Kime Confusion

When I set out to write this post I was planning to explore the concept of kime. This was a word I have heard banded around a lot but only vaguely understood its meaning. Kime means focus, right? Other definitions of kime I have met during my research include "decisive" and "finish" -as in finishing the technique.

However, focus is the most common definition of kime I have met and here lies the confusion. What do we mean by focus? Paradoxically the meaning of focus appears to be rather nebulous! I have read around the subject quite a lot and some martial artists refer to 'focus' as being the 'target' you are aiming for with a punch i.e. the 'kime point'. If you focus all your energy onto the kime point then you will hit your target hard. Others use the word focus to mean a mental attitude, i.e. you need to 'focus' or concentrate fully on executing the punch. Yet others are using the word focus to mean tensing and then relaxing the muscles in rapid succession just at the precise moment you make contact with the target. However some of these people are referring to the muscles in the punching arm and fist whereas others are referring to the muscles in the 'dantian' region in the lower abdomen. No wonder I'm not quite getting it!

What people seem to agree on though is that kime is necessary to produce maximum power in a strike or kick. However there seems to be some disagreement in how this is achieved. People seem to divide into one of two groups. Those that believe you can describe and analyse a punch using principles of physics such as mass, force and acceleration and those that believe you cannot apply such principles to the execution of the 'perfect' punch. I have read forums in which physicists have declared that you cannot apply equations such as force = mass x acceleration to a human punch because these equations were designed to explain what happens when one inanimate object hits another one, e.g. when a ball of one mass hits a ball of a different mass. Apparently humans don't behave like balls! I am no physicist so I have no idea who to believe.

However, which ever group people fall into I have extracted two principles that everybody seems to agree on to hit the 'perfect' punch:

1. Speed is essential. The faster the punch the harder it will be.

2. The target aimed for should be about 4 or 5 inches behind the actual target. i.e you aim 'through' the target not for the surface of the target. This is related to the first principle because maximum speed is achieved at around 70 - 80% of arm extension (according to physics). This means you need to hit the target before your arm is fully extended otherwise your arm will be decelerating.

Is a boxing punch harder than a karate punch? This is a question often asked and debated about. It seems that the answer lies in what you mean by harder, or rather, what your punch is aiming to achieve. In boxing you may be aiming to knock your opponent clean off their feet or even knock them unconscious. If that is what you mean by harder then clearly a boxing punch is harder than a karate punch. However, in karate you may be aiming for your punch to exert maximum pain and damage to your opponent by sending a shock wave through them or breaking a bone. In this case it is important that they are not knocked off their feet since that dissipates the energy of the punch. In this context a karate punch is 'harder' than a boxing punch.

This boxing versus karate punch debate is relevant because a point of contention in deciding what makes a perfect punch is how long a punch should be in contact with the target. In karate it is taught that the punch should be withdrawn as soon as it makes contact with the target, i.e the muscles must be immediately relaxed. This prevents you from 'pushing' the opponent and dissipating the energy. However in boxing the aim is not to cause maximum damage to the opponent (its a sport after all) so a punch usually has a follow through which necessitates the fist to make contact with the target for longer, dissipating the energy and pushing the opponent backwards. The perfect punch is different depending on whether you are boxing or doing karate. It is like comparing apples with pears.

Many exponents of karate argue that new karateka should not practice punching against a heavy bag but should practice against a strike pad or makiwara post. This is because striking a heavy bag encourages you to 'push' your punches to make the bag move (it looks more impressive). An experienced karateka will know that his punches are more effective if the bag does not move so could probably safely practice against a heavy bag.

Other areas of contention I have found are whether or not one should tighten the fist at the moment of impact. A karateka is taught that the muscles of the arm and shoulder should be relaxed right up until the moment of impact and then the fist twisted and clenched, and the arm muscles tensed on impact before quickly being relaxed and withdrawn. This is what I try to do but I have read some commentators that say clenching the fist adds no extra power to the punch as long as the punch is fast. In fact some say that clenching the fist acts to slow down the punch because it tenses up antagonist muscles that essentially apply the 'brakes' to the punch.

A final area of contention is whether the arm should be straight when delivering the punch. In karate we are encouraged to punch straight with the arm fully extended when hitting the target (but not hyper extended). In boxing the arm will often be bent as a cross punch is delivered. Does it affect the power of the punch? Many karateka argue that a slightly bent arm can deliver the same power as a straight arm. In fact as I said before the maximum speed of the punch is achieved at 70 -80% extension, so perhaps it is preferable for the arm not to be straight?

In this post I have not tried to tell you how to do a perfect punch. How could I, I'm just a student? I have just tried to point out the issues that everybody agrees on and discuss those that people don't agree on - and let's face it, everybody is convinced they are right! You are undoubtedly more an expert on punching that me, so what is your advice - what factors do you believe make the best punch? Help me find my kime.

Sources:
http://www.karatethejapaneseway.com/articles/kime.html
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Karate-332/Kime-punch.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kime
http://martialartsfriends.com/blog/view/id_1232/title_kime-the-soul-of-the-karate-punch/
http://dandjurdjevic.blogspot.com/2008/09/hitting-harder-physics-made-easy.html
http://www.24fightingchickens.com/2005/12/01/kime-the-myth-of-focus/




This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.0 UK: England & Wales License.

Annanku - 'Light from the South'

The kata Annanku (often spelt Ananku or even Annunko) represents a fairly pivotal point in the Shukokai karate style that I am following. It is the first more senior kata learned after the pinan katas (at 4th kyu) and is generally the first kata learned once you move into the senior class. It is also the first kata that starts in a completely different way to the pinan katas, is much longer in duration and introduces some new and more complicated moves. Learning Annanku therefore feels like an important step to students so I wanted to find out more about where this kata had come from.

Annanku means 'Light from the South' or 'Peace from the South'. Its origins are a bit shrouded in mystery. There are two stories of how this kata came to Okinawa - both revolve around the renowned karate master Chotoku Kyan (1870-1945). The first speculates that he either learned the kata from the Taiwanese who visited Okinawa, or brought it back with him following a martial arts exchange visit in 1927. Taiwan is south of Okinawa so perhaps he was taught it as a 'gift' from Taiwan, hence the name.

The second story suggests that Kyan Sensei was actually the creator of this kata or learned it from his father in which case the kata is comparatively modern (Early 20th century) compared to other kata. This theory is based on the fact that the techniques in Annanku kata are pure "Okinawan". There are no known Chinese forms that resemble Annanku. The original Annanku by Kyan Sensei contained techniques from Siesan, Passai and Wanshu kata. Annanku therefore seems to be more a mixture of Tomari-te and Shuri-te, rather than Taiwan/Chinese martial arts.

Kyan Sensei taught three different versions and variations of Annanku after his return to Okinawa from Taiwan in 1927. There are two or three versions being practised today, the matsubayashi ryu form is uniquely different compared to the shito ryu/shukokai version. In fact the Matsubayashi Ryu Ananku was created by Nagamine Sensei as a way to honour Chotoku Kyan.

The kata is characterised by many lunging stances using zenkutsu dachi for both defensive and offensive movements. It also uses many oi zuki punches and uchi uke blocks. It is also unusual in the first few moves forming a 'X' shaped embusen.

Here is a video of the shito-ryu/shukokai version of Annunko:

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.0 UK: England & Wales License.

Is your house making you fat?

As I was getting ready this morning I was listening to the news on the radio. There was a report that said that scientists are now scaling down their predictions for the rise in obesity for children in Britain since the rate of rise was falling significantly. Scientists attribute this to people taking on board the healthy eating/regular exercise message and being more aware of the obesogenic environment in which they live.

Obesogenic environment. Wow! That's a new one on me. I love new words. Words are what we think with, the greater our vocabulary the clearer our thinking and the more articulate we are in expressing our thoughts. I also like the idea that when we invent new words we also invent new concepts or new ways of looking at something.

Obesogenic basically means 'fat-causing' or 'fat-creating'. I did a quick search on this word and it actually came into existence in 1996 though it has not found its way into mainstream vocabulary.

The concept of living in an environment that can contribute to obesity is an interesting one. We like to think of ourselves as being masters of our environment - shaping it to suit our needs. Over the centuries we have claimed the land as our own, cut down forests, established settlements, built roads and bridges, invented several convenient and fast transport methods, learnt to cultivate and manufacture our own food, developed industry.....the list is endless and it is all to make life better for us. We are indeed masters of our environment!

Except....maybe we are not. Our environment is controlling us - its making us fat and unhealthy. We have become the products of our environment not the controllers of it. It seems to have gotten too big and complicated and now it's taken on a life of its own. We have built 'dormitory' communities that are miles from schools or the workplace, we have out of town shopping malls that are only accessible by car - so we have to drive long distances every day. Our cities are big, crowded and dangerous so we don't walk or cycle too much through them. Our jobs have become sedentary and our leisure pursuits even more so - we sit a lot. We have invented every convenience we can think of to make our lives easier - gadgets to reduce the burden of household chores even machines to heat up pre-prepared food so that we don't have to cook!

Some of us rail against the toxic effects of our environment. We exercise regularly, we try and eat healthily and we try not to poison the environment further - we can't control it as individuals, at least not the wider environment but we can control our local environment, our homes.

I've been thinking about whether my house is an obesogenic environment. The first place to look is the kitchen - are there lots of obesogens lurking in the cupboards and fridge? My family are all cheese lovers so there is a big container with various cheeses in it in the fridge, and, okay, there is a box of small cakes in the cupboard and a few packets of crisps and two boxes of Pringles....but that's it! The rest of the fridge contains low fat yogurts, some ham, lots of fresh vegetables, fruit and salad. I cook a family meal each day and rarely use convenience foods - in fact my freezer doesn't contain a single one at the moment. The freezer is basically filled with bread, frozen veg, meat, fish and seafood. I think there might also be a cheesecake and some ice cream too - but you've got to live a bit!

So I don't think my kitchen is too much of an obesogenic environment. What about the rest of the house? Well, it's on two levels so we have to use stairs a lot! We have converted a garage into a gym so we can exercise at home - and do! We have our fair share of gadgets - televisions, DVD players etc. However, I absolutely refuse to have a TV in the bedrooms or kitchen - just a personal bugbear! I think our house is okay - it's not making us fat.

If I turn my attention to my local community, is that an obesogenic environment? I live in a suburban area a few miles from the city centre and only 1 mile from open countryside. It is an old, well established suburb so it has local facilities such as local shops, post-office, banks etc. I don't use the local shops nearly as much as I could as the nearest supermarket is only about 2.5 miles away. There are local bus routes into town and to my place of work - but I rarely use them, preferring the convenience of my car. I could improve my behaviour on these counts. I could walk to my karate club, it would take about 25 minutes but I don't. In fact the car is the biggest environmental factor controlling my behaviour - it is potentially an 'obesogen'.

Fortunately my love of the car is balanced by my love of physical activity and the countryside. I train in martial arts 3 times a week, do some additional training at home and most weekends we get a decent hike in the countryside. So I think on balance I live fairly symbiotically with my environment.

So, what about your home and local environment? Is your house making you fat? What's your biggest obesogen?

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.0 UK: England & Wales License.

Why do we.........wear a gi?

The word gi literally means 'dress' or 'clothes' but is often used to mean 'uniform'. Using the word gi to describe a martial arts uniform is common in English but is an incorrect use of the term in Japanese where the full name of keikogi is used. However, it is common to replace the word keiko with the name of the martial art being practised, such as karategi, judogi or aikidogi.

The gi consists of uwagi or jacket, zubon or pants, and an obi or belt.

So where did this almost universal style of martial arts uniform come from? Some sources suggest that the karategi originated in Okinawa as a functional garment that resembled the clothes that peasants and farmers were already wearing. It is suggested that the garment was designed to be light, with short sleeves and legs to make training easier in the hot sun, whilst still being suitable for both night training and sleeping in. However there is much photographic evidence that Okinawans actually trained in shorts and t-shirts or even just in their underwear! Sensei Funakoshi (founder of Shotokan karate) himself trained in shorts and t-shirt right up until he went to Japan. (You can view a photo of typical early Okinawan fighters in training here)

It is unlikely therefore that the gi originated in Okinawa. It's introduction as a martial arts uniform is generally attributed to Jigoro Kano who developed judo from jujitsu in the early years of the 20th century. Sensei Kano's first students wore their everyday kimonos to practice, so he had them wear black sashes to keep the kimonos closed while they grappled.

However, the light weight materials used in kimonos were not suitable for grappling arts and Sensei Kano restored to use a uniform based on an ancient one used in old jujitsu made of linen, in coffee colour and covered with cotton fabric. The ancient stories say that due to the effect of the sweat and the intense rubbing of the practices plus routine washing, they would turn white naturally. Due to this, when Sensei Kano decided to restore the official outfit for Judo, he took into account the above, and decided that the most suitable colour would be white.

Senseis Kano and Funakoshi were good friends and when Funakoshi came to Japan for the second time in 1922 to demonstrate karate at Sensei Kano's Kodakan (the central dojo for judo in Japan), Kano was alarmed that Funakoshi was going to do the demonstration in shorts and t-shirt. Kano persuaded him to borrow a judogi so that he would look more professional in front of the dignitaries he was trying to impress. Funakoshi agreed and later took back the gi to Okinawa as a gift from Kano. The wearing of the gi then spread throughout Okinawa as well as Japan in karate dojos.

In judo there are exacting standards for the weight, size, style and colour of the gi - particularly for competitions. The gis are thick and heavy for durability. In karate the gi was modified to be thinner and lighter with shorter sleeves and legs to aid kicking and striking. However, many karate practitioners prefer a heavier weight gi for kata work (particularly in competition) as it gives a characteristic 'snapping' sound when movements are performed quickly and sharply.

Is it still relevant to wear a gi in martial arts today? Many modern martial arts such as kickboxing and mixed martial arts have dropped the gi as a uniform and tend to wear more modern clothes such as shorts or t-shirts and track pants. However, most traditional styles of martial arts have retained its use or wear a modified version, often in a colour other than white.

There are five reasons put forward as to why a traditional gi should be worn:

1. A different place. The wearing of a gi reminds the practitioner that the place where he trains is different to the place where he lives and works. When he enters the dojo, he enters a place where the realities and worries of the world can be set aside and he can focus entirely on the physical, mental and spiritual aspects of his training.

2. Uniformity and organisation. The wearing of a gi helps us to see at a glance who is of which rank, who is sensei and who is a student. This organisation of rank and hierarchy enables one to have organisation of thought and a sensible progression of training. It enables individuals to know their position and what must be achieved to raise their position in the dojo.

3.Commitment. When an individual values a uniform that individual becomes more committed to the art in which they belong for a greater length of time.

4. Practicality. A gi is comfortable, practical and hard wearing. It is fit for purpose. Remaining comfortable allows one to continue training for longer periods of time which should result in achieving greater ability.

5. Retaining the integrity of the art. The gi helps to retain the integrity of the art. Wearing the gi shows knowledge and respect for the history, culture and origin of the art. Ignoring the usefulness of a uniform ignores the roots of the art from which it comes. It 'mocks' the very source in which the art hails.

(Adapted from Heritage Martial Arts - Student manual )

It seems the gi is more than just a uniform but is a symbol of all that it means to be a martial artist. Keep it neat, keep it clean, wear it with pride.




This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.0 UK: England & Wales License.

Forrest Morgan Interview - women in martial arts.

Many of you will no doubt have already read the interview with Forrest Morgan over on Ikigai's blog. This was a real coup for Matt and he certainly didn't waste the opportunity to bring us an excellent interview that revealed the life and thoughts of Mr Morgan on a range of martial arts topics.

Matt was also gracious enough to offer to put some of his reader's questions to Mr Morgan and I was very delighted that he put the question that I submitted to him. Matt sensibly condensed my rather long-winded question to this:

Reader: Should female traditional artists be concerned about changing
techniques to fit their body and capabilities (it seems as if traditional arts
were developed and designed for men)?

Forrest Morgan's response:

FM: That is an excellent question, one that speaks to a warrior’s
tactical mindset. The answer is yes. Most traditional arts were indeed
developed by men, for men (and right-handed men, at that). That said, a few women warriors have developed their own martial arts. For instance, according to legend, Wing Chun Gung Fu was developed by a Buddhist nun with a woman’s body in mind.
Samurai women also developed certain arts to defend their households
(naginata-jutsu, for example). But the overwhelming majority of martial arts are designed for men fighting other men of approximately equal size. So yes, women need to assess the kinds of threats they are most likely to face, objectively appraise their own physical capabilities, and tailor their techniques and tactics accordingly. Instructors should help their female students do this. If they don’t, women should seek training elsewhere.
By the way, this answer also applies to men of small stature. But women face additional threats that most men do not.

As regular readers of this blog will know I have a bee in my bonnet about identifying and acknowledging the differences between men and women in martial arts training and so I was elated to get this very positive response from Forrest Morgan, it made me feel vindicated in what I have been trying to say. I have made references to male/female differences in several of my posts now, including: women's self-defence - is it just an illusion, Should women train differently to men in martial arts and Block or Flinch in Martial arts (the discussion takes place more in the comments section on this post)

The part of Mr Morgan's answer that particularly excites me is: "So yes, women need to assess the kinds of threats they are most likely to face, objectively appraise their own physical capabilities, and tailor their techniques and tactics accordingly. Instructors should help their female students do this."

Before I go any further I would just like to point out that I only think women should train differently to men in respect of the self-defence aspect of martial arts. If you train in a bugei art such as jujitsu then clearly the whole thing is about self-defence but if you train in a budo art such as karate-do then self-defence training is just one element of that art form. In which case, kihon, kata and kumite training does not need to differ between men and women.

In self-defence training, as Mr Morgan points out, instructors should help women to identify the ways in which they should train differently, help them to understand the strengths and weaknesses in their own bodies and to help them adapt techniques accordingly. This requires instructors to understand women - physically, mentally and emotionally. If a woman has a female instructor then she probably has an advantage. However most instructors are male and so they should make the effort to understand martial arts from a female perspective.

So what things should be taken into consideration?

Aggression. Women have less testosterone than men and so are not as naturally aggressive. When a man starts martial arts training he will bring his aggression with him and you may find you spend a lot of time training him to calm down and control it. When a woman starts training she may be timid, afraid of hurting and getting hurt. It will take time for her to gain confidence and build up her levels of aggression as she progresses. She may feel embarrassed or too self-conscious to show aggression but eventually embarrassment and fear will be overcome. Women need instructors to show a lot of patience with them during this phase. Do not expect women to cope well with reality based training until they have developed their confidence and 'toughened up' a little.

Physique. I am not talking about the obvious differences between men and women here but more skeletal and muscular differences. Men have thicker bones, including thicker ribs and a thicker layer of muscle covering them. This makes them more resistant to damage and pain when being struck or thrown. Men's generally thicker 'covering' enables them to absorb shock better than women's bodies and so they have a higher tolerance to striking. (I admit women have a higher percentage body fat but it is distributed in the wrong places to give any real protection). This means that men have a comparatively high tolerance to pain and shock right from the start of training. Women take time to gradually build up this tolerance through training. Instructors need to think about how they can help women to develop this tolerance.

Motivation. Men seem to be much more single-minded and clearer about the reasons why they want to learn a martial art. The main motivation for a man seems to be to learn to fight and to defend themselves, either for the purposes of sport or self-protection. This seems to be particularly true for younger men. Fitness and self-improvement may also be on the agenda but only seem to move up the list as he enters his maturer years. For most women learning martial arts is not about learning to fight. They will probably say that they are doing it for fitness and self-defence training but really fitness and social contact is probably nearer the mark for many women (even if they don't admit it). Women like the idea that they will be learning some self-defence - but often their actions speak louder than their words and their training does not progress in an effective or useful way.

How seriously a woman takes her self-defence training is probably proportional to how seriously she perceives the threat of violence against her to be. For the vast majority of women the risk of violence is very low, thus motivation to learn to defend ones-self in any meaningful way is also low. When this is coupled with low aggression levels, fear of getting hurt and feelings of self-consciousness it is not surprising that may women do not like the realities of effective self-defence training and often just go through the motions of practicing the techniques.

Motivation will be much higher in women who's perception of threat is higher. So women who have experienced violence first hand or know someone who has, live in an environment where violence is a regular occurrence or work in a job where there is a risk of confrontation with the public will be much more motivated to learn self-defence. This will show in the way they are prepared to train.

Everyone will know of an amazing female martial artist who is a high ranking dan grade, has won xyz competitions and can kick ass with the best of men. There are always exceptions to the rule. I am referring to the average woman in the average dojo. When it comes to learning a fighting art men have all the physical and mental advantages that allow them to hit the ground running when they first start training. Women generally have higher physical and mental barriers to overcome and may seem to be stuck in the starting blocks for quite a long time. They need patience, help, support, encouragement to gain confidence, endurance and tolerance - this takes time and only when this has been acquired can any meaningful, realistic self-defence training take place. This applies whether they are big, small, fat or thin - it is their femaleness that makes them different to men, not their size and strength.

Some women may never acquire the motivation to learn effective self-defence and may never get further than 'going through the motions'. However, this does not mean their martial arts training is a waste of time, it just means their focus is in a slightly different direction to the average mans. If you are involved in the budo arts then there is much to be gained apart from fighting skills. Health, fitness, flexibility, agility, confidence, tolerance, patience, respect, self-discipline.... the list is endless and all worthy objectives to achieve.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.0 UK: England & Wales License.

A book review: Street Smart - a practical guide to dealing with street violence.

I have finally got around to reading Neil Martin's (Urban Samurai) new e-book called Street Smart - a practical guide to dealing with street violence. I would recommend anyone who would like to equip themselves with a complete strategy for dealing with a potential or actual street attack to read this guide.

The things I particularly liked about this book were:

• It was straight forward and simple to read, it didn't try to do too much or use complicated terminology. At 34 pages long it took me about 35 minutes to read the entire book.
  
• It wasn't about fighting. Okay, there was a section that described some principles of good self defense but the majority of the book dealt with preventative issues such as avoidance; coping with fear; the law on self defense - including the difference between fighting and self defense, I thought that was an important distinction; not looking or behaving like a victim; how to avoid escalating situations.
  
• I liked the introduction of the concept of the 3 A's : Attitude, Awareness and Action as graded responses to the situation you find yourself in.
  
• There is emphasis on staying calm, not escalating a situation, putting away ego and looking for a means of escape as the primary strategies.
  
• In the section on Confrontation it deals with principles of action rather than detailed techniques, which cannot be learned satisfactorily from a book. The concept of the 'Fence' is discussed as a way of subtly controlling the situation. Attention to things like balance, distance and timing are discussed rather than details of how to punch, kick or throw for example.
  
• It also covers anticipating weapon use, how to utilise your surroundings and use improvised weapons to defend yourself.
  
• It is the only book I've read that tells you what to expect in the aftermath of a confrontation - it discusses the syndrome of adrenal-induced Tachypsychia and how this may affect you for some time after the fight.
  
• Importantly this book cautions against over-dependence on relying on traditional martial arts techniques whilst acknowledging the benefits that this type of training can still bring - a position I whole heartedly support.
  
  

This book will not turn you into a master of street defense overnight - it doesn't try to. The need for physical training is emphasised over and over again. However it will provided you with an overall strategy, raise your awareness of how to prevent or deal with an attack and teaches you some basic principles that you need to know to defend yourself effectively.

I could find no real negative aspects or glaring omissions for a basic guide to self-defense and would thoroughly recommend adding it to your e-library.

To download the book go to Urban Samurai's website and click on the book icon.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.0 UK: England & Wales License.

Blocking: I'm all inside out!

I have been doing karate for nearly two and a half years now so you would expect me to know what the basic blocks were. Indeed if you ask me to do an age uke, gedan barai, uchi uke or soto uke (and one or two others) I would know exactly what you were asking for and be able to show you. However, if you asked me to do an inside block or an outside block I would be confused!

There seem to be different interpretations of what an inside or outside block means. Is the block an inside block if you make contact with the inside of the attackers forearm as you move your arm in the direction away from your body (such as using an uchi uke)? Or is it an inside block if your arm is moving in an inwards direction and thus making contact with the outside of the attackers forearm (as in a soto uke)? This assumes that you are blocking with the opposite arm to which the attacker is striking with, i.e he punches with his right arm and you block with your left arm.

If you block with the same arm that the attacker strikes with then does the uchi uke block now become an outside block because you make contact with the outside of the attackers forearm? Likewise does the soto uke become an inside block because you would make contact with the inside of the attackers forearm? Or am I now describing a cross block (as opposed to an X-block - another source of confusion!)? Can a cross block be described as inside or outside?

Are you still with me or have I confused you as well?

I have now discovered that some people use the terms inward and outward block rather than inside and outside block. By inwards block they mean moving towards the inside of your own body so to block the outside edge of the attackers forearm (?outside block) and by outwards block they mean moving away from your body to strike the inside of the attackers forearm (?inside block).

So is an inward block the same as an outside block and is an outward block the same as an inside block? Then again if you're cross-blocking an inward block is also an inside block (and vice-versa) isn't it?

I would really like some clarification about this if anyone can help........




This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.0 UK: England & Wales License.