There Is No Advantage in Striking First in Karate

[isshinryuronin]

[Note: Someone posted this as a quote from Funakoshi's book and some discussion followed. I can't find the thread so can't give credit to those I will be paraphrasing. Apologies to the individuals involved. Hopefully they will join in my thread here.]

"There is no first strike in karate" can be interpreted in many ways and IMO is very subjective and can get philosophical and not the subject here. Another version is - "There is no advantage in striking first in karate." This is much different, less moralistic, and the topic of this thread. This phrase taken literally doesn't mean one should or shouldn't initiate the attack in a fight (actual or sport), just there is no advantage to it. Initiate or counter, that is the question. I do remember Kung Fu Wang preferring initiating the attack and listing some good points, but there are other tactical factors to consider that support either viewpoint.

1. Choosing the time of the attack. 2. Getting a head start in the action. 3. Having the momentum. 4. Creating openings. 5. Less danger of getting hit. 6. An offensive attitude. These benefits all come with initiating the action. But let's look at these from both sides.

1. Yes, the attacker picks the moment. But it's based on his perception of opportunity; on something he sees in his opponent, there's usually some stimulus. But the counter-attacker does the same; something he sees in the (pre)inception of the attack causes him to react with a response. The ability to (mentally and physically) quickly respond to stimuli is paramount in both cases.

2. The attacker does enjoy some micro-second advantage, depending on his skill in not telegraphing and his opponent's skill in noticing any "tell."

3. The attacker does initially have the momentum. But one's momentum can be used against him - this is related to the next point.

4. By evading the attack, it's momentum will put the attacker out of position and create openings for a counter. A block can create openings as someone in the original thread noted - this leads to the next point.

5. Naturally, if one is defensive and continually blocks, he will eventually get hit. But there is vulnerability to the attacker in closing the distance. He needs to time the attack with precision and protect himself as he moves in. Feints, angles, built-in checks and smothering the opponent's guard are tactical tools here. #4 comes into play as well.

6. Attack and block are useful terms for individual techniques, but have less meaning taken in overall context. A defensive attitude is bad. An offensive attitude is good. One can block/defend aggressively with an offensive attitude. "A block is just the first move in an attack. Attack and defense are one and the same."

I agree there is no inherent advantage in attacking first - nor is there an inherent advantage to counter-attacking. From a self-defense viewpoint, the latter in more in the spirit. And I believe it's in line with traditional Okinawan tactical combat doctrine. There are pro's and con's to both methods. One may have a personal preference or skill for one or the other, but IMO there is a time for each depending on the opportunity and maybe just your mood that day.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

there is no inherent advantage in attacking first

You don't know which direction that your opponent's punch will come from. When you throw a punch, you will have pretty good idea which direction that your opponent's block will come from. By punching first, you have already reduced the possibility into a manageable small set with less surprise.

It's not easy to wrap your opponent's punching arm because that punch can be a fake. It's much easier to wrap your opponent's blocking arm if he intends to block your punch. So, if you need to wrap your opponent's arm, and turn the striking game into a wrestling game, punch first will give you that advantage.



If you apply circular dragging on your opponent (you attack first), you can take advantage on both of your opponent's resisting and yielding.

Resisting:

Yielding:

 

[Taiji Rebel]

I've posted these links previously on the forum but feel they are worth referencing again:

Precept 2: There Is No First Strike in Karate - Karate Philosophy

"There is no first strike in karate" (一、空手に先手なし Hitotsu, karate ni sente nashi) is the second of the 20 precepts that Gichin Funakoshi wrote to guide his students in the development of both spiritual and technical aspects of their karate. What does "karate ni sente nashi" mean? "Karate ni sente...

www.karatephilosophy.com

No First Attack in Karate? | Iain Abernethy

rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank" style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64);">No First Attack in Karate? In recent years the...

iainabernethy.com

 

[skribs]

I think there are two separate contexts in which this applies: sport and self-defense.

Sport training tends to focus on the fight over the course of the match. This is true of any striking combat sport (such as Muay Thai), but is even more true in a point-based sport (like Karate), because there is much less risk of an early round knockout. Being the aggressor allows you to see the patterns in your opponent's defenses and exploit them.

Training to be the aggressor means training how to strike in ways that don't leave you vulnerable to counter-attack, or in ways that expect the counter-attack and respond to it. This can include things like using your footwork to move outside your opponent's centerline, using head movement to be less of a target while you're punching, keeping your other hand up to be ready to block any attacks. It also means that the first time your opponent counters, you register that and prepare a defense for it the next time you use your combination.

In Taekwondo sparring, I really liked opening my combos with a crescent kick. People have different ways of protecting their head. I had different follow-ups depending on the read they gave me. If they would block the kick with their hands, then I'd throw a sharply-chambered roundhouse kick (sort of the opposite of a ?-kick, fake a head kick and then roundhouse to the body). If they would lean back, I'd use the crescent kick whiff to chamber a side kick and then nail them in the chest when they straightened back up. Got quite a few knockdowns with that one.

Being the aggressor allowed me to set those up.

Self-defense is a different story. I've always said there are two surprises in self-defense: the initial surprise of the attack, the initial surprise that the defender is fighting back, and after that it's a fight. If you are in a self-defense situation, you have one opportunity to defend yourself before the assailant realizes you're fighting back. This is where I think a lot of the one-step-defense techniques are at their most effective (especially the kind that I learned in Hapkido). In some cases, this may be more of a counter-attack. But in other cases, it may be more of an attack.

After that initial surprise phase of the encounter, it's back to the same rules as any other combat sport.

Grappling is a different story. In grappling, it's very typical that the person who controls the way the fight goes to the ground is the person who controls the fight. If you get a take-down, it's much more likely that you'll land in advantageous position that's difficult for the opponent to recover. If you pull guard, you are more likely to put yourself in a position that you can use to submit your opponent or come on top. It's very good to be the aggressor in a grappling art.

 

[wab25]

The original thread the OP was referring to was this one: Karate Do?

The point of that thread was to discuss when students are to learn the esoteric lessons. A version of the Niju Kun was posted there, as a representative of the esoteric principles. My point was to show that there are many translations of these 20 points, even among different Shotokan Schools, which may change the meaning of them. I used the 2nd one as an example, because I had previously read Funakoshi's version of it.... and it is quite different than the versions normally used in schools today. (see the previous thread fore more on that)

As to this specific principle, I really like the articles posted by Taiji Rebel above in post #3.

 

[wab25]

The only additional thought I had at this time, is for this version of the principle: “There is no first strike in karate”

We normally see this from the point of view that I am the Karate Master, and this is discussing whether I should attack first. But, it also gets interesting if you turn that around. The statement above does not identify who the first strike belongs to. As the Karate Master, there should be no first strike from the other guy. If I have achieved Sen Sen no Sen... then I should be moving at the same time as the other guy, in fact I should have moved before he does, preparing for the attack I know is coming.... therefore his strike cannot be first, it comes after my preparation or at best at the same time that I begin my movement.

One way then to look are the 2nd precept is that it is a call for the student to seek to attain Sen Sen no Sen.

see the karatephilosophy article posted by Taiji Rebel above in post #3.

 

[windwalker099]

This phrase taken literally doesn't mean one should or shouldn't initiate the attack in a fight (actual or sport), just there is no advantage to it. Initiate or counter, that is the question. I do remember Kung Fu Wang preferring initiating the attack and listing some good points, but there are other tactical factors to consider that support either viewpoint.

It can also mean 先の先 (Sen no Sen) – "Before the before."

This concept applies to those who have reached a level where they can perceive an opponent’s intent before it fully manifests, allowing them to act preemptively.

In arts like Aikido or Taiji, this principle is fundamental to how and why they function. Though expressed differently, the core idea remains the same—using sensitivity, timing, and positioning to control the situation before an attack physically materializes.

At this level, there is a merging that begins before physical contact. This allows one to control, redirect, or reflect an opponent’s action without needing to react in the conventional sense. There is no need to borrow or wait for the movement, as the intent behind the action has already begun to unfold.

 

[drop bear]

Training to be the aggressor means training how to strike in ways that don't leave you vulnerable to counter-attack, or in ways that expect the counter-attack and respond to it. This can include things like using your footwork to move outside your opponent's centerline, using head movement to be less of a target while you're punching, keeping your other hand up to be ready to block any attacks. It also means that the first time your opponent counters, you register that and prepare a defense for it the next time you use your combination.

Less risk. Is less risk.
Winning the entrance and the exit in a fight is less risk. So is having your hands up, head movement, good footwork, good pacing and all those other things you do in sports fighting that we don't see in street fighting as much.

There is no street sport dichotomy here.

It is a weird thing people bring up from time to time. And I think it is more because of correlation than causation.

 

[drop bear]

On the other hand if we are talking an ambush. Then all the things that reduce risk in a sports fight reduce risk in a street fight. But in a different phase of that fight.

So if you get clipped and have to recover, clinching, reducing space, running away and increasing space, covering up, intelligent pressure fighting. That kind of stuff.