TMA questions

I've got quite a few so rather than bombard you I'll just go one at a time.

By the way, I never realised thats why the wrist grab is included in the syllabuses, I thought maybe it was just a simple point of reference to teach beginners...

first question:

In most traditional Japanese Martial Arts (and some Chinese) do you have any idea why is the hand cocked back to the side of the ribs before a punch? Is there some historical or cultural root to this?

I was once told in a TMA class it might have been considered the best way of punching whilst wearing a sword in a scabbard?



ta mate

Richard,

Before I give my answer understand I'm no martial historian like Messrs Morris and McCarthy. The only answers I can give you will be what I've been taught over the years by my various instructors.

The punch from that position is a training mechanism only.

We want maximum contraction in the triceps muscle
We want the punch to follow a straight line (rubbing the forearm extensors and bicep along the rib cage ensures this)
We want the punch as far from the target as possible so maximum acceleration can be obtained.

The fastest way to teach all of that to a group of people is as a line drill with the punch in the formation you mention.

As is so often the case with TMA people see a portion of the program and run with it and think that is all there is.

Not so. Punching in the air for example develops the form of the punch, and the launch phase but it doesn't teach impact.

A punch should accelerate all the way to the target and it is the target which stops it from going further. When you punch in the air though, you have to slow your punch down lest you hyperextend your elbow joints so it should be obvious that it's only one part of the puzzle.

After the person learns the form, and the launch then they would hit things (breaking arts, makiwara) to develop the acceleration and hitting phases. They also then learn to generate more force even though they move over a smaller distance and the hands then get brought up to the side of the jaw/face for protection during the kumite phase of the program.

That's why I laugh when I run into people who think we actually fight this way. A fair comparison would be a boxer working the speed ball...it teaches him timing, rhythm and shoulder endurace...he wouldn't actually throw punches like that in the ring.

Hope that makes sense.

Nick

I know your not a martial historian as such, but I appreciate you taking the time out to answer

so... the way you teach it and as you understand it to be taught: this is purely a training model to aid in the development of skill, not a representation of how an applied punch would ever look? like riding a bike with stabilisers?

The guy who I worked for in Tenerife who ran the doors was a Shotokan 5th Dan, he told me that in Karate once you get your black belt, none of the katas have that stereotypical "karate reverse punch" in them at all, is that true?

If so are there examples in the higher grade katas of punches with a different form to them, maybe more like a boxing form for example?

Final bit of this question: is the footwork that normal occurs in this technique also just a training tool?

My boss in Tenerife (I'll call him T) also said only an idiot would try and use "classical" stances in a fight... whenever I saw him in a scrap it looked a lot more like kickboxing and he would say: "thats traditional karate applied"
Obviously standing round on the door for hours you chat a lot, some of the strikes he showed me that he told me were from shotokan looked very "designed for task".
Like a body shot punch that was only really designed to hit one target in one direction for example.
At the higher levels of the karate syllabus do you see more specific tools being developed like that?
Or was he just pulling my leg?

Nope, sounds like he knew what he was talking about.

We drilled that trad punch so that the knuckles were focused the entire way to the target and not just at the end of the punch like a lot of schools I see.

Malcolm told us it should work at any point along its trajectory i.e the first four inches from the pec (Goju has ours up high) is a rip/uppercut to the body, the next portion is an uppercut to the jaw, and the final third is the cross. (and of course the return portion with the other hand is both grabbing someone to pull them on to the punch and a reverse elbow)

Regarding stances...yep, you don't stand in them during a fight. Why would you stand anywhere in something as dynamic and fluid as a fight?

The reason we have so many of them is because (and here again is proof that traditional karate is so much more than just punching and kicking) we fight at many different ranges.

You can identify a boxer's stance right? And you can identify a wrestler/grappler/judoka's stance also.

But, they only have one job to do i.e a boxer punches, and a grappler struggles to drag someone else down to the ground and sink his center of gravity to prevent being pulled down also.

In karate we are concerned with punching, kicking, grappling and ground work so we have more stances than other systems do because we work over more ranges than they do.

I think also that some systems have lost the plot a bit. I don't stand in a deep stance and throw a punch...the deep stance might be where I end up after lunging in to throw the punch (comparison to a fencer lunging in with the foil to score). I think the misconception comes from seeing a picture of someone in karate in the old days...they'd throw a punch, end up in the deep stance (hugely effective for transferring gobs of power in a straight line) and the pic would be taken. People then assumed "oh, you stand like that then punch" when in fact the opposite was true.

What happens with beginners again is that we build the fighter from the ground up, so rather than confuse them with too much info, I put them in their stance, and, once it's solid, have them throw their technique. In the real world the punch will be the first thing moving and it will "pull" the feet along behind it - if they didn't follow, you'd fall over. In other words, my beginners step in to the stance, correct it, make sure it's solid, then they throw their punch. At a slightly higher level they step at the same time as the punch because they've learned to multi-task in a sense. Later, they'll launch the punch ahead of the feet.

Again, because it has combat origins and the techniques have stood the test of time it's reasonable to assume this is how it is. Moving your feet first isn't going to work because all you're doing is telegraphing your intent.

Another misconstrued concept is the turning around in a traditional school that's lost the "combat" way. You'll see them reach the end of the room, move their backfoot across behind them, then pivot round 180 degrees, and perform a block, before continuing on their way. The first thing to move is their feet and the last thing is the head.

Again, I'd submit that's the way to train beginners. Have them get their feet right first, then add the hands later. The progression though is to have the head move first and the feet catch up. (Crawl, walk run)

Think about a fight. Someone yells out, "Rich, behind you." The first thing you should whip around is your head because you need information, and you need it fooking fast. As your head turns - violently - it pulls the shoulders, which pull the hips, which pulls the legs and then the feet...which also, handily enough, pulls you off the intended line of the aggressor's attack.

This is the opposite of the beginners method because I build the base of the building before I begin putting the 4th floor on. Later on my higher ranks will do it the way mentioned above. Why don't a lot of TMA schools change it? Because their instructors aren't standing in pubs fighting getting the type of feedback necessary to make it effective.

Of course this raises the question well can't you just teach them the way you want them to end up doing it and I'd say no. As Joe Hubbard says "you don't teach someone to swim in a Tsunami" Everytime I've tried getting ahead of the plan you just end up with students with bad habits and no basics...and that's not just in karate. Talk to combat shooters and they all say the same..."you want to be good, practice the basics" but it's human nature to want the fancy stuff.

Another comparison would be how we write. You have a hand writing style, if you have kids, would you just say, look, lets do away with that printing bollocks, and letter craft and we'll just teach you to write like me. Wouldn't work, and it would be a disaster. They print for a few years (linear, like linear karate), then cursive (now think green belt to black in Goju with the introduction of the circular blocks) and then their own hand writing style develops.

What I've been told by the way, regarding the very deep stances and linear karate so prevelant amongst the Japanese, is that it's actually beginner's karate, which makes sense. Funakoshi was Okinawan and invited by the Japanese to teach karate to them. He went up and began teaching them the fundamentals (think printing) and before he could get them to the cursive stage they said "right, thanks very much, we've got this now" and gave him the cold shoulder.

I don't know how true that is - it's one for the historians again - but given what I know about the progression of Okinawan karate from linear with closed fists in the low ranks, to circular and open handed in the higher ranks, it makes perfect sense and I can see it happening.

Nick

I can't understand that about the head movement. I do understand the "walk - crawl -run" concept. But it isn't actually harder to move the head first instead of moving the feet first is it? So why not teach that from the beginning?

Asked and answered...for the same reason you don't teach someone cursive writing from the get go. It's easier to grasp the other way round first. They learn where to place their feet to be balanced and initially have to look down at their feet to correct them..after a while they no longer have to look down...they know by "feel" if they're right. At that point they can throw the head, shoulder, hip, legs feet and they'll end up in the correct position.

Nick

Malcolm told us it should work at any point along its trajectory i.e the first four inches from the pec (Goju has ours up high) is a rip/uppercut to the body, the next portion is an uppercut to the jaw, and the final third is the cross. (and of course the return portion with the other hand is both grabbing someone to pull them on to the punch and a reverse elbow)

ha!
thats pretty cool ive never seen that before

deep stances for grappling, if the togakure ryu ninpo taijitsu is based on the same principles (go on laugh at me for having done ninjitsu ) then that makes perfect sense to me... they would have us doing "sumo steps" as ways of dealing with grapling attacks

I guess people (and by that I include me) forget the grappling element of karate, the deep step isnt then any different than how wrestlers train a double leg even if in an actual MMA bout it doesnt manifest exactly that way

Another thing is sometimes boxers DO go into very deep stances when in a bout.

What happens with beginners again is that we build the fighter from the ground up, so rather than confuse them with too much info, I put them in their stance, and, once it's solid, have them throw their technique.

building from the ground up is a i suppose a bit "un RBSD"... in which usually people are making all the training look exactly as it does in a fight without building core skills/attributes first - which is a shame.

I like the idea that there is a whole course/ process and we are only seeing bits of it and that some schools are stuck at say a lower level training process, thinking its a whole system- it would explain a lot of what you see in modern karate schools.

Funakoshi was Okinawan and invited by the Japanese to teach karate to them. He went up and began teaching them the fundamentals (think printing) and before he could get them to the cursive stage they said "right, thanks very much, we've got this now" and gave him the cold shoulder.

I don't know how true that is - it's one for the historians again - but given what I know about the progression of Okinawan karate from linear with closed fists in the low ranks, to circular and open handed in the higher ranks, it makes perfect sense and I can see it happening.

It would make some sense.
Thanks very much for the info so far.

Couple more questions if you dont mind:

Do you know if circular and open handed for higher ranks is true for all karate styles?

At what point in a normal karate syllabus would students normally be trained in throws, striking as a defence to grappling and groundwork?

My boss "T" seemed to be able to generate a lot of power from a very short range- now he was a naturally aggressive guy who did a lot of weights- is that a facet of black belt karate?
a lot of the stuff looked really almost chinese- you know like "fa-jing"?

sorry for butting in, as i know the questions are directed at Nick, and i am very interested in his response too - but i though i would add that I really think you would find a lot of answers to the questions you have just asked in Gavin Mulhollands new book "four shades of black" - really deals with the progression of fighting skills in karate - and answers specifically some of the questions you have of when would "students normally be trained in throws, striking as a defence to grappling and groundwork?"

back to nick...

I concur about Gav's book Blackshield...I plugged it on the forum already and Richard was one of the guys who said he snuck a peek at it and liked what he saw...now if the cheap bastid would just spring for a copy

Re the punching...yep, Malcolm would have us stand in front of a wall at various distances from 4 to 24 inches and slowly throw the punch...at any point the two big seiken knuckles should have made contact. I see so many so called trad guys who have no idea of this concept. Take a picture of their punch mid-flight and you'll see the little finger leading etc.

The other hand is always supposed to try and grab a handful of the other guy if possible to pull him onto the punch increasing the force of the punch...such as a head on collision v hitting a stationary object.

Great pic in the top L of Gary demonstrating the principle...


Well, ok, it is a great pic but for some reason it's not showing up...try this link instead and scroll down to the photos on the bottom and check the one on the top left...

[url]http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://budo.fateback.com/karatepix/
faiissue38gary2.jpg&imgrefurl=http://budo.fateback.com/
garyspiers.html&h=1130&w=800&sz=189&hl=en&start=5&tbnid=
IWQk4ayX3cp12M:&tbnh=150&tbnw=106&prev=
/images%3Fq%3Dgary%2B
spiers%26gbv%3D2%26hl%3Den[/url]


As for grappling yes...we don't focus on it but we cover it. Seiunchin - the black belt kata in Goju and Zen Do Kai translates to "The Trapping Fight" or "Trapping Battle." As Gavin mentions in his book, when the Okinawans sent karate to Japan the grappling aspect was already well covered in Japan with Judo, Ju-jutsu and Sumo so they were more keen on the striking aspects. As they took and ran with karate they forgot to include the grappling because nobody bothered with that aspect of it when studying it. You see tons of it in the Okinawan versions which is why I've always preferred them for pure self defense.

As for the deep stances...yeah, I've always laughed when people say you'd never see them in a fight...you see them all the fooking time if you look for them.

building from the ground up is a i suppose a bit "un RBSD"... in which usually people are making all the training look exactly as it does in a fight without building core skills/attributes first - which is a shame.

Well, there's a reason for that. They have a limited amount of time to teach someone something to do who's been denied access to his primary weapons system (firearm rifle etc)

Me...I have a lifetime I'd go freaking nuts if all I had to train was five techniques over and over and over. Spare me.

Do you know if circular and open handed for higher ranks is true for all karate styles?

No...you see very very little circular stuff in the Japanese styles of Shotokan and its derivatives for the aforementioned reason of them never progressing to the "cursive" level. It's very prevelant again in Goju.

Again, if you try and put the cart before the horse and have beginners blocking open hands etc they invariably end up with broken/jammed fingers from attempting to block kicks with poor timing. Once they reach about green belt level the hands open as their timing has now developed to the point where they catch the kicks instead of sticking their fingers in the way. Far safer to use closed hands early and open hands later.

As for circles...circles begin when the straight line stops...you have to have both when you fight. I can't, when I'm standing on the toes of my opponent and almost chest to chest, throw a straight punch. At that range I'm using hooks, uppercuts and elbows etc., so they have enough range to travel over to develop sufficient acceleration to do damage. (Same reason boxers use them at close range) At longer range the circle would take too long so you go straight line. Any good system is going to cover both those bases. That's why Goju has hooks, uppercuts and so on and it surprises me when I run into people who think the only punch karate has is the straight line one. Go pick up one of Oyama's books from the seventies and he has hook punches, uppercut punches, shovel hooks, and so on.

Re the power at extremly close range. Yes again. Any good system will work on it. I noticed when I first began hitting people "professionally" i.e. on the door, age sixteen and a brown belt that a lot of the injuries were superficial such as cut lips, black eyes and pain. Later on, after a year or two at black belt level, I began breaking jaws, knocking people out, breaking ribs etc. Later still the internal organs were being destroyed.

Now, that might sound like cobblers, and I'm loathe to talk about this stuff on the web but all my assault charges reflect this. The early ones were for common assault, the middle ones all had "victims" with broken jaws and the latter were all GBH with ruptured spleens and comas etc.

Once you've learned the technique you need less room to generate the same amount of power i.e you become more efficient.

There's other generational things that are hard to convey via the web but I'll try. For example, my beginners learn a front kick by picking up their knee, chambering the leg, and then extending the bottom portion out and hitting their target. A green belt - and an untrained person won't see this - is doing exactly the same motion but his support foot twists on the ground so his foot ends up triggering to a 45 degree angle. (His heel moves so what happens is his hip moves forward as a result about 3 inches giving him more penetration and now, some bodyweight behind the kick and, dare I say, without throwing his head forward or leaning off balance )
Beyond that the black belt will go a step further and again, it will not be noticed by anyone watching who doesn't know what's going on. He'll do the same leg motion, the triggering of the foot with the addition of, when his foot makes contact, his hips will lift, - almost as if, and excuse me being blunt, he's fucking someone - which drives the kick inside and up into the body cavity.

Essentially all three guys look like they're delivering an identical kick but that's why the beginner will get the superficial damage, the intermediate student will get bone breaking and the higher rank will be tearing up organs.

I'm again amazed at people at karate college when I taught there, and black belts at seminars etc here in the States who'd never seen any of the above. No wonder TMA gets a bad rap.

Nick

Thanks very much for your responses so far, given me loads to think about

Blocks?

in your opinion are they:

1. blocks
2. forearm strikes
3. miscellaneous bunkai

They can be used as blocks but no, from my personal viewpoint they're not.

To begin with the word "uke" as in Jodan Uke, Chudan Uke etc doesn't mean "block" it means "receiver of technique"

Secondly, if we look at our definition of the word "block" it means "to put something in the way of, to impede forward progress." When you're small and the other thing is big, the best way to not get hurt isn't to put something in front of it to stop it's forward progress.

To illustrate this as an extreme example imagine an eighteen wheeler bearing down on you, do you block it, or do you get out of the way?

Now go back to TMA classes. Small students are "blocking" controlled kicks and getting bruised forearms...imagine a steel booted twenty stoner trying to kick someone about nine stone full force and that same forearm block. I did just such a kick to a small French Cpl in the Legion who tried to block my kick with an X block during Commando training and I broke both wrists.

That blocking motion also doesn't jibe with the whole message of the martial arts which is "the blade of grass bends with the wind, whereas the oak tree snaps etc." The principle is the little guy survives by yielding, not by blocking which is exactly what the oak tree is doing when it breaks.

Lastly, how can something that is circular in motion defeat something linear especially when you consider the linear is launched first? I.e. the ubiquitous reverse punch is thrown and now I have to pick up on it, and then use a larger slower circular motion to intercept the punch??? Can't be done. It only works in the dojo because we're told in advance what punch is coming and where it's coming to.

Once again though we see the moves have survived the test of time so they must be functional somehow...just not as blocks.

Here's one other way to look at the lower block against a front kick. Again, a pain in the arse to try and explain what I could show in ten seconds via film but here goes.

Instead of bringing the left fist up to the right shoulder and chambering the blocking hand ready to slam down on the kick try this instead.

As the kick is thrown - and you're left foot forward - swing the right rear foot behind you in a similar fashion to a bull fighter avoiding the charge. Does that motion work with the smaller person defending against the larger? Well, it works for a bull fighter right!!! You've successfully moved off the line of attack.

Now, as the kick is still coming bring the left hand UNDER the kick on it's way up to your right shoulder thus catching it. That also can be done by someone small v someone large with the added bonus that, if the kick is thrown by someone untrained and off balance, they fall on their arse at this point.

Assuming they're still on balance now grab their foot with your left hand - over the top grabbing the toes/toe area and wrench downward as hard as you can. You now dislocate/wrench/strain/sprain the ankle of the kicker.

It works, it jibes with the principles, a small man can use it on someone big and there's no bruising of the forearm or risk of injury.

Most of the others are the same...

I always had trouble with the original explanations when you didn't see many of them used in sparring etc but I was convinced with the "test of time" argument that they must be viable. When I finally got into Judo, Aikido etc I began to have the "aha" moments and saw the same moves EXACTLY being used in a different context. That's when I realized what they had to be for.

A classic example of that is the X block. Who, in their right mind, strategically, would use two hands to try and stop something in a fight. If it's a feint, and if it's not, you're tying up two hands doing something that could be done by one, or even better, none! Again, has to be something else.

Now, go to Judo and look at the series of strangles called juji-jime





and you'll see what I think the move should be.

Again, analyse it. Does using two hands to attempt to stop someone much bigger make tactical sense? The Legion Cpl will tell you no.

Does applying it as a choking technique make sense especially given that the countries in which these techniques were developed wore kiminos just like Judo tops? I'd submit yes.

Remember the point Gavin made about karate going to Japan and the Japanese already having the grappling angle sewn up and so the focus being on the striking? I think that's why so many grappling applications in kata have been incorrectly interpreted as strikes or blocks. What's the old saying, "if all you have is a hammer every problem looks like a nail"

Last point...all my interpretations of blocks have been applied by me, and my students in the street and in the dojo. Everyone who's ever defended the classical approach can't pull them off on me when asked, and can't explain why you don't see them used thus in real world fighting or sparring.

Nick

so they are pretty much other miscellaneous applications somewhere in the striking and grappling range?

what about forearm strikes as a seperate question? do you rate them?

re forearm strikes...

Are the viable? Yes, but for my personal preference I almost never use them. I try to be surgical when I fight...I want to hit the other guy in precisely the right place, at the right time, with the right amount of force and, not get hit doing so.

Forearms therefore tend not to be needed because I'm either going to be out at kicking range or punching range. If something goes wrong with my plan and now I'm in the middle of it, something on someone may now present itself to be a perfect target for the clubbing forearm. (It's benefit therefore is one doesn't have to be very precise in hitting someone with it)

Nick

I try to be surgical when I fight...I want to hit the other guy in precisely the right place, at the right time, with the right amount of force and, not get hit doing so.

ha! cool

thanks for answering all these questions mate

Dat's what we're here for...anytime at all. Thanks for asking them?

Nick