Video on Karate blocks

[Danny T]

Kickboxing competition rules prevent the presence of many karate techniques.

 

[Deleted member 39746]

Don't Taekwondo folk wonder why we have these big forearm movements rather than the little palm-parries that come out in sparring?

Implying they acknowledge Karate heretige.


I was going to ask if you could learn about TKD/ practical applications of it by looking at Karate, but i think thats been answered somewhere in here and i will skim back.

 

[FriedRice]

As I've just explained, the Karateka that invented kick boxing didn't learn this kind of application for their techniques.

I didn't read what you just explained. I was responding to the OP.

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.

Incorrect. Boxing has evolved with more techniques and also better ones. Old usually doesn't mean better, but worse. Bare Knuckle Boxing still exist and they use modern Boxing techniques....they just pick their shots more carefully and don't swing for the fences. Trained fighters, generally know the limitations of their bare knuckles.

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.

He's chambering his hands to his hips and punching from there, then back to his hips; for an aggressive, advancing combo.

Show me 5 different Boxing gyms that teaches this, otherwise your statement is false.

 

[Deleted member 39746]

Old usually doesn't mean better, but worse. Bare Knuckle Boxing still exist and they use modern Boxing techniques....

I can chip in for this. There are people who teach pugilism from treatises etc from before gloves were introduced (when it was basically anything goes) Then there is boxers who just fight bare knuckled. The former would obviously be more aware of what puts their hands at more risk and i imagine there is a different meta to modern boxing, like body shotting people mainly etc. Both were still sports anyway, most people didn't want to kill who they were fighting bare knuckled nor maim them.

Only so many ways to re invent the wheel anyway.

Edit: By the way i dont disagree with your statement, i was just quoting you to cite what i was responding to.

 

[DaveB]

Incorrect. Boxing has evolved with more techniques and also better ones. Old usually doesn't mean better, but worse. Bare Knuckle Boxing still exist and they use modern Boxing techniques....they just pick their shots more carefully and don't swing for the fences. Trained fighters, generally know the limitations of their bare knuckles.

Your a bit vague on what precisely you find to be incorrect, seeing as I didn't comment on what was better or worse or who had more techniques etc.

If you meant that modern Boxing is no different to modern bare knuckle boxing, I agree that modern bkb's just learn modern Boxing, because that's what exists. But that's also why I specified that you need to look at old boxing.

Bare Knuckle is usually illegal, there's not the same resources going into refining methods. But if you look at old bkb you see many more karate like techniques taught.

If you made bare knuckle legal again I'd bet it wouldn't be long before these techniques made a comeback.

He's chambering his hands to his hips and punching from there, then back to his hips; for an aggressive, advancing combo.

Show me 5 different Boxing gyms that teaches this, otherwise your statement is false.

But my statement was that the techniques in boxing are within karate. If I showed you what you asked I'd be proving the opposite.

It is worth noting that one iteration of a technique does not define the art.

It might be helpful if you take the time to understand what's being said before you accuse people of making false statements.

 

[DaveB]

Implying they acknowledge Karate heretige.


I was going to ask if you could learn about TKD/ practical applications of it by looking at Karate, but i think thats been answered somewhere in here and i will skim back.

Not only can you but imo it's the best first step.

 

[FriedRice]

Your a bit vague on what precisely you find to be incorrect,

More likely it was due to your, not very intelligible sentence of: "Also if you research old bare knuckle boxing you will find many of the same block structures us it would used." --DaveB

Can you clarify?

seeing as I didn't comment on what was better or worse or who had more techniques etc.

You said: "Boxing as we think of it now works as it does because of the gloves. Bare knuckle is a different animal." --DaveB

I told you that Bare Knuckles still exists today and they're using the evolved/better techniques of Boxing with & w/o gloves. It's not this different animal that you said. Most Bare Knuckle Boxers, are amateur and pro Boxers.

If you meant that modern Boxing is no different to modern bare knuckle boxing, I agree that modern bkb's just learn modern Boxing, because that's what exists. But that's also why I specified that you need to look at old boxing.

Why?

Bare Knuckle is usually illegal, there's not the same resources going into refining methods. But if you look at old bkb you see many more karate like techniques taught.

So does this mean that Karate stinks in comparison to MMA because there's not "the same resources going into refining methods"? Can this really be a legitimate argument?

If you made bare knuckle legal again I'd bet it wouldn't be long before these techniques made a comeback.

BKB is still around and populated mostly by amateur & pro Boxers. Why do you think that most to nearly all of them aren't training Karate to Box bare knuckles (unless they want to get KO'ed really quick or something).

But my statement was that the techniques in boxing are within karate. If I showed you what you asked I'd be proving the opposite.

Maybe old BKB used some Karate chops, but they prob. went with actual Boxing for a reason. Same goes with Kickboxers, who evidently were Karatekas.

It might be helpful if you take the time to understand what's being said before you accuse people of making false statements.

You made mistakes in your post and now changing and adding additional context.

 

[DaveB]

More likely it was due to your, not very intelligible sentence of: "Also if you research old bare knuckle boxing you will find many of the same block structures us it would used." --DaveB

Can you clarify?

Typo's happen. Commenting on something that you admit to not understanding without first seeking clarification, that makes far less sense than my sentence.

I was saying that some of the core Karate blocking techniques are found in bare knuckle boxing as it existed before the reform of the rules that brought in gloves.

I made none of the value judgements that you are making. I just observed that when the circumstances were more similar so we're the techniques.

You said: "Boxing as we think of it now works as it does because of the gloves. Bare knuckle is a different animal." --DaveB

I told you that Bare Knuckles still exists today and they're using the evolved/better techniques of Boxing with & w/o gloves. It's not this different animal that you said. Most Bare Knuckle Boxers, are amateur and pro Boxers.

A point I agreed with because the kind of bkb I was talking about doesn't exist anymore. And if bkboxers are semi pro's then they are obviously learning glove based boxing, not boxing as it was before gloves.

People do what they are trained to do, so a semi pro boxer won't suddenly start using techniques from a hundred years ago. But over time as new people try new things an art evolves.
MMA is the perfect example of this.

So does this mean that Karate stinks in comparison to MMA because there's not "the same resources going into refining methods"? Can this really be a legitimate argument?

You are very concerned with labelling stuff as better than other stuff.

Yes, MMA has been more actively developed and refined in its short life than karate has in its many years because there's money at stake and very many more people involved who can make changes based on active testing.

It's not really a fair comparison because they are very different things and it doesn't mean karate has nothing to offer, but it's pretty safe to say that if you want to win mma matches, mma is better.

So yes it is a valid argument, why would you think otherwise..?
Unless you hadn't thought at all and are just aggressively picking at what you think are holes?

BKB is still around and populated mostly by amateur & pro Boxers. Why do you think that most to nearly all of them aren't training Karate to Box bare knuckles (unless they want to get KO'ed really quick or something).

That's like asking why people aren't training badminton to play tennis.

Boxing is a game. It's great skill training, but it is a game whose movements are optimised for the rules it has. Hence why pro Boxers get beaten in mma unless they have "mixed" in other "Martial arts".

The Karate answer to fighting a boxer is to kick him in the groin and elbow his face because he won't see it coming. Otherwise the only way to win a boxing match is to Box because the rules stop you doing anything else.

Maybe old BKB used some Karate chops, but they prob. went with actual Boxing for a reason. Same goes with Kickboxers, who evidently were Karatekas.

Yes, because the rules changed.

Change the rules again to allow kicks, knees and elbows and you get Thai boxing. It's the rules that shape the sport.

You made mistakes in your post and now changing and adding additional context.

All I've done is clean up one mistake and express the obvious in simple terms so that you can catch up.

You nitpicked one mistake as an attempt to avoid responsibility after I'd called you out for talking out of your backside, and instead of just admitting the fact you are doubling down into your ignorance.

Please feel free to carry on.

 

[FriedRice]

Typo's happen. Commenting on something that you admit to not understanding without first seeking clarification, that makes far less sense than my sentence. I was saying that some of the core Karate blocking techniques are found in bare knuckle boxing as it existed before the reform of the rules that brought in gloves.

No, because I went by the context of what you wrote, and despite your poor typing skills, I was right

I made none of the value judgements that you are making. I just observed that when the circumstances were more similar so we're the techniques.

I see it more as an evolution. Cavemen probably used to swat & paw at each other like animals. Karate and BKB may have been similar, but since then, Boxing has evolved for the better while Karate is still stuck with some really bad techniques.....so bad, that KickBoxers (who are Karatekas) even trashed such bad techniques for better, Boxing ones.

A point I agreed with because the kind of bkb I was talking about doesn't exist anymore. And if bkboxers are semi pro's then they are obviously learning glove based boxing, not boxing as it was before gloves.

But nothing stops them from going to Karate schools to learn Karate and applying it to BKB. They don't do so, because Karate punching is inferior and would get them KO'ed.

People do what they are trained to do, so a semi pro boxer won't suddenly start using techniques from a hundred years ago. But over time as new people try new things an art evolves.
MMA is the perfect example of this.

So you basically think that chambering the fist at the waist to punch and then retracting it back to the waist to repeat on the other side.....is something that's a good idea, like in this video? There are Karate schools all over the place in my area and I've sparred with dudes there who are Pro MMA fighters and they don't do that...yet they're in a Karate schools. They teach the little kids that though, in their Karate class. Kids' classes pay the rent. All of these techniques are available to them. But when it's time for real fighting, none of the Fighters fight like this.

You are very concerned with labelling stuff as better than other stuff.

Yes, MMA has been more actively developed and refined in its short life than karate has in its many years because there's money at stake and very many more people involved who can make changes based on active testing.

You think Karate schools didn't do all that, tryna make money with the McDojos, Kickboxing on TV, selling tickets and charging fees at tournaments, belt promos, etc.?

It's not really a fair comparison because they are very different things and it doesn't mean karate has nothing to offer, but it's pretty safe to say that if you want to win mma matches, mma is better.

There are many Karate fighters in MMA and some are champions. They just don't use many of these bad techniques in a real fight that you're advocating.

So yes it is a valid argument, why would you think otherwise..?
Unless you hadn't thought at all and are just aggressively picking at what you think are holes?

That's like asking why people aren't training badminton to play tennis.

Boxing is a game. It's great skill training, but it is a game whose movements are optimised for the rules it has. Hence why pro Boxers get beaten in mma unless they have "mixed" in other "Martial arts".

The Karate answer to fighting a boxer is to kick him in the groin and elbow his face because he won't see it coming. Otherwise the only way to win a boxing match is to Box because the rules stop you doing anything else.

Yes, because the rules changed.

Change the rules again to allow kicks, knees and elbows and you get Thai boxing. It's the rules that shape the sport.

Then why did you bring Boxing up for in trying to justify these inferior Karate chops?

All I've done is clean up one mistake and express the obvious in simple terms so that you can catch up.

You nitpicked one mistake as an attempt to avoid responsibility after I'd called you out for talking out of your backside, and instead of just admitting the fact you are doubling down into your ignorance.

Please feel free to carry on.

Not just 1 mistake, you were also not very clear which made it easier for you allege that you meant otherwise.

 

[pdg]

So you basically think that chambering the fist at the waist to punch and then retracting it back to the waist to repeat on the other side.....is something that's a good idea

Isn't that style of punching supposed to be more of a conditioning exercise than an applicable technique in itself?

Hence why it's used in classes for multiple repetitions, and with kids...

 

[FriedRice]

Isn't that style of punching supposed to be more of a conditioning exercise than an applicable technique in itself?

Hence why it's used in classes for multiple repetitions, and with kids...

I think it's more to do with Karate people wanting to keep the old ways and/or selling that special Asian sauce or something. Because you can get conditioning by doing it a better way, ie. modern Boxing techniques.

 

[DaveB]

Isn't that style of punching supposed to be more of a conditioning exercise than an applicable technique in itself?

Hence why it's used in classes for multiple repetitions, and with kids...

You are wasting your time with this one. He's probably going to extrapolate from your sentence that you think karate can beat up Bruce Lee and his dad.

 

[DaveB]

Fried rice, You have so little idea of what you are talking about its very hard to have a conversation.

 

[Deleted member 39746]

Some of you might find this interesting: Boxing vs. la savate (circa 1869)

I haven't read it fully but rather skimmed it, if its authentic to its source and a factual source and not fiction anyway. Its gloved boxing, but its gloved boxing vs savate and they used parries and blocks. (not the orginal article i was intending to find but better than nothing) I just find the dynamic of gloved boxing vs kick boxing in the 1800's and early 1900's interesting.

Just as another disclaimer, i haven't fact checked it and only skimmed it, it could be wrong but i am no expert on sports history after all.

 

[Deleted member 39746]

reving this for a question, i have a video by the same people on arnis blocks, should i stick it in the arnis forum, or should we just expand this to be a generic video thread on blocks?

 

[Anarax]

reving this for a question, i have a video by the same people on arnis blocks, should i stick it in the arnis forum, or should we just expand this to be a generic video thread on blocks?

That's funny. I watched his other videos and was thinking the same thing. Personally I think this thread would be better for it gives further context to his "expertise".

 

[Deleted member 39746]

That's funny. I watched his other videos and was thinking the same thing. Personally I think this thread would be better for it gives further context to his "expertise".

and here it is:

 

[Tez3]

Boxing has evolved for the better while Karate is still stuck with some really bad techniques.....so bad, that KickBoxers (who are Karatekas) even trashed such bad techniques for better, Boxing ones.

They don't do so, because Karate punching is inferior and would get them KO'ed.

You think Karate schools didn't do all that, tryna make money with the McDojos

Then why did you bring Boxing up for in trying to justify these inferior Karate chops?

Style/art bashing.

Not only is it not allowed on here, you are wrong.

 

[Deleted member 34973]

I myself, enjoyed the video. His description concerning the blocks, I found to be accurate with the statement that is inherent in Karate, 'There is no difference between a block and a strike'. I also found it interesting that when defending, he showed the concept of the circle of blocks. Another thing I found refreshing, is the forward momentum. I think this is one of the concepts forgotten, due to the popularity of tournament style karate. In the early days of the tournament, a person could see this more aggressive way of sparring, yet today in Sport Karate, this type of aggression would be frowned upon.

All in all, not a bad video and a good commentary.

 

[DaveB]

and here it is:

Same as the first vid, I think he slightly misrepresents the use of the kali techniques, but his concerns about whether the opponent will notice a blunt limb destruction is reasonable. I don't do kali so maybe someone more knowledgeable can comment.

As to the point of non-specific covers being easier to use, he is correct although I don't think he gives them as hard a test as the other techs. But because A is easier it doesn't mean B is useless.