Uke = block, the misinterpretation

[Brian S]

From what I was taught, there are no blocks in kata,at all.

I don't know where this started exactly,but my research has led me to believe it's about the time Funakoshi introduced karate to the mainstream public.

All that's needed to block is for someone to feed the attack. There is no need to conform to many sets of different "techniques" just to block.

In my teachings I have found that a block is a lock, a strike, a throw, or a break, but never a block.

So many times I have read about kata being block -strike, block-kick, block ,block,block-strike,block. Kata is not about that at all,it is realistic self defense.

How do you practice? What is your understanding of this?

 

[exile]

From what I was taught, there are no blocks in …,at all.

I don't know where this started exactly,but my research has led me to believe it's about the time Funakoshi introduced karate to the mainstream public.

All that's needed to block is for someone to feed the attack. There is no need to conform to many sets of different "techniques" just to block.

In my teachings I have found that a block is a lock, a strike, a throw, or a break, but never a block.

So many times I have read about kata being block -strike, block-kick, block ,block,block-strike,block. Kata is not about that at all,it is realistic self defense.

How do you practice? What is your understanding of this?

Brian, there is a whole movement in karate—and I think the word `movement' is the right one, meaning a concerted effort on a mass scale to bring about some change—to recover the realistic applications of kata that the Okinawan masters built into the forms they created, or re-created based on syntheses of Chinese, Satsuma and indigenous tuite elements. Iain Abernethy, in his masterpiece Bunkai Jutsu: the Practical applications of Karate Kata, observes that

In sport-based sparring, blocks work fairly well. This is because the combatants use complementary techniques at an exaggerated distance. You will have a good idea of what techniques are coming, and you will have the space and time to react accordingly. Real fighting is much closer and much more chaotic. In a real situation, blocks are rarely of any use, and hence the kata rarely contain them. However, they do contain many techniques that are misleadingly labelled as blocks...

The modern interpretation of thekata often has every other move explained as a block.... this is predominantly due to Itosu's alterations and the modern karateka's failure to study the katas sufficiently. The work 'uke' is commonly taken to mean block, but 'uke' can also mean 'counterattack' or 'response technique'.
​

And in his chapter, `The true uses of "blocks"'—note the scare quotes around block!—IA shows in detail how Age-uke, Gedan-barai and numerous other basic blocking techniques constitute not actual blocks, but redirections and entrapments of the attacker's limb, rendering them vulnerable to severe counterattacks while trapped in vulnerable positions. For a true orgy of combat-realistic treatments of allegedly blocking movements, reanalyzing them as effective attacking moves, see Rick Clark's great book, Seventy-five Down Blocks. It's an encyclopædia of fighting applications the gedan-barai movement. And so on.

The major innovation in karate and related arts in the past decade has been the realistic bunkai movement, with kata reinterpreted in terms of the maximally effective combat applications they originally encoded, as acknowledged by Itosu himself. There is at this point a huge detailed literature on this; Abernethy's DVDs on the Pinan kata set, Naihanchi, Bassai and certain other classics contain extremely persuasive interpretations of these major kata and their component elements, including the so-called blocks that show up all over the place in them. It's a new world, Brian...

 

[Brian S]

Thanks exile! I'll look into those books you mentioned.

 

[Steel Tiger]

And in his chapter, `The true uses of "blocks"'—note the scare quotes around block!—IA shows in detail how Age-uke, Gedan-barai and numerous other basic blocking techniques constitute not actual blocks, but redirections and entrapments of the attacker's limb, rendering them vulnerable to severe counterattacks while trapped in vulnerable positions. For a true orgy of combat-realistic treatments of allegedly blocking movements, reanalyzing them as effective attacking moves, see Rick Clark's great book, Seventy-five Down Blocks. It's an encyclopædia of fighting applications the gedan-barai movement. And so on.

Now my perspective on this appears quite different (which should not be surprising as I don't do Karate) and makes me think about a question Exile asked about the similarities and differences between CMAs and the Okinawan arts.

The system I have learned and teach has five fundamental defences. Of these only one could be construed as wholly defensive, and even that is not actually true. All involve harming or capturing the opponent in some way.

I find it interesting to see this transition of understanding as the art moved from China to Okinawa and then to Japan. It is a classic example of information loss through generational transmission.

 

[exile]

Thanks exile! I'll look into those books you mentioned.

Given what you've said about your view of blocking, Brian, I think you'll find the general treatment of technical elements in these sources very much in line with your thinking. Increasingly, people are beginning to rethink the standard bunkai for the great classic kata, and are finding very effective uses for these bunkai elements that finally stop taking literally Itosu's block/punch/kick packaging of karate techs for children's use—which was how he managed to get karate into the Okinawan school curriculum in 1901.

The following articles are free downloadable from IA's website, btw:

http://www.iainabernethy.com/articles/Karate_A_Complete_Fighting_System.asp
http://www.iainabernethy.com/articles/article_14.asp
http://www.iainabernethy.com/articles/article_21.asp
http://www.iainabernethy.com/articles/article_3.asp
http://www.iainabernethy.com/articles/article_4.asp
http://www.iainabernethy.com/articles/article_19.asp

My suggestion is, read them in the order I've given them. If you're interested in more of these free downloadable articles, and the equally free e-books that IA has available at his website, on bunkai for the Pinan katas and the practical SD application of karate, it's all there at

http://www.iainabernethy.com/default.htm

Once you're there, look at the line of subaddresses (Books|DVDS|Articles...etc) under the header at the top, and away you go!

 

[Brian S]

exile,

I have read Abernethy's articles and downloaded his free e-books.

He is on the flip side of what I mentioned in my opinion. A kata extremist!! Claiming that EVERYTHING is contained within kata is a far stretch. Kata does not contain groundfighting(I've never seen a ground kata),nor does it contain farmer burns wrestling, nor does it contain ufc style submission holds,lol. He has some good applications,but no doubt that a majority of them can be thrown out with the bathwater and have no relation to the kata he claims.

I don't know which side is worse. The kata blocking multi-opponents, or the kata-groundfighters,lol.

Kata is what it is, it has good fighting applications, it doesn't need anything added to it to make it seem more legit, or deadly, or complete.

Just my opinion.

BTW, funny how kata never contained groundfighting before 1991.

 

[TimoS]

From what I was taught, there are no blocks in kata,at all

I have to disagree with you here. There are blocks in kata, although these blocks can and often are used to open your opponent for counter-attack. Take a look at e.g. this
[yt]LFSnV7s_5i0[/yt]

That's Zenpo Shimabukuro sensei, head of Shorin ryu Seibukan karate, doing Seisan. The bunkai for the first move in the kata is a block. There are other blockings in the kata also, but since that's the first move, I thought it would be easiest to go with that

Also, in a recent interview Shimabukuro sensei said that in his opinion, karate consists of three major elements: kicking, punching and blocking. There are other elements also, but those are the major building blocks

 

[TimoS]

Kata does not contain groundfighting

That's true, they don't! I've read that some think that e.g. Naifanchi shodan is a good ground fighting kata, but I think that is over-analysis. In my opinion there's a reason why kata do not teach groundfighting: the idea of self-defence is to "take care" of your opponent as quickly and efficiently as you can. In that situation you don't go to ground and start wrestling with him, especially since he might have some friends nearby.

Kata is what it is, it has good fighting applications, it doesn't need anything added to it to make it seem more legit, or deadly, or complete.

Exactly

 

[Brian S]

I have to disagree with you here. There are blocks in kata, although these blocks can and often are used to open your opponent for counter-attack. Take a look at e.g. this
[yt]LFSnV7s_5i0[/yt]

That's Zenpo Shimabukuro sensei, head of Shorin ryu Seibukan karate, doing Seisan. The bunkai for the first move in the kata is a block. There are other blockings in the kata also, but since that's the first move, I thought it would be easiest to go with that

Also, in a recent interview Shimabukuro sensei said that in his opinion, karate consists of three major elements: kicking, punching and blocking. There are other elements also, but those are the major building blocks

I can't see the pic on my work computer. I'll take a look at it tomorrow when I get home and comment from there.

Thanks!

 

[TimoS]

I can't see the pic on my work computer

It's actually a video on Youtube. Here's the link

 

[Tez3]

exile,

I have read Abernethy's articles and downloaded his free e-books.

He is on the flip side of what I mentioned in my opinion. A kata extremist!! Claiming that EVERYTHING is contained within kata is a far stretch. Kata does not contain groundfighting(I've never seen a ground kata),nor does it contain farmer burns wrestling, nor does it contain ufc style submission holds,lol. He has some good applications,but no doubt that a majority of them can be thrown out with the bathwater and have no relation to the kata he claims.

I don't know which side is worse. The kata blocking multi-opponents, or the kata-groundfighters,lol.

Kata is what it is, it has good fighting applications, it doesn't need anything added to it to make it seem more legit, or deadly, or complete.

Just my opinion.

BTW, funny how kata never contained groundfighting before 1991.

In Wado Ryu karate there are many takedowns and there are moves in it's kata for groundfighting because the founder Ohtsuka Sensei was also a Juijitsu Master who put that styles moves in his karate. I was doing arm bars etc, takedowns and ground fighting moves in karate long before 1991.

 

[seasoned]

To read the minds of past deceased masters is not possible, and while they were living, their art was very secretive in many cases. The legacy of their knowledge as we know it was passed down to a few loyal disciples as a means of preserving their most treasured asset, life preservation. It only seems apparent that they would not "spill the beans" in kata for all to see. Granted we can become quite proficient in blocking punching and kicking with the rudimentary knowledge of kata and drills, but to truly see what they were hiding from prying eyes will take work. It has been said that kata is like a book, a book that the masters used to preserve their art, a “living book” if I may use that term. As a living book it is subject to change, but the change does not take place within this living book but within us as we partake of it. Any good book needs to be read many times before we begin to see the true meaning of it’s content. If kata is the end all as many have alluded to over many years, then logic would prevail. Within kata is all that is needed for life preservation. If it was not so then where did the masters of old save it at, under there sleeping mat. J
It has been said that there are no ground techniques in karate, but that is like reading the book once and putting it down. If I can read a paper book standing, sitting and lying down then why can’t I as a metaphor do the same with this book called kata. The answer is we can. There are just so many ways to apply techniques, so it makes no difference if we are standing, sitting or on the ground. In boxing you have what you see and we all know that we need to take a boxer to the ground. In wrestling we know that we would need to stay with punching. They are limited by there “sport” but the game of life preservation is only limited by our own minds. In the end result we will only see what we want to see, or are able to see. The next time you practice that limited kata, take it to the ground, and with an open mind a whole new perspective will open up to you.

 

[exile]

That's true, they don't! I've read that some think that e.g. Naifanchi shodan is a good ground fighting kata, but I think that is over-analysis. In my opinion there's a reason why kata do not teach groundfighting: the idea of self-defence is to "take care" of your opponent as quickly and efficiently as you can. In that situation you don't go to ground and start wrestling with him, especially since he might have some friends nearby.



Exactly

exile,

I have read Abernethy's articles and downloaded his free e-books.

He is on the flip side of what I mentioned in my opinion. A kata extremist!! Claiming that EVERYTHING is contained within kata is a far stretch. Kata does not contain groundfighting(I've never seen a ground kata),nor does it contain farmer burns wrestling, nor does it contain ufc style submission holds,lol. He has some good applications,but no doubt that a majority of them can be thrown out with the bathwater and have no relation to the kata he claims.

I don't know which side is worse. The kata blocking multi-opponents, or the kata-groundfighters,lol.

Kata is what it is, it has good fighting applications, it doesn't need anything added to it to make it seem more legit, or deadly, or complete.

Just my opinion.

BTW, funny how kata never contained groundfighting before 1991.

Guys—don't jump to conclusions about what IA is saying. His chapter `Karate on the ground' in Bunkai Jutsu makes it clear that the groundfighting techs he's extracting from the katas are not submission moves as in BJJ or judo; they are destruction moves designed to allow the karateka to get off the ground before his attacker, and what they typically consist of is the same kind of locks, pins and hyperextensions, along with strikes, that are taught in the kata, just rotated 90º so that you apply them horizontally rather than vertically. Biomechanically, they work the same way. As he says,

That is not to say that there are not groundfighting techniques in the kata. Pinan Godan executes a cross strangle to a thrown opponent who is now on the floor. Kushanku coontains a takedown into a floor-fighting neck crank, etc. but these are exceptions rather than the rule. The katas perfer to demonstrate their grappling principles from a vertical position. This is because being vertical is the preferred option and the katas always encourage the correct strategy.​

In IA's DVD on the Pinan katas, he demonstrates particularaly clearly how joint-breaking techniques that follow directly from the kata, applied vertically, can be applied with little modification on the ground. He has a whole book, Karate's Grappling Methods which shows how familiar kata control+strike scenarios can be applies either vertically or horizontally, and he offers citations from some of the early karate masters, such as Egami and Motobu, making it clear that throws and unbalancig movements designed to take the attacker to the ground, and then finishing him off there, were considered part of karate from the very beginning.

The problem I think is that `groundfighting' has come to mean, techniques for perpetuating a fight on the ground. But the kind of applications of kata that IA has in mind are not about continuing the fight on the ground, but about damaging the opponent while he is on the ground and you are in close contact with him, so that you can regain your feet as early as possible. The groundfighting strategy here is not that of judo, wrestling, or other martial arts/sports in which the ground is the agreed-upon venue for the combat, but rather the same one-strike/one kill (or incapacitation, anyway) approach—basically, seek to disable the attacker with a terminal strike at the very earliest chance, with every move either constituting that strike or setting it up—that the kata contain and exhibit in the vertical dimension. IA hardly thinks, as his writing makes clear, that BJJ is part of kata; the two systems have fundamentally different strategic plans, so it would be surprising if their tactics looked anything like each other. But what he's saying is, kata strategy and tactics can be applied with little modification in either plane, and he demonstrates this at length in his work.

 

[Tez3]

From what I was taught, there are no blocks in kata,at all.

I don't know where this started exactly,but my research has led me to believe it's about the time Funakoshi introduced karate to the mainstream public.

All that's needed to block is for someone to feed the attack. There is no need to conform to many sets of different "techniques" just to block.

In my teachings I have found that a block is a lock, a strike, a throw, or a break, but never a block.

So many times I have read about kata being block -strike, block-kick, block ,block,block-strike,block. Kata is not about that at all,it is realistic self defense.

How do you practice? What is your understanding of this?

I don't do Shotokan so this bit has me puzzled, is there still a Funakoshi alive and in charge of Shotokan?

What I know as a high rise block (Jodan Uke) is also useful for other things, my instructor was putting up our 20ft boxing ring for a fight night, there are very heavy poles at the corners which someone was holding for him while he bolted the side bits on, the person got distracted and let go of the pole, my instructor on reflex put his arm up in Jodan Uke and saved himself from being brained, because it was a well executed block all he had was a bruise instead of a broken arm. The guy who let go got a Gibbs style (NCIS) smack around the head lol!

 

[Ray B]

If Itosu removed all of the "dangerous techniques" to teach
the Okinawan school children, then why would there be
okuden waza (hidden techniques) in the Pinans? If what people are
saying about Itosu is true, then all of the Pinans would be block,
punch waza only.

Just playing devil's advocate...

 

[exile]

If Itosu removed all of the "dangerous techniques" to teach
the Okinawan school children, then why would there be
okuden waza (hidden techniques) in the Pinans? If what people are
saying about Itosu is true, then all of the Pinans would be block,
punch waza only.

Just playing devil's advocate...

The answer is that Itosu didn't remove the dangerous techniques themselves. What he did was remove the accurate description of those techniques. It was Itosu who told us to think of gedan-barai as a simple 'down block', probably against a kick, when even a little bit of practical experimentation would show how impractical that would be. But as an elbow spear/hammerfist against an assailant's forcibly lowered head (via a an arm pin), or any of the multitude of other uses that Rick Clark exhibits in 75 Down Blocks, it's brilliant.

Itosu was completely up front about what he was doing; he wrote letters to colleagues explaining why was doing that. And remember too, Itosu did not just teach the Pinans to children. His adult students learned them as well. That's the crucial point about Itosu: he didn't change karate technically, but he changed the description of kata movements so the dangerous applications of the movements were obscured. And these moves were not supposed to be taught to the Japanese at all, children or adult, by the Okinawan expats, either, as Higaki discusses as length in his book on bunkai for the Pinans. They were there, but they were intended to go... 'undiscussed', for reasons Higaki makes very clear.

 

[Brian S]

I have to disagree with you here. There are blocks in kata, although these blocks can and often are used to open your opponent for counter-attack. Take a look at e.g. this

That's Zenpo Shimabukuro sensei, head of Shorin ryu Seibukan karate, doing Seisan. The bunkai for the first move in the kata is a block.

I disagree and I'll tell you why. His hand is chambered. why chamber the non-"blocking" hand? It does have a purpose, a grappling purpose. People think that karate is supposed to be used at a punching range, this just isn't true. The move is actually a joint dislocation or break. There are other applications,but none of them are a block.

There are other blockings in the kata also, but since that's the first move, I thought it would be easiest to go with that

Also, in a recent interview Shimabukuro sensei said that in his opinion, karate consists of three major elements: kicking, punching and blocking. There are other elements also, but those are the major building blocks

Oh man! If those are the major building blocks I was taught all wrong and it's no different than a point sparring TKD school!

Rank does not mean right. I learned more from a fourth dan than any one of higher rank.

 

[Brian S]

The answer is that Itosu didn't remove the dangerous techniques themselves. What he did was remove the accurate description of those techniques. It was Itosu who told us to think of gedan-barai as a simple 'down block', probably against a kick, when even a little bit of practical experimentation would show how impractical that would be. But as an elbow spear/hammerfist against an assailant's forcibly lowered head (via a an arm pin), or any of the multitude of other uses that Rick Clark exhibits in 75 Down Blocks, it's brilliant.

Itosu was completely up front about what he was doing; he wrote letters to colleagues explaining why was doing that. And remember too, Itosu did not just teach the Pinans to children. His adult students learned them as well. That's the crucial point about Itosu: he didn't change karate technically, but he changed the description of kata movements so the dangerous applications of the movements were obscured. And these moves were not supposed to be taught to the Japanese at all, children or adult, by the Okinawan expats, either, as Higaki discusses as length in his book on bunkai for the Pinans. They were there, but they were intended to go... 'undiscussed', for reasons Higaki makes very clear.

That is exactly right.

No matter what bunkai you teach,make sure it is useable and that it makes sense. Ask a lot of questions. What is each hand doing? Why? What position is my opponent in? Is he to the side? Behind me? Etc..

If you can use it for real it's good bunkai. If you can't then it's just bunk.

 

[seasoned]

I disagree and I'll tell you why. His hand is chambered. why chamber the non-"blocking" hand? It does have a purpose, a grappling purpose. People think that karate is supposed to be used at a punching range, this just isn't true. The move is actually a joint dislocation or break. There are other applications,but none of them are a block.




Oh man! If those are the major building blocks I was taught all wrong and it's no different than a point sparring TKD school!

Rank does not mean right. I learned more from a fourth dan than any one of higher rank.

You are very correct about fighting range. In Okinawan GoJu for example all indications point to a very close in fighting style. The Okinawans were all about grabbing an opponent. That is why a lot of their training implements were geared toward gripping power. The kicks are all very low which is our first indication of a very close in fighting art. The hand chamber is indeed not a means of cocking your fist for a punch, this is a very big misconception. The hand is pulling something in for a grappling defense, remember the Okinawans felt gripping power was very important. Block, punch, and kick are the first stages of the art. We must look for the art within the art. To many of us get stuck on a phrase such as a single block can end a fight. It can, when that so called block has many different meanings. Sparring has its age limatations and you don't see many older karate ka participating in it. But kata is limitless and it allows everyone at any age to continue their training way into advanved years. Amen for kata.

 

[Brian S]

You are very correct about fighting range. In Okinawan GoJu for example all indications point to a very close in fighting style. The Okinawans were all about grabbing an opponent. That is why a lot of their training implements were geared toward gripping power. The kicks are all very low which is our first indication of a very close in fighting art. The hand chamber is indeed not a means of cocking your fist for a punch, this is a very big misconception. The hand is pulling something in for a grappling defense, remember the Okinawans felt gripping power was very important. Block, punch, and kick are the first stages of the art. We must look for the art within the art. To many of us get stuck on a phrase such as a single block can end a fight. It can, when that so called block has many different meanings. Sparring has its age limatations and you don't see many older karate ka participating in it. But kata is limitless and it allows everyone at any age to continue their training way into advanved years. Amen for kata.

Thankyou sir for your experienced opinion.

The "chamber" hand pulling is exactly the way I was taught by my instructor. Drawing back to gain power or cocking doesn't make much sense for the use of a chamber. The two way action created by the pull or drawing in makes good self defense sense.

I wish more people taught and learned the way you obviously do. :karate: