- Joined
- Aug 3, 2015
- Messages
- 14,105
- Reaction score
- 6,025
My system doesn't require a require a wrap after a block.
There are no blocks in Karate
- Thread starter Paul_D
- Start date
My system doesn't require a require a wrap after a block.
I'm curious, on every discussion here you post up videos of techniques even when it's a discussion not about techniques, is there any particular reason for this?
The OP brought up a subject..."blocks aren't blocks"... and you post up a video showing a technique and tell us how to follow up a block. Are you hoping to take the discussion away from the block or strikes discussion and onto techniques instead?
Iain Abernethy is part of a movement in the karate world to take movements that many karateka practiced thousands of times but whose purposes were a mystery, and find practical uses for them.
Most of the karateka who had this problem were from Japanese styles, since they tended to focus either on sport or mysticism.
Using historical accounts as foundation, the applications Iain A teaches are things he and others have worked out for themselves or learned in other arts as a way to add value to their kata and kihon. This then gives them a more rounded syllabus that ties together with the movements that they have learned.
Nothing that he or anyone else publishes supports the hidden application idea, at least as far as Japanese karate goes.
In the UK Okinawan karate is pretty rare so working it out for ourselves was the only option.
All that being said, the argument that there are no blocks is a much over-stated piece of semantics and a great sales pitch. It comes from the straw man argument that the two handed uke movements that contain a preparation and chamber before the deflecting "block", was impossible to use to stop a real punch.
This was a straw man argument because the two handed full basic motion was never taught as anything but a movement exercise. The point was to train you to engage your whole body in the movement for strength and stability. The combative element of the motion was always taught as the last "deflection" element of the uke techniques.
This was further confused by a failure to understand physics. "We don't block because blocks are using force against force!"
No, punching straight into an oncoming punch is using force against force. A forearm block that sweeps in two dimensions, no matter how hard you do it, is a deflection. It may be a more committed movement than a palm pass, but it's not using force against force. Forces acting perpendicular to one another do not affect each other.
When confronted with the obvious need to stop punches, the no block crowd play semantics. They "parry", they "deflect", they jam and wedge etc etc. Anything to avoid the word block, for fear of sounding hard or rigid or stiff or all the other uncool things associated with Japanese karate.
I admire Iains work. Some of it is too complex for my taste, but few have done as much to showcase the practical potential of karate. Also he personally isn't guilty of most of these "confusions".
The problem I do have is the band wagon jumpers who got their understanding of the history from Web forum whispers and take these revisions/reclamations/reinventions as gospel truth handed down by Shoalin Monks in secret dojo's after testing the methods in street fights with ninja cage fighters armed with bazookas.
The fact is that though there were holes, the fighting styles of Japanese karate were pretty serviceable. They just needed to liven up the training a bit so more students had a better idea about the realities of combat and how to fit their style to that. As deftly demonstrated by Lyoto Machida.
The Japanese made karate fit themselves and their culture at the time. Just as the Okinawans did when they learned bits of kung fu and turned it into karate. Our issue in the UK was that we didn't do the same, but we are starting to.
Most of the karateka who had this problem were from Japanese styles, since they tended to focus either on sport or mysticism.
Using historical accounts as foundation, the applications Iain A teaches are things he and others have worked out for themselves or learned in other arts as a way to add value to their kata and kihon. This then gives them a more rounded syllabus that ties together with the movements that they have learned.
Nothing that he or anyone else publishes supports the hidden application idea, at least as far as Japanese karate goes.
In the UK Okinawan karate is pretty rare so working it out for ourselves was the only option.
All that being said, the argument that there are no blocks is a much over-stated piece of semantics and a great sales pitch. It comes from the straw man argument that the two handed uke movements that contain a preparation and chamber before the deflecting "block", was impossible to use to stop a real punch.
This was a straw man argument because the two handed full basic motion was never taught as anything but a movement exercise. The point was to train you to engage your whole body in the movement for strength and stability. The combative element of the motion was always taught as the last "deflection" element of the uke techniques.
This was further confused by a failure to understand physics. "We don't block because blocks are using force against force!"
No, punching straight into an oncoming punch is using force against force. A forearm block that sweeps in two dimensions, no matter how hard you do it, is a deflection. It may be a more committed movement than a palm pass, but it's not using force against force. Forces acting perpendicular to one another do not affect each other.
When confronted with the obvious need to stop punches, the no block crowd play semantics. They "parry", they "deflect", they jam and wedge etc etc. Anything to avoid the word block, for fear of sounding hard or rigid or stiff or all the other uncool things associated with Japanese karate.
I admire Iains work. Some of it is too complex for my taste, but few have done as much to showcase the practical potential of karate. Also he personally isn't guilty of most of these "confusions".
The problem I do have is the band wagon jumpers who got their understanding of the history from Web forum whispers and take these revisions/reclamations/reinventions as gospel truth handed down by Shoalin Monks in secret dojo's after testing the methods in street fights with ninja cage fighters armed with bazookas.
The fact is that though there were holes, the fighting styles of Japanese karate were pretty serviceable. They just needed to liven up the training a bit so more students had a better idea about the realities of combat and how to fit their style to that. As deftly demonstrated by Lyoto Machida.
The Japanese made karate fit themselves and their culture at the time. Just as the Okinawans did when they learned bits of kung fu and turned it into karate. Our issue in the UK was that we didn't do the same, but we are starting to.
Kata don't teach you to pre-empt, people have decided that preemption is the best way and interpret their Kata in such a way as to support this idea.
I don't think there is a single Kata that starts with a simple strike (as opposed to a revised uke). If I wanted to encapsulate the importance of hitting first, all my kata would start with a straightforward punch or kick so that the message is unambiguous.
I used to be where you are, but I learned that sometimes a block is just a block.
The OP put up a clip to show that "blocks aren't blocks". I also put up clips to show that "a block is more than just a block, it should followed by wrap".
Last edited:
In CMA, your hand should never come back empty. That means your punch should always followed by a "pull". The same logic should also apply to your block. It should always followed by a "wrap". The reason is simple, you don't want to keep blocking your opponent's punch over and over. You should disable that punching arm ASAP. After you have wrapped that punch arm, you can punch your opponent as many times as you want to and he is not going any where.
IMO, that's a good strategy. I'm talking about MA in general. Of course it's not requires.
Last edited:
The idea behind blocking is simply that one should not permit oneself to be hit. That can be accomplished in a number of ways, including simply blocking. Follow-on suggestions are that once the martial artist has managed to avoid being hit, there may be ways to turn the attacker's strike to one's advantage in addition to not being hit by it.
Wraps are pieces of breadlike stuff that you food put in. 'Wrap' only means something to those who do the same style as you. Which style of karate do you do because this is posted in the karate section meaning it's pertaining to karate not CMA where 'block' could mean anything.
It's a good tactic until you start talking about "always".
There is no "always" in fighting.
Wrapping from a block is indirect. It is an opportunity for your opponent to do something else if not timed just right, and is only applicable if the attack doesn't retract quickly enough. If your opponent is as open as the guy in the demo clip I would advise just hitting him.
That's fine but we are talking about karate.
I'm old, but I was always taught that a block was to be made to STOP a particular strike and it was to be hard and damaging to the opponent. Thus it could be considered a strike as much as a block.
Those that call any movement that causes the attack to pass by the victim are not necessarily called blocks in most systems as they do not STOP the attack , they redirect it.
Any movement after the block is an added technique and not part of the block, they are an addition movement following a block.
Those that call any movement that causes the attack to pass by the victim are not necessarily called blocks in most systems as they do not STOP the attack , they redirect it.
Any movement after the block is an added technique and not part of the block, they are an addition movement following a block.
What you describe isn't a block either it's just a strike to the arm/leg. It only stops attacks from weak or unconditioned foes.
To block is to impede: to put something in the way. Thus the only true blocks are when you cover the target like a boxer, or jam the punching arm at source
But who cares about names. The way I see it karate does all this and more.
drop bear
Sr. Grandmaster
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2014
- Messages
- 23,406
- Reaction score
- 8,138
If you catch round kick, you should wrap hook punch (or haymaker) too.
When an octopus wraps on a shark, that octopus would consider "touching" and "wraping" as one move instead of separate moves. In MA, 1 is always better than 1,2.
Last edited:
RTKDCMB
Senior Master
If an octopus carries a knife is he 'armed' or 'tentacled' ?
An octopus is a grappler. When he carries a knife that means he is also a striker. The difference is he will strike his opponent during the ground game and not much during the stand up game.
An octopus is neither, as one of the most intelligent beings on the planet he uses disguises, awareness,distraction and superior thinking skills to avoid fighting.
RTKDCMB
Senior Master
Ninja octopus?
Koshiki
Brown Belt
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2013
- Messages
- 424
- Reaction score
- 137
My personal understanding of blocks is much closer to the word "receive"than the word "block." At least in my system, all of our basic solo technique can be classified as either a strike or a block.
Strikes are anything such as punches, elbows, knees, kicks, etc. that can be used in pretty much any situation when the opening presents itself. They can be preemptive. They can be used in sparring at pretty much any moment. You can just punch a guy, no matter what he's doing. It might not be advisable, but it's simple; if there's an opening, you can smash a durable part of your body into it.
Blocks, on the other hand, in most applications, are responsive. (Again, for my style, not for everyone's) They may not be in response to a punch, but they generally require some sort of input to be successful. For example, the downblock or Gedan Barai. In our style, bnoth arms cross the center of the chest, then one pulls to the hip, and one swings low. The simplest application for the entire movement is an interception or control of one of the opponent's arms at the chest level, followed by a yank towards the hip, which pulls them to you, and you to them, adding significant force to your low strike under the arm. Usually performed in Front stance, the forward leg should also be unbalancing the opponent.
This application is a basic, simple, very easy to apply use of the entire motion. It's pretty easy to pull off consistently from some sort of strike/push/grab/general forwards force from your opponent.
However, it's pretty much impossible if you try to reach out, grab an arm, and pull them into a strike. It just doesn't work like a strike; you can't just throw it regardless of what your opponent is doing.
So,while blocks may be more complex and offensive than simply stopping a strike dead, in my experience, nearly all basic, applications of the full "block" motion for pretty much every basic block technique functions in an effective, simple way when used as a response to, or reception of some aggressive input of the opponent, but is nearly impossible to use as a purely offensive technique, as is possible with strikes.
That's not to say that parts of the blocking technique cannot be used as purely offense. For example, the swing of a downblock is identical to a Hammerfist strike. The extended arm of an out-in forearm block is also a functional hammerfist, etc.
However, the aggressive elements are found singly as strikes, while the block generally contains the striking motion but also a preliminary motion, which is, generally, where the reception or block is to be found.
Strikes are anything such as punches, elbows, knees, kicks, etc. that can be used in pretty much any situation when the opening presents itself. They can be preemptive. They can be used in sparring at pretty much any moment. You can just punch a guy, no matter what he's doing. It might not be advisable, but it's simple; if there's an opening, you can smash a durable part of your body into it.
Blocks, on the other hand, in most applications, are responsive. (Again, for my style, not for everyone's) They may not be in response to a punch, but they generally require some sort of input to be successful. For example, the downblock or Gedan Barai. In our style, bnoth arms cross the center of the chest, then one pulls to the hip, and one swings low. The simplest application for the entire movement is an interception or control of one of the opponent's arms at the chest level, followed by a yank towards the hip, which pulls them to you, and you to them, adding significant force to your low strike under the arm. Usually performed in Front stance, the forward leg should also be unbalancing the opponent.
This application is a basic, simple, very easy to apply use of the entire motion. It's pretty easy to pull off consistently from some sort of strike/push/grab/general forwards force from your opponent.
However, it's pretty much impossible if you try to reach out, grab an arm, and pull them into a strike. It just doesn't work like a strike; you can't just throw it regardless of what your opponent is doing.
So,while blocks may be more complex and offensive than simply stopping a strike dead, in my experience, nearly all basic, applications of the full "block" motion for pretty much every basic block technique functions in an effective, simple way when used as a response to, or reception of some aggressive input of the opponent, but is nearly impossible to use as a purely offensive technique, as is possible with strikes.
That's not to say that parts of the blocking technique cannot be used as purely offense. For example, the swing of a downblock is identical to a Hammerfist strike. The extended arm of an out-in forearm block is also a functional hammerfist, etc.
However, the aggressive elements are found singly as strikes, while the block generally contains the striking motion but also a preliminary motion, which is, generally, where the reception or block is to be found.
