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?
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?