I'm struggling to think of ways to phrase myself better without giving a physical demonstration. Context, context, context! You are deflecting the attacks, I don't question that. What I'm saying is that at speed, unless we are going into reflex actions due to the suddenness and proximity of the stimuli, what we do is push to the left a bit, push to the right a bit, push down, push up. All of those are natural movements, they do not require training. In fact one of the worst things we do in martial arts is take someone who can do that and say to them, no you must do this instead, and for a long time as a result we actually reduce their ability to effectively avoid being hit because they will try and do something that is harder than the natural movement when they don't yet have the reaction time or observational ability to do so. If you have an open hand and something comes in that you would naturally slap to the side with a little movement, you do so with an open hand. If your hand is closed before you do so, you will naturally do so with a closed hand. So if your hand is closed you will do something that looks closer to Ude Uke, Gedan Barai, Age Uke etc. You may even have been taught - in free sparring this is what 'X' becomes. Yes and No. The instructor says that because they believe it, because they do it, but they aren't really doing those techniques, they are just using natural parrying and swatting motions and their hand happens to be closed in a fist. It is possible they were meant to be that, but highly unlikely. However it is certain that for almost the last 100 years a large proportion of karate systems, especially those that have embraced competitive sparring and its karate versus karate attacks and defences and ranges, have taught and intended them to be like that. What are the arguments for their having a different purpose? Well I covered this in my last book and a few articles, and I know that Iain Abernethy has certainly covered this too, plus there are long point by point arguments on his forum and here with regard to this. Here's a short version: Go back before then to Itosu's letter of 1908 and karate is outlined as having its origins and purpose not in challenge matches but in defence against ruffians. Against HAOV small deflecting and parrying motions are uncommon due to the range of the attacks and the nature of the attacks. To save myself a lot of time, for the first time here is a segment of my next unpublished book: Actually it was meant as a compliment. it means you are moving naturally. The difference between trained and untrained when it comes to parrying/deflecting attacks is simply that the trained person has learned the telegraphs and spots the attack quicker and starts moving quicker (plus has a better trained back up retaliation system). A lot of the time the untrained person will parry and deflect better because he/she has less useless baggage of what they 'could' or 'should' do to overcome.
John your perspective makes sense, but I think you miss some important points. Trying to argue that doing a block is really doing a natural parry misses the point that these oh so unnatural uke methods do work because they are just natural movements with a touch of refining to improve the structural and mechanical function. Martial form actually serves combative purpose. The structures created by the basic blocking techniques as well as the coordination, balance and positioning you are supposed to train with them, are not things an untrained response will have. The blocks serve as platforms from which we launch counter attacks, methods of covering and trapping the opponent, limb destruction methods and unbalancing techniques, all while stopping blows from landing. This is in addition to the kinds of applications you demonstrate, not instead of.
JWT. If I am just moving naturally then why do my "natural" parries happen to look like the finish of the uke? If you are correct and im just moving naturally, then they would just be simple swats with my hand but that's not the case.... They all looked and followed the given path of deflection spelled out for those blocks.. Sorry they were not untrained flinch.. Oh and for the record I asked my Boxer friend. 2x golden gloves and he has been in altercations on the street and he firmly disagrees with you. Oh and the video of the Turkish boxer, disagrees with you as well. Not to mention the most influential martial artist in my life, my father. In his youth he has been in more street fights and more serious self defense's then most people here save Cops. He used deflection, as I was taught, as Dan talks about, as he was taught and it worked. Every time and none of his were pathetic swats..
In my experience, the standard uke forms teach angles and planes of interception and deflection (among other things). When applied as deflections/parries, they are much "smaller" versions of the "formal" basic movements. I've been applying deflections against realistic attacks for more than 3 decades. I make them work reasonably well. I can't imagine having whatever level of skill I have now without learning traditional forms of uke (from karate and the Chinese arts). These have taught me how to "naturally slip and parry". Such skills aren't somehow "ingrained": they need to be learned and practised like any other skill. "Swatting like a beginner" is as far from the pinnacle of the art of deflection/parrying as is the ham-fisted, open chord strumming of a guitar by a beginner from the virtuoso playing of a musical instrument. Assuming that the angle and plane of a deflection/parry need to be taught, I can see why it is prudent to "magnify" them for a student (especially a beginner) so they can be better examined, studied and understood. In other words, use some larger, more formal movements for deflection. The alternative is to persist with teaching the student some tiny circular/sliding movement (which is what applied uke actually become). I have expanded my argument further in this essay: http://dandjurdjevic.blogspot.com.au/2014/08/deflecting-attacks-doesnt-require-any.html
I'm sorry I didn't reply yesterday, I cut my right index finger on a can at an awkward place for typing while washing it for recycling and it kept opening up. Dan Feel free to use my name in your blog, it's John Titchen (as per my signature). I'm happy to stand by what I have said here in the context of how I've said it because like your conclusions, my conclusions are based on a lot of training and a lot of research. I would prefer to have what I've said relayed correctly however! I accept that deflections become more refined and improve with experience, but I'm not (in my posts above) confusing the reflex of flinching and natural 'swatting' etc (reflexive movements, natural movements, and movements trained so often they 'seem reflexive (even though they are not) are not the same thing (even though they may overlap depending on what you train). I stand by what I've said because, and I think you may have omitted this important context when you quoted me in your blog make up the majority of the 'action' in close range combative situations and it is those movements which both full and partial Uke sequences excel at. The weighting of what happens in combative situations (as opposed to sparring) is not a 'guess' and the effectiveness of Karate Uke techniques at dealing with such situations can be demonstrated. I've gone through all my posts in this thread and I never said "there are no blocks in karate" - something that I think Kframe mistakenly attributed to me. I've said and in answer to Kframe's 'does that mean there are no blocks?' question (paraphrased) I said (bold added this time for emphasis as that was a very important caveat). I also said Again the bold bit is important! If you have time please go back and re-read all my posts here rather than the posts where people have said what 'they think' I'm saying, whcih isn't the same thing! Kframe I'm not interested in getting into 'my friend says this" argument. I'll write a further general post about breaking down uke techniques to try and explain better where I'm coming from. What I will say for now once again is that I do not see highly effective movements like 'swatting' as 'pathetic' or necessarily unskilled. I'm not putting a negative perception on these words. Renegade80 I'll reply a bit fuller later. You may have won me over to part of your argument but I still feel it's a stretch. It comes down to what we define as an 'Uke' technique and how much of it remains or is used before we can honestly say we used it (and that applies to what Kframe has said too).
So, it's too difficult to use your palm reliably for parrying, but you can react to a jab by simultaneously poking their eye? Ok.
Who's this aimed at David? This thread is starting to get confusing with the number of straw men thrown up. It's not something I've said. I'm back to one finger typing (index fingertip opened up again, cut must be deeper than I thought) so won't post fully on here until tomorrow at the earliest, but I'm planning to write a concise blog post on my thoughts on Uke techniques (and blocking) to clarify my position and I'll post it here as well.
Sorry John, my fault for not being clear. It wasn't directed at you at all, but in response to Dan's "Bagua 8 Mother Palms" video on the last blog post he linked to : http://dandjurdjevic.blogspot.com.au/2014/08/deflecting-attacks-doesnt-require-any.html [EDIT] From 7'50" in this video: [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0sam6ls188"]Bagua 8 mother palms - YouTube[/ame]
Eh? I use the forearm to establish kinaesthetic awareness. This is well established by the time I've slid down to the hand/palm. From there you make a general thrust to the eyes. Having (unfortunately) done it accidentally more than a few times, I just don't see the issue David.
John, you seem to put a lot of stock in your stand up grappling techniques as being the true reason for the large number of "uke" in karate. I don't see it that way. To me, karate is about avoiding entanglement - including grapping - as much as possible. Uke function not only to deflect punches, but to deflect attempted clinches and grabs. Your applications place you in a range where even an average grappler would have you on the ground in a second. That's my experience fighting grapplers. I don't call myself a grappler, but I've had at least some training in this regard - and a whole lot of experience facing grapplers. For what it's worth, you've inspired another blog entry. I've tried hard not to "misquote" you. The article (in conjunction with my article on civilian defence grappling vs. sports grappling) explains my thinking in detail. http://dandjurdjevic.blogspot.com.au/2014/08/avoiding-clinch-more-on-civilian.html
It is the assumption that you can be fast and accurate enough to react to a jab by thrusting your fingers into your opponent's eyes with a full-body motion, but you cannot be fast or accurate enough to stop a punch with your palm at close range. EDIT: and to add to the point above, you say that people are mistaken in their belief they can grab a jab before it returns, which I'd largely agree with. However, you assume that the person's arm, or indeed their entire body, will hang around long enough for you to "establish kinaesthetic awareness" and slide up their arm. Whereas, I believe, your opponent will already be launching their power punch, or will have moved off-line/out of range before you get a chance to slide up their arm. If their power punch is incoming, you will either have broken your fingers on their skull as you get punched in the face, or you annoy your opponent further by poking them in the eye as they punch you. I'm happy to be proved wrong if you can provide a dynamic example at speed, but this is what I see. It's your logic that I can't follow. I don't have a problem with using forearms to parry/slide/redirect; that's all fine. My only gripe is with the inconsistencies in your authoritative edicts.
Dan, I'll try and answer this in the longer post (once this finger stops opening up). In short, I'm not working at that range because I necessarily want to, I'm working at that range because that's where most situations happens regardless of the skill of the practitioner once you are either 'in' a real civilian self defence situation or accurately recreate one in training. I'm not working from my personal experience here as much as observational data of real events and training events (including the actions of very skilled and experienced 5th, 6th and 7th Dan MA practitioners in scenario training with me). I'm glad that I'm inspiring you to write more content, even if it is to argue against me! Talking and listening (or reading and writing in return) and thinking about why we do what we do and how else we could do it (rather than just doing it because that is how we were taught) can generally only be beneficial. I enjoyed reading and thinking about your last blog even if we are not completely on the same page with our approaches.
I don't think we're in complete disagreement here! I said: I didn't mean grapple a grappler, I meant avoid getting into a wrestling match! When I said stand up grappling I meant doing what I'd said above highlighted in bold. I'll have to leave posting for now, it's too frustrating trying to type holding an index finger in the air.
i for one vote we get dan and john drunk and in the same room, film the results and post them on the MAP youtube account :evil: (with prior consent from all involved parties, of course ) more seriously, though, the results of you guys having a hands-on exchange of methods could be pretty cool, between john's scenario training and special equipment (no, mitch, not THAT special equipment) and dan's expanded options from his experience with a bajillion TMA styles. having trained with john on both of the times i tried to invade england, i can vouch for his stuff not being "oh we're gonna clinch standing upright because screw grappling". it employs karate techniques against specific situations (rather than simply specific attacks) in what is actually a similar way to how i've seen CMA and particularly taiji postures employed, going by the biomechanics and force issuing of the techniques rather than by the actual displacement of the body parts involved (let alone what they¡re nominaly shoehorned as), and so while those involved would be upright if simply showing it without resistance (as in john's photos), the training is entirely free-flowing for both parties within the constraints of the drill, and involve liberal use of sprawling, increases in maai to get out of clinch range, and precisely what you're describing, dan, about trying to disentangle oneself from a situation (he simply uses in many cases the assumption that you've not managed to avoid it pre-emptively, so that you can train what happens if your initial options fail or are simply not used in time).
for reference, this post has a pic showing john applying juji-uke (and me laughing sadistically at the violence involved, as is my habit ): http://www.martialartsplanet.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1074824759&postcount=18
Agreed. I know it's not intentional Dan but you've set me up as a complete straw man here. You've used static photos of a drill from the first edition of my last book without understanding the context of what I'm doing or the nature of the attack and type of attacker envisaged. You've also made assumptions about how I train this stuff and how much it has been tested. The stuff I teach (and am demonstrating there, is the sort of stuff that works in this sort of training: [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6hLJcJNmbo"]Self Defence Scenario Training and Pressure Testing - YouTube[/ame]
That's precisely my point. Your bunkai are aimed at doing things from a clinch/grapple range. Whether you like it or not, if you're in a clinch with a grappler, that is grappling a grappler! Any distinctions you might make are moot to the grappler at this point. A BJJ student of mine shakes his head any time we revisit one of these sorts of karate style forearm etc. releases (because I've done them all for years and years). As far as he's concerned it's just another opportunity for him to pass and get you onto the ground. You push his neck, he slides down and around and has you like clingwrap - even when you've managed to get a sharp blow in. And he never tires of showing me where he can do this to disrupt my application (this is all at my invitation). Believe me, he finds a lot more opportunities to pass me than I ever imagined before training with people like him regularly in the class. So I know you're not trying to grapple a grappler. But I also know that the moment you try these bunkai against a grappler in the grappler's preferred range, you will be grappling - whether you like it or not. And I can usually tell from the stills whether or not someone is experienced in grappling. Unless you adopt a "karate posture" in some photos and a "grappling posture" for others, it is clear that, like most of us karateka, grappling isn't your forte. There's no shame in that. If I'm correct in this assumption, I suggest it is imperative not to let the grappler play to his/her strengths, ie: not let him/her dictate the terms. Because on his/her terms, we stand up fighters are gone - fancy bunkai notwithstanding. Sure, as you observe, you might find yourself in that "grappling range" and need to deal with that. Karate (including uke) can be used for that situation. But this is less than ideal for a karateka; you have to hope that your attacker isn't terribly good at some kind of wrestling. And to maintain that karate uke are mainly about dealing with clinch-range escapes (ie. standing grappling) is still to assume that karate is a kind of grappling art. I think it manifestly isn't; it can't compete with jujutsu etc. Its forte is stand up - specifically controlling what I call the "melee range" (which leads into the grappling range - ie. the clinch). Hence I believe that karate uke are about controlling that melee range and preventing you from being trapped in the grappling range - not pitting your karate grappling against a grappler in a closer range and assuming that it will be good enough to "disengage" you from his grasp. Believe me, once the grappler has you in his grasp, you'd better have some non-karate grappling skills. Because there's no way the karate will deter a good grappler who has his hands on you in a clinch. So it doesn't matter to me whether I'm working off stills or video: the point is that if you feel karate is mostly about such close-range releases, you're happy to fight at the clinch range. It might be subtle, but I believe the range just outside that (I call it the "melee range") is karate's sweet spot. This might not be something I've been able to articulate fully here, but it is my sincere and honest impression gained from personal as well as professional experience. And it is consistent with my cross-referencing of karate with xingyi, bagua, taiji, various shaolin and Filipino arts. You can use all of the uke as releases from a clinch/clinch range environment. But if you choose to make this your focus and relegate uke to mostly this role (rather than examine their role in controlling entry - receiving) then I believe you're not getting to the core of what uke are about. But that's just my view. And I express it because it seems to be very different from yours. Btw - I had you confused with rne02 when it came to the "there are no blocks" statement. I've already made an adjustment to that blog entry. All the best and sorry about the excessive exercise your finger is getting. Maybe we're both learning something from each other. I hope so.
I'm making no such assumptions. Kinaesthesia and proprioception allow you to predict where a body will be in the next moment of time. Arts like arnis/escrima rely on this all the time: you make an initial contact with a slow moving part of the body and this gives you a reference point (at least some reference point) as to where they will be in the next moment. http://dandjurdjevic.blogspot.com/2012/10/kata-kinaesthesia-and-proprioception.html As to the broken fingers, I'm intercepting the punch with my forearm. The finger jab is light - so if the fingers hit the skull, no big deal. It's not a finger jab that's meant to run through the eye sockets. Many civilian defence arts use eye jabs to startle and allow escape - not deal a "death blow".
small detail (although john can clarify in greater detail): john's stuff isn't done at clinch range because he wants to develop anti-grappling; he works with law enforcement info about common methods of attack in great britain, and they occur at that range. this can also be seen in his sim days*, in which "everyday" violent encounters are simulated, and most of which start off verbal provocations exactly at that distance**. his more scripted drills during regular class generally go to the clinch range as a result of the typical attacks that occur in such situations (what he refers to as Habitual Acts Of Violence, or HAOV), as people become, say, entangled after a wild haymaker swing, rather than assuming a trained grappler attacker (and most likely, if trained grappler thugs ever become a common occurrence in england, police data would reflect that and DART would be modified accordingly) *predominantly populated by the british, for some inscrutable reason **see also: what some refer to as "the monkey dance"
