# Karate ni sente nashi



## seasoned (Jun 12, 2007)

No first strike in Karate. Chinese Proverb "He who strikes the first blow admits he's lost the argument." 
Any thoughts on this subject, how do you feel about the above statement?
I teach GoJu and every Kata in GoJu Ryu karate begins with a defensive technique.


----------



## twendkata71 (Jun 12, 2007)

It was one of Funakoshi Gichin's  favorite sayings. Meant to teach his students that karate is for self defense not for attacking others in anger. 
It is the first thing that I teach new students.


----------



## cstanley (Jun 12, 2007)

The same concept is taught in Okinawan karate...BUT, it depends on what you mean by "first attack." If someone is obviously threatening you, or if you detect a hostile intent, then that in itself may be considered a first attack and it is perfectly acceptable to "seize the initiative early," or take the initiative away from the opponent. It is stupid to wait for an obviously hostile and threatening opponent to strike first.

There is more subtlety to this than just "being defensive." In nature, the more aggressive animal usually wins. There are ways to be aggressive without "attacking" first.


----------



## Boomer (Jun 12, 2007)

I was just speaking to a Hanshi level instructor about this.  He gave me some different insights on it.
The saying could also be translated "There is no first advantage in karate."  There's a lot more room for interpretation with that translation.  The way this particular instructor looks at it is through the idea that aggressive defense is the key to shotokan karate.  Therefore the first movement of your opposition (what your opponent sees as his advantage) is actually to your advantage with your devistating uke waza.


----------



## chinto (Jun 13, 2007)

twendkata71 said:


> It was one of Funakoshi Gichin's favorite sayings. Meant to teach his students that karate is for self defense not for attacking others in anger.
> It is the first thing that I teach new students.


 

I would agree with this interpitiation. I beleave the idea was that Karate is for self defence only. now if you got several people threatinging you and you are sure its going to be physical and not just words, well then you have been "attacked", even the law would say so, as assualt is any thing that makes you fear for your physical safety.  so you would then be perfectly correct, if you are 110% sure your right, to pick one of the groop and dispatch him as fast as posible.


----------



## seasoned (Jun 13, 2007)

Boomer said:


> I was just speaking to a Hanshi level instructor about this. He gave me some different insights on it.
> The saying could also be translated "There is no first advantage in karate." There's a lot more room for interpretation with that translation. The way this particular instructor looks at it is through the idea that aggressive defense is the key to shotokan karate. Therefore the first movement of your opposition (what your opponent sees as his advantage) is actually to your advantage with your devistating uke waza.


 
The above is so true, as it shows through all GoJu kata. I feel that by letting someone attack first this does not put you at a disadvantage but allows you to read his intentions. When we are young we like to meet aggression head on and if we spar a lot in the begining of our training at certain dojos it is drilled into our heads to attack first. But as we look at the kata closely this is not what the kata are teaching us.


----------



## twendkata71 (Jun 13, 2007)

I agree. You have to seize the opportunity as soon as it becomes apparent that the situation is going to escalate and there are no other avenue or dialog.






chinto said:


> I would agree with this interpitiation. I beleave the idea was that Karate is for self defence only. now if you got several people threatinging you and you are sure its going to be physical and not just words, well then you have been "attacked", even the law would say so, as assualt is any thing that makes you fear for your physical safety. so you would then be perfectly correct, if you are 110% sure your right, to pick one of the groop and dispatch him as fast as posible.


----------



## seasoned (Jun 13, 2007)

twendkata71 said:


> I agree. You have to seize the opportunity as soon as it becomes apparent that the situation is going to escalate and there are no other avenue or dialog.


 
From the small group of people that have responded to this thread, I feel that you have elevated your skill level beyond a sucker punch response to a situation. The kata make it very clear that there has to be some form of movement from the other person before we respond. Within the GoJu kata we block or parry at the same time moving Tai Sabaki and at the same time striking. You can not punch or kick or takedown an individual based on a verbal confrontation. It is against the law to attack someone on speculation. There has to be some movement toward you, a step, a grab or the drawing back of a hand. At some point in time if we feel threatened and feel we have to hit first really takes the art aspect out of it all, and you can be sued or you may go to jail. I know there has to be more to this no first strike in karate then we have touched upon so far. Boomer said it best ***The way this particular instructor looks at it is through the idea that aggressive defense is the key to shotokan karate. Therefore the first movement of your opposition (what your opponent sees as his advantage) is actually to your advantage with your devistating uke waza.* I know the saying is, it is better to be judged by 12 then carred out by 6 but if this is an art of self defense then where is the art. Maybe the sport people are right, kata is useless. Any thoughts?


----------



## chinto (Jun 13, 2007)

seasoned said:


> From the small group of people that have responded to this thread, I feel that you have elevated your skill level beyond a sucker punch response to a situation. The kata make it very clear that there has to be some form of movement from the other person before we respond. Within the GoJu kata we block or parry at the same time moving Tai Sabaki and at the same time striking. You can not punch or kick or takedown an individual based on a verbal confrontation. It is against the law to attack someone on speculation. There has to be some movement toward you, a step, a grab or the drawing back of a hand. At some point in time if we feel threatened and feel we have to hit first really takes the art aspect out of it all, and you can be sued or you may go to jail. I know there has to be more to this no first strike in karate then we have touched upon so far. Boomer said it best ***The way this particular instructor looks at it is through the idea that aggressive defense is the key to shotokan karate. Therefore the first movement of your opposition (what your opponent sees as his advantage) is actually to your advantage with your devistating uke waza.* I know the saying is, it is better to be judged by 12 then carred out by 6 but if this is an art of self defense then where is the art. Maybe the sport people are right, kata is useless. Any thoughts?


 

yes, if you have multiple attackers who have made it clear to a reasonable person that they intend to do you bodily harm, that is all western states at least is considerd assualt and you are leagaly able to respond.  ( newjersy and a few east coast states have insane "duty to retreat" laws that forbid any self defence if you can retreat at all.. and they are taken to rediculous levels i understand.) but to say you have to wait till they have actualy struck you is to some how say there is a suicide pact in the laws and in the art. if that person has a weapon you provably dont want to wait till he uses it on you before you take action.


----------



## Hand Sword (Jun 14, 2007)

We always followed the Kenpo motto: He who hesitates-meditates, in a horizontal position. The first "strike" was already initiated at the moment your attacker became hostile. That could be a loud voice, an oncoming blow, an aggressive movement toward you etc.. Anything you do is a response, or the 2nd action taken.


----------



## seasoned (Jun 14, 2007)

chinto said:


> yes, if you have multiple attackers who have made it clear to a reasonable person that they intend to do you bodily harm, that is all western states at least is considerd assualt and you are leagaly able to respond. ( newjersy and a few east coast states have insane "duty to retreat" laws that forbid any self defence if you can retreat at all.. and they are taken to rediculous levels i understand.) but to say you have to wait till they have actualy struck you is to some how say there is a suicide pact in the laws and in the art. if that person has a weapon you provably dont want to wait till he uses it on you before you take action.


Agreed, I live in NY state and the laws here are some of the most stringent. I think Karate ni sente nashi has some very broad meaning which is as much mental as physical. Some things that were said, practiced and excepted in days of old would not fly in modern times. There are many ways to look at things and this is what makes for good posting . There was a quote I heard long ago that I feel is very applicable to my martial arts as I have gotten older. The best block is to not be there. I think it is a perception of ability that we are looking at here. I would never advocate standing in one place while being used as a punching bag, or worst. Also I would not advocate moving in on someone to try and beat them to a perceived attack. I think in broad day light on a busy street if I happen to bump into someone by mistake and they get angry my perception as to what to do would be much different then that same street at 2 am in the morning. This is where the mental and physical aspect of No first strike in karate comes into play. Day light if I call them a jerk I have moved past humility and in affect, thrown the first shot. 2 am in the morning on the same street someone approaching I would give them the benefit of the doubt and cross the street. If they followed then in my mind that is there first strike and as the opportunity arises I will do my best to destroy them. In our art there is a fine line between action and reaction and it is up to us technicians to decide. Karate ni sente nashi are words, kata is the book that these words take form in.


----------



## seasoned (Jun 14, 2007)

Hand Sword said:


> We always followed the Kenpo motto: He who hesitates-meditates, in a horizontal position. The first "strike" was already initiated at the moment your attacker became hostile. That could be a loud voice, an oncoming blow, an aggressive movement toward you etc.. Anything you do is a response, or the 2nd action taken.


Agreed, no where in kata or drills are hesitations taught. Just free flowing techniques. 
Agreed, no where in kata or drills are hesitations taught. Just free flowing techniques.


----------



## seasoned (Jun 16, 2007)

Thanks for the input fellow martial talkers, it made for good discussion.


----------



## chinto (Jun 18, 2007)

seasoned said:


> Agreed, I live in NY state and the laws here are some of the most stringent. I think Karate ni sente nashi has some very broad meaning which is as much mental as physical. Some things that were said, practiced and excepted in days of old would not fly in modern times. There are many ways to look at things and this is what makes for good posting . There was a quote I heard long ago that I feel is very applicable to my martial arts as I have gotten older. The best block is to not be there. I think it is a perception of ability that we are looking at here. I would never advocate standing in one place while being used as a punching bag, or worst. Also I would not advocate moving in on someone to try and beat them to a perceived attack. I think in broad day light on a busy street if I happen to bump into someone by mistake and they get angry my perception as to what to do would be much different then that same street at 2 am in the morning. This is where the mental and physical aspect of No first strike in karate comes into play. Day light if I call them a jerk I have moved past humility and in affect, thrown the first shot. 2 am in the morning on the same street someone approaching I would give them the benefit of the doubt and cross the street. If they followed then in my mind that is there first strike and as the opportunity arises I will do my best to destroy them. In our art there is a fine line between action and reaction and it is up to us technicians to decide. Karate ni sente nashi are words, kata is the book that these words take form in.


 

absolutly, the best block is not only not to be there for the blow, but not to be there for the fight!  but if you can not some how manage that, then well once you are convinced, and are sure a reasonable man would be convinced his safety is in jeperdy you do what you can to not get hurt. if i can avoid it I will as fast as I can. but if i can not avoid it I will do what I must to survive.


----------



## GretaGabbro (Jul 6, 2007)

The quote makes me think about the game Go (if you have not heard of it, it is an East Asian board game that has its Western analogue in chess, although there is really not much comparison between the two.  More info at the Go entry in Wikipedia).  I was just playing it today, so it is on my mind... I find it much easier to play when I am defending, and can form a response to an attack rather than make the first play.  Although it is fun and useful to be aggressive as well (in Go, at least!)... 

Anyways, I'm completely off-topic, so I'll go make a new thread about Go!


----------



## truth_seeker87 (Jul 10, 2007)

I believe this is true in terms of the thought Karateka should have. Modern Karate practitioners view Karate as a sport and many do not understand the morality that goes into the art.

In terms of technique, I would agree with the above statements of being aggressive. Stepping back when defending yourself, in my experience only lets your opponent to have more oppertunities to attack you. As my teachers have taught me, you only have a few seconds to end an encounter, but must do it as peacefully as possible avoiding maming and killing techniques. 

Speaking of tranlations, this makes me think of a book I read where instead of translating Karate as 'empty hand' it was better translated as 'open hand' meaning the hands could be helping. Just an idea.


----------



## Andrew Green (Jul 10, 2007)

seasoned said:


> No first strike in Karate.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sente#Gote_.28.E5.BE.8C.E6.89.8B.29_and_Sente_.28.E5.85.88.E6.89.8B.29


My understanding is that this is a bit of a mistranslation, and sente refers to the initiative, or first move.  So it is more along the lines of "not initiating" which does not imply not making the first strike.


----------



## chinto (Aug 28, 2007)

Andrew Green said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sente#Gote_.28.E5.BE.8C.E6.89.8B.29_and_Sente_.28.E5.85.88.E6.89.8B.29
> 
> 
> My understanding is that this is a bit of a mistranslation, and sente refers to the initiative, or first move. So it is more along the lines of "not initiating" which does not imply not making the first strike.


 

I would tend to agree with you on this.


----------



## Yeti (Aug 31, 2007)

seasoned said:


> When we are young we like to meet aggression head on and if we spar a lot in the begining of our training at certain dojos it is drilled into our heads to attack first. But as we look at the kata closely this is not what the kata are teaching us.


This, I fear, is a product of the 'sport karate/taekwondo' era. You are taught to get that point - always attack. The kata/poomse/forms aspect of training is largely disregarded in that arena. In my past TKD training, when I inquired about a particular move in one of my forms and whether it was offensive, defensive or both, I was actually told my my instructor that (after a deer in headlights kind of look) "you won't ever use that move in a tournament so don't worry about it." That's not to say all sport schools/styles are bad, but you get my point.


----------



## marlon (Aug 31, 2007)

Chokoi Motobu has been qouted as saying  Karate is the first move
i like it

marlon


----------



## exile (Sep 1, 2007)

There's some excellent food for thought about `no first strike in Karate' (with evidence from his own writing that Funakoshi had no problems with preemptive striking as part of Karate's overall strategic plan) here and here. Both articles are part of the free downloadable set on Iain Abernethy's almost unbelievably good web site; Abernethy wrote the first essay, and one of his guest writers the second. Together they add a lot of historical perspective and ethical depth to the issue.


----------



## Kosho Gakkusei (Sep 7, 2007)

I tend to suscribe to the theory that blocks = strikes & strikes = blocks.

What's the difference between a Shoto Uke (knifehand block) & a Shoto Tsuki (knifehand strike)?

The best defense is to avoid the fight in the first place.  The best way to defend against an incoming attack is to avoid it by moving out of the way.  If you practice that, then blocking movements delivered with power are for punishing the attacking limb, while "gentler" deliveries are a form of contact manipulation.  Or you can retarget the block to the body or head and it could be a strike - possibly even pre-emptive depending on your timing.  In that case we could say that katas do teach pre-emptive strikes. So perhaps the opening Gedan Barai Uke (down block) in Pinan Shodan could be a Tetsui Ken (hammer fist) to the kidney or the opening Chudan Uke (chest level block) in Pinan Sandan & Pinan Godan could be a Uraken Tsuki (back fist) to the face.

To me the sentiment expressed in 'Karate ni sente nashi' is we don't start fights we finish them.

_Don Flatt


----------



## Kosho Gakkusei (Sep 7, 2007)

I owe exile some thanks because he referenced this article on a different thread but I found a quote extremely relevant to the question of the OP.



> Funakoshi did more than change his name - he changed his tune. Before World War II, what the Japanese refer to as the War of the Pacific, Funakoshis books had a particular jingoistic ring to them. He supposed that karate training was good for young soldiers to learn to take into battle, and that karate was also good training for conquered people so that they could be disciplined into civilized Japanese citizens [10].
> This message is a far cry from his later works in which he protests that there is no initiative in karate (_karate ni sente nashi_ from the Niju Kun) and that karate is the study of peace. It is not too strange that Funakoshi, who might be described as a master politician and even a social chameleon, would so adeptly alter his message to suit American Occupational Authorities after having constructed one that was music to the ears of the Imperial Japanese 20 years earlier.
> Heres a man, however, who is able to quickly determine the direction of the wind and just as quickly adapt himself to it for his own success and acceptance. It is not suprising that a child of an alcoholic would be so desiring of the acceptance of others. Funakoshi is a classic case of this. The Japanese needed him to leave the wife behind, so he did. They needed Japanese names for things - they got them. They appeared to resent China - forget about China. Whatever they wanted, they got. Funakoshi moved to the beat of the music that happened to be playing at the time. He was a master politician and diplomat. He was a survivor in hard times.


 
_Don Flatt


----------



## Kennedy_Shogen_Ryu (Sep 9, 2007)

I personally feel that many of the martial arts have gone away from the martial and more towards the art, ie the spike in tournament competitions, etc.  And obviously if you are competing and you are always waiting for the opponent to make the first move, it does lessen your chances of winning a little.  I train in a purely traditional style which is more along the lines of opponent comes in to punch and wham you smash his arm so he won't punch you anymore.  Now obviously this doesn't conform to the laws of society, so in essence we must water down certain techniques to a degree.  
Anywho, I do believe that Karate is an art of self defence and this does include the pre-emptive strike, and that though a Karate practitioner should not seek out a fight, if you are forced into a fight, you should do what is necessary to win.​


----------



## chinto (Sep 10, 2007)

Kennedy_Shogen_Ryu said:


> I personally feel that many of the martial arts have gone away from the martial and more towards the art, ie the spike in tournament competitions, etc. And obviously if you are competing and you are always waiting for the opponent to make the first move, it does lessen your chances of winning a little. I train in a purely traditional style which is more along the lines of opponent comes in to punch and wham you smash his arm so he won't punch you anymore. Now obviously this doesn't conform to the laws of society, so in essence we must water down certain techniques to a degree.
> 
> Anywho, I do believe that Karate is an art of self defence and this does include the pre-emptive strike, and that though a Karate practitioner should not seek out a fight, if you are forced into a fight, you should do what is necessary to win.​


 
yep in general I gota agree..  if you are forced into the fight, didnt see it comeing and leave before it happend... dispatch the attacker, quickly and effecently.  but it is always always best to just not be there for the fight.


----------



## TimoS (Sep 10, 2007)

Kosho Gakkusei said:


> I tend to suscribe to the theory that blocks = strikes & strikes = blocks



Sometimes they are and sometimes they aren't. True, a block can be an attack, depending on the timing and a what looks like a punch can and sometimes is actually a block


----------



## TimoS (Sep 10, 2007)

marlon said:


> Chokoi Motobu has been qouted as saying  Karate is the first move
> i like it
> 
> marlon



Oh yes, "karate wa sente". It is not nearly as often quoted as "karate ni sente nashi". At first they seem to contradict each other, but in my opinion, they complement each other. What I mean is that you use karate to defend yourself, but if you have to use it, seize the initiative as soon as you can. Don't wait for the actual physical attack


----------



## exile (Sep 10, 2007)

The citations I provided earlier give excellent reasons, both strategically and ethically grounded, for pre-emption of an incoming attack, as a number of posters have already advocated in what I find very sensible terms. I doubt that many MAists go out of their way to look for trouble (although as we know, some of the greatest everChotku Kyan, Choki Motobu and the great Anko Itosu himselfseems to have done, particularly in their youth, though not only then); but one of the main reasons for the very existence of the MAs in the first place is the fact that there are people who intend us harm regardless of how little harm we've done to them. Acting ethically doesn't entail falling on your own sword to gratify your enemy.

It's true, though, that it's possible to abuse the notion of preemption; look at that thread in Horror Stories about the guy who damaged some homeless man's eye by attacking him with an umbrella, then claiming in court that he was excercises his right of preemptive defense. He lost, but the problem is, someone who sees the world teeming with dangers at that level of mental disturbance can use preemption as justification for totally unwarranted violence. The fact is, there's no sound principle that can't be manipulated by people with a loose grip on reality to justify pathological behavior. It doesn't invalidate the principle, but it does remind us that we better have all our ducks in a row when we call on something like imminent attack as a justification for preemtive strikingbecause while it's true that it's better to judged by twelve than carried by six, it's not exactly the most comfortable position to be in...


----------



## Kosho Gakkusei (Sep 10, 2007)

exile said:


> because while it's true that it's better to judged by twelve than carried by six, it's not exactly the most comfortable position to be in...


That is by far my favorite use of that saying!

_Don Flatt


----------



## exile (Sep 10, 2007)

Kosho Gakkusei said:


> That is by far my favorite use of that saying!
> 
> _Don Flatt



Mine too... still, it's a sobering thought from any angle...


----------



## chinto (Sep 11, 2007)

Kosho Gakkusei said:


> That is by far my favorite use of that saying!
> 
> _Don Flatt


 

yep gota say that if I am here where I live, or say in NY NY  I will figure and act on the old saying " it is better to be judged by 12 then carried by six!"  so I will dispatch the attacker as quickly and effecently as posible. I will use minumum force as I see it to preserve my life and health, but when in doubt I will stop that attacker!!!


----------

