The "first move"

[benjamin]

Hi guys, just something I've been thinking about. When we get together as a club, and everyone's had a few beers, we get to discussing Karate. Probably not a great idea when they're all a bit drunk, but it happens!

Obviously, as we all know, "there is no first strike in karate". So what, in your opinion, constitutes as the 'first move' after which you would feel justified in using your Karate to defend yourself?

For example, opinions at my club vary from one guy who say a verbal threat of violence is enough to warrant defending yourself, if you think it's a serious thread, to another at the other end of the spectrum who feels you have to take a full on punch before you should break out your skills.

Sorry if this has been discussed before, I'm fairly new round these part.

[DWx]

No offence but I really think its stupid to take a punch before you fight back. That one punch could be enough to KO you or seriously injure you and you've already lost. First strike for me is the first sign of aggression...

[pittbullJudoka]

First off taking the first punch isn't the best of ideas. As DWx said it can be very dangerous. In my opinion a threating movement is enough but it's a fine line to walk. Most defanitly the attempt to touch or puch you even if it's just a finger pocked in you chest in a violent manner is enough. I don't think verbal threats are enough. You could ask 100 martial artist and get 100 diffrent responces on this subject. The first opion should be try to talk you way out of the situation a physical confritation should be the last ditch effort to remove youself from the situation.

[KarateGeorge]

Pitbulljudoka makes a wise point. You really don't know what could happen in a physical confrontation, and in reality, by maintaining a proper awareness of one's surroundings, and the events happening, many times a situation can either be avoided entirely or at least diffused before it becomes a problem. Some people just have a knack for detecting confrontations and avoiding or diffusing them, but with experience and training, most anybody can hone this ability.

Physical confrontation should not be the first option. But, if a physical confrontation is inevitable, the first sign of aggressive intent is enough. I'm not going t wait for that first punch to land if I can avoid it. That could something such as the initial movements of a punch (assuming I can react faster than they can throw the punch) or revealing a weapon.

[benjamin]

I agree totally. I see no point in waiting until someones landed an uppercut square under my jaw before I begin to protect myself!

In my opinion, as soon as someones actions cause me to feel physically threatened, whether those actions are physical or verbal, I'm at liberty to defend myself however I feel is appropriate.

Should that be a shove, or just someone getting right up in my face and threatening me I still feel it warrants defending myself.

[tonydee]

In my opinion, as soon as someones actions cause me to feel physically threatened, whether those actions are physical or verbal, I'm at liberty to defend myself however I feel is appropriate.

Should that be a shove, or just someone getting right up in my face and threatening me I still feel it warrants defending myself.

I agree that feeling physically threatened is typically the issue, especially if you've sought and exhausted ways to mitigate the threat (verbal, distancing, distraction, adopting a more defensible position). There are also situations that are physical but not threatening (some fool being too pushy on the Tokyo metro), and situations that someone intends to be threatening but an experienced martial artist couldn't find threatening - in either violence would be an over-reaction.

Then there are other more complex scenarios where you might choose to use your skills at some level: enforcing some laws, defence of freedoms/ property, to prevent a perceived probability of future violence which you expect to be unable to handle adequately at that time. Obviously, it works best if we turn to the provisions our society has to handle most such situations, but sometimes they may be inadequate, and even the pros and cons of setting a precedence/example for action - lawful or not - ought to be weighed. Lots of grey areas.

Cheers,

Tony

[Spodo Komodo]

As far as I am concerned you can stand and verbally abuse me as long as you like, I used to be a secondary school teacher so I'm used to it

Making an aggressive move is different though, throwing clenched fists or trying to grab will be met by an evasive movement to begin with and a strike of some kind if it is repeated. Oddly enough nobody has ever got the hint that I don't want to play from evading a punch or grab. They always seem to try again so maybe it is a redundant strategy but it gives me peace of mind and may go some way to show that I am not the aggressor if it ever goes to the law.

[Soheir]

Well, why does there have to be a first strike?

Maybe in boxing there is, but if we think, how should judoka or karateka from a certain style act in that kind of situation, there shouldn't be an actual strike, in my opinion.

I mean, if someone attacts you, you defend yourself. So if the opponent doesn't have a hold from you, then there is no need to fight. And also, if he doesn't have a hold, then you are makeing The Firt Strike, with no reason. Basically, you are the one attacting.

Then it's a different thing, if you have to defend your mate, or some stranger.

[Jay]

I have always thought that no first strike meant there is no set first attack, not that you don't attack first.

[Jeffrey]

Geoff Thompson wrote a book (Bio) on working the door in night clubs. "Watch My Back" He talked alot about the first strike. Great read. Pretty much the first strike is first move of aggression. Don't wait for the strike because it could be the last.