Not all blocks are strikes. I teach what I call a "plow block" (using the flinch reaction to get arms between the attacker's shoulders and your upper targets), and have seen instructors teach a block that uses the arm at the side of the head to shield against a blow from the side. Neither are strikes.
Unless it only pushes. Pushing is not striking.
Exactly, blocks are, in fact, covers, and not strikes.
Hence my qualifier "generally" rather than "never"
That's not every block. Some blocks are strikes at the striking limb. Some blocks are static in respect to the strike (either because the block isn't moving or because the blocker is moving in the opposite direction from the block). Some blocks are soft, and push the strike off-path, rather than striking it. Some are soft and absorb the strike.
I believe he's saying there's a difference between a hard block (which is a block that strikes the striking limb) and a true strike, like a punch. And I agree. The dynamics are different.
I agree. I often refer to hard blocks as a strike. I was interpreting his comment. There is a difference, though I refer to both punches and hard blocks as strikes. It is, however, a block. It blocks the incoming attack from its target. You have said a block is a strike to an attacking limb, so any strike to a blocking limb (by that definition), is in fact a block.
Intent.
