Do Shotokan blocks work?

You argued that I would believe your sensei's interpretation of the movements if I saw him demonstrate and explain them, but the problem to me is that there are so many different claims out there as to what the techniques are for, so how do you know?

So you make a point of mentioning that he tested his techniques in the England sports college, but it's not about your teacher being better than mine?

No I'm not, I'm talking about a lot of mainstream karate that I have either trained in or experienced. I have also heard former practitioners of styles of karate other than those I studied voice the same complaints that I made.

If you're going to accuse me of being closed minded just because I have an opinion then I'm not going to discuss with you anymore. I think I'm right, you think you're right, that's why we disagree, so don't try and take the moral high ground by pointing out that I think I'm right.

 

I now do judo and MMA. I feel strongly about this because the majority of my training thus far has been in karate.

 

I don't like your tone here because I resent the accusation that I'm putting people down. Nowhere have I said that I don't have respect for people who do karate, I just don't agree with much of karate's training methodology.

I also disagree with the use of the term "short-cut" here, because it implies that someone who uses a more efficient method is cutting corners and not doing things properly in order to get a quicker result rather than a more effective one. My argument is not that instructors should cut corners, but that they shouldn't deliberately use methods that take longer and don't produce a more effective end result if effectiveness is the aim.

Why thankyou for enlightening me on that one Jang Bong. See, I stupidly thought that the question posed was "do shotokan blocks work?", seeing as that's the title of the thread and all. If you don't train for effectiveness and consequently aren't interested in this issue, then there's no reason for you to be offended or even to read the thread at all.

If you believe I'm entitled to my opinion, and also to my right to voice it, you will do me the courtesy of not constantly accusing me of trying to ram it down people's throats. Either you want to debate or you don't.

Then don't read it. If you can't handle people disagreeing with you and choose to read too deeply into what I'm saying then that's your problem not mine. The title of this thread is "do shotokan blocks work", and I'm sorry if it offends you that I believe they don't, but an internet forum is not an intrusive medium and you're not being forced to read my opinions.

P.S. to avoid further confusion, "man on a mission" is simply a nickname I gained among my mates years ago and has nothing to do with my views on martial arts.

 

This is what I mean. Why should there be so much confusion and disagreement among instructors as to the purpose of the techniques and drills?

 

My apologies. I was just reading back over this thread and realised that I hadn't answered this question.

As for low stances being a historical throwback, well I've not seen any evidence to support that idea. My understanding is that they originally arose in the Shotokan camp during the 1930's onwards. If you look at pictures of people doing Shorin Ryu Karate before that time the stances are always higher than the modern Shotokan stances, sometimes much higher. The genuine Shorin Ryu schools extant at the moment also seem to suggest the same thing. Some have what Shotokan practitioners would call ludicrously high stances.

As for leg strengthening historically, I dare say there were various methods. We know that iron geta (clogs) were used. Also, many Shorin Ryu schools consider Naihanchi (the forerunner of Tekki) to be a 'fundamental' kata which develops leg strength amongst other attributes. Naihanchi is to the Shorin styles what Sanchin is to the Goju styles. And indeed, the ways I've been taught to do the Naihanchi stance it is most certainly hard work on the legs. It definitely develops strength in various leg muscles. And perhaps we can see here the origin of the 'deep stances to make your legs stronger' myth. Students of Naihanchi kata were told to keep practicing it and it would strengthen their legs. It seems likely that some students of the later Tekki kata were sometimes told the same thing. But by this time the kata had changed so much that the leg strengthening value of the stance wasn't the same any more. The kibadachi stance used in Tekki completely changes the dynamic of both the stance and the kata. Although the arm movements look similar, its simply not the same kata.

Mike

 

This is the first video of naihanchi that google returned to me. As far as I could make out the only difference is that he's stepping into shiko dachi rather than kiba dachi. Likewise, here is a gif of Choki Motubu performing naihanchi, in which he's using a high kiba dachi. [Edit: here's the shotokan version for anyone who isn't familiar]

What are the changes that you refer to?

 

Timmy Boy
There seems to be something missed here ( I think I have also miss some points myself )
When I was talking about my teacher, there is not just one way for technics to work ( Patrick McCarthy says the same thing ), the technics looks the same but is different depending where and when it is used.
What I was saying about other teachers was that alot have been taught the modern way of doing karate and have just passed on what they where taught.
With the old drills ( some of the two man drills ) you would have been tested (eg your stances and blocks ) under pressure and up close, this had been losed.
Paul Perry has spent some years comparing Shotokan technics with old chinese MA and seeing how things where changed.
As for the long stances, I think you might find that it was the grand son of Funakoshi that started the long stances and there got longer over time.
I was not saying my teacher is better than yours at all but that like Funakoshi said him self that karate has to change, he has used science to help us improve what we do ( that was what I wanted you all to see )
I hope this is clearer

 

IO also said that you where right in some of the things you said ,
I could see you point but it seems you have missed mine.
I understand that you are looking at this from what you have seen ( Bruce Lee also was new for his time )

 

Anyway, on the question about blocks...

As I see it, there are a number of ways of not being hit:
(i) Avoid the blow (dodge it, step offline, run away, etc.).
(ii) Strike back before it hits you (a front kick or a spoiler).
(iii) Deflect or stop the blow (ie. block it).

(Of course, each method would be followed by a counter of some sort, be it a strike back, a throw, or whatever.)

By the above, the aim of a block is to stop/deflect the punch/kick that is coming towards you and so prevent it hitting you.
Are the replies suggesting that Shotokan blocks cannot stop or deflect a strike that is coming your way?

 

The first video you cite looks like Roy Hobbs if I'm not mistaken. Having looked at this and other video clips of his kata they appear to be influenced heavily by Shotokan. Certainly this rendition is closer to the Shotokan version than it is to any Shorin version I've seen. Motobu's version is much more like it. But what you're missing in the animated gif is the stylistic difference in performance. Shorin versions usually look decidedly more 'whipping' than their Shotokan counterparts. This is only made possible by the higher stance, it wouldn't be possible in a deep kibadachi. You'll note there's very little difference between the hand movements in the Shotokan and Shorin versions. The important differences are in how the hands/arms get into position, rather than what the final positions are. Also something of interest, I think Motobu's version would be considered to be using a rather deep stance by Shorin standards. Much deeper and it may become impossible to practice correctly.

Mike

 

Ah, ok! Interesting stuff!

 

It seems to me that between us all we’re managing to polarise this discussion - we each state our position but no-one actually learns from the experience. If I may summarise the discussion so far it seems that are 4 possible camps that we could each belong to:

1. I don’t believe that basic Shotokan blocks actually work as blocks against realistic attacks.

2. I do believe that basic Shotokan blocks actually work as blocks against realistic attacks

3. I believe that basic Shotokan blocks can work as blocks against realistic attacks, but need modifying in order to do so.

4. I don’t believe that basic Shotokan blocks actually work as blocks against realistic attacks, but I do believe that they teach principles of value in learning how to block or how to apply other martial techniques.

Well we know that at least one of our number is in camp 1 (guess that’s you Timmy).

I doubt that anybody here seriously believes that camp 2 is viable. In order to demonstrate this you would need to be able to do both the chamber and the block, just as you do in your kihon, against a realistic attack - not a formal stepping back into gedan-barai then stepping forwards into oi-zuki. Heck, I’ve never seen anyone demonstrate basic form during free-sparring, never mind against realistic attacks. Does anyone actually hold this viewpoint?

Camp 3 - you accept that the kihon needs some modification to make it work. This begs a couple of questions - Why do you do it one way in basics and another in reality? Why not alter your basics to fit reality?

Camp 4. You believe that the basic blocks need to be modified to work in reality, but you think that practising the basic version benefits the student in some way, perhaps in terms of teaching some relevant principles or conditioning the body in some way. This is the camp I fall into, several other people have indicated something similar. But I do have some questions for my camp-mates.

1. What exactly does practising the basic kihon uke’s teach a student? Or more accurately, what does it teach that practising actual workable blocks wouldn’t teach equally well?

2. Do you engage in formal pairs work in which the basic uke’s are used as blocks? If you do, why? Would that not be the appropriate point at which to practice the principle(s) taught by the movement, rather than slavishly performing the whole movement? Would it not be more appropriate to leave the kihon movements as solo exercises either practiced individually or via kata? If you do depart from the basic form at a different point in training, can you say what that point is and why that is chosen as the point of departure.

And last question…does that all makes sense?

Mike

 

I guess they are of some value in terms of at least teaching you to block an attack. If you, as bassai said, start shotokan with no prior fighting knowledge, the idea of blocking an attack is a strange new idea so I can see the point of doing it in "slow motion" to begin with to get the hang of the concept. For about one lesson, anyway. What I don't understand is why shotokan practitioners have to use the slower, more impractical and more complicated technique in order to do this.

 

We do formal pairs work and do it to get the body working as one unit ( not just arms and legs but together )
I am taught that up to black belt you are learning to use your body and after that you start to learn karate ( this is when are movements start to change ).
My teacher has been training fror about 35 years and he is still changing his movements ( by Paul Perry ).
The basic movements are used like a chain for us. if a link is weak or missing then the chain is not as strong as it can be. This is how I see it and it is not just what I am told, we are shown it working too.
We had one guy that came to train with us that had got a kicking from some guys for no reason.

He found it hard not to look at the floor at all times but after some time you could see him get more self confidence, I am not say that on one else could do this But I think doindg the drill this way helped him
We also do the paired drills that Patrick McCarthy as brought to light too ( more to do with real life )
i hope this is clear
When it comes to it we use what we see as usefully no matter where it comes from as I would guess you all do

 

Yes!

Tang Soo Do basic form 1 = Karate kihon kata (we also have a basic form 2 & 3). We will sometimes do these forms 4 times:

1) Slow, no power, perfect form - start position, end position, hip twist, etc.
2) Slow, full power, perfect form.
3) Fast as possible, no power, form is less than perfect but more usable.
4) Fast, full power, speed is of the essence.

I'm not an instructor, but I can imagine that by revisiting perfect techique, the more that technique can influence real-speed operation. If you only practice version (4) then you never re-set yourself to checking technique.

As adults, for 1-step sparring, we are a lot less 'formal' that I've seen in a karate class. The attacker punches without warning, the defender has hands casually around belt level. This compares with the very formal 5-step / 3-step sparring that I've only seen done by a karate class of 5-12 year olds. While we are all discussing the 'right' or 'effective' way of learning, I think we need to keep in mind who the students are (age, ability, experience) - different methods for different groups.

 

Understood, but it still unclear to me that you need to use the full kihon to get the body working as one unit. Do you, for example, need to a full hikite to the hip to get the body to act as one unit? I don't believe that you do.

Although I can see where you're coming from I'm in total disagreement with this approach. I try to give students something in their first lesson that they could go out with and actually use. Do your students really buy into the idea that you won't even start teaching them any self-defence until they've got to dan grade? I know mine wouldn't. I also disagree with the basic premise. I find that students get a much better idea of correct mechanics and dynamics if they can see and feel practical examples of them at work. Their mind remembers these lessons and their body also remembers.

Only if every link of the chain is actually relevant. I'd rather talk specifics though, rather than analogies. We can each slant analogies to support our views, but it doesn't really prove anything. Can you give specific examples of what you mean?

Fair enough, but I'm sure I could think of plenty of other valid ways of teaching him workable technique and increasing his confidence at the same time. I think that's more to do with the style/manner of learning than it is to do with the actual subject matter.

Mike

 

Forgive my ignorance, or perhaps lack of reading comprehension, but while I understand that you need a starting point for beginners to teach them how to move their body etc, I still don't see an explanation for why you have to use impractical techniques to do this when other arts manage to start with the correct technique. Is it just a case of "yeah well that's just how we do it"?

 

Timmy Boy
It is hard to see how I can show you on this forum of what I am talking about .
I do completely understand the what you think about this but I think you all might see it a little different if you saw Paul Perry a work and trained with him.
( I could be wrong but I dont think I would be )
At this time I put my hands up as how to do this from what you all have see before ( which i know mtself can be bad, it took me 3 months of looking to find a club I was happy with when my old club closed and that is here where I am now )
I have enjoyed and still will enjoy this discustion.
Happy training all