|
Post by jimlukelkc on Jun 6, 2012 20:12:21 GMT
Fleur brought up an interesting point and I wondered if we have another case of misinterpretation. The often quoted precept of " There is no first attack in Karate". As a defensive strategy it surely is madness to be reactive rather than pro-active? My own take on this, is that the sentiment behind it is we should not use our skills in an aggressive or bullying manner . That we should not initiate conflict . However it is risky in the extreme to wait to be attacked. If we take that as a given then I do not buy the assertion that all Heian kata begin with a block.
|
|
|
Post by elmar on Jun 6, 2012 20:32:34 GMT
"karate ni sente nashi" - <i>sente</i> is an interesting word. My interpretation is that GF said that there is no advantage in having it, i.e. the advantage of first attack does not exist in karate. Note he did not say that you couldn't attack first, he merely said that you don't necessarily gain an advantage by doing so.
|
|
|
Post by Allan Shepherd on Jun 6, 2012 21:29:56 GMT
What we have to remember here is that the reference to "karate ni sente nashi" is NOT initially about a physical intent, it is about a number of "thoughts/intensions" of the mind that preceed the physical intent. Karate ni sente nashi happens in conjunction with sen no sen, go no sen etc.
Personally I think there is an advantage of "first attack" irrespective whether it be physical or thought/intention provoked simply because when a confrontation occurs we automatically go into an alert state. Some call it a pre- emptive strike.
Best Regards Allan
|
|
|
Post by fujicolt on Jun 6, 2012 21:37:01 GMT
"karate ni sente nashi" - <i>sente</i> is an interesting word. My interpretation is that GF said that there is no advantage in having it, i.e. the advantage of first attack does not exist in karate. Note he did not say that you couldn't attack first, he merely said that you don't necessarily gain an advantage by doing so. interesting comment - can you tell us when he said this - as i do not see any possible merit in any MA instructor giving such foolish advice I think cold reality would tell you that if you woke up and found a knife weilding intruder just about to enter your child's bedroom you would attack defensively. I agree - we should all avoid instigating any attacks, threats, etc but once again I would have to state 'Come on - let's all deal with reality and not totally unreal interpretations etc. Given GF's standing in an MA community I have faith in him being a very pragmatic man and thus he would not dismiss the concept of you can be first to physically launch an encounter on the grounds that the attack had already put you in a justifiable belief of immenant danger to you ar a loved one etc. but this is a defensive action and not a first attack. I think Karate ni sente nashi actually means 'do not be the initiator of danger to others' and is not 'they must have physically launched an assault against you (or loved ones or a helpless victim of crime etc) before you can strike - that would be insane nonsense surely? I would love to here a credible counter argument because I doubt anyone here - if they genuinely sensed danger to a love one - would standby and wait for an actual physical process of attack to actually be on the way to hurt them before they reacted to protect them
|
|
|
Post by fleur on Jun 6, 2012 23:37:58 GMT
If we take that as a given then I do not buy the assertion that all Heian kata begin with a block. Ah, but don't forget a block is also a strike, if executed correctly.
|
|
|
Post by elmar on Jun 7, 2012 1:08:18 GMT
...interesting comment - can you tell us when he said this - as i do not see any possible merit in any MA instructor giving such foolish advice It is in his 20 aphorisms, IIRC. So? What does that have to do with the idea stated? In that scenario you/your family are already attacked (intent counts), so the statement does not apply. Now it does apply when the attacker stops and faces you, and it is simply a tactical statement reflecting the reality that once a person commits to a certain attack, that person becomes somewhat "blind" to any others, and to the counters. Thus the person "reacting" is not necessarily at a disadvantage. It is also very true that the 'defender" is most definitely not at an advantage either - action usually beats reaction, after all. In the context where karate is most probably used in GF's time, the attack is likely to have been grab and slug, and if you are well trained, the grab very nicely immobilizes on of the attackers hands while leaving both of yours (and your legs) free. Thus Aikido, which is the realization of this aphorism. I fail to see what is so hard to understand.
|
|
|
Post by malk103 on Jun 7, 2012 8:04:43 GMT
I used to know a doorman who was under strict instructions to only strike someone if he was hit first, his nose was regularly broken and he started losing teeth. Their moto was "you get the first hit for free" He then learnt to instinctively know when someone was about to hit him and managed to hit first but eventually got sacked for it. To him the attack had already started as he was convinced that a punch/kick was coming his way in the next second or two. He was not the sort of person to go around punching people for fun either.
I think GF also said that he who strikes the first blow will mostly win the battle - or something along those lines.
What I take from "Karate ni sente nashi" is that I will not use any force as aggression against others, I will not use Karate/force against someone who is being aggressive against me UNLESS I think they are going to launch a serious attack on me or anyone near me. Then my actions will be in proportion to the attack or threat.
Placed in other situations like a burglar near my kids room then ALL rules go out the window, maybe the burglar will as well....
|
|
|
Post by Bob Davis on Jun 7, 2012 9:26:30 GMT
Surely the definition of an attack is in "intent" rather than waiting for actual physical contact. I'm aware that this is always going to be a judgment call but my interpretation is that if I were to judge intent in an opponent then the attack is already started, to wait to be hit first would be foolish. I do have opinions on the advantages/disadvantages of actually throwing the first punch BUT as I have never in reality been in this situation (at least since I left school) it's all just so much theory so I'll leave that to those that "know"
|
|
|
Post by elmar on Jun 7, 2012 20:17:46 GMT
I think GF also said that he who strikes the first blow will mostly win the battle - or something along those lines. Well, in knife circles, the first cut wins, so would guess the the first to actually land (not simply throw) a blow would have the advantage.
|
|
|
Post by fujicolt on Jun 7, 2012 20:27:26 GMT
Surely the definition of an attack is in "intent" rather than waiting for actual physical contact. I'm aware that this is always going to be a judgment call but my interpretation is that if I were to judge intent in an opponent then the attack is already started, to wait to be hit first would be foolish. I do have opinions on the advantages/disadvantages of actually throwing the first punch BUT as I have never in reality been in this situation (at least since I left school) it's all just so much theory so I'll leave that to those that "know" No Bob - You don't have to been a seasoned Doorman, Bodyguard or VDM Consultant to get this - I think your analysis is SPOT ON and I have had a few scuffles since school!
|
|
|
Post by malk103 on Jun 7, 2012 21:13:48 GMT
I think GF also said that he who strikes the first blow will mostly win the battle - or something along those lines. Well, in knife circles, the first cut wins, so would guess the the first to actually land (not simply throw) a blow would have the advantage. "Sente-hisshou"
Literally means, "the first hand is sure to win." A wider translation is, "to make the first strike, to seize the initiative, to take the game by the scruff of the neck."To me it could mean to land or throw the first blow.
|
|
|
Post by fujicolt on Jun 7, 2012 21:19:16 GMT
what about when - with no violent physical encounter you defuse the situation or simply move away from it to safety - the classic fighting without fighting! Think wider Mal
|
|
|
Post by malk103 on Jun 7, 2012 22:00:01 GMT
Very true and always the first option, the second would be to run away (or be wise enough not to be there in the first place).
I suppose it would depend also on the situation and experience, i've managed to diffuse a few problems and avoid trouble, but if someones just punched your mate or smashed the end off a bottle, picked up a bit of wood, chased you down the road and you think there is no chance to get away or end it peacefully then striking first would surely be the best option.
|
|
|
Post by fleur on Jun 8, 2012 2:21:48 GMT
|
|
|
Post by fleur on Jun 8, 2012 2:42:54 GMT
Came across these today and they are kinda on the same page as to what we have been talking about so thought I'd post them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2013 16:24:57 GMT
Firstly, it is my understanding, from people with a much better knowledge of Japanese language than myself, that Funakoshi said there is “lead” in Karate. The meaning that he was trying to convey seem to have been lost in translation and the true meaning was that Karate-ka should not go around trying to start fights in order to test their skills. This seems a much more sensible suggestion that “No first attack”. Of course people often try to justify “no first attack” by stating that kata do not start with attack moves, but this is incorrect, and just shows their lack of understanding of the movements in kata.
Secondly, Funaksoshi was intelligent, I doubt whether he, or anyone else, would create a system of self defence that required it’s practitioners to wait until someone started hitting you before you did anything to defend yourself. My purely personal interpretation of “no first attack” (even if that is a mistranslation) would be that if someone attempted to become aggressive or start a confrontation, what you would not do is attack first, first you would walk away. If they followed you then secondly you would attempt to de-escalate the situation verbally, if that failed thirdly you would make your escape, and if that was not an option then you would attack.
So in the above case, you wouldn’t attack first, you would attack fourth.
|
|
|
Post by kensei on Feb 22, 2013 18:19:28 GMT
Interesting this was brought back up again. I have been doing some research on Funakoshi and is "written thoughts" and I have to say that I am more and more leaning towards the idea that he infact was saying "if you get in a fight dont use Karate...period".
he was deadset against fighting in any way shape or form...period. His writing suggest that he felt that if you had to use Karate in a fight that the fight now became a very strict "life or death" situation were one guy walked away only...and the loser was put in the ground!
He actually talks about it alot and quotes his instructor alot about the Tiger story and such.
I am starting to think that the "Their is no first attack in Karate" is not so much a strategy of counter fighting as it is a warning not to even bother using it...use the fitness and smarts you have to block and run like hell!
My thoughts are still developing however but this is were I am leaning on his meaning behind this.
|
|
|
Post by malk103 on Feb 22, 2013 22:40:28 GMT
Fourth or more, in theory we should try every possible way to diffuse or end it without using force. GF said in one of his books that someone tried to mug him, instead of attacking back he just grabbed a vital pair of organs until they changed their mind, ending the problem without too much force. In one of the books i've read it tells a story of a very senior Karateka/Sensei getting beaten by two people, he could have fought back but didn't - in the process he took a serious beating. After a while the attackers realised what had happened and then apologised severely for being soo stupid.
Obviously the story used a better version of words than I can.
Funnily enough this evening we had a lad come back for what would have been his second lesson but his mum made him sit and watch. After his first lesson he thought he could take on the world and started pushing around his sister. His first lesson in Karate was Karate Ni Sente Nashi...... He cried when he couldn't train but we don't train bullies. Will try again next week.
My Sensei had someone say to him this week that they would love to be a BB as no-one would mess with them....
We've also had a more senior student show signs of agression without humility so have questioned any further training.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2013 23:03:39 GMT
Fourth or more, in theory we should try every possible way to diffuse or end it without using force. Of course yes, I could have made the list longer, but I kept it short just to illustrate the point ;-)
|
|
|
Post by malk103 on Feb 22, 2013 23:29:49 GMT
No problems ;D
I think we are on the same wavelength...
I've just updated our website to emphasise this point after todays experiences.
|
|
|
Post by garage on Feb 23, 2013 0:38:34 GMT
I find reading Funakoshi you have consider when it was published, certainly what he wrote changed to suit the times . If he didn't adapt it would not have become so well known.
Still doing woodpecker Kata? No that name didn't stick.
|
|
|
Post by nathanso on Feb 23, 2013 7:50:08 GMT
he was deadset against fighting in any way shape or form...period. His writing suggest that he felt that if you had to use Karate in a fight that the fight now became a very strict "life or death" situation were one guy walked away only...and the loser was put in the ground! I'm not sure I agree with this James. Remember his story about having someone trying to rob him and he said something to the effect that "his stance was full of holes" and he just grabbed and sqeezed the miscreant's testicles. (IIRC correctly, he said that he regreted it afterward.)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2013 10:29:17 GMT
In my mind no first attack means that it was not yourself that started the confrontation. You should not go round looking to start a fight. But, if someone starts to make a move against you and the situation is beyond verbal de escalation or escape then you can stike back to stop him or her hurting you.
|
|
|
Post by th0mas on Feb 23, 2013 12:34:31 GMT
I agree with Alan's interpretation.. The "no first attack in karate" is a rule or principle describing behaviour not a combat tactic. It seems clear that Funakoshi when bringing karate over to Japan was looking to a more budo vs Jutsu approach... Self improvement, health aspects etc rather than "hardman"... and I believe "don't be a bully..." is what he is referring to here.
Just to back that up....when you look at the various translations of Itosu's 20 precepts for karate there is a definite metaphorical flavour to them.
|
|
|
Post by kensei on Feb 23, 2013 16:19:52 GMT
The great thing about this debate is we are all disagreeing with out being aggressive. I was saying my views are changing on GF and his thoughts. The funny thing is I saw that story about grabbing the guys groin and then he says right after how he has regretted it to this day. It was one of the things he did, as well as a foot sweep that broke a guys leg that actually lead him to is new view.
Again, I apologize for printing my views that are changing as they change. As I do more research I may change again.....Like Socks.... the more I research the more I change my ideas!
|
|
|
Post by garage on Feb 23, 2013 19:59:51 GMT
Have read as much material as I can find this idea seemed to be put forward more to convince the occupying Americans that it was for self development so they wouldn't ban it.
Practically it is really a bad idea. Firstly like a patriot missile you have to go really quick to let them go first and be quicker.
In the knife culture we live in, we all carry a knife for self defence, we can expect to block a sharp instrument.
Unlike Japan there seems to be no rules. It is ok to kick someone whilst they are down batter them senseless and post it on facebook.
Obviously the usual respect for old age, so you I am normally addressed as "greyed haired C###" and it is alright to go for anyone. It is fair to use a machette or a katana still fair.
If there a number of them they complain that you are picking on them even there are more of them than.
So facing off waiting for them to start whist there mate gets behind you is really not a great idea things have changed so perhaps this needs to change too.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2013 17:50:16 GMT
we all carry a knife for self defence I certainly don't.
|
|
|
Post by jimlukelkc on Feb 25, 2013 9:14:24 GMT
Me either.
|
|
|
Post by garage on Feb 25, 2013 11:59:50 GMT
This is because we are old and not down with the kids. The police claim there is a knife culture and that youff are carrying for self defence.
A number of instutions have metal detectors at the entrance.
So therefore there is a chance that someone under 25 may be armed with a sharp implement. Ther being no first attack makes their chances even better.
I have a Fairbairn knife which I keep for practice and to show visitors. Is shotokan like a Fairbairn knife like one punch kill? (It is comando knife designed with one purpose in mind.)
|
|
|
Post by tomobrien on Mar 7, 2013 2:15:14 GMT
The loop hole is sensen no sen.
|
|