# Blocking useless?



## TMA17 (Feb 20, 2018)

I’m not sure I agree.  He starts off at a certain distance, but later does block by moving in.  In WC you step in and can do a number of things to stop a hook.  However I think he is right in that it’s very hard to pull off blocks in a real situation.


----------



## Headhunter (Feb 20, 2018)

I use blocks all the time. I never use the boxing cover up because I don't like it and whenever I spar I use traditional style blocks all through my fighting career and sparring


----------



## oftheherd1 (Feb 20, 2018)

A block by any other name ...


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Feb 20, 2018)

If you

- block your opponent's punch, he will punch you again.
- wrap his arm, he won't be able to punch you again.


----------



## lklawson (Feb 20, 2018)

Did someone say "blocking?"





Walker page52 by lklawson on MartialTalk.Com - Friendly Martial Arts Forum Community




Edwin Haislet's Boxing - pp24 Fig 32 The Brush away by lklawson on MartialTalk.Com - Friendly Martial Arts Forum Community




Doran's Science of Self Defense by lklawson on MartialTalk.Com - Friendly Martial Arts Forum Community




Defensive Exercises - Donald Walker by lklawson on MartialTalk.Com - Friendly Martial Arts Forum Community




Foxes Boxing and How to Train by lklawson on MartialTalk.Com - Friendly Martial Arts Forum Community




Hutchison by lklawson on MartialTalk.Com - Friendly Martial Arts Forum Community




19248 by lklawson on MartialTalk.Com - Friendly Martial Arts Forum Community




James J Corbett - Scientific Boxing by lklawson on MartialTalk.Com - Friendly Martial Arts Forum Community

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## jks9199 (Feb 20, 2018)

Is blocking useless...

Let's see... every martial system you look at features some form of blocking.  Some use powerful force-on-force blocks to stopp the attack, others parry more, some intercept, some attack the incoming attack, some absorb an attack and wrap... but they all feature some means of stopping someone's attack before it lands.  So, either there's a reason they all include it -- and maintain it.  

Maybe if blocks don't work for you, you don't understand how they're designed to work within your system, and why they're there.


----------



## TMA17 (Feb 20, 2018)

I found this video on the internet so it has to be true.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 20, 2018)

TMA17 said:


> I’m not sure I agree.  He starts off at a certain distance, but later does block by moving in.  In WC you step in and can do a number of things to stop a hook.  However I think he is right in that it’s very hard to pull off blocks in a real situation.



For what they are doing what he suggests is probably on point. 

It is a very conservative way of stopping punches that does not require any gamesmanship. Punches  do come out too fast for me to stop if i was to try to adress each punch individualy.

It becomes a bang for buck issue.

Now if you create a space and time advantage you can block all you want. But then you need footwork and game. Which may be to involved a method to stop a street attack.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Feb 20, 2018)

When your opponent grabs on your wrist, you can use your other

1. arm to break that hold.
2. hand to hold on his grip and lock on his wrist.

What's the difference here?

- 1 is conservative solution. You just want to break apart that grip.
- 2 is aggressive solution. Your opponent's arm control on you will become your arm control on him.

If you apply the same logic to punch,

- block is conservative solution. You want to avoid be punched.
- wrap is aggressive solution. You want to control your opponent's arm.


----------



## Buka (Feb 20, 2018)

Blocking is one way to avoid being hit. There's plenty of others. But, there is a reason why the term "block and counter" exists in striking Arts.

I usually fight with my hands up. [the only time I don't is if I'm baiting]  If we're sparring in any kind of striking game, and a fancy young kicker whips a kick to my head, I will slap block that puppy and smack him before he can get his kick down. It's because my hands are right there.

And blocking to the body sometimes consists of turning and taking the strike on the forearm, hip, whatever. It's still a block.

Of course.....I do end up blocking with my face from time to time. Been working on that block a long time.

I haven't watched that vid yet. But a quick peek showed me he did what I call blocking. Probably a terminology thing.


----------



## TMA17 (Feb 20, 2018)

Blocking fast punches is very difficult, but it can be done.  Disrupting the attacker quickly as they attack you is an option.  Of course great head movement is another.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Feb 20, 2018)

TMA17 said:


> I’m not sure I agree.  He starts off at a certain distance, but later does block by moving in.  In WC you step in and can do a number of things to stop a hook.  However I think he is right in that it’s very hard to pull off blocks in a real situation.


He doesn't understand how to to read punches or the value of techniques. If you train your defense correct then you'll soon discover that blocking isn't about guessing what punches are coming.  It's about limiting the types of punches your opponent can throw which cuts down on the possible punches you can get.  For example,  Stay at long arm range and you'll only get jabs, step in a little closer and you'll only get jabs and haymakers.  Each range has a limited amount of the types of punches that are possible.  If you understand this then you'll know which punches are most likely to be thrown and where.

As for people who block and throw punches, I see it all the time.  A boxer will block then counter, or sit a series of punches while blocking waiting for an opening.  The block that he specifically says doesn't work is done by World Champion Silva Anderson you'll need to slow it down to see it, but you can see it at the @0:25 mark





Covering = Blocking.  Covering blocks strikes from hitting what's behind the cover.

The covering the face and moving forward will literally get you killed by someone who has a good hook and knows how to step off center.  If you notice his types of covers leaves the vulnerable areas of his head open and it leaves his sides open.  I'm assuming he takes this cover because as a police officer has a protective vest? I've never worn a protective vest so I'm not sure how those things are against blunt trauma.  My guess is that if it gives then it's still possible to punch through it.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 20, 2018)

Buka said:


> Blocking is one way to avoid being hit. There's plenty of others. But, there is a reason why the term "block and counter" exists in striking Arts.
> 
> I usually fight with my hands up. [the only time I don't is if I'm baiting]  If we're sparring in any kind of striking game, and a fancy young kicker whips a kick to my head, I will slap block that puppy and smack him before he can get his kick down. It's because my hands are right there.
> 
> ...



Yeah but if he makes the distinction between blocking and covering. We kind of have to go with that.

Otherwise we are ignoring the point to play semantics.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Feb 20, 2018)

TMA17 said:


> Blocking fast punches is very difficult, but it can be done.  Disrupting the attacker quickly as they attack you is an option.  Of course great head movement is another.


Head movement is great for somethings and bad for others.  Head movement isn't going to save you from a grab, kick, sweep, knee or a punch kick, combination.  You have to keep in mind that the video you showed is of a boxer.  Boxers only punch and as a result they can afford to leave themselves open for grabs, kicks, and sweeps.  Don't get me wrong, the head movement is good, but it's usually only looks good when someone's punching.  The moment someone starts throwing punch kick combos, the more at risk those types of head movements will put you in.


----------



## TMA17 (Feb 20, 2018)

Excellent points.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 20, 2018)

JowGaWolf said:


> Head movement is great for somethings and bad for others.  Head movement isn't going to save you from a grab, kick, sweep, knee or a punch kick, combination.  You have to keep in mind that the video you showed is of a boxer.  Boxers only punch and as a result they can afford to leave themselves open for grabs, kicks, and sweeps.  Don't get me wrong, the head movement is good, but it's usually only looks good when someone's punching.  The moment someone starts throwing punch kick combos, the more at risk those types of head movements will put you in.



That guy isn't only boxing.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Feb 20, 2018)

drop bear said:


> That guy isn't only boxing.


Which guy are you talking about?


----------



## Anarax (Feb 20, 2018)

TMA17 said:


> I’m not sure I agree.  He starts off at a certain distance, but later does block by moving in.  In WC you step in and can do a number of things to stop a hook.  However I think he is right in that it’s very hard to pull off blocks in a real situation.



Though I think he makes some good points, he's discussing more his preferences than anything. Skip to 2:57 and Lyoto uses almost the same exact block that Chad Lyman asks for emails of Pro fighters that use said technique.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Feb 20, 2018)

Anarax said:


> Though I think he makes some good points, he's discussing more his preferences than anything.


I wouldn't even say that it's his preference.  Preference is saying "This is what works for me. Here's why"   "I don't like using... Here's why."  When he starts to invalidate things based on his believe and understanding of a technique then it's no longer a Preference.  I understand he wants to appear to be knowledgeable, but sometimes that desire puts us out on a limb and we end up speaking beyond our knowledge and understanding.

My guess he is trying to address some things that he may have seen in other self-defense videos where they use a double arm black on one punch.  For me personally, I have never seen a Martial Arts school or system teach to block with both arms that way.  For the schools and systems that I know of, when it comes to blocking punches, one arm is free so they can counter.

I will say this much though.  In the context of what he's following up with, his method of blocking /covering makes more sense.  He's specifically moving in like that to target a punching arm.  Now, how often that opportunity come up in a real fight? who knows. 

I can say this much.  I haven't seen an MMA fighter pull off what he's trying to do.


----------



## Anarax (Feb 20, 2018)

JowGaWolf said:


> I wouldn't even say that it's his preference.  Preference is saying "This is what works for me. Here's why"   "I don't like using... Here's why."  When he starts to invalidate things based on his believe and understanding of a technique then it's no longer a Preference.  I understand he wants to appear to be knowledgeable, but sometimes that desire puts us out on a limb and we end up speaking beyond our knowledge and understanding.
> 
> My guess he is trying to address some things that he may have seen in other self-defense videos where they use a double arm black on one punch.  For me personally, I have never seen a Martial Arts school or system teach to block with both arms that way.  For the schools and systems that I know of, when it comes to blocking punches, one arm is free so they can counter.
> 
> ...



I went into research mode looking for blocking examples videos while playing his in the background and I missed some of that. After re-watching the video I see the invalidation he *tries *to make.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Feb 20, 2018)

I agree with his strategy - move in, but I don't like to cover my head with my arms. When your opponent punches at you, you should move in. You should not move back. The reasons are:

You want to

- interrupt his punch during the early stage when speed is still slow and power is still weak.
- fight in your opponent's territory instead of to fight in your own territory.
- establish a clinch ASAP (if you are a wrestler).
- ...

Also, your hands should be closer to your opponent's head and not close to your own head. The US anti-missile system should be set on the coast line and not in Washington DC. You can protect your head away from you. You don't need to protect you head that close from your head.

IMO, you should not give your opponent enough space to generate speed and power for his punches. In order to "squeeze" your opponent's space, you have to move in.

I like simple and quick solution.

- You attack me.
- I move in.
- Either you knock me down, or
- I take you down.

When my opponent punches me, his arm is not protecting his head. I want to get his head right at that moment.


----------



## jobo (Feb 21, 2018)

TMA17 said:


> I’m not sure I agree.  He starts off at a certain distance, but later does block by moving in.  In WC you step in and can do a number of things to stop a hook.  However I think he is right in that it’s very hard to pull off blocks in a real situation.


i see we have the ussual dennie physics responded!
the guy is right, blocking a " good punch" is very difficult, /borderline impossible for the simple reason that the travel time of the punch is likely to be shorter than the targets reaction time, never mind the actual time to move the arm into place. You can off set that by anticipation, people do tend to telegraph their intentions by body position and by conditioned response, that can shorten the reaction time somewhat. But its always going to be a matter of a few thousands of a,second if you get the block in place or not. If they sucker punch you, then by defintion you have lost your anticipation of the move.
conditioned response leaves you vulrable to a feint, your arm is moving to block a punch that never comes, mean while the left hand is coming whilst you are still blocking the right.

as the guy says, control of space is the keys, ether lots of it, to give you time or non of it to take the power out of the punches, anything but be three foot away, in the punching zone


----------



## jobo (Feb 21, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I agree with his strategy - move in, but I don't like to cover my head with my arms. When your opponent punches at you, you should move in. You should not move back. The reasons are:
> 
> You want to
> 
> ...


moving backwards away from a punch and covering you head, rather than blocking in empty space is exactly what boxers do!, presumably because this works better than your alternative, why do you think they are wrong to do this?


----------



## TMA17 (Feb 21, 2018)

This is why boxing is so effective - head movement, spacial movement with good footwork controlling distances, angles and the focus on getting proficient in only a select amount of punches.  All of those attributes are what makes boxing such an effective art.  

Throw in elbows and straight punches and it has you covered as a striking art goes.


----------



## jobo (Feb 21, 2018)

TMA17 said:


> This is why boxing is so effective - head movement, spacial movement with good footwork controlling distances, angles and the focus on getting proficient in only a select amount of punches.  All of those attributes are what makes boxing such an effective art.
> 
> Throw in elbows and straight punches and it has you covered as a striking art goes.


there is a,fundamental denial on here, that the," tradition" of tma means that they are at a significant disadvantage to any fighting system that has progressed since The 1800s . Posting up pictures of old time boxers using similar techniques, only underlined the fact that boxing has progressed and tma by defintion has not.

much of the very fundemental on which tma is based are,at best,inefficient and more likely deeply flawed against a fast and mobile opponent. I'm taking the very basics like stance, flat footedness, ( rooting  ) hand position, punching techneque forward only movement, body rigidity. The lot really,

if you want to see what works look at boxing, MT, bjj anything that is refined in contests, even full contact karate looks little like traditional karate, Because standing in a daft stance with you feet rooted, refusing to back up and you hands pulled back under your arm pits is a,sure way of getting a punch on the nose


----------



## lklawson (Feb 21, 2018)

jobo said:


> there is a,fundamental denial on here, that the," tradition" of tma means that they are at a significant disadvantage to any fighting system that has progressed since The 1800s . Posting up pictures of old time boxers using similar techniques, only underlined the fact that boxing has progressed and tma by defintion has not.


Not even close.  You are correct that boxing has changed, but you are incorrect about why.  It's not that boxing has "progressed" per se.  It is that the rules of boxing changed.  The short version is that the rules used to favor extended range outfighting and boxing at a distance.  There have pretty much always been "rules," but the rules were different.  Old style boxing included much lighter and harder (or no) gloves, stand-up grappling, throwing, and other differences.  Even in the early 20th Century, after the Marquess of Queensbery rules were becoming the norm, "Scientific Boxing" and Amateur Boxing still had a certain amount of inertia in its traditions and training methods which continued to teach and support blocking as shown above.

It is exactly the same reason that linear punches were preferred and "round" type blows such as the modern Hook were not only unpopular but were actually ridiculed and derisively called a "swing."  
The Straight Left and How to cultivate it by Jim Driscoll (Paperback) - Lulu



> boxing, MT, bjj anything that is refined in contests,


Are shaped by the parameters of the contest.



> even full contact karate looks little like traditional karate, Because standing in a daft stance with you feet rooted, refusing to back up and you hands pulled back under your arm pits is a,sure way of getting a punch on the nose


Umm... what?  I'm not a karate guy but that doesn't really sound like any karate I've seen.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Anarax (Feb 21, 2018)

TMA17 said:


> This is why boxing is so effective - head movement, spacial movement with good footwork controlling distances, angles and the focus on getting proficient in only a select amount of punches.  All of those attributes are what makes boxing such an effective art.
> 
> Throw in elbows and straight punches and it has you covered as a striking art goes.


Panantukan/Suntukan(Filipino Boxing) had a heavy influence on western boxing. That's why the stances, postures, hand positions and strikes have changed so much from the pictures posted. 
Influence of Filipino Martial Arts on Western Boxing


----------



## jobo (Feb 21, 2018)

lklawson said:


> Not even close.  You are correct that boxing has changed, but you are incorrect about why.  It's not that boxing has "progressed" per se.  It is that the rules of boxing changed.  The short version is that the rules used to favor extended range outfighting and boxing at a distance.  There have pretty much always been "rules," but the rules were different.  Old style boxing included much lighter and harder (or no) gloves, stand-up grappling, throwing, and other differences.  Even in the early 20th Century, after the Marquess of Queensbery rules were becoming the norm, "Scientific Boxing" and Amateur Boxing still had a certain amount of inertia in its traditions and training methods which continued to teach and support blocking as shown above.
> 
> It is exactly the same reason that linear punches were preferred and "round" type blows such as the modern Hook were not only unpopular but were actually ridiculed and derisively called a "swing."
> The Straight Left and How to cultivate it by Jim Driscoll (Paperback) - Lulu
> ...


I'm not sure what your claiming here, I'm not sure you are either, the Queensbury rules precede the 20th century by a good few decades, and those replaced other prizefighting rules, that had been around fir,a hundred years before that, kicking bitting gouging, head butting had been outlawed for a long long time. The only fundemental difference between the M of Q rules and what went before was gloves and by virtue of gloves, wrestling was restricted. So how exactly are you claiming the Queensbury rules changed punching range,,,, exactly

boxing has most certainly progressed since the mid 1800s,  so even if we look just,at post queenburry rules, its has considerable differences through science


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 21, 2018)

drop bear said:


> For what they are doing what he suggests is probably on point.
> 
> It is a very conservative way of stopping punches that does not require any gamesmanship. Punches  do come out too fast for me to stop if i was to try to adress each punch individualy.
> 
> ...


Flurries of punches are not worth blocking. Individual punches often are. I think where folks get hung up is on the idea of the isolated block, like is taught to beginners. That's just a beginning point to learn to interfere with a punch before it hits you. More tools are added to give more options, and in a lot of situations a skilled person doesn't use isolated blocks, but integrates them with other things, sometimes even resorting to covering to get inside and do what they need to, to end the fight.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Feb 21, 2018)

jobo said:


> moving backwards away from a punch and covering you head, rather than blocking in empty space is exactly what boxers do!, presumably because this works better than your alternative, why do you think they are wrong to do this?


If you are a 

- striker, you want to maintain the striking range.
- wrestler, you want to maintain the clinching range.

For a wrestler to move back, he will never be able to obtain his clinching range.


----------



## lklawson (Feb 21, 2018)

jobo said:


> I'm not sure what your claiming here, I'm not sure you are either,


Just because you don't know what I'm saying doesn't mean that I don't.



> the Queensbury rules precede the 20th century by a good few decades, and those replaced other prizefighting rules, that had been around fir,a hundred years before that, kicking bitting gouging, head butting had been outlawed for a long long time.


Sometimes.  Sorta.  Depending.

The reason that it is relevant to this discussion is because the rules are what either allow techniques such as blocking or hooks to flourish or to die.  In the earlier rulesets long range, linear, punches and blocking were encouraged (because of the rules) and circular techniques, such as the hook, were discouraged.  As the rules changed, the circumstances which favored blocking disappeared, but the techniques continued to be taught for a while for no better reason than "inertia" and tradition.  Eventually they did fade, because of the rules changes.  Further, you should know that the MoQ rules were not instantly and unanimously adopted around the world.  Even in England it took some decades before MoQ was adopted by professional boxers.  Prior to that it was considered a rule set for amateurs and school children.



> The only fundemental difference between the M of Q rules and what went before was gloves and by virtue of gloves, wrestling was restricted.


Mule Muffins.  Gloves, aka "mufflers" or "mittens," were in use well prior to MoQ for amateur matches and for professional training outside of prize matches.  Grappling and throws were commonly taught *WITH* gloves.













The (one of) fundamental difference (differences) is that the MoQ rules specifically prohibited grappling.  Rule #2 specifically states: "No wrestling or hugging allowed."



> So how exactly are you claiming the Queensbury rules changed punching range,,,, exactly


As I already wrote, and to quote myself, "...the rules of boxing changed. The short version is that the rules used to favor extended range outfighting and boxing at a distance. There have pretty much always been 'rules,' but the rules were different. Old style boxing included much lighter and harder (or no) gloves, stand-up grappling, throwing, and other differences."  Under the London Prize Ring rules and Broughton era rules, the rules favored extended range outfighting and linear punches which both allow for the successful application of blocking as illustrated earlier. 



> boxing has most certainly progressed since the mid 1800s,  so even if we look just,at post queenburry rules, its has considerable differences through science


No.  Not "progressed" "through science."  It's is just that the rules changed and therefore what techniques and strategies are going to be successful adapted to the new rules.

Change isn't necessarily "progress" it's just change.  In this case, what caused the rules to change is actually social conventions.  There had been an ongoing social battle to shrug off a mantle of primitive barbarism which enshrouded boxing, particularly in England.  Boxing was popular with lower social classes and, as a spectator sport, with the Aristocrats, but it suffered a great deal of negative press and pressure from social crusaders.  You see social defenses of boxing in manuals like Tousey and Owen Swift.  The rules changes were mostly about making boxing more "civilized."  The changes in boxing rules were made so that boxing would be more socially acceptable, not so that boxing would be more effective as a fighting style.  Therefore, the changes in boxing techniques and strategy to adapt to the new rules were, equally, not precipitated by the need to be more effective as a fighting style but merely to be more effective under the nicer, more civilized, rule set.  QED

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## TMA17 (Feb 21, 2018)

Anyone familiar with Nick Drossos?  I watched many of his videos.  He has a MA background but most important he was a bouncer for 7 years.  He cuts through the fluff.


----------



## Buka (Feb 21, 2018)

drop bear said:


> Yeah but if he makes the distinction between blocking and covering. We kind of have to go with that.
> 
> Otherwise we are ignoring the point to play semantics.



I agree, Drop Bear. Finally watched the video. But it's aimed specific to police work. I use the terminology "jamming" for what he's doing. But, it is semantics.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 21, 2018)

jobo said:


> i see we have the ussual dennie physics responded!
> the guy is right, blocking a " good punch" is very difficult, /borderline impossible for the simple reason that the travel time of the punch is likely to be shorter than the targets reaction time, never mind the actual time to move the arm into place. You can off set that by anticipation, people do tend to telegraph their intentions by body position and by conditioned response, that can shorten the reaction time somewhat. But its always going to be a matter of a few thousands of a,second if you get the block in place or not. If they sucker punch you, then by defintion you have lost your anticipation of the move.
> conditioned response leaves you vulrable to a feint, your arm is moving to block a punch that never comes, mean while the left hand is coming whilst you are still blocking the right.
> 
> as the guy says, control of space is the keys, ether lots of it, to give you time or non of it to take the power out of the punches, anything but be three foot away, in the punching zone


The sucker punch is certainly the wild card here. Covering (or a variation) is the best shot there because it doesn't require much information. The better the puncher, the harder it is to read the punch to get a chance to block - that's part of what many of us train on (to disguise our intentions). Of course, defensive positions put the hands relatively close to blocking positions, to start with (near the punching alleys) to reduce the time it takes to block.


----------



## jobo (Feb 21, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you are a
> 
> - striker, you want to maintain the striking range.
> - wrestler, you want to maintain the clinching range.
> ...


striking of wrestling you want to avoid getting punched in the head, moving backwards out of range is a good call in both caes, you cant hit, but nether can you be hit, you can then go forward when it suits you, or nit at all if it doesn't


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 21, 2018)

jobo said:


> striking of wrestling you want to avoid getting punched in the head, moving backwards out of range is a good call in both caes, you can hit, but nether can you be hit, you can then go forward when it suits you, or nit at all if it doesn't


I like the concept (not always applicable, but I like it) of moving back to make room, letting them fill it, and entering against their entry. Whether I'm striking or grappling, I want to be the one controlling when distance opens and closes. Of course, if they're smart about it, they're probably doing the same thing.


----------



## Anarax (Feb 21, 2018)

TMA17 said:


> Anyone familiar with Nick Drossos?  I watched many of his videos.  He has a MA background but most important he was a bouncer for 7 years.  He cuts through the fluff.



I've seen a lot of Nick's videos, he seems very knowledgeable and experienced. However; I disagree with some of his points in the "How to Block a Punch In a Street Fight" video. I agree with the cover block(your palm grabs the back of your head) shouldn't be used to defend a knife attack and a projected block is much more effective. However; he demonstrates the cover block as a stationary technique nor does he show the practical application of it. In kali we use footwork and counters in conjunction with the cover block, we don't just stand there and absorb the blow. The cover block is a versatile technique for entries, destructions and bridges into follow-up techniques.

His projected block against a knife is a bit too high up on his partner's arm. When you block at the joint or on the upper arm there's a tendency for the opponent's arm to fold in, and if there's a knife in it that means you have a high chance of getting stabbed. Look where his partner's fist is at 1:10, imagine a knife in it. Forearm length is also an important factor to keep in mind when you block high on the arm against a knife. Fred's arms are longer than his partner's, thus he can sort of get away with it in the video. However; if he was facing someone with the same length or longer arms than his, it would be more problematic because his partner's weapon would be much closer to him even after the block.

Fred's elbow is also too high for the projected block against the knife, if your opponent is swinging with a lot of force one natural tendency will be for the attack to ramp into your side if blocked like that. Dropping the elbow just a few inches helps to prevent that from happening.

Not trying to nitpick, but when discussing knife defense the small details make a huge difference.


----------



## jobo (Feb 21, 2018)

lklawson said:


> Just because you don't know what I'm saying doesn't mean that I don't.
> 
> Sometimes.  Sorta.  Depending.
> 
> ...


your just writing STUFF, that has no specifics,on what changed and when.

the rules of boxing haven't changed fundamentally since 1870 or there abouts. Yet boxing has changed considerably in that time.

so what are you claim has brought about that change, it cant be the " rules" as the rules are much the same


----------



## TMA17 (Feb 21, 2018)

Anarax said:


> I've seen a lot of Nick's videos, he seems very knowledgeable and experienced. However; I disagree with some of his points in the "How to Block a Punch In a Street Fight" video. I agree with the cover block(your palm grabs the back of your head) shouldn't be used to defend a knife attack and a projected block is much more effective. However; he demonstrates the cover block as a stationary technique nor does he show the practical application of it. In kali we use footwork and counters in conjunction with the cover block, we don't just stand there and absorb the blow. The cover block is a versatile technique for entries, destructions and bridges into follow-up techniques.
> 
> His projected block against a knife is a bit too high up on his partner's arm. When you block at the joint or on the upper arm there's a tendency for the opponent's arm to fold in, and if there's a knife in it that means you have a high chance of getting stabbed. Look where his partner's fist is at 1:10, imagine a knife in it. Forearm length is also an important factor to keep in mind when you block high on the arm against a knife. Fred's arms are longer than his partner's, thus he can sort of get away with it in the video. However; if he was facing someone with the same length or longer arms than his, it would be more problematic because his partner's weapon would be much closer to him even after the block.
> 
> ...



Good points.

He definitely isn’t a fan of any particular style, but I did see some WC in what he does and boxing in a few of the videos.


----------



## lklawson (Feb 21, 2018)

jobo said:


> your just writing STUFF, that has no specifics,on what changed and when.


No specifics?  I put links in there and even pics.  



> the rules of boxing haven't changed fundamentally since 1870 or there abouts. Yet boxing has changed considerably in that time.


The rules have changed several times even after the MoQ.   There have also been alternate rules such as the American Fair Play rules.  Further, as I wrote, there was a certain amount of "inertia" and tradition which persisted.  Several of the photos I posed of blocking in boxing are from the WWI era, well into the 20th Century.



> so what are you claim has brought about that change, it cant be the " rules" as the rules are much the same


Sorry friend, but that's just not right.  I've provided lots of links to rules, books, photos, here's even an article.

There's plenty of evidence of the evolution of boxing.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## jobo (Feb 21, 2018)

lklawson said:


> No specifics?  I put links in there and even pics.
> 
> The rules have changed several times even after the MoQ.   There have also been alternate rules such as the American Fair Play rules.  Further, as I wrote, there was a certain amount of "inertia" and tradition which persisted.  Several of the photos I posed of blocking in boxing are from the WWI era, well into the 20th Century.
> 
> ...


 i know there's plenty of evidence that boxing has evolved, what there isn't is plenty of evidence that its down to rule changes, yes ok, boxing has changed from 1918, but not because of rule changes, as the rules are almost exactly the same in 2018 as they were then


----------



## lklawson (Feb 21, 2018)

jobo said:


> i know there's plenty of evidence that boxing has evolved, what there isn't is plenty of evidence that its down to rule changes, yes ok, boxing has changed from 1918, but not because of rule changes, as the rules are almost exactly the same in 2018 as they were then


I don't know what more you want.  I've presented plenty of evidence.  Have you downloaded and read the Driscoll manual yet?  It's pretty convincing.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## jobo (Feb 21, 2018)

lklawson said:


> I don't know what more you want.  I've presented plenty of evidence.  Have you downloaded and read the Driscoll manual yet?  It's pretty convincing.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk


i want you to back up what your claim, rather than just random links


----------



## drop bear (Feb 21, 2018)

lklawson said:


> Not even close.  You are correct that boxing has changed, but you are incorrect about why.  It's not that boxing has "progressed" per se.  It is that the rules of boxing changed.  The short version is that the rules used to favor extended range outfighting and boxing at a distance.  There have pretty much always been "rules," but the rules were different.  Old style boxing included much lighter and harder (or no) gloves, stand-up grappling, throwing, and other differences.  Even in the early 20th Century, after the Marquess of Queensbery rules were becoming the norm, "Scientific Boxing" and Amateur Boxing still had a certain amount of inertia in its traditions and training methods which continued to teach and support blocking as shown above.
> 
> It is exactly the same reason that linear punches were preferred and "round" type blows such as the modern Hook were not only unpopular but were actually ridiculed and derisively called a "swing."
> The Straight Left and How to cultivate it by Jim Driscoll (Paperback) - Lulu
> ...



There are a lot of different rule sets that include hand striking.

Here is a friend of mine Ben Kelleher.
boxing





small glove muay thai.





MMA





kickboxing.





There are differences. But they generally don't extend to blocks because the gloves are smaller. It really is just a case of the science behind boxing is better now.

We go all the way to modern bare knuckle. And they don't use your suggested method either.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 21, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> The sucker punch is certainly the wild card here. Covering (or a variation) is the best shot there because it doesn't require much information. The better the puncher, the harder it is to read the punch to get a chance to block - that's part of what many of us train on (to disguise our intentions). Of course, defensive positions put the hands relatively close to blocking positions, to start with (near the punching alleys) to reduce the time it takes to block.



I got to the point from trial and error. Where if i was in punching range my hands were all the way up. I could not deal with the risk of missing that sucker punch. Which I have done a few times.

So out of range fine. In range and I was basically 100% 

Mostly I stayed out of range which is the best method to avoid sucker shots.

If you come across a quick guy relying on the fence can get you in real trouble.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Feb 21, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> Flurries of punches are not worth blocking. Individual punches often are. I think where folks get hung up is on the idea of the isolated block, like is taught to beginners. That's just a beginning point to learn to interfere with a punch before it hits you. More tools are added to give more options, and in a lot of situations a skilled person doesn't use isolated blocks, but integrates them with other things, sometimes even resorting to covering to get inside and do what they need to, to end the fight.


I was thinking the same thing as well.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Feb 21, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> I want to be the one controlling when distance opens and closes.


Same here.  The only time I allow my opponent to control the distance is with a bait.  For example, I may move backwards with the goal of giving my opponent the idea that he's in control because he's pressing me.  But my intentions is to look for an over commitment or laser focus in my opponent so I can counter an attack.  By moving backwards it forces my opponent to be able to throw only one kind of strike.  Moving backwards also cause my opponent to focus too much on trying to punch me, and not defending.   If he over commits then I can step off center and at the same time I've closed the distance.  

I never want to be in a situation where I can't control how much ground is covered. In a fight I try to control every aspect of what I'm dealing with.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Feb 21, 2018)

drop bear said:


> I got to the point from trial and error. Where if i was in punching range my hands were all the way up. I could not deal with the risk of missing that sucker punch. Which I have done a few times.
> 
> So out of range fine. In range and I was basically 100%
> 
> ...


  I don't like videos like that with the multiple attacks.  The only one that you'll have a chance of landing is the first one, the second one will vary depending on how they react to the first strike.  If I land an elbow straight into someone's chest then they aren't going to stay in one place for me to turn my body and wrap around their arm.   The most likely scenario is that the the impact of the elbow is either going to drive them backwards or downwards.  I'm pretty confident with this reaction because I have trained this particular type of elbow with students.  If the force is downward then it will collapse the body.  If the force is horizontal it will move the opponent backwards.

All of this extra stuff of multiple hits are not likely to be there.  I'm not saying that it won't be there, because if you have a weak elbow strike then you may have an opportunity to do the extra stuff.  However if you know how to drive the power of that elbow then that person isn't going lean over for the next technique.

Elbow to the body @1:31 validates what I'm saying.  You'll have to play it slow because it's really fast.  You can see the same elbow strike with the force send downward @ 1:54.  You have to play it in slow motion to see it.  If your assumptions and calculations on how the body may react to the strike, then your "next strike assumptions" will be off as well.  Sometimes people are so focused on the application that they forget to correctly calculate the physics behind it.  It's not the technique that's flawed but the calculation of which technique can be done afterwards that is inaccurate.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Feb 21, 2018)

Here's a police officer trying to use a similar technique shown in the OPs video.


----------



## Buka (Feb 21, 2018)

As for boxing, just my 

 

I rely on my own boxing experiences. If I want to know, or train, something I don't know or I'm curious about, I'll ask friends who have boxed professionally at the highest levels [successfully] or one that is doing so right now.

But when I want to know something about the history of boxing, anything about the history of boxing, it's evolution, the people, the methods, whatever, I'm asking Kirk. 

And I'm taking that to the bank.


----------



## Flying Crane (Feb 21, 2018)

TMA17 said:


> Anyone familiar with Nick Drossos?  I watched many of his videos.  He has a MA background but most important he was a bouncer for 7 years.  He cuts through the fluff.


First, circular punches are not automatically wild or non- technical.  They can be extremely precise.

Second, he needs to get a partner who knows how to throw circular punches.  What his partner in the video did was garbage.  Ya know how BJJ people always complain about traditional methods practice against takedowns, when nobody in the training group knows how to do a good takedown?  It undermines the practice and leads to a false sense of security and confidence.

Same thing here, with circular punches.

Now that being said, I believe that a whole lot of people have come up with methods that work.  Some might work better in some situations, or for some people.  But they work, and sticking with consistency in a method is important.

So I personally find a lot of the debate to be not terribly fruitful.  This method vs that method vs that other method, well take your pick.  Do your research and then choose the one that makes the most sense to you and stick with it.  Don’t get distracted by the shiny object across the street.


----------



## Flying Crane (Feb 21, 2018)

TMA17 said:


> I’m not sure I agree.  He starts off at a certain distance, but later does block by moving in.  In WC you step in and can do a number of things to stop a hook.  However I think he is right in that it’s very hard to pull off blocks in a real situation.


Ok.  As was pointed out by another member, he is talking about police use, which can be quite different from a civilian defending himself.  As I said in my previous post, lots of people come up with methods that work.  If this guy’s method works for him and his people, then I applaud him.

But he makes the mistake of thinking it will be the same for everyone.  It was kind of weird how he is talking about police tactics, and uses what he sees in competition martial arts to support his claim, namely that blocking doesn’t work.  Making such a comparison undermines his credibility.  He mixes apples and oranges.

I noticed his comment about foot position, and how “nobody” punches with their feet parallel, they always switch position so one foot is forward. 

He is wrong about that.  I do it all the time.  This is an example of making broad statements based on his own experience, which obviously does not include everything.

So if it works for him and his people, great.  He should just present his method and his reasons for it, and resist the temptation to climb up on the soapbox.  I just tune out when people start making global claims about what does and does not work.

My impression of the video: meh.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 22, 2018)

JowGaWolf said:


> I don't like videos like that with the multiple attacks.  The only one that you'll have a chance of landing is the first one, the second one will vary depending on how they react to the first strike.  If I land an elbow straight into someone's chest then they aren't going to stay in one place for me to turn my body and wrap around their arm.   The most likely scenario is that the the impact of the elbow is either going to drive them backwards or downwards.  I'm pretty confident with this reaction because I have trained this particular type of elbow with students.  If the force is downward then it will collapse the body.  If the force is horizontal it will move the opponent backwards.
> 
> All of this extra stuff of multiple hits are not likely to be there.  I'm not saying that it won't be there, because if you have a weak elbow strike then you may have an opportunity to do the extra stuff.  However if you know how to drive the power of that elbow then that person isn't going lean over for the next technique.
> 
> Elbow to the body @1:31 validates what I'm saying.  You'll have to play it slow because it's really fast.  You can see the same elbow strike with the force send downward @ 1:54.  You have to play it in slow motion to see it.  If your assumptions and calculations on how the body may react to the strike, then your "next strike assumptions" will be off as well.  Sometimes people are so focused on the application that they forget to correctly calculate the physics behind it.  It's not the technique that's flawed but the calculation of which technique can be done afterwards that is inaccurate.



There are a lot of overly ambitious ideas with that video. 

It was mostly to show how that eye strike can get in without the other guy even knowing the shot was coming.


----------



## lklawson (Feb 22, 2018)

jobo said:


> i want you to back up what your claim, rather than just random links


The links aren't "random" and they do back up my claim.


----------



## lklawson (Feb 22, 2018)

drop bear said:


> It really is just a case of the science behind boxing is better now.


Not so much.  The changes are an internal evolution to the rules.



> We go all the way to modern bare knuckle. And they don't use your suggested method either.


"Modern bare knuckle" is not the same; apples and oranges.  Further, I'm not "suggesting" a method.  I honestly don't give a fat fiddler's foreskin if you choose to try to block or not.  What I'm saying is that blocking used to be part of boxing and it was there because the rules allowed and encouraged it.  Blocking left boxing, eventually, because of the same reasons.

It's not that hard to trace and, honestly, doesn't particularly mean anything bad, or good, per se.  It certainly isn't an indictment of modern boxing.  It's just a recognition of how boxing has changed and why.


----------



## jks9199 (Feb 22, 2018)

jobo said:


> i want you to back up what your claim, rather than just random links


They were anything but "random links."  They directly addressed the points and supported Kirk's statements.  Meanwhile, all that you seem to be doing is saying "prove it."  What sort of proof do you want?  A litany of resurrected boxers from different eras telling you how they had to change what they did to fit the new rules?


----------



## JowGaWolf (Feb 22, 2018)

drop bear said:


> There are a lot of overly ambitious ideas with that video.
> 
> It was mostly to show how that eye strike can get in without the other guy even knowing the shot was coming.


oh ok.


----------



## jobo (Feb 22, 2018)

jks9199 said:


> They were anything but "random links."  They directly addressed the points and supported Kirk's statements.  Meanwhile, all that you seem to be doing is saying "prove it."  What sort of proof do you want?  A litany of resurrected boxers from different eras telling you how they had to change what they did to fit the new rules?


his claim was... That rules and ONLY rules has driven the evolution of boxing, he has evidenced that rules have had an effect, what He hasn't done is show that ALL the changes in the last 150 years are only down to rule changes


----------



## lklawson (Feb 22, 2018)

jobo said:


> his claim was... That rules and ONLY rules has driven the evolution of boxing


I did huh?  Well, I must be suffering from memory loss because I don't remember using those words.  Would you mind quoting where I wrote that?  Put in a link to my post.  Here, use this line:
_________________________________________________________________


----------



## drop bear (Feb 22, 2018)

lklawson said:


> Not so much.  The changes are an internal evolution to the rules.
> 
> "Modern bare knuckle" is not the same; apples and oranges.  Further, I'm not "suggesting" a method.  I honestly don't give a fat fiddler's foreskin if you choose to try to block or not.  What I'm saying is that blocking used to be part of boxing and it was there because the rules allowed and encouraged it.  Blocking left boxing, eventually, because of the same reasons.
> 
> It's not that hard to trace and, honestly, doesn't particularly mean anything bad, or good, per se.  It certainly isn't an indictment of modern boxing.  It's just a recognition of how boxing has changed and why.



And so while even modern bare knuckle isn't using old timey boxing concepts that still doesn't give you a hint about its relevance to modern combat sports of any kind?


----------



## lklawson (Feb 22, 2018)

drop bear said:


> And so while even modern bare knuckle isn't using old timey boxing concepts that still doesn't give you a hint about its relevance to modern combat sports of any kind?


Strangely, I don't remember commenting about the relevance of "modern bare knuckle boxing" to "modern combat sports."  But hey, you definitely scored an Ipon on that straw man!


----------



## drop bear (Feb 22, 2018)

lklawson said:


> Strangely, I don't remember commenting about the relevance of "modern bare knuckle boxing" to "modern combat sports."  But hey, you definitely scored an Ipon on that straw man!



Your conclusion regarding the rule change is wrong. When we can see similar methods being used regardless of rule changes.

Small gloves, big gloves, grappling. 

Rules did change. Boxing did change. But they don't have to be directly related.

Not sure how much simpler it needs to be.


----------



## lklawson (Feb 22, 2018)

drop bear said:


> Your conclusion regarding the rule change is wrong. When we can see similar methods being used regardless of rule changes.


I claimed that blocking existed in historic boxing because the rules allowed for and encouraged its use and that blocking eventually disappeared from boxing because the rules changed in such a way as to not support or encourage blocking.  I've presented evidence to support my claim.  Your turn.



> Rules did change. Boxing did change. But they don't have to be directly related.


But in this case, they are.


----------



## jks9199 (Feb 22, 2018)

lklawson said:


> I did huh?  Well, I must be suffering from memory loss because I don't remember using those words.  Would you mind quoting where I wrote that?  Put in a link to my post.  Here, use this line:
> _________________________________________________________________


I didn't see such an argument made, either.  Certainly, I saw the argument that rule changes shaped and influenced tactics and techniques,  but not thst itvwas the sole factor.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## drop bear (Feb 22, 2018)

lklawson said:


> I claimed that blocking existed in historic boxing because the rules allowed for and encouraged its use and that blocking eventually disappeared from boxing because the rules changed in such a way as to not support or encourage blocking.  I've presented evidence to support my claim.  Your turn.
> 
> But in this case, they are.



Yet within different rule sets nobody really blocks in that manner?

Which I provided evidence of.

I am not sure trying to sell a book is evidence.


----------



## lklawson (Feb 22, 2018)

drop bear said:


> Yet within different rule sets nobody really blocks in that manner?
> 
> Which I provided evidence of.


So, nothing then.



> I am not sure trying to sell a book is evidence.


Huh?  Which book am I trying to sell?  All of the books I referenced are available as free PDF downloads.  Follow the link.  Look around.  I see you're not really putting much effort into this.  I take it that this means you're not really interested in the discussion but just want to stir the pot.


----------



## marques (Feb 22, 2018)

I use 'blocks' a bit like 'parry', slightly deviating the strike. Or with like feet, so I move with the impact. I like this softer way and it works for me. 
But I don't see how 'hard blocks' cannot work for trained young people. A hard block can be equivalent to a strike. 
PS: Didn't spend 8 min watching the video...


----------



## JowGaWolf (Feb 22, 2018)

lklawson said:


> Huh? Which book am I trying to sell?


lol. If I write a book will people buy it?  just checking


----------



## JP3 (Feb 22, 2018)

Headhunter said:


> I use blocks all the time. I never use the boxing cover up because I don't like it and whenever I spar I use traditional style blocks all through my fighting career and sparring


When I transitioned out of traditional TKD & HKD into Muay Thai I started morphing my blocks to use the same blocks from a more Thai-boxing stance and posture. It ended up happening naturally, I didn't think about it too much, except to note that it seemed to work better as the blocks were stuill principle "correct," though there was some contraction tot he movement, and it took place in a fraction of the area in space, thus required a LOT less time, than before.

Best block is to not be there, though.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Feb 22, 2018)

JowGaWolf said:


> lol. If I write a book will people buy it?  just checking


You can get a publisher to publish your book. You may just get 30 cents from each book sale. You may print book yourself. It may cost you $5000 to print 2000 copies (in Taiwan). You will then have to sale 1 book at a time. There is not much profit in MA book business.


----------



## Buka (Feb 22, 2018)

JowGaWolf said:


> lol. If I write a book will people buy it?  just checking



Sure.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Feb 22, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> You may just get 30 cents from each book sale


Wow that's depressing.  The time and effort that it takes to write a book and that's all that one will get.   That sucks.  Eventually I'll have my own book simply because webpages don't last forever.  I already see this happen with my CGI hobby that had tutorials and tips.  Then one day it was gone and all of that information was no longer available.   But yeah 30 cents sucks.


----------



## Mountie (Feb 22, 2018)

Weird that this topic came up.  I'm required to do a demo of some kind for my black belt and have been researching the application of traditional blocks, or in some cases lack of application because they seem so difficult to apply in practical situations.  Since I started in karate then switched when I realized I never use the techniques I was taught there it seemed like a good idea.  

Still working on it, so if someone here knows more please correct where I'm wrong.  So far I'm saddened to see how much of the application portions of these 'blocks' were lost or stripped out.  When Karate went to Japan they wanted a striking art to compete with western-style boxing, but stripped out the aspects that overlapped with the Japanese arts, Judo and Aikido.  So the throws/arm locks/joint locks were taken away in favour of the 3 K system, kihon, kata and kumite.  Then they sparred from a distance like Kendo fighters.

I'm working on a hypothesis that the 'blocking' movements weren't actually meant to be block punches and kicks but as close quarters grappling techniques. But then I study Japanese Ju Jitsu so I might be biased in that area.  I've been applying them as defenses from grabs/attacks with some very interesting results and have been adapting throws/takdowns using the same movements.

Most Youtube videos show blocking a punch that was never going to hit you anyway, but some show the moves at close quarters.  Here's an okay-ish example.  I'll try to find more.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Feb 22, 2018)

Mountie said:


> I'm working on a hypothesis that the 'blocking' movements weren't actually meant to be block punches and kicks but as close quarters grappling techniques.


In CMA, when you move your hand out (such as a punch or a block), you should never come back empty-handed. That means you need to pull back with something. IMO, this concept can smoothly link the striking art and throwing art together.

- A punch should be a punch followed by a pull.
- A block should be a block followed by a pull.

I don't know when this concept started to be ignored in MA training.

You can use this to stab.







You can use this to stab and pull.


----------



## Anarax (Feb 22, 2018)

Mountie said:


> When Karate went to Japan they wanted a striking art to compete with western-style boxing, but stripped out the aspects that overlapped with the Japanese arts, Judo and Aikido. So the throws/arm locks/joint locks were taken away in favour of the 3 K system, kihon, kata and kumite. Then they sparred from a distance like Kendo fighters.


What are you basing this on? I'm not asking in an accusatory way, I like Martial Arts history and haven't heard of that being the genesis of Japanese Karate.



Mountie said:


> I'm working on a hypothesis that the 'blocking' movements weren't actually meant to be block punches and kicks but as close quarters grappling techniques.


Most martial arts have counters/defenses against the offensive techniques that the style has. Meaning boxing has punch defenses, wrestling has grappling defenses, etc. Thus the blocks in Karate are blocks, but that doesn't mean their motions can't be applied for other uses.



Mountie said:


> But then I study Japanese Ju Jitsu so I might be biased in that area.


Nice, a fellow JJJ practitioner. I haven't met any other JJJ guys on here.



Mountie said:


> Most Youtube videos show blocking a punch that was never going to hit you anyway


Yes there are plenty of those videos on youtube, but that's bad representation by poorly skilled people. Their lack of skill doesn't make blocking less valid.

This video is a perfect example of poor representation. The guy doesn't know the application nor the utilization of a low block. My Goju-Ryu teacher taught me to not block a kick with a low arm block. Your opponent/sparring partner will exploit the opening of dropping your arm for the block and will either alter the angle of the kick or punch you in the head. Maybe in some circumstances blocking low would be acceptable, but you must incorporate footwork. For the most part he taught me to block the kick with the shin or jam when possible.

The guy in the video seems to be hung up on making his point, thus he shows the "weaknesses" of a technique that seems he has very little understanding of. It's funny because the video the OP posted is similar in representation. Essentially it's "I need to make this technique look bad to illustrate my point"


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 23, 2018)

jobo said:


> i want you to back up what your claim, rather than just random links


Did you read the link? Does it fail to back up his claim? (I haven't, so I'm asking.)


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 23, 2018)

lklawson said:


> I claimed that blocking existed in historic boxing because the rules allowed for and encouraged its use and that blocking eventually disappeared from boxing because the rules changed in such a way as to not support or encourage blocking.  I've presented evidence to support my claim.  Your turn.
> 
> But in this case, they are.


I'm entirely unfamiliar with historical rules, Kirk (and only passingly so with modern rules). What made blocking more beneficial within the old rules?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 23, 2018)

Anarax said:


> It's funny because the video the OP posted is similar in representation. Essentially it's "I need to make this technique look bad to illustrate my point"


Videos that do that always remind me of infomercials: "Do you have trouble carrying your groceries? Always dropping the eggs you balanced on top?"


----------



## JowGaWolf (Feb 23, 2018)

Mountie said:


> I'm working on a hypothesis that the 'blocking' movements weren't actually meant to be block punches and kicks but as close quarters grappling techniques.


Blocking was always designed to block an incoming strike.  But the mindset of a traditional block wasn't to just block, but punish.  For example, I'm blocking a punch, but in my mind I'm STRIKING an incoming punch with my Forearm.  My opponent was kind enough to give me their arm (as a punch) so I should be kind enough to damage that arm in return.  This is the most basic concept of blocking.  You may hear people say that they don't block, but what they are describing is this mindset.

In a traditional sense  blocking is never just blocking.  Blocking is more like BLOCKING + DAMAGE OPPONENT or BLOCKING + FOLLOW WITH  STRIKING OR GRAPPLING.
Also keep in mind that a BLOCKING MOTION may have multiple applications.  This is when you start getting into hard and soft techniques.  It's very rare that a martial art technique will have only one application for that motion.

For example, your video, how he shows blocking the front kick is exactly how Jow Ga Kung Fu uses that motion.  It can be used to redirect or smash an opponents leg.  There is a nerve that runs down the leg and that particular use of the technique that he was showing will strike that nerve on the leg.  If it block misses the nerve then the secondary effect is redirection of the kick which allows you to enter (move forward), the third effect is bruising of the leg.  It only works if the forearm is conditioned.  The key to using this technique is that you must move off center of the kick, if you don't move off center then you'll risk hitting the shin bone and breaking your arm.

What I've noticed through my own learning of martial arts techniques, is that there is often a lot of figuring out to do.  Some teachers will tell you exactly how some things work,  some will choose not to, and some don't know at all.  The only thing that is consistent is that Martial Arts takes a lot of exploration to really understand how the techniques work.


----------



## wab25 (Feb 23, 2018)

Mountie said:


> I'm working on a hypothesis that the 'blocking' movements weren't actually meant to be block punches and kicks but as close quarters grappling techniques. But then I study Japanese Ju Jitsu so I might be biased in that area. I've been applying them as defenses from grabs/attacks with some very interesting results and have been adapting throws/takdowns using the same movements.



You should find this interesting. I don't know too much about karate, but this article traces a few "blocking" techniques from Funakoshi down into MMA. (Funakoshi may know a few things about karate) Anyway, its a different look at some of the down blocks in karate.

Lyoto Machida: Old-School Karate


----------



## jobo (Feb 23, 2018)

lklawson said:


> I did huh?  Well, I must be suffering from memory loss because I don't remember using those words.  Would you mind quoting where I wrote that?  Put in a link to my post.  Here, use this line:
> _________________________________________________________________



well yes you are clearly having memory problems, i said boxing had evolved through what works best in competition and you said,NO its evolved through rule,changes, which is true on the longest scales of time, what came before the,M o Q rules has no comparison with modern boxing at all.

on shorter time scales , let's say half a century, then the effect of rule changes are minimal, as there have been very few of note, certainly non that have changed the fundamentals of boxing as markadly as the queenbury rules.

changes on that time scale are the result of a better under standing of bio kinetics, fitness programs and what actually works and what doesn't in the real world. If standing like a tree with your arms out stretched, trying to block punches worked then that's what they would be doing, ( take note wing Chun)


----------



## lklawson (Feb 23, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> You can get a publisher to publish your book. You may just get 30 cents from each book sale. You may print book yourself. It may cost you $5000 to print 2000 copies (in Taiwan). You will then have to sale 1 book at a time. There is not much profit in MA book business.


Self-publish, print-on-demand, sites such as Lulu.com and Amazon give viable options.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (Feb 23, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> I'm entirely unfamiliar with historical rules, Kirk (and only passingly so with modern rules). What made blocking more beneficial within the old rules?


To over simplify it, there were several aspects.

First, the inclusion of stand-up grappling, tripping, and throwing tended to force striking ranges further out.  If fighters got in close enough to use, for instance, a modern hook, one of them was grabbing the other and attempting to throw them.  Throwing was a very highly sought after spectacle in Broughton and LPR style boxing.  The fans absolutely loved it and were particularly fond of any variation of the Cross-Buttock (a hip-toss usually).  If you didn't want to grapple, or wanted to control when or how to your benefit, you pushed out the range.  Pushing out ranges means more linear punches and more time to see a punch coming and successfully block it.

Second, the lack of modern gloves was a factor in pushing out the range.  Gloves (mittens/mufflers) were only used in amateur matches or only in training sessions by professionals.  Prize Fighting was strictly no glove.  In fact, Prize Fighters were known to speak derisively about the use of gloves in official matches.  Even when gloves were used they were very small, light, and hard by modern standards.  Interestingly, the gloves used at the time were not particularly prohibitive of successfully grappling & throwing.  Additionally wraps were unheard of.  The type of gloves used and the lack of wraps offered less-to-no protection against boxers fractures.  To protect the hands, boxers of the time were more likely to use a pistol-grip punching technique.  These two elements together tended to encourage ranges to push out to a fairly distant out-fighting range for punches.  

Third, there was often a derision for circular punches and a preference for linear punches.  While circular punching did exist (such as the "rounding blow" which figures prominently in Mendoza's lessons) it was often derided as a unskilled an unsophisticated "swing."  Particularly in the LPR and follow on era (before MoQ was fully accepted), many Prize Fighters believed that only untalented or poorly trained boxers used "swings" while straight blows such as the Left Lead or Lead-off and the Straight Rear, were considered precision blows and the mark of a skilled boxer.  This position is most clearly stated in "The Straight Left and how to Cultivate it" (you can download the PDF free from my lulu site).

Fourth (though not last), Broughton and LPR rules had no limits on the number of rounds, the length of rounds, nor even the length of a match.  Matches lasting dozens or even hundreds of rounds were common, and they could go on for hours (or even more than a day in at least one case I found).  Prize Fighters were in it for the long haul. Getting thrown to the ground, particularly on the surfaces they were wont to fight on, was very degrading on the boxer's performance and ability.  And getting pummeled by punches was also very degrading to the long term performance.  Punches that land add up.  One famous match had the odds-on favorite (and more famous) boxer losing because of taking "Choppers" (a kind of downward striking back-fist or hammer-fist) to the eyes and nose.  Both of his eyes closed up and he was fighting blind.  Unsurprisingly, he lost.  In order to avoid the short term punishment and stay in the fight for the long haul, boxers wanted to be at as far a distance from their opponent as reasonably possible in order to see, and prevent, as many punches and grapples as possible, while still being close enough to throw their own punches or grapple if they wanted.

As the MoQ rules became more and more accepted, removing the incentive of grappling, adding time limits and round limits, and slowing adding more protective gear (gloves and wraps), the worries about long-term fights became less, the possibility of scoring true knock-out blows became greater, and the viability of no-grappling in-fighting techniques became more and more clear, the need for extended out-fighting positions fell and with it the viability of blocking techniques.

There's more detail and fleshing-out which can be done, of course.  A whole book could be written just around the social condemnation of pre-MoQ boxing, how MoQ was partially intended to "civilize" the art and make it socially acceptable, and what the consequences to the sport's techniques were.  But this should be a decent enough 50,000 foot view.  

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (Feb 23, 2018)

jobo said:


> well yes you are clearly having memory problems, i said boxing had evolved through what works best in competition and you said,NO its evolved through rule,changes, which is true on the longest scales of time, what came before the,M o Q rules has no comparison with modern boxing at all.


What you wrote was:

Blocking useless?
_"there is a,fundamental denial on here, that the," tradition" of tma means that they are at a significant disadvantage to any fighting system that has progressed since The 1800s . Posting up pictures of old time boxers using similar techniques, only underlined the fact that boxing has progressed and tma by defintion has not.

much of the very fundemental on which tma is based are,at best,inefficient and more likely deeply flawed against a fast and mobile opponent. I'm taking the very basics like stance, flat footedness, ( rooting ) hand position, punching techneque forward only movement, body rigidity. The lot really,

if you want to see what works look at boxing, MT, bjj anything that is refined in contests, even full contact karate looks little like traditional karate, Because standing in a daft stance with you feet rooted, refusing to back up and you hands pulled back under your arm pits is a,sure way of getting a punch on the nose"
_
There's a difference between what you wrote then and what you are writing now.

Oh, and you still have a fundamental misunderstanding.  What "works in competition" is defined by the rules of the competition.  If the rules change so do what works.  This is pretty basic. You must see this.




> on shorter time scales , let's say half a century, then the effect of rule changes are minimal, as there have been very few of note, certainly non that have changed the fundamentals of boxing as markadly as the queenbury rules.


Annnd?



> If standing like a tree with your arms out stretched, trying to block punches worked then that's what they would be doing,


OK, so you have more than one fundamental misunderstanding about pre-MoQ boxing.  That's not how the fought.  They were very mobile.  They used a lot of footwork and frequently "milled" their arms.

Here's some old footage of icon John L. Sullivan demonstrating "milling."






Here's Corbett and Cushing showing both milling and how boxers didn't just stand "like a tree with ... arms out stretched."


----------



## JowGaWolf (Feb 23, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> In CMA, when you move your hand out (such as a punch or a block), you should never come back empty-handed.


 Depends on the type of punches you are using.  Hung Ga, Jow Ga, Choy Li Fut, and Choy Ga all have punches that would not follow this rule.   Punch combinations in general don't follow this rule.  One fist goes out and as it's coming back in, another one is firing.   The faster the punch can return the sooner the other punch can fire.

Can one strike and then pull with the striking hand? of course.  There's nothing wrong with that. It works.  It's just not a NEVER scenario for punching.  Tiger claw works as you described.



wab25 said:


> You should find this interesting. I don't know too much about karate, but this article traces a few "blocking" techniques from Funakoshi down into MMA. (Funakoshi may know a few things about karate) Anyway, its a different look at some of the down blocks in karate.
> 
> Lyoto Machida: Old-School Karate



Awesome videos on that page.  I like this one. you can clearly see the block in the 
*Lyoto Machida Karate best Ippon* video.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Feb 23, 2018)

lklawson said:


> milling


I see modern day fighters still use milling.  The difference is that it's a shorter and more active form of milling, but the motion is the same.  A circular motion where you don't know which hand is going to be the power punch and which hand is going to be the jab.  You tend to see it with people who have a decent balance of punching power between left and right arms.  

People who tend to favor certain punches with certain arms will do less of it.


----------



## jobo (Feb 23, 2018)

lklawson said:


> What you wrote was:
> 
> Blocking useless?
> _"there is a,fundamental denial on here, that the," tradition" of tma means that they are at a significant disadvantage to any fighting system that has progressed since The 1800s . Posting up pictures of old time boxers using similar techniques, only underlined the fact that boxing has progressed and tma by defintion has not.
> ...



and you said that boxing had only evolved through rule changes, which is just untrue

and you cant produce film of pre MoQ rules as the moving picture thing hadn't been invented,so you have no idea how they move


----------



## lklawson (Feb 23, 2018)

jobo said:


> Here's Corbett and Cushing


Slight correction: Corbett and Courtney.


----------



## lklawson (Feb 23, 2018)

jobo said:


> and you said that boxing had only evolved through rule changes, which is just untrue


I wrote 'only'?  Quote it.  Post the link.



> and you cant produce film of pre MoQ rules as the moving picture thing hadn't been invented,so you have no idea how they move


You doofus, John L. Sullivan was a Prize Fighter and fought many of his matches under London Prize Ring rules, often illegal bouts.  As I wrote several times now, there was a fairly long period after which the Marquess of Queensberry rules were published until all professional boxers finally adopted them.  Some where over a half-century by most accounts.  The MoQ was published in 1867 and the last officially sanctioned Heavyweight title (which John L. Sullivan fought) was 1889.  And there was some indefinite period after that where LPR was still fought in unofficial and unsanctioned matches.

Look, if you can't be bothered to actually read what I wrote, can't be bothered to check your facts, can't be bothered to engage in logical and intelligent discourse, then I can't be bothered to continually correct your errors.


----------



## jobo (Feb 23, 2018)

lklawson said:


> I wrote 'only'?  Quote it.  Post the link.
> 
> You doofus, John L. Sullivan was a Prize Fighter and fought many of his matches under London Prize Ring rules, often illegal bouts.  As I wrote several times now, there was a fairly long period after which the Marquess of Queensberry rules were published until all professional boxers finally adopted them.  Some where over a half-century by most accounts.  The MoQ was published in 1867 and the last officially sanctioned Heavyweight title (which John L. Sullivan fought) was 1889.  And there was some indefinite period after that where LPR was still fought in unofficial and unsanctioned matches.
> 
> Look, if you can't be bothered to actually read what I wrote, can't be bothered to check your facts, can't be bothered to engage in logical and intelligent discourse, then I can't be bothered to continually correct your errors.


let's try this from another angle, do you accept that boxing has evolved fir reasons other than rule changes, if so, there is no disagreement to discuss, if not then we are at least clear on what your position is


----------



## lklawson (Feb 23, 2018)

jobo said:


> let's try this from another angle, do you accept that boxing has evolved fir reasons other than rule changes, if so, there is no disagreement to discuss, if not then we are at least clear on what your position is


I accept that there have been some changes in boxing technique which may have resulted from something other than rules, but maintain that the biggest, most dominant reason for changes in boxing technique, either directly or indirectly, is changes to the rules.  

Examples of techniques and changes which arose not necessarily because of rule changes include the very deep "American Crouch" and "Kid" McCoy's signature Corkscrew Punch.








Edwin Haislet's Boxing - pp23 Fig 28 Straight Right to Body


----------



## jobo (Feb 23, 2018)

lklawson said:


> I accept that there have been some changes in boxing technique which may have resulted from something other than rules, but maintain that the biggest, most dominant reason for changes in boxing technique, either directly or indirectly, is changes to the rules.
> 
> Examples of techniques and changes which arose not necessarily because of rule changes include the very deep "American Crouch" and "Kid" McCoy's signature Corkscrew Punch.
> 
> ...



so you agree that boxing has evolved other than following rule changes, good, itt does beg the question why you have been arguing with something you accept as true,


----------



## lklawson (Feb 23, 2018)

jobo said:


> tt does beg the question why you have been arguing with something you accept as true,


I've been wondering the same of you.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 23, 2018)

lklawson said:


> To over simplify it, there were several aspects.
> 
> First, the inclusion of stand-up grappling, tripping, and throwing tended to force striking ranges further out.  If fighters got in close enough to use, for instance, a modern hook, one of them was grabbing the other and attempting to throw them.  Throwing was a very highly sought after spectacle in Broughton and LPR style boxing.  The fans absolutely loved it and were particularly fond of any variation of the Cross-Buttock (a hip-toss usually).  If you didn't want to grapple, or wanted to control when or how to your benefit, you pushed out the range.  Pushing out ranges means more linear punches and more time to see a punch coming and successfully block it.
> 
> ...


Thanks, Kirk. That's a great overview. Much there I didn't know.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 23, 2018)

lklawson said:


> So, nothing then.
> 
> Huh?  Which book am I trying to sell?  All of the books I referenced are available as free PDF downloads.  Follow the link.  Look around.  I see you're not really putting much effort into this.  I take it that this means you're not really interested in the discussion but just want to stir the pot.



Nothing you can explain anyway. Because it runs counter to your conclusion.

This is your link. 
The Straight Left and How to cultivate it by Jim Driscoll (Paperback) - Lulu


----------



## drop bear (Feb 23, 2018)

lklawson said:


> To over simplify it, there were several aspects.
> 
> First, the inclusion of stand-up grappling, tripping, and throwing tended to force striking ranges further out.  If fighters got in close enough to use, for instance, a modern hook, one of them was grabbing the other and attempting to throw them.  Throwing was a very highly sought after spectacle in Broughton and LPR style boxing.  The fans absolutely loved it and were particularly fond of any variation of the Cross-Buttock (a hip-toss usually).  If you didn't want to grapple, or wanted to control when or how to your benefit, you pushed out the range.  Pushing out ranges means more linear punches and more time to see a punch coming and successfully block it.
> 
> ...



None of your examples are modern examples. The consistent argument is still time.

Sorry.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Feb 23, 2018)

Had to look up "Kid" McCoy.  Man those feints would get you floored these days.  I remember doing similar feints as a kid in the $80s.  I forgot what it was called but it was the same principle;  suddenly stick your face directly in your opponent's face to make your opponent jump in fear of being hit.  It was often done to intimidate but it could also be done to trigger a punch.


----------



## TMA17 (Feb 23, 2018)

The style of boxing has changed over the years.  Should this also apply to other traditional arts?  Is keeping some TMA’s “traditional” why some are less effective?  My thinking is probably only in a ring/sport environment.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 23, 2018)

TMA17 said:


> The style of boxing has changed over the years.  Should this also apply to other traditional arts?  Is keeping some TMA’s “traditional” why some are less effective?  My thinking is probably only in a ring/sport environment.



If is not a competitive environment you kind of wouldn't know.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 24, 2018)

TMA17 said:


> The style of boxing has changed over the years.  Should this also apply to other traditional arts?  Is keeping some TMA’s “traditional” why some are less effective?  My thinking is probably only in a ring/sport environment.


All MA should evolve. We know more now than we did 50 years ago (much less 200 years or more). And people act differently than they did in the past, so different attacks and situations are culturally likely.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 24, 2018)

drop bear said:


> If is not a competitive environment you kind of wouldn't know.


Wouldn't know that it has changed?


----------



## drop bear (Feb 24, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> Wouldn't know that it has changed?



Wouldn't know if it has become more or less effective.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 24, 2018)

drop bear said:


> Wouldn't know if it has become more or less effective.


It needs some interaction between groups, and outside the group, for sure.


----------



## lklawson (Feb 26, 2018)

drop bear said:


> Nothing you can explain anyway. Because it runs counter to your conclusion.


That's a terrible argument.  Stop trolling.



> This is your link.
> The Straight Left and How to cultivate it by Jim Driscoll (Paperback) - Lulu


Stop being so lazy.  Just click the link and go to the page.  A link or two will get you dozens of free PDF downloads including the Driscoll book.  Sheesh, the snowflake generation wants me to do all of the work for them.


----------



## lklawson (Feb 26, 2018)

drop bear said:


> None of your examples are modern examples. The consistent argument is still time.
> 
> Sorry.


Large and heavy gloves with wrist wraps aren't "modern examples?"  Oh good grief.  Of all the idiotic things you've written, this gets into the top ten.


----------



## Martial D (Feb 26, 2018)

Cool thread.

As per boxing..seems a silly argument. The science both improves over time as innovators innovate and adopters adopt, as well as those innovations reflecting and adapting to maximize the use of the rules. Isn't that obvious?

As for blocking..from a WC perspective it's absolutely the last resort. Something that is reflexively forced.

Attack attack attack.


----------



## Mountie (Feb 26, 2018)

I don't know if this is off topic or not since the thread has changed focus, but I found a better video for the older style of blocking.

Yes, I know the guy's form sucks, but look at the text and focus of the movements.  I still think blocking form has been misapplied.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Feb 26, 2018)

im just gonna throw this little nugget of opinion out there,   most of todays martial arts were not created with the purpose of being effective in combat.  they are a hobbist activity in combative mimicry.  however we are for the most part very removed from the actual hand to hand combat that was common in the ancient past, that today we look to these martial arts in an attempt to learn how to fight. we often wonder why certain arts or segments of arts are less then effective because we think martial arts were used by the older generations to wage war and fight battles.
if martial arts were not intended as a true combat art, then the "progression" of the art is counter productive.


----------



## lklawson (Feb 26, 2018)

hoshin1600 said:


> most of todays martial arts were not created with the purpose of being effective in combat.


I think most of today's martial arts were intended for civilian self defense.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## drop bear (Feb 26, 2018)

lklawson said:


> Large and heavy gloves with wrist wraps aren't "modern examples?"  Oh good grief.  Of all the idiotic things you've written, this gets into the top ten.



Yes they are not modern examples. Martial arts is like an I phone. As soon as you get it someone else makes it obsolete.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 26, 2018)

lklawson said:


> That's a terrible argument.  Stop trolling.
> 
> Stop being so lazy.  Just click the link and go to the page.  A link or two will get you dozens of free PDF downloads including the Driscoll book.  Sheesh, the snowflake generation wants me to do all of the work for them.



That is a link to a paid book. As I said. Which you denied. And in which you were wrong.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Feb 26, 2018)

hoshin1600 said:


> im just gonna throw this little nugget of opinion out there,   most of todays martial arts were not created with the purpose of being effective in combat.  they are a hobbist activity in combative mimicry.  however we are for the most part very removed from the actual hand to hand combat that was common in the ancient past, that today we look to these martial arts in an attempt to learn how to fight. *we often wonder why certain arts or segments of arts* are less then effective because we think martial arts were used by the older generations to wage war and fight battles.
> if martial arts were not intended as a true combat art, then the "progression" of the art is counter productive.



If I understand what you mean, let me relate again what a former student of mine told me.  He was a 4th Dan in TKD.  On several occasions as I was teaching him a technique, he would get a funny look on his face, and tell me he was taught that as part of a form in TKD.  But with no context and with minor changes that made no sense that the move could be a defense move.  When he and other students questioned the move in the form, they were told it was part of the "art" of martial arts.

When he was taught the Hapkido technique, he suddenly saw what that move in the form actually was.  Could that relate to what I bolded and underlined above?  Or have I completely misunderstood you?


----------



## JowGaWolf (Feb 26, 2018)

Mountie said:


> I don't know if this is off topic or not since the thread has changed focus, but I found a better video for the older style of blocking.
> 
> Yes, I know the guy's form sucks, but look at the text and focus of the movements.  I still think blocking form has been misapplied.


The video is fairly accurate in the concepts that he's explaining.  His technique was off, he was still doing a 1 then 2 (block punch).  I'm actually familiar with the mechanics of what he shows in the video even though I don't take karate.  1 and then 2 makes it difficult to generate power.  The block and the punching mechanics have to work together or your strike will lose power.  Martial arts blocking tends to be "one stepped" which breaks the mechanics of the technique and in turn makes the technique less effective.

His technique will greatly improve if he uses it in a sparring context and not a drilling context.

Good video.  Thanks for posting.


----------



## jks9199 (Feb 26, 2018)

drop bear said:


> That is a link to a paid book. As I said. Which you denied. And in which you were wrong.


Let me help you out...  You're right, that link goes to the paid (maybe print-on-demand?) real paper book.  The Straight Left and How to cultivate it by Jim Driscoll (eBook) - Lulu is the link to the e-book -- which is free.  Kirk has a number of FREE e-book scans of classic fighting manuals.  I've downloaded several over the years, and really appreciate the time and effort (and money to obtain the books he scans!) he's put into finding and preserving these books.


----------



## Anarax (Feb 26, 2018)

Mountie said:


> I don't know if this is off topic or not since the thread has changed focus, but I found a better video for the older style of blocking.
> 
> Yes, I know the guy's form sucks, but look at the text and focus of the movements.  I still think blocking form has been misapplied.



This video is another example(as the OP's video was) of "I will perform the technique poorly to illustrate my point". First, his partner throwing the punches isn't striking with intent, power nor speed when he's showing the "right" way to block. Even when he's showing the "wrong" way his partner isn't striking with power nor speed, but at the very least he is fully extending his arms when attacking. I agree with his comment about a lot of Karate taught today is watered down, at least in the US. However; his technical analysis is inaccurate thus leads to false conclusions.

Hard and soft blocks are not a new thing. Hard blocks are meant to be applied as strikes with both offensive and defensive dynamics. I'm striking a target on my opponent's body(arms, legs, etc) to both injure(known as de-fanging in Kali/Escrima) and neutralize an incoming attack. Thus when you demonstrate hard blocks softly like he did for the "wrong" way, it changes the entire dynamics of what hard blocks are supposed to be and what they do. Numerous Karate systems as well as other styles of martial arts have both hard and soft blocks. There are some situations in which different techniques would be more applicable to use than others. A choke wouldn't be effective if I don't apply sufficient pressure nor would a kick be effective if I don't apply power, the same goes for hard blocks.

FYI, his website is very vague about his credentials. He lists about 8 martial arts he's trained in, but doesn't specifically state what he holds black belts in nor who his "most well known instructors in the world" are.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 26, 2018)

jks9199 said:


> Let me help you out...  You're right, that link goes to the paid (maybe print-on-demand?) real paper book.  The Straight Left and How to cultivate it by Jim Driscoll (eBook) - Lulu is the link to the e-book -- which is free.  Kirk has a number of FREE e-book scans of classic fighting manuals.  I've downloaded several over the years, and really appreciate the time and effort (and money to obtain the books he scans!) he's put into finding and preserving these books.



Fair enough.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Feb 26, 2018)

lklawson said:


> That's a terrible argument.  Stop trolling.
> 
> Stop being so lazy.  Just click the link and go to the page.  A link or two will get you dozens of free PDF downloads including the Driscoll book.  Sheesh, the snowflake generation wants me to do all of the work for them.


 
Snowflake generation?  I hadn't heard that before and had to look it up.  That is funny, and I believe so true.  I think that is a road we have been traveling for a long time.  I think in some people it leads to unnecessary violence.

But I am shocked you would characterize Drop Bear as being that way.  Shocked I say!


----------



## drop bear (Feb 26, 2018)

oftheherd1 said:


> Snowflake generation?  I hadn't heard that before and had to look it up.  That is funny, and I believe so true.  I think that is a road we have been traveling for a long time.  I think in some people it leads to unnecessary violence.
> 
> But I am shocked you would characterize Drop Bear as being that way.  Shocked I say!



Yeah it is a trump argument basically. For when you don't have can argument.


----------



## lklawson (Feb 26, 2018)

drop bear said:


> That is a link to a paid book. As I said. Which you denied. And in which you were wrong.


Oh fer cry'n out loud.  That link has at least two sub-links which take you to the free PDF. 

Stop being so lazy.


----------



## lklawson (Feb 26, 2018)

drop bear said:


> Yeah it is a trump argument basically.


What, that you're too lazy to click on the link and then follow the sub-links as you were directed to on more than one occasion?


----------



## drop bear (Feb 26, 2018)

lklawson said:


> What, that you're too lazy to click on the link and then follow the sub-links as you were directed to on more than one occasion?



To an irrelevant source as it is not in any sort of modern context. Old timey boxers had a different method than modern strikers.

Rules of course had not much to do with the change just time.


----------



## lklawson (Feb 26, 2018)

drop bear said:


> To an irrelevant source as it is not in any sort of modern context. Old timey boxers had a different method than modern strikers.
> 
> Rules of course had not much to do with the change just time.


I see that you've forgotten what you were arguing about.  Typical snowflake.  Let me remind you.  The discussion was about why blocking was a viable technique prior to the full acceptance of MoQ and subsequent rules.  The referenced book supports that statement.

Stop being so lazy.


----------



## Buka (Feb 26, 2018)

Just a comment on "blocking". After work this past week I turned on TV and went to some ufc fights I taped. As I rustled up some chow and a cold beer, I came back into the room and one of the matches was on. Within three seconds of me watching, one of the fighters slap blocked a strike. Made me smile, it did.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Feb 26, 2018)

lklawson said:


> I think most of today's martial arts were intend ed for civilian self defense.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk


i would say that most martial arts though out history have been for the purpose of civilian self defense,  but i would hesitate to include todays martial arts in that category.
most martial arts are virtually unknown :  Hawaiian, Lua ; Carniola fighting weapons of cudgels and war hammers,  parogtukay of the Matigsalog  to name a few.

_"There are very few cultures that did not have weapons and the systems to use those weapons.  those that did not , did not survive very long"
Donn Draeger_

today popular martial arts are primarily Asian based and very modern.  the exception is of course old Japanese Koryu and FMA.
i think the last hundred or so years has not been much different than today in the purpose of martial arts.  we say they are for self defense but in reality they are more of a hobby.  the amount of actual incidents of their use for self defense belies this belief in self defense.


----------



## pdg (Feb 26, 2018)

Buka said:


> I turned on TV and went to some ufc fights I taped



Did you use actual historically accurate tape and have to invoke the art of tracking (traditionally done in a semi prone position while swearing) or the more evolved option of hard drive or solid state storage though? 

Because, y'know


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 26, 2018)

Buka said:


> Just a comment on "blocking". After work this past week I turned on TV and went to some ufc fights I taped. As I rustled up some chow and a cold beer, I came back into the room and one of the matches was on. Within three seconds of me watching, one of the fighters slap blocked a strike. Made me smile, it did.


Are you trying to discuss the actual thread topic? This is MT, man!


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 26, 2018)

pdg said:


> Did you use actual historically accurate tape and have to invoke the art of tracking (traditionally done in a semi prone position while swearing) or the more evolved option of hard drive or solid state storage though?
> 
> Because, y'know


Well played.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Feb 27, 2018)

pdg said:


> Did you use actual historically accurate tape and have to invoke the art of tracking (traditionally done in a semi prone position while swearing) or the more evolved option of hard drive or solid state storage though?
> 
> Because, y'know



i believe all of Buka's "tapes" are the authentic Betamax with NTSC encoding and Azimuth recording. which he plays on the Sony LV-1901 console.
which he received as a gift from the guy who invented it back in the 1970's when they met in a snow storm and had lunch together at a local pub.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Feb 27, 2018)

drop bear said:


> Yeah it is a trump argument basically. For when you don't have can argument.



Just my humble opinion, but I would guess you would probably be expert on that.  It seems demonstrated often in your answers.  Could you try to make more sense in your replies?  Please?


----------



## jks9199 (Mar 2, 2018)

Admin Note:

Many pages of off topic posts have been moved and placed into their own thread here: Weapon/Tool Development/Anthropology...  Formerly Blocking useless?

The split should have happened much earlier, but unfortunately, the Staff members have lives outside MartialTalk.  Please try to stay on topic, folks...

jks9199
Administrator


----------



## pdg (Mar 2, 2018)

jks9199 said:


> Admin Note:
> 
> Many pages of off topic posts have been moved and placed into their own thread here: weapon-tool-development-anthropology-formerly-blocking-useless
> 
> ...



You've put a space in the link so it doesn't work...


----------



## jks9199 (Mar 2, 2018)

pdg said:


> You've put a space in the link so it doesn't work...


You might try again...


----------



## pdg (Mar 2, 2018)

jks9199 said:


> You might try again...



You might now have fixed it... ​


----------



## Buka (Mar 2, 2018)

jks9199 said:


> The split should have happened much earlier, but unfortunately, the Staff members have lives outside MartialTalk.



Lives outside MartialTalk....say it ain't so! 

You mean you're not here to overlook our serious questions about what's the definition of the word "definition" and moderate us as we argue over what actual arguing consists of?

Geez, some guys.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 2, 2018)

lklawson said:


> I see that you've forgotten what you were arguing about.  Typical snowflake.  Let me remind you.  The discussion was about why blocking was a viable technique prior to the full acceptance of MoQ and subsequent rules.  The referenced book supports that statement.
> 
> Stop being so lazy.



No it really doesn't. As we have rules that allow small gloves, no gloves and grappling. And people still don't block in the old timey boxing method.

It was viable because the standard of boxing allowed people to get away with all sorts of stuff that they cannot capitalize on in modern or relevant combat sports.

The book is obviously wrong.

Big gloves. No grappling. And yet he is predominately blocking.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Mar 2, 2018)

drop bear said:


> No it really doesn't. As we have rules that allow small gloves, no gloves and grappling. And people still don't block in the old timey boxing method.
> 
> It was viable because the standard of boxing allowed people to get away with all sorts of stuff that they cannot capitalize on in modern or relevant combat sports.
> 
> ...


Holy Cow.. That parry is done just like one of the variations of a parry that I teach.  It feels strange to see it in this context.  The body movement used to parry is different with the leaning but it's basically the same technique.   I teach Parry as a redirect and as a Jam.

I don't know about that slipping the punch on the inside though lol.  I guess at the end was the early version of 52-blocks


----------



## drop bear (Mar 2, 2018)

JowGaWolf said:


> Holy Cow.. That parry is done just like one of the variations of a parry that I teach.  It feels strange to see it in this context.  The body movement used to parry is different with the leaning but it's basically the same technique.   I teach Parry as a redirect and as a Jam.
> 
> I don't know about that slipping the punch on the inside though lol.  I guess at the end was the early version of 52-blocks



It was a huge parry though. From what I can see in general is people were swinging bigger punches. And so blocking.

You look at say mike Tyson and a block would not stop one hook let alone the ten he is hitting you with.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 2, 2018)

drop bear said:


> It was a huge parry though. From what I can see in general is people were swinging bigger punches. And so blocking.
> 
> You look at say mike Tyson and a block would not stop one hook let alone the ten he is hitting you with.


Yeah, I have little doubt that my blocks would be mostly useless agains a Mike Tyson. I’d better be moving. Preferably at a dead run.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Mar 2, 2018)

drop bear said:


> It was a huge parry though. From what I can see in general is people were swinging bigger punches. And so blocking.
> 
> You look at say mike Tyson and a block would not stop one hook let alone the ten he is hitting you with.


  The parry that I use is not the soft parry that people use.  It is a much larger parry and it's used against a jab.   When done correctly it doesn't allow full extension of the jab.  Your opponent could be mike Tyson strong and it would still work.  If all of your energy is going forward then there is no resistance in the punch laterally.   The only thing you have to be is fast enough.  My parry is modified where speed is not such a major deal.  You still need to be fast but not as fast as "quick draw of the punch.".

It's one of the techniques I want to share with gpseymour.  It's also one of my better demo techniques where I feel comfortable with someone actually trying to hit me.  There are very few techniques I would tell somone, "come on, actually try to hit me.  give it your best shot"


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 2, 2018)

JowGaWolf said:


> The parry that I use is not the soft parry that people use.  It is a much larger parry and it's used against a jab.   When done correctly it doesn't allow full extension of the jab.  Your opponent could be mike Tyson strong and it would still work.  If all of your energy is going forward then there is no resistance in the punch laterally.   The only thing you have to be is fast enough.  My parry is modified where speed is not such a major deal.  You still need to be fast but not as fast as "quick draw of the punch.".
> 
> It's one of the techniques I want to share with gpseymour.  It's also one of my better demo techniques where I feel comfortable with someone actually trying to hit me.  There are very few techniques I would tell somone, "come on, actually try to hit me.  give it your best shot"


Parry and block are separate principles. If I manage a parry (usually my preference), power matters less. But with a full-on block,I don’t have the mass or muscle to oppose Iron Mike’s punch.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Mar 2, 2018)

drop bear said:


> It was a huge parry though. From what I can see in general is people were swinging bigger punches. And so blocking.
> 
> You look at say mike Tyson and a block would not stop one hook let alone the ten he is hitting you with.


Just occured to me that you might have been referring to the parry itself being big as in over extended.  If so, then yes that parry was way too big.  As a rule I extend my parry just a little beyond center line, vs trying to push the entire arm with my arm.  The rest of the push is done with my feet.



gpseymour said:


> Parry and block are separate principles. If I manage a parry (usually my preference), power matters less. But with a full-on block,I don’t have the mass or muscle to oppose Iron Mike’s punch.


Yeah I wouldn't want to block a full on Mike Tyson punch.  I give with punches of less power as is.  I'm a big believer of not fighting power vs power in that context.   If I'm lucky I'll be able to spar with my Sigung later this year, and that's the exact situation I'll be in, where I'm out powered.  My game plan will be to flow with his power because there's no way my body will last if it's serving as a punching bag. 

I want to be like floating tissue, no matter how hard his strikes are, I won't suffer heavy damage.  I'm definitely nervous about it.

A lot of boxers tried to block his hooks and paid the price.  Some people just hit too hard to try to block it.  Tyson would hit a guard until it failed or until so much attention was on the guard that it opened his opponents up for an upper cut.


----------



## stonewall1350 (Mar 2, 2018)

Yea. I think the title is meant more for shock value. Of course blocking has value. So do slips and evasions. The fact is...we wouldn’t have it if it were useless. I remember when I was young and got into a fist fight I used a hard block on someone and knocked him down (go figure I fell in love with grappling then lol) as a result of taking control of their arm. Blocking makes sense if you can do it right and follow up. I also watched the kung fu instructor in my gym use a block offensively. He knocked someone backwards into a wall with it during a spar. Was the coolest **** I’ve ever seen. 

You won’t stop a fight by being purely on defense. So blocking alone won’t cut it. But a block followed by a control hold or maybes wicked nasty head butt? That would be nice. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## drop bear (Mar 3, 2018)

stonewall1350 said:


> Yea. I think the title is meant more for shock value. Of course blocking has value. So do slips and evasions. The fact is...we wouldn’t have it if it were useless. I remember when I was young and got into a fist fight I used a hard block on someone and knocked him down (go figure I fell in love with grappling then lol) as a result of taking control of their arm. Blocking makes sense if you can do it right and follow up. I also watched the kung fu instructor in my gym use a block offensively. He knocked someone backwards into a wall with it during a spar. Was the coolest **** I’ve ever seen.
> 
> You won’t stop a fight by being purely on defense. So blocking alone won’t cut it. But a block followed by a control hold or maybes wicked nasty head butt? That would be nice.
> 
> ...



It is the issue of trying to address each punch individually. Which if they are coming at speed and numbers. You just can't reliably do.

So one punch at a reasonable range. Sure. But not combinations.

Now evasive movement, covering and closing that gap works against 1 punch or lots of punches. So when fighting conservatively, as in a street fight blocking can realistically be frowned upon.

That way you don't get caught out by that punch you don't expect as often.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 3, 2018)

drop bear said:


> It is the issue of trying to address each punch individually. Which if they are coming at speed and numbers. You just can't reliably do.
> 
> So one punch at a reasonable range. Sure. But not combinations.
> 
> ...


I look at blocks primarily as "oh ****" tools. If the punch is coming and I'm caught flat-footed, a block buys me a bit of time to act like I know what I'm doing. The concept of blocking a flurry is, to me, similar to the idea of capturing an individual punch. It might happen, but probably only if you are doing something else to control the situation well. In a flurry, you might use an actual block against some key punches to buy some room for an entry or counter, but if you're just trying to block all the punches, you'll eventually fail and get clobbered.


----------



## KenpoMaster805 (Mar 3, 2018)

in every Martial arts we need to used inward outward upward blocks down ward block even extended we also have universal block over head block and so forth so yea block is not useless


----------



## Headhunter (Mar 3, 2018)

KenpoMaster805 said:


> in every Martial arts we need to used inward outward upward blocks down ward block even extended we also have universal block over head block and so forth so yea block is not useless


Well no you don't /need/ those blocks at all. Yeah they're good but not essential. Boxing, kickboxing, Muay Thai, Mma. They dont block like that and they do alright without it.

Frankly universal blocks are pretty stupid. You'll never use them in a real situation they're just there to complete categories. That's my biggest problem with kenpo. A lot of its great but some of it is completely impractical and its justified to be in there for category completion


----------



## lklawson (Mar 5, 2018)

drop bear said:


> No it really doesn't. As we have rules that allow small gloves, no gloves and grappling. And people still don't block in the old timey boxing method.
> 
> It was viable because the standard of boxing allowed people to get away with all sorts of stuff that they cannot capitalize on in modern or relevant combat sports.
> 
> ...


You can keep claiming it, and you can keep being wrong.  Ta


----------



## Gaucho (Apr 1, 2018)

Most of those videos are much better if I mute the audio and spare myself the horrible background music.


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 2, 2018)

jks9199 said:


> Maybe if blocks don't work for you, you don't understand how they're designed to work within your system, and why they're there.




or you are blocking with the wrong party of your anatomy?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Apr 2, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> The concept of blocking a flurry is, to me, similar to the idea of capturing an individual punch.


If I want to get my opponent's

- leading leg, I have to step in. When my opponent kicks me, I can get his leg without stepping in.
- punching arm, I have to step in. When my opponent punches me, I can get his punching arm without stepping in.

If my opponent moves in toward me, I don't have to move in toward him. It will save my footwork and that can be my advantage.

If I want to get my opponent's head

- When his arms are protecting his head, I can't get his head.
- When he punches me, his head will be exposed and I can get his head.

If my opponent opens his head to me, I don't have to open his guard. His punch can give me some advantage.

In other words, when your opponent punches you, that's the best time for you to move in.


----------



## drop bear (Apr 2, 2018)

JowGaWolf said:


> Just occured to me that you might have been referring to the parry itself being big as in over extended.  If so, then yes that parry was way too big.  As a rule I extend my parry just a little beyond center line, vs trying to push the entire arm with my arm.  The rest of the push is done with my feet.
> 
> Yeah I wouldn't want to block a full on Mike Tyson punch.  I give with punches of less power as is.  I'm a big believer of not fighting power vs power in that context.   If I'm lucky I'll be able to spar with my Sigung later this year, and that's the exact situation I'll be in, where I'm out powered.  My game plan will be to flow with his power because there's no way my body will last if it's serving as a punching bag.
> 
> ...



Yeah but you don't just stand there eating punches. Cover or no cover.


----------



## drop bear (Apr 2, 2018)

Tez3 said:


> or you are blocking with the wrong party of your anatomy?



Chin parry?


----------



## Gaucho (Apr 4, 2018)

drop bear said:


> Chin parry?



I think an earlier poster referred to that technique as the Face Block.

  I don't know how you'd say it in Okanawan.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Apr 5, 2018)

Gaucho said:


> I think an earlier poster referred to that technique as the Face Block.
> 
> I don't know how you'd say it in Okanawan.


I think it’s pronounced “ow”. I don’t know the kanji for it, though.


----------

