Blocking vs. Evasion?

[mook jong man]

Mook, I thank you for your insight. Although I train and teach a type of Chi Sau it is very basic (I call mine Tegumi so that there is no confusion with the real thing but it is unashamedly stolen from WC.). But in practice it works beautifully in a close karate setting. I think what people don't understand that you don't stand round doing Chi Sau for five minutes. You meet and absorb an attack, redirect their energy and hit them. It is over in a second. :asian:

Chi Sau is a means to an end , we spend years training in Chi Sau for that one split second in time when we make contact with the opponents arms.

If the opponents center line is open then Chi Sau is not needed , you just move in and hit him.
But if the opponent attempts to block or in anyway resist our striking , then the sensitivity developed by Chi Sau will immediately be brought into play to give us the upper hand , sometimes quite literally.

 

[Cyriacus]

LOL... I'm a kenpo-guy, we hit each other all the time. But in all seriousness, a haymaker at such close range could be ignored as the apex of the swing would occur well past the intended target.

Id beg to differ. As an experiment, go stand within elbows reach of a wall, then throw a haymaker as hard as you can without hitting the wall. Now tell me how youd block it at that range.

Granted. There's a lot of momentum generated with a haymaker and if you connect with one it's gonna hurt. I personally don't use them because they're way too easy to telegraph.

Which is why you do them from up close. If you dont wind it up and you just throw it, it isnt any more telegraphed than a hook.

Real fights are dynamic, agreed. And I have been personally been rushed with them and not only was the first one out of range, so was the second. LOL It was quite silly. I can only imagine what it looked like from a 3rd person perspective.

Which is a glowing example of someone pretty much going 'i have no idea what im doing ive never done this before!'.
Now, take this scenario, and adjust it so they arent out of range. I dont doubt you can simulate it.

A block vs a hamaker coupled with a shoulder check goes a long way to separating a shoulder. Especially if the attacker really is intent on taking your head off.

And a block vs a straight can cross someones arms over each other.

I think we may also define "haymakers" differently. What a trained fighter would throw would be what I would call a "cross". Or maybe you call an overhand punch a haymaker? I'm not certain, but what I call a "haymaker" we sometimes refer to as the "Budweiser Punch" down in the Dirty South. LOL

I call a haymaker a punch were you swing horizontally, slightly upward, or slightly downward with a partially bent to 90 degree or so bent arm with your whole body committed to the strike. As oppose to a hook, which is tight and crisp, it comes from a wider angle. We may still be referring to different things though. I hope that helps to clarify.

Personally, I prefer parries for straight punches. Again, as I posted originally, it depends on the scenario as to what weapons one uses for defense. That being said, an inward block can be quite effective in creating the circumstances you state above against a push and cross the attackers arms cancelling them and creating an angle of disturbance.

Therefore a push is ineffective because theres a way to stop someone with it? Im not saying you said that, but its similar reasoning. People are conditioned to underestimate haymakers. Then visualise them as being a big long range punch with a big telegraphed windup. Thats just a silly swing of the arm.

I agree that relying soley on traditional blocks is a flawed strategy. You need to have many tools in your tool box because you never know what the job will call for.

Perhaps - But if you have too much to choose from, that also means you need to be able to idenfity every possible attack and angle, then deduce the correct block.

There is no one way to be attacked and no one way to defend yourself. We live in a three dimensional world where every individual is different. No two people will throw a haymaker the same way for example. While learning, there are times where you have to break the material down and train in a static envirnment in order to ingrain the technical side of things but I agree that once understood you've gained an understanding what you've learned should be applied in a more dynamic training environment. I encourage everyone to keep an open mind and explore all avenues of defense for themselves, take what they find useful, and discard the rest... I've heard that somewhere before. LOL

I absolutely agree. And alot of the people who cant throw a decent haymaker arent the types of people who use violence as a regular part of their lives. There are criminals who train to hurt other people. Is it really inconceivable that a mugger things about how hes going to mug you? Or that someone who decides hes going to randomly attack you doesnt think about how? When its just some guy who gets angry, thats different. Its easier. They arent the people you should be worried about. If someone cant make a haymaker work, they probably cant make anything else work either. Worry about the ones who can. If youre just training for slobs, you dont even need training.

PS: Im enjoying this discussion. Your points lead me to have to think about my points. Its been months i think, since ive had a proper back and forth discussion on the forum rather than just trying to explain one thing in many different ways whilst everything is slowly derailed no matter what evidence or points are given or made. Its great. Ive missed this.

 

[mook jong man]

The blocking was not superior or inferior it was just different, it was good though, the practitioner shown there are quite good. When I am in that range with my opponent I try to incorporate sticky hands (yes I know the term for Chi Sau) kinds of movements, I find Wing Chun to be one of the better styles of Kung Fu. In sparring or self defence I try not to let my opponent get that close, they would have to have gotten past 2 or 3 lines of defence.

Trouble with that is , you don't always get to make that choice.
Sometimes circumstances and the opponent will make that choice for you.

Real violence can kick off at normal conversation distance and in the blink of an eye that gap will be bridged and you will have the attacker right up in your face .
Or "All up in your grill " as our American friends like to say.

 

[Guy Preston]

Coming into this conversation late.....

Why choose Blocking over Evasion or vica versa??

If you evade, why not throw an arm up to protect yourself??

Likewise, if you are blocking, wouldn't you also move into a better position to evade the attack at the same time??

I don't train any hard style blocks in general, but anything I do train contains both elements, moving off their attack line is always key, along with striking a bicep, or deflecting, capturing, etc...

If you leave out either, you have nothing if anything goes wrong...

If you try to block without evading, and your block is broken through, or misses, etc, you're going to get hit!!!

If you try to evade without blocking, and they track your movement, you're not as fast as they are, or they pre empt your movement, you're going to get hit!!!

A combination of the 2 is essential in my opinion...

 

[RTKDCMB]

Coming into this conversation late.....

Why choose Blocking over Evasion or vica versa??

If you evade, why not throw an arm up to protect yourself??

Likewise, if you are blocking, wouldn't you also move into a better position to evade the attack at the same time??

I don't train any hard style blocks in general, but anything I do train contains both elements, moving off their attack line is always key, along with striking a bicep, or deflecting, capturing, etc...

If you leave out either, you have nothing if anything goes wrong...

If you try to block without evading, and your block is broken through, or misses, etc, you're going to get hit!!!

If you try to evade without blocking, and they track your movement, you're not as fast as they are, or they pre empt your movement, you're going to get hit!!!

A combination of the 2 is essential in my opinion...

I agree totaly.

 

[celtic_crippler]

Like I said...depends on the conditions of the scenario.

I finally figured out MP4s and will soon post "Thundering Hammer".

In the meantime, here's a link to an American Kenpo classic, "Aggressive Twins", a defense vs a two hand push/shove which utilizes an inward block.

I realize before posting the link that it is more likely to be ripped apart not unlike a bunch of rabid jackles would rip apart newly discovered carion;however, it does show that a traditional inward block can be used effectively against certain attacks.

Let the flaming begin! LOL

 

[Cyriacus]

Like I said...depends on the conditions of the scenario.

I finally figured out MP4s and will soon post "Thundering Hammer".

In the meantime, here's a link to an American Kenpo classic, "Aggressive Twins", a defense vs a two hand push/shove which utilizes an inward block.

I realize before posting the link that it is more likely to be ripped apart not unlike a bunch of rabid jackles would rip apart newly discovered carion;however, it does show that a traditional inward block can be used effectively against certain attacks.

Let the flaming begin! LOL

Blood is delicious.

In all seriousness, i was more interesting in this being one of the more functional ways ive seen someone use a kick to the groin, rather then starting with it like its a cure all.

 

[RTKDCMB]

[/B][/I]Trouble with that is , you don't always get to make that choice.
Sometimes circumstances and the opponent will make that choice for you.

Real violence can kick off at normal conversation distance and in the blink of an eye that gap will be bridged and you will have the attacker right up in your face .
Or "All up in your grill " as our American friends like to say.

When I say that they would have to have gotten past 2 or 3 lines of defence I don't just mean that he has fought his way past I also mean that he could have bypassed them, which he would have if he only became a threat after he was already "All up in my grill " basically if someone is close enough to strike then you are close enough to block. The first line of defence is always avoid a confrontation, escape or talk your way out it.

 

[mook jong man]

When I say that they would have to have gotten past 2 or 3 lines of defence I don't just mean that he has fought his way past I also mean that he could have bypassed them, which he would have if he only became a threat after he was already "All up in my grill " basically if someone is close enough to strike then you are close enough to block. The first line of defence is always avoid a confrontation, escape or talk your way out it.

Doesn't work that way unfortunately.
You need a certain amount of time and distance to react and mount your defence.
If he is close enough to hit you and he decides to initiate the attack , then there is not a damn thing you can do about it , you are going to be hit.

This is the reason control measures such as the "Fence" were developed , to control the potential attacker and keep him at a distance where you can either hit him with a pre emptive strike or at least have half a chance of stopping his pre emptive strike.

 

[K-man]

Like I said...depends on the conditions of the scenario.

I finally figured out MP4s and will soon post "Thundering Hammer".

In the meantime, here's a link to an American Kenpo classic, "Aggressive Twins", a defense vs a two hand push/shove which utilizes an inward block.

I realize before posting the link that it is more likely to be ripped apart not unlike a bunch of rabid jackles would rip apart newly discovered carion;however, it does show that a traditional inward block can be used effectively against certain attacks.

Let the flaming begin! LOL

I might be a bit rabid at times but I'm not at all critical of your video. But then, I don't class what he did as a block. A block stops an attack. In this instance the move was more a deflection and the way it was performed was quite soft. If he had been more forceful I would have termed it a forearm strike and even then it would not stop the attack.

No flaming. :asian:

 

[celtic_crippler]

Ah... okay.

In American Kenpo a "block" can be defined as any defensive maneuver used to check or hinder an opponent. But I think it's finally clicked what you guys are saying.

I can only think of a handful of scenarios where meeting force with force in order to stop, quite literally, an attack would be the be desirable. In many cases, deflection would be the best strategy IMHO.

Deflection allows you utilize "borrowed force"; the force behind your opponent's attack. Either by adding to the effectiveness of your counter or by creating and "angle of disturbance" where the attacker is forced to switch their focus from you to keeping their balance which affords you the opportunity to get in more strikes; as in the video example I posted.

Been a while since I had a good martials arts conversation... thanks guys!

 

[RTKDCMB]

Doesn't work that way unfortunately.
You need a certain amount of time and distance to react and mount your defence.
If he is close enough to hit you and he decides to initiate the attack , then there is not a damn thing you can do about it , you are going to be hit.

So then that must be the ultimate form of attack that has no possible defence, just be close enough to hit someone and then initiate an attack and you will get them every time is that what you are saying?

There is not a damn thing you can do about it when:
a) If you have insufficient defensive skills.
b) You are not paying attention
c) You are not faster than they are

There is no such thing as a no win scenario, an undefendable strike or inescapable hold.

Never heard of the fence until your post but after seeing it on YouTube it reminds me a little of a guarding block with the palms we use in my school. It looks like a compliant posture that suggests "no no I don't want any trouble" but actually has all the elements of a guarding block without looking like a guarding block.

 

[K-man]

Ah... okay.

In American Kenpo a "block" can be defined as any defensive maneuver used to check or hinder an opponent. But I think it's finally clicked what you guys are saying.

I can only think of a handful of scenarios where meeting force with force in order to stop, quite literally, an attack would be the be desirable. In many cases, deflection would be the best strategy IMHO.

Deflection allows you utilize "borrowed force"; the force behind your opponent's attack. Either by adding to the effectiveness of your counter or by creating and "angle of disturbance" where the attacker is forced to switch their focus from you to keeping their balance which affords you the opportunity to get in more strikes; as in the video example I posted.

Been a while since I had a good martials arts conversation... thanks guys!

Welcome to the dark side bro! :cheers:

 

[Uncle]

So then that must be the ultimate form of attack that has no possible defence, just be close enough to hit someone and then initiate an attack and you will get them every time is that what you are saying?

There is not a damn thing you can do about it when:
a) If you have insufficient defensive skills.
b) You are not paying attention
c) You are not faster than they are

There is no such thing as a no win scenario, an undefendable strike or inescapable hold.

Never heard of the fence until your post but after seeing it on YouTube it reminds me a little of a guarding block with the palms we use in my school. It looks like a compliant posture that suggests "no no I don't want any trouble" but actually has all the elements of a guarding block without looking like a guarding block.

No there are a few attacks from close in where if I choose to initiate you won't have time to register or in some cases you won't even see it to be able to defend it. Even an interview stance which keeps your hands nearby will only give you a small chance (assuming I'm using one of the strikes where you can see it coming) because:
A. I've been practicing these skills a long time so I'm very, very fast at them
B. Even if we were the exact same speed (and we're not) my action will be faster than your reaction
C. I can initiate movement for most of them without telegraphing

 

[geezer]

So then that must be the ultimate form of attack that has no possible defence, just be close enough to hit someone and then initiate an attack and you will get them every time is that what you are saying?

There is not a damn thing you can do about it when:
a) If you have insufficient defensive skills.
b) You are not paying attention
c) You are not faster than they are...

I sense that you intended sarcasm, but yeah, that actually does sum it up pretty nicely. If you have your guard down and you let some violent nutter get right up in your face, he can very easily sucker-punch you or head-butt you "real good" before you can react. Funny thing is, this is exactly how a lot of male-dominance or "monkey dance" type fights start.

I see you actually did check out Geoff Thompson's "Fence" on Youtube. I totally susbscribe to that approach. Very solid strategy. Also, I'd think real hard about what Mook's posted. If you do Rhee TKD, you probably aren't real familiar with tight infighting such as favored by good Wing Chunner's. My source for this belief is one of my training partners in Texas, an older gent pushing 70 who was (many decades ago) on Jhoon Rhee's demo team. Now, in his "mature" years, after a hard, active life and a couple of knee replacement surgeries he's a Ving Tsun instructor. The man is well informed on this matter.

 

[K-man]

So then that must be the ultimate form of attack that has no possible defence, just be close enough to hit someone and then initiate an attack and you will get them every time is that what you are saying?

There is not a damn thing you can do about it when:
a) If you have insufficient defensive skills.
b) You are not paying attention
c) You are not faster than they are

There is no such thing as a no win scenario, an undefendable strike or inescapable hold.

Never heard of the fence until your post but after seeing it on YouTube it reminds me a little of a guarding block with the palms we use in my school. It looks like a compliant posture that suggests "no no I don't want any trouble" but actually has all the elements of a guarding block without looking like a guarding block.

To a certain extent yes. Having seen what some guys can do to a makiwara from a couple of inches. But even then you still have the options shown in every video posted, deflection or evasion.

There is no such thing as a no win scenario, an undefendable strike or inescapable hold.

Mmm! Looks like a lot of UFC fights must end by mutual consent after one of the guys taps out or passes out. I must remember to tell that to my guys next time someone has them in a submission hold.

The 'fence' is not really the same as pushing your hands out in a compiiant way. It is based on the aikido 'unbendable' arm and can include swapping arms. When one of my friends teaches it, he teaches it as 'outside 90'. That is you must keep the angle of the arm, at the elbow, outside 90 degrees for strength. Under 90 it will collapse under pressure. It is really only used when you are trying to avoid a conflict. That is when you are trying to cool a situation. :asian:

 

[celtic_crippler]

I think it's important to keep in mind some simple truths in regards to Physiology & Physics before making an assertion.

 

[Cyriacus]

So then that must be the ultimate form of attack that has no possible defence, just be close enough to hit someone and then initiate an attack and you will get them every time is that what you are saying?

Thats pretty much what happens. It works even better off an ambush.

 

[RTKDCMB]

Mmm! Looks like a lot of UFC fights must end by mutual consent after one of the guys taps out or passes out. I must remember to tell that to my guys next time someone has them in a submission hold. :asian:

Its true that once some holds are properly applied they are extremely difficult to get out of. Most of the holds that UFC fighters have submitted to or passed out from have been gotten out of by other UFC fighters. The rules of the Octagon prevent a lot of escapes from occurring, if you look closely at a fight where someone was submitted and ignore the rules you can sometimes see that there were a number of opportunities where a well placed elbow, kick, stomp, poke, small knuckle strike and finger or wrist break could have gotten them out of it but would have been illegal. For example many fighters have submitted to, I think it's called, a flying arm-bar where the person jumps on his opponent, puts him in an arm-bar and hangs on the guy upside down. From this position it would not be too difficult to stomp on the guys head. But since the guy performing the arm-bar is not trying to actually break the arm or permanently disable/kill the guy such drastic action is not necessary.

 

[K-man]

Its true that once some holds are properly applied they are extremely difficult to get out of. Most of the holds that UFC fighters have submitted to or passed out from have been gotten out of by other UFC fighters. The rules of the Octagon prevent a lot of escapes from occurring, if you look closely at a fight where someone was submitted and ignore the rules you can sometimes see that there were a number of opportunities where a well placed elbow, kick, stomp, poke, small knuckle strike and finger or wrist break could have gotten them out of it but would have been illegal. For example many fighters have submitted to, I think it's called, a flying arm-bar where the person jumps on his opponent, puts him in an arm-bar and hangs on the guy upside down. From this position it would not be too difficult to stomp on the guys head. But since the guy performing the arm-bar is not trying to actually break the arm or permanently disable/kill the guy such drastic action is not necessary.

Once holds are applied properly they are virtually impossible to get out of. If you don't submit you will experience joint damage or lack of conciousness. There are ways of reversing holds but normally the reversals in aikido (kaeshi waza) are not taught until around 3rd dan level. Even then, it is not that the reversals will always work but they expose any weaknesses in the primary technique. At UFC level the guys are highly skilled in applying submission holds and despite the fact that there are rules that may prevent a competitor escaping, those opportunities are few and far between. Body size also may well limit the effectiveness of a technique.

A smaller person may have difficulty restraining a bigger, stronger opponent but given two people of similar strength and build, the person in a properly applied lock or choke will not have much chance of escape. :asian: