17 posts / 0 new
Last post
Anf
Anf's picture
Head up, guard down

I'm constantly trying to reconcile martial arts with practical self defence. Sometimes in doing so, I feel very much out of my depth. Ie really struggle to see anything practical in certain aspects of a style. Sometimes it's blatantly obvious of course, sometimes it's there but less obvious, and sometimes, try as I might, I can't see it for looking.

One example is the head up, guard down stances of karate, taekwondo, and some styles of kung fu. I've heard the argument that it's best to guard the torso because nobody can repeatedly strike the hard head without damaging their own hands, but I completely don't buy that whatsoever. I've witnessed enough violence to know that people will break their own hands on people's skulls and keep going. Even if your average beer fuelled thug was to say 'ooh, that hurt my knuckles, I won't do it again', the person whose head they broke their knuckles on is in a worse position.

So why do we practice stances with our head so exposed and our guard low?

The only possible tenuous connection to self defence I can think of is that the best defence is often apparent confidence, and keeping your head up and unguarded signals confidence. I wouldn't bet money on that being effective either.

Reasins I've heard include, it keeps your airways open. But boxers are among the fittest athletes there is, and they keep their chin down and guard up. Head up means you can more easily see multiple attackers. Maybe. But then there's more attackers to hit your unguarded head. And unless I'm unique, peripheral vision works very well with chin down and guard up too. Head up makes you look more like a psycho and therefore more intimidating. But if you're under attack, you're not the psycho. That title goes to the other guy.

I'm sure there's a reason. I just can't see it.

Chris R
Chris R's picture

The hands are not up in a guard because they are busy doing something. Techniques in kata tend to be for close range, where you are actively using both of your hands to clinch and strike the other person. This involves positioning yourself and controlling the opponent to prevent them from hitting you. So the technique itself is supposed to stop you getting hit, while involving the use of both hands to defend and counter, hence why there is no guard present. Obviously this doesn't work if you stand in striking range and exchange shots with the other person, and when people assume that Karate was designed for this, they run into trouble when trying to apply kata techniques. If you plan to stay in striking range and have an exchange, then you definitely need a solid guard. You should also consider that the kata include stuff like grab defenses, joint locks, neck manipulations, and throws, during which the hands are obviously not going to be in a guard. Those are probably the main reasons for the lack of fixed guards in karate/kata.

As for the chin up/down argument, look up the thread "Chin down?" on this forum. I also asked why the chin is up so often in karate, and Iain gave a response.

Anf
Anf's picture

Thanks for the input Chris R.

With regard to the forum post you refer to, either I'm missing something, or perhaps it's because I'm viewing on my phone rather than a real browser, but I can't actually find a search facility.

Chris R
Chris R's picture

Yes, I think you can only search on a real browser. Here's a link: https://www.iainabernethy.co.uk/content/chin-down

Anf
Anf's picture

Thanks. Some good points in there.

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

This post and video would also seem to be relevant:

https://iainabernethy.co.uk/content/guards-self-defence

As with so much, it’s not really a case of “right” or “wrong”; it’s what is optimal in a given context. If you’re boxing, then a high, close guard with the chin down is optimal. In a WKF style competition, then a lower guard with the chin up is optimal. For self-protection, guards are an irrelevance. If we are covering up, then chin down is a good idea … but we need to keep 360 awareness due to multiple enemies and the need to take the optimal escape route. Chin down all the time get’s in the way of that because it limits head movement. I think the key is always to what the context deems optimal. The problem dictates the best solution. There is not one solution that is optimal to all problems though.  

All the best,

Iain

Anf
Anf's picture
Iain Abernethy wrote:

. For self-protection, guards are an irrelevance.

In a self protection situation, guard is very relevant. It's the difference between having your face smashed in or possibly walking away.

Many assaults start with a show of aggression and bravado that often starts with pushing and shoving and verbal altercation. At this point, the intended victim will want to still try to diffuse the situation without fighting, but absolutely needs to be ready for the first inbound, just in case diplomacy fails. This is where a guard of some form is essential. And this is where my thinking was when I started this thread.

In this scenario, the boxer's guard seems irrelevant. To me, it looks like the person doing it is the one that is choosing to move from threats to actual combat. Not what we want in a self protection scenario. We want witnesses to see that any action we take is self defence and reasonable and proportionate. I'm not sure the boxer's guard sends that signal. Likewise we want our assailant to know that we are not starting the fight.

The stances and guards I've encountered in traditional martial arts, mostly karate and derivatives but also kung fu, seem equally inappropriate in the scenario described. They not only look aggressive but also have the disadvantage of leaving the head very poorly guarded.

The boxer's pose I can understand. It has evolved that way through competition subject to very specific rules. But the stances I see in traditional styles, I'm less sure about. I see their value when performing choreography, and even for point sparring. But hese styles are purported to be about genuine combat and self defence. I understand that many instructors don't really teach self defence (even though they often claim they dol but they didn't invent the stances. So I'm wondering where they came from and what they are for. The stances and guards I'm referring to can be seen in Funakoshi's book, so we can't say it's just something new and competition oriented.

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Anf wrote:
In a self protection situation, guard is very relevant.

Totally disagree. Guards matter in consensual violence. The are totally irrelevant when it comes to non-consensual violence. Here is why:

 

Anf wrote:
Many assaults start with a show of aggression and bravado that often starts with pushing and shoving and verbal altercation. At this point, the intended victim will want to still try to diffuse the situation without fighting, but absolutely needs to be ready for the first inbound, just in case diplomacy fails. This is where a guard of some form is essential.

Put a guard up at that point and you’ve just consented to a street fight. You've lost the initiative, the ability to surprise, and control of the enemy’s limbs. It is a very bad idea. It’s a bad move tactically and legally.

What we should do is subtlety control distance and lines of attack during the dialogue stages. We do this by tactically “talking with out hands” and subtlety / deceptively positioning our body. Guards have no role here. None.

Karateka will use guards when they fight each other. Exactly what guard will depend on how they have agreed to fight. They have no place in the self-protection aspect though.  

All the best,

Iain

Anf
Anf's picture

When I trained in aikido for a very short time, we were taught a guard that looks submissive. To the untrained onlooker, it looks like you're just putting your hands out in front of you almost as one might do instinctively if frightened, except the body is positioned slightly side on and the arms and wrists are bent in a way that allows very rapid hand movement in any direction. This is a guard. It is widely accepted that a punch is faster than a block, in that there is a reaction time from punch setting off before you even begin to do anything about it. If you haven't got a guard going in any form, any reaction you give has to happen from a much less ready position. Which brings me to the 'ready stance', which features in Funakoshi's book, and Korean styles. To me it is very much the 'not ready' stance. Arms down, feet slightly apart, front on, every target undefended. So again, given that karate started as a self defence system and only later evolved into competition sport, I still wonder where the stances and guards came from, and how we can reconcile them with self defence.

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Anf wrote:
When I trained in aikido for a very short time, we were taught a guard that looks submissive. To the untrained onlooker, it looks like you're just putting your hands out in front of you almost as one might do instinctively if frightened, except the body is positioned slightly side on and the arms and wrists are bent in a way that allows very rapid hand movement in any direction.

That sounds like what most would regards as an unrefined “fence”. That has a very important role during the dialogue stages. It is not a guard and has no role when things have kicked off. The distance and rate of fire at that point need the hands to be active.

Anf wrote:
This is a guard.

Defining it as a “guard” introduces confusion because you are using a common term for two very different things. One is to be used in-fight during a consensual exchange. One is to be used during the dialogue stages of non-consensual violence. They have very different roles and are massively different in nature. I’d not use the labelling you do because it blurs the boundaries between consensual and non-consensual violence. That brings huge problems.

The dictionary definition – as provided by Google – of a guard is, “a defensive posture that is adopted in a boxing or martial arts contest or in a fight.” I think that’s how most would also understand the term. It does not fit with what we are describing. I’d therefore never refer to it as “guard” and I’d advise others avoid that too.

Anf wrote:
It is widely accepted that a punch is faster than a block, in that there is a reaction time from punch setting off before you even begin to do anything about it. If you haven't got a guard going in any form, any reaction you give has to happen from a much less ready position.

Which is why we seek to pre-empt from a fence. You can’t do that effectively if you put your arms into any form of obvious combative posture. You give the game away by “showing intention of attacking”:

"When there are no avenues of escape or one is caught even before any attempt to escape can be made, then for the first time the use of self-defense techniques should be considered. Even at times like these, do not show any intention of attacking, but first let the attacker become careless. At that time attack him concentrating one's whole strength in one blow to a vital point and in the moment of surprise, escape and seek shelter and help." – Gichin Funakoshi

“When faced with someone who disrupts the peace or who will do one harm, one is as a warrior in battle, and so it only stands to reason that one should seize the initiative and pre-empt the enemy’s use of violence.” – Kenwa Mabuni

“When one does fight, taking control of the enemy is vital, and one must take that control with the very first move. Therefore, in a fight one must attack first. It is very important to remember this.” – Choki Motobu

Reaction is very unlikely to succeed. Which is why we use the fence to do as I stated on the above post:

What we should do is subtlety control distance and lines of attack during the dialogue stages. We do this by tactically “talking with our hands” and subtlety / deceptively positioning our body.

This taking away of options is what helps us if we mismanage the dialogue and lose the opportunity to pre-exempt. What I’m describing here is nothing close to a passive “guard” though. It’s very active.

Anf wrote:
Which brings me to the 'ready stance', which features in Funakoshi's book, and Korean styles. To me it is very much the 'not ready' stance. Arms down, feet slightly apart, front on, every target undefended.

I think you are mistaking postures and language there. The position you are referring to is called “shizentai” (自然体) or “Hachiji dachi” (八字立). Nether translates as “ready stance”

Shizentai = “Natural Body”

Hachiji dachi = “Shape of eight position” (referring to the feet looking like the Japanese character for eight).

These are neutral positions used primarily for etiquette.  Conflating these with combative positions is like confusing soldiers standing to attention when on parade with the positions they would take during a firefight.

You seem to be confusing the command “yoi” (用意) with the purpose of the position. Yoi can be translated as “ready” but that is in reference to getting mental ready to perform a given form of training.

The neutral posture (“natural body” / “shape of eight”) is a position related to etiquette – along with the bowing, etc – and the name of the posture in no way infers it is a tactical position. The command issued when the position is taken (you seem to be conflating the two) refers to getting mentally ready to train. This is how it is used across the globe. It is never suggested that it is an optimal position to be used in self-protection.

Anf wrote:
So again, given that karate started as a self defence system and only later evolved into competition sport, I still wonder where the stances and guards came from, and how we can reconcile them with self defence.

I think you’ve both asked and answered your own question there:

“only later evolved into competition sport, I still wonder where the stances and guards came from”

They came from that evolution.

You don’t see guards and fighting stances in the kata. That is because the kata pre-date the move away from civilian self-protection to modern budo and mutual combat. Not everything in modern karate relates to self-protection.

Anf wrote:
and how we can reconcile them with self defence.

You don’t. They are not for self-defence. They are to do with duelling.

Trying to tie together the consensual violence stuff (which came along later) with the non-construal violence stuff does not work historically and, more importantly, practically. We can do both. We can understand that karate has evolved to include both. To train both as efficiently and effectively as possible, we need to keep them separate. Guards belong in the realm of construal violence. They have no role in self-protection. We should not reconcile them, but recognise they are different tool for different jobs.

My toolbox may contain both paint-brushes and hammers, but I would never spend a moment trying to workout how a hammer relates to painting, or how I can use a paint brush to knock nails in. They have different jobs.

Guards are tools used for consensual violence. They have no role in self-protection.

All the best,

Iain

Anf
Anf's picture

Thanks Iain. That's a very comprehensive and informative post. It makes a whole lot of sense.

With regard to the terms 'fence' vs 'guard', I hadn't realised there was a difference. We often hear the call to 'keep your guard up' both in martial arts and in every day life, generally meaning to not let yourself get caught out. I can see now that terminology in this specific context is relevant and indeed key.

I think my confusion re ready stance arises from the fact that I've heard some instructors claim it makes you ready for a surprise strike. This is what puzzled me, because when I stand in ready stance, I really don't feel ready to react quickly and decisively to any form of surprise attack. I do however feel ready to begin the next training exercise.

I get that the usual guards don't appear in forms. That makes perfect sense.

The only thing I still struggle with, is that Funakoshi's book shows pictures of various guards, yet he seems to have been very much opposed to competition. Although he does hint that hot headed youngsters may want to spar (unless I'm confusing my quote sources). I have read that karate as a display art and aristocratic duelling system almost as a game predates Funakoshi, so perhaps that's where the stances/guards come from?

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Anf wrote:
We often hear the call to 'keep your guard up' both in martial arts and in every day life, generally meaning to not let yourself get caught out. I can see now that terminology in this specific context is relevant and indeed key.

That’s a good observation. It’s a little like how, “keep on your toes” can mean being mentally alert and responsive in an everyday sense; as opposed to advice specifically relating to footwork. I guess the danger is combative terms become everyday analogies, and then come back into combative parlance having had their specific meanings blurred.

Anf wrote:
I think my confusion re ready stance arises from the fact that I've heard some instructors claim it makes you ready for a surprise strike. This is what puzzled me, because when I stand in ready stance, I really don't feel ready to react quickly and decisively to any form of surprise attack.

I can see value in practising delivering strikes from such positions as a form of perpetration for worst case scenario. In a sense that makes us ready / able to deliver strikes from such bad positions. However, the position itself does not makes us “ready” because it’s a tactically bad position. It’s a little like practicing delivering strikes from a seated position. In self-protection, you may need to be able to deliver such strikes … but it does not follow that being seated makes you “ready”.

Anf wrote:
The only thing I still struggle with, is that Funakoshi's book shows pictures of various guards, yet he seems to have been very much opposed to competition. Although he does hint that hot headed youngsters may want to spar (unless I'm confusing my quote sources).

You hear all the time that Funakoshi was anti-sparring, but that 100% wrong. In everything he wrote he was pro-sparring. Indeed, in his first book he states that we need to develop better armour, so the grading system can be based entirely on sparring. He was anti-competition though. He did not want karate to be a competitive sport. In a lot of modern dojo, they only ever spar in a competitive way. They therefore wrongly conclude that anti-competition = anti-sparring. Not so.

In my dojo, we spar in lots of ways; but never inline with the modern competitive format. We don’t engage in WKF style competitions and we therefore don’t train for them, but we do a ton of sparring. A lot of that sparring reflects the nature of self-protection; but we also include consensual violence skills albeit of a more “all in” variety.

Funakoshi talks about the live practise of his youth which would include multiple opponents, grappling, fighting back up from the floor, etc. He stresses the importance of such practise. Such live practise is necessary if we are going to be to be able to apply the methods of the kata. As time goes by, the focus shifts from solely dealing with criminals in self-protection to also include duelling fellow karateka. As this happens, the associated footwork and guards also appear. They therefore also appear in Funakoshi’s later books. Remember that Funakoshi was clear that karate had changed a lot during his life time:

“Time change, the world changes, and obviously the martial arts must change too. The karate that high school students practise today is not the same karate that was practised even are recently as ten years ago, and it is a long way indeed from the karate I learned when I was a child in Okinawa”.

Funakoshi was writing for the audience of the time. He was not showing the unaltered karate he practised as a youngster in Okinawa. The guards are in the later books, because they were part of karate practise at that point.  

It’s also worth noting that although Funakoshi was something of an innovator himself, he was not that happy with the direction karate eventually took. In 1956 he wrote:

“It is with mixed feelings of joy and remorse that I have watched and tried to provide a better direction to the course of karate, and I am at a loss to estimate the influence I might yet exert on its strongly flowing course. In any case, now that I am close to being 90 years old, it is not for me to speculate on the future.”

In short, Funakoshi was a great supporter of live practise from the get-go. However, originally this was inline with karate’s self-protection raison d'être (non-consensual violence). Later on, he began to also include methods suited for live practise against a fellow karateka (consensual violence). While he seemingly had no issue with that development (commonplace in the budo of that time), he was worried karate could become a competitive sport as a result. Ultimately had mixed feeling about how karate had changed during his lifetime.

I hope that’s of some help.

All the best,

Iain

Anf
Anf's picture

Thanks Iain. Again that's a very informative post that makes a lot of sense. Thanks.

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Anf wrote:
Thanks Iain. Again that's a very informative post that makes a lot of sense. Thanks.

My pleasure. I’m pleased the post was of some use to you.

All the best,

Iain

PASmith
PASmith's picture

I basically have a mantra about hands now....when violence is on the cards...hands are better up than down but better busy than up. It's not catchy I know...working on that.

In other words...if the hands have nothing better to do then put them up as a static guard...they may pick off an incoming strike...like an insurance policy....but there are plenty of other combative uses they can be put to that should take precedent over merely "guarding".

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

PASmith wrote:
hands are better up than down but better busy than up.

I like it! A succinct expression of the whole concept!

 I’m trying to think of a rhyming alternative. This is the best I’ve came up with so far:

Active is best. Up when at rest. Never down.

All the best,

Iain

PASmith
PASmith's picture

The latest video from Lee Morrison on Youtube has some thoughts on "guards" in a real situation that may resonate with what we're discussing here. There's some swearing so I won't link but it's easy to find.

He refers to a fence type position as a "passive guard" and then the "hands up" (boxer/MMA) position as an "active guard". How the hands should go from "passive" to "active" as soon as you pre-empt and stay active while you are in-fight. How an active guard (hands up chin down) can help shield from blindside attacks and return fire, etc. But also he's a big preponent of indexing (settings datums) and using the non-striking hand combatively for clearing limbs, gripping, controlling etc. So although the terminology may be slightly different (and he does seem to stress an in-fight hands up guard more than Iain) it's still in keeping with the notions already discussed of hands being up and active as appropriate and only merely guarding when they have nothing better to do.