Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
No, it’s a bit pathetic because it’s martially unsound.How about "there is no first strike in Karate".
Isn’t that exactly what it says?I thought first strike meant being first with intent to commit violence
In your hypothetical, His intent is the "first strike- w/o action towards me" Other than approaching towards me . hypothetical, So, my strike is the "second intent- first aggressive action."...he’s clearly going to kill you by ripping you to shreds and then defaecate on your remains.
But the maxin doesn’t say, ‘In Karate there is no first intent to attack’. Thus if you strike him in certain anticipation of his imminent assault upon you, you have, as a Karateka, struck first and violated the maxim.In your hypothetical, His intent is the "first strike- w/o action towards me" Other than approaching towards me . hypothetical, So, my strike is the "second intent- first aggressive action."
the child killer you mentioned that had intent to kill you had with that intention already begun his strike, so why in that situation were you worried that it was you that was about breaking rules being the first striker ?Isn’t that exactly what it says?
You’re interpreting the maxim to fit your notion of propriety; take it as written . She hasn’t actually struck you has she?the child killer you mentioned that had intent to kill you had with that intention already begun his strike,
Because the maxim doesn’t mention the word ‘intention’ in any form. Whoever coined it could have easily phrased it as ‘In Karate there is no intention of a first attack’ if that’s what they meant.so why in that situation were you worried that it was you that was about breaking rules being the first striker ?
You’re interpreting the maxim to fit your notion of propriety; take it as written . She hasn’t actually struck you has she?
Because the maxim doesn’t mention the word ‘intention’ in any form. Whoever coined it could have easily phrased it as ‘In Karate there is no intention of a first attack’ if that’s what they meant.
Oh so now it’s ’In true Karate there is no first attack’? More personal reinterpretation.There is no first strike in true Karate, in fact there is no strike at all in true Karate , because…..
Are you one of those people who crouches a little when walking around with your eyes darting from side to side?”To become an object of an attack is an indication that there was an opening in one's guard, and the important thing is to be on guard at all times.”
- Gichin Funakoshi
true Karate is always on guard
No-I’m using the description to paint a picture of threat for the purposes of the postYou yourself bind intent with action -
”his face learing and contorted with murderous rage and intent; he’s clearly going to kill you by ripping you to shreds and then defaecate on your remains”
- You
Well, okay , as you say, it’s a “maxim”, you read that word ? It indicates something great/greatness, and that’s just what truth is, Great.Oh so now it’s ’In true Karate there is no first attack’? More personal reinterpretation.
Just admit that it’s a maxim that doesn’t bear close scrutiny.
You tube don’t work here in the far east(China), so meaning what you put forth on Karate((meaning ”China hand”) is of no importance or truthYes, you…errr…win with a brilliant rebuttal
Great indeed![]()
Oh, well it’s a video of Funakoshi practising blocks and counters with a student. funakoshi looks like a beginner who’s had 6 month’s practices. His timing is awful, he leans backward his limbs aren’t at nice neat angles.You tube don’t work here in the far east(China),
so meaning what you put forth on Karate((meaning ”China hand”) is of no importance or truth
![]()
![]()
![]()