Ramsay Dewey and karate "blocks"

333kenshin

Yellow Belt
Joined
Jan 9, 2020
Messages
24
Reaction score
9
So I quite enjoy the YouTube videos of Shanghai-based MMA coach Ramsay Dewey.

Recently he posted a series of videos about karate blocking, starting with how they aren't actually blocks, followed by one about offensive applications of the same movements. The latter is reminiscent of a similar series on KarateCulture about applications of these "blocks". Now while I feel like these applications are perfectly valid, they don't fully explain why these movements were called "blocks" in the first place if they weren't used to block attacks.

As an analogy, consider tennis shoes. Sure you can wear them for running or play basketball as well as for tennis, but if you were to tell me they were never used for tennis, I'd feel further explanation were in order. It just doesn't satisfy Occam's Razor, and I suspect the only reason we don't pick up on the cognitive dissonance is that MMA has primed us to dismiss TMA in general as irrational.

My theory is that karate blocks are indeed blocks, just not blocks against punches. Think about it: karate was developed long before the arrival of western guns, on an island full of poor fishermen. According to the Karate Nerd, the kobudo oar was commonly trained in tandem with empty-handed karate. So maybe karate blocks are optimized for blocking an opponent wielding a kobudo, or similar bludgeon weapon.

Against such an attack, it makes sense to use traditional blocks. A bludgeon is easier to anticipate but harder to evade than punches, and extending your arm forward will arrest the movement earlier in its arc, before it's acquired dangerous momentum. It also explains the use of knife-hand blocks, to grasp the weapon and try to wrest control. It's not that karate is useless in combat, it's that it's optimized for a scenario that occurs much less frequently.

If this theory is correct, then the use of blocks for old-school karate is actually quite akin to how traditional European sword fighting, where rapiers were slow and heavy enough (think Princess Bride in slow motion) that the left arm wrapped in one's cloak could be used to intercept attacks.

What do folks think - does this theory hold water?
 
Its a translation error. The word is "uke." In Karate, uke refers to blocking because of a mistranslation or misunderstanding. In Judo or Jujitsu the same term is used for the person being thrown. Tori throws uke. When you throw someone o'goshi (major hip throw) the person you are throwing is uke, but he certainly is not "blocking" the throw.

In Funakoshi's books when he discusses uke te, that translates into receiving hand, not block. Funakoshi explains that uke te are techniques of blending, pushing, pulling, trapping, parrying and lastly, striking... he gives an anatomical chart to show where to use these to strike. As an alternate application to the strike, he says that you could also knock aside an attacking hand or foot. This is what most of western Karate grabbed on to, and will not let go of. What Funakoshi (the founder of Shotokan) thought were the most important applications of "receiving hand" have now become "way out there, fringe type" applications, while the alternate, to the last use Funakoshi taught, has become the main application accepted today in Shotokan and other Karate arts. (it makes for an interesting conversation to ask a Shotokan Sensei about the "blocks" being used as locks, throws and traps... they tell you that the main application is as a block, and only people who are stretching the kata too much would say such nonsense... then open Funakoshi's book and read to them Funakoshi's thoughts on the applications of these moves...)

In Judo / Jujitsu, to be uke is to be the one who receives. Uke has a part to do as well, he is not just a rag doll to be thrown. At first, it is to take the falls safely. Then those safe falls sometimes become counter throws.

Any time you hear the word "block" in Karate, remember that it came from "uke te." A better translation would be "receiving hand" not block. There are a lot of ways to receive, one of which may be blocking, and a lot of things to receive, not just punches and kicks.
 
wab25 nicely explained the Japanese term "uke," but the disconnect regarding blocks goes beyond this. She rightly mentions Funakoshi, the founder of Shotokan, and his block applications - Remember, he was an Okinawan karate expert before he went to Japan.

karate was developed long before the arrival of western guns, on an island full of poor fishermen. -

This is not correct. What we would recognize as ""karate" developed in Okinawa during the 1700's and 1800's, well after (at least a century) the introduction of guns.

and extending your arm forward will arrest the movement earlier in

This is one thing you got right. Moving into the strike and intercepting it sooner and closer to the origin is preferable for several reasons.

It also explains the use of knife-hand blocks, to grasp the weapon and try to wrest control.

This and the previous quote are contradictory to each other. We agree that intercepting the strike up on the arm is best. But then to say blocks are designed to intercept the weapon is the opposite since the weapon is further down the arm than even the hand! Yes, the weapon can be handled, but only after the arm is controlled.

does this theory hold water?

NO.

Blocks can certainly be just "blocks" and be effective in that role, though I very much doubt (near certainty) that they were not designed for weapon defense in mind. Blocks are very basic moves. U.S. military in the 1950's and 60's, who were usually stationed in Okinawa for less than two years and brought karate back to the USA, were taught mostly the basics. So all they knew were blocks are just simple blocks, not the full reality of them (which I'll get to soon.) Blocks were also just simple blocks in Japan after 1930 when the rules of sport karate precluded them being too much more. So, here are a couple of reasons blocks were thought to be something other than their full potential. Here is another:

Blocks were more than just blocks in traditional Okinawan karate. Before 1920, it was taught in secret. Thus, the idea that the moves that seemingly were just blocks held by outsiders was encouraged, the true reality of the moves kept hidden. There are many applications where the blocks are actually strikes, whether directly impacting the target, or indirectly after deflecting a strike. Sometimes t hey intercepted an attack midway thru the "block" and morphed into a grab and twist or takedown. There is much more to this topic, and has been discussed in the past. This is enough detail for this thread's purpose.
 
There used to be an article online by Charles Goodin (couldn't find it again with a quick search) called, "The Why of Bunkai".

Goodin talks about several points of application and one of them was how the word "uke" came to mean block. In short, it was when karate started to be published in pictures in books. You couldn't just say "move the arm this way", you needed a name for the action. Thus, the easiest and most basic application for the "uke" was a block and that is what "anchored" the meaning to the word moving forward.

That being said, I completely disagree with the theory that those movements were used to block any kind of weapons as a primary application. There is no evidence or oral teaching that I have ever come across that the arm would have been wrapped and used to block kobudo style weapons. Could it have happened? Maybe, but that would be a last ditch effort and not a primary method of teaching blocks.
 
Basically Three types...

A) Believes the Kihon baseline only.. Gedan Bari is a low level block, Agau uke is a high block etc ... bla... bla ... bla (To be honest... I've encounter very who have the skill level above the rank of 2 kyu in karate. who this represents.. That said... I've seen plenty of dan who are really 2nd Kyu at best skill wise.)


B) Believes Karate blocks are garbage, throws out all uke waza, uses western boxing techniques... loves to show people why traditional karate blocking techniques suck. Funny thing is... this guy is really Type A.. his karate is really somewhere around a 2nd kyu. He's clueless, he's resorted to strategies and tactics other than Karate. His Kime is void, his maai is void of anything remotely karate. he's kick boxing.. use no hikite, little or no ashi barai ... defiantly no sweeps with hikite etc Most of the time those guys are functional kick boxers with some or a lot of prowess... that said... Their fundamental understand of Karate is still 2 kyu at best

C) Understands Uke waza... I think for the most part, people who are committed to Karate, who train for life... are fully in the know...
 
C) Understands Uke waza... I think for the most part, people who are committed to Karate, who train for life... are fully in the know...

While these committed to karate may work hard and have great technical skills, I think most do NOT have a full grasp of hikite, tuite (qin na in the Chinese systems) and the idea of aggressive "attacking blocks," that target tendons, much less of pressure points. I do not fault them for this as one doesn't know what one doesn't know. It had been many years in mainstream karate that such concepts were unknown, being lost over the years of sport karate and teachers passing down their limited knowledge, although there are numerous exceptions to this. Only if the practitioner has had the idea that more existed and took the effort to delve into these things themselves, or found a knowledgable sensei would they get the full picture.
 
So how did karate guys get out of the way of punches before they started putting their arms in the way?

And who was the genius who went. You know this grip break move we do? Well someone punched me the other day and I did that and his punch missed. So like Mabye we should do that from now on.
 
OK, so looks like there's no evidence for my weapon theory, it's really a cultural misunderstanding. Which I guess is not entirely surprising when something drifts from Okinawa to Japan and then to the US in such a short amount of time.

Thanks to everyone who provided useful info.

Btw, the origin of my defense-against-weapons theory is European sword play, where it was common to wrap one's cloak around the non-dominant arm to intercept an opponent's rapier (fun fact: that's the origin of the phrase "cloak and dagger")
 
So how did karate guys get out of the way of punches before they started putting their arms in the way?

And who was the genius who went. You know this grip break move we do? Well someone punched me the other day and I did that and his punch missed. So like Mabye we should do that from now on.

I'm not sure I understand the question. What I always did was train my guys with every method of blocking and evading that I knew, methods that were handed down from Professional Fighters of note.

I'd let them decide which was best for them by fighting and drilling. That teaches you pretty quickly.
 
So I quite enjoy the YouTube videos of Shanghai-based MMA coach Ramsay Dewey.

Recently he posted a series of videos about karate blocking, starting with how they aren't actually blocks, followed by one about offensive applications of the same movements. The latter is reminiscent of a similar series on KarateCulture about applications of these "blocks". Now while I feel like these applications are perfectly valid, they don't fully explain why these movements were called "blocks" in the first place if they weren't used to block attacks.

As an analogy, consider tennis shoes. Sure you can wear them for running or play basketball as well as for tennis, but if you were to tell me they were never used for tennis, I'd feel further explanation were in order. It just doesn't satisfy Occam's Razor, and I suspect the only reason we don't pick up on the cognitive dissonance is that MMA has primed us to dismiss TMA in general as irrational.

My theory is that karate blocks are indeed blocks, just not blocks against punches. Think about it: karate was developed long before the arrival of western guns, on an island full of poor fishermen. According to the Karate Nerd, the kobudo oar was commonly trained in tandem with empty-handed karate. So maybe karate blocks are optimized for blocking an opponent wielding a kobudo, or similar bludgeon weapon.

Against such an attack, it makes sense to use traditional blocks. A bludgeon is easier to anticipate but harder to evade than punches, and extending your arm forward will arrest the movement earlier in its arc, before it's acquired dangerous momentum. It also explains the use of knife-hand blocks, to grasp the weapon and try to wrest control. It's not that karate is useless in combat, it's that it's optimized for a scenario that occurs much less frequently.

If this theory is correct, then the use of blocks for old-school karate is actually quite akin to how traditional European sword fighting, where rapiers were slow and heavy enough (think Princess Bride in slow motion) that the left arm wrapped in one's cloak could be used to intercept attacks.

What do folks think - does this theory hold water?

I don't think those blocks make much sense against bladed weapons, but you do raise an interesting point about not being against punches. Since there is no guard, no head movement, really nothing that could be considered defense to boxing, the intent wAS probably never was to defend against boxing.. and this is one of the big weaknesses of Karate, that it is overly reliant on footwork.
 
the intent wAS probably never was to defend against boxing.. and this is one of the big weaknesses of Karate, that it is overly reliant on footwork.
Boxing is just as reliant on footwork as karate is. All martial arts rely on their footwork, though their footwork may be different.
 
Boxing is just as reliant on footwork as karate is. All martial arts rely on their footwork, though their footwork may be different.

There is no close range pugilism in Karate.
 
Okinawa? You aren't allowed to strike more than once in Japanese face punching Karate

I train American Karate. You’re allowed to punch all you want, where you want, at any distance you want, including grappling.

As for Okinawan Karate, all the Okinawan guys I’ve trained with, and there’s a ton and a half of them, do the same thing when we spar.

As do the Koyokushin guys. I realize one will always read that there is no face contact in Kyokushin Katate. Apparently all the Koyokushin guys I’ve know never read that. Every one of them loves to fight and loves to punch in the face. They all do it quite well, too.
 
I train American Karate. You’re allowed to punch all you want, where you want, at any distance you want, including grappling.

As for Okinawan Karate, all the Okinawan guys I’ve trained with, and there’s a ton and a half of them, do the same thing when we spar.

As do the Koyokushin guys. I realize one will always read that there is no face contact in Kyokushin Katate. Apparently all the Koyokushin guys I’ve know never read that. Every one of them loves to fight and loves to punch in the face. They all do it quite well, too.

Really? We have a boxing trainer in this forum who likened training Kyokushin guys to drowning a cat in water...
 
Really? We have a boxing trainer in this forum who likened training Kyokushin guys to drowning a cat in water...

First time I ever saw a Martial Arts competition was in the Boston Arena. It was predominantly two schools, a Greek Goju school and a Koyokushin school from Japan.

It was held in a boxing ring of all things. Four judges in the corners outside the ring with flags. Continuous fighting, no gloves. And a scorer sat ringside.

It was an absolute blood bath. They were all Martial dignified, but they were all crazy. It was nuts and great to watch.

What impressed me the most was how cordial they were to each other after what looked like attempted murder to my young eyes.
 
There is no close range pugilism in Karate.
This is incorrect. Even Shotokan is full of close range punching and other nastiness. Funakoshi, the founder of the system taught the down block as a throw... where you step your forward foot behind your opponents feet and the "block" knocks him backwards over your knee.
 
There is no close range pugilism in Karate
Okinawa? You aren't allowed to strike more than once in Japanese face punching Karate

How can anyone be active on this site and yet be so uninformed?

Both these statements are grossly incorrect. Karate was designed specifically in Okinawa as a close range fighting system. That's why it teaches elbows, knees, takedowns, grabs and stomping leg attacks. You must be viewing karate thru the very narrow lens of sport competition and know nothing of the actual art.

In every tournament or sparring session I've ever been in the head is the main target. In point sparring, you may get disqualified if you strike too hard to the opponent's face more than once, as those matches allowed "kiss contact" only. I've been "kissed" hard a few times and usually returned it in kind - have never been in a match that resulted in disqualification. Kyokushin is another animal entirely, and IMHO (based what I've seen,) a degrading of the karate art as its reliance seems to be on pure power and aggression over technique and finesse.

BTW, I've never heard of "Japanese face punching karate." Doesn't sound like a style I'd enjoy.
 

Latest Discussions

Back
Top