Video on Karate blocks

[Deleted member 39746]

Well i found this video and wanted some opinions on if its good and the overarching website is good. Might have been done before, but its dated to 2014 so it would at least be 4 years old. I know little to nothing about karate so its better for this forum.

Personally i like this type of thing, going back to the more combative roots of some martial arts.Just interests me some of the changes they have done and how effective some of it could be.

 

[skribs]

Here are my thoughts on your post and the video:

• Why is something from 2014 "old". Some martial arts have existed for thousands of years. A four year old idea is actually pretty darn new.
• It's definitely a sales pitch. "Other schools don't do that, but we do, so like, comment, and subscribe." There are going to be plenty of schools that teach this style and plenty of schools that water it down.
• What he's doing is executing a dodge and then a counterattack. It's a more aggressive style of blocking, and it has it's advantages, but their are plenty of reasons why simply doing a normal block might be better. If you misjudge which technique he is doing (i.e. he does an uppercut instead of a cross) or if he fakes the technique to bait you in, then you've just exposed yourself.
• Another option (consistent with many TMA styles, including Karate, Kung Fu, and Taekwondo) is to block with one hand and strike with the other. For example, instead of doing a high or outside block followed by a punch, you could do a high block and underpunch at the same time. The block ensures that if your dodge isn't effective, you still protect yourself, and the punch delivers the strike.
• This is a great technique if going inside an attacker, but if you want to go outside, then you're more likely to start with a block than a strike.
• There are some particularly nasty wristlocks you can do that start with a block (instead of a strike)

This guy is talking about swords, but many of the same principles apply. When a punch is coming at you, you can do a number of different things, and there's reasons to do different ones or to combine them in different ways.

 

[Deleted member 39746]

Why is something from 2014 "old". Some martial arts have existed for thousands of years. A four year old idea is actually pretty darn new.

I meant a forum post on it would be at maximum 4 years old.

Also the rest is just interesting.

 

[Danny T]

Well i found this video and wanted some opinions on if its good and the overarching website is good. Might have been done before, but its dated to 2014 so it would at least be 4 years old. I know little to nothing about karate so its better for this forum.

Personally i like this type of thing, going back to the more combative roots of some martial arts.Just interests me some of the changes they have done and how effective some of it could be.

The gentleman in this video (the smaller of the two) is David Erath. David studied wing chun and kali under me back from around 2000-2005 when he and his family moved to Austria. Nice to see him still studying and his perspectives on what he has trained.

 

[JR 137]

Personally i like this type of thing, going back to the more combative roots of some martial arts.Just interests me some of the changes they have done and how effective some of it could be.

It all depends on how the teacher is teaching it. Some don’t look at it this way, some teach it this way at upper ranks, and some are content teaching superficial for kids and their parents. It’s not a karate as a whole thing, it’s an individual dojo thing. The guy in the video generalizes a bit too much IMO.

Not to discredit what he’s doing by any means, and for the record, I like it; but this isn’t really anything new nor groundbreaking. Perhaps to the kids, the sport karate, and/or strip-mall type karate crowd. But to adults who train hard and look deeper than in inch or two into karate, it’s not.

What I liked most was his pointing out of the stances used and why, even though it seemed like a brief afterthought.

 

[DaveB]

The only problem I have is the misrepresentation of the standard block - counter.

Otherwise he's not wrong. What he shows is one of the core methods for using basic blocks.

Although this interpretation is a bit simplistic, what he's showing is much more than a dodge and counter strike. If you want to dodge and counter strike there's no need to use something that looks like a rising block.

 

[skribs]

@Rat One other thought I had that somehow missed the bullet points...

The style of block, then punch, is useful at the lower level for teaching each part of the technique individually. You teach the block, you teach the strike, and then you teach the two together. I'm going to tie this to the discussion to the other thread - sometimes you don't see the reason to train the way you are at a low belt level, it's because the lower belt is giving you the building blocks to put together.

The only problem I have is the misrepresentation of the standard block - counter.

Otherwise he's not wrong. What he shows is one of the core methods for using basic blocks.

Although this interpretation is a bit simplistic, what he's showing is much more than a dodge and counter strike. If you want to dodge and counter strike there's no need to use something that looks like a rising block.

Care to elaborate?

 

[pdg]

Although this interpretation is a bit simplistic, what he's showing is much more than a dodge and counter strike. If you want to dodge and counter strike there's no need to use something that looks like a rising block.

There is if you can get past the "rising block" title and view it as a redirect and counter in it's own right, then add the secondary counter of a straight punch...

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

The style of block, then punch, is useful at the lower level ...

Agree! At the high level, a "raising block" is to raise the curtain, you then walk under it. In other words, the raising curtain and walk under should be 1 move.

During higher level training,

- a block is not just a block. it should be a block followed by a grab and pull.
- a punch is not just a punch. it should be a punch followed by a grab and pull.

This way the striking art can bridge into the wrestling art nicely.

 

[skribs]

- a block is not just a block. it should be a block followed by a grab and pull.
- a punch is not just a punch. it should be a punch followed by a grab and pull.

I agree that you CAN do these things. But the block IS still just a block. It just then gets combined with another technique.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

I agree that you CAN do these things. But the block IS still just a block. It just then gets combined with another technique.

The issue about "block" is no matter how many times that you may block your opponent's punch, your opponent can still punch you. the problem is still there. A block can be important, but how to take advantage on your block can be more important.

 

[skribs]

The issue about "block" is no matter how many times that you may block your opponent's punch, your opponent can still punch you. the problem is still there. A block can be important, but how to take advantage on your block can be more important.

I think we're arguing semantics. Like a letter is just a letter. But it is also part of a word. Letters on their own are pretty useless, but combined with other letters are important. But you don't forget what an "L" and a "W" and a "P" are just because you know words are more important than letters.

 

[DaveB]

I think we're arguing semantics. Like a letter is just a letter. But it is also part of a word. Letters on their own are pretty useless, but combined with other letters are important. But you don't forget what an "L" and a "W" and a "P" are just because you know words are more important than letters.

Actually Wang has a very good point that is worth thinking about and not dismissing with nonsense.

What the video is alluding to is a different way of taking the initiative with a block than just hoping to beat your opponent to the punch.

 

[Anarax]

Oh boy, another " I know how to use it correctly" video. His technique in the video isn't that good, he has no stance nor
structure(can't imagine why it turned off the YouTube comments). For the "correct" blocking demo, his opponent's tempo, commitment and overall mechanics change from when he's doing the "incorrect" version. This helps to make the "correct" way look better and more applicable.

What he found isn't a new thing, Karate has both hard and soft blocks for different situations and affects. When you cut out a small part of Martial arts, it's easy to take it out of context. If he showed a difference between a "correct" inside/outside block and "incorrect, that would have been more informative. You're not going to be able to use a high block for every type of punch.

I agree with his assessment on the decline of Karate's quality in the US, but his historical and conceptual/mechanical understating of Karate is lacking.

 

[pdg]

I agree that you CAN do these things. But the block IS still just a block. It just then gets combined with another technique.

A block is still just a block of you only recognise and only use it as a block.

A rising block say, oh that's just to deflect or block a punch.

How about if I call it an upward forearm strike - still just a block?

Exactly the same move, identical in fact - only now it's not called a block.

Low block?

I'm going to call that an outward low section hammer fist aimed at the knee - but "it's just a block" - nope, the block bit happened during the "chamber", so I'll have to rename the chamber as an X fist block.

Hooking block?

I'll use that to put your arm out of the way and grab a handful of hair.

Still "just a block" though.


And now I'll really mix it up - I'll lift my leg and use it as a cover for my lower body - dammit, I just chambered a snap kick...

Now I've done that, I might as well use that snap kick to block your punch.

(Insert Jackie Chan confused face here)

 

[skribs]

Actually Wang has a very good point that is worth thinking about and not dismissing with nonsense.

What the video is alluding to is a different way of taking the initiative with a block than just hoping to beat your opponent to the punch.

How you define things is very far from nonsense. He says "a block isn't a block, it could be a block and a grab, or a block and a strike." Then...it still is just a block, but it is combo'd with another technique.

Let's look at it another way. I can do a jab by itself. I can do a jab + cross combo. I can do a jab-jab cross combo. I can do jab-cross-hook-uppercut combo. I can do a jab-hook combo with the same hand. I can do lots of things after a jab. So is a jab all of those things? No. It is a jab, which can be used in combination with any number of things. But it is still just a jab.

A wheel is just a wheel, even if it's part of a car. A letter is a letter, even if it's part of a word. A pair of boots is just a pair of boots, and not a whole outfit. And a block is a block. A block, grab, and counter-attack is a block in combination (even if simultaneous combination) with other techniques. It does not stop being a block because you're doing something else, too. It does not stop being a block because there's other techniques being used.

A block is still just a block of you only recognise and only use it as a block.

A rising block say, oh that's just to deflect or block a punch.

How about if I call it an upward forearm strike - still just a block?

Exactly the same move, identical in fact - only now it's not called a block.

Low block?

I'm going to call that an outward low section hammer fist aimed at the knee - but "it's just a block" - nope, the block bit happened during the "chamber", so I'll have to rename the chamber as an X fist block.

Hooking block?

I'll use that to put your arm out of the way and grab a handful of hair.

Still "just a block" though.


And now I'll really mix it up - I'll lift my leg and use it as a cover for my lower body - dammit, I just chambered a snap kick...

Now I've done that, I might as well use that snap kick to block your punch.

(Insert Jackie Chan confused face here)

In this context, it appears to me he's talking about the difference between a high block by itself (just a block), or a block combined with a strike (i.e. high block with left arm and punch with right arm), or a block chained into a grapple (i.e. block the punch, then grab the arm or shoulder and transition into a joint lock or throw).

So in this context, is the "block" a block, or is it all of those things? I would argue that by itself it's still just a block. It's just a block in combination.

What you're talking about is a completely different conversation.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Here is an example that a block is more than just a block. It can be a

- block,
- grab,
- pull,
- switch hand, and
- punch back.

The issue is do you just think about block, or do you think beyond block?

 

[skribs]

Here is an example that a block is more than just a block. It can be a

- block,
- grab,
- pull,
- switch hand, and
- punch back.

The issue is do you just think about block, or do you think beyond block?

That is a block, then a grab, then switching hands to a different grab, followed by a few strikes.

Each of those techniques are in there (block, grab, hand-off, and each individual strike). It is a combination of several individual techniques.

 

[pdg]

So in this context, is the "block" a block, or is it all of those things? I would argue that by itself it's still just a block. It's just a block in combination.

What you're talking about is a completely different conversation.

Fair enough, I only had any volume on the video for a portion of it because the guy's voice bored me

I can agree that if it's a block plus another move then it's still a block - but if it's not used as a block, then it's not really just a block even though it looks like one...

 

[DaveB]

How you define things is very far from nonsense. He says "a block isn't a block, it could be a block and a grab, or a block and a strike." Then...it still is just a block, but it is combo'd with another technique.

Let's look at it another way. I can do a jab by itself. I can do a jab + cross combo. I can do a jab-jab cross combo. I can do jab-cross-hook-uppercut combo. I can do a jab-hook combo with the same hand. I can do lots of things after a jab. So is a jab all of those things? No. It is a jab, which can be used in combination with any number of things. But it is still just a jab.

A wheel is just a wheel, even if it's part of a car. A letter is a letter, even if it's part of a word. A pair of boots is just a pair of boots, and not a whole outfit. And a block is a block. A block, grab, and counter-attack is a block in combination (even if simultaneous combination) with other techniques. It does not stop being a block because you're doing something else, too. It does not stop being a block because there's other techniques being used.



In this context, it appears to me he's talking about the difference between a high block by itself (just a block), or a block combined with a strike (i.e. high block with left arm and punch with right arm), or a block chained into a grapple (i.e. block the punch, then grab the arm or shoulder and transition into a joint lock or throw).

So in this context, is the "block" a block, or is it all of those things? I would argue that by itself it's still just a block. It's just a block in combination.

What you're talking about is a completely different conversation.

Nope, not even close. But any explanation I might give will only be met by attempts to invalidate it, which is tiresome.

So stick with your system. I'm sure it is fine for you.