Blocking useless?

[Kung Fu Wang]

I agree with his strategy - move in, but I don't like to cover my head with my arms. When your opponent punches at you, you should move in. You should not move back. The reasons are:

You want to

- interrupt his punch during the early stage when speed is still slow and power is still weak.
- fight in your opponent's territory instead of to fight in your own territory.
- establish a clinch ASAP (if you are a wrestler).
- ...

Also, your hands should be closer to your opponent's head and not close to your own head. The US anti-missile system should be set on the coast line and not in Washington DC. You can protect your head away from you. You don't need to protect you head that close from your head.

IMO, you should not give your opponent enough space to generate speed and power for his punches. In order to "squeeze" your opponent's space, you have to move in.

I like simple and quick solution.

- You attack me.
- I move in.
- Either you knock me down, or
- I take you down.

When my opponent punches me, his arm is not protecting his head. I want to get his head right at that moment.

 

[jobo]

I’m not sure I agree. He starts off at a certain distance, but later does block by moving in. In WC you step in and can do a number of things to stop a hook. However I think he is right in that it’s very hard to pull off blocks in a real situation.

i see we have the ussual dennie physics responded!
the guy is right, blocking a " good punch" is very difficult, /borderline impossible for the simple reason that the travel time of the punch is likely to be shorter than the targets reaction time, never mind the actual time to move the arm into place. You can off set that by anticipation, people do tend to telegraph their intentions by body position and by conditioned response, that can shorten the reaction time somewhat. But its always going to be a matter of a few thousands of a,second if you get the block in place or not. If they sucker punch you, then by defintion you have lost your anticipation of the move.
conditioned response leaves you vulrable to a feint, your arm is moving to block a punch that never comes, mean while the left hand is coming whilst you are still blocking the right.

as the guy says, control of space is the keys, ether lots of it, to give you time or non of it to take the power out of the punches, anything but be three foot away, in the punching zone

 

[jobo]

I agree with his strategy - move in, but I don't like to cover my head with my arms. When your opponent punches at you, you should move in. You should not move back. The reasons are:

You want to

- interrupt his punch during the early stage when speed is still slow and power is still weak.
- fight in your opponent's territory instead of to fight in your own territory.
- establish a clinch ASAP (if you are a wrestler).
- ...

Also, your hands should be closer to your opponent's head and not close to your own head. The US anti-missile system should be set on the coast line and not in Washington DC. You can protect your head away from you. You don't need to protect you head that close from your head.

IMO, you should not give your opponent enough space to generate speed and power for his punches. In order to "squeeze" your opponent's space, you have to move in.

I like simple and quick solution.

- You attack me.
- I move in.
- Either you knock me down, or
- I take you down.

When my opponent punches me, his arm is not protecting his head. I want to get his head right at that moment.

moving backwards away from a punch and covering you head, rather than blocking in empty space is exactly what boxers do!, presumably because this works better than your alternative, why do you think they are wrong to do this?

 

[TMA17]

This is why boxing is so effective - head movement, spacial movement with good footwork controlling distances, angles and the focus on getting proficient in only a select amount of punches. All of those attributes are what makes boxing such an effective art.

Throw in elbows and straight punches and it has you covered as a striking art goes.

 

[jobo]

This is why boxing is so effective - head movement, spacial movement with good footwork controlling distances, angles and the focus on getting proficient in only a select amount of punches. All of those attributes are what makes boxing such an effective art.

Throw in elbows and straight punches and it has you covered as a striking art goes.

there is a,fundamental denial on here, that the," tradition" of tma means that they are at a significant disadvantage to any fighting system that has progressed since The 1800s . Posting up pictures of old time boxers using similar techniques, only underlined the fact that boxing has progressed and tma by defintion has not.

much of the very fundemental on which tma is based are,at best,inefficient and more likely deeply flawed against a fast and mobile opponent. I'm taking the very basics like stance, flat footedness, ( rooting ) hand position, punching techneque forward only movement, body rigidity. The lot really,

if you want to see what works look at boxing, MT, bjj anything that is refined in contests, even full contact karate looks little like traditional karate, Because standing in a daft stance with you feet rooted, refusing to back up and you hands pulled back under your arm pits is a,sure way of getting a punch on the nose

 

[lklawson]

there is a,fundamental denial on here, that the," tradition" of tma means that they are at a significant disadvantage to any fighting system that has progressed since The 1800s . Posting up pictures of old time boxers using similar techniques, only underlined the fact that boxing has progressed and tma by defintion has not.

Not even close. You are correct that boxing has changed, but you are incorrect about why. It's not that boxing has "progressed" per se. It is that the rules of boxing changed. The short version is that the rules used to favor extended range outfighting and boxing at a distance. There have pretty much always been "rules," but the rules were different. Old style boxing included much lighter and harder (or no) gloves, stand-up grappling, throwing, and other differences. Even in the early 20th Century, after the Marquess of Queensbery rules were becoming the norm, "Scientific Boxing" and Amateur Boxing still had a certain amount of inertia in its traditions and training methods which continued to teach and support blocking as shown above.

It is exactly the same reason that linear punches were preferred and "round" type blows such as the modern Hook were not only unpopular but were actually ridiculed and derisively called a "swing."
The Straight Left and How to cultivate it by Jim Driscoll (Paperback) - Lulu

boxing, MT, bjj anything that is refined in contests,

Are shaped by the parameters of the contest.

even full contact karate looks little like traditional karate, Because standing in a daft stance with you feet rooted, refusing to back up and you hands pulled back under your arm pits is a,sure way of getting a punch on the nose

Umm... what? I'm not a karate guy but that doesn't really sound like any karate I've seen.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[Anarax]

This is why boxing is so effective - head movement, spacial movement with good footwork controlling distances, angles and the focus on getting proficient in only a select amount of punches. All of those attributes are what makes boxing such an effective art.

Throw in elbows and straight punches and it has you covered as a striking art goes.

Panantukan/Suntukan(Filipino Boxing) had a heavy influence on western boxing. That's why the stances, postures, hand positions and strikes have changed so much from the pictures posted.
Influence of Filipino Martial Arts on Western Boxing

 

[jobo]

Not even close. You are correct that boxing has changed, but you are incorrect about why. It's not that boxing has "progressed" per se. It is that the rules of boxing changed. The short version is that the rules used to favor extended range outfighting and boxing at a distance. There have pretty much always been "rules," but the rules were different. Old style boxing included much lighter and harder (or no) gloves, stand-up grappling, throwing, and other differences. Even in the early 20th Century, after the Marquess of Queensbery rules were becoming the norm, "Scientific Boxing" and Amateur Boxing still had a certain amount of inertia in its traditions and training methods which continued to teach and support blocking as shown above.

It is exactly the same reason that linear punches were preferred and "round" type blows such as the modern Hook were not only unpopular but were actually ridiculed and derisively called a "swing."
The Straight Left and How to cultivate it by Jim Driscoll (Paperback) - Lulu

Are shaped by the parameters of the contest.

Umm... what? I'm not a karate guy but that doesn't really sound like any karate I've seen.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

I'm not sure what your claiming here, I'm not sure you are either, the Queensbury rules precede the 20th century by a good few decades, and those replaced other prizefighting rules, that had been around fir,a hundred years before that, kicking bitting gouging, head butting had been outlawed for a long long time. The only fundemental difference between the M of Q rules and what went before was gloves and by virtue of gloves, wrestling was restricted. So how exactly are you claiming the Queensbury rules changed punching range,,,, exactly

boxing has most certainly progressed since the mid 1800s, so even if we look just,at post queenburry rules, its has considerable differences through science

 

[Gerry Seymour]

For what they are doing what he suggests is probably on point.

It is a very conservative way of stopping punches that does not require any gamesmanship. Punches do come out too fast for me to stop if i was to try to adress each punch individualy.

It becomes a bang for buck issue.

Now if you create a space and time advantage you can block all you want. But then you need footwork and game. Which may be to involved a method to stop a street attack.

Flurries of punches are not worth blocking. Individual punches often are. I think where folks get hung up is on the idea of the isolated block, like is taught to beginners. That's just a beginning point to learn to interfere with a punch before it hits you. More tools are added to give more options, and in a lot of situations a skilled person doesn't use isolated blocks, but integrates them with other things, sometimes even resorting to covering to get inside and do what they need to, to end the fight.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

moving backwards away from a punch and covering you head, rather than blocking in empty space is exactly what boxers do!, presumably because this works better than your alternative, why do you think they are wrong to do this?

If you are a

- striker, you want to maintain the striking range.
- wrestler, you want to maintain the clinching range.

For a wrestler to move back, he will never be able to obtain his clinching range.

 

[lklawson]

I'm not sure what your claiming here, I'm not sure you are either,

Just because you don't know what I'm saying doesn't mean that I don't.

the Queensbury rules precede the 20th century by a good few decades, and those replaced other prizefighting rules, that had been around fir,a hundred years before that, kicking bitting gouging, head butting had been outlawed for a long long time.

Sometimes. Sorta. Depending.

The reason that it is relevant to this discussion is because the rules are what either allow techniques such as blocking or hooks to flourish or to die. In the earlier rulesets long range, linear, punches and blocking were encouraged (because of the rules) and circular techniques, such as the hook, were discouraged. As the rules changed, the circumstances which favored blocking disappeared, but the techniques continued to be taught for a while for no better reason than "inertia" and tradition. Eventually they did fade, because of the rules changes. Further, you should know that the MoQ rules were not instantly and unanimously adopted around the world. Even in England it took some decades before MoQ was adopted by professional boxers. Prior to that it was considered a rule set for amateurs and school children.

The only fundemental difference between the M of Q rules and what went before was gloves and by virtue of gloves, wrestling was restricted.

Mule Muffins. Gloves, aka "mufflers" or "mittens," were in use well prior to MoQ for amateur matches and for professional training outside of prize matches. Grappling and throws were commonly taught WITH gloves.





The (one of) fundamental difference (differences) is that the MoQ rules specifically prohibited grappling. Rule #2 specifically states: "No wrestling or hugging allowed."

So how exactly are you claiming the Queensbury rules changed punching range,,,, exactly

As I already wrote, and to quote myself, "...the rules of boxing changed. The short version is that the rules used to favor extended range outfighting and boxing at a distance. There have pretty much always been 'rules,' but the rules were different. Old style boxing included much lighter and harder (or no) gloves, stand-up grappling, throwing, and other differences." Under the London Prize Ring rules and Broughton era rules, the rules favored extended range outfighting and linear punches which both allow for the successful application of blocking as illustrated earlier.

boxing has most certainly progressed since the mid 1800s, so even if we look just,at post queenburry rules, its has considerable differences through science

No. Not "progressed" "through science." It's is just that the rules changed and therefore what techniques and strategies are going to be successful adapted to the new rules.

Change isn't necessarily "progress" it's just change. In this case, what caused the rules to change is actually social conventions. There had been an ongoing social battle to shrug off a mantle of primitive barbarism which enshrouded boxing, particularly in England. Boxing was popular with lower social classes and, as a spectator sport, with the Aristocrats, but it suffered a great deal of negative press and pressure from social crusaders. You see social defenses of boxing in manuals like Tousey and Owen Swift. The rules changes were mostly about making boxing more "civilized." The changes in boxing rules were made so that boxing would be more socially acceptable, not so that boxing would be more effective as a fighting style. Therefore, the changes in boxing techniques and strategy to adapt to the new rules were, equally, not precipitated by the need to be more effective as a fighting style but merely to be more effective under the nicer, more civilized, rule set. QED

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[TMA17]

Anyone familiar with Nick Drossos? I watched many of his videos. He has a MA background but most important he was a bouncer for 7 years. He cuts through the fluff.

 

[Buka]

Yeah but if he makes the distinction between blocking and covering. We kind of have to go with that.

Otherwise we are ignoring the point to play semantics.

I agree, Drop Bear. Finally watched the video. But it's aimed specific to police work. I use the terminology "jamming" for what he's doing. But, it is semantics.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

i see we have the ussual dennie physics responded!
the guy is right, blocking a " good punch" is very difficult, /borderline impossible for the simple reason that the travel time of the punch is likely to be shorter than the targets reaction time, never mind the actual time to move the arm into place. You can off set that by anticipation, people do tend to telegraph their intentions by body position and by conditioned response, that can shorten the reaction time somewhat. But its always going to be a matter of a few thousands of a,second if you get the block in place or not. If they sucker punch you, then by defintion you have lost your anticipation of the move.
conditioned response leaves you vulrable to a feint, your arm is moving to block a punch that never comes, mean while the left hand is coming whilst you are still blocking the right.

as the guy says, control of space is the keys, ether lots of it, to give you time or non of it to take the power out of the punches, anything but be three foot away, in the punching zone

The sucker punch is certainly the wild card here. Covering (or a variation) is the best shot there because it doesn't require much information. The better the puncher, the harder it is to read the punch to get a chance to block - that's part of what many of us train on (to disguise our intentions). Of course, defensive positions put the hands relatively close to blocking positions, to start with (near the punching alleys) to reduce the time it takes to block.

 

[jobo]

If you are a

- striker, you want to maintain the striking range.
- wrestler, you want to maintain the clinching range.

For a wrestler to move back, he will never be able to obtain his clinching range.

striking of wrestling you want to avoid getting punched in the head, moving backwards out of range is a good call in both caes, you cant hit, but nether can you be hit, you can then go forward when it suits you, or nit at all if it doesn't

 

[Gerry Seymour]

striking of wrestling you want to avoid getting punched in the head, moving backwards out of range is a good call in both caes, you can hit, but nether can you be hit, you can then go forward when it suits you, or nit at all if it doesn't

I like the concept (not always applicable, but I like it) of moving back to make room, letting them fill it, and entering against their entry. Whether I'm striking or grappling, I want to be the one controlling when distance opens and closes. Of course, if they're smart about it, they're probably doing the same thing.

 

[Anarax]

Anyone familiar with Nick Drossos? I watched many of his videos. He has a MA background but most important he was a bouncer for 7 years. He cuts through the fluff.

I've seen a lot of Nick's videos, he seems very knowledgeable and experienced. However; I disagree with some of his points in the "How to Block a Punch In a Street Fight" video. I agree with the cover block(your palm grabs the back of your head) shouldn't be used to defend a knife attack and a projected block is much more effective. However; he demonstrates the cover block as a stationary technique nor does he show the practical application of it. In kali we use footwork and counters in conjunction with the cover block, we don't just stand there and absorb the blow. The cover block is a versatile technique for entries, destructions and bridges into follow-up techniques.

His projected block against a knife is a bit too high up on his partner's arm. When you block at the joint or on the upper arm there's a tendency for the opponent's arm to fold in, and if there's a knife in it that means you have a high chance of getting stabbed. Look where his partner's fist is at 1:10, imagine a knife in it. Forearm length is also an important factor to keep in mind when you block high on the arm against a knife. Fred's arms are longer than his partner's, thus he can sort of get away with it in the video. However; if he was facing someone with the same length or longer arms than his, it would be more problematic because his partner's weapon would be much closer to him even after the block.

Fred's elbow is also too high for the projected block against the knife, if your opponent is swinging with a lot of force one natural tendency will be for the attack to ramp into your side if blocked like that. Dropping the elbow just a few inches helps to prevent that from happening.

Not trying to nitpick, but when discussing knife defense the small details make a huge difference.

 

[jobo]

Just because you don't know what I'm saying doesn't mean that I don't.

Sometimes. Sorta. Depending.

The reason that it is relevant to this discussion is because the rules are what either allow techniques such as blocking or hooks to flourish or to die. In the earlier rulesets long range, linear, punches and blocking were encouraged (because of the rules) and circular techniques, such as the hook, were discouraged. As the rules changed, the circumstances which favored blocking disappeared, but the techniques continued to be taught for a while for no better reason than "inertia" and tradition. Eventually they did fade, because of the rules changes. Further, you should know that the MoQ rules were not instantly and unanimously adopted around the world. Even in England it took some decades before MoQ was adopted by professional boxers. Prior to that it was considered a rule set for amateurs and school children.

Mule Muffins. Gloves, aka "mufflers" or "mittens," were in use well prior to MoQ for amateur matches and for professional training outside of prize matches. Grappling and throws were commonly taught WITH gloves.





The (one of) fundamental difference (differences) is that the MoQ rules specifically prohibited grappling. Rule #2 specifically states: "No wrestling or hugging allowed."

As I already wrote, and to quote myself, "...the rules of boxing changed. The short version is that the rules used to favor extended range outfighting and boxing at a distance. There have pretty much always been 'rules,' but the rules were different. Old style boxing included much lighter and harder (or no) gloves, stand-up grappling, throwing, and other differences." Under the London Prize Ring rules and Broughton era rules, the rules favored extended range outfighting and linear punches which both allow for the successful application of blocking as illustrated earlier.

No. Not "progressed" "through science." It's is just that the rules changed and therefore what techniques and strategies are going to be successful adapted to the new rules.

Change isn't necessarily "progress" it's just change. In this case, what caused the rules to change is actually social conventions. There had been an ongoing social battle to shrug off a mantle of primitive barbarism which enshrouded boxing, particularly in England. Boxing was popular with lower social classes and, as a spectator sport, with the Aristocrats, but it suffered a great deal of negative press and pressure from social crusaders. You see social defenses of boxing in manuals like Tousey and Owen Swift. The rules changes were mostly about making boxing more "civilized." The changes in boxing rules were made so that boxing would be more socially acceptable, not so that boxing would be more effective as a fighting style. Therefore, the changes in boxing techniques and strategy to adapt to the new rules were, equally, not precipitated by the need to be more effective as a fighting style but merely to be more effective under the nicer, more civilized, rule set. QED

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

your just writing STUFF, that has no specifics,on what changed and when.

the rules of boxing haven't changed fundamentally since 1870 or there abouts. Yet boxing has changed considerably in that time.

so what are you claim has brought about that change, it cant be the " rules" as the rules are much the same

 

[TMA17]

I've seen a lot of Nick's videos, he seems very knowledgeable and experienced. However; I disagree with some of his points in the "How to Block a Punch In a Street Fight" video. I agree with the cover block(your palm grabs the back of your head) shouldn't be used to defend a knife attack and a projected block is much more effective. However; he demonstrates the cover block as a stationary technique nor does he show the practical application of it. In kali we use footwork and counters in conjunction with the cover block, we don't just stand there and absorb the blow. The cover block is a versatile technique for entries, destructions and bridges into follow-up techniques.

His projected block against a knife is a bit too high up on his partner's arm. When you block at the joint or on the upper arm there's a tendency for the opponent's arm to fold in, and if there's a knife in it that means you have a high chance of getting stabbed. Look where his partner's fist is at 1:10, imagine a knife in it. Forearm length is also an important factor to keep in mind when you block high on the arm against a knife. Fred's arms are longer than his partner's, thus he can sort of get away with it in the video. However; if he was facing someone with the same length or longer arms than his, it would be more problematic because his partner's weapon would be much closer to him even after the block.

Fred's elbow is also too high for the projected block against the knife, if your opponent is swinging with a lot of force one natural tendency will be for the attack to ramp into your side if blocked like that. Dropping the elbow just a few inches helps to prevent that from happening.

Not trying to nitpick, but when discussing knife defense the small details make a huge difference.

Good points.

He definitely isn’t a fan of any particular style, but I did see some WC in what he does and boxing in a few of the videos.

 

[lklawson]

your just writing STUFF, that has no specifics,on what changed and when.

No specifics? I put links in there and even pics.

the rules of boxing haven't changed fundamentally since 1870 or there abouts. Yet boxing has changed considerably in that time.

The rules have changed several times even after the MoQ. There have also been alternate rules such as the American Fair Play rules. Further, as I wrote, there was a certain amount of "inertia" and tradition which persisted. Several of the photos I posed of blocking in boxing are from the WWI era, well into the 20th Century.

so what are you claim has brought about that change, it cant be the " rules" as the rules are much the same

Sorry friend, but that's just not right. I've provided lots of links to rules, books, photos, here's even an article.

There's plenty of evidence of the evolution of boxing.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk