Karate ni Sente Nashi

[USCMAAI]

I think some of you are missing the point. "First strike/attack" means first aggression. If someone yells at you "I am gonna kick your ...." , makes a fist and begins to swing and you deliver a strike to his chin, Did you strike first? I say no. What is meant by the saying is that we in Karate do not offer hostility to anyone, unless we are threatend. Grandmaster Ed Parkers creed sums it up best.

" I come to with only Karate, my empty hands. Should I be forced to defend my self, my principles, or my honor. Should it be a matter of life or death, right or wrong. Then here are my weapons Karate my empty hands."

[Shorin Ryuu]

I don't get wrapped up with fancy words or philosophies. Karate is karate.

[repz]

In my style it says we dont train to be attackers, we train for defense of self, an that defending puts you in a more tactical position, example: one.. you seen his attack, you can judge his fighting ability based on this ( weight shift, angle of attack, stance, any martial artist can make a quick judgement in just a few seconds ) basically you see a preview of what he has to offer, two.. if your style uses wristlocks an such, you dont force these moves, they arent offensive in nature.

Yes theres advantages in sneak attacks of course, but not many of us train that way.

But in my case, i would swing at someone in a heated arguement, no matter what philosphy my sensei tries to implant in me, im very aggresive an my tolernce for disrespectful people is extremely slim. But i hope that never happens, an dont anyone tell my sensei id swing first, or ill swing first at your face.. jk

[Shorin Ryuu]

I think waiting for an opponent to act first is a terrible idea. You have to take both your reaction time into consideration and the fact that it is harder psychologically to "stand ready" for more than a few moments at a time.

In a real fighting situation, you don't have time to sit there and analyze your opponent's strategies, stance, etc. I don't care how much of a master you are, it just does not work that way. Those mere seconds where even a master could supposedly deduce an opponent's entire fighting style would be better spent seizing the initiative. If you are not acting, you are reacting. I prefer to act.

This is where I feel too much idealistic philosophy can be of detriment to the practitioner.

[Zanshin]

Thanks Cross,

You are right. It has been covered in great detail, and there are some excellent posts there.

Sorry if I have brought out the cracked record....again!!. I promise to check more thoroughly next time

No problem at all. The only reason i knew those ones existed is because i was involved in both. If you read anything from them and want to comment on it, or further question something this might be the place to do it.

I have one question.

Does anyone know the reason why the Maxim of "Karate ni Sente Nashi" was adopted in the first place, as it is quite clear to me (and most of the forum members it would appear), that the pre-emptive strike is (and always has been) the preferred option?

One account I have heard is that as Karate grew in popularity in Japan, street fighting competitions got a bit out of hand and ultimately started to give Karate a bad rep. In an attempt to stop the negative press, the Karate authorities came up with "Karate ni Sente Nashi" and “professed” that it was the code that all true Karate-ka should live by.

Has anyone else heard of this?

[repz]

I think waiting for an opponent to act first is a terrible idea. You have to take both your reaction time into consideration and the fact that it is harder psychologically to "stand ready" for more than a few moments at a time.

In a real fighting situation, you don't have time to sit there and analyze your opponent's strategies, stance, etc. I don't care how much of a master you are, it just does not work that way. Those mere seconds where even a master could supposedly deduce an opponent's entire fighting style would be better spent seizing the initiative. If you are not acting, you are reacting. I prefer to act.

This is where I feel too much idealistic philosophy can be of detriment to the practitioner.

Sit there an analyze strategies? Im guessing this is towards my post. You dont have to be a master to know that the punch you just blocked was weak an uncoordinated. Your not gonna lose sight that the guy just wildy over swung his body, especially when after years of training you learned to correct students when their balance is just minimaly off.

An remember its all self defense, an you want to defend yourself as in defense from his reaction, you dont want to be the agressor an get caught by cops, if someone watches right when you guys swing, an you make the first attack, hes not going to say you were defending yourself, hes going to say you punched him, then its up to the judges.

[Shorin Ryuu]

Sit there an analyze strategies? Im guessing this is towards my post. You dont have to be a master to know that the punch you just blocked was weak an uncoordinated. Your not gonna lose sight that the guy just wildy over swung his body, especially when after years of training you learned to correct students when their balance is just minimaly off.

An remember its all self defense, an you want to defend yourself as in defense from his reaction, you dont want to be the agressor an get caught by cops, if someone watches right when you guys swing, an you make the first attack, hes not going to say you were defending yourself, hes going to say you punched him, then its up to the judges.

And if he doesn't punch weakly? And if he doesn't wildly overswing? Why take that risk? Your argument is that it is easy to judge someone's skill after they attack you poorly. But you have no guarantee they will attack you poorly. Why wait and see? Why give them the opportunity to attack you well? If the situation allows you to just wait for your opponent, then you can just as easily walk away. If it does not, then you might as well attack.

I don't care too much for the term "self-defense" anyway. You're either going to fight or not. It may be in "self-defense" that you fight, but you're training to fight.

I have one question.

Does anyone know the reason why the Maxim of "Karate ni Sente Nashi" was adopted in the first place, as it is quite clear to me (and most of the forum members it would appear), that the pre-emptive strike is (and always has been) the preferred option?

One account I have heard is that as Karate grew in popularity in Japan, street fighting competitions got a bit out of hand and ultimately started to give Karate a bad rep. In an attempt to stop the negative press, the Karate authorities came up with "Karate ni Sente Nashi" and “professed” that it was the code that all true Karate-ka should live by.

Has anyone else heard of this?

It was something Funakoshi Gichin came up with, as he was very much interested in infusing karate with a philosophical and character building element. This maxim grew very popular in Japan and even influenced many Okinawan schools that really had nothing to do with Funakoshi Gichin in the first place. This just proves how strong an effect that an appealing ideology/philosophy can have. It also shows how it may affect the practical application of karate, for better or worse.

[repz]

Sit there an analyze strategies? Im guessing this is towards my post. You dont have to be a master to know that the punch you just blocked was weak an uncoordinated. Your not gonna lose sight that the guy just wildy over swung his body, especially when after years of training you learned to correct students when their balance is just minimaly off.

An remember its all self defense, an you want to defend yourself as in defense from his reaction, you dont want to be the agressor an get caught by cops, if someone watches right when you guys swing, an you make the first attack, hes not going to say you were defending yourself, hes going to say you punched him, then its up to the judges.

And if he doesn't punch weakly? And if he doesn't wildly overswing? Why take that risk? Your argument is that it is easy to judge someone's skill after they attack you poorly. But you have no guarantee they will attack you poorly. Why wait and see? Why give them the opportunity to attack you well? If the situation allows you to just wait for your opponent, then you can just as easily walk away. If it does not, then you might as well attack.

.

I never said i would wait for an attack to judge... i was pointing out the reasons why to, an that lil tidbit was not even a major reason why to. Just like the law is another reason why to, an the fact that i dont want anything to escalate, cause i wouldnt want to get in a scuffle if i can prevent it.

An in the situation that he punches powerfully then he punches powerfully, an now you have justification to defend yourself, you know you prevented it, heres another situation in that he doesnt punch you at all an you stand there for nothing, then both walk off an call it a day... an you didnt even have to swing to protect yourself. An yes.. just as easily to walk away... an that is protecting yourself, avoiding confrontation, which is what you should be doing in the first place.

Im guessing our signals are mixed up, is everyone on the same page as me. Cause im pictureing that you guys have this image that some dude yells "Lets fight" an you guys are ready to square off. Maybe if someone gives us a picture of whats happening... does someone get approached in a dark alley... a guy says give me your wallet... what?

It depends on the situation.

Im not going to punch someone in the face cause we got into an arguement an he wants to fight... well i probably would... but if im sober an thinking straight, then no. Cause your' e no better then HE is.

[pers]

Funakoshi Gichin doesn't dictate my karate.

A block is a strike and a strike is a block.

I like the way you say it !

the philosophy as thought in karate is you don't go looking for trouble and do your best to avoid it but once it hits the fan

attacking first is your best block ,the concept of my training in shotokan is to try to end the fight quickly and decisively with every technique executed.

[cross]

In my style it says we dont train to be attackers, we train for defense of self, an that defending puts you in a more tactical position, example: one.. you seen his attack, you can judge his fighting ability based on this ( weight shift, angle of attack, stance, any martial artist can make a quick judgment in just a few seconds ) basically you see a preview of what he has to offer, two.. if your style uses wristlocks an such, you dont force these moves, they arent offensive in nature.

I agree with Shorin Ryuu's comments. Why wait to see their ability? If they are better than you its over because you wasted your chance to do anything.

Yes theres advantages in sneak attacks of course, but not many of us train that way.

If by sneak attacks you mean pre-emptive strikes, then they play an equal role has all other areas of self defence training, and to leave them out would take away one of the few advantages you are likely to have in a self defense situation.

An remember its all self defense, an you want to defend yourself as in defense from his reaction, you dont want to be the aggressor an get caught by cops, if someone watches right when you guys swing, an you make the first attack, hes not going to say you were defending yourself, hes going to say you punched him, then its up to the judges.

Its your actions before the fight that are going to save you more than during the fight itself. Correct pre fight posture etc all paints a clear picture to witnesses that you are not the aggressor, because when the fight breaks out chances are it will be difficult to tell who the initial aggressor actually was.

Im guessing our signals are mixed up, is everyone on the same page as me. Cause im pictureing that you guys have this image that some dude yells "Lets fight" an you guys are ready to square off. Maybe if someone gives us a picture of whats happening... does someone get approached in a dark alley... a guy says give me your wallet... what?

Personally my initial response is very similar regardless of the situation. To strike first or not is a very personal thing, no-one can tell you that you should or shouldnt. But keep in mind, if you are about to be attacked physically you increase your chances of walking away by alot if you strike first and take the initiative.

To answer your question, if it gets to the "lets fight" stage and any attempt by you to diffuse the situation has failed(i.e they havnt left and are getting more aggressive) then in my opinion its time to make a move. Or if they want something of yours (wallet, money, smokes etc) and you give it to them, but they are still there... then i feel its also time to make a move. I dont think anyone who advocates striking first is suggesting that you hit someone if they walk up to you and start getting aggressive. You have to try and diffuse and avoid the situation, BUT if that fails, then being pre-emptive is going to give you a much higher chance of survival.