Chamber

[Wey]

How many of you fight with your fist in the classic chamber position as taught by karate? If you do, how effective has it been for you? If you do not keep your hands chambered when fighting, why do you not? Or is chambering the fists just a stepping stone for another way to position the hands / does it teach something like to pull the hands back, possibly?

 

[seasoned]

If you teach someone to grab an opponents wrist off of a block and pull them into you, you will get all manor of pulling. But, if you teach chambering after every punch, pulling your fist back to your center with a twist every time, it will, over time become very natural. Now teach the grabbing and pulling, and it will be done right, every time. This chambering motion can be used in many grappling applications. With this practice you have learned a principle important to martial arts.

 

[Wey]

Thank you for your words of wisdom, seasoned!

 

[dancingalone]

Seasoned's post is absolutely dead on. I would only add the comment that pulling your punching/blocking fist back to your side or hip area is obviously not practical if you have no intent to grab or pull your attacker with it. If you are simply 'duking' it out with your fists, your hands should always be kept up in a protecting guard like boxers employ.

Of course this is karate 101. I really wonder at some of these instructors that never explain the true concept of the hikite ("pulling arm").

 

[Victor Smith]

The chambered hand is:1. used for grabbing and pulling an attacker towards you.2. used for slicing back across the opponent after a strike. A slice into the head, torso or into the opponents 2nd arm striking.3. used for a rear elbow strike to someone behind you.It was not primarily designed for fighting as karate was not created to fight but to finish an opponent. It can work for fighting if you're really intent on causing one pain, the skill sets just need to be specifically modified for that purpose.

 

[Wey]

The chambered hand is:1. used for grabbing and pulling an attacker towards you.2. used for slicing back across the opponent after a strike. A slice into the head, torso or into the opponents 2nd arm striking.3. used for a rear elbow strike to someone behind you.It was not primarily designed for fighting as karate was not created to fight but to finish an opponent. It can work for fighting if you're really intent on causing one pain, the skill sets just need to be specifically modified for that purpose.

Karate was not designed to fight? I thought it was. Back in Okinawa the Japanese were not allowed to have weapons so they trained open hand combat, as well as training weapons they could get their hands on.

 

[seasoned]

I think what Mr. Smith is saying is Karate was not designed to fight, but, "to destroy". If this is what he is saying, then I agree with him.

 

[punisher73]

Karate was not designed to fight? I thought it was. Back in Okinawa the Japanese were not allowed to have weapons so they trained open hand combat, as well as training weapons they could get their hands on.

For many when they say the word "fight", they are referring to two consenting people over an ego issue. Karate was designed for a self-defense situation in which you have no choice but to protect yourself from a surprise physical assault.

 

[repz]

A book am I reading says unarmed is not martial arts. And unarmed was considered barbaric and lowly in japan. And that it started to evolve into training to be a better person.

 

[Blindside]

A book am I reading says unarmed is not martial arts. And unarmed was considered barbaric and lowly in japan. And that it started to evolve into training to be a better person.

I am curious about the "unarmed is not martial arts" statement. Meaning that in true war unarmed isn't a major part of the repertoire behind spear, bow, and sword? Or something else entirely.

If if unarmed was considered "barbaric and lowly" how does that explain the extreme popularity of Sumo as a traditional sport?

 

[punisher73]

A book am I reading says unarmed is not martial arts. And unarmed was considered barbaric and lowly in japan. And that it started to evolve into training to be a better person.

That sounds like someone trying to promote an agenda. Judo has always been popular in Japan and is unarmed.

The author may have a point if he is stating that karate was not a battlefield art and has always been a civilian system of self-defense makes that distinction. Contrary to popular myth, karate was not designed by peasants to be used against samuari

 

[punisher73]

How many of you fight with your fist in the classic chamber position as taught by karate? If you do, how effective has it been for you? If you do not keep your hands chambered when fighting, why do you not? Or is chambering the fists just a stepping stone for another way to position the hands / does it teach something like to pull the hands back, possibly?

Back to the original thread topic. As someone else has pointed out, the returning arm is meant for grappling and pulling an opponent off balance and into your next strike.

It also serves as a purpose when done from a training stance to isolate the movement to learn proper body mechanics.

If you look at many traditional movements they have dual purposes and train other things than the obvious. For example, when practicing blocking, the other arm crosses and then you chamber for the block and then block. The first movement, is a minor movement and is used as a parrying type. The second movement, is the major movement and is the the obvious block to the arm. So in practice and application you are training two defensive moves in one.

 

[Victor Smith]

Hmmm,

First the purpose of karate was not to fight, in the sense it is to end the attacker's ablity to attack, which could ramp up to destroy, but only in very specific circumstances.

The toolbox of karate, the kata contain many techniques which cannot safely be applied to an attacker without damaging them. They're not for fighting but for concluding.

Now if you're not prepared, surprised, it might end up a fight but that's hardly what karate was geared for with it's force multipliers, tactical studies on movement and strategic placement.

The problem with fighting is there are ony three main objectives.
1. You break them
2. They break you
3. You each break each other
and various sub categories of degree, none of which a rational person wants to be engaged in. The first option "you break them" makes more sense in a non-fighting atmosphere where you end them under their event horizon.

Second Okinawa is not Japan. Whatever happed in Japan isn't necessarily reresentative of Okinawa. The Okinawan's never really banned weapons, most of their weapon systems (which developed separately from karate) were more focused on just kata practice, as they didnt' have people with weapons really attacking them.

Karate came from private practice, whatever the people felt was appropriate did not enter into karate's developmen, for karate was not for the people.

If we were Okinawans, say 150 years ago, we would likely not have any opportunity to study karate as it was the preserve of the very few, most frequently from elite families and those with connections.

In any case use of the chamber can be a powerful tool if one wishes.

 

[repz]

That sounds like someone trying to promote an agenda. Judo has always been popular in Japan and is unarmed.

The author may have a point if he is stating that karate was not a battlefield art and has always been a civilian system of self-defense makes that distinction. Contrary to popular myth, karate was not designed by peasants to be used against samuari

I am not sure, I borrowed it from the Library and was only interested in reading the Karate part. The book is titled Modern Bujutsu and Budo. His opinion is before Judo was ever created.

If I remember, he said that Karate was for the peasants, because only they would need it. The warrior class relied on weapons, and it was considered important and respected. One of Funakoshis teachers changed the idea of karate to being about self development.

Obviously the author goes into how karate became popular in japan afterward.

 

[jks9199]

I am not sure, I borrowed it from the Library and was only interested in reading the Karate part. The book is titled Modern Bujutsu and Budo. His opinion is before Judo was ever created.

If I remember, he said that Karate was for the peasants, because only they would need it. The warrior class relied on weapons, and it was considered important and respected. One of Funakoshis teachers changed the idea of karate to being about self development.

Obviously the author goes into how karate became popular in japan afterward.

And how would that author address the various jujutsu systems that predate judo or karate? The warriors of ancient Japan focused on weapons, of course, because they fought wars with weapons. But that doesn't mean they neglected the possibility of being unarmed or having to fight without weapons.

 

[Blindside]

And how would that author address the various jujutsu systems that predate judo or karate? The warriors of ancient Japan focused on weapons, of course, because they fought wars with weapons. But that doesn't mean they neglected the possibility of being unarmed or having to fight without weapons.

The book "Modern Bujutsu and Budo" is by Donn Draeger, one of the better martial arts historians and researchers, so I'm going to have to hold off further comment until I read it. The first two books in that series (and I own them) are excellent.

 

[repz]

And how would that author address the various jujutsu systems that predate judo or karate? The warriors of ancient Japan focused on weapons, of course, because they fought wars with weapons. But that doesn't mean they neglected the possibility of being unarmed or having to fight without weapons.

They do have a jujitsu part, but I only read about karate. The whole book he wrote is based on him breaking misconceptions about martial arts, and he does this by digging into japanese history and culture.

It said, as early as 1926, Higaonna and Itosu argued that te should be revised as a shugyo, as system of discipline, making it combative nature a spiritual one. And that it was not intended to hurt humans, but where techniques combined with spirit is used to solve problems and avoid conflict.

When it comes to unarmed combat from the bushi warriors (from what he claims is detailed study in the edo period) had little interest in the empty hand aspects of combat, that unarmed scuffling was regarded as peasant actitivities, and beneath their status. They believed a bushi, armed with a leathal weapon were capable of rendering all unarmed techniques inffective. It also said the samuraii had empty hand techniques they used against civil scuffles, but didnt constitute a major martial study.

It also had some interesting things about Funakoshi.

I'd probably read the whole book if I can find the time.

 

[Blade96]

usually keep our fists up in front of us in kumite position and not chambered.

 

[repz]

I remember reading one of Funakoshis books about the chambered punch being a training principle. From what I took from this: I reasoned that when training for sprints, you just dont sprint. You strap weights on you, or you sprint with wider strides, or with jumps, or any other action that makes the sprint harder, to make normal sprints easier (due to extra muscle tension and development to overcome the extra stress). The chamber can be said to be an exaggerated movement, to build the muscles in the chest and arms as they slide past each other into chamber (it gets very difficult to throw many punches in chamber then it is to throw jabs and crosses (due to the other hand having to be retracted back which results in more "work"), and add the fact that some karate systems like doing this in deep stances, and you have quite a full body workout). This movement mimics many workout routines in strength training. I have always noticed how strong shouldered and fit many karatekas were in old pics.

But I know many karatekas that can whip out a chambered punch combatively and clock you so fast you wont even notice his hand was chambered at all.

 

[seasoned]

Most untrained people will draw their fist back somewhere outside of their body, with their shoulder up and elbow high. In some cases their wrist is bent, and at the end of the punch they hit with the baby finger and ring finger knuckles. Although this will work in many bar fights, and these untrained people have knocked many an opponent out, it has it's draw backs. Their weight is generally on the same side as their hitting fist, making them double weighted, and off balanced. Once they have sprained their wrist, or fractured their hand from improper striking surface it renders them less functional for more then one aggressor.
"The Chamber".
Not functional in an encounter where self defense is required. "Hand should never draw back to strike". If hands are down, and a strike is required, then your fist will travel through the chamber position gaining speed as it reaches it's target.
"The Chamber part 2".
Shoulder down, elbow in and touching the ribs. Draw the closed fist back until the baby finger touches the ribs. Don't draw the fist back to far so the shoulder and elbow start to rise up. In the Chambered position I teach that the baby finger and the thumb should be touching the ribs. From this position your fist "palm up" slides along the ribs until the elbow clears the body and then the fist turns palm down and corkscrews into the target while the other fist takes it's place on the other side of your body ready for the next strike.
This is classic, and the way I was taught and teach it. Without boring you any farther I will finish by saying that this is practice only, and only funtional in teaching proper form, structure, and technique. When in combat, we strike from where ever our hands are, but using the above model as our base for proper hitting.