Blocking useless?

[Gerry Seymour]

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

Wouldn't know that it has changed?

 

[drop bear]

Wouldn't know that it has changed?

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

 

[Gerry Seymour]

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

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

 

[lklawson]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?