7 posts / 0 new
Last post
Zach Zinn
Zach Zinn's picture
Pet Peeve - "Force on Force"

I have cross trained in a few different things over the years, some pretty extensively. In this time i've run into a lot of people who had misperceptions about Karate. When they know I practice (even moreso that I teach) sometimes it becomes "lecture time" and they proceed to tell me what's wrong with Karate. I am just polite about them and nod my head and smile, usually feeling it is not worth my time 'defending' something which I am convinced is effefctive.

One pet peeve I've run into is people who complain about "force on force".  Usually this is done in reference to Karate blocking, but it's never explained exactly what is meant. I have never personally encountered what I would consider "force on force" blocking, even in Karate which I feel is not optimal. Even hard or forceful defensive methods make use of one's body positioning to disadvantage the attacker, and tend to redirect force. This is true even when uke techniques aren't properly understood. That is, even in (for example) soto-uke learned in "3k" fashion, the actual motion you are practicing travels along a different line of force than the attack does. That of course does not mean it is being practiced realistically, but it still doesn't seem "force on force" to me.

Have you experienced any "force on force" methods? is this is a valid criticism of Karate in places, or just a cultural artifact?

Heath White
Heath White's picture

One one  hand (ha!) ... I was taught that the line of force of a block moves roughly perpendicular to the line of force of an incoming strike.  So you low block a front kick but, generally, not a round kick.

On the other hand ... I was also taught that the block should be hard, with the intent to hurt/damage/break the enemy's arm/leg.  This was the point of the forearm conditioning we did.

A couple of observations:

* I'm pretty sure that old-style karateka were capable of very hard, damaging blocks.  I've read enough anecdotes about it.  Traditional training includes a lot of forearm conditioning.

* Because of Newton's 3rd law, the forearm conditioning is essential to make this work.  Otherwise, the smaller bone breaks first.  Dojos that still teach hard blocking, but don't  do forearm conditioning, are setting their students up for injury.  This is especially true if you are teaching women (who generally have smaller bones).

* I've never seen hard blocking used to any effect in the UFC. 

* Hard blocks work best against highly committed, lunging punches, because you need an extra split second to throw them.  Trained fighters don't throw a lot of those punches.  Untrained fighters do.

* I'm also pretty sure that old-style karateka did not depend *just* on hard blocking.  There are enough clues that they could and would do softer blocks, especially as they aged.  The softer blocks also set up grabs better, and work more effectively against faster/more professional punches.

colby
colby's picture

What's that partner conditioning drill some traditional schools do that work the forearms? That never made any sense to me, or the full contact kyoukoshin sparring stuff. I get the competition stuff but i believe it happens in the dojo a lot too, right?

Kiwikarateka
Kiwikarateka's picture

What's that partner conditioning drill some traditional schools do that work the forearms? That never made any sense to me

What specifically doesn't make sense about the conditioning drills? Are you unsure of the purpose or effectiveness? Or is it something else?

colby
colby's picture
Kiwikarateka wrote:

What's that partner conditioning drill some traditional schools do that work the forearms? That never made any sense to me

What specifically doesn't make sense about the conditioning drills? Are you unsure of the purpose or effectiveness? Or is it something else?

No I know it that it works but I think it encourages people to be too yang and I worry how good it is for your forearms in the long term. It's like the makiwara for me that way. I'd rather do what Iain recommends and his different padwork excercises. But to answer the question that's what I think of when you talk about force on force in karate.

Zach Zinn
Zach Zinn's picture

colby wrote:
What's that partner conditioning drill some traditional schools do that work the forearms? That never made any sense to me, or the full contact kyoukoshin sparring stuff. I get the competition stuff but i believe it happens in the dojo a lot too, right?

Assume you mean Kotakitae? "Forearm banging" type drills?

From my persepctive the purpose is shoring up your own structure, in a similar manner to Sanchin shime training. The better it is the easier, and the less painful. For instance if you play with your pelvic tilt and spinal position, as well as the use of your centerline on the "middle block" part, it completely changes the drill. I don't think they are terribly important but they teach a couple of very important mechanical lessons to beginners.

You're right that these are indeed an example of "force on force"..but they are attribute drills, not applications.

I also feel like this kind of drill is usually misunderstood as "conditioning", along with Makiawara. Conditioining is a side effect of this sort of training, and not the main purpose. My perspective only of course.

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Zach Zinn wrote:
Have you experienced any "force on force" methods? is this is a valid criticism of Karate in places, or just a cultural artefact?

Combat invariably involves body parts smashing into each other, so “force on force” is unavoidable and par for the course i.e. fist meeting jaw.

I think what people generally mean with that critique or “observation” is inefficient movement and crude, unskilled methods i.e. a “hulk smash” approach to the martial arts. To me, that’s just poor martial arts and it’s certainly not been my experience of karate.

At the other end of the spectrum, we have the “non-fighters” who, despite having never drilled live or adequately pressure tested, believe themselves to be superior to those that do. They observe combative training and declare it unsophisticated and crude. The claim how they would simply absorb and redirect the enemy’s strikes, and how they would not use “muscle” to generate power but instead a magic force that’s never been shown to exist. It’s not really sophisticated at all, but so poor it’s not even basic.

What we should seek is realistic and efficient methods that can get demonstrable results. As Funakoshi said, “The indiscriminate use of force is the sign of an inexperienced karateka”. The experienced karateka would therefore use force in a discriminating way. Efficient and coordinated whole body movement will see body parts clash in ways that get results. We will also see efficient movement and sound tactics. There are times to yield and times to resist; but either way it will be done efficiently.

Martial arts stereotypes are widespread. We do see the idea of the “deluded external martial artist muscling their way through combat” propagated by some. And, while I know of poor karateka who do just that, it’s not a accurate depiction of the art or the majority of it’s practitioners.

One upcoming YouTube video of mine explores how martial artists have a really bad habit of picking the outlying examples that serve their narrative and misrepresenting them as the whole. Not all MMA practitioners are Nurmagomedovs or McGregors. Not all karateka are like the ones mocked in this clip. We should not judge the whole by the outliers at either end.

There is bad karate out there, but it’s both inaccurate and logically wrong to apply that to the whole. Saying karate is crude and relies on muscle – what I think most mean by “force on force” – is simply wrong as the majority of karateka can attest to.

All the best,

Iain