Karate ni Sente Nashi

[Shorin Ryuu]

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.

One of my two undergraduate majors and my graduate level degree involved a lot of study of East Asia and Japan, specifically, so I am quite familiar with Japanese culture and the history behind it.

When karate was introduced to Japan, it was viewed as somewhat incomplete because it didn't obsess about character development in the same manner that other "budo" arts did (kendo, judo, etc.). This is not to say character was unimportant to the Okinawans, far from it. However, the cultural tradition of Okinawa was far more Chinese, and thus far more Confucian in its outlook. The practitioners of karate (Shuri) were more of the upperclass/bodyguards/law enforcement type and were naturally expected to have good character as the natural order of things. Another part of this natural order of things was the acceptability of using violence swiftly to remove any disruptions to the natural order of things (bandits, thieves, ruffians, etc.). Therefore they didn't concern themselves with philosophies that sounded like "karate ni sente nashi". They did not create unnecessary conflict. However, in the event of conflict, they did not hesitate to act or seize the initiative.

Funakoshi was respected for his scholarly endeavors and his emphasis of character development. I do not disparage him for this. It is when ideology directly affects how you fight on the tactical level that I start to disagree.

[ps1]

Clearly, if we are trained well, our reaction time is going to be pretty good. Still, however, reaction is never faster than action. I am a huge proponent of the pre-emptive strike. Perhaps it's the military in me, maybe I'm just more violent than some, I don't know. Here's what we are taught about the reaction loop(it can actually go much deeper and is explained well in the book Leadership and Training for the Fight by MSG Paul R. Howe USA Retired).

To react to any scenario you must do 4 things:

1. Observe the initial action

2. Orient yourself to the situation

3. Decide on your course of action

4. Act

This is infinitely more slow than any initial action. Period.

If you are in a situation you deem as threatening, attack. That attack can be verbal or physical, whichever you deem appropriate. Let's say you're in a dark parking lot and you notice someone approaching you. You can't tell who it is. There's nothing wrong with firmly telling them to stop where they are, before they're close enough to touch you. If their intentions are sincere, they'll probably communicate this in some way. If they are not, this will become clear quickly as well. If they keep moving toward you, consider it a threat and tell them you will attack. Don't wait for them to get to you. (This is all assuming you could not get away for some reason.) That's a pre-emptive strike, it's a mental/verbal strike, but it's going to let a would be attacker know you are not a push-over. Many will displace the crime and move on to someone easier.

How about another scenario. You're already, for some reason, engaged in a scuffle with a person. You notice a person (assume it's not a friend of yours and not an authority figure) coming toward your position rather quickly. What do you do? This is a tough one! If I know I'm alone, I take the guy out. Otherwise, maybe I see if a friend holds him back. I will assume he's coming to the aid of the guy I'm already fighting with. This is easily defendable in court as a 2 on 1 situation can be considered lethal force. Others may not make that decision. Maybe the guy was going to break it up, I'm not going to wait until I'm in a hospital bed to find out what he was doing.

MSG Howe actually applies Boyd's Theory to military and police tactical combat situations as a continuous loop that occurs in combat. I'm applying it to one moment in time, but both applications are correct. This reactionary loop is actually called "Boyd's Theory."

I'll make this last point that, imo, because of how I understand the reaction loop and apply it. I haven't been caught in any of those types of scenarios above. I avoid the "danger zones" and have managed to avoid that conflict. But, I have not doubt about my actions should the situation arise. I keep a layered offense and train it every day.

[Shorin Ryuu]

... I can't believe you just posted the OODA loop...

That being said, your words are true.

[ps1]

... I can't believe you just posted the OODA loop...

That being said, your words are true.

Thanks. I do what I can.

[bushido_man96]

... I can't believe you just posted the OODA loop...

That being said, your words are true.

Thanks. I do what I can.

I have seen several instances of the OODA loop, and if you get caught behind the 8 ball, it is very hard to catch up. Why wait?

[ps1]

... I can't believe you just posted the OODA loop...

That being said, your words are true.

Thanks. I do what I can.

I have seen several instances of the OODA loop, and if you get caught behind the 8 ball, it is very hard to catch up. Why wait?

Exactly what MSG Howe asserts. The person/ team/ unit that can apply the loop the quickest will win. Period.

[USCMAAI]

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.

One of my two undergraduate majors and my graduate level degree involved a lot of study of East Asia and Japan, specifically, so I am quite familiar with Japanese culture and the history behind it.

When karate was introduced to Japan, it was viewed as somewhat incomplete because it didn't obsess about character development in the same manner that other "budo" arts did (kendo, judo, etc.). This is not to say character was unimportant to the Okinawans, far from it. However, the cultural tradition of Okinawa was far more Chinese, and thus far more Confucian in its outlook. The practitioners of karate (Shuri) were more of the upperclass/bodyguards/law enforcement type and were naturally expected to have good character as the natural order of things. Another part of this natural order of things was the acceptability of using violence swiftly to remove any disruptions to the natural order of things (bandits, thieves, ruffians, etc.). Therefore they didn't concern themselves with philosophies that sounded like "karate ni sente nashi". They did not create unnecessary conflict. However, in the event of conflict, they did not hesitate to act or seize the initiative.

Funakoshi was respected for his scholarly endeavors and his emphasis of character development. I do not disparage him for this. It is when ideology directly affects how you fight on the tactical level that I start to disagree.

Amen!