The Way of Least Resistance

That goju-ryu karate has some of its roots in the Chinese martial arts is a certainty. Most people focus on white crane, ngo cho kun and similar "external" Fujian-based martial systems when it comes to examining its origins. However even earlier ancestors probably included xingyi or perhaps bagua/taiji like internal arts . However those arts are still significantly different in their dynamics. It is possible to perform goju using these dynamics (even the kata) and if you do so you end up with an interesting beast. Here is an example of Goju movements applied with xingyi footwork: Goju techniques performed with xingyiquan footwork The footwork in issue is a kind of suri ashi (ie. footwork that includes sliding where the stance changes or legs pass). The significance of this is that the front foot moves first, immediately putting the whole bodyweight into the movement. You'll note that unlike goju, in the internal arts your strike lands with the leading foot, not the r...

Those of you who have read my article on Why blocks DO work will recall that I mentioned there that every basic block in karate contains 2 movements - the primary block (a larger movement) and a secondary block (a smaller movement) in the "pullback" arm (what some people call the "crossing hand"). I am astounded as to how few karateka today are actually aware of this fact. So what is the function of these 2 movements? Well first, the secondary movement can operate as a deflection entirely on its own. While the move is generally smaller and weaker than the primary movement it can often intercept the attack sooner. And executed correctly it can be just as effective. Consider the pictures to the left of the secondary movement in goju-ryu's chudan uke (chest-level block). Just as the primary movement comprises a circular deflection, so the secondary movement also deflects with a circle (albeit smaller) on the same angle. While the secondary part of the chudan ...

Introduction Karate employs many techniques categorised as "uke" derived from the Japanese verb "ukeru" meaning literally "to receive". It is fashionable in some circles to deride traditional blocks as "unworkable" or "ineffective". The principal arguments in support of this proposition are that - (1) there is little value in just "stopping" an attack - rather you should use other means to set up an effective counter; and (2) in any event, the movements constituting traditional blocks are "too large" for practical use. In many people's minds these criticisms are seen as unassailable. That blocks "don't work" is regarded as a fundamental truth, a basic assumption, unquestionable "fact". Yet I am firmly of the view that the criticisms underlying this assumption are completely misconceived - it's just that no one has ever comprehensively dealt with them. I propose to do so now: The 2 ...