First. tough to answer a general question. Specifically, in the ITF system the partners are initially positioned so that the attacker's strike will impact the defender. However, as shown in some examples the Defender moves rearward as the attacker moves forward. IMO the concept of "Getting the heck out of the way" is invaluable. Secondly, I don't know what system you practice or how you choose to practice it. Apparently it does not contain any traditional stances nor does it ever involve bringing the opposite hand back to the hip because you never see that in real fights or sparring. That is what you choose to practice and there is nothing wrong with that.
Total agreement. But shouldn't the attacker then do something to account for the expected backward moment ? Either by starting closer so the defender cannot move out of range or by taking some kind of slide / shuffle step to keep the opponent in range? Just carrying on while the target is out of range seems - odd.
Let's dissect this a little then. What's "blocking distance"? IMHO blocking is an action, not a distance. I can block a kick, a punch or an elbow and they will be at different distances. Also, as has been noted, the distance 3 step is done at is an odd one and very artificial. A lot of it is blocking something that doesn't need to be blocked. A real encounter will generally begin much closer than from the step back/low block start of 3 step (something 1 step partially fixes and builds upon though). Sport sparring is from a different distance again. And a big one for me is that, with applying some logic and knowledge of the modern bunkai resurgence, it's pretty clear that the "blocking" part of a "block" movement is the chamber not the second motion off that. So even if 3 step taught the correct distance I think it's teaching an incorrect motion. For the most part, some blocks have more utility as block on the second motion than others. Something like hubud from FMA is a better drill for using the blocking/receiving motions of Karate and TKD as defensive movements than something like 3 step.
First we need to go back to the stated parameters of 3 step in the ITF / Chang Hon System. It is used to teach the beginner proper blocking distance. As such adjustment for a counterattack at this level is irrelevant. Shown in the video sre "Measurements" by the attacker (4 are used, toe to toe, half overlap, full overlap and half past overlap) . Different measurements are used for attacks and stances allowing attacks from different ranges. This gives the visual clue to teach the beginner what will work from where. After the first step where the Defender steps out of range to the rear , the attacker steps forward which puts defender back in range until he steps rearword again. > shouldn't the attacker then do something to account for the expected backward moment ?< It's only expected because at the beginner level because it's part of the exercise. At all other levels of Step sparring (after this beginner level) the attacker and defender are supposed to adjust distance freely to keep the partner in range.
>>What's "blocking distance"? IMHO blocking is an action, not a distance. I can block a kick, a punch or an elbow and they will be at different distances. Also, as has been noted, the distance 3 step is done at is an odd one and very artificial. A lot of it is blocking something that doesn't need to be blocked.<<< If it would never reach you then you don't need to "Block it" Since you are a fan of "Alternate Applications" Bunkai theories it's curious that you don't account for "Blocks" having the purpose of damaging the attacker's limb. This should be the intent of formal blocks. if you consider >>>it's pretty clear that the "blocking" part of a "block" movement is the chamber not the second motion off that. << Then I would have to disagree and state this is not always the case. If you subscribe to the "Real Encounter" utility of motion few of Bunkai constituting complicated motions occur in real encounters. I am an aficionado of alternate applications and had an article published on that topic. I am also an aficionado of Occam's Razor.
I see your point. Oddly many Chinese arts contain techniques that depend on clearing across the body. These are frequently used as bridges from striking to grappling. Examples at 9 m 48 s. 24m 20 s, 29 m 20 s, among others. [ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qewmy6Ktdjs"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qewmy6Ktdjs[/ame] You will note that the techniques are not done simply with the arm. They incorporate a movement of the whole body off line and/or length. good example at 43m 50s
To the first part of your answer, I agree that get out of the way is invaluable. However that was not what I was talking about. IF the defender in those videos just stood there, he would NOT have been hit. That is how far off the attacker was. Second I was not talking about traditional stances and bringing my hand to my hip(why would I do that in a real fight? In some of the videos, he does a outside knife hand block, with the other hand going to the hip. WHY is it going to the hip, it has nothing in it? Why not stay up there and guard his face? I can see that being a good drill if he actually had something in his hand), I was talking specifically about the cross body parrying shown in the video, and the more odd knife hand defenses shown and other things, that you would not see in a real conflict. If the point is to bring your hand to your hip, as in it has something, then why doesn't the step sparring reflect that? I was referring to the unrealistic and unusable defenses shown, not weather or not I am taught to expose my upper body by chambering to the hip. This is were the alternative application theorists come in, they are actually making use of the other hand. So many of the traditional blocks, that are supposedly for damaging a limb, always feature the other hand just going to the hip. Why waste that motion, when you can either leave it up to your head or use it pro actively.
Well, we will have to agree to disagree on that one. By my rough estimates the defender took a step backward moving his body to the rear by about 1 foot leaving the attack 6 inches short. without the step the attack would have penetrated 6 inches.
>>Originally Posted by Kframe View Post Earl, how can step sparring teach anything if the participants are so far apart that they wont hit each other? Secondly look at the defenses offered in those videos, you would never ever see them done in any form of free sparring or a real fight so why are they in the step sparring?<< I was therefore addressing a general comment vis a vis stuff not being practical. Sometimes we do things as "Art" . If you only want to do things as martial you could likely toss 80% of most traditional MA curricula.
Either A) the founders knew something we don't know Or B) we know something the founders didn't know. Or more likely a mix between A and B.
I expect that for each founder there may be a different answer. In the case of General Choi, he provided his reasons. Like many things in his texts he provided reasons why he wanted things done a certain way. Reasoneable minds can always differ as to the value of any reason given, but at least he gave reasons. I can only guess that many pioneers did not view competition / sport utility as an overriding concern for much of what they did.
I was not talking only about sport/competitive utility Earl, but usability in any situation that requires one to use violence in some fashion.
Nor was I only talking about sport utility. I think 80% of many MA curriculm could be dropped if one was only looking for sport / combat or self defense utility. Philosophy and Moral culture - irrelevant, Rules - irrelevant, Patterns - irrelevant. Any esthetic concerns, - irrelevant. Developing athletic ability - irrelevant. Some "Reality based systems" have tossed all that stuff as have gyms which only target MMA type competition. On the other hand while not an optimal use of time and energy for combat training I view the MA syllabi of some systems like a professional craftsman's toolbox. 20% of the tools may get used 80% of the time, but when circumstances warrant the most efficient way to get a certian job done may be that tool that gets used only 2% of the time. On top of that you may hve specs for certain techniques that have symbolic or esthetic paramaters which trump utility parameters.
I would put those into the "Less than optimal Technique of Choice" as opposed to symbolic or aesthetic. When would I use the less than optimal techniqe such as this? - Other limb is injured - Other limb is occupied A. Holding something such as a child B. You are doing third party protection and other limb is shielding the high value target. C. To access or retain a weapon. D. Ready to intercept an attack from another direction.
