I saw this quote over at the SJ Forum and thought it was interesting. I had read it before, but it kind of went to the back of my mind. This quote is from Choki Motobu (karate's bad boy for lots of fighting).
This is the idea behind ippon kumite. Against a committed attack, your block and counter will not allow the other person to keep throwing punches at you. We have had discussions on here before about completing the S-D techniques and what they are for.One cannot use continuous attacks against true karate. That is because the blocks of true karate make it impossible for the opponent to launch a second attack.
How do you think this quote applies to kenpo (or not)? Does this type of training apply to your kenpo (or not)?
"For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer."
I thnk he is referring to body positioning in relation to the block and strike. You just don't block and throw a counter but move your body, block and strike at the same time
Motobu is one of the guys that i would have loved to have talked to
Tradition is not about the preservation of the ashes, but about keeping the flame alive
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear to be bright until you hear them speak
"The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it".
Excellence is to do a common thing in an uncommon way." Booker T. Washington
ever been punched in the bicep by a real old-school karate guy? I think that's a big part of why you can't attack again
"...while you guys are arguing, I'm on the grind."
- an anonymous brick puncher
"If you don't ask the right questions, I can't give you the answers, and if you don't know the right question to ask, you're not ready for the answers"
-Ed Parker Sr.
"For many a 'system' is just a bunch of techniques. It should be much, much more than that..."
- Doc Chapel
I don't think this is a philosophical argument. I think it is more of an intended versus actual result assessment. If the attacker's intention is not fulfilled, the attacker will need to re-assess and re-engage. If the block/counter is effective enough to keep the attacker locked in the re-assessment phase, then he will not be able to re-engage. I believe the quote is more a physiological than philosophical debate.
The most valuable of all talents is that of never using two words when one will do. ~Thomas Jefferson
If it takes a lot of words to say what you have in mind, give it more thought. ~Dennis Roth
If you can't write your idea on the back of my calling card, you don't have a clear idea. ~David Belasco
Triangle Kenpo Institute
May you never have to use your skills.
Aspire to inspire before you expire.
|1st. Brown Belt|
|Adv. Orange Belt|
Here is my thought, taken from my latest article on this subject (http://dandjurdjevic.blogspot.com.au...no-blocks.html):
I don't think Motobu was talking about how blocks are actually "offensive weapons". This is a popular view today, but I believe it is clearly misconceived. When you consider the preceding analysis I think it becomes clear that he was talking about how blocks allow you to establish control in a situation where you have little or none. When you establish control, you can dictate terms. You are no longer being dictated to. Blocks enable you to "turn the tables" from a position where you are facing an attack, to one where you are not. That is because blocks deal with (ie. "receive") the attack in a way that thwarts it and any others that would follow as part of a combination. They cut off that whole line of assault while simultaneously setting you up in a safer position from which you can counter or simply escape.
I will say however, that blocks can be offensive weapons, and offensive weapons can function as blocks (the method taught in the school I attend tends toward the latter). Either way, being on the receiving end of them makes it clear how effective it can be. My sifu can intercept (i.e."block") my punch in a way that takes the fight right out of me, hurts, can be truly injurious, and can stop the fight right there and without further follow-up. I'll also add that when we "block", it seldom looks like the typical karate blocks that we perhaps think of under the term. We don't use what would be recognized as an inward, outward, upward, downward, middle, or other "standard" karate block. But that's just us.
To say that the view of blocks being offensive weapons is clearly misconceived, well I disagree. It may be misconceived under some circumstances and in some examples, but certainly not all, not across the board.
But I can certainly see how one could interpret Motobu's comment in the OP in the context of using the block as a weapon, or using weapons to block. When done right it can definitely make it impossible for the bad guy to use continuous attacks. Because when you blocked that first attack, you injured him and it can very well be over.
de gustibus non disputante est.
Negative Douche Bag Number One
I think that there is sometimes (not necessarily always, but sometimes) a difference between a block which is done as an initial response to an unanticipated attack (a block used purely for self-defense) - which is often an extension of the initial startle reflex - and a "block" used in a fight (that is, once the combative situation has been recognized and actively engaged by all parties involved). The first, by its very nature, often lacks the focus/power/commitment (whatever) to be anything more than a defensive tactic. Once combat is in process, and one can engage the opponent with full intent and focus, however, there should be no "block" per se. As the late Joe Lewis once told me (btw, Mr. Lewis almost never actually "blocked" anything himself), "if you have to block a punch, you make sure he isn't going to throw another one with that same arm." Take it for whatever it's worth.
flying crane (04-26-2013)
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)