Blocks are useless, right?
- Thread starter jks9199
- Start date
I agree with this.
Balrog
Master of Arts
Blocks are strikes. They simply target extremities instead of the body core or the head. When executed correctly, they should hurt the person attacking you, as well as deflecting his attack. That is why blocks are still taught after centuries of refinement. They are not the be-all and end-all, they are simply another tool. And a very effective one.
I deliberately created two threads. One is in the Indochinese-specific area, for a focus on those aspects. This thread is in General Martial arts, for the wider range.
(Post copied from the other thread)
From my perspective it isn't that there are no blocks. Everyone will instinctively block an unexpected attack. The question is, are what we were all taught to be 'blocks' really blocks? Certainly within karate I would argue that very few, if any of the techniques taught as blocks are actually blocks. This can be simply tested. For anyone that claims they can use the 'blocks' as they are taught I ask them how many different 'blocks' they know to protect the midsection. They generally can give me five or six. Then I tell them I will strike them firmly, not hard, on the chest and that they must use one of their 'blocks' to protect. From close range, which is where karate is designed to be used, I have yet to find one person who has been able to do that. When you revert to reflexive defence, most trained karateka can avoid or reduce the power of the strike and be ready to counter punch. Tsabaki and deflection work beautifully. The 'blocks' are attacks, not defence. :asian:
From my perspective it isn't that there are no blocks. Everyone will instinctively block an unexpected attack. The question is, are what we were all taught to be 'blocks' really blocks? Certainly within karate I would argue that very few, if any of the techniques taught as blocks are actually blocks. This can be simply tested. For anyone that claims they can use the 'blocks' as they are taught I ask them how many different 'blocks' they know to protect the midsection. They generally can give me five or six. Then I tell them I will strike them firmly, not hard, on the chest and that they must use one of their 'blocks' to protect. From close range, which is where karate is designed to be used, I have yet to find one person who has been able to do that. When you revert to reflexive defence, most trained karateka can avoid or reduce the power of the strike and be ready to counter punch. Tsabaki and deflection work beautifully. The 'blocks' are attacks, not defence. :asian:
Last edited by a moderator:
Perhaps karate was intended for close range; I don't train in it so my argument is somewhat limited. But I've always been a little skeptical of that argument. Limited range focuses are a sporting artifact, I think. Traditional jujutsu includes techniques at all ranges. Most Chinese arts include techniques from long to short range, as well. And why would you wait until someone's almost got their hands on you to deal with them?
lklawson
Grandmaster
Define "blocks" and give examples. Also, if the "block" involves more than one "action," please describe the actions and define the intent of each action.
"Block" is too vague a term.
Peace favor your sword,
Kirk
Read the full blog post. While I know nothing about Bando, I tend to agree with his reasoning.
The whole definition of a "block" is very subjective though. And what may be correct for one system is not for another.
In Wing Chun, for example, you might say there aren't any "blocks," though there are "deflections." What we have are "redirecting" or "deflecting" movements, and "attacking movements," and these are often one in the same. Even most of our defensive movements are supposed to be "attacking" our opponent by always being directed at his core, and not his limbs, and there's no reason why they can't become an attack if they slide past the limb they're redirecting. Likewise, there's no reason why a punch or a palm strike can't deflect and attack in the same motion. However, this makes Karate-style "blocks", which attack the limbs, "wrong" in the context of Wing Chun. It's not that they don't work, but that they go against what we're trying to achieve.
Other systems surely have different takes.
The whole definition of a "block" is very subjective though. And what may be correct for one system is not for another.
In Wing Chun, for example, you might say there aren't any "blocks," though there are "deflections." What we have are "redirecting" or "deflecting" movements, and "attacking movements," and these are often one in the same. Even most of our defensive movements are supposed to be "attacking" our opponent by always being directed at his core, and not his limbs, and there's no reason why they can't become an attack if they slide past the limb they're redirecting. Likewise, there's no reason why a punch or a palm strike can't deflect and attack in the same motion. However, this makes Karate-style "blocks", which attack the limbs, "wrong" in the context of Wing Chun. It's not that they don't work, but that they go against what we're trying to achieve.
Other systems surely have different takes.
Call me crazy but blocks in and of themselves are stupid, but if you understand that they are part of a larger process of you maneuvering out of danger the danger zone. They are a margin for error, and not stupid at all. They are common sense. 
oftheherd1
Senior Master
I see where you are coming from. I always thought I understood the term block. I think I still do. I think in general, blocks and strikes or kicks are different and not the same. To me, a block is a move to prevent an opponent's strike or kick from reaching one of my vulnerable parts, either by directly putting one of my body parts in its path, or by redirecting it. I may step in a direction to put myself out of reach, or move in at the same time, as part of the block. In doing my block, if I do it forcefully enough to cause pain to my opponent, that's to my advantage.
If that is what posters above are referring to, I disagree with the term strike. To me, a block has the function its name implies. Hitting hard enough to cause sufficient pain that the opponent doesn't want to do that again is a fortuitous side effect. My first goal is to prevent the strike or kick from connecting with my vulnerable parts. That is a block.
As a follow up to the block, I may slide off the block into a strike, or grapple. But the block must come first. There are some things blur that, but not many in my experience. For example, I have learned a block to the inner elbow that strikes a nerve point. But I will be moving to the opposite side as I do it. It is both a block and a strike at the same time. But if the block portion isn't effective, I am in trouble.
I also learned a knife block that simply blocks a close-in knife thrust just away from me. Again I will also be moving a little to the outside and follow with a quick painful strike to the bone/bicep. Again, the block must come first.
I'm in my mobile and this could be really long, so I'll try to summarize it (all from a karate/taekwondo standpoint):
Originally there were no names for kata techniques, so what is a "block" could be very well a plain strike or whatever.
BUT in my opinion the most important point of this discussion is that there was never this simple "block" kind of technique. What karate (I can't speak for other arts but I believe the issue is similar) uses is UKE techniques, that comes from the verb ukeru and can be loosely translated as TO RECEIVE. It means that uke techniques are generally ways to respond against an incoming attack - many different ways to respond against many different kinds of attacks. And many times the response to the attack will include the counter (or lock/throw) as well, or some kind of unbalancing technique or a tactical repositioning of the defender's body. So it will never be a simple block.
The second big problem in my opinion is that most practitioners don't have a clue about the applications of uke techniques. So an uke waza ("receiving technique" ) can be very effective, but only if you know how to use it. Most people only focus on the last part of the technique as being the "block/deflection", while in my view most techniques do include some kind of blocking/deflection, but usually in the very beginning of the technique's motion (what would make the blocking faster as it comes from a single movement). Actually, many simple uke techniques begin with arms/hands crossed or both arms up in a way that resembles very well a "panic block", what uses to advantage a person's natural flinch reflex, and only the following movement is the really different part. Many of those "blocks" even do begin with a inward palm (or forearm) movement that is very similar to the typical boxing parry (think of most traditional blocking techniques). Obviously later (or simultaneously) you will counterattack, joint lock, throw or whatever (all within the same uke technique motion), but it will always be as a response from an attack and not an attack in and of itself - after all, karate was an art designated for CIVILIAN DEFENSE, not for civilian "offense".
Also we have to note that a good uke waza should always be performed with body movement as well (just like they are usually shown in kata), so yes, when you "block", you better "block" AND dodge - preferably at an angle.
Finally, over time in some styles the ways to perform some techniques have been diluted (for esthetics purposes or whatever) in such a fashion that it becomes much harder or impossible to relate them to the original intent meant for them.
So I believe all this "block" issue is a big misunderstanding because most uke waza are much more than mere "blocks", and the very translation - when correct - of "uke" shows this. But while the techniques had originally no names and certainly they have many applications (I myself teach many different applications for many uke techniques), I believe many or most of them have been generally adequately labeled as "uke", as they are indeed responses against attacks (many different attacks, including grabs, holds etc. - from different angles, including from behind - thus some crazy movements that don't seem to respond to anything in front of the defender's body). This said, I do believe that there can be a few techniques labeled as uke but being actually sole attacks - but I wouldn't be so sure.
There's one side note that some people think uke waza are not effective because they aren't used in MMA. I don't think so as I have seen many instances where the contestants have reacted to attacks in a way very similar to the correct (in my opinion) applications of uke waza, and achieving very good results. But however, the context of MMA is so different to the context of civilian defense that it would be ok if uke waza was useless in that case, because uke waza have not been created to be used in MMA. In CIVILIAN DEFENSE the opponents would hardly be circling around each other, trying to find or build openings in their defenses, making feints and controlling carefully the distancing. In a civilian defense context attacks are usually more careless (and even more telegraphed), and performed by untrained people and many times you won't even have a chance to preempt. If you are able to preempt, that is, use an attack instead of a response to an attack (an uke waza), that's great. But what if you aren't able to preempt? You'll obviously have to be trained in responding techniques too. Not mentioning the practical, moral and legal issues concerning preemptive attacks that make them a less likely option.
I tried to summarize my explanation, so please forgive me if something sounds not very consistent - maybe in that case I would have to explain further. We all know that when talking about those things we better not write - instead we should speak and show.
Enviado de meu GT-I9300 usando o Tapatalk 2
Originally there were no names for kata techniques, so what is a "block" could be very well a plain strike or whatever.
BUT in my opinion the most important point of this discussion is that there was never this simple "block" kind of technique. What karate (I can't speak for other arts but I believe the issue is similar) uses is UKE techniques, that comes from the verb ukeru and can be loosely translated as TO RECEIVE. It means that uke techniques are generally ways to respond against an incoming attack - many different ways to respond against many different kinds of attacks. And many times the response to the attack will include the counter (or lock/throw) as well, or some kind of unbalancing technique or a tactical repositioning of the defender's body. So it will never be a simple block.
The second big problem in my opinion is that most practitioners don't have a clue about the applications of uke techniques. So an uke waza ("receiving technique" ) can be very effective, but only if you know how to use it. Most people only focus on the last part of the technique as being the "block/deflection", while in my view most techniques do include some kind of blocking/deflection, but usually in the very beginning of the technique's motion (what would make the blocking faster as it comes from a single movement). Actually, many simple uke techniques begin with arms/hands crossed or both arms up in a way that resembles very well a "panic block", what uses to advantage a person's natural flinch reflex, and only the following movement is the really different part. Many of those "blocks" even do begin with a inward palm (or forearm) movement that is very similar to the typical boxing parry (think of most traditional blocking techniques). Obviously later (or simultaneously) you will counterattack, joint lock, throw or whatever (all within the same uke technique motion), but it will always be as a response from an attack and not an attack in and of itself - after all, karate was an art designated for CIVILIAN DEFENSE, not for civilian "offense".
Also we have to note that a good uke waza should always be performed with body movement as well (just like they are usually shown in kata), so yes, when you "block", you better "block" AND dodge - preferably at an angle.
Finally, over time in some styles the ways to perform some techniques have been diluted (for esthetics purposes or whatever) in such a fashion that it becomes much harder or impossible to relate them to the original intent meant for them.
So I believe all this "block" issue is a big misunderstanding because most uke waza are much more than mere "blocks", and the very translation - when correct - of "uke" shows this. But while the techniques had originally no names and certainly they have many applications (I myself teach many different applications for many uke techniques), I believe many or most of them have been generally adequately labeled as "uke", as they are indeed responses against attacks (many different attacks, including grabs, holds etc. - from different angles, including from behind - thus some crazy movements that don't seem to respond to anything in front of the defender's body). This said, I do believe that there can be a few techniques labeled as uke but being actually sole attacks - but I wouldn't be so sure.
There's one side note that some people think uke waza are not effective because they aren't used in MMA. I don't think so as I have seen many instances where the contestants have reacted to attacks in a way very similar to the correct (in my opinion) applications of uke waza, and achieving very good results. But however, the context of MMA is so different to the context of civilian defense that it would be ok if uke waza was useless in that case, because uke waza have not been created to be used in MMA. In CIVILIAN DEFENSE the opponents would hardly be circling around each other, trying to find or build openings in their defenses, making feints and controlling carefully the distancing. In a civilian defense context attacks are usually more careless (and even more telegraphed), and performed by untrained people and many times you won't even have a chance to preempt. If you are able to preempt, that is, use an attack instead of a response to an attack (an uke waza), that's great. But what if you aren't able to preempt? You'll obviously have to be trained in responding techniques too. Not mentioning the practical, moral and legal issues concerning preemptive attacks that make them a less likely option.
I tried to summarize my explanation, so please forgive me if something sounds not very consistent - maybe in that case I would have to explain further. We all know that when talking about those things we better not write - instead we should speak and show.
Enviado de meu GT-I9300 usando o Tapatalk 2
TKDTony2179
Blue Belt
I hesitated on responding because I wanted to see everyone else response. So far everything everyone said is true. Blocks can be a deflection, taught to break, or as an attack. When I first learn a block as a white belt, it was taught to me as a deflection. When I started sparring as a green belt I was taught to move first then block sec. As a red belt my instructor said to perform a block in my tul as if I am breaking boards.
As I research and study as a martial artist, learning what and how other systems use a block is sometimes interesting. What is a block may be a block in one style but an attack in another. Boxing will use a parry or simply absorb a punch on the glove or the elbow to protect the face or ribs.
Now are blocks useless? Nope. Do they work? Yes. All the time? Nope. I usually say this to my intermediate class. You can move all day without blocking without getting hit as long as you move but if you stay in your spot you will get hit or will have to block.
Now if you decide to block then punch as if in a onestep then block and strike fast and often and not block, block, block, block, and punch.
As I research and study as a martial artist, learning what and how other systems use a block is sometimes interesting. What is a block may be a block in one style but an attack in another. Boxing will use a parry or simply absorb a punch on the glove or the elbow to protect the face or ribs.
Now are blocks useless? Nope. Do they work? Yes. All the time? Nope. I usually say this to my intermediate class. You can move all day without blocking without getting hit as long as you move but if you stay in your spot you will get hit or will have to block.
Now if you decide to block then punch as if in a onestep then block and strike fast and often and not block, block, block, block, and punch.
Personally I think of parries and redirections for evasion or control as the rule of them as what some perceive as blocks.
With blocks instead I think of striking, damage and destruction! In other words to me a block is also a strike and it is
aggressive and destructive! Just my 02.
Great blog post jks9199!!!
With blocks instead I think of striking, damage and destruction! In other words to me a block is also a strike and it is
aggressive and destructive! Just my 02.
Great blog post jks9199!!!
rule of thumb as what some perceive as blocks. (in my first sentence)
