here. I just want to point out that words to describe a technique or movements are just words. Yes, I know wars have been fought over words like Communism, Capitalism, etc. I've been watching the mini wars on the forums as a few people preach to the rest of us that "There are no blocks"!
Well, what the heck did Van hit my arm and shoulder with during a TC class? He called it a block at the time. Now that we can't use the word, does that "B...." he hit me with no longer exist?
I read that Kanbun said there weren't any "signature" moves in what he did". Now I use that term all the time in seminars. . . been using it for over forty years in referring to the fact that many Uechi "B....." are in fact, "intercepting" movements that attack as their primary function. The "B....." sort of happen in the process. I point out that this is an important concept of Uechi to appreciate, since if you change the three circular thrusts in the opening of seisan to simple straight, spear thrusts, you won't be reinforcing this concept in your practice.
Now, because Kanbun said their are "no signature" moves in Uechi, does it make what I've said and been teaching wrong?
We are just talking about words, not how the moves and techniques are actually performed.
Because of this ongoing war on certain words, I've requested certain of you to refrain from attacking "words", since what you are attacking is not what is being done out there by all. Yes, Van and I will continue to practice our "filling space/intercepting" movements the same way we've been doing them for 40 years while laughing at the seriousness some take in how these movements are labeled. However, where I get upset is hearing from the new students, who read these forums and then attend class where their teacher is instructing that same move that Van and I do, but call it that "b" word to the student's total confusion.
To the new/er students, the seniors on these forums are respected and often their words are followed closely. (Can some of you remember how you felt about class that first year? What if, during that time, you had very senior Uechi teachers essentially preaching to you that your sensei is "full of s..."!
Remember... the practice takes place in the dojo. The words should help that practice, not create confusion and mistrust.
[ps. check out my post on "tradition" in Van's forum]
Has Uechi been diluted
Moderator: Available
-
gmattson
- Site Admin
- Posts: 6073
- Joined: Wed Sep 16, 1998 6:01 am
- Location: Lake Mary, Florida
- Contact:
Lots of good information
GEM
"Do or do not. there is no try!"
"Do or do not. there is no try!"
Good post, George.
1. Of course there are blocks.
2. Blocks are moves along lines of force and directions.
3. Any such moves can be executed in a number of ways, according to:
A]”the “threat of the moment” _
b] “The tactical demands of the moment” _
c] “The nature of the enemy of the moment” _
d] “Your mental state of the moment.”
~~
Uechi “blocks” are effective moves to pre-empt, STRYKE, control, and dominate an attacker, physically and mentally, softly/gently_ as needed, or by projecting the attacker into other assailants [such as in our bunkai], or into “improvised weapons” Such as walls or objects, as the situation demands.
So, here, I don’t think we disagree at all, George.
Let us read again, what I posted, quoting Breyette sensei, relaying the teachings of Toyama sensei, who trained under Kanbun Uechi for ten years
The blocking move, must be launched “mid stride” to “quash” the opponent’s physical and mental initiative.
Still not clear?
If you are attacked, or about to be attacked, the worst thing you can do, is to “wait” for the enemy’s series of blows_ yes, series of blows, because he will not just throw one blow, but many in succession.
If you let him do that, especially under your “chemical cocktail mode” you will allow the attacker, the physical advantage, because:
1. He will have you in reactive mode, reeling from his momentum, and playing catch up with his flurry. You may be able to block one or two blows, then again, maybe not, and he may have a blade or blunt weapon, swinging at you instead of a punch, and if you miss the “reactive” block, you will be killed.
2. If you let him “get off first”, he will gain a psychological advantage, and you will be mentally beaten, along with the physical.
So there are blocks, George. It all depends in how they are used.
They have a much lesser chance of working if you use this tool in a passive mode.
Besides, this the way you used to teach when I first became your student on Columbus avenue.
This is what you taught me
Do you remember this, George? Now, how would you accomplish, or expect your students to accomplish that?
Shaolin provides us with an excellent explanation about using our blocks.
~~
In the end, George, I don't hink we disagree at all. We just get caught in words, as you say, which fuels the emotional high-jack, that simple.
Hard to believe we are still in a fog over this blocking business.a few people preach to the rest of us that "There are no blocks"!
Well, what the heck did Van hit my arm and shoulder with during a TC class? He called it a block at the time. Now that we can't use the word, does that "B...." he hit me with no longer exist?
1. Of course there are blocks.
2. Blocks are moves along lines of force and directions.
3. Any such moves can be executed in a number of ways, according to:
A]”the “threat of the moment” _
b] “The tactical demands of the moment” _
c] “The nature of the enemy of the moment” _
d] “Your mental state of the moment.”
~~
Uechi “blocks” are effective moves to pre-empt, STRYKE, control, and dominate an attacker, physically and mentally, softly/gently_ as needed, or by projecting the attacker into other assailants [such as in our bunkai], or into “improvised weapons” Such as walls or objects, as the situation demands.
So, here, I don’t think we disagree at all, George.
Let us read again, what I posted, quoting Breyette sensei, relaying the teachings of Toyama sensei, who trained under Kanbun Uechi for ten years
So, as I have always maintained, there are “blocks”, but the “moves” _ the tools_ the “block” is made of_ have a great range of application.Ikkyodo is an advanced skill
or art (jokyuu jutsu). The basic stop-and-go technique, if it never
advances, allows an attacker time to snatch his arm back or rotate the arm
out of a block, back away, regroup, regain stability, pull a knife...
If
the defense blocks WITH strike (as opposed to block THEN strike), it
"pre-empts" the attacker's next move.
The blocking move, must be launched “mid stride” to “quash” the opponent’s physical and mental initiative.
Still not clear?
If you are attacked, or about to be attacked, the worst thing you can do, is to “wait” for the enemy’s series of blows_ yes, series of blows, because he will not just throw one blow, but many in succession.
If you let him do that, especially under your “chemical cocktail mode” you will allow the attacker, the physical advantage, because:
1. He will have you in reactive mode, reeling from his momentum, and playing catch up with his flurry. You may be able to block one or two blows, then again, maybe not, and he may have a blade or blunt weapon, swinging at you instead of a punch, and if you miss the “reactive” block, you will be killed.
2. If you let him “get off first”, he will gain a psychological advantage, and you will be mentally beaten, along with the physical.
So there are blocks, George. It all depends in how they are used.
They have a much lesser chance of working if you use this tool in a passive mode.
Besides, this the way you used to teach when I first became your student on Columbus avenue.
This is what you taught me
Great strategy and understanding of fighting dynamics. That was what kept me coming back to the dojo.Van, you must hit your opponent, in between his heart beats, and you must hit “his bone” as he “hits your skin”
Do you remember this, George? Now, how would you accomplish, or expect your students to accomplish that?
Shaolin provides us with an excellent explanation about using our blocks.
~~
In the end, George, I don't hink we disagree at all. We just get caught in words, as you say, which fuels the emotional high-jack, that simple.
Van
-
gmattson
- Site Admin
- Posts: 6073
- Joined: Wed Sep 16, 1998 6:01 am
- Location: Lake Mary, Florida
- Contact:
Agreed Van
As I noted, whatever we call these techniques, it has nothing to do with what is being done in the dojo. Some teachers present material in a manner that others of us would not. Doesn't mean that teacher is stuck in a time warp, performing robot-ryu, simply because he/she elects to break up the move into teaching "levels".
1. Learn by doing in 5 counts. (This can be a combination move or a single technique)
2. Do same movement in 4 counts while working on form, timing, balance.
3. Continue with instructor's guidance, until it can be done in one count.
My problem with "word wars" is that the proponents are all at different stages in the learning/performance cycle. Some may elect to eliminate all counts/steps.
Unless posters take these things into consideration in the discussion, students who are working at different levels, using different "tools" will loose confidence in the Uechi program, since every teacher will have their own method of teaching "traditional" Uechi.
I hope no one takes my ongoing request for understanding and respect for our fellow Uechi practitioners in the wrong manner. I've always encouraged pushing the envelope. I watch with excitement as Rick Wilson experiments with new and untried (in Uechi at least) territory. No one on these forums objects to looking at new (and old) concepts and ways to interprete and apply our Uechi. But lets do it in a positive manner.
1. Learn by doing in 5 counts. (This can be a combination move or a single technique)
2. Do same movement in 4 counts while working on form, timing, balance.
3. Continue with instructor's guidance, until it can be done in one count.
My problem with "word wars" is that the proponents are all at different stages in the learning/performance cycle. Some may elect to eliminate all counts/steps.
Unless posters take these things into consideration in the discussion, students who are working at different levels, using different "tools" will loose confidence in the Uechi program, since every teacher will have their own method of teaching "traditional" Uechi.
I hope no one takes my ongoing request for understanding and respect for our fellow Uechi practitioners in the wrong manner. I've always encouraged pushing the envelope. I watch with excitement as Rick Wilson experiments with new and untried (in Uechi at least) territory. No one on these forums objects to looking at new (and old) concepts and ways to interprete and apply our Uechi. But lets do it in a positive manner.
GEM
"Do or do not. there is no try!"
"Do or do not. there is no try!"
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
Thanks for dropping by, Van.
This is a complicated subject with plenty of fodder out their in the martial literature and discussion.
Perhaps Oyata is the first publically to state that there are no blocks in kata. Oyata's reference frame is that of kyusho and tuite. In Oyata's thinking, the movements folks typically think of as blocking are rather opportunities to attack an attack in the art of targeted, sequential striking.
With the contemporary martial gurus, their thinking revolves around the ability to defend oneself against the worst-case-scenario, sucker-punching sociopath. One formula for success is to hit them repeatedly until they stop wiggling (metaphorically speaking). With that in mind, one realizes that the BG can have the same strategy, and a blocking mindset leaves one with the ability not to fall behind AT BEST. Taking this to a more general approach, every chess master knows that every move must be thought of as an opportunity to gain an advantage - even when attacked (checked, or captured). Put another way, the best defense is a good offense.
My own thinking is a mindset associated with sanchin as a form of principles as opposed to specifics. There are so many movements in our system that have multiple applications. And these various applications may be so completely different from each other that one would never begin to think of some of them if the mind had been frozen on a specific application. Thus I may or may not care about whether or not you are doing a block in a prearranged kumite, or doing a block in your fighting. But I DO have a problem with this circle thingie being called a block. (wa=circle, uke=block). This in my opinion is a big, big mistake. Think of circles - a fundamental movement of Uechi - only as blocks and you have just eliminated AT LEAST a half of all possible applications. For example, the circles after the "groin strikes" in seisan most likely are attacks to the back of someone's neck after their flinch response of butt back, head forwards. So why call that a "wauke" when it is NOT a circle block? Many throws (nages) in aikido involve circles. Why freeze the brain on a circle being a block? One might indeed consider the parry as "the block" and the circle as "the grab." So why call this a "wauke" (circle block)?
Sometimes language is limiting. I don't think we should ban blocks, mind you, but I do find "hawk chases sparrow" to be a MUCH more appropriate description of the sechin move than suki uke (scooping block).
Maybe this is just the layers of understanding that karate is all about, like the proverbial onion with infinite layers.
- Bill
This is a complicated subject with plenty of fodder out their in the martial literature and discussion.
Perhaps Oyata is the first publically to state that there are no blocks in kata. Oyata's reference frame is that of kyusho and tuite. In Oyata's thinking, the movements folks typically think of as blocking are rather opportunities to attack an attack in the art of targeted, sequential striking.
With the contemporary martial gurus, their thinking revolves around the ability to defend oneself against the worst-case-scenario, sucker-punching sociopath. One formula for success is to hit them repeatedly until they stop wiggling (metaphorically speaking). With that in mind, one realizes that the BG can have the same strategy, and a blocking mindset leaves one with the ability not to fall behind AT BEST. Taking this to a more general approach, every chess master knows that every move must be thought of as an opportunity to gain an advantage - even when attacked (checked, or captured). Put another way, the best defense is a good offense.
My own thinking is a mindset associated with sanchin as a form of principles as opposed to specifics. There are so many movements in our system that have multiple applications. And these various applications may be so completely different from each other that one would never begin to think of some of them if the mind had been frozen on a specific application. Thus I may or may not care about whether or not you are doing a block in a prearranged kumite, or doing a block in your fighting. But I DO have a problem with this circle thingie being called a block. (wa=circle, uke=block). This in my opinion is a big, big mistake. Think of circles - a fundamental movement of Uechi - only as blocks and you have just eliminated AT LEAST a half of all possible applications. For example, the circles after the "groin strikes" in seisan most likely are attacks to the back of someone's neck after their flinch response of butt back, head forwards. So why call that a "wauke" when it is NOT a circle block? Many throws (nages) in aikido involve circles. Why freeze the brain on a circle being a block? One might indeed consider the parry as "the block" and the circle as "the grab." So why call this a "wauke" (circle block)?
Sometimes language is limiting. I don't think we should ban blocks, mind you, but I do find "hawk chases sparrow" to be a MUCH more appropriate description of the sechin move than suki uke (scooping block).
Maybe this is just the layers of understanding that karate is all about, like the proverbial onion with infinite layers.
- Bill
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
- From the movie Patch Adams (1998), based on the life of a real physician who once practiced at Medical College of Virginia. Hunter (Patch) Adams met Arthur Mendleson - one of the greatest minds of his time - in a mental institution where they both were receiving treatment.Arthur Mendelson: How many fingers do you see?
Patch Adams: Four.
Arthur Mendelson: No no! Look beyond the fingers! Now tell me how many you see.
Arthur Mendelson: You're focusing on the problem. If you focus on the problem, you can't see the solution. Never focus on the problem!
Arthur Mendelson: See what no one else sees. See what everyone chooses not to see... out of fear, conformity or laziness. See the whole world anew each day!
- Bill
-
jorvik
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
Could be, Mike.
Even still... Am I "receiving" the back of someone's neck when I knock them out with my circle after whacking their groin? That would be quite a reception...
If I choose to receive a technique with a circle, I may be quite soft and sensitive with it. But when I use circle as weapon, I have an entirely different mindset. Now I'm putting all my body into it via torsional energy generated about the spine. The first is the essence of yin; the latter is classic yang.
- Bill
Even still... Am I "receiving" the back of someone's neck when I knock them out with my circle after whacking their groin? That would be quite a reception...
If I choose to receive a technique with a circle, I may be quite soft and sensitive with it. But when I use circle as weapon, I have an entirely different mindset. Now I'm putting all my body into it via torsional energy generated about the spine. The first is the essence of yin; the latter is classic yang.
- Bill
Bill,
Always a pleasure.
Yours is really a great post, with concepts that are beginning to “bridge” the many differences.
And what you write, seems to square with , what I always thought, was the best initial “karate baptism” by Gem
Very critical point. Recall the movie “the seventh samurai” where a test was given to the “applicant” by trying to bash him over the head as he entered a hut?
The good ones had it all figured out before they went in. They attacked the swing as they stepped over the threshold, they did not wait for the swing, then block.
Always a pleasure.
Yours is really a great post, with concepts that are beginning to “bridge” the many differences.
And what you write, seems to square with , what I always thought, was the best initial “karate baptism” by Gem
So…Van, you must hit your opponent, in between his heart beats, and you must hit “his bone” as he “hits your skin”
Many traditional masters are of the same opinion, as are modern combatives, so it is easy to see how the concept is so deeply entrenched.Perhaps Oyata is the first publically to state that there are no blocks in kata. Oyata's reference frame is that of kyusho and tuite. In Oyata's thinking, the movements folks typically think of as blocking are rather opportunities to attack an attack in the art of targeted, sequential striking.
And this is the critical point. A true defensive skill is more about reading/sensing/anticipating the intent, and “dealing” with this intent, either by not being there, if possible, or “quashing” [quassāre, to shatter ] such intent, before it develops into a “shatter “ for us.With the contemporary martial gurus, their thinking revolves around the ability to defend oneself against the worst-case-scenario, sucker-punching sociopath. One formula for success is to hit them repeatedly until they stop wiggling (metaphorically speaking).
Very critical point. Recall the movie “the seventh samurai” where a test was given to the “applicant” by trying to bash him over the head as he entered a hut?
The good ones had it all figured out before they went in. They attacked the swing as they stepped over the threshold, they did not wait for the swing, then block.
I agree, and I believe very strongly, that if our wonderful Uechi moves, and wonderful they are, are imbedded in physical and mental practice that reinforces reactivity…then we will have missed that boat to China by a long mile.Thus I may or may not care about whether or not you are doing a block in a prearranged kumite, or doing a block in your fighting. But I DO have a problem with this circle thingie being called a block.
Precisely, my friend, exactly the way I teach it also.For example, the circles after the "groin strikes" in seisan most likely are attacks to the back of someone's neck after their flinch response of butt back, head forwards. So why call that a "wauke" when it is NOT a circle block?
Van
I wrote
Let us think about how we prepare and program a student in the kata to deal with a blunt weapon attack from the top or the side, or a low swipe to the legs, before we move him into bunkai.The good ones had it all figured out before they went in. They attacked the swing as they stepped over the threshold, they did not wait for the swing, then block.
I am sure there are diverging opinions.
Van
-
gmattson
- Site Admin
- Posts: 6073
- Joined: Wed Sep 16, 1998 6:01 am
- Location: Lake Mary, Florida
- Contact:
Another "tidbit"
Our English is rather restrictive when it comes to attempting to translate Chinese or Japanese techniques.
On the other hand, English tends to "box" meanings into words so that when a word is spoken, we visualize that box.
I remember teaching my first outdoor class a park in Newton, MA back in 1960. A reporter got wind of the outing and brought a photographer out to get the "first" story on Uechi-ryu.
He kept asking me for the names of the movements and stances for his article. I was a bit embarrassed, because Tomoyose never gave the movements "names". A stance was simply some useful position derived from Sanchin. It could be long where an elbow was being used or with weight more on one leg than another when the need to raise a leg to block (woops..) to attack a kick.
In other words, the movements of kata was performed for a purpose rather than to mimic a "box" definition of a position.
After Nishiama $ Brown's book was published, I learned that there were clearly defined stances in karate, with nice sounding names. Soon everyone in my class was performing rigidly defined stances with nice names rather than moving naturally, based on the purpose of the technique.
So. . . I guess what Bill says about the name/box block we as teachers use, can have a negative affect on the practitioner. The word takes on a meaning, totally independent of the actual movement. Hmmmmm
Back to "noname" positions and moves that have no predetermined meaning.
On the other hand, English tends to "box" meanings into words so that when a word is spoken, we visualize that box.
I remember teaching my first outdoor class a park in Newton, MA back in 1960. A reporter got wind of the outing and brought a photographer out to get the "first" story on Uechi-ryu.
He kept asking me for the names of the movements and stances for his article. I was a bit embarrassed, because Tomoyose never gave the movements "names". A stance was simply some useful position derived from Sanchin. It could be long where an elbow was being used or with weight more on one leg than another when the need to raise a leg to block (woops..) to attack a kick.
In other words, the movements of kata was performed for a purpose rather than to mimic a "box" definition of a position.
After Nishiama $ Brown's book was published, I learned that there were clearly defined stances in karate, with nice sounding names. Soon everyone in my class was performing rigidly defined stances with nice names rather than moving naturally, based on the purpose of the technique.
So. . . I guess what Bill says about the name/box block we as teachers use, can have a negative affect on the practitioner. The word takes on a meaning, totally independent of the actual movement. Hmmmmm
Back to "noname" positions and moves that have no predetermined meaning.
GEM
"Do or do not. there is no try!"
"Do or do not. there is no try!"
I'm in the recieving camp myself Bill, I find it's a less restrictive word to associate with the action. The word "block" still brings back bad dreams from my brief JKD days where BL wannabe's would show me why karate was bad by doing nonense "karate" moves. Of course an exagerated "block" was always included in the demonstration. 
I'm now thinking a block is more of an action than a technique. An example from last night is moving in on the spinning hook kick and having your body stop the kickers rotation is a blocking action. The kickers intent and motion are stopped and the energy redirected back. IMO good sen no sen. Coming from a system with many blocks it was an easy trap for the students, myself included, to get locked into thinking a move had just one purpose.
Good stuff Van and GEM.
I'm now thinking a block is more of an action than a technique. An example from last night is moving in on the spinning hook kick and having your body stop the kickers rotation is a blocking action. The kickers intent and motion are stopped and the energy redirected back. IMO good sen no sen. Coming from a system with many blocks it was an easy trap for the students, myself included, to get locked into thinking a move had just one purpose.
Good stuff Van and GEM.
I was dreaming of the past...
-
gmattson
- Site Admin
- Posts: 6073
- Joined: Wed Sep 16, 1998 6:01 am
- Location: Lake Mary, Florida
- Contact:
Postscript
In rereading my last post, (Naturally after I hit the "send" button) I realized that some might think Tomoyose didn't deal with stances. This is far from the truth.
I found that stances varied according to how a technique was performed. He would have me stop every once in awhile, in a position, then manually "fix" the stance so it was "useful" to the technique or application. I felt the stance in relation to the technique as something "alive" rather than merely attempting to force a rigidly defined position into whatever I was doing.
Hope that clarifies the post a bit.
I found that stances varied according to how a technique was performed. He would have me stop every once in awhile, in a position, then manually "fix" the stance so it was "useful" to the technique or application. I felt the stance in relation to the technique as something "alive" rather than merely attempting to force a rigidly defined position into whatever I was doing.
Hope that clarifies the post a bit.
GEM
"Do or do not. there is no try!"
"Do or do not. there is no try!"
-
JimHawkins
- Posts: 2101
- Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 12:21 am
- Location: NYC
With respect:
I fail to see how something that contains multiple movements, concepts and component's both defensive and offensive is more accurately termed a 'block,' which among other things clearly implies stoppage, halting and waiting...
Now that's confusing!
Further, if this terminology is not accurate with respect to the actions and mindset involved in the successful execution and continued flow of combat then how in the name of God can the term block be better for students' understanding at any level?
Why would students not be better off being introduced to the ideas and concepts that, according to most here, actually reflect the correct idea and application of the movements in question? Many would agree that any combat movement, even one termed 'defensive' must have some offensive component included, and blended into the 'defensive movement' or in another movement that is done in the same movement time, many would say this is at least part of the idea that the wa-uke teaches!
I was at one time a Uechi student! And I can tell you that if someone had taken the time to explain these 'deeper,' more realistic applications to me, instead of, 'Yeah that's the Uechi 'circle block thing' maybe I would have stayed longer. Many teaching today still think this is a 'block', and only a block, what of them? Words are important in teaching. Words that don’t accurately convey meaning: Don’t accurately convey meaning! 
Why take away so much from something that may have considerably more depth and meaning by trivializing it with shallow and inaccurate words? Is this good teaching, is this accurate teaching? IMO calling wa-uke a block is akin to calling a 357 Magnum a paper weight. The ‘name’ of the thing in question will define its use and understanding in those who know only what they are told – and many of them will have a real problem bringing a paper weight to a gunfight.
IMO, instead of worrying about semantics in reference to wa-uke people should be talking about applications and uses thereof that might actually work when the BG is trying to take off your (confused) student's head
I fail to see how something that contains multiple movements, concepts and component's both defensive and offensive is more accurately termed a 'block,' which among other things clearly implies stoppage, halting and waiting...
Now that's confusing!
Further, if this terminology is not accurate with respect to the actions and mindset involved in the successful execution and continued flow of combat then how in the name of God can the term block be better for students' understanding at any level?
Why would students not be better off being introduced to the ideas and concepts that, according to most here, actually reflect the correct idea and application of the movements in question? Many would agree that any combat movement, even one termed 'defensive' must have some offensive component included, and blended into the 'defensive movement' or in another movement that is done in the same movement time, many would say this is at least part of the idea that the wa-uke teaches!
I was at one time a Uechi student! And I can tell you that if someone had taken the time to explain these 'deeper,' more realistic applications to me, instead of, 'Yeah that's the Uechi 'circle block thing' maybe I would have stayed longer.
Many teaching today still think this is a 'block', and only a block, what of them? Words are important in teaching. Words that don’t accurately convey meaning: Don’t accurately convey meaning! Why take away so much from something that may have considerably more depth and meaning by trivializing it with shallow and inaccurate words? Is this good teaching, is this accurate teaching? IMO calling wa-uke a block is akin to calling a 357 Magnum a paper weight. The ‘name’ of the thing in question will define its use and understanding in those who know only what they are told – and many of them will have a real problem bringing a paper weight to a gunfight.
IMO, instead of worrying about semantics in reference to wa-uke people should be talking about applications and uses thereof that might actually work when the BG is trying to take off your (confused) student's head
Shaolin
M Y V T K F
"Receive what comes, stay with what goes, upon loss of contact attack the line" – The Kuen Kuit
M Y V T K F
"Receive what comes, stay with what goes, upon loss of contact attack the line" – The Kuen Kuit
