 |
| Chudan-uke, as used in Shotokan sanbon kumite (three-step sparring) |
All karateka are familiar with some form of chudan-uke, although it has many names, depending on the style. Some call it soto-uke (“outside receiver,” referring to it’s movement to the outside of the body), some call it uchi-uke (“inside receiver,” referring to the part of the arm being used), and some just call it ude-uke (“forearm receiver”). This technique shows up frequently in kata, but people often argue about its purpose. There are two particularly vocal groups in these arguments–the “blocks are blocks” group, which believes that what you see is what you get, and the “no such thing as blocks” group, which believes that all of the movements we call “blocks” are actually something else (usually strikes). In reality, I believe that the truth lies somewhere in the middle. I do think that uke-waza (receiving techniques) are often locks, limb control techniques, or strikes, but sometimes, a “block” is just a block–or at least some form of deflection.
One of the arguments that I see from the “blocks are blocks” crowd the most is that chudan-uke can’t be a strike because it’s too weak. This is the argument that I sought to address in the video, above. I didn’t feel the need to defend the use of chudan-uke as a block, as people with more experience than I have already done that for me. If you’re looking for information on that, I recommend checking out Dan Djurdjevic’s blog, The Way of Least Resistance. For the video, above, I only discuss the use of chudan-uke as a strike. This was not to discount any other applications, but simply to point out that it can, indeed, be used as a strike.
Sterling job Noah! You certainly show that chudan uchi uke (not the circular version of goju) can be used as a strike. I would agree that practically every movement in karate can be used as a strike. My perspective is however a reaction to the trend that says “all blocks are actually strikes”. I believe you are correct that the truth is always somewhere in the middle, however the polemicist in me has to take one side (the side I feel is presently being overridden) and defend that.
Having said the above, I would still not use a chudan uke as a strike out of any preference. It is still too weak for me. For the neck I would use a seiyruto which turns over and hits the carotid far more accurately (see http://youtu.be/8m5WSv6A1kM) or, if you want to stay on a “chudan uke like movement”, xingyi’s heng quan (which is much more powerful than chudan uke – it is chudan uch uke on roids; turned into a curving powerhouse punch (see http://youtu.be/BQlkxGKm7fw). But those are preferences. You’ve definitely made a great video here highlighting the fact that one needn’t confine oneself to the arm movement in chudan uke as a strike (something others haven’t gone into). You make an excellent point. Bravo!
Thank you! I’ve actually always hated confrontation (which makes it a wonder that I ever got into martial arts in the first place), and I feel that aversion actually causes me to try to understand all sides of an argument before discussing the topic at hand. Personally, I’m just fine standing in the middle and not taking sides! 😛
Everyone certainly has preferences that influence their use of techniques, of course. I mention in the video that striking with this technique isn’t my preferred application for it–given the choice, I would use a different strike–but there have been cases in training where it has been the most expedient method of delivering a blow, so I used it. The technique you show in the heng quan video is actually one we use for Naihanchi and Passai, which I do like better :). As you say, though, I really just wanted to point out that it doesn’t “have to be” one or the other in this video/post.