41 posts / 0 new
Last post
Tau
Tau's picture

I was thinking about the "inner block" and how it works with a stick:

And then I got thinking even more:

Marc
Marc's picture

Hi everybody,

I did investigate a little more by looking at many more katas from various karate styles. There's a collection of videos at: http://www.blackbeltwiki.com/forms

I watched all of the shotokan, goju-ryu, wado-ryu, shito-ryu and kyokushin kata videos. Except from the various Bassai-Dai/Passai versions, I saw only one single move that looked pretty much like the out-to-in-uke in question. Amazingly enough, it is in Pinan-Sono-Ichi (the kyokushin version of pinan nidan, heian shodan), where it appears as a variation of the hammer-fist-strike. It's at 11 seconds in the video:

So now, I find it ever more curious that that out-to-in-uke is there with us at all.

Remember, there are out-to-in arm moves in the katas, but almost none of them match the full uchi-uke (soto-uke in shotokan) in question. I mean, when you are supposed to show the technique in the kihon part of an exam, it would not suffice to just bring your arm in from the side in any way you please. You're supposed to show the full thing, inlcuding the two-handed "preparation" part and the hikite, and please don't show it as a gyaku-technique, because that's not what is expected of you.

Does anybody have an idea as to how and where to research the history of this?

Marc

rshively
rshively's picture

The inner block used in the kata appears to be a scraping or slicing strike against the radial nerve or the lung meridians. Depending on whether your attack is to the inside or outside of the forearm, the block shows what nerve strikes are intended. Southern chinese martial arts like pak mei and southern mantis depend on this inner block/strike. A British karateka recently said that almost all kata can be performed with a weapon. Yawara works well, along with knives.

Marc
Marc's picture

I like it that in this thread we have a combined discussion of two things:

  • The practical applications of the inner block.
  • The almost total absence of the inner block in karate katas.

rshively wrote:

The inner block used in the kata appears to be a scraping or slicing strike against the radial nerve or the lung meridians.

Thank you, that's another nice explanation of the meaning and usefulness of the inner block.

Nevertheless, we can not really speak of the "inner block used in the kata", because it's not in them. And the main question of the original poster was: Why are they absent, despite their usefullness.

rshively wrote:

Southern chinese martial arts like pak mei and southern mantis depend on this inner block/strike.

Can you by any chance refer us to video examples of inner block used in those systems?

All the best Marc

Oerjan Nilsen
Oerjan Nilsen's picture

Marc wrote:

Iain Abernethy wrote:

Of the kata I practise (regularly) that is certainly true. That fact didn’t really occur to me until I was revising our syllabus and was looking for duplications between kihon and kata. It came as a bit of a surprise to realise that we taught a technique in kihon very early on, but it did not appear in kata until Passai (taught at 3rd dan) … which is pretty much the theme of this thread :-)

Yes, funny, isn't it? So where does that out-to-in-uke technique come from? It appears in kihon and some kihon-kumite forms like gohon-kumite or kaeshi-ippon-kumite. It is almost non-existent in kata, and nobody uses it in its full form in sports kumite.

Other commonly taught techniques that do not appear in the katas I know are mawashi-geri, ura-mawashi-geri and ushiro-geri. But these techniques are useful in sports kumite. They may have developed within karate or they may have been imported from other kicking sports like kickboxing or taekwondo.

Might the out-to-in-uke also have been imported from another martial arts system? The video which Oerjan Nilsen posted (post #2) shows a momtong makki from taekwondo, for example. So its not just us karateka who practise it. I found this video which shows 8 taekwondo poomsae (kata like patterns), and the out-to-in-uke appears in all of them (sometimes in reverse form).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ELApKxX3qk

Does anybody here have any knowledge as to the history of the taekwondo patterns in the video? I mean, are they historical self defense systems like most karate kata? Because to me they look more like modern collections of basic techniques presented in a kata like fashion?

There are other taekwondo patterns that more resemble karate kata (see http://www.blackbeltwiki.com/itf-taekwondo-patterns for a list of 24 videos). If you take won-hyo http://www.blackbeltwiki.com/won-hyo for example, you will even identify it as pinan shodan (heian nidan). If you like to see an out-to-in-uke look at pattern 24 (Tong Il) at 14 seconds in. It is the only one in all of them.

Maybe someone can confirm the lack of out-to-in-uke moves in other systems like tai-chi or kung-fu?

So, what are the origins of Uchi-Uke (Soto-Uke in Shotokan)?

All the best

Marc

Hi Marc. The Taegeuk Poomsae were made by the KTA (Korean Taekwondo Association) between 1967 and 1972 (they were introduced in 1972). They were made by a forms comitte were each "Kwan" or school had at least one senior member represent them. The schools these members came from had Shotokan, Shito Ryu, Shudokan, and Chinese martial arts roots. Many say like you that they were made simply to be a collection of basics but having trained and studdied them for 14 years I believe that if they were not originally constructed as self defense forms or combative forms then at least you can make them into that if you so choose. But historicly these forms have been used to drill basics and only basic kick block punch applications have been published and taught openly. There were many reasons behind the creation of the forms. Some of these reasons were that at the time they practised foreign forms and wanted to create something "korean" since the Japanese had been occupying Korea for many years. Some say it was to merge the different schools together and instead of favouring one schools forms standard they all worked together to make forms they all could agree upon. I hope that helps:-)

rshively
rshively's picture

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJh24bWC88k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcrG5Zu9UwI&index=2&list=PL5A72C6AA27A6610B

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lv2FR6-bNIM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrv1Ai0nh-E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcaeI-2kiKM&index=3&list=PLDE3B475D27CAE78E

There are any number of southern chinese martial arts that use the inner block or withdrawing arm in their systems/forms. Many of todays katas practiced by Japanese stylists are devoid of Chinese influence due to prejudice. Also, when the term "karate" changed from china-hand to empty-hand, changes were made to insure there were both open-door and closed-door or family systems that kept the arts separated. Take for example the style Ryuei ryu, up and until the late 20th century no one had even heard or seen the style practiced. It's lack of publicity doesn't detract from its efficiency.

The lack of an obvious inner block in some styles of karate often means that kata are/were changed as they are passed on. Some people think a movement like an inner block is useless, so they change or alter the kata(s) and their style(s) to reflect their mindset. When you withdraw your hand to your waist, does it always follow a straight line, or can it follow an inward curve before reaching your hip? Is there a weapon; i.e. knife stuck in your belt (front or back) that you intend to draw and include in the fight. If the fight reaches this level, than it's not just about dominance, but mortality. Wing chun and pentjak silat players often use what some call an inner block to setup the opponent's arm for a counter. To a silat player, the lack of a weapon-knife means you are doing kuntao or kung-fu. Add the knife and you have silat.

Why mention all of this when talking about an inner or inward blocking motion? Simple, I've met too many people who were convinced that their method of "parting hairs" regarding terminology and technique is of the utmost importance because of their limited mindset. You can redefine almost anything to an nth degree, but all that does is detract from the beauty and effectiveness that are a style's kata.

Anatomy is universal. The real beauty is the pursuit of excellence in attempting to learn, then upon learning judging your progress by how well you understand the material. Application is the brush, paint and canvas of life. The Mona Lisa is a lovely painting. But, whether it's DaVinci in drag, or a combination of several women, it's still a lovely picture. Oyata said it best, "in karate there are no blocks, only strikes...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDiNnne7MqI

For example, this is a typical silat form. Remove the knives and you have an empty hand drill/kata. And there are inward or inner blocking motions in it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7YDkZrJ-V0

This version of uechi sanchin kata shows the importance of an inward or inner block as a chamber to a strike, or a double strike combination: if your intent is to deflect first, punch with the extended hand, then follow thru with a reverse strike. Modern day sanchin is not just a kata or a drill/exercise, it's both. In China it's considered the highest form of martial arts. Chito-ryu considers sanchin to be its highest kata.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-QoKY5TH7I&list=UUMYIPpJLaRApVi2Wz5PFzSw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2OyH7PnjTM&index=7&list=PL5C1BBD36398B6D8A

Then there's hakka style kung-fu. Their forms or kata are special in that they often fight in narrow walkways; only front and back movements, minimal turning, etc Their version of tai chi is vastly diufferent, but sill equally effective when used in combat. Many southern styles like wing chun, southern mantis, pak mei, etc. had their start or were influenced by the hakka mindset.

Anatomy, like martial arts is universal. There are any number of ways to punch someone in the nose. The method and/or means are irrevelent. All that is important is the final application or the end result

Marc
Marc's picture

Thanks Oerjan for this insight.

Oerjan Nilsen wrote:

Many say like you that they were made simply to be a collection of basics but having trained and studdied them for 14 years I believe that if they were not originally constructed as self defense forms or combative forms then at least you can make them into that if you so choose.

I'm sure you can make any martial art move into a self defense application. We have seen it for the techique in question through the videos posted in this thread. It can be very useful.

The interesting part in the context of this thread is that the out-to-in-uke is abundantly featured in these Taegeuk Poomsae, while all the older (should I say traditional) forms/kata in both taekwondo and karate do not contain this move (in its entirety) at all (almost).

Oerjan Nilsen wrote:

But historicly these forms have been used to drill basics and only basic kick block punch applications have been published and taught openly. There were many reasons behind the creation of the forms. Some of these reasons were that at the time they practised foreign forms and wanted to create something "korean" since the Japanese had been occupying Korea for many years. Some say it was to merge the different schools together and instead of favouring one schools forms standard they all worked together to make forms they all could agree upon. I hope that helps:-)

Yes, it does help. I find it interesting, that politics comes into play here. This time, as you suggest, it might be actual international politics (foreign occupation). Or it might be, as it is the case all too often, internal politics of an association of schools.

Maybe if we could gather more information on the background of the Taegeuk Poomsae we could find a hint as to where the out-to-in-uke originates from? Because that still remains the key question of this thread.

Thank you and take care

Marc

css1971
css1971's picture

lol. I've just been wondering where soto-ude-uke came from as a kihon technique...

The Bassai/Passai example with the preceding leg scoop is clearly a throw. Which leads me to believe that balance and dualism required an out to in technique.

Could always ask the JKA.... I just emailed them.

OnlySeisan
OnlySeisan's picture

It could just be made up.

Many Okinawan schools adopted things that originated in mainland Japan because of their popularity. Shoshine Nagamine writes about the instant karate instructor in Japan in his book the Essence of Okinawa Karate-do. Basically, someone who didn't know what they were doing opened a dojo and only taught jiyu kumite, because it's much easier to jump around and play tag than teach people actual self-defense practices.

It could be a more stylised representation of just swatting a punch down like you see all the time in point sparring.

I think it also really depends on what's going on with the other hand. Is it a dead hand? Is it holding something, or a press block at close range?

I mean if we're complaining about "blocks" that don't really work as blocks the way they are traditionally taught than all of them really don't work.

Why would you use two motions to prevent a move (punch) that takes one motion?

Also, are we sure that it's defending against a punch? It could just as well be a grab and smashing down on the top of someone's forearm would probably encourage them to let go.

Oerjan Nilsen
Oerjan Nilsen's picture

Here is one of my takes on the middle section inward block:

http://jungdokwan-taekwondo.blogspot.no/2015/09/part-2-self-defense-appl...

Pages