|
Post by garage on Jun 8, 2014 13:38:32 GMT
This thread is in response to the above statement by Mal King. Didn't want to spoil the nice comments about the course.
Why are long range techniques daft?.
At a distance you can see if they any bright shiny pointy things that they might want to stick in you.
If you are heavy the lovin with cumbrian wrestling is a great idea, for people who have successfully dieted it may not be the best tactic to roll around whilst their mates kick your head in.
I think it is a bit bigoted to sweepingly call all long range techniques "daft" they have a part to play. Throw the baby out with the bath water what ever that means.
In my arrogant opinion. ( like humble but not) Please remember I like to argue for the sake of it.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Davis on Jun 8, 2014 16:01:23 GMT
I'm sure Mal can argue his own corner so I'll leave him to do that BUT .........
I would say that it's more that techniques need to be taught as "distance appropriate". We have a wide selection of techniques in karate that cover long, medium and short range but the "daftness" (IMNSHO ) comes from the fact that many karate classes torture credibility to teach ALL techniques as long range e.g. stepping forward with a gedan barai to block a kick that would have been 4 feet short of the mark if you hadn't stepped in to meet it in the first place, (or any other example we have all seen) so why train, even as a beginner, to respond to attacks that are actually less of a threat if you just ignore them altogether?
|
|
|
Post by garage on Jun 8, 2014 18:45:28 GMT
I see your point but, if you are dealing with a sword you either want to smother it or let it fall short, I can see where this daftness could have come from. You absolutely right being out of range is good and closing is bad. Unless they are trying to shoot you where being closer might be better.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2014 14:36:00 GMT
Regardless of distance is someone was teaching Gedan Barai as a) a block and b) a block against a kick, that would be enough for me to exit the building and find another instructor. :-)
|
|
|
Post by daveb on Jun 13, 2014 17:37:19 GMT
There's nothing wrong with gedan barrai being taught as a block as that is its primary purpose.
The instructor you want to find is the one who can teach you to fight for real with the basics not show you fancy context free imagineering.
|
|
|
Post by th0mas on Jun 16, 2014 9:59:00 GMT
There's nothing wrong with gedan barrai being taught as a block as that is its primary purpose. The instructor you want to find is the one who can teach you to fight for real with the basics not show you fancy context free imagineering. Damnn! I've got a 3rd Dan in Imagineering...
|
|
|
Post by malk103 on Jun 22, 2014 10:55:11 GMT
Daft only in certain circumstances.... Fine to be taught to beginners and okay to be taught to senior grades as a long range option. The problem I have had recently was with a self appointed 5th Dan still trying to tell me that this was the only application (as that's what he was told years ago). This is also fine if you want to only train the classical, basic version of Karate and still don't really want to ever be in a situation to actually use violence. Personally, i'm more interested in learning all posible applications so I can drill using said block at any range or as a grappling technique, if they aren't effective or practical then I am happy to then drop them. I think it's also a good point about range appropriate, depends on the situation but I guess we don't always want to dive in.
|
|
|
Post by garage on Jun 23, 2014 15:26:36 GMT
Much as I would like to argue I was really thinking of a long range punch. I think with the blocks you have to start somewhere. I certainly open the leading hand to grab as I assume that the block comes round to break the twisted joint. The beginning of nijushiho is exactly that, a grab a twist and an upward rising block to the elbow. Least the way I do it.
Sometimes it is like cowboy films you wouldn't draw on an unarmed man. It a survey of dead cowboys a lot of the bullet holes where found in their backs strictly against the rules. So facing someone off with a verbal joust waiting for them to kick off when they choose, is not good survival practice. If they don't see you coming as you have closed the distance before they have seen you might increase you chances of being able to continue posting here.
|
|
|
Post by jimlukelkc on Jun 24, 2014 10:26:28 GMT
This is a far more complex subject than would first appear ; the problem is that distance has been artificially imposed to cope with attacks like oi-tsuki and kicks above waist height. For instance, oi-tsuki is not a long range technique but a way of driving the body weight through the target so that target would actually be much closer and the "end " of the punch would be the ideal finish. If we step back and block age-uke against jodan oi-tsuki our opponent has actually fallen short of his target. Practice of technique against thin air ( or the practice of solo drills, kata etc. )is simply practicing this ideal, which you cant do with full impact or intent against an opponent. When people confuse these issues we leave ourselves open to criticism of being impractical and having to adjust the distance back and forth to accommodate any semblance of practicality. You fight at whatever distance you are presented with but if your attacker is out of attacking distance how can he be attacking you?
|
|
|
Post by garage on Jun 24, 2014 11:30:25 GMT
"if your attacker is out of attacking distance how can he be attacking you?"
If you are stood in a narrow lane and he is running down it with a 5 ft metal bar in hands shouting, you look to your left and right and you are the only one there he is likely to be attacking you, the exit is blocked so you can't run away.
A lot of attackers adopt a boxing pose and I certainly do not want to work at that distance because I am crap at it. Also a verbal clue " I am going to kill you " often gives the game away.
|
|
|
Post by jimlukelkc on Jun 25, 2014 9:28:59 GMT
With the greatest of respect Bert the scenario you describe is not the subject being discussed as I understood it. "Traditional" karate often has the attack initiated at a distance that allows the defender to respond from shizentai. If you close the distance and the attack is fast it is very difficult to get your hands up in time to respond effectively. This is why specific martial arts ( karate, taekwondo, jujitsu etc.) are very good at defending against their own techniques. In fact someone running at you with a weapon yelling he is going to kill you gives you just as much warning and reaction time as most "long range " attacks. Dont get me wrong, I am not saying this kind of training has no value just that it is part of a progression and not the end goal.
|
|
|
Post by garage on Jun 25, 2014 10:14:16 GMT
Thanks for the respect. I am at work and just tend to respond as I am thinking about it to the last post. I know that close in with a boxer I am out of my depth, they are really quick. At 12 feet I can get them and they can't get me, to me that is where shotokan can really work, it is a feature.
Front kick off the front foot as they are comming in seems to be another feature of shotokan.
I would move forward with a block to close the distance, even though they are short because I want to get them.
Maybe I have watched too many films that say a good defence is a strong offence. Maybe I have gone off at a tangent I am doing strikes when you are thinking blocks.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2014 13:03:10 GMT
There's nothing wrong with gedan barrai being taught as a block as that is its primary purpose. No it isn't, there are no blocks in karate. Techniques were just taught as blocks to hide there true purpose once Karate once introduced into the Japanese School syllabus as their true purpose was too dangerous to give to children.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2014 13:05:19 GMT
Why are long range techniques daft?. becasue people don't get attacked from six feet away with oi-tsuki. Karate is a pragmatic civilian self defence (okay nowadays its also a sport) and in pragmatic self defence real life attacks don't take place from six feet away.
|
|
|
Post by ruestir on Jun 25, 2014 13:27:34 GMT
There's nothing wrong with gedan barrai being taught as a block as that is its primary purpose. No it isn't, there are no blocks in karate. Techniques were just taught as blocks to hide there true purpose once Karate once introduced into the Japanese School syllabus as their true purpose was too dangerous to give to children. I always cringe a bit at that explanation as it seems to me a bit of a way to make the other applications more mystical than they really are. I think the truth of it is they were taught as blocks because that was the easiest way to make it stick in their head as a first level application. All of the "blocks" can be taught as escapes from cross or same side wrist grabs and those are no more dangerous than teaching them as blocks. I've also seen a rather nice application of age uke used as an escape from a front 2 handed choke, which is neither dangerous nor harmful to the attacker until you add on the counter attacks, but it is quite a bit more useful than telling someone that they're protecting their head from a hammer fist strike.
|
|
|
Post by kensei on Jun 25, 2014 15:16:51 GMT
a couple of things here. First off their ARE blocks in Karate...but the blocks can be strikes, the arm component of a throw, strikes ext and so forth! My biggest issue is with people who LIMIT the application of a movement and start using terms like "implication" and "this is the intended" or "the original purpose"...Bullocks. If you were around for the original purpose...which is the only way I would listen to you once you say this....you would be well over 250 years old!
Karate is different for everyone, so I am not going to say that my way or your way is right, its fluid and a block can be a block, or a strike ext. now, the actual use and training of a technique...well thats for another day. I have seen some pretty stupid things taught and passed off as "traditional" and "original" and I really dont think the masters of old were looking to get a shot in the pills because they felt a Gedan barai would save them...they were probably (and I say probably) Smarter than this.
As for long distance, I think someone already covered that long, medium and short range should all be focused on and basically MOST techniques can be changed up to be used in these ranges. a technique from six feet out better be appropriate, just as a technique from one foot out should also be appropriate.
One of the biggest issues with Karate today is "self appointed" experts saying that this is this and that is that and not leaveing any room for interpretation. My students learn very quickly upon getting Sankyu that the deep end is were you learn to swim and while before that you are learning basics, at the 3rd Kyu level they learn how and why to apply the techniques properly, to discard what does not work for them and figure out how to make things work for them. Distance is a key component in learning all that.
|
|
|
Post by daveb on Jun 25, 2014 19:29:54 GMT
No it isn't, there are no blocks in karate. Techniques were just taught as blocks to hide there true purpose once Karate once introduced into the Japanese School syllabus as their true purpose was too dangerous to give to children. I used to think so too, but there are a number of problems with that idea. 1. Every pragmatic self defence system has blocks because if someone attacks you first, sticking your arm in the way is sometimes the only defence you have available. Analysis of kata techniques can indeed reveal more advanced methods for common uke movements, but it can also reveal more pertinent strategic information from looking at the principles behind the sequences. 2. The "Okinawan" school system was for teens, not toddlers, and the whole point of introducing karate was in preparation for military service. 3. The only karate that went to schools was the pinan kata, the rest are as they were. 4. Karate was being taught to university students during WW2. If you can't teach young men likely to go to war the adult syllabus then who can you teach. Compare the karate of Itosu, who founded the karate for schools program to that of other masters. There are no significant differences to support the school-boy karate idea.
|
|
|
Post by daveb on Jun 25, 2014 20:30:32 GMT
becasue people don't get attacked from six feet away.... Really? Never? What about that time you walked away from a disagreement only to find the idiot trying to charge in on you? If I stop to think about it I can find countless "real world" examples and rationales for long range methods, baring in mind that no technique can be longer than the limb it employs. Attacks don't just come from the person getting in your face, and we can't assume we will be so effective that a confrontation won't go beyond normal parameters. As I've said elsewhere, the enemy is limitation, usually due to dogma (both traditional and modern).
|
|