No first attack?

[GrrrArg]

What I was actually trying to get at (got a bit lost in my ramble ) was that in an SD situation the oyo you used wouldnt actually use a simple block as a block.

 

More likely there is a more subtle and final interpretation of it.

[Shorin Ryuu]

A lot has been said that I agree with, but I think it is acceptable to strike first in a given situation. Granted, this is only in situations where all other options have been exhausted, so don't misquote me.

 

Perhaps there is a difference where I draw the line. Many people see the line as soon as the punch is being thrown (I'm using this both literally and figuratively), which then gives you the right counter. However, for all this talk over "using a wider sense of awareness to avoid conflict", I have not really seen any posts that address the issue of when your wider sense of awareness tells you that there is no other possible outcome than a fight, and that it will happen whether you throw the first blow or not. I think that by waiting for the first punch to be thrown, even if you know it is coming, is foolish.

 

I'll cause a hailstorm of controversy by saying this, I'm sure, but in those cases, I'm perfectly alright with throwing the first punch.

 

Once again, don't misquote me. This is a very narrow range of circumstances. Most of the time you can either back out of it or it happens too quickly for this sort of judgement to occur. However, always waiting for the strike to occur, even with the full intent of evading and counterattacking is not what I view to be the best policy.

 

Now, as far as the legal implications go, it may cause an even greater restriction on your freedom of action. You may not want to strike first because of the simplistic view of many people (jury) that see the first act of physical aggression as the true aggressor in a situation. That is why it is important that we, as martial artists, resolve this issue, at least on the large scale, before we are ever confronted with this situation. Whatever your position, make a firm commitment to it before a situation arises. The tactical situation may cause you to change, but your strategy should be well-articulated in your mind. Otherwise, the choice will most likely be made for you.

[AngelaG]

Katas dont start with a defensive move.. they can all be used to hurt. There are no blocks in any kata. They all have a more useful application. Even a basic punch has more application when you consider the hikite hand.

 

I have trained with this in mind from day one. My sensei also says that there are no specific blocks in kata, everything has an attacking application and I totally agree with him. Not getting hit is a simple concept. Getting hit hurts and puts you in a bad situation - don't get hit!.

 

It’s not that I don’t do "blocks" (although I much prefer to shift to a 45 degree angle and just parry the punch in the direction they are already going. I don’t think that a kata needs to show us that it’s a bad idea to get hit. When I soft block a hook punch it has no tension in it, I just throw my arm out to receive their punch. There is no finesse involved. Sometimes I will hit straight into their arm, sometimes I will continue to sweep it down into their bicep and sometimes I will sweep it back towards me (towards their wrist). Soft block is one of the few things we call a block, but anyone that uses it will know that it is also a strike. If someone really goes for a proper hook punch and you stop if with a soft block it can stop them in their tracks and stop them thinking about a follow up technique. (Although of course you don't depnd on that - follow up until you are 100% positive you are safe!)

 

Age uke may work as an upwards block, but I would prefer to show it as many other applications before I use the block one. The same applies to all the other receiving techniques. There are moves in kata that can be used as blocks but I think that the intention was never there that they were blocks. But I guess that’s the beauty of kata, each move has numerous different working applications. But again I stress that a kata is not showing the most basic concept of shifting and parrying because it shouldn't need to. A kata is a database of effective techniques not an idiots guide to karate!

 

As for gedan barai to block a kick well don't start me on that....!

 

So by all means use an age uke to receive a punch, but I would prefer to shift out of the way of a straight punch, preferably at 45 degrees into them, to take the initiative and then retaliate. A hand may go up to make sure that I don’t get hit, or may slap down on their arm, but I try not to match bone with bone and definitely not strength with strength! It’s a complicated subject I guess because there are so many moves in kata that whenever you move it will probably end up looking like something recognisable.

[GrrrArg]

In reference to gedan to block a kicK.. Have you read Rick Clarks 75 down blocks? Its on my wish list..

 

Shorin Ryuu, again I agree. As long as the intent to hit you is there on your oponents part.. that can be argued as the first attack, its just that you were faster.

[AngelaG]

In reference to gedan to block a kicK.. Have you read Rick Clarks 75 down blocks? Its on my wish list..

 

.

Nope but my instructor is teaching us 52 uses of Gedan Barai this year. One of which is shift out of the way and parry the kick in the direction it was already going using Gedan Barai. This most specifically is not a block. It is a last resort situation that they have managed to get a kick in so you avoid the kick and the parry is only there as a precaution. At no point do you meet the big bone of their leg and the full force of their leg muscles with the much smaller one of your arm and the strength of your arm.

[SevenStar]

Unfortuneately, this can only be answered with vague generalizations.

 

By my sensai's teachings - First rule of self defense: maintain distance. Don't end up nose-to-nose, yelling and screaming. You'll get hit. Keep any and all aggressors out of your sphere of control. Now someone lunges in at you. Feel free to counter, block, dodge, etc. I would see no reason to let that strike land. Also, counter with the control that you can just keep your opponent at bay. If he keeps getting up and coming back for more, then give him more.

 

you're walking to your car. Someone jumps out from behind a nearby wall, blindsiding you as you walk by them... you can't always maintain distance. Not all confrontations begin with chest pounding. It could be semantic, but "someone lunges in at you. Feel free to counter" sounds as if you are expecting the guy to only lunge in and throw one strike. The guy you are fighting in the street is likely untrained. He's not gonna throw one strike, which you counter and throw back, like a light sparring session. He is continually throwing punch after punch. in a fight, you generally don't have time to think in terms of "counter with control and keep him at bay", IME. you want to put him down as fast as you can. If that involes getting in hist space, then do that. The "keep him at bay" mentality, IMO anyway, is far too passive.

 

That's cool that you're in Nap - I've got family there, so I'm up there quite a bit. Next time I'm in the area, I'll try to remember to shoot you a PM.

[SevenStar]

A lot has been said that I agree with, but I think it is acceptable to strike first in a given situation. Granted, this is only in situations where all other options have been exhausted, so don't misquote me.

 

Perhaps there is a difference where I draw the line. Many people see the line as soon as the punch is being thrown (I'm using this both literally and figuratively), which then gives you the right counter. However, for all this talk over "using a wider sense of awareness to avoid conflict", I have not really seen any posts that address the issue of when your wider sense of awareness tells you that there is no other possible outcome than a fight, and that it will happen whether you throw the first blow or not. I think that by waiting for the first punch to be thrown, even if you know it is coming, is foolish.

 

I'll cause a hailstorm of controversy by saying this, I'm sure, but in those cases, I'm perfectly alright with throwing the first punch.

 

Once again, don't misquote me. This is a very narrow range of circumstances. Most of the time you can either back out of it or it happens too quickly for this sort of judgement to occur. However, always waiting for the strike to occur, even with the full intent of evading and counterattacking is not what I view to be the best policy.

 

good post. I was just getting ready to post something similar, as I noticed proactive self defense hadn't been mentioned.

[AngelaG]

good post. I was just getting ready to post something similar, as I noticed proactive self defense hadn't been mentioned.

 

I fully believe in pre-emptive striking if you are sure that the situation has escalated that far. Why let someone mess up my face before I react?

 

The best form of pre-emptive action? Don't be there when it kicks off!

[italian_guy]

good post. I was just getting ready to post something similar, as I noticed proactive self defense hadn't been mentioned.

 

I fully believe in pre-emptive striking if you are sure that the situation has escalated that far. Why let someone mess up my face before I react?

 

I'm against pre-emptive striking... how can you be sure that before the first puch is thrown that you can't deescalate? if you strike first you'll never know.

The best form of pre-emptive action? Don't be there when it kicks off!

with this I agree.

[Shorinryu Sensei]

The only first strike I've made myself in a street fight was when the guy was pulling back his arm to hit me. I was ready and nailed him in the left eye HARD before his arm came forward. He went down with his arm still cocked back. Otherwise no, I wouldn't make a "preemptive first strike".