Practical Application of the Double-Knife-Hand Block

[DaveB]

Unless it was lost along the way of getting to you.

What are you talking about?
[

 

[DaveB]

For the most part the information is hidden in plain view. For many it is lost because they were never taught to see it, they were taught specific applications rather than principles & concepts. By understanding the principles and concepts the shown applications are but examples of application. Adherence to specific application limits the practitioner in knowledge and skill/s.

That's true but in fairness to skribs principles without application is meaningless to a beginner.

The applications crystallise the example of the principle as well as build the skill to actually use them.

 

[skribs]

What are you talking about?
[

It's like the telephone game kids play, where you line up ten kids and have Kid 1 whisper a phrase to Kid 2, who whispers it to Kid 3, and somewhere along the line "I like apples and bananas" turns into "I'm in love with an alien named Brandon."

If the techniques were first put into Kata 200 years ago, then there's been plenty of time for people along the way to:

• Forget applications of the kata
• Refuse to teach certain applications to certain students
• Reject applications of the kata
• Not properly understand applications of the kata
• Start teaching the kata without having learned its applications
• Watch the kata be performed without being taught it, and then obviously not learn the applications
• Formulate new kata which use similar movements in a different way that the original application becomes obscured

The vast majority of the information I find when I try to research these questions is simply how to properly chamber and perform the technique, with very little (if any) information on what you are actually doing.

That's true but in fairness to skribs principles without application is meaningless to a beginner.

The applications crystallise the example of the principle as well as build the skill to actually use them.

I would argue it's a little different. For me, it's that as you learn more about martial arts, your understanding grows. It doesn't change. For example, an inward knife-hand block and inward knife-hand strike will usually be pretty similar. If you're throwing a block, then knowing that it could also be a strike is irrelevant. You don't forget how to throw a block. You still need to understand the motion and the technique in that application. You just also know that it could be a strike. But in knowing it's a strike, you don't forget it's a block.

If that makes sense.

 

[MI_martialist]

For the most part the information is hidden in plain view. For many it is lost because they were never taught to see it, they were taught specific applications rather than principles & concepts. By understanding the principles and concepts the shown applications are but examples of application. Adherence to specific application limits the practitioner in knowledge and skill/s.

To add to this fantastic post, I would say that without extensive application training, solo kata is not to be done!!

 

[Earl Weiss]

For the most part the information is hidden in plain view. For many it is lost because they were never taught to see it, they were taught specific applications rather than principles & concepts. By understanding the principles and concepts the shown applications are but examples of application. Adherence to specific application limits the practitioner in knowledge and skill/s.

When I teach beginners I find it useful to teach a single application. Too much information can be overload. As they say, "Even a thirsty man cannot drink from a fire hose. "

As more techniques are learned I will teach more about concepts. If they learn 100 techniques they may understand a single concept. If they learn single concept they may understand 100 techniques.

Think of Daniel San. :Wax On - Wax off. Mr. Miyagi taught the motions but Daniel San had no idea what they could be used for until he was told. I know it's a movie but it was art imitating life.

 

[Danny T]

When I teach beginners I find it useful to teach a single application. Too much information can be overload. As they say, "Even a thirsty man cannot drink from a fire hose. "

As more techniques are learned I will teach more about concepts. If they learn 100 techniques they may understand a single concept. If they learn single concept they may understand 100 techniques.

Think of Daniel San. :Wax On - Wax off. Mr. Miyagi taught the motions but Daniel San had no idea what they could be used for until he was told. I know it's a movie but it was art imitating life.

I teach movements and positions. Show a movement to a position. Drill it a bit. Then I show 2 'potential' applications for that movement and position. Then drill the movement again not concerned about the application but the movement. Then we may work on the form when that movement is presented or we'll work the whole form asking where is the movement is within the form. We get deeper into potential applications as they grow.

 

[skribs]

I teach movements and positions. Show a movement to a position. Drill it a bit. Then I show 2 'potential' applications for that movement and position. Then drill the movement again not concerned about the application but the movement. Then we may work on the form when that movement is presented or we'll work the whole form asking where is the movement is within the form. We get deeper into potential applications as they grow.

When we teach a movement, there's usually at least one application tied to it. That way students can conceptualize what they're doing. If there are other applications we teach those applications, and if the movements are similar then the students will pick up on that.

I've seen issues the other way, where a student's outward blocks and outward strikes are the exact same motion, which results in weaker strikes.

 

[wab25]

I've seen issues the other way, where a student's outward blocks and outward strikes are the exact same motion, which results in weaker strikes.

Why should my hand impact a forearm (block) with weaker force than when my hand impacts a head (strike)? Shouldn't it be the other way around, since the other guys head is more likely to break my hand, than his forearm is?

Which targets should receive weaker impacts? Which should receive harder impacts?

1. Forearm
2. Calf of the leg
3. Thigh
4. Bicep
5. Head
6. Neck
7. Rib

Now that you have identified which targets need to be hit less hard, explain why they need to be hit less hard.

 

[skribs]

Why should my hand impact a forearm (block) with weaker force than when my hand impacts a head (strike)? Shouldn't it be the other way around, since the other guys head is more likely to break my hand, than his forearm is?

Which targets should receive weaker impacts? Which should receive harder impacts?

1. Forearm
2. Calf of the leg
3. Thigh
4. Bicep
5. Head
6. Neck
7. Rib

Now that you have identified which targets need to be hit less hard, explain why they need to be hit less hard.

It's not a weaker motion. It's a weaker strike. The key differences between the block and the strike are:

1. The block is meant to push the incoming punch out of the way. The primary goal is defense, any striking damage to the arm is secondary. The chop is meant to cause penetration damage into the target. It is an offensive move. (And I would aim for the neck instead of the head, anyway, much softer target).
2. The block is done in such a way that I have about a foot of vertical real estate that can impact the incoming punch. It might be the blade of my hand, my wrist, my forearm, or my elbow, but I've got a good chance of blocking it. Going for this vertical real estate sacrifices on the amount of power you can put behind a more linear, whiplike motion of the chop.

Look at the strike at 0:40 and 1:02. Now look at the block at 2:10. Notice how in the chamber for the strike the elbow points at the target, and in the block the elbow points down. Notice how the strike is done with a straight arm (and essentially resembles a roundhouse kick in terms of the snapping motion), and the block is done with a bent arm.

It's not about which targets must be hit harder or softer. By all means, if you're striking an arm, strike hard. But if your goal is to prevent an attack from getting to you, there are different ways you perform techniques in order to meet that application. Just like there's different roundhouse kicks for power, speed, or showing off.

The motion at 2:10 makes a weaker strike than the motion at 0:40. It also makes a better block.

 

[wab25]

What you have there are 2 different motions that you are studying. Motion "A" at 0:40 and Motion "B" at 2:10.

Motion A is a strike. Motion B is also a strike. Motion A is a more powerful strike at range... there is more whip in the hand and a larger lever. Motion B is a more powerful strike closer in... Motion A would throw all the power behind a close range opponent.

Motion B is a block. Motion A is also a block. Motion B can be used for a more general purpose block. But, Motion A can be used as a block in certain situations as well.

Now that I see what you are talking about...

I've seen issues the other way, where a student's outward blocks and outward strikes are the exact same motion, which results in weaker strikes.

It sounds like the students have not been taught both motions, no matter what you call them. Calling one a strike and one a block, are teaching aids, to help people learn these two different motions.

Question: This video shows no hip motion at all with these two techniques. Is that the way TKD teaches it or the way that guy does it?

In Shotokan, both of these motions involve hip motion. (in Shotokan, these would be wrong as shown, as they do not involve the hip at all) If TKD has no hip motion in these motions, that might be why its hard to see some of the applications that have been mentioned, as they involve hip motion. If TKD teaches these motions as "arm only motions," then many of the applications offered here actually would not apply... as they are applications of the body movement, not the arm movement. (both would still be a strike and a block though)

 

[skribs]

What you have there are 2 different motions that you are studying. Motion "A" at 0:40 and Motion "B" at 2:10.

Motion A is a strike. Motion B is also a strike. Motion A is a more powerful strike at range... there is more whip in the hand and a larger lever. Motion B is a more powerful strike closer in... Motion A would throw all the power behind a close range opponent.

Motion B is a block. Motion A is also a block. Motion B can be used for a more general purpose block. But, Motion A can be used as a block in certain situations as well.

Now that I see what you are talking about...
It sounds like the students have not been taught both motions, no matter what you call them. Calling one a strike and one a block, are teaching aids, to help people learn these two different motions.

Question: This video shows no hip motion at all with these two techniques. Is that the way TKD teaches it or the way that guy does it?

In Shotokan, both of these motions involve hip motion. (in Shotokan, these would be wrong as shown, as they do not involve the hip at all) If TKD has no hip motion in these motions, that might be why its hard to see some of the applications that have been mentioned, as they involve hip motion. If TKD teaches these motions as "arm only motions," then many of the applications offered here actually would not apply... as they are applications of the body movement, not the arm movement. (both would still be a strike and a block though)

When we're practicing the motions isolated or in other combinations, there is hip motion. In Taekwondo forms, it's typically a strong, unmoving stance, or a change from one stance to another. Combinations are more staccato in our forms, as well.

---

I disagree that both are a strike and both are a block. That's like saying a screwdriver is a hammer because you can hit the nail with the handle, and a hammer is a screwdriver because if you hit the screw it will go into a block of wood like a nail. One motion is clearly better at blocking, and one is clearly better at striking.

If I was striking closer in, I wouldn't switch to Motion B. I would take Motion A and modify it to work at a shorter distance by pointing my elbow out, not down. If I did want to make a downward strike instead (i.e. to the collar bone), I would point my elbow down, but then make a linear strike diagonally with my hand, and it would look different than Motion B.

And I wouldn't see much reason to block further out. If they're further away, they're not hitting me. I can wait until the punch gets closer to block it. Motion A means I'd need to be fairly precise where I hit, and there's a much bigger margin for error (error meaning I go over or under the punch, and the punch hits me).

 

[wab25]

I disagree that both are a strike and both are a block. That's like saying a screwdriver is a hammer because you can hit the nail with the handle, and a hammer is a screwdriver because if you hit the screw it will go into a block of wood like a nail. One motion is clearly better at blocking, and one is clearly better at striking.

We will have to agree to disagree then. Its my opinion that by limiting these motions to the named application, one will miss 90% of the art. I understand if you disagree here. What I don't get is why ask these questions then? If a strike is a strike, not a block and a block is a block and not a strike... then you already know what they are. So their practical applications should be self evident then. The strike is a strike. The block is a block.

If I was striking closer in, I wouldn't switch to Motion B. I would take Motion A and modify it to work at a shorter distance by pointing my elbow out, not down. If I did want to make a downward strike instead (i.e. to the collar bone), I would point my elbow down, but then make a linear strike diagonally with my hand, and it would look different than Motion B.

I would truly like to see force generated in the knife hand, for a close in strike, with the elbow pointed out.

I was thinking of a horizontal strike to the vegas nerve on the side of the neck, a horizontal strike to the jaw or and horizontal strike to the side of the head. When the opponent is in close, this works nicely as a close in strike, especially if the other hand cleared out the other guys hands.

And I wouldn't see much reason to block further out. If they're further away, they're not hitting me. I can wait until the punch gets closer to block it. Motion A means I'd need to be fairly precise where I hit, and there's a much bigger margin for error (error meaning I go over or under the punch, and the punch hits me).

If the other guy were throwing a big hammer fist to the side of my head, I could step back and block his forearm with the reach. I could hit anywhere along his forearm, I wouldn't have to be accurate at all. If he were using a hammer or short club, this would allow my head to be out of range, while I punished his forearm. Delivering the increased power to the inside of his forearm would make it harder for him to keep his grip on the weapon.

But, since blocks are blocks and strikes are strikes... it doesn't matter how I see it. The practical application is the named application. For this thread, the practical application of a double knife hand block, is a double knife hand block.

 

[skribs]

We will have to agree to disagree then. Its my opinion that by limiting these motions to the named application, one will miss 90% of the art. I understand if you disagree here. What I don't get is why ask these questions then? If a strike is a strike, not a block and a block is a block and not a strike... then you already know what they are. So their practical applications should be self evident then. The strike is a strike. The block is a block.

In this particular case, the question was "why is the other hand held at your solar plexus."

If you believe that a strike and a block are the same thing, how is that relevant to the question of "why is the other hand at your solar plexus." Ok, it's a strike. Why, in that strike, is the other hand held at your solar plexus? You've created a whole new question while avoiding the one that was originally asked.

Or, if you believe it is a block, or are applying it as a block, why would you have your hand at the solar plexus? The question is still the same if it's not a strike. It's still the same if it COULD be strike, but isn't right now. The question is still the same if you close your fists and keep everything else the same in a double middle block. It's the same thing if the forward hand is held down in a down block position, and the other hand is at your solar plexus. The question is still "why is that hand there."

I would truly like to see force generated in the knife hand, for a close in strike, with the elbow pointed out.

I was thinking of a horizontal strike to the vegas nerve on the side of the neck, a horizontal strike to the jaw or and horizontal strike to the side of the head. When the opponent is in close, this works nicely as a close in strike, especially if the other hand cleared out the other guys hands.

Are you saying you want to see numbers in the amount of newtons of force generated by how you chamber? I can feel the difference when I'm doing the techniques. It's like the difference between a punch and a shove.

If the other guy were throwing a big hammer fist to the side of my head, I could step back and block his forearm with the reach. I could hit anywhere along his forearm, I wouldn't have to be accurate at all. If he were using a hammer or short club, this would allow my head to be out of range, while I punished his forearm. Delivering the increased power to the inside of his forearm would make it harder for him to keep his grip on the weapon.

But, since blocks are blocks and strikes are strikes... it doesn't matter how I see it. The practical application is the named application. For this thread, the practical application of a double knife hand block, is a double knife hand block.

If you step back, the blow misses you. Or if you step back and it won't miss you, better to keep your arms in close than to extend yourself. If you extend your arm straight up and out to intercept a hammerfist, that's a lot of rib opened up to take a roundhouse kick.

If your opponent has a club, you don't want to keep your head in the optimal range for the club. If you successfully strike their arm, that's good, but if your timing is off you're going to get your arm broken, especially with your arm fully extended like that. It would be much better to attack the lever arm at its weakest point than trade blows with a hammer. Striking their arm with a knife-hand isn't going to be nearly as effective as a baseball bat that has full time to swing.

---

What I find hard to believe is that there is a situation where Motion A is a better block than Motion B, or where Motion B is a better strike than Motion A.

 

[wab25]

What I find hard to believe is that there is a situation where Motion A is a better block than Motion B, or where Motion B is a better strike than Motion A.

There are going to be fewer situations where A is a reasonable block. The striking limb needs to be vertical during the strike. There are some attacks where the limb is vertical during the attack. Motion A could be used to block these. But Motion A is a lot more than a strike, and a block. Its a grab, and the throw and an escape and a joint lock and on and on.

As for Motion B being a better strike... we already saw that. When your opponent is very close... like the first application here:

If you tried Motion A, at that distance, your power would go behind his head.

If I was striking closer in, I wouldn't switch to Motion B. I would take Motion A and modify it to work at a shorter distance by pointing my elbow out, not down.

I would like to see this generate power in the hand, to hit a guy as close as above.

In this particular case, the question was "why is the other hand held at your solar plexus."

We already went over this. Since this move is a knife hand block, then that is all it is. If you won't allow it to be anything else, then it does not matter where this hand goes.

I guess what you are really after is to contrive of a situation where putting your hand there, while you block with the other, is practical. I can't help you there. Thats not how I was taught martial arts. But someday I may learn better... Until then, we will have to just disagree here.

 

[skribs]

As for Motion B being a better strike... we already saw that. When your opponent is very close... like the first application here:

That's not Motion B. That's Motion A at an angle. You'll notice he's extending his arm. The extension is stopped by the neck, but if the other guy wasn't there his extension would be down and across, instead of ending in the same position as Motion B.

I would like to see this generate power in the hand, to hit a guy as close as above.

Same as a roundhouse kick up close vs. far away. You chamber tighter and a bit past where you normally would (i.e. a roundhouse kick with the right leg you would chamber across further to the left).

We already went over this. Since this move is a knife hand block, then that is all it is. If you won't allow it to be anything else, then it does not matter where this hand goes.

I guess what you are really after is to contrive of a situation where putting your hand there, while you block with the other, is practical. I can't help you there. Thats not how I was taught martial arts. But someday I may learn better... Until then, we will have to just disagree here.

Yes, that is what I am asking. And whether it's a block or a strike is really irrelevant. Why would you put your hand there if it's a strike? It becomes the same question.

 

[DaveB]

It's like the telephone game kids play, where you line up ten kids and have Kid 1 whisper a phrase to Kid 2, who whispers it to Kid 3, and somewhere along the line "I like apples and bananas" turns into "I'm in love with an alien named Brandon."

If the techniques were first put into Kata 200 years ago, then there's been plenty of time for people along the way to:

• Forget applications of the kata
• Refuse to teach certain applications to certain students
• Reject applications of the kata
• Not properly understand applications of the kata
• Start teaching the kata without having learned its applications
• Watch the kata be performed without being taught it, and then obviously not learn the applications
• Formulate new kata which use similar movements in a different way that the original application becomes obscured

The vast majority of the information I find when I try to research these questions is simply how to properly chamber and perform the technique, with very little (if any) information on what you are actually doing..

Yes, all of that could happen, but I wasn't speaking in hypotheticals, the application of kata was withheld. It's a point of history.

I would argue it's a little different. For me, it's that as you learn more about martial arts, your understanding grows. It doesn't change. For example, an inward knife-hand block and inward knife-hand strike will usually be pretty similar. If you're throwing a block, then knowing that it could also be a strike is irrelevant. You don't forget how to throw a block. You still need to understand the motion and the technique in that application. You just also know that it could be a strike. But in knowing it's a strike, you don't forget it's a block.

If that makes sense.

It makes sense, it's just wrong for most people I've known.

First off, that a technique can be both a block and a strike is not a principle, it's just a point of fact.

The principle would be in how and when you use said block or said strike, or how you use your body to generate said technique. These are rules you can apply to different situations.

As to growing vs changing, it should be both. Yes a block is still a block, but what it means to block an attack and all the possibilities it opens or closes and how it fits into your conception of combat should all change with experience.

 

[skribs]

The principle would be in how and when you use said block or said strike, or how you use your body to generate said technique. These are rules you can apply to different situations.

See, to me, if you're changing the way the gross movement is done for the sake of the application, it's a different technique.

 

[DaveB]

I disagree that both are a strike and both are a block. That's like saying a screwdriver is a hammer because you can hit the nail with the handle, and a hammer is a screwdriver because if you hit the screw it will go into a block of wood like a nail. One motion is clearly better at blocking, and one is clearly better at striking.

If I was striking closer in, I wouldn't switch to Motion B. I would take Motion A and modify it to work at a shorter distance by pointing my elbow out, not down. If I did want to make a downward strike instead (i.e. to the collar bone), I would point my elbow down, but then make a linear strike diagonally with my hand, and it would look different than Motion B.

And I wouldn't see much reason to block further out. If they're further away, they're not hitting me. I can wait until the punch gets closer to block it. Motion A means I'd need to be fairly precise where I hit, and there's a much bigger margin for error (error meaning I go over or under the punch, and the punch hits me).

Your view here is understandable but it's based on a lot of misconceptions. You should re-read the stuff I posted earlier about the use of the knife hand block in close.

Until you learn to let go of labels you will miss a great deal of the potential in your ma.

 

[DaveB]

See, to me, if you're changing the way the gross movement is done for the sake of the application, it's a different technique.

CONGRATULATIONS you've figured it out.

Everyone keeps telling you to play with the technique, because the technique is variable. You can push, you can thrust, you can whip, you can move in straight lines or circles...
This is the point of kata. They are fluid and variable as fighting is fluid and variable.

A hammer is not a screwdriver, but if you need a screwdriver why would you not put down the thing you don't need and pick up the tool that you do need? Because it has a label on it?

To translate: if your fighting for your life and a knife hand "block" can fit in the gap you see as a hit, are you going to let the opportunity pass because it's a block not a strike?

Since you like to play devil's advocate I'll just tell you, the answer is no, that would be stupid.

And while there might sometimes be stronger strikes, you maximise the power available through training. Just because your basic block is competent doesn't mean that you are physically ready to use all its application potential. We have to develop strikes once we know they are there.

Lastly the block is also a strike idea is just the beginning of expanding how you use these movements. I've already pointed out that there is a whole tactical framework around the use of knife hand block in back stance (or cat stance) for close quarter fighting.

You're idea that the chop in Koryo only works as a block from further away shows a really limited understanding of the use of movement. Why not stay close and contact the strike at a different point?

I get that you want to understand the basic techniques better, but again the real answer to that question is that the basic techniques were designed to hold more than basics and if you want to vary where you place your rear hand when you block you can because it doesn't matter at all.

 

[TrueJim]

I think the most practical application of the Double Knifehand Block is to fight Bruce Lee in the Roman Coliseum.