Do Shotokan blocks work?

Not to worry, good luck with the grading.

Mike

 

Absolutely a loss as far as I'm concerned. But I wouldn't worry about chinese medicine terminology and I certainly wouldn't concern myself with the pseudo chinese medical theories that some people associate with attacking vital points. Attacking vital points is an integral part of the karate that I practice - but no more important than learning about correct dynamics, tactical considerations and so on.

Perhaps they are treated as a distinct art by some, but that's not a view I share. There's no point in learning where and how to traumatise if you're unable to deliver the power to the right place at the right time.

I totally agree, at least as far the Karate systems go. I think my comments apply equally well to all the major Karate systems. Boxing and RBSD may not involve much on vital points either, but I don't think the current discussion on basic blocks applies to them.

Agreed again, the distinction in my mind isn't between Shotokan and other martial arts, its really between the do of Karate and the jutsu.

Mike

 

I don't disbelieve that people eventually learn to hit hard, what I dispute is whether or not it's a suitably efficient drill for an art that has fighting as its primary aim. My argument is that shotokan today is surely not primarily about fighting because it uses inefficient methods.

 

This is what I suspected.

Because here, we have karate practitioners themselves quoting senior karateka, including Gichin Funakoshi himself, and still not agreeing on what the blocks or even the art itself is designed for.

 

Maybe that is what we must understand... accept that there is not one answer, that it is the context that dictates the most reasonable and appropriate answer.

Many things people say and are later quoted on are very open to interpretation because there is not a witness or first hand experience to put context and validity behind what was said.

The world is full on contradictions that aren't so contradictory if the context is known. What is the most important of these three, for example... health, safety, practical application?

For long term health is important, but if we are talking about training in class, maybe safety might be the most important, but if we are talking about being in a street fight, practical application might be the most important.

Context changes what is the priorities and thus it can change what people can say and do say as well as how they act.

 

Do you mean that if you don't train primarily for effectiveness then it doesn't matter whether or not the drill is the most efficient for that purpose?

 

In some ways yes, but what I more mean is that the answer to the SAME question can change based on context and this can seem a contradiction.

I remember telling my son that going to school was very important, but then one day he was sick, I told him he could stay home from school. Does that make school any less important? No is does not. If my son was pretending to be sick and I knew it, I would tell him still to go to school even though he said he was sick.

Okay, maybe not the most applicable example. Here may be a better example.

I have trained people using plyometrics, telling them that this will help them in martial arts. One day I see a student that has no explosive movement, so I emphasize plyometrics training and tell them to explode off the line.

The next day I see the same student pushing off with lots of power and I tell them not to push off. This directly contradicts what I told this student to do the day before. I tell them that pushing off puts a lot of strain on the body and can lead to injury and can cause one to lose footing on wet and uneven floors, so rather I have them step more naturally.

So which is the correct way? Do I want them to explode with acceleration and power or do I want them to be relaxed and step?

The answer is I want them to do both. Now figure out what I really mean? It is a total contradiction, is it not? How would one figure this out?

 

To be honest I really don't understand what you mean, and I also don't understand why karate has this issue when other arts don't.

 

Fair enough.

In reference to your second point. Other arts may be better at explaining what drills and techniques are taught for beginners to practice opposed to what would be used in combat.

Karate seems to be the most visible in showing one way to do something that is basic and claiming it is the way to use it, but in reality it is not the only way and later a variation or new way of seeing things is learned. It is a deliberate deception, maybe cultural or maybe to hide things from the public.

 

If the aim of shotokan isn't purely about fighting like you say, then it makes sense to me. However, moosey seems to be saying that it is, and that's what I take issue with.

 

Hehe, thanks for the reply. I would say you get an A for effort. I can spell it out better what I mean.

Basically pushing off for explosive moment is needed as in plyometric training to build strength. However, pushing off is hard on the body and inefficent because it puts so much strain on ONE muscle set.

What I really want is good technique which changes the sets of muscles used. Changing sets of muscles means that no one set takes all the strain, it also means shorter intervals so that allows for greater acceleration. It also means more control of technique, and it means that it can be done more efficiently and with more relaxation.

On the other hand, if I just taught good technique, people might not get stronger. At some point, sets of muscles need to be isolated and strengthened. I want people to be both strong and have good technique.

So somethings are used to build up strength, but they are NOT the way they should be done in a real fight. Correct technique is the way they should be done... What I want is a strong person to use good technique (which includes being relaxed and tense at the proper times) for maximum effectiveness.

 

It is not purely about fighting.

I think we may be misunderstanding what moosey is really saying. It certainly is about fighting at some level, and it certainly isn't the most efficient means of learning how to fight, it is what it is, IMHO.

 

I don't remember anyone saying that.

 

I do believe that karate is fundementally about fighting. It's main purpose is to teach ordinary people to fight. But people who choose karate do so because they want to learn karate rather than generic self defence.

Perhaps taking boxing alongside weight training will make you a dangerous individual more quickly than starting from scratch in karate (and in that sense, Shotokan is certainly less efficient at turning out a fighter ASAP). However, if it is my aim to become a good fighter, it's definitely my aim to become a good karate fighter. It may take longer, and be less efficient than totally up-to-date methods designed to make a top class sport-fighting competitor, however if I don't weight train enough or don't do supplementary training enough, I would consider that my failing rather than karate's.

It's anyone's choice to train karate at any level they desire. Some people here love karate for the kata - I hate kata and would rather train pair work, but to remove the kata would be spoiling karate for the people who like it. Likewise, some people train in karate for the exposure to Japanese culture (however diluted) or just the fitness. To that extent, I think people can take from karate whatever they wish and hence it isn't inherently about fighting to the same extent that (say) boxing is, as competition is purely optional. Personally, I like the fighting and like the competition and as far as I'm concerned that is karate, but I guess to say that that is all there is to karate would be disagreeing with Mr Funakoshi (who himself said that fighting should only be a part of karate along with discipline, health and the etiquette that used to wind up Mas Oyama).

Sorry - rambling reply here. My point is that I believe the combat is the important feature of shotokan karate, but the way I want to fight is as a karateka rather than a generic fighter. Fighting isn't my hobby, karate is.

 

So shotokan was deliberately designed not to be efficient because it's designed to appeal to a specific audience?

 

Sorry to cut your post off short, but I wanted to say that I've found advanced Karate training to be around 90% supplemental training. With supplemental training being sparring, randori, weight training, cross-training, and anything else not part of the core system of karate.