Karate ni Sente Nashi

[repz]

[.

quote] 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 kinda did read your next line...

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.

You just said youd hit someone after you tried to defuse the situation, but he hasnt attacked you yet, so how are you for sure that hes going to hit you? Its not like his words are throwing punches towards you. An if you are trying to diffuse anything.. that means its not a mugging or hes trying to kill you, its most likely some guy who you randonly got into a scuffle with, unless you begged the mugger to not rob you an instead persuaded him to go out for drinks...

If the person comes at you with a concealed weapon or he just finished beating up your friend then walks towards you, then yeah you strike first, you dont need to pause to see the situation.

I been in enough chest to chest "WHAT WHAT WHAT" situations an they never escalated anywhere. Not all bumps end up in fights, bust most do end up in court.

[cross]

You just said youd hit someone after you tried to defuse the situation

The idea of difussing is to stop a violent confrontation occurring. IF the the difussing doesnt work, then you have NOT stopped a violent confrontation from occurring so of course i am going to hit before i get hit.

but he hasnt attacked you yet, so how are you for sure that hes going to hit you? Its not like his words are throwing punches towards you.

If ive done everything to difuse the situation and the person is still becoming more aggressive towards me and not leaving, then you can be pretty sure the situation is going to continue to get worse before it gets better.

An if you are trying to diffuse anything.. that means its not a mugging or hes trying to kill you, its most likely some guy who you randonly got into a scuffle with, unless you begged the mugger to not rob you an instead persuaded him to go out for drinks...

Are you suggesting that you wouldnt try to diffuse a mugging? Giving them your wallet seems like an excellent way to avoid the confrontation escalating. Once again, IF that fails, then being proactive instead of reactive is going to give you a much greater advantage.

[bushido_man96]

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.

This is very well put. This is how I would look at the situation. I don't consider myself quick, or super strong, or do I want to know if I can take his best shot. I know I have lousy reaction time, too. Therefore, I don't want to stand around, waiting to eat a knuckle sandwich.

[bushido_man96]

Funakoshi Gichin doesn't dictate my karate.

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

I don't get what you're trying to say here.

Me neither....

From reading some of your other posts, Shorin Ryuu, about striking and blocking powerfully, and concentrating on destroying the opponent, I assumed that you had heard this phrase before. Basically, what it boils down to, is that if you are forced to block an initial attack, then the block should be powerful and intentional, therefore causing damage to the limb that is attacking you--therefore, becoming a strike.

[Shorin Ryuu]

Funakoshi Gichin doesn't dictate my karate.

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

I don't get what you're trying to say here.

Me neither....

From reading some of your other posts, Shorin Ryuu, about striking and blocking powerfully, and concentrating on destroying the opponent, I assumed that you had heard this phrase before. Basically, what it boils down to, is that if you are forced to block an initial attack, then the block should be powerful and intentional, therefore causing damage to the limb that is attacking you--therefore, becoming a strike.

I've heard that phrase before; I was just unsure how that related to Gichin Funakoshi not dictating my karate.

The way I see it, Gichin Funakoshi's "karate ni sente nashi" was a philosophical idea that found its way into the fighting mentality of his followers (and others). Whether it's a strike or a block is irrelevant. For that matter, "sente" doesn't mean strike, it just means "first move" or "initiative". Even if you strike your opponent's attack, you've already lost the initiative.

If the situation warrants it, I will take the first move.

Rather than "karate ni sente nashi", I much prefer "Sente Hisshou".

"Victory belongs to those who make the first move."

[bushido_man96]

I've heard that phrase before; I was just unsure how that related to Gichin Funakoshi not dictating my karate.

Well, I'm not sure it does...I was just elaborating on the point.

The way I see it, Gichin Funakoshi's "karate ni sente nashi" was a philosophical idea that found its way into the fighting mentality of his followers (and others). Whether it's a strike or a block is irrelevant. For that matter, "sente" doesn't mean strike, it just means "first move" or "initiative". Even if you strike your opponent's attack, you've already lost the initiative.

I agree with you here. In my initial response, I stated that I prefer the pre-emptive strike. However, if you are caught off-guard, and must block first, then the preceding statement has more meaning for me. It is like you said, performing the moves with destroying the opponent in mind, whether you are blocking or striking.

If the situation warrants it, I will take the first move.

Rather than "karate ni sente nashi", I much prefer "Sente Hisshou".

"Victory belongs to those who make the first move."

I like this quote.

[sonofkanga]

I strongly suggest you take an in depth look at Japanese culture, history and philosophy before sitting in judgment on sayings from the 1920's.

There is a huge difference between the ideal of the saying and actual course of action stemming from this ideal.

[bushido_man96]

I strongly suggest you take an in depth look at Japanese culture, history and philosophy before sitting in judgment on sayings from the 1920's.

There is a huge difference between the ideal of the saying and actual course of action stemming from this ideal.

I think that this is part of the problem. The ideal is different over there, and the wording doesn't lend it to be figured out very easily. It is taken at face value, and some just don't like it.

[Zanshin]

I strongly suggest you take an in depth look at Japanese culture, history and philosophy before sitting in judgment on sayings from the 1920's.

There is a huge difference between the ideal of the saying and actual course of action stemming from this ideal.

Can you expand on this? Interested in your view.

[cross]

I agree with you here. In my initial response, I stated that I prefer the pre-emptive strike. However, if you are caught off-guard, and must block first, then the preceding statement has more meaning for me. It is like you said, performing the moves with destroying the opponent in mind, whether you are blocking or striking.

The only problem with being caught off guard is that your first line of defense will less likely be a powerful well executed block that damages the attacks arm and more likely a "oh crap" style flailing of the arms.