Crossing the Hands While Blocking

[Makalakumu]

Sensei Robert M. Rivers, of Motobu Ha Shito Ryu, has taken the time to put together this video regarding the crossing of the hands while "blocking" in kata. Please take the time to view this and let us know what you think.

http://www.virginiakempo.com/martial minute crossing hands.mov

 

[exile]

Absolutely classic `realistic' bunkai/oyo. If you look at Iain Abernethy's DVDs on `Applied Karate', you'll see he makes repeated use of this `slapping away' of a thrown strike (typically the attacker's untrained roundhouse punch) with the `chambering' motion, followed by a severe strike to the head or arm by the `blocking' hand/arm. Often the slapping motion is converted into a capture of the limb with the other hand, followed by a renewed series of striking actions by the hand which performed the original deflection. The techs illustrated here fit right into that combat framework.

 

[Makalakumu]

IMHO, this is what these techniques always should have been. I find myself baffled by all of the explanations that have surfaced in the absence of this knowledge. How could people completely ignore the fact that this was an ineffective way to block a technique and that it might be something else?

 

[Sukerkin]

Now appreciate that I'm speaking outside of my 'knowledge envelope' here (I'm black sash Lau Gar Kung Fu and Shodan MJER Iaido) so my words are purely based on what I saw rather than what I 'know'.

I'm very impressed by that chap as a teacher, first off. He gets across the 'why' as well as the 'what' and his interpretation of bunkai is quite illuminating.

What he demonstrates makes absolutely perfect sense to me. In Kung Fu I used to do something very similar i.e. step off the line of the punch, do a 'crossing hand' block/strike with the closest hand (usually with a wrist grab at the end if you could get it) and strike to the exposed ribs/neck/cheek with the other hand.

And they say karate and kung fu are different :lol:.

Thanks for posting that Upnorth ... now you make me feel really frustrated that I can't do empty-hand stuff any more because of my bike accident :wink:.

 

[exile]

Now appreciate that I'm speaking outside of my 'knowledge envelope' here (I'm black sash Lau Gar Kung Fu and Shodan MJER Iaido) so my words are purely based on what I saw rather than what I 'know'.

I'm very impressed by that chap as a teacher, first off. He gets across the 'why' as well as the 'what' and his interpretation of bunkai is quite illuminating.

What he demonstrates makes absolutely perfect sense to me. In Kung Fu I used to do something very similar i.e. step off the line of the punch, do a 'crossing hand' block/strike with the closest hand (usually with a wrist grab at the end if you could get it) and strike to the exposed ribs/neck/cheek with the other hand.

And they say karate and kung fu are different :lol:.

That's a classic karate-type tech sequence. Fascinating that KF does the same thing... it's a natural counterattacking line, but as usual, the decorative packaging story obscures some of the fundamental on-the-ground similarities in nominally distinct MAs.

Thanks for posting that Upnorth ... now you make me feel really frustrated that I can't do empty-hand stuff any more because of my bike accident :wink:.

Wha' ??? What happened??? Why can't you do empty-hand MA stuff??

IMHO, this is what these techniques always should have been. I find myself baffled by all of the explanations that have surfaced in the absence of this knowledge. How could people completely ignore the fact that this was an ineffective way to block a technique and that it might be something else?

But UpNKy, we know why and how that happened... starting with Itosu's packaging job on the classic kata to make the techs they encoded acceptable in the Okinawan school system (which they wouldn't have been had he not done that); the role of karate in Japan as a kind of `training calisthenics' for future cannon fodder for the Japanese military (hence the kihon-based, robotic group drill format of training) and the gradual loss of those apps over the several generations separating Matsumura from Funakoshi's students... after all, weren't you the one who was telling me, many months back, that the Kwan founders never learned the proper bunkai because their own instructors were none too sharp about the practical application of those kata techs? :wink1:

 

[Makalakumu]

But UpNKy, we know why and how that happened... starting with Itosu's packaging job on the classic kata to make the techs they encoded acceptable in the Okinawan school system (which they wouldn't have been had he not done that); the role of karate in Japan as a kind of `training calisthenics' for future cannon fodder for the Japanese military (hence the kihon-based, robotic group drill format of training) and the gradual loss of those apps over the several generations separating Matsumura from Funakoshi's students... after all, weren't you the one who was telling me, many months back, that the Kwan founders never learned the proper bunkai because their own instructors were none too sharp about the practical application of those kata techs? :wink1:

I understand the history behind what actually did happen. However, I often wonder what happened to people's critical abilities? Why couldn't the kwan founders realize that what they were doing was an inferior combative technique? It's not like these guys were novices on fighting.

It makes me wonder if the answer truly is cultural. This brings up a few troubling thoughts. This is "what if" type of question...

 

[exile]

I understand the history behind what actually did happen. However, I often wonder what happened to people's critical abilities? Why couldn't the kwan founders realize that what they were doing was an inferior combative technique? It's not like these guys were novices on fighting.

It makes me wonder if the answer truly is cultural. This brings up a few troubling thoughts. This is "what if" type of question...

Well, this gets back to a family of questions I have been (fairly publically) wondering about for a long time: just what where the Kwan founders actually thinking about what they were doing? What was their conception of MAs? What did they think their training was giving them training in?

The central question in this case is, what did the Kwan founders believe to be the content of the kata they were taught? If you visit any TKD dojang (with a minute number of honorable exceptions) and a fair number of dojos, you'll see a very large percentage of the clientele who are happy to learn the kata movements as don't-ask-why-just-do-it choreography, with belt advancement the straightforward answer to the question, why are we learning this? Is there any reason to believe that the Kwan founders viewed the kata that became the hyungs of TKD and TSD any differently? Should we expect them to have been any more critical than students in the classes I've alluded to? What would they have had available as a standard of comparison that would drive them to rebel against their training regime and demand something deeper?

 

[Makalakumu]

Well, this gets back to a family of questions I have been (fairly publically) wondering about for a long time: just what where the Kwan founders actually thinking about what they were doing? What was their conception of MAs? What did they think their training was giving them training in?

The central question in this case is, what did the Kwan founders believe to be the content of the kata they were taught? If you visit any TKD dojang (with a minute number of honorable exceptions) and a fair number of dojos, you'll see a very large percentage of the clientele who are happy to learn the kata movements as don't-ask-why-just-do-it choreography, with belt advancement the straightforward answer to the question, why are we learning this? Is there any reason to believe that the Kwan founders viewed the kata that became the hyungs of TKD and TSD any differently? Should we expect them to have been any more critical than students in the classes I've alluded to? What would they have had available as a standard of comparison that would drive them to rebel against their training regime and demand something deeper?

Perhaps environment is the key. Now, I'm not certain about the environment of post WWII Korea, but I would surmise that it was much more peaceful then feudal Japan or Okinawa. With that being said, I would theorize that the motivation towards skepticism would be lacking.

Also, I would say, the open markets and the influxs of lots of people (American GIs) with lots of time on their hands, promoted an explosion of "oriental" traditions in response to American curiosity and money.

And when you couple THAT with nationalism and an overall militaristic ideology, I think that it may have created an perfect storm against critical thought.

Thoughts?

 

[Sukerkin]

Wha' ??? What happened??? Why can't you do empty-hand MA stuff??

It's a painful story involving me, a GSX-750R, an Audi Quattro, a drunk driver and a 90mph impact.

I don't want to hijack the thread with the details but suffice it to say that it ended up with me being left for dead in the middle of the road.

My right arm was annihilated from the elbow down (the doctors were surprised I wasn't dead as it was pure luck that one of the bone fragments didn't puncture a major artery (I'd tried to get up and my arm telescoped inside itself)).

They were going to amputate but one of the doctors had recently read an article in an American medical journal about using titanium bars to replace missing bones ... so they had a go at bridging from the stubs of my wrist to the bits downstream of my elbow.

As it was the first time this sort of thing had been attempted in the area, it was a bit of a 'dogs dinner' and they cut away most of my outer forearm muscle to do it. The upshot is that I still have two useable hands and arms but my right is very weak and painful (not seeking sympathy there, you get used to it after a few years (tho' it's a bit embarassing when it cramps up and my hand twists into a 'hooded claw' kind of shape)).

Also, the metalwork is not strong enough and bends if too much stress is placed on it. Add to that that the whole assembly swells up alarmingly (and hurts like mad) if it gets knocked, then you can see why I was forbidden from returning to MA .

My iai I can do without too much trouble (apart from those techniques requiring a large wrist rotation) and indeed it has helped improve the general condition of the limb and reduced the constant pain level a great deal.

Anyhow, having said I wasn't going to elaborate ... sorry Upnorth ... back to your topic

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

Absolutely classic `realistic' bunkai/oyo. If you look at Iain Abernethy's DVDs on `Applied Karate', you'll see he makes repeated use of this `slapping away' of a thrown strike (typically the attacker's untrained roundhouse punch) with the `chambering' motion, followed by a severe strike to the head or arm by the `blocking' hand/arm. Often the slapping motion is converted into a capture of the limb with the other hand, followed by a renewed series of striking actions by the hand which performed the original deflection. The techs illustrated here fit right into that combat framework.

This was a really nice video to post with some good instruction and key framework that was missing out in many dojo/dojang in the past. (way back as many have incorporated this training in the last ten years) It is funny though that as more systems evolve/rediscover their roots that many, many systems look so similar in oh so many way's.

Why would the Kwan founder's have not critically thought thing's through? One can only wonder but I would guess that they were pursuing vigorously what was available (teaching's) to them and they were tweaking it and then getting it out to the public at large to promote nationalism. In other words many of them were new martial artists or so new to a certain way of movement (Japanese Karate) that they were without the depth to critically see these movements early on. Just a guess on my part but I think it is pretty close to the mark.

 

[exile]

It's a painful story involving me, a GSX-750R, an Audi Quattro, a drunk driver and a 90mph impact.

Sukerkin... I don't know what to say. You've heard it all before, of course... but I'm very, very sorry for the horrible pain you went through... it must have been bloody agonizing and terribly frightening too, at times, to face the prospect of having to lose a limb. I'm speechless... with relief that we've still got you!

Perhaps environment is the key. Now, I'm not certain about the environment of post WWII Korea, but I would surmise that it was much more peaceful then feudal Japan or Okinawa. With that being said, I would theorize that the motivation towards skepticism would be lacking.

Also, I would say, the open markets and the influxs of lots of people (American GIs) with lots of time on their hands, promoted an explosion of "oriental" traditions in response to American curiosity and money.

And when you couple THAT with nationalism and an overall militaristic ideology, I think that it may have created an perfect storm against critical thought.

Thoughts?

Very suggestive, UpNKy. The role of a major influx of external capital cannot be underestimated, in terms of the creation of bogus traditions or—as on the Northwest Coast of North America, amongst the native societies—extreme exaggerations and distortions of previous traditions.

Some of the posts on other threads, from people who are in a position to know, suggest that things were pretty grim and violent in Korea during the decade or two following the Korean War, and that there was a good deal of kwan rivalry. But it's hard to imagine anything much more violent than what happened in feudal Japan, with the endless civil wars and constant battling between warlords and powerful families, for centuries without letup...

The thing is, everyone knows there was a dilution of the martial combat of karate from the time of Matusumura onwards. And it's also true that there is a fairly strong element of unquestioning acceptance of your teacher's pronouncements as a cultural virtue in many of the societies where TMAs originated. So probably the default would be that lack of skepticism you mention...

 

[JT_the_Ninja]

my comments on this subject can be found here (I'd prefer not to have to repost them):

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=29570&page=4

 

[robertmrivers]

I responded on the other thread as well...

JT

Quote:
about the leaning, you're absolutely right that if you keep your shoulders square in a nice, upright stance, your punch is never going to make it to your opponent, with any power at least. That's why TSD focuses so much on rotating the waist. The waist rotates for extra reach on the punch, then pulls back to shoulders square -- and then onto twisting the other way for the other hand to punch, or staying forward for a kick, or whatever. We don't lean over, though, because TSD does a lot more high kicking, and leaning forward makes you a huge target.
Just remember, we don't lean forward into a punch or block...when you see the forward stance...leaning or otherwise, with a block or punch, it is not what you think it is. It is just what it looks like in kata. Therefore, we would not be in the forward stance when there is an imminent kick.

Also, and this is really hard to notice, we do not square up on the forward stance. Many people have their feet shoulder wide when in the stance. We have our feet almost on the same line. We also do not have our toes pointing forward. We have our feet, front and back, pointing almost 45 degrees. Then, the shoulders are turned with the lead shoulder aimed at the opponent. This turns the body at an angle to the attack, therefore, you are never squared to the attack, you are always "angled in", minimizing your opponent's target picture and taking your vital targets off of the center line.

Then...

We have to talk about the power line. Basically, if you think about a horse stance, the power angle is connecting the centers of my feet. Any attack perpendicular to the stance will put you off-balance. The forward stance is no different.

If your feet are shoulder wide and you punch so that the fist ends up on the centerline or you're blocking an attack that is placed on that centerline, you are working a weak line of the forward stance. THE power line on a forward stance is, if you are looking at your feet, connecting the centers of your feet with a line. That is it. Then, punch so that your fist follows that same angle. This gives you more power, more rigidity, and more reach. This will be demo'ed on the next video. Just think about what the angle of a football players feet would be at if he was blocking. One in front of the other leading with the shoulder...this is where your maximum resistance is going to be. Resistance going the other way is power.

Anyway, it is going to seem that every point one makes concerning the execution or explanation of a technique within a form (from a Korean stylists POV) is going to have about a million contradictions. This comes from someone teaching within the generation gap trying to "standardize" techniques and all explanations became "cookie cutter" in approach. Unfortunately, those researching the history are going to have to wade through this mess.

Essentially, the forward stance used in a punch is different than that used in a down block, which is also different than that used for a middle block. Add to that, they are slightly different when moving forward versus moving backwards. In most Korean and Shotokan applications, there is no differentiation between the moments when a forward stance is used...they are all interpreted as having the same meaning, thus, the same execution.

This goes for all stances. Cat stances moving forward are done differently than those moving backwards. It is not just the applications that CAN be different...it is that they are actually performed differently in the kata depending on what the upper body is doing.

It is indeed a can of worms, brothers and sisters. But, this research (whether the source is me, literature or other instructors who know) is going to put you all at a different level than the typical Tang Soo Do Instructor. Most would just rather keep the blinders on...

Regards

Rob

 

[robertmrivers]

All

I posted the video page...but forgot to post the page about our free educational classes.

http://www.virginiakempo.com/bridging_the_gap.htm

Check it out. It would be an easy way for us to get together.

Regards

Rob

 

[exile]

THE power line on a forward stance is, if you are looking at your feet, connecting the centers of your feet with a line. That is it. Then, punch so that your fist follows that same angle. This gives you more power, more rigidity, and more reach. This will be demo'ed on the next video.

I'm very anxious to see this!

Essentially, the forward stance used in a punch is different than that used in a down block, which is also different than that used for a middle block.

Rob, could you elaborate on this a little bit? Or will it become clear when you post the next video? And, was this (originally) the case in Shotokan as well?

 

[robertmrivers]

Hey

Quote:
Originally Posted by robertmrivers
Essentially, the forward stance used in a punch is different than that used in a down block, which is also different than that used for a middle block.

Rob, could you elaborate on this a little bit? Or will it become clear when you post the next video? And, was this (originally) the case in Shotokan as well?

It will definitely clear up...but...

Basically, if I am going to hit you, I am going to be in a fighting stance. If you see a punch from a forward stance...knowing that it is inefficient, then something is being overlooked...in this case, the purpose of the stance. In a nutshell, here are a couple of basic applications.

1. Punching in forward stance: The deep stance and bent front knee is used to off-balance your opponent's stance. Therefore, the timing between when my knee bends and the punch launches is important.
2. Down block in forward stance: If you notice the arm bar (kansetsu waza) in one of the videos, the stepping into the stance and leaning into it is to add your body weight to the pressure on the joint. Therefore, in execution, there is a little more lean in the stance.
3. Middle blocking in forward stance: The middle block is at times a strike which is moving parallel to the ground. Therefore, the hips engage a little more than the leaning motion, leaving the back a little more upright. On an inside to outside middle block, the "blocking hand" starts low and travels up to the middle position. Therefore, there isn't always the heaviness in the stance, as the block comes up, your body "lightens" making a more relaxed forward stance.
4. You always kick...therefore when you see the coupled forward stance/ technique, are you seeing it pre-kick or post-kick? Post kick is going to result in more of a dropping/ heavy stance. Pre-kick means the body is on its way to lightening up to execute the kick.

As I said, it will be on video soon enough. I am actually happy I got motivated to do this...my typing sucks!

Regards
Rob

 

[exile]

Hey...

Essentially, the forward stance used in a punch is different than that used in a down block, which is also different than that used for a middle block.



It will definitely clear up...but...

Basically, if I am going to hit you, I am going to be in a fighting stance. If you see a punch from a forward stance...knowing that it is inefficient, then something is being overlooked...in this case, the purpose of the stance. In a nutshell, here are a couple of basic applications.

1. Punching in forward stance: The deep stance and bent front knee is used to off-balance your opponent's stance. Therefore, the timing between when my knee bends and the punch launches is important.
2. Down block in forward stance: If you notice the arm bar (kansetsu waza) in one of the videos, the stepping into the stance and leaning into it is to add your body weight to the pressure on the joint. Therefore, in execution, there is a little more lean in the stance.
3. Middle blocking in forward stance: The middle block is at times a strike which is moving parallel to the ground. Therefore, the hips engage a little more than the leaning motion, leaving the back a little more upright. On an inside to outside middle block, the "blocking hand" starts low and travels up to the middle position. Therefore, there isn't always the heaviness in the stance, as the block comes up, your body "lightens" making a more relaxed forward stance.
4. You always kick...therefore when you see the coupled forward stance/ technique, are you seeing it pre-kick or post-kick? Post kick is going to result in more of a dropping/ heavy stance. Pre-kick means the body is on its way to lightening up to execute the kick.

As I said, it will be on video soon enough. I am actually happy I got motivated to do this...my typing sucks!

Regards
Rob

Great, this is just what I was looking for. And the role of the weight stances in the various blocks, particularly the arm bar imposed in the course of the down `block' prior to the hard strike, is what I've been suspecting for a long time. The movement into the stance is really the projection of the body weight as part of the crucial leverage behind that tech....

brilliant stuff!

 

[tellner]

There are still a few things I disagree with, but on the whole this shows better understanding than the other clips. The appreciation of timing and independent motion of the limbs is more developed.

 

[Makalakumu]

This is a very interesting video. If you distill the actual movements of the crossing hands, then you end up with all of the real blocks in karate. Check out the videos I attached. All of these basic movements are the intermediate positions of all the "classical" blocks many karateka were taught.

And when you understand this, it changes everything about how you view and use kata.

 

[Chizikunbo]

Again very interesting points...