Theory: in most technical disagreements, both sides are correct.

[isshinryuronin]

Does what your hand actually "does" change when you do a knifehand strike vs. block? Target different, I get that, but the mechanics from elbow down? I don't think mine do... but it's been aminute.

Just what is a block vs a strike? Is it simply a matter of target? A strike on a weapon can be called a block, especially if done with a defensive frame of mind to simply deflect an attack to keep from getting hit. But can't it also be called an attack if thought of offensively, intending to damage the arm or leg, or to reposition it to open up a line of continuing attack.?

So, largely, IMO, whether a move is a block or a strike, defensive or offensive, is purely in the mind, depending on your intention or spiritual attitude. No matter what you call it, ALL moves should be done with an offensive spirit with victory in mind.

What about a move that both deflects the opponent's attack and continues on to make contact with his head - is it a block that turns into a strike, or a strike that acts as a block on its way to the final target.? Motobu Choki shows such moves in his 1934 book of kumite. Ed Parker called such moves "single thrust, dual purpose."

There is a saying, "There are no conventional blocks in karate." This simple sentence has a lot of stuff inferred. Many forms have what are commonly called blocks. But looking at the old texts it can be seen that many of these "blocks" are really strikes, their original meaning lost over time, or perhaps the terms are transferable depending on the circumstances.

Maybe the concept of attack/block, offense/defense, is simply a construct of our mind --- in practical application they are one and the same?

 

[drop bear]

Agreed. I've played with it a bit, and can't really find a use for it. If I need to hit in that direction, I'd rather use my forearm bone.

We use that direction when against a cage and have inside control of the arm. And then wack the guy in the head with a sort of fist.(back fist or backwards hammer fist or whatever we could get.)

And then quickly grab the hand again.

I could do a ridge hand for that but I think it is more farting around than I can be bothered with.

 

[skribs]

Just what is a block vs a strike? Is it simply a matter of target? A strike on a weapon can be called a block, especially if done with a defensive frame of mind to simply deflect an attack to keep from getting hit. But can't it also be called an attack if thought of offensively, intending to damage the arm or leg, or to reposition it to open up a line of continuing attack.?

So, largely, IMO, whether a move is a block or a strike, defensive or offensive, is purely in the mind, depending on your intention or spiritual attitude. No matter what you call it, ALL moves should be done with an offensive spirit with victory in mind.

What about a move that both deflects the opponent's attack and continues on to make contact with his head - is it a block that turns into a strike, or a strike that acts as a block on its way to the final target.? Motobu Choki shows such moves in his 1934 book of kumite. Ed Parker called such moves "single thrust, dual purpose."

There is a saying, "There are no conventional blocks in karate." This simple sentence has a lot of stuff inferred. Many forms have what are commonly called blocks. But looking at the old texts it can be seen that many of these "blocks" are really strikes, their original meaning lost over time, or perhaps the terms are transferable depending on the circumstances.

Maybe the concept of attack/block, offense/defense, is simply a construct of our mind --- in practical application they are one and the same?

A big part of it is the difference between a shield and a sword. A shield is large, so as to provide a wide amount of coverage. It's a lot easier to use a shield to block an incoming attack than it is to use a sword. You have a much bigger margin of error.

Similarly, a sword makes a better weapon than a shield. It's designed to concentrate all of its force on a single edge or point. While the shield is heavier, it's got a lot more surface area (even on the side), which means it's going to penetrate less and deal less damage to the organs than a sword would.

Now, you can use a sword to parry an attack. And you can use a shield to bash someone's skull in. But that doesn't change the primary purpose of both tools. There's a reason sword + shield was a very popular weapon combination, and why dual wielding swords was significantly less popular, and dual wielding shields was simply never done. You needed both tools to have a balanced defense and offense.

That's what I think of when I think of blocks and strikes. My blocks are designed to protect as large an area as I can. My strikes are designed to hit a specific point with as much force as I can.

 

[isshinryuronin]

A big part of it is the difference between a shield and a sword. A shield is large, so as to provide a wide amount of coverage. It's a lot easier to use a shield to block an incoming attack than it is to use a sword. You have a much bigger margin of error.

Similarly, a sword makes a better weapon than a shield. It's designed to concentrate all of its force on a single edge or point. While the shield is heavier, it's got a lot more surface area (even on the side), which means it's going to penetrate less and deal less damage to the organs than a sword would.

Now, you can use a sword to parry an attack. And you can use a shield to bash someone's skull in. But that doesn't change the primary purpose of both tools. There's a reason sword + shield was a very popular weapon combination, and why dual wielding swords was significantly less popular, and dual wielding shields was simply never done. You needed both tools to have a balanced defense and offense.

That's what I think of when I think of blocks and strikes. My blocks are designed to protect as large an area as I can. My strikes are designed to hit a specific point with as much force as I can.

That is the conventional wisdom. As you point out, a shield and sword, while each may serve the function of the other to a limited degree, they are not interchangeable. Think of a hermit crab - one giant heavy claw, and a smaller more mobile claw. Each has its own primary function.

Humans, however, have both limbs built the same. They are interchangeable. Many, if not most, blocks can be used as strikes and visa versa. A high block done under the chin is a devastating forearm strike. A low block done to the groin will hurt a lot. A punch or elbow to a kicking foot is a metatarsal bone breaker. An inside forearm block can simply knock a punch aside, or by making contact with the elbow with proper timing (and maybe trapping the fist at the same time) you have an elbow break (or at least a hyperextension).

Even in the case of a shield being lifted to successfully block a sword coming down on your head. Do you just back away and then re-engage all over again - or while your shield is "blocking" (trapping) the sword, do you quickly dart in with your sword (unless it's a heavy broad sword) stabbing in the open line of attack formerly intended by your attacker? Maybe you even left the line open on purpose to entice that specific attack so you could be ready to capitalize on it. Now could you call your shield move an offensive technique, an integral part of your clever plan of attack?

Again, the concept of defense vs offense, or block vs attack, is largely dependent on what's going on in your head and what you make of it. My goal is to make every "block" part of my attack, viewing every attack by my opponent, not as something to defend, but as something to incorporate to further my own attack. Maybe impossible to achieve many times, at least for me, but definitely something to aspire to - when offense and defense are one and the same.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

We use that direction when against a cage and have inside control of the arm. And then wack the guy in the head with a sort of fist.(back fist or backwards hammer fist or whatever we could get.)

And then quickly grab the hand again.

I could do a ridge hand for that but I think it is more farting around than I can be bothered with.

Im trying to picture the set-up. Can you define “inside control of the arm” (because my usage makes no sense here)?

I’ve practiced the ridge-hand just to figure out how to strike if I leave the hand open, which O find myself doing more, probably because I play so many tag drills with relatively new students (they are sparring, I am trying to tag their head). Bad habits are developing, and that strike seems to be better than no structure to the hand. But not one I think I’d choose.

 

[skribs]

That is the conventional wisdom. As you point out, a shield and sword, while each may serve the function of the other to a limited degree, they are not interchangeable. Think of a hermit crab - one giant heavy claw, and a smaller more mobile claw. Each has its own primary function.

Humans, however, have both limbs built the same. They are interchangeable. Many, if not most, blocks can be used as strikes and visa versa. A high block done under the chin is a devastating forearm strike. A low block done to the groin will hurt a lot. A punch or elbow to a kicking foot is a metatarsal bone breaker. An inside forearm block can simply knock a punch aside, or by making contact with the elbow with proper timing (and maybe trapping the fist at the same time) you have an elbow break (or at least a hyperextension).

Even in the case of a shield being lifted to successfully block a sword coming down on your head. Do you just back away and then re-engage all over again - or while your shield is "blocking" (trapping) the sword, do you quickly dart in with your sword (unless it's a heavy broad sword) stabbing in the open line of attack formerly intended by your attacker? Maybe you even left the line open on purpose to entice that specific attack so you could be ready to capitalize on it. Now could you call your shield move an offensive technique, an integral part of your clever plan of attack?

Again, the concept of defense vs offense, or block vs attack, is largely dependent on what's going on in your head and what you make of it. My goal is to make every "block" part of my attack, viewing every attack by my opponent, not as something to defend, but as something to incorporate to further my own attack. Maybe impossible to achieve many times, at least for me, but definitely something to aspire to - when offense and defense are one and the same.

When I do a block, I do the technique to cover as much area as I can.

Here are two pictures I found in Google so you can see what I'm talking about. Notice how the strike is done straight, but the block is done with a bent arm. The block isn't going to carry the same power as the strike. The elbow isn't as involved in the motion, which means it's more of a push. It won't penetrate as deep into the target. But that block can cover a punch anywhere from just under the ribs to the neck and chin.

Now look at the knife-hand strike. The elbow is engaged, which adds a lot more velocity to the strike. Your body weight and the rest of your body is the power behind it, but the speed of the strike comes from the chamber and snap motion. This has more reach than the block, and will deliver a lot more power into the target. But how well would it work as a block? Not very. Unless you're precise in hitting your target. It covers the area of the shoulder. The ribs and neck are open. While the block before could cover even past the ribs and neck, this doesn't even cover those.

If you're going to do the strike in closer, then you will not get the full extension, but you will still use your elbow. If you're going to do this at an angle, then you're going to point your elbow at the angle and snap through it, instead of the block where you would essentially wave your forearm in front of the general area you want to protect. You'll notice in both pictures, even though the range or angle was different, there is still a lot of real-estate exposed in those strikes. If those were used a blocks, you'd be open for quite a lot of hits.

Yes, you can do either technique with either arm. However, the block technique creates a large area to cover, so as to most likely intercept the incoming strike. The strike technique is designed to hit a single point as hard and fast as possible.

 

[skribs]

We use that direction when against a cage and have inside control of the arm. And then wack the guy in the head with a sort of fist.(back fist or backwards hammer fist or whatever we could get.)

And then quickly grab the hand again.

I could do a ridge hand for that but I think it is more farting around than I can be bothered with.

I'm finding it hard to substitute a backfist for a ridgehand. Those are complete opposite motions. Backfist uses a tricep extension, and ridge-hand is a chest fly motion.

 

[wab25]

When I do a block, I do the technique to cover as much area as I can.

Here are two pictures I found in Google so you can see what I'm talking about. Notice how the strike is done straight, but the block is done with a bent arm. The block isn't going to carry the same power as the strike. The elbow isn't as involved in the motion, which means it's more of a push. It won't penetrate as deep into the target. But that block can cover a punch anywhere from just under the ribs to the neck and chin.

Now look at the knife-hand strike. The elbow is engaged, which adds a lot more velocity to the strike. Your body weight and the rest of your body is the power behind it, but the speed of the strike comes from the chamber and snap motion. This has more reach than the block, and will deliver a lot more power into the target. But how well would it work as a block? Not very. Unless you're precise in hitting your target. It covers the area of the shoulder. The ribs and neck are open. While the block before could cover even past the ribs and neck, this doesn't even cover those.

If you're going to do the strike in closer, then you will not get the full extension, but you will still use your elbow. If you're going to do this at an angle, then you're going to point your elbow at the angle and snap through it, instead of the block where you would essentially wave your forearm in front of the general area you want to protect. You'll notice in both pictures, even though the range or angle was different, there is still a lot of real-estate exposed in those strikes. If those were used a blocks, you'd be open for quite a lot of hits.

Yes, you can do either technique with either arm. However, the block technique creates a large area to cover, so as to most likely intercept the incoming strike. The strike technique is designed to hit a single point as hard and fast as possible.

So... what happened to the theory? The theory presented in this thread was that both sides are correct in a technical disagreement. Is this technique the exception?

This whole thread was supposed to be about a theory where both sides were correct. That there exists more than one point of view. Now that we talk about the technical application of one technique... we throw the theory out, because some of us are not correct?

Yes doing this technique as a block and as a strike require slightly different hand positions, and movements and different distance and time and targets... But doing a hook punch with a vertical fist versus a horizontal fist also has differences in hand positions, movements, distance, time and targets. (quite a few more differences in addition)

Its amusing that in a thread started to talk about how both view points are correct, the one starting the thread is telling others that their viewpoint is not correct... technically speaking.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

Is Karate ridge hand a valid technique? It's not.

When Karate became full contact Karate, many Karate guys broke his hands by using ridge hand. I had many Karate guys who came to me for the Chinese medicine for broken bone back in the 70th.

The Karate ridge hand may be a valid technique in point fight tournament. It's not a valid technique in full contact fight tournament.

IMO, the vertical hook punch makes no sense.

This might be a good place to relate a story an old teacher once related and maybe @Buka can offer some insight as to whether it might be true.

The teacher, back in his karate days, had tried using the ridge hand in competitions and found he tended to hurt himself as much as his opponent. This confused him, because some karateka he admired, such as Joe Lewis, had success with the technique.

Years later he attended a seminar with Joe Lewis and learned the secret. Lewis was actually hitting his opponents with his forearm (illegal), but pulling his hand back immediately upon impact so it looked to the ref like a ridge hand (legal).

It sounds plausible to me, based on all the stories I've heard from various combat athletes about how they would stretch what they could get away with in competition. However I only heard it 3rd hand so I don't know whether it's true in this case. It just occurred to me that since @Buka was buddies with Joe Lewis he might know something about that.

 

[skribs]

This might be a good place to relate a story an old teacher once related and maybe @Buka can offer some insight as to whether it might be true.

The teacher, back in his karate days, had tried using the ridge hand in competitions and found he tended to hurt himself as much as his opponent. This confused him, because some karateka he admired, such as Joe Lewis, had success with the technique.

Years later he attended a seminar with Joe Lewis and learned the secret. Lewis was actually hitting his opponents with his forearm (illegal), but pulling his hand back immediately upon impact so it looked to the ref like a ridge hand (legal).

It sounds plausible to me, based on all the stories I've heard from various combat athletes about how they would stretch what they could get away with in competition. However I only heard it 3rd hand so I don't know whether it's true in this case. It just occurred to me that since @Buka was buddies with Joe Lewis he might know something about that.

This is one of the things I think gets lost in the sports vs. street argument, is things that you do in a sport to game the system.

So... what happened to the theory? The theory presented in this thread was that both sides are correct in a technical disagreement. Is this technique the exception?

This whole thread was supposed to be about a theory where both sides were correct. That there exists more than one point of view. Now that we talk about the technical application of one technique... we throw the theory out, because some of us are not correct?

Yes doing this technique as a block and as a strike require slightly different hand positions, and movements and different distance and time and targets... But doing a hook punch with a vertical fist versus a horizontal fist also has differences in hand positions, movements, distance, time and targets. (quite a few more differences in addition)

Its amusing that in a thread started to talk about how both view points are correct, the one starting the thread is telling others that their viewpoint is not correct... technically speaking.

In the "it depends" category, you have to use the right version of the technique for the right situation. Otherwise it doesn't just depend, it's just random.

Some things are preference. Some things are just better.

 

[jobo]

When I do a block, I do the technique to cover as much area as I can.

Here are two pictures I found in Google so you can see what I'm talking about. Notice how the strike is done straight, but the block is done with a bent arm. The block isn't going to carry the same power as the strike. The elbow isn't as involved in the motion, which means it's more of a push. It won't penetrate as deep into the target. But that block can cover a punch anywhere from just under the ribs to the neck and chin.

Now look at the knife-hand strike. The elbow is engaged, which adds a lot more velocity to the strike. Your body weight and the rest of your body is the power behind it, but the speed of the strike comes from the chamber and snap motion. This has more reach than the block, and will deliver a lot more power into the target. But how well would it work as a block? Not very. Unless you're precise in hitting your target. It covers the area of the shoulder. The ribs and neck are open. While the block before could cover even past the ribs and neck, this doesn't even cover those.

If you're going to do the strike in closer, then you will not get the full extension, but you will still use your elbow. If you're going to do this at an angle, then you're going to point your elbow at the angle and snap through it, instead of the block where you would essentially wave your forearm in front of the general area you want to protect. You'll notice in both pictures, even though the range or angle was different, there is still a lot of real-estate exposed in those strikes. If those were used a blocks, you'd be open for quite a lot of hits.

Yes, you can do either technique with either arm. However, the block technique creates a large area to cover, so as to most likely intercept the incoming strike. The strike technique is designed to hit a single point as hard and fast as possible.

but a straight out arm or even better two are exceptionally good at blocking you being hit, as long as your arms are longer than his, its impossible to hit you

 

[Tony Dismukes]

This is one of the things I think gets lost in the sports vs. street argument, is things that you do in a sport to game the system.

Yeah, I figured out a while back that if a combat sport disallows a given technique it doesn’t mean practitioners don’t know how to do the technique. It just means that they know how to do it without the ref noticing.

 

[Flying Crane]

A big part of it is the difference between a shield and a sword. A shield is large, so as to provide a wide amount of coverage. It's a lot easier to use a shield to block an incoming attack than it is to use a sword. You have a much bigger margin of error.

Similarly, a sword makes a better weapon than a shield. It's designed to concentrate all of its force on a single edge or point. While the shield is heavier, it's got a lot more surface area (even on the side), which means it's going to penetrate less and deal less damage to the organs than a sword would.

Now, you can use a sword to parry an attack. And you can use a shield to bash someone's skull in. But that doesn't change the primary purpose of both tools. There's a reason sword + shield was a very popular weapon combination, and why dual wielding swords was significantly less popular, and dual wielding shields was simply never done. You needed both tools to have a balanced defense and offense.

That's what I think of when I think of blocks and strikes. My blocks are designed to protect as large an area as I can. My strikes are designed to hit a specific point with as much force as I can.

I believe a shield was originally meant to be a weapon. It was used aggressively and actively, not as a passive defensive tool. If memory serves (and I really ought to look it up), I believe gladiators in the way-back were sometimes given a shield as a primary and only weapon in some bouts. The shield was the weapon.

I believe in our modern times, as we have become largely distanced from the real use of these things, we have developed the notion that a shield is primarily a defensive tool, with limited offensive capability. I believe that is a mistaken notion. And shields come in different shapes and sizes, from different cultures and different eras and for different technical uses. So a shield can refer to a variety of things.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Lewis was actually hitting his opponents with his forearm (illegal), but pulling his hand back immediately upon impact so it looked to the ref like a ridge hand (legal).

That make sense. To use your forearm (inside sharp edge bone) to hit on the back of your opponent's head is a very powerful knock down strike. People use this in Chinese wrestling all the time. When you do it fast, the referee can't tell whether it's a head strike or just a head lock (fist fight may happen after the tournament). It looks like a harmless head lock. Before you lock your opponent's head, you may have knocked him out 1/2 way already.

 

[drop bear]

I'm finding it hard to substitute a backfist for a ridgehand. Those are complete opposite motions. Backfist uses a tricep extension, and ridge-hand is a chest fly motion.

Thumb down. So it goes the other way.

 

[drop bear]

This might be a good place to relate a story an old teacher once related and maybe @Buka can offer some insight as to whether it might be true.

The teacher, back in his karate days, had tried using the ridge hand in competitions and found he tended to hurt himself as much as his opponent. This confused him, because some karateka he admired, such as Joe Lewis, had success with the technique.

Years later he attended a seminar with Joe Lewis and learned the secret. Lewis was actually hitting his opponents with his forearm (illegal), but pulling his hand back immediately upon impact so it looked to the ref like a ridge hand (legal).

It sounds plausible to me, based on all the stories I've heard from various combat athletes about how they would stretch what they could get away with in competition. However I only heard it 3rd hand so I don't know whether it's true in this case. It just occurred to me that since @Buka was buddies with Joe Lewis he might know something about that.

Closelining was very popular in AFL. Back in the day.

 

[skribs]

Thumb down. So it goes the other way.

I actually think the ridgehand would be stronger in that case.

I'll give it a try next time I go to my parents house. They have one of those meters that records the impact of your strikes. It's not perfect, but at least it gives us numbers to compare. I'll go ahead and try a ridgehand compared to other techniques as well. See how it compares to something like a jab, a chop, or a hook.

 

[skribs]

Closelining was very popular in AFL. Back in the day.

I think a big part of the effectiveness of the clothesline was the fact the person you hit with it is running at 15 MPH when you hit them with it; which takes their legs with them.

At 3:40, he explains "we was running at top speed, so any kind of shove will throw a man off course."

 

[Buka]

This might be a good place to relate a story an old teacher once related and maybe @Buka can offer some insight as to whether it might be true.

The teacher, back in his karate days, had tried using the ridge hand in competitions and found he tended to hurt himself as much as his opponent. This confused him, because some karateka he admired, such as Joe Lewis, had success with the technique.

Years later he attended a seminar with Joe Lewis and learned the secret. Lewis was actually hitting his opponents with his forearm (illegal), but pulling his hand back immediately upon impact so it looked to the ref like a ridge hand (legal).

It sounds plausible to me, based on all the stories I've heard from various combat athletes about how they would stretch what they could get away with in competition. However I only heard it 3rd hand so I don't know whether it's true in this case. It just occurred to me that since @Buka was buddies with Joe Lewis he might know something about that.

As a matter of fact, yeah, we worked that a lot. I never used it in competition, I never used any shady technique in any competition, ever, honest. But I've sure cracked a few people with that forearm strike in other aspects of my life. Works pretty darn good.

Joe was notorious for throwing that "ridge arm" as he frequently called it. I try to avoid the PC arguments of what's proper and what's not, but please keep in mind that Martial competitions were completely different than what they would later become and certainly what they are today.

In the following clip you can get a pretty good look at one of them in slo mo starting at the 3:40 mark, and again, in much clearer detail starting at the 6:10 mark.

I remember that particular competition very well, it was the first time any kind of Martial fighting was on prime time, network TV. It was my birthday and that's a pretty nice present for a young Karate man. It was rerun again, again on prime time, the week after Christmas. We were driving down to Fort Lauderdale, stopped and got a motel room in Maryland, watched it again, checked out and continued our trip.

Joe used to teach that technique in self defense class. One of the things he used to do with it was - after the hit with the inside forearm, he would immediately cup the back of your neck with his palm and yank you forward, down or to the side, into a knee, a sweep, an elbow, an uppercut or various other things. I still use all of them to this day. Especially that "ridge hand". Oh, I smiled so wide when I typed that.

 

[drop bear]

I think a big part of the effectiveness of the clothesline was the fact the person you hit with it is running at 15 MPH when you hit them with it; which takes their legs with them.

At 3:40, he explains "we was running at top speed, so any kind of shove will throw a man off course."

If you ever wanted to make a distinction between street and sports. Closelining is one of the better examples. It works because you are running which you almost never do in a sports fight context. But may do in a street fight.

I closelined a guy once who was picking up a bollard. So I had to run flat tilt to make the distance.