Black and Counter

Simultanious blocking and punching can be a lot more effective. Otherwise you could be meeting a the second punch as you throw your first.

It doesn't always mean less power in your punch, your hip movement still being used mainly to generate puching power and the block either using that same power from the hip. Or the block can be more a deflection or block with sidestep.

 

No they don't...

Not necessarily, timing and positioning can put you outside his line of attack.

 

Hi ckdstudent

Sorry I didn't get more of a chance to chat to you yesterday. I noticed you having a good chinwag with some of my students/colleagues.

You said:
>Surely block and punch by definition cuts down on the power, since block and punch require different rotations. It'll also leave you open, since both of your arms are in use and since they still have one to play with if they slip aside from your punch they've got a free shot. Sorry about the nitpicking, I'm just curious.

Firstly I don't consider it nitpicking. Curiosity is a worthy quality.

Secondly the more I learn the less I know and that certainly applies to power generation. There are more ways of generating power than you or I have come across. Some are compatible with each other, some are mutually exclusive. I've seen several, I know of others and I'm sure there are others out there that I can't even begin to guess at. But consider this first - there are ways of generating power without rotating the hips at all. A simple example, simply by moving the whole mass of the body rapidly forwards. And we're not even beginning to consider the ways that some internal arts generate power.

However, back to the concept of simultaneous block/punch. I'll draw a couple of examples which will hopefully illustrate my meaning.

First one, I'm stood left leg forward and the attacker throws a right round punch to my head. I move forwards and check his punching arm at the elbow with my left forearm (ulna). If Melanie has ever had Zoltan do this to her she can verify how effective and painful it can be. At the same I put a right palm-heel strike into the attacker's face. This generates power in 3 basic ways:
1. Rotation of hip a la basic reverse punch.
2. Forward movement of my bodyweight.
3. Forward movement of the attacker's bodyweight (he's still punching remember).

Its also important to note that, presuming I was successful, I've totally taken the initiative away from the attacker - not only does his arm and his head hurt but he's been rocked backwards off balance and (momentarily) he can't see because he's got my hand over his eyes. For those that know the kata this could be seen as an application of the opening move (after yoi) of Heian/Pinan Yondan.

Second example. Again, I'm stood left leg forward and this time the attacker throws a right straight punch to my head. I check his arm inwards with the inner aspect of my left forearm - this is a glancing rather than a power block. At the same time I strike with my right hand (going underneath his arm) to an appropriate target on his torso/neck/head. My hips have rotated with my punch (ie. to the right). If you did Zoltan's session on 'downward block' yesterday you may recognise this as the chamber position for the classical karate downward block. To complete the 'block' I slide my left hand up his arm and press just above the elbow towards his centre, turning him away and unbalancing him (momentarily preventing a further strike). I can now carry on with further counterstrikes.

My counterstrike was powered in the same way as in the first example. The block didn't really need to have any power, it was merely a redirection of his force. However, the fact that the punch is extending at the same time means that you get a bilateral tensing of the pectoral muscles, which I believe puts more oomph into the block - should you need it.

I'm not sure why you think doing this simultaneously will leave me open (perhaps my examples above will clarify that?) I'm attempting to strike the attacker and off-balance him before his first punch is finished, thus robbing him of the opportunity to throw a second punch (in an ideal world of course). On the contrary, I think that blocking first and then counterstriking will invite a further strike (which of course you might be ready and prepared for). Punches are like buses, when one appears you can be fairly confident there'll be more along in a moment.

Mike

 

The reason I thought it would leave you open was because you are using both arms, while he has still only committed one. If he can simply slip his head to one side, or weave, he can use that free arm as a weapon.

As for the blocking and then countering, I should state now that our blocks are much more deflections than standard traditional blocks, circular motions which redirect the punch, and return your hand back to guard while (hopefully, and usually) sending their arm off into the wilderness. Taking an outwards block as an example (closest in karate is rising block I believe).

Attacker throws a punch towards your head (which punch doesn't matter, just the basic trajectory, so upwards punches would require you to block with inwards or even downwards block), shift over to take yourself out of the path of the punch. From there circle the arm up as though you're drawing a large circle on a wall, blocking against his forearm with the back of yours. Then, as you retract your blocking arm back into guard shift forwards with a rear inwards punch towards the area of his chest, or his head if you so choose, that was covered by his punching arm.

Despite taking a while to explain this is in fact a fast maneouver, the shifts adding both speed and power.

I think the main reason for the lack of comprehension between both of us is that we are working from completely different starting concepts.

As for the shifts we do not work from wide or low stances. The only permanent (there are transitional stances, but they're used mainly to perfect mechanics of certain techniques) stances are right and left front stance. I'll just quickly explain how you get into one of these. Stand with your feet together. Move one foot out four foot-widths, to about shoulder-width (we're not worried about precision here, just roughly). Take one foot and move it back so that the toe is in line with the heel of your other foot (opposite corners of a square). Turn your feet forty-five degrees. Make a relaxed fist with your hands and bend the elbows to bring each fist to approximately shoulder level.

This is an approximation of the stance, I can explain it much faster and more effectively in person, but this should do to provide the concept.

 

Hello Tae, glad to see you could make it

I agree about relearning to block, I had to when I started using deflections rather than a blokc by force.

If I do block by force, I use the block as a strike into the inside of their arm (against a punch for example). But I still prefer deflecting and striking together.

Alot of the reason I prefer this is that I can turn the deflection directly into a trap, and not have to reposition myself and I can do it while I am striking. Also, since I don't rotate into my deflecting blocks at all (I am moving into my opponent with my strike) I am set to deliver maximum power (ideally at least) with my counter strike instead of it being a low power lead then follow with something a bit better.

Mike,
Good post, I agree with all the points, especially the ending on unbalancing your attacker. That's the main goal for me to move inside them with a deflecting motion, and being clow enough to follow the technique up and keep them off balance and unable to set themselves and counter.

ckdstudent,
There's always a chance of being left open, but essentially by arm has never really left a guard position. When I deflect I move my arm no further than being held bent in line with my shoulder, alongside my body. I am basically allowing the strike to slide outside of me while I move up along my opponent and come inside on them striking. Even if they get off another shot at me, I am right on top of them and much harder to hit accurately because of my movement.

Rob

 

A good mindset I feel to be in is 'Its a strike, not a block'. If you have to block using brute force (come on, you've mucked up!) use it as a destruction (as previously explained).

Also, you r always going to be open at to some angle of attack, if anyone claims to have a completely defendable position (unless its in a tank) I'll personally point out all the weak lines/angle to attack. So your always going to be open, its just a case of minimising it.

Lets assume a left lead stance defending from a right hook, you can block (strike, whatever) with the lead and shoot the left palm quickly into the opponents face (stinging, not destructive), your rights still protecting you from his left and he's now distracted (Ouch, my face) and your twisted off in an excellent position for generating power for a right cross/right hook/chudan Oi Tsuki/insert name of favorite power shot.

This is why I described it previously as a distraction!

Thanx

 

I can't really speak for all CMA, but certainly the ones I have experienced, incorporate little or no blocking as such.

We use deflections or redirections mainly, the reason(s) being;

To redirect the attacking force away from it's intended target, whilst letting the attackers momentum carry on, and supplement the force/effect of your counter.

In select instances, some of these deflections can be used to cause pain in their own right, but never meet hard tissue with hard tissue.

Option 1/ Strike before the attack starts.

Option 2/ Strike before the attack gains any momentum.

Option 3/ Deflect the strike, and counter with the other hand simultaneously.

Option 4/ Deflect the strike, and counter as soon as possible with any weapon available.

Same applies to any attempt to grab/grapple.

Preferably I'll move to the outside of a strike, at a 45 degree angle, staying close, and forcing my opponent to turn into my weapons if he/she can/wishes to continue.

 

Hi ckdstudent

Did my examples clarify why I wouldn't be left open? I'm hitting him at the same time that he's 'hitting' me. He ain't going to slip or weave because he's still striking with his first blow. Its not a case you attack then I block and counter, then you block my counter and counter with yours. Its more a case of you move to attack and I hit you at the same time.

But lets say things haven't gone to plan and he does manage to throw a second punch. Look at where you're hands are now. In my example of the straight punch you now have your left forearm held vertically upwards and the right more or less vertically downwards (again the chamber position for downward block). As the left punch comes in just moving your arms across to the right will intercept it. In the example of the round punch my right hand (which was palm-heeling the attacker's face) can move out and back to intercept a high punch or down to intercept a low punch.

I'm not talking about using the standard 'traditional' karate blocks anyway. These clearly don't work anyway as they are taught in 'traditional' one-step sparring.

Just so I'm clear on what's happening here, is your arm travelling inwards then outwards, or outwards then inwards?

Ah, but therein lies the rub. You've said 'first you do this, THEN you do that, THEN you do the other. The techniques I described involved doing the body movement, the block and the counter all at the same. It cannot fail to be faster than the 'block then punch' method you describe.

I have to ask what prevents the attacker from throwing a second punch at the same time you're punching? Unless you have unbalanced or blindsided him with your block/body movement?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that block then punch doesn't work. I've used it many times myself. Clearly it can work, but it is not optimal and is not my preferred solution. If I'm caught off guard however then I may have to use it.

I'm not sure what those different starting concepts might be. A block is a block, a punch is a punch. Is there anything unclear about my examples? Have you given them a go to see if they make sense? Do you have an idea what concepts we're missing?

Me neither

Mike

 

CKD your blocks sound quite tradition. The circular motion can't be as quick as flicking the arm up to deflect a punch and you mention sending it out into the wilderness, sounds more than a deflection!

I mainly practice Wing Chun. A lot of which is simultanious block and punch. Theres a lot of variations in the way you can do it, but as Mike said, it doesn't give your opponent time to put the second punch in, which is why your not left open.

 

Depends what you mean by inwards and outwards. It moves forwards to the side of their technique, carries on through to deflect and then moves back into guard to complete the circle.

I'm used to teaching as a 'try this, then do this' method simply because how many people when they first try a technique are able to do them simultaneously. However when you're used to the techniques then the method I'm talking about is damn fast, and a lot more power in each technique than you could get out of performing a defensive and aggressive movement at the same time.

The fact that your block arm will be back in guard by the time your attacking arm is outside the 'safe zone'.

Different essential principles to our arts. I'm not sure how else to put it really. I wouldn't say you're missing concepts, just using different ones, so that your outlook and understanding of the techniques I'm referring to is flawed, as mine naturally is of yours, since neither of us have ever seen the other's techniques.

 

Trust me, they're not traditional. The circular motion is very fast. Without seeing your 'flick' I couldn't say if it's faster or slower but I'd be willing to bet on it being at least comparable. Our arm doesn't go out into the wilderness, the attacker's limb does because of the altered trajectory of the attack.

Think of it like this. You throw a rock at someone. They throw one directly at it, the two collide and both stop dead. That'd be what I'd consider blocking force with force, something we don't do.

Now the second time their rock catches yours on the side. Your rock's trajectory changes, and it misses them completely, but their rock simply bounces back towards them (I appreciate this wouldn't work, but it's the best comparison I could think of offhand).

 

I understand what your saying with the rocks. In comparison, my rock would just skim off the attackers and the rock would miss my head by only a few inches. And I'd be aiming to hit at that moment or only fractionally later.

Thats the Wing Chun way, and probably many other too. It has advantages and disadvantages like all styles, but I like its close in aggressiveness. Its important to learn more than one style, because no one of these attacking methods is the answer to every fight or every opponent. We practise a few styles of Kung Fu. A harder style is Xing yi. Its slower than Wing Chun, but on the other hand more powerful. Which can be useful for overpowering weaker opponents, knocking them of balance or weapons attacks.

Pa Qau is a more circular style, sounding more like yours with the circular motions you explained CKD. I like that style when it used with footwork, such as moving to the side of an opponent.

 

Angling off, something that we try to emphasize a lot after the first few months. Yeah, its a lovely tactic. Someone throws a punch and suddenly you're beside them. I love doing that.

 

OK, I'll rephrase the question. Does your arm move across towards the other side of your body and then back again (adduction followed by abduction)? Or does your arm move out to your side and then back towards your centreline (abduction followed by adduction)?

Or to look at a practical example, if you're stood with your left leg forwards and the attacker throws a straight right to your head, you block with your leading (left) arm. Does your arm impact his on the inside (of his arm) and knock it out (to the side of his body), or on the outside and knock it in (towards/across his centreline)?

It may be damn fast, I haven't seen it so can't comment. Or maybe its just you that's damn fast. I don't know. But I would conjecture that if you blocked and punched at the same time then you'd be even damn faster. 2 events occur in parallel, or the same 2 events occur in series. Which takes the least time? Its not rocket science.

I don't mean to offend, but it sounds as though you're contradicting yourself. You're saying that 'your' technique is categorically more powerful than another technique, even though you're admitting that you're understanding of that other technique is flawed.

I've described two examples of simultaneous blocks and counters. Try them out, play with them, make your own mind up. If you describe in more detail your technique I'll be very happy to play with it and see if I find it of value to me.

Mike

 

That's exactly how I use deflections with a simultaneous strike.

Throw a punch with your left hand, then imagine your opponent sliding along the outside (or inside) of that arm, and using their momentum to power a lead or rear hand strike.

Rob

 

Angling off/moving to the side, whatever you call it. Is probably the safest way to use whatever technique, whether its simultanious or not. As any boxer will tell you, a moving target is harder to hit. The movement to the side and forward is also the way power is generated for the punch. Instead of the stationery hip generated power.

As a rough example. Your opponent throws a right punch, you move to the side/left and slightly forward, covering/deflecting the punch with a left palm strike while throwing your own right punch in. Your then in a good position to follow up with a left cross or put some knees or elbows in.

 

Across the centreline, and then back. For inwards block anyway.

Faster possibly, but the small amount of extra speed isn't (in my opinion) worth the trade-off in power.

From what I know of the human body my technique should be more powerful. However since I have only a vague idea of the technique that you're referring to I can only make that assumption on a general guess.

I have tried simultaneous block/attack before. It just doesn't work with the mechanics I use.

When you angle off and get out of the way of a technique in order to counter, why waste time and effort blocking at all? You're already out of the way and set up to attack.

 

i think that the speed of the block is secondary to the timing. You may have the fastest parries/blocks but if you dont time them correctly youre in trouble. Its like fighting a small guy when you use faster movements to avoid getting hit but when you fight a larger guy you can move at the same speed and still get hit theres a noticable difference in the whole rythm so the timings got to be adjusted. I think your block can be slower but if the timings correct it can be much more effective than a fast block that is not timed correctly.

blocking and striking simultaniously has its merits but requires a good understanding of both the body mechanics of yourself and your opponent. if you do it when being attacked by a combo fighter you may feel that theres a gap in your defence when you block/strike at the same time. If you train to block/strike at the same time you MUST make sure that you can continue the attack or withdraw as efficiently and safely as possible.

 

I would say that the amount of extra speed is not "small". Rather, it can be rather dramatic. Never mind the fact that you're hitting the attacker whilst he's 'hitting' you, as opposed to giving him time to mentally and physically prepare himself for a second punch.

Like you say, on the one hand you're only making a vague guess but on the other hand you say you're technique should be more powerful. It might be wiser to reserve judgement until such a time as you have enough information at your disposal to make an informed opinion.

But like I said in an earlier post, don't just think of the power generated in your own body. Look at the attacker's momentum. Think about when it will be at its greatest. Perhaps that might suggest an appropriate moment in time to hit him in order to add his power to your own.

Fair enough, but there may be other mechanics that it works absolutely splendidly with.

You tell me, you're the one who's espousing an 'angle off' then block then punch approach.
But being serious, evading a blow is a method employed in different ways by many different martial arts. But even where you do evade it is often useful to offer up a blocking/deflection as extra insurance in case your evasion goes pear shaped - a concept some might call 'redundancy'.

Another reason you might wish to purposefully block. Blocks can be used as attacks, they can be used to destroy the attacker's balance and even to cause damage/pain.

Mike

 

I think you'd have to see one of the techniques to understand. There is no wait between techniques, they flow into one another, but they are not simultaneous. The action of blocking means that you are already set up perfectly for almost any counter technique you care to choose.

No, I espouse an angle off and counter approach. I don't believe in block and simultaneous counter because you lose the rotation of the hip on at least one of the techniques. If you don't need to block at all, don't. If you need to block, block then counter, the two hip rotations are mutually exclusive. You cannot rotate your hip in two directions at once.

That's why we always keep one hand in guard.

If you want to counter instantly I'd say to dodge and counter, and this is what we teach, you still keep the power, you can still deliver the technique, and you don't lose your guard.