There Is No Advantage in Striking First in Karate

[Taiji Rebel]

So are spiders.

Spiders are predictable. Premeditated attacks are not in their nature. They do not attack in gangs, nor do they use weapons. You have chosen a rather strange comparison to street violence on this occasion Mr. Bear.

 

[Fungus]

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

perceive an opponent’s intent before it fully manifests, allowing them to act preemptively.

Seems quite in line with how I think Kreese would have interpreted it

"Strike first, strike hard, no mercy"

So where does something really "begin" and "end"?

So if we reduce strike + counter, to the case where "the first strike" is rather "the last strike", have we reduced violence?

 

[Big Pat]

"Beat it, Meet it or Eat it"-SGM Chuck Sullivan.

This is from his recently published book-My 64 years in Kenpo. Good read for Kenposits or others interested in early marital arts.

Big Pat
EKP RIP

 

[drop bear]

Spiders are predictable. Premeditated attacks are not in their nature. They do not attack in gangs, nor do they use weapons. You have chosen a rather strange comparison to street violence on this occasion Mr. Bear.

They don't need gangs. They have 8 legs. They are their own gang.

 

[Taiji Rebel]

Yes, a street fight is no place for playing around with fancy tactics; it is not sparring. I would not want to slug it out with a street fighter as my first choice of strategy. That's why I'd prefer to control the distance/angles to evade the ferocity of his initial attack and let the attacker create my opening then strongly counter with multiple strikes until the opponent is finished.

If one is of a mind to initiate the attack the same simplicity is required; one's attack must be as direct as possible. When I mentioned guard and set-up, it has to conform to this rule. A "quick" (the term I used in my post) initial feint and then explosively move in, blasting/stuffing his guard to overwhelm the opponent with multiple strikes.
Most untrained fighters don't put much attention to their stance, leaving their leg vulnerable to an initial set-up attack.

Simplicity, directness and aggressive fierce commitment I would list as the key factors no matter which approach is used. This does sound like the street fighter's strategy as well - one must fight fire with fire. The MA guy gets the edge with efficient trained technique and eye. An experienced street fight with some technical training? Oh boy!

Street violence is a more accurate term. You are still speaking in terms of a contest akin to a competitive match, sparring or even partner drills. A martial artist could have an edge if they train in the correct manner. In the military you are trained and drilled as close to reality as possible. And even the most realistic training pales in comparison to the reality of combat. Soldiers can still freeze when the contact with the enemy begins, even with the best training in the world. Traditional martial arts school and sport martial artists are not participating in realistic self-protection training sessions.

 

[Same Trick]

Not sure I like this, but someone once told me the reason you should not strike first, and block instead is to give yourself a chance to judge the other persons strength and movement before you attack.

Turn the other cheek is when the bully is in for a surprise

 

[isshinryuronin]

Street violence is a more accurate term. You are still speaking in terms of a contest akin to a competitive match, sparring or even partner drills. A martial artist could have an edge if they train in the correct manner. In the military you are trained and drilled as close to reality as possible. And even the most realistic training pales in comparison to the reality of combat. Soldiers can still freeze when the contact with the enemy begins, even with the best training in the world. Traditional martial arts school and sport martial artists are not participating in realistic self-protection training sessions.

Combat has two elements - physical and mental/psychological. TMA teaches how to be biomechanically efficient to produce power and speed as well as tactical maneuvers. Sparring gives some experience in contact and stress. But it's not (nowadays) at a level of training as a professional fighter or special ops military, especially psychologically (though these were the kind of guys who developed karate).

While most of us are not professionals in the world of actual killing or even elite sport, I do agree TMA should spend more effort in the psychological/mental aspects of fighting. There was a thread dealing with aggressiveness that discussed this. Some of us have a greater natural level of aggression and the ability to unleash it than others. But under extreme stress like withstanding heavy fire while hitting a fortified position in a foreign jungle or beach head, those that cower and those that charge in cannot be predicted.

 

[windwalker099]

I do agree TMA should spend more effort in the psychological/mental aspects of fighting.

Why?

Your premise assumes that traditional martial arts (TMA) are still about fighting rather than the preservation of cultural artifacts from a bygone era.

This doesn’t mean these practices cannot be used for "fighting," whatever that may mean to an individual. Rather, it means their function has shifted over time and no longer aligns with the marketing—past or present—used to promote them.

We can observe discussions on various platforms where practitioners offer different perspectives, ranging from practical combatives to historical traditions. Many attempt to reconcile these perspectives in ways that make sense within cultures different from those in which the arts originally developed.

In the end, they may find that it’s not the same.

"Psychological/Mental Aspects of Fighting"

Rather than developing a mindset purely for fighting, many practitioners focus on cultivating a mindset useful for living—aligning themselves through their practice with the central themes of the cultures in which these arts originated.

For those trying to connect the dots through historical references or events—whether to validate their practice or deepen their study—this can lead to confusion, especially if they have not encountered anyone with historical skill sets or have not developed them themselves.

 

[windwalker099]

Soldiers can still freeze when the contact with the enemy begins, even with the best training in the world. Traditional martial arts school and sport martial artists are not participating in realistic self-protection training sessions.

Did some support work with U.S. Special Forces, 10th Group among others.

They had a saying: There are only two types of soldiers—"the quick and the dead."

The training is not just about teaching specific tactics and strategies for combat. While those are learned, the greater purpose is to place soldiers in high-stress situations where their mental and physical limits are pushed to the breaking point.

This tends to weed out those not able to overcome them.

 

[HighKick]

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.

I often say speed kills and Fully believe that to be true. But there are SO many tiny nuances and reads a person can learn to take advantage of whether in a match or a street fight.
Remember, it takes roughly 3/10ths of a second for your eyes to see something, your brain to process the information, tell your (insert body part) to react, and for said body part to move.
That can be a lifetime in certain situations.

 

[isshinryuronin]

Your premise assumes that traditional martial arts (TMA) are still about fighting rather than the preservation of cultural artifacts from a bygone era.

Rather than developing a mindset purely for fighting, many practitioners focus on cultivating a mindset useful for living—aligning themselves through their practice with the central themes of the cultures in which these arts originated.

No argument here. TMA has developed many sides and people can pick and choose those that are important to them - the art offers many kinds of benefits. But if one ignores the root function of self-defense its preservation as a "cultural artifact" will lessen and it will lose its "martial" essence and will become merely exercise and self-development,

For those who want to effectively protect themselves and family, simply learning the physical/tactical aspects without having a "fighting spirit." the capacity to execute them in a violent high stress setting, are fooling themselves with false confidence. One has to "flick the switch" mentally to unleash extreme doom upon the attacker. Not everyone has this natural ability and needs to be trained. This aspect is often neglected.

For most of TMA's practitioners this goes beyond their interests and that's OK for them. Their training will still give them some ability to deal with lower levels of self-defense while they pursue TMA's many other useful benefits.