Isn't it a bit odd to be talking about blocks in Shotokan? There are none. 'Uke' is not 'block', it's 'recieve'.
Well, I have to disagree again, I am afraid. The "replacement blocks" you mentioned were actually something else before Funakoshi simplified them into block motions. In Kempo they were movements that addresse attacks while striking at the same time; something that is entirely lost in Shoto-Kan. They deflect using cumbersome blocks that use more muscular strength than is necessary in order to deflect. Then, with a pause, they return a strike, thus giving the opponent much needed time to react. Certainly less than idea in a real fight. Why not hit them while deflecting and wasting almost no energy in the process. No blocks in Shoto-Kan means that just about everything in the style can be adapted to be a strike, largely because if you are going to waste that much energy anyway it may as well BE a strike. I have fought experienced Shoto-Kan people and generally they have great heart, excellent strength, but do not know a thing about evasion. They drive forward without regard for the results. It only works well against inexperienced fighters and other Shoto-Kan fighters, which is why Shoto-Kan tournaments are generally closed to other styles. Sorry... -Chris J.
Well, I think we have an impasse - as I believe you're wrong. Still fair play - no harm in a civilized argument. If this were in General Discussion we'd have been buried under lots of cursing and macho nonsense by now.
many moons ago when I did shotokan, my instructor always told me "block to break". Regardless of what you want to call them,blocks or not,my instructor did block and he did it with great force! It was his philisophy "to make you not want to do that again". and it worked! I couldn't lay a hand or kick on him without regretting it. And he wouldn't punch back! So in my book and training,YES, they were blocks! and they hurt!
Do Shotokan Blocks Work? My answer is YES......if you time it just right, if you don't, then it won't work as well. However, that goes for any art that teaches blocks. Now what you want to achieve perhaps is what I'd call a "transition"...whereas if you miss with you block, that you are studied well enough to turn your missed block into a parry/slip, and at the same time understand moving your body out of the path of an on-coming strike in conjunction of the block/parry/slip.......
I think it is a mistake to take any technique and define it in only one way. To say a 'block' is only used to stop one technique -- the high block is used when someone is striking down toward your head, for example -- is to lose the richness of the technique. I taught my beginners the 'high block' by having them perform the technique as though san attacker were striking down toward their head. I also taught the 'low punch' to be performed as though one were striking their attacker's groin. At a later point in their training they would learn that there are many interpretations for any given technique. Blocks became strikes and often the target of the strikes they learned as beginners would change. The original technique, however would change very little, if at all. The interpretation changed, not the physical technique. For example, a beginner would drill on their punches, performing strikes to the head, the solar plexus, and the groin. An advanced student might see the same techniques as strike to the head, strike to the head, and strike to the head. It all comes down to how the student envisions their attacker at the moment the student delivers the punch.
Of cource shotokan blocks work like any other karate form there bound to work or they wouldn't use them.
I have always been told by my teachers that the original blocks you do as basics change alot when applied in sparring or self defence. Along with that I have also done drills based entirely around evasion we were not aloud to block. As its constantly said it depends enirely on the practioner and to some extent their teacher. PS. I have decided to stick with shotokan after looking around at different styles it turns this is what felt best for me
Curious, I've realized the same thing at our dojo. Shotokan is a very "big" style of karate. Subtle it ain't. Big techniques, deep stances, lots of hip rotation, lots of power. But those are the basics. Move beyond the kihon into a kumite or sparring situation and these big basic blocks become heavily modified to deal with whatever attack comes in. Watch a Shotokan karateka train basics and watching that same karateka spar and you will probably be surprised at the difference. Do Shotokan blocks work? Sure they do. Who says they don't?
Hi Guys, I'm not sure of the level of experience in the posts, but I figured I should comment. I have been training in Shotokan Karate for 19 years now and over those years I have found it to be the most mis-interpreted and most mis-understood art of the lot. This is usually from people who have taken classes of a couple of years or less. The point to emphasise here is that what most people talk about when they are talking about Shotokan is only what is taught at a lower level. While it is quite a linear style, at higher levels, students are taught the benefits of lateral movement. Similarly, while we often teach that blocks are used as an attack, you must understand that this is simply and added benefit to the power of the block. It is a block first and foremost. Also, for those that believe that soft or sweeping blocks are not a part of Shotokan is mistaken. Once again, these are a part of it, but are generally not taught a whole lot until the higher grades. To understand this fully, you must understand the origins of Shotokan. Shotokan was designed for peasents that were prone to attack from "Vagabonds" (rebels). These rebels would come in with massive herds and therefore the odds were far against the peasents, so they developed a style that was quick and to the point, hence the block is an attack and therefore only necessitates one or two movements before enabling them to combat the next opponent. (as opposed to other styles that were designed more for 1 on 1 combat or 1 on 2 etc, not one on 10 or 20). In addition to this, Shotokan followed a couple of theories of science. The first of these is "Train the 90% scenario 90% of the time". So because the most common issue they faced was multiple attackers, this is the first situation they were taught to handle. It was only after they mastered this that they were taught some of the other principle that can be very useful if you have a little more time to spare. The other part of science (quite advanced at the time) was the use of muscle workouts. It was realised that working the muscles hard had a positive outcome and this is where the deep stances came from (a common mis-conception is that Shotokan practitioners fight from this deep stance). So that should help clear things up for those unsure (I hope). As to weather or not a Shotokan block will work or not against a kick or punch.... find yourself an experienced Shotokan practioner (not someone with just a few years experience) and give it a try. In regards to complimenting Judo, yes and no. I don't believe they compliment eachother as such, I believe they contrast eachother, which in the context of combat is the ultimate compliment.
during my brief dabble in karate when I was taking a break from TKD, I picked up something important about blocks. As I was told and as I believe now, blocks do not neccessarily have to stop a punch/kick dead cold. But rather, as long as it doesn't hit you, it's a successful block. However, should the situation require it, all blocks CAN be used as attacks as well. With that in mind, I've been using blocks to redirect blows ever since. Against jabs I try to knock the opponent's arm off to my side. Against side/front kicks I attempt to push the opponent off balance. Against roundhouses....well...those I evade or bring my leg up to absorb the inevitable impact XD
I'm afraid I'm inclined to agree with Chris J's analysis. Gichin Funakoshi made significant to the art that he had learnt to produce what became known as Shotokan. What were those modifications and why were they made? Well, its fairly clear from his writings (and the social context of the time) that self-defence wasn't really an issue he was concerned about. The emphasis was on creating a new dynamic martial system which could produce fit, strong, hard working members of society (particularly useful for Japan's growing war machine at the time). And hence you have Shotokan, a method of building the character and physique loosely (and only really very loosely) based on an earlier self-defence tradition. I've personally found the standard Shotokan 'blocks' only work as such as when the attacks are in the formal long distance ippon-kumite method of training. And I know a number of high grade Shotokan practitioners who would agreed with me on that. The fact some Shotokan people have made their techniques work in real life is, I think, a testament to the diligence of their training over the years, rather than the effectiveness of the techniques themselves. Mike
This is still based on the premise that a shotokan practitioner would respond to an attack with a big, over-extended age-uki or fully telegraphed soto-uke. Most instructors I've spoken to will happily admit that you would never use these moves in their 'training' form in a self defence situation - I wonder if this is actually what the people you have spoken to were saying too? These "big" techniques are, as you say, designed as built-in 'dynamic tension' exercises with the intention of working on a students' physique in a karate-relevant manner.
No, I'm pretty clear that's not what they were saying. They were saying that these blocks simply don't. I think they were agreeing with my own understanding is that these movements are multi-purpose tools. They contain a kernel of effective blocking practices, but the blocks are not the same as the basic techniques. But then these high grade Shotokan people are no longer diehard Shotokan traditionalists - but no-one can say they haven't been there and got a good understanding of what Shotokan is about. You don't need to practice a basic inward block to learn how to block a blow inwards. To do that, you want to practice a block that is as close as possible to how you'd do it in real life. I fail to see the value in learning to do something one way in training, only to attempt to do it another way in reality. So why train in the basic 'uke's? To train in powerful multi-purpose ways of generating power. Jodan-uke is no more a block than it is a strike, a choke, a throw or a joint-lock, IMO. But the principles it teaches can be used to achieve any of these. I'm pretty sure I didn't say that and I certainly wouldn't agree with it, unless you are working the techniques against some actual resistance - which is something a do myself using an elastic theraband. Not wishing to sound antagonist, but those are my beliefs, so I'm obliged to voice them, and I'm certainly not talking from a position of complete ignorance regarding traditional karate. Mike
Certainly wasn't accusing you of ignorance - I'm well aware that you're much more experienced in karate than I am. I do note that the demonstrations of blocks video-ed on your website aren't all that different from the way I've seen them performed by shoto people under similar circumstances though - e.g. the short, open-handed chudan barai used in self defence rather than the full chambered block from zenkutsu dachi e.g. . My own opinion is also that the extent by which Funakoshi's karate differs from the modern forms of other styles is not as great as some people say. The differences (longer stances, minor move alterations like a straight forearm shuto etc) are not "toning down" of moves or stylizations designed for form over function so much as different applications (e.g. to me a straight forearm shuto makes much more sense that a bent wrist, as found in ****o ryu for example, in terms of structural strength). I hope you don't take my disagreement as disrespect - none is intended!
I've noticed that in a lot of the big chambered blocks, the end motion won't be the deflection, but the chamber will. For example, when executing a left-hand Shuto-uke (knife hand block): the left hand comes across the face while the right hand stabs out (the chamber). The left hand then comes out in front of the body while the right hand retracts (the block). The way this was explained to me, the actual parry/block comes to play as the left hand chambers across the body. At the same time, you have the the right hand punching out as a counter attack. From here, you have the left hand coming back out as a follow up (chopping the side of the neck). It's hard to explain, but perhaps you get the idea. Remember, Shotokan techniques may look big and bulky and unrealistic, but there are no wasted movements. Only movements we can't see. ^_~
Perhaps read my previous post again. These were done for the purpose of conditioning and fitness. At the time, this was the best method known to Gichin to increase the physical prowess of it's practitioners. For example, that's like saying, why do pushups if you cant fight face down in a push up position. Pushups were never intended to be fought from, and neither were they "basic" stances of shotokan. These (and the blocks) were developed to promote physical prowess and increase the awareness of the proprio-ceptors (spelling?). The fact that these were based on the combat techniques that were taught later in the style was simply to make the exersizes relevant and at least the students could learn some principles while doing them. While I understand that not all will agree, my opinion is that anyone who claims to have a full understanding of Shotokan while at the same time denies it's combat effectiveness, does not actually have a full understanding of Shotokan..... regardless of the time spent studying the art. (PS - I'm not entirely biased, I do train in multiple arts)
