It wasn't intended that way no, so if that is how it comes across my apologies, it can be more difficult to express intent in writing than in speech.
just to be cheeky and annoying, how high-percentage is the standard inwards parry with the palm considered? because, you know, teisho-uke
I did explain previous posts. They only work in the dojo when a) your attacker attackers from six feet away with unrealistic attacks and b) when you know what attack is coming. In the street you want get attacked form six feet away, you will get attacked from arms length and you won't know what is coming, or when it's coming. There is no bell to tell you it's about to go from arguing to punching. But don't take my word for it, after all who am I? No one, but when people eminently more qualified than myself say so, I tend to listen. [ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYDUokmMcLI"]Ying and Yang of KarateSeminar Vol.2 with Ian Abernethy - YouTube[/ame] I have done enough Randori to know from personal experience that this bears true. He could also be wrong of course, but the only way to find out is to wait until there is someone at arms length who wants to glass you because you have spilt his pint, and only then will you know if you have time to spot an attack coming, correctly identify it, select the appropriate block, and execute it before he makes contact with you.
It might be helpful if you could define what you mean by 'blocking' here and whether you mean employing the Uke techniques specifically for that purpose. I had a long debate with someone on another forum about this. As with everything in Karate (and MA, and self defence) context is everything.
That's not an explanation of why they dont work in fighting, that is a statement of your opinion of when they do work. E.g. Lasers are ineffective at wounding because the air absorbs most of the energy. That is an explanation of why something doesn't work well. Why don't blocks work except at 6 feet away in a dojo? John, for my part I mean use of the techniques commonly labelled as uke techniques involving use of the forearm to deflect, crush or otherwise prevent one's self from being hit. Most who persist with stating they don't work limit the definition to the most foundational practice movements as seen in shotokan's 3 and 5 step kumite practice. This is a false argument ( a straw man if you will) because those usages have only ever been training not application.
also, i second john's request for a definition of what everyone means when they say blocks. i use the term out of sheer laziness to refer to any defensive motion with a limb, including both formal kihon blocks and applied "don't get hit" stuff (incl. soft parries)
Firstly, I seem to remember a thread was specifically created in OSS called "There are no blocks in karate" to challenge this statement that I continually made (and did in my own defence explain elsewhere on the site) numerous times. I believe I did respond in that thread and explain at length. Secondly, I am at work, and writing in a hurry, so if the tone offends I apologise it is not my intention to upset people or fall out with anyone. I also don't expect people to agree with me (hell the world would be a boring place if we all agreed). but I have been asked to explain, so here goes.... Full contact fighting isn't the same as civilian violence. Consensual tests of skill between trained fighters take place in a ring/cage and the participants bob and weaver out of arms reach of each other, darting in and out of contact range to score points. The original question was regarding Karate blocks. I simply pointed out they are not blocks, becasue karate was created for civilian self protection, not sparring or fighting. Has it been adapted for this purpose, yes it has, but the fact remains these techniques are not, and where not created as, blocks. if someone is "in your face" telling you they are going to glass you becasue you have spilt there pint it stands to reason there is not time to spot the attack coming, correctly identifying it, select the appropriate response, and then execute it before you get hit. You would not create a system for "in your face" civilian violence and then include into it blocks for sparring when sparring has no place in civilian violence and won't be added into your system until the early part of the 20th Century. You simply wound's include techniques for one thing when you are trying create a system for dealing white something else. As for me not explaining things in OSS I don't have to explain it. You have to explain why it is a block. Occams Razor tells us that we should accept the version of events that makes the least amount of assumptions and the burden of proof is then on the other explanation to justify why their version of events makes the assumptions it does. If Age Uke is a block, then why is the other hand on the hip? No one has a reasonable explanation, so it is assumed it is "being chambered". Explain this assumption. If it is not a block, but instead you are grabbing the hand of an assailant who is gesticulation in your face, and pulling him onto you Age Uke which is directed to the most vulnerable part of the human body (throat/neck, then we have an explanation of why both hands are doing what they are doing, we have not made assumption about a hand we have no explanation for. The burden of proof is on you to explain why the non blocking hand is coming back to the hip. If the movement is a block, it would make more sense to pull the other hand back to your chin like a boxer to protect your chin from blows which could render you unconscious. It serve no purpose at the hip. Again, Karate was created for civilian self protection which takes place at arm length or closer. There is not the time to block. Sparring and consensual test of skill between trained martial artists have only been added to MA in the last 120 years or so. There are no blocks in karate. I have explained why Itosu disguised the movements as blocks when he introduced karate into schools. I have explained why they are not blocks and why they don't work as blocks in "the street". And I to be honest, I am starting to bore myself now as well as everyone else (here we see why I tend not to read threads after I have posted in them, I end up spending the rest of the day having to spell everything) If anyone wishes to continue to discuss this further I am happy to do so, but please PM me as I don't have the time to keep replying to everyone here, thanks
I think I understand you. I believe Karate Uke techniques work exceptionally well. I don't think they work particularly well (as they are often taught) in stopping/deflecting trained attacks such as straight punches (of any flavour) or kicks at full speed against a non pre-arranged attack.
No, it's an explanation of why they don;t work in civilian self protection. Civilian self precipitation and fighting are not the same thing. karate was created to deal with one, not the other.
I think you are saying things that are accepted by the majority of the long standing members of this karate forum. The issue is the word block and what people mean by it. In my first book (and my early magazine articles) I made the decision to translate Uke as 'Receiver' and have used this for the English ever since.
I actually meant that the sweeping action (generally open handed) seen by many as the 'prep' motion for Down Sweep or Knife Hand Receiver can be used very easily as an open handed parry (though I prefer a nice diagonal upward forearm strike).
That awkward moment when what started as an Age Uke looks more like a Gedan Barai due to the response of the Uke.
Aside from pankration, the various muay traditions, wrestling as interpreted by countless different cultures, lei tai, etc., sure. Consensual tests of skill between trained martial artists are about as old and martial arts are. Replying to PM takes more time than replying here. And there's no reason for the discussion not to take place here in the public eye. If you don't feel yo have the time or inclination to continue, that's fine. You're under no obligation.
well, to be fair, a similar motion is used for some instances of juji-uke in the kata (the one in heian yondan basically starts with a jodan soto-uke )
To OP: The article states that someone used traditional karate to beat an opponent, then provided a video, so of course I agree with him that someone won distinctly with karate. When he said "win the day" I assume of course that he meant that particular fight. I agree that the techniques were clinical karate, perfect display. However, this is not the norm. At the highest level heavy karate style has to be used in conjunction with other strking martial arts, and hands should really be held high. I would never advocate a fighter dropping their hands. It is risky and not always rewarding. I also argue against using lunge punches, they can end badly for the person executing them. There is a thread in the ninjutsu forum on that very topic. To summarise; Karate good, hands low bad. Lunging is very bad. At the highest level of MMA, karate is more of a "flare" style, rather than a base.
i would go further and say that for MMA (hell, for fighting as well, but with different parameters), any style at all will be flair, whereas what actually comprises the base is timing, structure, distancing, reactions etc (ie the physical and mental attributes that occupy a more fundamental level than technique does), since it's those things that will allow you to adequately perform at striking range in a way with which you're comfortable, be that boxing, krotty, kung fu, tkd, kickboxing, muay thai or whatever.
