[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.
A similar maxim from the tai chi classics, āIf my opponent does not move, I do not move. If my opponent moves, I arrive first.ā
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.
A defender can pick the moment too by controlling distance, circling, etc.
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."
An advantage is when either the attacker or defender are double weighted unable to change. Kuzushi is a subset of double weighted. Although, double weighted does not require a person to be off balance. If the defender can neutralize the attack (e.g., move) then there is no advantage.
Adam Mizner said:
Understanding this we should strive to master timing rather than just speed. When we arrive āon timeā in this way, our opponent is where we perceived him to be and our technique is neither early nor late. In tai chi chuan this ācorrect timeā is when the opponent has āfallen to emptinessā, he is off balance and frozen or double heavy. This is the right time to attack and finish the confrontation. Many attacks delivered with the wrong timing are not as effective as one that is delivered on time, whether it be delivered fast or slow.
When I am teaching classes or workshops on taijiquan I always emphasize the three principles of timing, placement and power. These three skills are not only
discovertaiji.com
3. The attacker does initially have the momentum. But one's momentum can be used against him - this is related to the next point.
Yes, the attacker is open to a counter if the defender is not double weighted.
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.
A defender can evade without creating an opening while the attacker is out of position.
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."
Yes. To get an advantage, a defender (or attacker) should
lead an opponent into emptiness (advantage) then finish them.
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.
Yes.
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...
Resisting:
You donāt have an āadvantageā becauseā¦
1. your jab is 2 feet short of your opponentās face and unnecessary to block.
2. your opponent is unlikely to block.
3. your opponent is unlikely to block a jab by straightening his arm, freeze while you grab his wrist, take a full step with your rear leg, step forward with your other leg and reap.
4. your front cut/osoto gari is forced without economy of motion.
5. your opponent has various counters against your moves.
6. your opponent is not double weighted.
