Who strikes first

[Bruce7]

Reading the works of great teachers such as Gichin Funakoshi , we should not strike first.
I am not sure if I believe that, IMO most of the great teachers that say we should not strike first were not soldiers.

I don't remember my GM ever saying don't strike first.
He once said when fighting multiple attackers it sometimes best to let them strike first so you know who to attack first.
My GM was highly decorated from fighting behind enemy lines during the Korean War.

Maybe if you are extremely good like Gichin Funakoshi you can give the advantage to your opponent.
The fights I have seen and have been in, the one who strikes first wins most of the time.
Of coarse we would not have been fighting at a masters level.

Maybe if two Martial Arts fight they let the opponent attach first to figure out his tactics for winning.
Maybe in a tournament, but in real life there is no referee to stop them once you are down.

Boxers and MMA fighters strike first if they see an opening.
Maybe the idea of not striking first is not martial, but more of a philosophy, a way of life.

I have no answers , only questions.

 

[Headhunter]

Yeah no I completely disagree with your gm.....that's nonsense if you know your about to be attacked you don't just stand there until they attack. Especially with multiple attackers. If someone is in your face threatening you getting in your personal space then you attack first. If someone pulls a weapon be it a stick a knife or whatever then you hit them even if they're just threatening with it you don't take that risk.

Yes of course if just some idiots drunk and stumbling round and slurring his words then you probably don't have to ko him. But if some guys are full on aggressive threatening and swearing then yeah I'm hitting first they're not getting the chance to attack


Boxing and Mma. Well that's sport so a totally different situation to real life

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

I think it's more of a philosophy thing than actual practical advice. The "don't strike first" is more of the idea "don't be aggressive/instigate things". It could also theoretically help out from a legal-defending yourself situation I suppose. I don't think that if you gave most of those guys the situation "this guy is charging at you with a knife", or "this guy is seeing he's going to F you up, with his hand cocked", they would say don't strike first.

IMO it's situational. If you think you can get out of the situation without fighting, don't attack. If you don't think so, and you're legitimately concerned for your safety, attack before they realize.

 

[Buka]

It depends. If I'm working as a cop or on a security gig, the luxury of striking first is usually eliminated.

And sometimes, it's more of case of skill level than it is just tactics. If you're used to dealing with people you can often read the tells of body language, especially if there have been some lead in cues. And if your skill set as a counter fighter is strong you may choose to let that first move be his. Even if there's multiples involved. Look at it this way....aggressive people are used to doing certain things. When you take them out of what they're used to, they sometimes fall apart.

But, again, I'm talking about countering, or jamming or intercepting, you can't just let them have a free swing. (Well, some can, I'm just not one of those people) I know people who are and have seen them in action. A friend of mine is a skilled counter puncher. We watched a couple of guys setting him up. (We were all working a security gig, they didn't know we were with him.) You could see one of them ready to sucker him. As soon as he did my buddy ducked as he side stepped, spun the guy and shoved him into his friend. They crashed heads. We grabbed one and held him while my buddy slapped the ever loving crap out of the sucker puncher. Never closed his fist, just slapped him half way to queer street. Oh, the slaps were so loud, I can still hear them.

But now as I think back on it, the guy didn't actually strike first did he?
He only swung first. So....never mind.

 

[CB Jones]

I believe in the 3 F's of fighting......

be First
be Fast
be Frequent

 

[Noah_Legel]

Reading the works of great teachers such as Gichin Funakoshi , we should not strike first.
I am not sure if I believe that, IMO most of the great teachers that say we should not strike first were not soldiers.

I don't remember my GM ever saying don't strike first.
He once said when fighting multiple attackers it sometimes best to let them strike first so you know who to attack first.
My GM was highly decorated from fighting behind enemy lines during the Korean War.

Maybe if you are extremely good like Gichin Funakoshi you can give the advantage to your opponent.
The fights I have seen and have been in, the one who strikes first wins most of the time.
Of coarse we would not have been fighting at a masters level.

Maybe if two Martial Arts fight they let the opponent attach first to figure out his tactics for winning.
Maybe in a tournament, but in real life there is no referee to stop them once you are down.

Boxers and MMA fighters strike first if they see an opening.
Maybe the idea of not striking first is not martial, but more of a philosophy, a way of life.

I have no answers , only questions.

Funakoshi said "karate ni sente nashi," which is generally translated as "there is no first strike in karate," but this was expanded upon, by himself and others, to explain that he meant that karateka should not go out starting fights. That does not mean you shouldn't attack first, under the right circumstances. I think he actually said that there were times where you must "seize the initiative," as well. Funakoshi was also not "extremely good," so that wouldn't justify him saying that you should never strike first--as far as I have been able to find, he was just an average karateka on Okinawa, at best, and was sent to mainland Japan as a sort of "brand ambassador" because of his experience as an educator and his understanding of and assimilation into Japanese culture, not for his mastery of karate. The two cases of him participating in challenge matches, that I know of, also both resulted in him being completely embarrassed.

I'm more inclined to look to the wisdom of people like Motobu Choki (one of the people who challenged Funakoshi, and a prolific fighter in his own right) when it comes to fighting. He preferred to say that "karate IS the first strike." As you said, the person who takes the initiative tends to be the one who emerges victorious. Even when it comes to self defense, that should be the goal.

 

[wab25]

Funakoshi said "karate ni sente nashi," which is generally translated as "there is no first strike in karate,"

Your thoughts here are very interesting... and I will need to do some more research. First off, thanks!

I take this statement a little differently. "There is no first strike in karate." Or in other words, in karate, there is no first strike. When two karate masters face off, the strike and counter strike happen at the same time... neither is first. Each has achieved the state of no mind, and when one goes, the other goes at the same instant. The practical application here is learning to go from 0 to max power and speed, instantaneously. It also means you need to be reading your opponent so well, that you know exactly when he will go. Outside of good karate practice, you should then be able to read your opponent, know what he will do, and then go from 0 to finishing the fight without hesitation.

Back in the training, things start slow for beginners. But, even at slow speed, there is no first strike. One punches, the other responds. However, you do not wait for the other to start or finish his punch, even if working at slow speed. Both attacker and responder begin simultaneously. This is how you train that ability to read and react.

So in my view, the words "in karate" are important. It is a method of training, that is designed to give you an advantage outside of your training. It is not meant to have you let the other guy throw the first punch. It is designed to help you learn to read the other guy and then respond with full force, instantly. Even if your response is a slip and counter punch, you need to start your slip as the other guys punch starts... too soon and he tracks you, to late and he hits you... Still your response needs to be simultaneous and without hesitation.

At least this is my view at the moment. Like I said, you have given me a little different look to go investigate. Thats why I like this place...

 

[drop bear]

Even counter punching you kind of need it. Otherwise they will dictate the fight.

If you are not going to strike first you need to avoid some areas completely. And your game has to change.

 

[Deleted member 39746]

only methodology i can think of is, you dont strike first but counter the attack. I think some "soft" styled might endorse you to absorb the attack per say.


I don't agree with it, first hit wins unless you are confident in counter attacking in which you can doge/block the attack then deliver a good retaliatory strike. Or absorb i suppose if we go down the soft way.

How ever pacifism is taking no aggressive action so if you take that lifestyle you will only act in defence or in extremes not at all.

Just some answers/counter points.


Oh i almost forgot, Han Solo shot first.

 

[yak sao]

..... half way to queer street

hahaha....man, I'd love to have a beer with you

 

[JR 137]

As @Never_A_Reflection said, I think people take “there is no first strike in karate” too literally. I interpret it as karate is for self defense only (the physical techniques/jutsu aspect, not the “do” aspect in this regard). There are certainly times to justifiably strike first in self defense.

 

[Bruce7]

Your thoughts here are very interesting... and I will need to do some more research. First off, thanks!

I take this statement a little differently. "There is no first strike in karate." Or in other words, in karate, there is no first strike. When two karate masters face off, the strike and counter strike happen at the same time... neither is first. Each has achieved the state of no mind, and when one goes, the other goes at the same instant. The practical application here is learning to go from 0 to max power and speed, instantaneously. It also means you need to be reading your opponent so well, that you know exactly when he will go. Outside of good karate practice, you should then be able to read your opponent, know what he will do, and then go from 0 to finishing the fight without hesitation.

Back in the training, things start slow for beginners. But, even at slow speed, there is no first strike. One punches, the other responds. However, you do not wait for the other to start or finish his punch, even if working at slow speed. Both attacker and responder begin simultaneously. This is how you train that ability to read and react.

So in my view, the words "in karate" are important. It is a method of training, that is designed to give you an advantage outside of your training. It is not meant to have you let the other guy throw the first punch. It is designed to help you learn to read the other guy and then respond with full force, instantly. Even if your response is a slip and counter punch, you need to start your slip as the other guys punch starts... too soon and he tracks you, to late and he hits you... Still your response needs to be simultaneous and without hesitation.

At least this is my view at the moment. Like I said, you have given me a little different look to go investigate. Thats why I like this place...

Excellent post.
Each has achieved the state of no mind, When I talk to Black Belts nowadays of the no mind state I can see in there face they have no idea what I am talking about.

 

[Buka]

hahaha....man, I'd love to have a beer with you

I would enjoy that immensely.

 

[Buka]

I believe in the 3 F's of fighting......

be First
be Fast
be Frequent

I was a member of the 4 H club back in my competition days.

Hit first
Hit fast
Hit hard
Hit last

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Reading the works of great teachers such as Gichin Funakoshi , we should not strike first.
I am not sure if I believe that, IMO most of the great teachers that say we should not strike first were not soldiers.

I don't remember my GM ever saying don't strike first.
He once said when fighting multiple attackers it sometimes best to let them strike first so you know who to attack first.
My GM was highly decorated from fighting behind enemy lines during the Korean War.

Maybe if you are extremely good like Gichin Funakoshi you can give the advantage to your opponent.
The fights I have seen and have been in, the one who strikes first wins most of the time.
Of coarse we would not have been fighting at a masters level.

Maybe if two Martial Arts fight they let the opponent attach first to figure out his tactics for winning.
Maybe in a tournament, but in real life there is no referee to stop them once you are down.

Boxers and MMA fighters strike first if they see an opening.
Maybe the idea of not striking first is not martial, but more of a philosophy, a way of life.

I have no answers , only questions.

I think it's more philosophical than literal. It's more meant as "we don't start things". If someone is threatening, and physical action is warranted, I don't think most old masters (including those who actually said things like "we don't strike first") would disapprove of taking appropriate action. Remember, too, that most of what we read in English on the topic from Asian masters is actually translated (a few probably did speak English, but mostly not with correct idiom). So we're reading the translator's best attempt to convey the idea in English.

As far as I know, it's really about self-defense versus getting into fights.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

only methodology i can think of is, you dont strike first but counter the attack. I think some "soft" styled might endorse you to absorb the attack per say.


I don't agree with it, first hit wins unless you are confident in counter attacking in which you can doge/block the attack then deliver a good retaliatory strike. Or absorb i suppose if we go down the soft way.

How ever pacifism is taking no aggressive action so if you take that lifestyle you will only act in defence or in extremes not at all.

Just some answers/counter points.


Oh i almost forgot, Han Solo shot first.

In the aiki arts, it's taken a bit more literally by many folks, because they're focused entirely on the aiki path. It's a weakness of being over-focused on that tool set. I think it likely started with the right idea: know how to respond to them striking first, because you might not see it coming before then - basically, start from the worst possible position and learn to work from there with what's available. It's a useful training concept, as far as it goes.

 

[Bruce7]

Even counter punching you kind of need it. Otherwise they will dictate the fight.

If you are not going to strike first you need to avoid some areas completely. And your game has to change.

Pros
Nice video. He did a good job slipping punches.

Cons
Their jabs were not fast.
If they had been train in how to have a fast snap punch or jab it would not have been so easy.
They also needed to work on their foot work.

 

[JR 137]

I was a member of the 4 H club back in my competition days.

Hit first
Hit fast
Hit hard
Hit last

I follow the Cobra Kai tenets:

Strike first
Strike hard
No mercy

And I sweep the leg

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

There is nothing wrong in this picture.

- A challenges B.
- B takes A down, and end the fight.

B attacks first. But A starts the challenge. Should B waits for A to attack first? Why?

 

[dvcochran]

Even counter punching you kind of need it. Otherwise they will dictate the fight.

If you are not going to strike first you need to avoid some areas completely. And your game has to change.

Agree, but the fight has already started in these situations.