13 posts / 0 new
Last post
Graziano
Graziano's picture
Defence agaist strikes in traditional karate

Hello to everyone, in this post I want talk about the defense again a strike(punch, kick ecc), on traditional okinawa karate. Above all I am looking about resources, video, article about this, the fact is who internet is full of bad materiale, where you can see  the usually unrealistic block against a preordinate punch.   But I know  the on reality block on karate aren't r eally block. H ow did work the traditional karate on this situation:

Somebody give to you a at once punch o kick without grapping to you. Also  in this website, there isn't much about this, because many action start with the opponent that grapped us, in this way for example https://www.iainabernethy.co.uk/article/basics-bunkai-part-1

, but maybe okinawan karate have no this kind of defense...........

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Graziano wrote:
Hello to everyone, in this post I want talk about the defense again a strike(punch, kick ecc), on traditional okinawa karate ...

... maybe okinawan karate have no this kind of defense...........

I think you may be confusing two points. While it is true that many of the motions labelled as “blocks” are not blocks; that is not the same as saying there are no blocks.

There are loads of methods in traditional karate for defending against punches. However, we need to accept that action beats reaction and proactive control is a much better way to avoid getting punched than reactive defences. Blocking is a method of last resort. Action is always preferred to reaction. All of that is vital to appreciate, but of we just look at examples of reactive defences for now. By way of example:

Shuto-Uke (Knife-Hand “block”) is made up of four parts (right side explained):

1) Right hand comes across face and toward left ear.

2) At the same time, left hand extends.

3) Right hand then moves forward and to the right (assumes “end position” of shuto-uke)

4) At the same time, left hand pulls back toward the solar plexus

Those that would label shuto-uke as a “block” would interpret the movement as follows:

1) Right hand is primed.

2) Left hand extends for no real reason.

3) Right hand “blocks”

4) Left hand “guards” the solar plexus.

That’s a bad interpretation. It requires you to be twice as fast as the attacker (you have to make two motions – 1 & 3 – in the time it takes the enemy to make a single punch). That kind of ineffective stand alone “block” is not part of real karate.

A better way to view the same movement reactively could be:

1) Right hand redirects the enemy’s punch past your head.

2) Left hand shoots over the enemy’s attacking arm.

3) Right hand counter-strikes to the neck.

4) Left hand ensures the path of the counter-strike is clear and maintains control to karateka can dominate.

Motion 1 could be ladled as a “block” (I think of it more as a “parry” but that’s a semantic issue), but shoto-uke is a “block”, a cover, a control and a strike. So the “block” is there, but so is a lot more. So it would be wrong to say shuto-uke is a “block”, but there is a blocking element (when the movement is applied reactively).

The point is, there are loads of methods for defending against punches. This is just one example.

To go over them all would require a book. But here are some more videos examples:

Covering the Head

Wedging / “Two dragons play in the water”

Parry, Locate, Exploit (morote mawashi uke)

I hope that helps resolve the confusion. In short, there are loads of methods for dealing with punches in karate. The preference is for proactive limb-control, but there are back up movements if we are forced to use less-effective reactive motions. The fact that many motions labelled as “blocks” are not blocks (or not just “blocks”) should not lead to the incorrect assumption that karate has no way of reactively defending against punches.

All the best

Iain

Marc
Marc's picture

Everything Iain said. And one more example that is immediately applicable by new students:

As part of Heian Shodan (Pinan Nidan) we have Age-Uke ("Rising Receiver", also called upper block). This consists of the following movements (example for right hand Age-Uke):

1. Left hand shoots up with open hand (usually the right hand is pulled back to the hip at this point).

2. Left hand is closed and pulled back to the hip.

3. At the same time the right arm shoots up with fist closed.

4. At the same time move forward, e.g. into Zenkutsu-Dachi.

Now let the attacker come at us with a big right hook.

1. We block the hook punch with our left arm. This is basically a natural flinch reaction, but with intent.

2. As we close our left hand we grab the attackers arm and pull it back to our hip. This has the effect of breaking the attackers balance and of pulling them closer in to us. When you do this with speed, normally when their body is pulled forward their head will tilt back which we exploit by...

3. slamming our right forearm into their now presented neck, which quite probably causes the attacker to crumble.

4. The simultaneous pull and slam increase the relative speed of the impact, while the forward step adds mass (our body weight).

All in all I would say that this is the way karate katas deal with an incoming punch:

a) block or parry, making use of natural flinch response

b) control the attacker

c) close in

d) break attacker's balance

e) exploit weak area

All this in one trained movement/technique. In this case Age-Uke, but the same goes for the Shuto-Uke application Iain described in his post.

Take care

Marc  

Graziano
Graziano's picture

Iain Abernethy wrote:
I think you may be confusing two points. While it is true that many of the motions labelled as “blocks” are not blocks; that is not the same as saying there are no blocks ...

Thank you so much for your answer,you were really clearly. This kind of options, action is better than reaction, sound me familiar, remind me the concepts of Sen no sen. That you say about shuto uke, and all uke waza remind me the wing chun kung fu, the chi sao, kakie,tui shou, ubundu and similitaries thing. Can we say the uke waza contain, forgotten techniques , of sensibility, like chi sao,is it correct?I think it work good on close distance, going towards our opponent. On japanese karate usually only the last movement is used. Do you know wy?0

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Graziano wrote:
Thank you so much for your answer, you were really clearly.

You are welcome and I’m pleased it helped.

Graziano wrote:
Can we say the uke waza contain, forgotten techniques , of sensibility, like chi sao,is it correct?

I’d avoid making that a universal statement because it depends upon the specific method. Not all misunderstood “blocks” have a sensitivity or trapping component i.e. manji-uke can be applied as throw, etc.

Graziano wrote:
On Japanese karate usually only the last movement is used. Do you know why?

I’ve avoid suing the label “Japanese karate” because there are plenty of people, groups and styles in Japan that make use of the full motion in a practical way. Just as there are plenty of Okinawan and Western people, groups and styles that don’t make the full use of the movement.

I link the label “3K karate” is the most actuate one i.e. Kihon, Kata and Kumite (almost always sporting in nature) are practised as three separate discipline. 3K karate rarely includes bunkai (in any meaningful sense) and because they don’t understand their kata they reinterpret it into a very formal and long-range, karateka vs karateka affair … which only “works” when everyone plays their part properly.

They don’t practise at close range, and so all the close-range methods of the kata are seen as something else. The effective close-range trapping and controlling of the shuto-uke becomes noting but impractical long range “block”.

Essentially, they are like the charterers in the Wizard of Oz when they enter the Emerald City. They are told everything in the city is made of Emeralds; and because they are made to wear green glasses that looks to be true. 3K karateka view kata through their “long range karate vs karate glasses”, so that’s what they see. The more karateka take those glasses off, then better it will be for karate.

All the best,

Iain

ltdrose1
ltdrose1's picture

I agree that the original purpose of karate was probably to defend against untrained criminals or predators. However, as a retired 28 year law enforcement veteran and physical skills trainer of peace officers, I can attest to the fact that today's criminals (predators) are training in many martial arts; particularly MMA style schools. Unfortunately, there is not the same level of scrutiny placed on students before acceptance by many martial arts schools. Also, many street gang members (USA) have joined the military with the ultimate purpose of learning military skills to return and teach their "homies".

Lt. Rose

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

ltdrose1 wrote:
However, as a retired 28 year law enforcement veteran and physical skills trainer of peace officers, I can attest to the fact that today's criminals (predators) are training in many martial arts; particularly MMA style schools.

I think as martial arts get more popular throughout the whole of the population, then it is invariably true that a higher percentage of the criminal population will also be training. I think we need to avoid “over cooking” that though.

Even if we have increased numbers, it is not possible to legitimately argue something akin to “most criminals are trained in MMA” (you have not specifically said that; I’m making a general point). When I hear that, it strikes me as an attempt by martial artists to reinvent criminals into their own kind (reinventing violence: https://www.iainabernethy.co.uk/content/reinventing-violence-podcast). The vast majority of criminals will not have MMA training. The crime statistics support this as violent crime is pretty much the same as it has always been. As I’ve said before, there is no reported criminal epidemic of triangle chokes and arm-bars.

Why this is important is that if we are to prepare people (everyday people not just our fellow martial artists) to effectively deal with criminal violence, we need to address it as it really is. Training them to fight a competitive MMA bout because “all criminals know MMA” is going to see us provide the wrong solution to a different problem. We need to know about awareness, personal security, the nature of crime, legalities, de-escalation, escape skills, etc. None of which are relevant to MMA. When it comes to the physical side, we need to think about pre-emption and escape, not fighting and winning. We also need to figure in the huge shift in tactics when multiple enemies and weapons become commonplace (as opposed to MMA where they are non-existent).

If we were criminals and our objective was to incapacitate someone and take all their possessions, how would we do it? Would you put up a guard and try and out punch them? Shoot in, do a double leg takedown, get their back, and choke them out? Or would you use surprise, deception, numbers, weapons, etc? I think any smart person would choose the latter. It’s the easiest, most effective way to achieve the criminal’s objective. It’s not in the criminal’s interests to have a “square go.” We need to prepare for the modus operandi of criminals; not the modus operandi of MMA bouts.

As an aside, this is why my dislike for the term “street fight” grows stronger every day. It is increasingly used as a knowing or unknowing linguistic trick to blur the lines between the two in the interests of promoting martial arts and keeping martial arts instructors, who want to teach self-defence, from having to go to the trouble of educating themselves and broadening their skillset (as well as leaving out the bits of their martial arts training that don’t transfer over; because they are not good and contextualising and mistakenly think any methods that can’t be used in any context must somehow be deficient).

The criminals we should fear most are the ones who have learnt to be criminals from other more experienced criminals. They will be the most dangerous ones when it comes to committing crimes. We need to be very careful not to fall into the widespread trap of making criminals into martial artists, and then focusing on fighting martial artists in the belief that that will give us all the skills we need for dealing with crime. Self-protection and fighting are two very different skill sets and we need to be careful not to confuse the two.

While some criminals will train in things like MMA, boxing, martial arts, etc; most don’t. Event for those that do, it would be dumb of them to try to any commit crime by seeking to engage in a one-on-one “winner takes all” fight. Even if they did, it would be even more stupid of us to agree to that “fight”. The overarching crime data tells us that criminals are acting pretty much the same as they always did because it remains the most effective way to commit crimes of violence. Our solution to the problem should therefore reflect that. This will mean a huge emphasis on awareness and avoidance. And when it comes to the physical side of things (a relatively small part of self-protection overall) then we should be focusing on escaping from a violent onslaught as opposed to prevailing over skilled submissions, etc.

So, while SOME criminals will be trained in martial arts, I think we need to be clear that assuming (or inadvertently implying) that an MMA bout and crime are one and the same is both inaccurate and deeply harmful to the efficacy of self-protection training.

As I mention in the podcast linked above, I think we need to look at objectively at violent crime and produce a training program based on crime as it is. Because we have a common problem, we should have a common solution; irrespective of one’s chosen marital art. Once we have that covered, we are then free to explore all the other aspects of the martial arts for their own intrinsic value. We need to be careful not to say that use in self-defence is the only valuable thing, because that’s both inaccurate and it encourages people to try to crowbar things into self-defence that don’t belong there in order to demonstrate their worth.

I know that fighting footwork, high kicking, takedowns into submissions, feinting, etc all have zero relevance to self-defence, but I train them and teach them because of their use in consensual fighting. They are fun too! It therefore does not matter they are not useful in self-defence, because that’s not why we do them. When we train self-defence, we are totally focused on that methodology. It’s no longer about “fighting” (winning in consensual one-on-one violence) but pure self-protection (avoiding harm when faced with non-consensual criminal violence). They are very different and one of the biggest problems in martial arts today is the failure to differentiate. I know this is not what you personal said, but things like, “Most criminals train in MMA these days, so MMA is the way to deal with criminals” or “Everyone has seen the UFC and that’s how everyone fights these days” are most often “tricks” used to avoid acknowledging that context is always king, and that a “fighting solution” is severely lacking when it comes to true self-protection.

The bottom-line is that if we find ourselves teaching escapes from ground fighting arm-bars in self-protection, then we can be sure we’ve lost the tread and have slid into fighting and martial arts. Those are good things to learn, but it not what we should focus on for self-protection.

All the best,

Iain

Graziano
Graziano's picture

Is the re some video who show it?

But morever,  did funakoshi teach, a wrong kind of karate? Look at this  old video, you can se e that who usually se e about karate block

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Graziano wrote:
Is the re some video who show it?

The time period we are talking about was before filming was simple and widespread. We are talking the mid-1700s to late 1800s when looking at “old school karate”. After that the change to 3K karate was underway. Filming did not get started until the 1890s and no one was filming karate then.

We need to remember that at that point karate was not the global phenomenon is it now. There were a handful of people practising in Okinawa, so there were no books either as there was no need for those books, no audience for them, and no way they could be financed.

All the filming we have comes decades after 3K karate was well established.

Graziano wrote:
But morever, did funakoshi teach, a wrong kind of karate? Look at this old video, you can see that who usually see about karate block

In that video Funakoshi is an old man showing the karate of that time. It’s not “wrong”, but it’s not the karate of the kata.

Funakoshi wrote in Karate-Do My Way of Life, “Times change, the world changes, and obviously the martial arts must change too. The karate that high school students practise today is not the same karate that was practised even are recently as ten years ago, and it is a long way indeed from the karate I learned when I was a child in Okinawa”.

So that video shows the 3K karate that was widespread toward the end of Funaksohi’s life. And Funakoshi is clear that is not the karate of Itosu, Matsumura, Sakugawa, Azato, etc. that was being practised in Okinawa when he was younger, nor is it the karate that gave rise to the kata.

If we look at Funakoshi’s earlier works, we can see many references to the older karate. For example, when specifically taking about “blocks”, in his first book he shows a takedown from an arm lock (see picture) and he notes that this is the application of the gedan barai found in Naihanchi (Tekki). Today, many see it as a “block” to a low attack, but Funakoshi is clear it’s a lock. This book was well into karate’s “transition phase”, but the transition to 3K is not yet complete.

The video is not showing “old karate” but 3K karate and Funakoshi is clear that the karate of that time is “a long way indeed from the karate I learned when I was a child in Okinawa”. We should therefore listen to that and not assume karate has remined unchanged from it’s very inception. A lack of video in a time before video is to be expected and no conclusions can be drawn from that. It’s a little like asking for photographs the first seven US presidents in order to prove they existed (7th US President Andrew Jackson died in 1837. Photographs was invented in 1839.). However, we know they existed because of all the other information we have aside from photography. We have no video of “old karate”, but plenty of information to tell us what it was like. Combine that with the kata and we can do a good job of understanding the karate of the past and bringing it into the modern world.

I hope that helps.

All the best,

Iain

Chikara Andrew
Chikara Andrew's picture

Iain Abernethy wrote:

The video is not showing “old karate” but 3K karate and Funakoshi is clear that the karate of that time is “a long way indeed from the karate I learned when I was a child in Okinawa”. 

I was just writing a post along the same lines as Iain's above, I think Iain probably put it better than I would have.

It's important to the remember that Karate has gone through a long evolution and perhaps some of the biggest changes occured just as karate left Okinawa, it had to. Whilst a number of influential sponsors saw the potential in karate and invited the Okinawan masters the Japanese mainland, when they got there they had a hard time being accepted. The karate that they brought with them went through a revolution at that time, perhaps this could be traced as far back as Itosu's letter and the school system, but it really took hold when they tried to get Karate accepted as a modern Budo.

As Iain explains above you can almost trace this evolution in the written works of Funakoshi and it stands to reason that any film that survives of him can only reflect the latter parts of this evolution.

Some of us are going through another evolution in karate, in part by going back and looking at karate before it's 1930's revolution, but also bringing it forward and applying it to the realities of our modern world.

Andrew

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Chikara Andrew wrote:
Some of us are going through another evolution in karate, in part by going back and looking at karate before it's 1930's revolution, but also bringing it forward and applying it to the realities of our modern world.

That’s a very good summation! Almost a mission statement :-)

All the best,

Iain

Graziano
Graziano's picture

Ian thank you, but there was a mistake, the video who I am looking regards age uke dedscribed by Mark. I apologize!

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Graziano wrote:
Ian thank you, but there was a mistake, the video who I am looking regards age uke dedscribed by Mark. I apologize!

These videos show the kind of thing Marc was referring to. The age-uke breaks posture and then strikes to the neck or jaw. It stops the punch because the enemy needs two things to punch:

1 – A posture / line that allows them to punch.

2 – Consciousness.

The age-uke takes both away. It does not simply seek to knock the arm over the head.

I hope that helps.

All the best,

Iain