The "first move"

[SlowHands]

I instantly thought of this article which talks about sensen no sen and providing an interesting view on "the first strike"-

http://karatejutsu.blogspot.com/2006/05/making-sense-of-sen.html

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.

[bushido_man96]

I think this "Karate Precept" is either very misunderstood, and taken literaly, or if is supposed to be taken literaly, is very bad advice.

If you want to take it literaly, then it is necessary to understand that action is always faster than reaction. So, if you always wait for the "first strike" to be delivered, it is likely that you are going to get hit. And then, you are behind the 8-ball from the very beginning. How often in a tournament do you hear coaches or teachers tell you "let the other guy get the first point?" I would reckon not very often. To do so in self-defense situations seems like an even worse idea.

Now, if the precept is to be interpretted as something more along the lines of "never start a fight," then I think it makes more sense. If someone is overly aggressive towards you, and is putting in a position where you feel afraid that you may be harmed, then that itself is "the first strike," and you should consider defending yourself at that point.

[Chitsu]

"Ni Sente Nashi" is a sentiment - not to be taken literally.

"Go no sen", "sen no sen" and "sen-sen no sen" are bujutsu concepts of timing.

From a self protection point of view its quite clear imo:

If you find yourself in a position where you feel sure [1] that (despite your best attempts to avoid such escalations) you (or others around) are at risk of being killed or seriously injured as a result of the violent action of a third party [2]- you are entitled to use "reasonable force" [3] (preemptive if need be) to stop it from happening.

If it ends up ugly [1], [2] and [3] may have to be considered by a court of law, but as they say...

What is better? To be tried by twelve or carried by six?

Chitsu

[benjamin]

I instantly thought of this article which talks about sensen no sen and providing an interesting view on "the first strike"-

http://karatejutsu.blogspot.com/2006/05/making-sense-of-sen.html

A good article, and an enjoyable read!

I don't take the "first strike" precept to mean "don't start fights". I think that's part of what the 5th line of the dojo kun covers.

But I think it is, instead, meant to put emphasis on the fact Karate is a defensive art.

You'll also notice I titled the thread "the first move" not "the first strike". I don't believe the first move is always a punch to the face, or any form of strike. But I believe someone must cross some sort of line to elicit a violent reaction. Obviously, that line depends on the person. If I were in a group of friends, and a guy smaller than me was causing trouble, I would fear for my safety less, so he'd have to do more to get that response. If I was alone, and it was dark, and I came round the corner to be confronted by a group of guys I'm lucky to feel threatened more easily.

[bushido_man96]

Then it becomes more of a use-of-force evaluation, and that is a good way to approach these things.

[JAKEHE3078]

No offense 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...

Totally agree.

For me the first strike, is the first sign of aggression. Who says a strike has to be physical? If you have been engaged you have already been attacked.

[Fish]

I always thought it meant there is no "first" strike in the sense that "first" is an ordinal number, followed by "second", "third" etc. The aim in karate is to incapacitate with one blow ("one strike, one kill"). If there is only one, there can be no first.

[benjamin]

I always thought it meant there is no "first" strike in the sense that "first" is an ordinal number, followed by "second", "third" etc. The aim in karate is to incapacitate with one blow ("one strike, one kill"). If there is only one, there can be no first.

I created this thread to see what peoples interpretation of "the first strike" was. As in a push, a thread, a punch etc. But the thing it's brought to light is the fact that many people interpret the precept to mean something totally different!

[Chitsu]

I always thought it meant there is no "first" strike in the sense that "first" is an ordinal number, followed by "second", "third" etc. The aim in karate is to incapacitate with one blow ("one strike, one kill"). If there is only one, there can be no first.

The one strike kill concept or "Ikkenhissatsu" has been discussed on this board before.

http://www.karateforums.com/ikken-hissatsu-to-kill-with-one-blow-vt34546.html

"Karate ni sente nashi" - was as much an emergency statement / exercise in "spin", addopted by the early karate federations in Japan - in order to stop karate's reputation going down the pan.

Chitsu

Edited April 21, 2010 by Chitsu

[Toptomcat]

Ha! I like that. It's incomplete at best as ethical advice, but seen in the light of PR it makes a great deal more sense.