skribs
Grandmaster
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2013
- Messages
- 7,748
- Reaction score
- 2,698
You're the one completely invalidating what I say without even discussing it. And others seem to understand what I mean.
You're the one completely invalidating what I say without even discussing it. And others seem to understand what I mean.
I'm not discussing it because you are right about your own point. A block followed by different techniques is still a block.
But you made that point as a means of knocking the legs from under Wangs point. Your message is "It's all just blocking or hitting, nothing new here."
So I said go on with that approach as it clearly works for you. It's just not what is being alluded to in the video.
You are still getting hung up on this...
As I understand it, Funakoshi had a lot of influence in the creation of TKD, as well as being the founder of Shotokan karate. In the following article: Lyoto Machida: Old-School Karate it discusses how he, Funakoshi, taught the "down block" as a throw. Not a block, followed by a throw, or a block followed by a grab, followed by a throw... he taught it literally, as a throw. So did his direct students.
I understand that you really don't agree with him. However, if I have to choose who to believe, Funakoshi, that founder of Shotokan Karate, which had a great influence on the creation of TKD... or some random TKD guy online... I choose Funakoshi's version, every time. But, if you think Funakoshi got it wrong... thats fine by me.
The letter "P" is just a letter. And it is always the letter "P." When you teach people what the letter "P" is you use words like "Push," "Pull," and "Pan." But, "P" can be used, as a "P" in lots of words... and not only as the first letter. It can be the end letter, as in "stop," or a middle letter as in "happen." It is still the letter "P." However, the letters in martial arts context, are the movements and principles, not the labels. You seem to be stuck with "P" being part of the word (label) "Push." Because "P" starts the word (label) "Push," thats what it is... And you are correct, you can use "Push" in all kinds of sentences and paragraphs to say lots of things. If you listen to Funakoshi, you should be able to find "P" in words like "Pull" and "Pan"... then soon in words like "Stop"... maybe eventually in words like "happen." (I can't wait for you to find it in "Phase")
Most of us, take Funakoshi to be correct, that these are movements are a lot more than their labels. But if you want to limit them to the label.... thats your choice. Just understand that the rest of us see a little more in these things.
You have been told repeatedly, by lots of people, that the label is just a teaching aid... and that these movements are much more than just what the label says. I get it that you won't take my word for it, or the word of anyone else here.
As I understand it, Funakoshi had a lot of influence in the creation of TKD, as well as being the founder of Shotokan karate. In the following article: Lyoto Machida: Old-School Karate it discusses how he, Funakoshi, taught the "down block" as a throw. Not a block, followed by a throw, or a block followed by a grab, followed by a throw... he taught it literally, as a throw. So did his direct students.
I understand that you really don't agree with him. However, if I have to choose who to believe, Funakoshi, that founder of Shotokan Karate, which had a great influence on the creation of TKD... or some random TKD guy online... I choose Funakoshi's version, every time. But, if you think Funakoshi got it wrong... thats fine by me.
The letter "P" is just a letter. And it is always the letter "P." When you teach people what the letter "P" is you use words like "Push," "Pull," and "Pan." But, "P" can be used, as a "P" in lots of words... and not only as the first letter. It can be the end letter, as in "stop," or a middle letter as in "happen." It is still the letter "P." However, the letters in martial arts context, are the movements and principles, not the labels. You seem to be stuck with "P" being part of the word (label) "Push." Because "P" starts the word (label) "Push," thats what it is... And you are correct, you can use "Push" in all kinds of sentences and paragraphs to say lots of things. If you listen to Funakoshi, you should be able to find "P" in words like "Pull" and "Pan"... then soon in words like "Stop"... maybe eventually in words like "happen." (I can't wait for you to find it in "Phase")
Most of us, take Funakoshi to be correct, that these are movements are a lot more than their labels. But if you want to limit them to the label.... thats your choice. Just understand that the rest of us see a little more in these things.
skribs
Grandmaster
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2013
- Messages
- 7,748
- Reaction score
- 2,698
You're arguing against a point I'm not making, and instead taking this thread off-topic to rant about arguments we've had in other threads.
The post I originally responded to was talking about how a block isn't just a block, it's a block done along with a strike or any number of other techniques, or a block followed by a grab and then a transition into grappling. I keep it separate in my mind, as just a block, to keep in mind the number of possibilities that are open to it. As soon as it transforms from "block" to "block and grab" that's all the technique is and you've limited yourself to that particular block and grab. If you keep it as just a block, you don't focus on just one possibility. There's a number of different possibilities.
This comes from my experience in hapkido. We start learning techniques where Technique #1 is to take an enemy who is grabbing you and engage a wrist lock, take them down, and then perform a submission hold until they tap out (or in a real scenario, just keep twisting until it snaps). Technique #2 is a different joint lock, a different take down, and a different submission. As a white belt, this is one technique from start to finish, but as a higher belt you learn to break the techniques apart in different ways and it really opens up what you can do. You can do the wrist lock from #1, transition to the takedown from #5, and finish with the break from #14, for example, instead of being limited to doing #1 from start to finish.
So, to me, lumping multiple things together and calling it a "technique" can be useful training aid, but knowing the individual parts and how they can flow together seamlessly is more important.
I feel like you're trying to argue with me but at this point I don't even know what you're arguing against. I said nothing about what order techniques can be done in, and I said nothing about what different techniques can be used for. I'm talking about treating each technique in a combination as an individual technique.
That's a really good article.
The OP posted a video about the block being more than a block. It showed where Funakoshi taught the blocks as strikes, that also happened to block a punch. The blocks were strikes to the head, armpit and chin... that also blocked the punch. These same blocks were demonstrated as off balancing moves as well, both by the guy in the video and by the photos shown in the video. Folks in this thread have mentioned some things these blocks are, in addition to being blocks. Yet you argue:
Yes, this is similar to your other threads where you insist that the label "block" is what it is all about. The fact that Funakoshi taught the blocks as strikes, and as throws, and as off balancing techniques should be a clue that the blocks are more than blocking.
Kung Fu Wang showed a video of the blocks being a grab... which you dismiss entirely as a combo, starting with a block being just a block. However, in his video, the block moved his body out of danger, blocked the attack, blended with the attack, redirected the attack and for now, then grabbed. The block first, was a lot more things than just a block, to even enable the grab after.
The next piece is to realize that the technique, is not the ending pose. It is the entire sequence of movement. The ending pose contains a closed fist. But, the fist is only closed because it is empty in single practice. That technique is done in different situations, in different forms, sometimes starting open handed, sometimes starting close handed. Meaning both starts, will work. When you close your hand, depends on whether you are blocking, striking, throwing, off balancing, locking, escaping.... Now, if you actually finished the "block" and then tried to grab his hand, you will miss every time. In order to catch the hand you are trying to grab, you must continue your "block" until you close your hand around the other guys wrist. At that point, your first technique is finished. You have blocked, blended, striked, off balanced and grabbed... all in the same movement, the first technique.
If Funakoshi taught that blocks were strikes and throws, as well as blocks... I tend to believe him.
skribs
Grandmaster
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2013
- Messages
- 7,748
- Reaction score
- 2,698
The block first was just a block. The block itself didn't grab the hand or throw all the strikes. It allowed those to happen, but it was just a block. You even admit that it was a block that set up the rest of the combination, and yet still refuse to admit that it is a block.
If I throw a hook-uppercut combo, is the hook an uppercut? No. It's a hook. It's used in a hook-uppercut combo, yes. But it's still just a hook punch.
You realise that you're ignoring the bulk of his post so that you can argue the details of an example.
Let's say it's a bad example and you are absolutely right about this one thing, is that supposed to invalidate the points you ignored?
This need to invalidate by finding the imperfection in the explanation rather than discussing the point or asking questions only muddies the waters and tires people like me out.
Last edited:
There is a reason I don't write professionally...
I was starting with your assertion that it was a combo. I was showing that even in the combo view, the block was more than just a block. (it was also those other things, like the blend, the redirect, the off balancing, the dodge...) So, even if we classify this as a combo, as you suggest... the block is a lot more than just a block.
However, as the video in the OP showed, if the block is just a block, then the other guy can hit you with his next punch, before you can recover. At best, you are back to an even position. (Kung Fu Wang pointed this out as well) If you want to grab and grapple next, you won't be able to, if the block is just a block. In order to get your grab, you must start with the principles behind the "block"... all that stuff I mentioned before about blocking, redirecting, off balancing, getting out of the way... and that must be maintained, through your grab. Your "block" does not finish, until you have your grab. Yes, at this point you combo into the next move. If you stop applying the principles of the "block" before you have your grab, you are in the situation illustrated in the video, in the OP... the other guy is hitting you, while you chase his hand.
So, the question is, if just blocking, leaves you in a worse position... why did Funakoshi teach moves that were just blocks? He didn't. His blocks are not just blocks. Funakoshi taught his blocks as strikes and as throws and as escapes and as a lot of other things. I realize that TKD is different than Shotokan. However, every TKD practitioner that I have talked to or trained with, save one, agrees with Funakoshi. An argument that a block is just a block, is arguing that Funakoshi was wrong. He may have been wrong in a few things... but he was right enough that the founders of TKD took a lot of influence from him when creating TKD.
I know quite a few that would just give me a blank look if I mentioned the name Funakoshi...
Moreover, I know plenty that consider a block to be just a block and that it doesn't really have anything to do with what precedes or follows it.
I've been told a few times that a block can't be used in any other fashion...
During the first day of my English lesson, I believed that if I could repeat "This is a book." 10,000 times, I'll be good in English.
Just to discuss MA on the grade school level is no fun.
When you block a kick, you want to catch on his ankle, this way you can pull his kicking leg toward you. The counter force then pull you into your opponent.
Last edited:
Yes.
And no...
Maybe.
Sometimes you want to catch and pull, or catch and lift, or catch and push, or catch and rotate, or catch then hold and sweep. Sometimes you want to use the motion of the block for something else entirely, like a strike to the inner thigh, or as pull down, or a push.
Or sometimes, you might actually just want to block...
In discussion, or with other practitioners, it's fine to explore the possibilities - but in a class setting where you have people of all sorts of abilities and at different stages of progression maybe it's most sensible to just stick to it being a block. Anything more could just get confusing.
I'd say the majority of students aren't really all that interested in digging deeply into pretty much any of it.
I don't think they're not interested I think they expect to be taught it eventually.
The trouble is that this stuff has not been standard curriculum since before Funakoshi left Okinawa.
Karate was watered down at source for a variety of political reasons and then the Japanese stole the art making cultural changes to teaching and practice.
They treated the hands and feet like swords and erased the grappling elements because they all took Judo as well. This is why kata have been such a mystery all these years. They didn't fit the paradigm so they were given mystical spiritual significance and ignored outside of performance art.
The kind of 1 dimensional big dumb block that skribs is stuck on was never a real martial art technique. It was just a training exercise that looked enough like a sword parry that the early Japanese instructors thought it could function like one.
And as long as everyone is playing the same karate technique game it's fine. In certain circumstances bdb's are appropriate and useful, but it's the equivalent of bashing in a nail with the handle of your screwdriver.
Coming from this history it's no wonder TKD doesn't have answers built into the syllabus, but karateka have done the work and research for them and details like these are worth studying.
I'll have to disagree with that a little.
I don't think the majority expect to be taught it, because they have no comprehension that it actually exists.
The few who know it exist are surprised when they're not taught it, and the others who discover it themselves wonder why it's not taught...
I think to get a better picture you have to widen your net and timeframe, because it's not just karateka who have done the work.
Consider...
All MA has a common source.
Prehistoric man had to fight to survive. He had to defend himself from animals, he had to hunt, and he had to defend his catch from those who would take it from him, whether person or animal.
The one who survived the best was the one who was most adaptable. He could use a stick, or a club, or a spear, he could grapple, he could strike, punch and kick - he could fight. If someone or something else could fight better, they won the prize of not dying (or at least living slightly better that day).
Time goes on, life gets easier, but there's still the fight.
People hone their skills and ultimately start to specialise. You get strikers, you get grapplers, you get some armed. They invariably come up against each other and all win some, lose some.
The winner goes home and regales people with the story of how his technique is best...
But, because common source there is huge crossover between these new 'styles'.
Time goes on more and the fight becomes more challenge based, even for entertainment purposes, the specialisation gets narrower and narrower, sometimes it's regional. Everyone glosses over the common base and you end up with people saying stuff like Kung Fu isn't judo isn't TKD isn't karate isn't aikido isn't krav isn't....... From a specialisation perspective they're correct. From a demonstration of a particular art perspective they're correct.
But, to really get the most from the specialisation you have to de-specialise a bit and consider that a particular technique 'belongs' to all, and to none, and to some.
This guy looks horrible, but then again, it may be the style that's causing him to look off balance like this. If this stuff was the greatest, then we'd have seen it in Kickboxing (b/c Karatekas pretty much invented KB)....which was the highest achievement for a Karateka in the 80's. But instead, we saw them go to Western Boxing for their hands.
I just meant that karateka have done a lot of research to understand what karate was supposed to be and how to use it's techniques.
The book being referenced in the video is karatedo kyohan, the core text of Shotokan. It had more extensive sections on application but they were removed after Gf died, presumably to keep the old ways out as they were replaced by very Japanese defences from kneeling. Bu the point is that since TKD is structured on karate it is karate's answers that will give the most clarity.
Yes you can learn skills/applications/principles from anywhere, but unless you go to an art that has you walking forward in front stance with a rising block, you won't learn what that technique is for.
As I've just explained, the Karateka that invented kick boxing didn't learn this kind of application for their techniques.
Also if you research old bare knuckle boxing you will find many of the same block structures us it would used. Boxing as we think of it now works as it does because of the gloves. Bare knuckle is a different animal.
Lastly karate uses all the same techniques as boxing. It's only the training that differs and that's just down to the way traditional arts are passed on. There's never been any rule that says you can't hit a heavy bag or focus pads or practice defence in a ring with gloves on.
My point was really that there's the tkd 'standard' definition of what it's for.
If you restrict yourself to that, then it's just a block.
So you could look to karate - that'll give you a few more options, sure. But why stop at that?
Why not look at similar mechanics within other arts too? Look where karate came from, look before that too.
It's not just applicable walking forward in front stance.
And it's not just a block, or a strike, or....
