My post was based on the assumption that 'traditional blocks' meant the 'hard blocks of high, inside/outside middle blocks and the softer circular blocks/parries/palm presses that are common to most Karate/Kenpo type arts. I know the there are SOOOOO many more systems of blocking than that but when I read 'traditional' I think of the basic Japanese, Chinese/Korean roots.
Traditional Blocks
- Thread starter Hand Sword
- Start date
OP
OP
I appreciate all of the responses, but, I feel I was a bit foggy on my question (forgive me, I work the 3rd shift), so I will try to clarify. Growing up, and working in the security field, I've seen and dealt with a bunch of encounters. I've never seen anyone use the hard blocks. The action seems to fast, where, your opponent is on their second strike, before the first seems to finish, or their on top of you, or you on them, in a grappling situation. The hard blocks seem to be designed for the drunk's wild round punch, where you have time to time it and shatter it with a hard block. Even tournament fighters as well as nhb fighters never seem to use the hard blocks, tending to parry instead. I feel that it is a more natural tendency to "swat" or parry an attack. So I guess my question would be for those who are law enforcement, security, or some other situation that calls on your skills to be used in a Real situation, on a regular basis. Have you used the hard blocking in those situations, or do you use the softer blocks?
Also, If the natural tendency is toward the softer blocks, and our founders came from a tough street fighting background, where hard blocks were too slow to deal with, what could be a barrage of strikes, forcing them to come up with "eclectic" systems, why would they teach in the old manner, that was abandoned?
Also, If the natural tendency is toward the softer blocks, and our founders came from a tough street fighting background, where hard blocks were too slow to deal with, what could be a barrage of strikes, forcing them to come up with "eclectic" systems, why would they teach in the old manner, that was abandoned?
8
8253
Guest
Any block will work when executed correctly. As far as a block being traditional, they really havent changed much.
OP
OP
You are correct in terms of theory, and the way most martial artists practice, but, in terms of REAL Application it's different. As I said earlier, the hard blocks seem desingned for the one, big, roundhouse swing, which is not the way people fight on the street, club, etc.. As jfarnsworth noted, you get caught in the cycle of them firing, and you blocking.8253 said:
OP
OP
Well put! Spoken from the old school mentality, keep that mind set throughout your training, try not to get burnt out with all the commercialism, and quit.bzarnett said:
Just one experiential story. Hard inward block to the pressure points running just inside the brachio-radialis = fall down and no follow-up needed, note: I was going into a Five Swords variant. My right to their right and this by accident, as I was aiming for the wrist/forearm and they were just faster than I thought. I only recently learned how to repeat this consistantly in a very relaxed (dead-arm) fashion and my students hate it when I demo on them.
-Michael
-Michael
GAB
3rd Black Belt
Michael,
The block/strike you are talking about is very effective. Taught in many schools that are into the pressure point and soft tissue area strikes (nerve).
The might meets might has, got to give way, to this kind of fighting,(imo) it is not the way to go(hard block to hard block) unless you are talking Escrima/Eskrima, Arnis, Kali. Even then the 'merge' is very good way to go.
Regards, Gary
The block/strike you are talking about is very effective. Taught in many schools that are into the pressure point and soft tissue area strikes (nerve).
The might meets might has, got to give way, to this kind of fighting,(imo) it is not the way to go(hard block to hard block) unless you are talking Escrima/Eskrima, Arnis, Kali. Even then the 'merge' is very good way to go.
Regards, Gary
ikenpo
Black Belt
Michael Billings said:
I can remember years ago (1999 or 2000) receiving a video of one of Doc Chape'l private Black Belt classes (from Doc) at the old, old location, where he explained that very application. He showed how that strike would weaken the base and make your head involutarily turn to set up for the next strike, very enlightening. That same vid showed Doc "knocking out" a huge guy with basically that same strike, but striking it relatively lightly and touching another pt at his ***** to cross the guys circuits. Of course, this may not be the exact same pt, but it reads a lot like it....
jb
I am sure that it is. I learned more about it at a Shen Chuan camp (Joe Lansdale) where I taught, now, once activated on my students if I rub it it hurts. One of Dillman's senior belts was there also, Will Higginbotham, he was impressive also.
-Michael
-Michael
B
bzarnett
Guest
I beg to differ, I have yet to see a system that does blocking in a manner similiar to American Kenpo. I will take the upward block of American Kenpo as an example. It is quiet different than practiced in the martial art systems I have seen.8253 said:
If you could provide comparative examples that would be great.
M
Mark Weiser
Guest
The basic blocks are the foundation in which we in KENPO train. Once you have the basic movement down (blocks among other basics) you start to adapt those movements to suit the person training and for the opponent.
There is the Point of Origin in which the blocks and parries are executed from.
There is the Point of Origin in which the blocks and parries are executed from.
Doc
Senior Master
Discussions of this type are virtually meaningless without the clear distinction of what physical activity is at question. The terms “hard” and/or “traditional” are extremely subjective and nebulous relative to ones own experiences, lineage(s), and knowledge base. What may be considered “traditional” to one person may be foreign to another.
If I take liberty with the term “traditional” and assume someone means the traditions of the Okinawa and Japanese lineages, this in itself presents significant problems in terms of clarification. The various “styles” and “ryu's” of these traditions have myriad degrees of various interpretations of applications or “bunkai.”
In some interpretations the “so-called” blocks are intended, and executed as body conditioning and training exercises, with no appreciable “blocking” applications beyond historical misinterpretations and subsequent misapplications. Others are not “blocks” at all, but instead are designed as “leveraged breaking” applications.
All things considered, and exclusive of the comments of Mr. Billings and Mr. Bugg who are talking about actual functional applications, I must conclude the “application” described is a misapplication and therefore not designed to be functional in the scenario presented in the question at all.
With regard to the tendency to favor softer “parry’ actions over “hard” blocking, proper executed blocking applications primarily “deflect, check, and hinder” an assault whereas parries “redirect,” and are most often properly used in conjunction with the former and should not be used exclusive of blocking.
Parries function quickly to redirect attacks in realistic scenarios, but are usually properly backed up by a blocking action to control body dimension(s). You will also find the reasonably adept can, and will use blocks with equal efficiency, and exclusive of the necessity of “parrying” actions in most circumstances initially. In these instances, the blocks provide the fast effective defense intended and then the block is backed up with a parry to move to additional actions.
Clearly both actions have well defined functions with “blocks” categorized as “major moves” and “parry’s” as “minor moves.” This categorization relationship supports the premise of blocks (major) being singularly functional to negate an initial assault. Whereas a parry serving as a “minor move” (to avoid an initial assault), is subsequently supported by the “major move” block.
Thanks for the discussion
If I take liberty with the term “traditional” and assume someone means the traditions of the Okinawa and Japanese lineages, this in itself presents significant problems in terms of clarification. The various “styles” and “ryu's” of these traditions have myriad degrees of various interpretations of applications or “bunkai.”
In some interpretations the “so-called” blocks are intended, and executed as body conditioning and training exercises, with no appreciable “blocking” applications beyond historical misinterpretations and subsequent misapplications. Others are not “blocks” at all, but instead are designed as “leveraged breaking” applications.
All things considered, and exclusive of the comments of Mr. Billings and Mr. Bugg who are talking about actual functional applications, I must conclude the “application” described is a misapplication and therefore not designed to be functional in the scenario presented in the question at all.
With regard to the tendency to favor softer “parry’ actions over “hard” blocking, proper executed blocking applications primarily “deflect, check, and hinder” an assault whereas parries “redirect,” and are most often properly used in conjunction with the former and should not be used exclusive of blocking.
Parries function quickly to redirect attacks in realistic scenarios, but are usually properly backed up by a blocking action to control body dimension(s). You will also find the reasonably adept can, and will use blocks with equal efficiency, and exclusive of the necessity of “parrying” actions in most circumstances initially. In these instances, the blocks provide the fast effective defense intended and then the block is backed up with a parry to move to additional actions.
Clearly both actions have well defined functions with “blocks” categorized as “major moves” and “parry’s” as “minor moves.” This categorization relationship supports the premise of blocks (major) being singularly functional to negate an initial assault. Whereas a parry serving as a “minor move” (to avoid an initial assault), is subsequently supported by the “major move” block.
Thanks for the discussion
Doc
Senior Master
bzarnett said:
The operative phase here sir is "I have yet to see a system .."
The actions found in American Kenpo are not unique or exclusive to American Kenpo when executed properly, and can be found in various arts of Chinese, Indonesian, and even Filipino Arts, to give a few examples.
Mr. Parker used to say to me, "When the knowledge you have represents a hammer, then every problem you encounter invariably looks like a nail."
Doc
Senior Master
Mark Weiser said:
Sorry sir, but you do not "adapt" basics. Basics are finite and must be performed a certain way. However you may "choose" the appropriate basic or combination thereof for the circumstances presented.
Basics relative to "point of Origin" is vastly misunderstood. There are "mapped anatomical indexes" and all physical movement properly executed fall within these indexes of activity. As an example; the most geometrically expeditious movement may not necessarily be anatomically correct depending upon the type and length of your study and training.
Even My Dog "Big D" from Scottsdale knows that!
8
8253
Guest
Sorry, I was responding to the original question. Traditional blocks vary with different types of MA's (hard, soft, etc.). Therefore every type of block may be traditional to some, and new to others. As far as American Kenpo goes, I dont really know a whole lot about it. I study Chinese Kenpo. I do believe that an upward block in the basic meaning in most MA's are started out the same, and i would say that also the rest of the basic block set start in the same manner. It is the motion after the point of contact is made that defines the different theories of what should be done. After all there is only so many ways to block, punch, kick, etc.
OP
OP
Thank you all for your input, as I said I am new here, and it's really great to be able to communicate with such an array of good martial artists. More of this should go on out there rather than the divisions and biasness. However, reading these responses, it seems like they are coming from a training/practice ideology, which was my fault for not clarifying the question (Again, I'm on the third shift, and have never "chatted" before). I guess the above quote explains what I was asking better, which is more of a real situation angle, rather than from class practice. I appreciate all the responses, it's great to have all of these experiences coming together. Respect to everyone! Thanks.Hand Sword said:
