Personally, I this this is a great article, video at the bottom. Apologies if this has been posted before. http://dandjurdjevic.blogspot.com/2008/08/karate-kamae-or-guard.html
what about hooks, uppercuts, overhands? also, what if the attacker 'zones out' or sidesteps whilst jabbing? it seems a pretty narrow minded use of it - i'm sure it could be pratical in certain situations, but notice how the instructor constantly tells his student which arm to jab with, and the type of jab thrown.....reminds me a little of that Jim Carrey sketch on SnL where he was 'attacked the wrong way'
Agreed. Many strikes are directed "along the line of attack" and would suppress such a block. Too much intelectualising when in fact the first thing to go when under attack is "the plan".
I think it's good to discuss the original intention for the kamae, but I'm also thinking it can be quite easy to compromise that set up if it's static. All you need to do is push your opponent's lead arm with your lead arm, and punch over the top, or something similar. I think I'm happy sticking to the simple idea that one hand is free to block high attacks, and the other low
All he really seems to be advocating is controlling the centre line , fairly basic stuff. I would have liked to see the drills however.
From a wing chun point of view, by the looks of it it would be so easy to create the bridge. As that scene in Warriors Two when the teacher is asked how to build the bridge, he punches the student, who blocks it, now their arms are in contact, "Now we have a bridge." I can see how it would be very useful for someone else using straight up boxing (ie, from the era the stance came from) but for more modern use where people are more aware of movement I think it would be easy to overwhelm it, and as I said for using wing chun it would be so easy to get that bridge and make contact, then go from there, or even before that the likes of pak sau/pak da (as seen in Enter the Dragon, the opening moves of Bruce's fight against O' Hara, for those unfamiliar with wing chun terms, where the hand is struck sharply out of the way then the punch goes straight through). Even with good reflexes and a strong stance, such a fast short movement would be likely to be successful. It is good to see such things explored, though, I appreciate the theory behind such things.
I thought I saw a drill or two on youtube, or his blog, but I can't find it. If Dan doesn't check in here, you can ask at his forum. Decent guy...might tape them just 'cause you asked! youtube: http://www.youtube.com/user/dandjurdjevic forum: http://www.traditionalfightingartsforum.com/phpBB3/
The "bridge building" concept is very important in CMA which makes it different from the western boxing. The western sword fight uses the similiar concept - touch sword against opponent's sword to sense opponent's intention. IMO, there is no perfect fighting stance. If your opponent is - 200 feet away, you are safe to lay down on the ground. - 20 feet away, you are safe to drop both hands next to your knee. - 6 feet away, you are safe to raise your hands on your waist level. - 3 feet away, you will need to raise both arms to protect your head. You drop your guard to invite a punch. You raise your guard to invite a kick. It all depends on your game plan. In order to catch a fish, you have to use bait.
In all fairness he does state that it's only for straight punches. Does anyone know if he is a member here on MAP?
Not sure but i remember training at that dojo while i was in Perth Western Australia about 7/8 months ago on holiday from work not M.A and had a great time.
He's basing his theory off of a static picture where if you watch old bouts the popular idea was to circle your arms in an attempt to confuse your opponent. Watch Jack Johnson in this highlight video and you'll get a better idea of why they did what they did. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubUrl4YU2QE"]YouTube[/ame] Keep in mind, at the time boxing was still heavily influenced by fencing.
I think one major problem with specifying definitively what something is or isn't for is that it misses out on a lot. I don't know if the guy in the vid was suggesting that this is the basis for the guard, but it obviously makes more sense to say that this is one of the uses for the guard.
I love how Jack Johnson uses his hands to trap and monitor his opponents arms. Particularly at the elbows. Using a sort of over hooking hand position that makes it hard for his opponent to get their arm back out again. He then seems to hit off that knowing that one arm is not a danger. Not exactly smooth boxing but pretty clever. Perhaps someone taught him how to use hikite?
I don't want to bring up the old debate again, but I do find it interesting how the old boxing guard, and I guess some techniques, bear resemblance to karate kamae, and then how the developments in both arts/sports demonstrate a clear evolution in the guard position. All very interesting! Also, as an interesting aside, does anyone feel kamae to be a natural position to move to? Like when you put your hands out to create distance? I guess it's the 'fence' argument. Not something I know too much about, really
He actually had to learn how to do that for his own survival and success. Not many people in that era wanted to see a black man easily KO white men left and right, so Johnson tended to be very defensive and a great counterpuncher until the later rounds, then he used his power to score the KO (of which he scored many, 40 KOs in 73 fights and most of them before the three knockdown rule). The first real American heavyweight champion of the world, and even now doesn't get the recognition he truly deserves.
Yes, this is what I was thinking. Not something you would use all the time in sparring, and obviously has its flaws, but definetely worth experimenting with and working on.
