Persistent myths #1: Blocks are isolated movements

I'm going to start a series of short pieces dealing with what I consider to be "persistent myths" in the martial arts: myths that won't go away despite contrary logic and a plethora of available information.

Since I've been talking about blocks a lot lately, I'm going to start with this one:
Traditional blocks are designed to be executed in isolation.
Erm... No, they're not.  Why would anyone think so?

People might not say this so clearly, but it is often necessarily implicit in their argument.  As Rashaud noted in the comments to my last article:
"What's interesting, I think, is that most people look at "blocking" as a static thing.  That all of you've done is "parry" or "deflect" an incoming strike. From that line of thinking, most would therefore consider the formal block overkill, or unworkable."
Presumably the impression among these people is that all you do is "block" (ie. stop or redirect) an attack and do nothing else.  This is total nonsense of course.  With the exception of forms designed to teach very basic, fundamental "stem cell" movement, "blocks" are always followed by counters or other moves designed to "turn the tables".


Now I know that many people practise a "block and counter" sequence as a kind of "1-2" where the block and counter are divorced from each other.  But all my research indicates that this isn't how the techniques were designed to be used.  They were designed to flow into one another - to form one coordinated response.  The "1-2" was only ever meant as a device for teaching beginners - ie. as a way of isolating the components so that beginners could concentrate on perfecting one of these at a time.

[I've already noted that the "block component" of that response is itself one move - not two!]

In other words, traditional "blocks" are meant to thwart an attack as well as negate further attacks.  They do so by setting you up for either an effective counter or some means of achieving a position of control/escape/safety.  "Blocks" certainly aren't static movements designed to work in isolation.  Traditional kata/xing/forms make this abundantly clear - as does simple logic.

I'll let my video above speak for me, rather than put it all into text!

Copyright © 2013 Dejan Djurdjevic

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Karate punches vs. boxing punches

Image
Introduction In my article “ Kime: the soul of the karate punch ” I described the essential feature of the karate punch as being “focus” – ie. a combination of minimal deceleration before impact and optimum distancing – usually performed in karate with a straight thrust . Many have, and will continue to, argue that this straight thrust is less powerful than a boxer’s follow-through punches. This is true. But to understand why this does not necessarily mean that the former is less effective we’ll have to examine punching methods – what someone I know calls “delivery systems” – in greater detail. To the extent that karate punching is “less powerful”, I will then go on to examine why this is a tactical choice rather than a necessary failing. Categorising punches In a very general sense karate punches can be divided into 2 kinds: straight line and curved. In boxing, punches can be divided into 2 different categories that overlap with the karate ones, namely: 1. jabs (ie. punches which...
Read more

Zhan zhuang: grounding, structure, intention and qi

Image
Introduction There is a tendency in the Chinese, and increasingly in the Japanese, martial arts to venerate “standing post” training - what is known as zhan zhuang (站樁 - literally “standing like a post”).  In particular the internal arts of China are known for this practise.  Even more particularly, the art of yiquan (意拳 - literally “concept fist”) focuses almost entirely on this as a martial training method. Yiquan, which is also called “da cheng quan” (大成拳 - literally “great achievement boxing”), was developed by xingyiquan master Wang Xiangzhai (26 November 1885 - 12 July 1963).  One of his students was the Taiwan-based martial artist Wang Shujin (a master of xingyiquan, baguazhang and taijiquan who happens to have also been one of my grandmaster Chen Pan Ling's main students). In Japan the yiquan tradition was continued by Kenichi Sawai, founder of the school of taikiken (体気拳 - literally “mind and spirit fist”). So what is the point of “standing post traini...
Read more

Punching: alignment and conditioning

Image
Choson Ninja and the question of "conditioned" knuckles The other day one of my colleagues at the Traditional Fighting Arts Forums alerted me to a fellow who calls himself Choson Ninja. He has a series of videos on Youtube and in this particular one he tells you about the dangers of getting "ugly" knuckles from hand conditioning. The general thrust of his argument is correct: conditioning can lead to deformed and ugly knuckles - especially so if you are doing it incorrectly. Certainly, even moderate makiwara practice will cause you to develop callouses. How "unsightly" these are will depend on how much and how "hard" you do your conditioning. However I disagree with Mr Choson about much of what he says in his video. To begin with, his knuckles are not really that conditioned . Rather, they appear to be damaged from breaks. Mr Choson certainly doesn't have anywhere near the kind of callousing one gets from regular conditioning such as st...
Read more