I have been thinking (worrying) a good deal lately about how a rational, effective curriculum might be structured for the karate-based arts that would best serve the orginal purpose of this family (among others) of MAs: civilian self-defense against unprovoked violence initiated by untrained but dangerous assailants. Kidswarrior's terrific poll/thread on the instructional role of forms in this respect raises the issue of what a kata-centric syllabus for the MAs would look like, and I hope that that issue continues to gain traction over there. But there's another issue which in some ways is prior to that discussion, namely, do you let yourself be attacked first and then respond, or do you preempt the attack?
In the face of the reflexive reaction you seem to encounter from a lot of people studying the MAs that `Well, Funakoshi told us that there's no "first strike" in karate', Iain Anderson has posted two very well-reasoned articles on his website suggesting, among other things, that Funakoshi didn't have the slightest objection to justified preemptive strikes:
http://www.iainabernethy.com/articles/article_2.asp
http://www.iainabernethy.com/articles/Mark_Tankosich_1.asp
The latter article cites a number of distinguished MAists on the issue, including the following from Kenwa Mabuni, founder of Shito-ryu:
What I'm curious about is, first, what is your take on the idea of preemptive striking, taking into account critical analyses such as those in these two articles, and second, if you believe the concept has a place in the martial arts, how should it be presented and trained in a karate(-based art) curriculum? Where does it come in? At what stage in the trainee's progression? How can instructors best balance the ethical need to ensure that students learn the responsible application of MA techs with the need to give their students the best possible chance of surviving a potentially horrific violent attack on them unscathed?
In the face of the reflexive reaction you seem to encounter from a lot of people studying the MAs that `Well, Funakoshi told us that there's no "first strike" in karate', Iain Anderson has posted two very well-reasoned articles on his website suggesting, among other things, that Funakoshi didn't have the slightest objection to justified preemptive strikes:
http://www.iainabernethy.com/articles/article_2.asp
http://www.iainabernethy.com/articles/Mark_Tankosich_1.asp
The latter article cites a number of distinguished MAists on the issue, including the following from Kenwa Mabuni, founder of Shito-ryu:
When faced with someone who disrupts the peace or who will do one harm, one is as a warrior gone to battle, and so it only stands to reason that one should get the jump on the enemy and preempt his use of violence. Such action in no way goes against the precept of sente nashi.
What I'm curious about is, first, what is your take on the idea of preemptive striking, taking into account critical analyses such as those in these two articles, and second, if you believe the concept has a place in the martial arts, how should it be presented and trained in a karate(-based art) curriculum? Where does it come in? At what stage in the trainee's progression? How can instructors best balance the ethical need to ensure that students learn the responsible application of MA techs with the need to give their students the best possible chance of surviving a potentially horrific violent attack on them unscathed?