# Comments on Blocking Set 1



## Yondanchris (Jan 31, 2017)

Some comments for one of my distance students on American Kenpo Blocking Set 1.


----------



## KenpoMaster805 (Feb 2, 2017)

he explained blockikng set 1 good with  alot of details


----------



## Headhunter (Feb 3, 2017)

Personally I'm not a fan of the sets blocking, striking and finger because they're not teaching the moves properly. Sure they're teaching you how to do the blocks and strikes etc but you don't just use your arm on strikes or finger pokes or even blokes you use your foot manouvers to that's where the most power comes in from your torque or rotation or on your blocks from your marriage of gravity. I get that for a beginner it teaches the moves but it also puts into their head just standing there and basically doing arm punches


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Feb 3, 2017)

Headhunter said:


> most power comes in from your torque or rotation ...


Agree! One should use body to block and one should not just use arm to block. This way, your body will move out of your opponent's striking path, whether you block his punch or not is no longer important.

IMO, when you have reached to the higher level, people should only see your body motion and people should not see your arm motion.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Feb 4, 2017)

It's things like this that makes me really glad that I know kung fu.  There seems to be some misconceptions about the rising block.  I'm thinking there is some knowledge missing from the OP's video which gives the guy in the video the assumption that "something isn't working or efficient."


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Feb 4, 2017)

JowGaWolf said:


> There seems to be some misconceptions about the rising block.


The "rising block" suppose to be "raise the curtain, you then walk under it". Without "walk under it", the "raise the curtain" has no meaning.

We all try to develop "body method". It's the body movement that's important.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Feb 4, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The "rising block" suppose to be "raise the curtain, you then walk under it". Without "walk under it", the "raise the curtain" has no meaning.
> 
> We all try to develop "body method". It's the body movement that's important.


I wish people would just say they don't know, or aren't sure.  I think when people should talk to martial artists from other systems that use the same or similar technique when they get stuck and aren't sure, (if no one in the school knows).  For example, if he had talked to someone like you he would have been able to look at the technique from a different perspective and would have a deeper understanding of his own technique.


----------



## Yondanchris (Feb 5, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The "rising block" suppose to be "raise the curtain, you then walk under it". Without "walk under it", the "raise the curtain" has no meaning.
> 
> We all try to develop "body method". It's the body movement that's important.


True, but in the context of this video it is a static set (in a horse stance) as originally taught and I was originally taught 20+ years ago that the upward block (literally above your head) could block an incoming attack....FALSE. part 2 of this video has yet to be filmed showing how I teach blocking set with movement and proper body dimensions (height, width, and depth) 

Sent from my R1 HD using Tapatalk


----------



## Yondanchris (Feb 5, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The "rising block" suppose to be "raise the curtain, you then walk under it". Without "walk under it", the "raise the curtain" has no meaning.
> 
> We all try to develop "body method". It's the body movement that's important.


That would be more descriptive of the upward outward moving block in American Kenpo which is not the block being discussed in this video. Only the upward block is being discussed. 

The upward outward moving parry/block can be seen in techniques such as  circles of protection. 

Sent from my R1 HD using Tapatalk


----------



## Yondanchris (Feb 5, 2017)

Headhunter said:


> Personally I'm not a fan of the sets blocking, striking and finger because they're not teaching the moves properly. Sure they're teaching you how to do the blocks and strikes etc but you don't just use your arm on strikes or finger pokes or even blokes you use your foot manouvers to that's where the most power comes in from your torque or rotation or on your blocks from your marriage of gravity. I get that for a beginner it teaches the moves but it also puts into their head just standing there and basically doing arm punches


Hense the need for students to learn the "2" sets or as I call them the "moving" sets. But a student needs to crawl before they can can walk or run, that is why we teach the "1" sets predominantly from a static horse stance position. 

Sent from my R1 HD using Tapatalk


----------



## JowGaWolf (Feb 5, 2017)

Yondanchris said:


> True, but in the context of this video it is a static set (in a horse stance) as originally taught and I was originally taught 20+ years ago that the upward block (literally above your head) could block an incoming attack


My perception of this is that it's training 2 things at once.  It's training the technique and training the legs at the same time.  It was never meant to be see as an application where the block is done in horse stance in a fight.   If you look at kung fu forms you will see them sometimes punch in a static horse stance.  The application is the punch, the stance is the leg workout.   I think this is the same for other martial arts that do similar things while in a static horse stance.   The application is the rising block and the leg work out is the stance.   In self defense, or fight application, you would remove the horse stance and keep the block.   Your video would be an example of how form differs from fight application.

I was taught that the form has multiple functions.  It may contain actual fight combinations, it may train quickness, it may contain exercises that focus more on specific parts of the body, it may train agility, it may train coordination.  The forms are an exercise and not everything in the form are direct fight applications where a person would fight just like they move in the form.


----------



## JP3 (Feb 5, 2017)

KenpoMaster805 said:


> he explained blockikng set 1 good with  alot of details



Your student also explained blocking set 1 well, with  alot of details.  He did both things.

Apologies to KenpoMaster805, my daughter has a Serious problem correctly using the Good vs. Well forms.  I have to stay on her all the time.  She's  24.  It's been a long road and no end in sight.


----------



## Headhunter (Feb 5, 2017)

Yondanchris said:


> Hense the need for students to learn the "2" sets or as I call them the "moving" sets. But a student needs to crawl before they can can walk or run, that is why we teach the "1" sets predominantly from a static horse stance position.
> 
> Sent from my R1 HD using Tapatalk


Even the set 2s aren't great for it first they're not taught until a higher level second blocking set is still stationary apart from a few twists and crane stances, same as striking 2 there's a few step throughs but there's still to much in place stuff and honestly how hard Is it to teach someone to turn their hips boxers learn it on day 1. Even in kenpo you'll be taught about body movement straight away when you do basics in class and techniques.


----------



## Yondanchris (Feb 8, 2017)

JP3 said:


> Your student also explained blocking set 1 well, with  alot of details.  He did both things.
> 
> Apologies to KenpoMaster805, my daughter has a Serious problem correctly using the Good vs. Well forms.  I have to stay on her all the time.  She's  24.  It's been a long road and no end in sight.



Mike Bialto aka KenpoMaster805 is neither my instructor, nor my student. 
Just to clarify!


----------



## JP3 (Feb 10, 2017)

Yondanchris said:


> Mike Bialto aka KenpoMaster805 is neither my instructor, nor my student.
> Just to clarify!


No clarification needed. He used "Good" where "Well" was the proper English grammar structure, it had nothing to do with you at all.... except that I did the quote thing, which made it ambiguous as I can read now. Apologies.


----------



## Yondanchris (Feb 10, 2017)

JP3 said:


> No clarification needed. He used "Good" where "Well" was the proper English grammar structure, it had nothing to do with you at all.... except that I did the quote thing, which made it ambiguous as I can read now. Apologies.


No problemo 

Sent from my R1 HD using Tapatalk


----------

