack.  Simply put, you are 'attacking the attack' with your blocking motions.


----------



## The Kai (Oct 20, 2004)

Also most Hard Block are training exercises, full range of motion, chambering to hip, etc.-in a situation or sparring they can be altered or adapted to the situation.
Todd


----------



## loki09789 (Oct 20, 2004)

The Kai said:
			
		

> Also most Hard Block are training exercises, full range of motion, chambering to hip, etc.-in a situation or sparring they can be altered or adapted to the situation.
> Todd


Good point Todd, too often artists can't differentiate between application training and mechanical/form training.  They are different focus and require different approaches.


----------



## jfarnsworth (Oct 20, 2004)

I think that I would rather parry.


----------



## lonecoyote (Oct 20, 2004)

Loki09789's insightful answer put it so well. A block is not just a block, it is a movement that can be use for so much, like how a strong inside block with a stance change high on your opponents arm can turn them, putting you outside the reach of their weapons and opening up all kinds of targets for you to use.


----------



## The Kai (Oct 20, 2004)

jfarnsworth said:
			
		

> I think that I would rather parry.


To Parry or avoid is a great way to say energy and possible damage to your own arms.  However, there are times when you need the ability to hard block with authority.  
Todd


----------



## loki09789 (Oct 20, 2004)

The Kai said:
			
		

> To Parry or avoid is a great way to say energy and possible damage to your own arms. However, there are times when you need the ability to hard block with authority.
> Todd


It is also a great lesson in 'heart' or 'fear control/stimulus response - hypervigilence reaction reduction' training because it is a simple move and the student can focus on dealing with the internal stress of facing a strike and being successful at stopping it in a controlled/safe context.  It builds a foundation both mental and emotional that can be a spring board of confidence (in himself and the art/technique) to move into other things.


----------



## Mark Weiser (Oct 20, 2004)

That is what SGM Parker taught that every move has equal and opposite application.


----------



## The Kai (Oct 20, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> It is also a great lesson in 'heart' or 'fear control/stimulus response - hypervigilence reaction reduction' training because it is a simple move and the student can focus on dealing with the internal stress of facing a strike and being successful at stopping it in a controlled/safe context. It builds a foundation both mental and emotional that can be a spring board of confidence (in himself and the art/technique) to move into other things.


Actually the confidence is the biggest issue, when hard blocking students have a tendancy to "act" confident, and hopefully that becomes acting confident.  In sparring context I tell my guys - any body can punch, but it is a martial artist that can actually block.
Todd


----------



## bzarnett (Oct 20, 2004)

Traditional block useful? Dropping the term "traditional" and replacing it with "is blocking in Kenpo useful" I would start with describing what a block is. A block is one of four methods we use to defend ourself. We can 1) strike, 2) parry, 3) position, and 4) pin (check) -- volume 3 of Infinite Insights I think. The term block provides me a context of my action.

If I hammer to my opponents forearm with my forearm with the intention of stopping his attack I am blocking. If I hammer to my opponent's forearm with my forearm with the intention of creating a minor move to allow for anatomical position because of factors X, Y, and Z then I am striking.

Regardless, they are "striking" movements which means in order to be effective I have to be in the proper dimensional stage of action for the block to work. Mr. Parker's sayings about blocking on the inside and outside of the arm are good examples of when a block should be used. Try doing Shield and mace when you block too far away -- the left straight punch if you do it at a poor DSA will not have the desired effect.

The blocks work great if you use them at the appropriate distance and with contact penetration. A block does not work if you stop the block on surface contact -- you don't create an effect.


----------



## Kenpodoc (Oct 20, 2004)

I'll probably get in trouble for saying this but traditional blocks don't work well. But as stated above striking the opposing weapon can move you out of harm's way and unbalance the opponet setting up your next move. The strike can also hurt enough to discourage half hearted attacks. The way I now look at Kenpo is that I don't really block I just keep setting up the next strike. Striking block to unbalance the opponent, parry with a strike, slip with a strike. That doesn't mean that one shouldn't learn blocks. They are an important transitional stage as one learns kenpo.

Jeff


----------



## Karazenpo (Oct 20, 2004)

I like to keep it real simple. All a 'block' is..........is something you put in the way of an attacking limb to impede the connection of that limb to the target. So, my answer is 'yes', anytime you put 'something' in the way of 'something' that is about to hit you, the end result is you keep from being hit. Call it 'traditional' call it 'Harry', it works! How you follow up is another question.


----------



## jfarnsworth (Oct 20, 2004)

The Kai said:
			
		

> To Parry or avoid is a great way to say energy and possible damage to your own arms.  However, there are times when you need the ability to hard block with authority.
> Todd


I understand what you are saying but if I block a right punch extremely hard to stand my ground I just invited their left punch to come in faster and harder. Meaning, I strike/block the right arm and send it towards the attackers right side away from me that just helps them throw the left that much faster. Of course there are techniques that cover being inside of a left/right or right/left I was just commenting on a true hard block in general.
 :asian:


----------



## monkey-a-go-go (Oct 20, 2004)

If by traditional you mean from an Okinawan or similar style: their point is a block is strike and a strike a block. The attacker's limbs are meant to be destroyed lessening the ability or will to continue. Parker's first book "Kenpo Karate-Law of the Fist and Empty Hand" flat out calls them strikes which is more accurate and a great description in their use is provided. If you examine the Okinawan Shorin ryu kata often the "blocks" are performed with an aggressive forward movement indicating taking the offense. And you have to make note of the "wind up" hand and what it is doing. Someone grabs in response you angle offline and pin their hand and perform an upward block or inside block attacking the elbow joint and wrenching the arm is a powerful deterent. Like others said also sometimes you're caught with nowhere else to go and have to do what you have to do. Can you injure yourself doing these type of blocks-yep. That's why they also had soft blocks/parries, body shifts and jumps etc to go to. So basically I didn't add much new. Sorry. LOL. Basically, the term "block" is dubious when you talk about traditional arts. Much is lost in translation and intent.


----------



## jfarnsworth (Oct 20, 2004)

Maybe we should all be on the same terms of exactly what "block" we are using for what application.   

If we're talking about conquering shield then damn straight I'm using a hard inward block then dropping down with the elbow. We should clarify what we are specifically talking about. :asian:


----------



## The Kai (Oct 20, 2004)

jfarnsworth said:
			
		

> I understand what you are saying but if I block a right punch extremely hard to stand my ground I just invited their left punch to come in faster and harder. Meaning, I strike/block the right arm and send it towards the attackers right side away from me that just helps them throw the left that much faster. Of course there are techniques that cover being inside of a left/right or right/left I was just commenting on a true hard block in general.
> :asian:


I understand your point and recoginize the problem.  However if you block the outside of the arm the oppisite effect is true.  Also the angle of the block can alter subtly and change the attacking weapons path and effect the uke's balance.  Lastly if you work your blocks for a while especially to the inside you "discover" variables in pentration.  You don't have to push all the way thru a limb.  Explode to a midpoint of the attacker's arm, stop.  It is believed (by me) that this way the force stays in the arm
Todd


----------



## bzarnett (Oct 20, 2004)

Best way to find out if the blocks work - or they way you do a block...pop on some high gear or some form of protective body armor (not a red man though) and go to town.


----------



## loki09789 (Oct 20, 2004)

My post was based on the assumption that 'traditional blocks' meant the 'hard blocks of high, inside/outside middle blocks and the softer circular blocks/parries/palm presses that are common to most Karate/Kenpo type arts.  I know the there are SOOOOO many more systems of blocking than that but when I read 'traditional' I think of the basic Japanese, Chinese/Korean roots.


----------



## Hand Sword (Oct 20, 2004)

I appreciate all of the responses, but, I feel I was a bit foggy on my question (forgive me, I work the 3rd shift), so I will try to clarify. Growing up, and working in the security field, I've seen and dealt with a bunch of encounters. I've never seen anyone use the hard blocks. The action seems to fast, where, your opponent is on their second strike, before the first seems to finish, or their on top of you, or you on them, in a grappling situation. The hard blocks seem to be designed for the drunk's wild round punch, where you have time to time it and shatter it with a hard block. Even tournament fighters as well as nhb fighters never seem to use the hard blocks, tending to parry instead. I feel that it is a more natural tendency to "swat" or parry an attack. So I guess my question would be for those who are law enforcement, security, or some other situation that calls on your skills to be used in a Real situation, on a regular basis. Have you used the hard blocking in those situations, or do you use the softer blocks?

Also, If the natural tendency is toward the softer blocks, and our founders came from a tough street fighting background, where hard blocks were too slow to deal with, what could be a barrage of strikes, forcing them to come up with "eclectic" systems, why would they teach in the old manner, that was abandoned?


----------



## 8253 (Oct 21, 2004)

Any block will work when executed correctly.  As far as a block being traditional, they really havent changed much.


----------



## Hand Sword (Oct 21, 2004)

8253 said:
			
		

> Any block will work when executed correctly.  As far as a block being traditional, they really havent changed much.


 You are correct in terms of theory, and the way most martial artists practice, but, in terms of REAL Application it's different. As I said earlier, the hard blocks seem desingned for the one, big, roundhouse swing, which is not the way people fight on the street, club, etc.. As jfarnsworth noted, you get caught in the cycle of them firing, and you blocking.


----------



## Hand Sword (Oct 21, 2004)

bzarnett said:
			
		

> Best way to find out if the blocks work - or they way you do a block...pop on some high gear or some form of protective body armor (not a red man though) and go to town.


 Well put! Spoken from the old school mentality, keep that mind set throughout your training, try not to get burnt out with all the commercialism, and quit.


----------



## The Kai (Oct 21, 2004)

Hand Sword said:
			
		

> You are correct in terms of theory, and the way most martial artists practice, but, in terms of REAL Application it's different. As I said earlier, the hard blocks seem desingned for the one, big, roundhouse swing, which is not the way people fight on the street, club, etc.. As jfarnsworth noted, you get caught in the cycle of them firing, and you blocking.


Actuallt "traditional" blocks were designed to intercept anything coming towards your center.  Unfortunatly, they are usally taught as a counter to a indirect, slower (and safer) roundhouse punch.
Todd


----------



## Michael Billings (Oct 21, 2004)

Just one experiential story.  Hard inward block to the pressure points running just inside the brachio-radialis = fall down and no follow-up needed, note: I was going into a Five Swords variant.  My right to their right and this by accident, as I was aiming for the wrist/forearm and they were just faster than I thought.  I only recently learned how to repeat this consistantly in a very relaxed (dead-arm) fashion and my students hate it when I demo on them.

 -Michael


----------



## GAB (Oct 21, 2004)

Michael,

The block/strike you are talking about is very effective. Taught in many schools that are into the pressure point and soft tissue area strikes (nerve).

The might meets might has, got to give way, to this kind of fighting,(imo) it is not the way to go(hard block to hard block) unless you are talking Escrima/Eskrima, Arnis, Kali. Even then the 'merge' is very good way to go.

Regards, Gary


----------



## ikenpo (Oct 21, 2004)

Michael Billings said:
			
		

> Just one experiential story.  Hard inward block to the pressure points running just inside the brachio-radialis = fall down and no follow-up needed, note: I was going into a Five Swords variant.  My right to their right and this by accident, as I was aiming for the wrist/forearm and they were just faster than I thought.  I only recently learned how to repeat this consistantly in a very relaxed (dead-arm) fashion and my students hate it when I demo on them.
> 
> -Michael



I can remember years ago (1999 or 2000) receiving a video of one of Doc Chape'l private Black Belt classes (from Doc) at the old, old location, where he explained that very application. He showed how that strike would weaken the base and make your head involutarily turn to set up for the next strike, very enlightening. That same vid showed Doc "knocking out" a huge guy with basically that same strike, but striking it relatively lightly and touching another pt at his ***** to cross the guys circuits. Of course, this may not be the exact same pt, but it reads a lot like it....

jb


----------



## Michael Billings (Oct 21, 2004)

I am sure that it is.  I learned more about it at a Shen Chuan camp (Joe Lansdale) where I taught, now, once activated on my students if I rub it it hurts.  One of Dillman's senior belts was there also, Will Higginbotham, he was impressive also.

 -Michael


----------



## MJS (Oct 21, 2004)

Hand Sword said:
			
		

> I'm a newbie here, and would like to throw out this question. Do traditional blocks truly work in a real self defense situation?



Everything has its time and place.  I do agree with post #9.  I would also think that movement should be taken into consideration.  Like it was said in #9, a parry might provide you with a better option.  

Mike


----------



## Doc (Oct 21, 2004)

8253 said:
			
		

> Any block will work when executed correctly.  As far as a block being traditional, they really havent changed much.


Uh?


----------



## bzarnett (Oct 21, 2004)

8253 said:
			
		

> Any block will work when executed correctly. As far as a block being traditional, they really havent changed much.


I beg to differ, I have yet to see a system that does blocking in a manner similiar to American Kenpo. I will take the upward block of American Kenpo as an example. It is quiet different than practiced in the martial art systems I have seen. 

If you could provide comparative examples that would be great.


----------



## Mark Weiser (Oct 21, 2004)

The basic blocks are the foundation in which we in KENPO train. Once you have the basic movement down (blocks among other basics) you start to adapt those movements to suit the person training and for the opponent. 

There is the Point of Origin in which the blocks and parries are executed from.


----------



## Doc (Oct 21, 2004)

Discussions of this type are virtually meaningless without the clear distinction of what physical activity is at question. The terms hard and/or traditional are extremely subjective and nebulous relative to ones own experiences, lineage(s), and knowledge base. What may be considered traditional to one person may be foreign to another.

If I take liberty with the term traditional and assume someone means the traditions of the Okinawa and Japanese lineages, this in itself presents significant problems in terms of clarification. The various styles and ryu's of these traditions have myriad degrees of various interpretations of applications or bunkai.

In some interpretations the so-called blocks are intended, and executed as body conditioning and training exercises, with no appreciable blocking applications beyond historical misinterpretations and subsequent misapplications. Others are not blocks at all, but instead are designed as leveraged breaking applications.

All things considered, and exclusive of the comments of Mr. Billings and Mr. Bugg who are talking about actual functional applications, I must conclude the application described is a misapplication and therefore not designed to be functional in the scenario presented in the question at all.

With regard to the tendency to favor softer parry actions over hard blocking, proper executed blocking applications primarily deflect, check, and hinder an assault whereas parries redirect, and are most often properly used in conjunction with the former and should not be used exclusive of blocking.

Parries function quickly to redirect attacks in realistic scenarios, but are usually properly backed up by a blocking action to control body dimension(s). You will also find the reasonably adept can, and will use blocks with equal efficiency, and exclusive of the necessity of parrying actions in most circumstances initially. In these instances, the blocks provide the fast effective defense intended and then the block is backed up with a parry to move to additional actions.

Clearly both actions have well defined functions with blocks categorized as major moves and parrys as minor moves. This categorization relationship supports the premise of blocks (major) being singularly functional to negate an initial assault. Whereas a parry serving as a minor move (to avoid an initial assault), is subsequently supported by the major move block.

Thanks for the discussion


----------



## Doc (Oct 21, 2004)

bzarnett said:
			
		

> I beg to differ, I have yet to see a system that does blocking in a manner similiar to American Kenpo. I will take the upward block of American Kenpo as an example. It is quiet different than practiced in the martial art systems I have seen.
> If you could provide comparative examples that would be great.



The operative phase here sir is "I have yet to see a system .." 

The actions found in American Kenpo are not unique or exclusive to American Kenpo when executed properly, and can be found in various arts of Chinese, Indonesian, and even Filipino Arts, to give a few examples.

Mr. Parker used to say to me, "When the knowledge you have represents a hammer, then every problem you encounter invariably looks like a nail."


----------



## Doc (Oct 21, 2004)

Mark Weiser said:
			
		

> The basic blocks are the foundation in which we in KENPO train. Once you have the basic movement down (blocks among other basics) you start to adapt those movements to suit the person training and for the opponent.
> 
> There is the Point of Origin in which the blocks and parries are executed from.



Sorry sir, but you do not "adapt" basics. Basics are finite and must be performed a certain way. However you may "choose" the appropriate basic or combination thereof for the circumstances presented.

Basics relative to "point of Origin" is vastly misunderstood. There are "mapped anatomical indexes" and all physical movement properly executed fall within these indexes of activity. As an example; the most geometrically expeditious movement may not necessarily be anatomically correct depending upon the type and length of your study and training.

Even My Dog "Big D" from Scottsdale knows that!


----------



## 8253 (Oct 22, 2004)

Sorry, I was responding to the original question.  Traditional blocks vary with different types of MA's (hard, soft, etc.).  Therefore every type of block may be traditional to some, and new to others.  As far as American Kenpo goes, I dont really know a whole lot about it.  I study Chinese Kenpo.  I do believe that an upward block in the basic meaning in most MA's are started out the same, and i would say that also the rest of the basic block set start in the same manner.  It is the motion after the point of contact is made that defines the different theories of what should be done.  After all there is only so many ways to block, punch, kick, etc.


----------



## Hand Sword (Oct 22, 2004)

Hand Sword said:
			
		

> I appreciate all of the responses, but, I feel I was a bit foggy on my question (forgive me, I work the 3rd shift), so I will try to clarify. Growing up, and working in the security field, I've seen and dealt with a bunch of encounters. I've never seen anyone use the hard blocks. The action seems to fast, where, your opponent is on their second strike, before the first seems to finish, or their on top of you, or you on them, in a grappling situation. The hard blocks seem to be designed for the drunk's wild round punch, where you have time to time it and shatter it with a hard block. Even tournament fighters as well as nhb fighters never seem to use the hard blocks, tending to parry instead. I feel that it is a more natural tendency to "swat" or parry an attack. So I guess my question would be for those who are law enforcement, security, or some other situation that calls on your skills to be used in a Real situation, on a regular basis. Have you used the hard blocking in those situations, or do you use the softer blocks?
> 
> Also, If the natural tendency is toward the softer blocks, and our founders came from a tough street fighting background, where hard blocks were too slow to deal with, what could be a barrage of strikes, forcing them to come up with "eclectic" systems, why would they teach in the old manner, that was abandoned?


 Thank you all for your input, as I said I am new here, and it's really great to be able to communicate with such an array of good martial artists. More of this should go on out there rather than the divisions and biasness. However, reading these responses, it seems like they are coming from a training/practice ideology, which was my fault for not clarifying the question (Again, I'm on the third shift, and have never "chatted" before). I guess the above quote explains what I was asking better, which is more of a real situation angle, rather than from class practice. I appreciate all the responses, it's great to have all of these experiences coming together. Respect to everyone! Thanks.


----------



## Doc (Oct 22, 2004)

8253 said:
			
		

> Sorry, I was responding to the original question.  Traditional blocks vary with different types of MA's (hard, soft, etc.).  Therefore every type of block may be traditional to some, and new to others.  As far as American Kenpo goes, I dont really know a whole lot about it.  I study Chinese Kenpo.  I do believe that an upward block in the basic meaning in most MA's are started out the same, and i would say that also the rest of the basic block set start in the same manner.  It is the motion after the point of contact is made that defines the different theories of what should be done.  After all there is only so many ways to block, punch, kick, etc.


Sorry but I would disagree.


----------



## 8253 (Oct 24, 2004)

Im not sure exactly what you disagree with.  A block will work in a street fight to a certain degree.  An upward block is an upward block and a low block is a low block, etc.  Aside from the positional differences when starting to initiate the block, the block has the same basics.


----------



## Doc (Oct 24, 2004)

8253 said:
			
		

> ... As far as American Kenpo goes, I dont really know a whole lot about it.  I study Chinese Kenpo.


I see


> I do *believe* that an upward block in the basic meaning in most MA's are started out the same, and i would say that also the rest of the basic block set start in the same manner.


Based on your knowledge of ....


> It is the motion after the point of contact is made that defines the different theories of what should be done.


I'm afraid I'm lost. After you make contact, defines what you should have already done?


> After all there is only so many ways to block, punch, kick, etc


Based on your knowledge of ...
Perhaps you could elaborate a bit more based on your expereince and knowledge in "Chinese Kenpo?"


----------



## GAB (Oct 24, 2004)

Doc said:
			
		

> Perhaps you could elaborate a bit more based on your expereince and knowledge in "Chinese Kenpo?"


Hi 8523,

The term "Chinese Kenpo" or "Chinese Karate". Is the rub, I think.... 

Book by Ed parker, Secrets of Chinese Karate, Got him into some trouble with the Chinese/Japanese... It depends on how anal you want to get...

The thought 'a block is a strike is a punch, is a punch is a strike is a block', maybe or not...

The word Bouquet is pronounced bouque or boo ka' so in the english language it is pronounced like the French want it pronounced, unless of course you no want to eat, the french fryed potato...or say it...

Iraq you understand? Forget all the other things that we have done with/or they have done for, such as our freedom in America...Sorry... 'Ramble me'.

Back to the subject, Traditional....Regards, Gary

PS: traditional goes back, what a generation or ?????


----------



## OC Kid (Oct 24, 2004)

Would trad blocks work in a self defense situation..Yes. The way I was taught there is no difference between and block and a strike. Its the intent of the technique or how it is being used. In teaching my classes I will take a block such as a outside inward and show it/ teach it as a block, then I will demo and have the students practice it as a strike in a self defense situation.

Even a parry can be changed from a simple redirect to a knifehand/ palm heel strike.

Also I have taken Japanese Karate and EPAK (under Mr White) and the basic blocks are not different the blocks are esstentially the same.


----------



## GAB (Oct 24, 2004)

OC Kid said:
			
		

> Would trad blocks work in a self defense situation..Yes. The way I was taught there is no difference between and block and a strike. Its the intent of the technique or how it is being used. In teaching my classes I will take a block such as a outside inward and show it/ teach it as a block, then I will demo and have the students practice it as a strike in a self defense situation.
> 
> Even a parry can be changed from a simple redirect to a knifehand/ palm heel strike.
> 
> Also I have taken Japanese Karate and EPAK (under Mr White) and the basic blocks are not different the blocks are esstentially the same.


OC Kid, I agree with you, same with a overhead outward with the wrist and fist pointed inward and then turning it into a pull or a grab.
Or an overhead inward doing the samething by pulling on the arm like in a monkey kata, pulling hitting slapping dragging forward and stepping back and then pushing away with tremndous explosion with your legs and body.

In FMA there really is not that many differences in the strikes and parries, blocks or merges. The difference is to know when to move in and out with the lower body at the same time you are striking or blocking or thrusting.

Leg work is critical in all the arts some just use it more then others...

Since getting into FMA, and at my age, I have found my spot to be, along with a refresher course in kata. Since the cane is just a little longer and very similar, about the most accepted thing anymore for seniors. I am in 7th heaven...

 Regards, Gary


----------



## 8253 (Oct 25, 2004)

Doc said:
			
		

> I see
> 
> Based on your knowledge of ....
> 
> ...




I usually dont bite on things like this but here goes.  Two simple things.  #1- I dont like being mocked, as I am sure you wouldnt.  #2 - Make a list of all of the ways you can block, punch, and kick.  Then try to add to that list.

As far as any differences in AK and CK, I do not know specifically what the differences are, I have studied on the matter and have found that some of the techniques are similar.  Aside from that the only thing that i have found true in most cases is that there are more techniques and katas in one.


----------



## Doc (Oct 25, 2004)

8253 said:
			
		

> I usually dont bite on things like this but here goes.  Two simple things.  #1- I dont like being mocked, as I am sure you wouldnt.  #2 - Make a list of all of the ways you can block, punch, and kick.  Then try to add to that list.
> 
> As far as any differences in AK and CK, I do not know specifically what the differences are, I have studied on the matter and have found that some of the techniques are similar.  Aside from that the only thing that i have found true in most cases is that there are more techniques and katas in one.


I apologize if you felt you were being mocked. That was not my intent. I simply have no idea what you're talking about or what point you're trying to make. Perhaps someone else could enlighten me or you, as I stated before, could elaborate.


----------



## Hand Sword (Nov 2, 2004)

From what i've been reading it seems to be a popular notion that the traditional blocking is just a foundation from which adaptations are made to deal with real stimuli, or real situations. This was the bigger point I was getting at. Since you have to change what you were taught to fit against a real stimuli, or adapt it to the situation, should we not just train that way to begin with? Coming from a self defense point of view, and, from a supposedly self defense oriented system, should we not help the system evolve, and cut the traditional manner of blocking out as the first step, in favor of practicing the adaptations, since that is what you'll use when it comes down to it? 

After all, what you first put into your muscle memory, is what will come out first. Just an older practitioner's point of view for dealing with real self defense situations. From what i've been reading you all apply that criteria in your training, such as distance to apply the tech's from, the what if phases, etc... anyway, deep down I think we all agree.


----------



## Doc (Nov 2, 2004)

Hand Sword said:
			
		

> From what i've been reading it seems to be a popular notion that the traditional blocking is just a foundation from which adaptations are made to deal with real stimuli, or real situations. This was the bigger point I was getting at. Since you have to change what you were taught to fit against a real stimuli, or adapt it to the situation, should we not just train that way to begin with? Coming from a self defense point of view, and, from a supposedly self defense oriented system, should we not help the system evolve, and cut the traditional manner of blocking out as the first step, in favor of practicing the adaptations, since that is what you'll use when it comes down to it?
> 
> After all, what you first put into your muscle memory, is what will come out first. Just an older practitioner's point of view for dealing with real self defense situations. From what i've been reading you all apply that criteria in your training, such as distance to apply the tech's from, the what if phases, etc... anyway, deep down I think we all agree.



No we don't.


----------



## kenpoworks (Nov 2, 2004)

_*"After all, what you first put into your muscle memory, is what will come out first" .......Handsword*_
_I cant agree with statement from personal experience I have found on occasion that its what I have be currently practising that seems to come out in confrontation._
_So it seems to me that its "*last in first out*".
Respectfully
Richi
ps I am still not sure about this term "muscle memory", it does seem a bit of a random and a cover all term.
_


----------



## USMATCSensei (Apr 25, 2008)

we call them blocks but we also know that they are strikes you dont block but attack the limb that is comin at you.


----------



## DavidCC (Apr 25, 2008)

Hand Sword said:


> I'm a newbie here


 
LOL


----------



## Touch Of Death (Apr 25, 2008)

USMATCSensei said:


> we call them blocks but we also know that they are strikes you dont block but attack the limb that is comin at you.


Thats not entirely true. The important thing is not to get hurt; so, puting multiple points of contact on a round house kick to the head would be more important than injuring the leg; however, you are welcome to take advantage of what happens next.
Sean


----------



## USMATCSensei (Apr 25, 2008)

Touch Of Death said:


> Thats not entirely true. The important thing is not to get hurt; so, puting multiple points of contact on a round house kick to the head would be more important than injuring the leg; however, you are welcome to take advantage of what happens next.
> Sean


how bout just stepping in on a round house to the head?


----------



## Touch Of Death (Apr 25, 2008)

USMATCSensei said:


> how bout just stepping in on a round house to the head?


Depends on the attacker I suppose. Personaly I would recomend moving up the circle with a block.
Sean


----------



## Doc (Apr 25, 2008)

Hand Sword said:


> From what i've been reading it seems to be a popular notion that the traditional blocking is just a foundation from which adaptations are made to deal with real stimuli, or real situations. This was the bigger point I was getting at. Since you have to change what you were taught to fit against a real stimuli, or adapt it to the situation, should we not just train that way to begin with? Coming from a self defense point of view, and, from a supposedly self defense oriented system, should we not help the system evolve, and cut the traditional manner of blocking out as the first step, in favor of practicing the adaptations, since that is what you'll use when it comes down to it?
> 
> After all, what you first put into your muscle memory, is what will come out first. Just an older practitioner's point of view for dealing with real self defense situations. From what i've been reading you all apply that criteria in your training, such as distance to apply the tech's from, the what if phases, etc... anyway, deep down I think we all agree.



I have more time now to elaborate. I agree with you with regard to how blocks should be taught. I've found many teach what I call a "traditional" blocking methodology, and then modify it later. I went into a school and watched a "kenpo" teacher, instructing ostensibly a traditional Japanese middle block. Than when they went to the technique, they were unable to use the block they had just been taught. Traditional Japanese Arts essentially do not have the equivalent of the Parker Lineage inward Block. So students of some lineage's are stuck in limbo between their basics and the applications. Instructors teaching "traditional" material in a (relative) non-traditional science. When I mentioned this to the instructor he said, "Oh well, on the street we do it differently."

"If what you do, - is not what you do, - then what the hell are you doing?" - Ed Parker Sr.


----------



## USMATCSensei (Apr 25, 2008)

I agree, I still call them blocks with the kids and as they get more advanced I tell them they are hitting not blocking lol who knows maybe pressure points may work if not you still hit them.


----------



## Hand Sword (Apr 25, 2008)

DavidCC said:


> LOL


 

LOL back! I was when this thread started back in '04!

:erg: Wow! This thread ended that year, I didn't even think it was still in the memory banks lol! How did anyone find this and bring it back? Incredible! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





Oh well, serves me right. I brought back the bar brawl thread in the general section after it was dead for a good while.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Apr 25, 2008)

USMATCSensei said:


> I agree, I still call them blocks with the kids and as they get more advanced I tell them they are hitting not blocking lol who knows maybe pressure points may work if not you still hit them.


Its all just motion.
Sean


----------



## marlon (Apr 27, 2008)

would anyone say that the body mechanics taught in effective blocking is the most important part of blocking?
If this is true then perhaps the conversation could discuss the differnces in the body mechanics as taught in the traditional blocks vs non traditional...
respectfully,
Marlon


----------



## Doc (Apr 27, 2008)

marlon said:


> would anyone say that the body mechanics taught in effective blocking is the most important part of blocking?
> If this is true then perhaps the conversation could discuss the differnces in the body mechanics as taught in the traditional blocks vs non traditional...
> respectfully,
> Marlon



Body mechanics are the most important part of everything you do.


----------



## Dr John M La Tourrette (Apr 29, 2008)

kenpoworks said:


> _*"After all, what you first put into your muscle memory, is what will come out first" .......Handsword*_
> _I cant agree with statement from personal experience I have found on occasion that its what I have be currently practising that seems to come out in confrontation._
> _So it seems to me that its "*last in first out*"._
> _Respectfully_
> _Richi_


 
It's called "the recency factor".

Lets see if I can remember those differences from my memory since its been ages since I've needed to define them to anyone.

The above is a confusion between recency and muscle memory. 

Usually people remember most from ONE session, the first thing, then the last thing, and forget the stuff in the middle.

Muscle memory is different than the recency  factor.

When you do a drill 10,000 times so you are on automatic stimulus response, that is muscle memory.

So a child that learns how to ride a bicycle, and then stops riding one when he turns 16 can easily jump back on a bicycle when he is in his 40s.

He does remember "how", he just needs a month of so of practice to get back into shape fully.

So muscle memory is much better, faster and more skilled WHEN recency is added to the training mix.

Dr. John M. La Tourrette


----------



## Doc (Apr 29, 2008)

In human anatomy, Synaptic Dynamics dictate a different perspective. I essentially agree with Dr. La Tourrette, but for different reasons. Synaptic Dynamics to not support "first in, last out," or "last in first out" responses. These are intellectual or or lay term "Mind Memory" perspectives.

Physical responses are a product of physical and mental familiarity. Synaptic Pathways, (also in lay terms called "muscle memory") are a product of the dynamics of creation over specific extended repetition. This, in addition to a "hardening process" of "startle reflex" responses subjected to adrenal stimulation, determine the availability and likelihood of response to external stimuli. 

Or; 

*"The body will ALWAYS execute what it knows best, not what you intellectually know best, most recent, or least recent." - Dr. Ron Chapél*

(Thanx Doc L. for the call)


----------



## Dr John M La Tourrette (Apr 29, 2008)

Doc said:


> In human anatomy, Synaptic Dynamics dictate a different perspective. I essentially agree with Dr. La Tourrette, but for different reasons. Synaptic Dynamics to not support "first in, last out," or "last in first out" responses. These are intellectual or or lay term "Mind Memory" perspectives.
> 
> Physical responses are a product of physical and mental familiarity. Synaptic Pathways, (also in lay terms called "muscle memory") are a product of the dynamics of creation over specific extended repetition. This, in addition to a "hardening process" of "startle reflex" responses subjected to adrenal stimulation, determine the availability and likelihood of response to external stimuli.
> 
> ...


 
You are welcome Doc R.

And the above sounds like a neurological definition of NLP "anchoring" or psychology's Pavlovian conditioning.

And there is a vast difference between the two, just as there are many similarities.

In kenpo we as trainers and as martial artists hopefully do both.

Nice.

Where's my damn psychology/medical dictionary when I need it?

Dr. John M. La Tourrette
Ps. I think I'll go over something else that is important and being left out, but on another different post.


----------

