(posted on Facebook by Mr. Chapel 3-12-2020)
Mr. Parker taught me that they should be seen and taught differently. In my experience with him, I developed a training philosophy when teaching defense for punch attacks that is simple. "If he throws one punch, he'll throw two. If he throws two, he'll throw three, if he throws three..." In other words, he's going to keep coming until you do something about it, and to execute a singular punch no matter what the lead, as if that is the end of the attack would be a bad idea in training as many do. The attacker throws a punch and then freezes so the “defender” can “do his thing.”
Always respond as if there is another punch coming and address it technically to limit vulnerability. Being on the inside of either hand is dicey and ups one's vulnerability big time, so you better be swift sure and cancel or at least address that next punch that is going to come "hot and heavy."
Addressing any scenario from the perspective of the Psychology of Confrontation forward puts us in the mind of the attacker, and defines the assault, the intent, and how the attacker plans to carry it out. We always approach from this perspective before addressing any response, as one defines the other and clarifies the scenario response.
At one (lower) level, we simply address the lone punch but being mindful of the implication of additional punches to follow. At another level up the food chain, the scenario changes to a more skilled attacker who is utilizing a strategy when attacking, throwing one punch to set up the other.
Then as the skill level rises that same scenario might shift to, a punch that is really a feint to set up the other, which speeds up the subsequent punching hand significantly.
Therefore, the idea of a "simple" punch or two has many implications predicated on the mindset, and skill level of the attacker and all three levels use the same one or two punches. Now when you extrapolate a lesson into a three-plus punch scenario, you get the idea. Nobody stops until you stop him or her. This brings us to the blocking versus striking problem, and it is indeed a problem if your applications are misplaced.
When I teach these techniques and blocking I come from what appears to be a unique perspective these days. I use it to re-enforce the concept of Zone Blocking from the Chinese as, Mr. Parker Sr., and Sifu Ark Wong schooled me.
Many I've seen when learning to block are fed the idea "all blocks are strikes." This concept is majorly flawed and probably should be best expressed as, "all blocks MAY become strikes - Eventually."
When blocks are viewed as strikes, it causes the student to "seek contact" with the offending limb. The problem here is when you strike; the configuration of the appropriate muscle groups, and thus the commitment utilized are very much different from a "block" internally as well as externally.
Because your offensive intent is a factor and requires a significantly different commitment, a person will over-extend when no contact is made thus drawing you out of position and violating what Mr. Parker called the "Outer Rim Concept."
Proprioceptively, when the body anticipates an offensive action and it doesn't appear, the body is shortly structurally "disharmonious."
Think of the old Peanuts Lucy trick on Linus by moving the football when he's trying to kick it. If a kicker is anticipating kicking a football held by the placekick holder, his body will anticipate and be proprioceptively prepared for the contact.
However, if the ball is removed from the equation at the last possible moment, the kicker would probably fall down simply because the ball wasn't there, even though he would not have fallen should he have kicked the ball. This is no different than when you attempt to punch something or someone and they are not where your senses anticipated they would be, you would probably at least fall forward losing your balance momentarily if not actually falling because your body is configured to anticipate the contact, follow through, and the resistance that comes with it.
The worse thing you can do in blocking is to seek offensive contact because that is not the goal of a block. A block is a defensive mechanism inherent in human Startle Reflex Mechanisms, whereas a strike is quite the opposite and requires, to be effective, a different commitment from the body. Why is this a big deal? This becomes important when dealing with "feints." This is implied but rarely addressed in curriculum application techniques but occur in realistic combat.
Because blocks are reactive, Mr. Parker used the Zone Blocking Theory so that feints would not get us in trouble. It essentially says, "Block the zone, not the threat." With this in mind, it doesn't matter when blocking if the threat exists or not. If I train to reflexively block the zone, I do not overcommit my self to a singular action that may or may not be necessary and thus cannot be lured into a bad position or off balance.
Think of the difference in sports between “man-to-man” coverage in football versus “zone” coverage. In press coverage man-to-man, the defender can be fooled into being out of position with jukes and feints. However in a zone coverage configuration, the defender simply plays the area or zone and is less susceptible to being “fooled.” It takes a much greater level of skill to play “man” and so it is in blocking.
At the higher skill levels a highly skilled practitioner may time his block to intersect with the attack without over-commitment, by being able to strike but still staying within the “zone.” But this requires the ability to recognize what, when, where, and how the attack is coming and essentially wait or anticipate the attack and intersect it within the zone without violating the Zone Blocking Principle, thus turning the block action into a striking one without the striking commitment.
Example: An attacker might throw a straight left followed by a right cross. This is a common tactical western boxing strategy set up. Throw one to set up the other. However, one must consider the possibility the follow-up is not the goal, but actually a third punch with the first two setting up the third.
This could be accomplished with a well-executed feint of the second punch, in which case you might be seeking contact with something that is not there, and in that process overreach and become immediately vulnerable to the now much quicker third punch.
In Zone Blocking Theory it doesn't matter whether it is a feint or an actual punch. You treat feints and actual street punches the same. As opposed to street fights, the practice in contested matches is different because the goals are different in prolonged strategic contests, and is why competitors are more likely to "cover" to protect rather than block.
Moreover, in self-defense street applications, you'll find there is a unique benefit that helps you to understand the definition of a block. A block by Ed Parker’s Definition "checks or hinders an attack." That is, when you block properly your goal is NOT to hurt the attacker but to protect the zone and NOT get hit. You place an obstruction between you and him, and he hurts himself when he makes contact with your defensive postured limb. It hurts him and you barely feel it because your body is configured in a defensive posture based on your actions, and he is configured offensively.
The body configures itself differently offensively versus defensively and those differences are significant and accomplished by adjusting the mechanics of the action, but more importantly addressing it by changing your mindset of what you are attempting to accomplish in applications.
Have you ever noticed, when you throw a punch and the block hurts you, that it never seems to bother the blocker, who technically is absorbing as much contact as you are? There’s a reason for that, and Proprioceptive Neuromuscular Functions of human anatomy is why and has to be considered in any effective teaching process.
