There Is No Advantage in Striking First in Karate

[marvin8]

[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, “If my opponent does not move, I do not move. If my opponent moves, I arrive first.”

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.

Understanding this we should strive to master timing rather than just speed. When we arrive “on time” 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 ‘correct time’ is when the opponent has “fallen to emptiness”, 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.

Timing, Placement and Power :: Discover Taiji

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 don’t have an “advantage” because…

1. your jab is 2 feet short of your opponent’s 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.

 

[Buka]

Random thoughts…..

In actual self defense if you know someone’s going to strike you, because he has already threatened you, should you strike first? If you’re on camera you might have a legal problem. Cameras don’t usually record sound.

If your skill set is a good counter fighter, that’s one thing, but if you’re more of an offensive fighter, that could be different.

What if has a weapon? Maybe you do too. Do you wait for him to go first?

What if there’s two of them and one of you?
What if there’s two of you and one of them?

Real fighting has become such a pain in the ash over the last thirty years.

 

[isshinryuronin]

Random thoughts…..

In actual self defense if you know someone’s going to strike you, because he has already threatened you, should you strike first? If you’re on camera you might have a legal problem. Cameras don’t usually record sound.

If your skill set is a good counter fighter, that’s one thing, but if you’re more of an offensive fighter, that could be different.

What if has a weapon? Maybe you do too. Do you wait for him to go first?

What if there’s two of them and one of you?
What if there’s two of you and one of them?

Real fighting has become such a pain in the ash over the last thirty years.

First you risk your life against an attacker, then you must risk your freedom against the legal system. It just doesn't seem right.

If a guy pulls a weapon, I must assume he's willing to use it. I may want to be proactive here. Same if multiple
guys declare their intention to hurt me. The risk of not pre-empting is greater than being gentlemanly and more legally safe.

Stay alive today and go to court tomorrow.

 

[HighKick]

Random thoughts…..

In actual self defense if you know someone’s going to strike you, because he has already threatened you, should you strike first? If you’re on camera you might have a legal problem. Cameras don’t usually record sound.

If your skill set is a good counter fighter, that’s one thing, but if you’re more of an offensive fighter, that could be different.

What if has a weapon? Maybe you do too. Do you wait for him to go first?

What if there’s two of them and one of you?
What if there’s two of you and one of them?

Real fighting has become such a pain in the ash over the last thirty years.

They were in my curtilage. I felt threatened. Say nothing else.

 

[Prince_Alarming]

In my teenage years I saw the 'no first strike in karate' thing as a piece of political correctness, a mere sop so that society would allow us to beat the hell out of each other for fun. Later on my understanding deepened to the point where it was more like "When a shitzu picks a fight with a rottweiler, it doesn't matter if he attacks first". Now my knowledge has been expanded by this thread as well. Learning, see?

 

[opr1945]

You train "pole hanging"

What is "pole hanging?

 

[opr1945]

Very interesting thread. A lawyer friend once told me "I don't care what the answer is as long as I can choose the what the question is."

Another told me "I don't care what words are used as long as I get to choose the definition."

And " if you want to change the meaning of the document, don't try to change the words in the document. The other side will challenge it. Just change the definition of the words."

I was raised in the central northern part of the United States. In that region the general rule in state laws was the fight begins with the first punch. An English northern European concept. You were expected to endure everything else before striking. The guy who threw the first punch was legally the aggressor and would likely face legal ramifications.

Later, I moved to the antebellum southern part of the United States where one's honor was highly valued. French and Spanish traditions. Dueling was a respected response to a verbal insult. One was expected to respond with violence to the least insult. Killing someone in a duel was not a criminal act but was justified. The concept was included the the criminal code of the state in which I had moved. It was called the "fighting words" statue. If you insulted someone and they punched you, the punch was considered self defense, even if thrown as the first punch. The belief was the insult was the start of the fight because the expected response was violence. I no longer live in the south and my understanding is the fighting words statutes have been repealed.

Anyway, the issue in no first attack is what is the first attack? Is it the first physically violent act or perhaps the act that the justifies the the physical response? e.g. I am 5'7" when I was much younger I pissed of a violent street gang member who had several trips to prison and was about 6'4" tall. (It was an accident on my part.) any way he was about 6" away yelling he was going to rip my head off. I believed him. If I had thrown a punch. When did the fight start with his actions or my punch? In societies that value honor as justifying violent responses, the answer may be different than in societies that believe violence is less acceptable. NOTE: one of his buddy's calmed him down. Thankfully.

Perhaps the first punch is not the first act of the fight.

[a typical lawyer's response? A few years ago we here in the US had a President, who was a lawyer by training, and accused of sexual abuse of a young woman. His defense included "it depends on the meaning of the word "is."]

I now see that There is no first attack in Karate is not as simple as I first though.

Thanks all.

 

[opr1945]

short summary: Fighting words concept recognizes that words can result in others choosing to act. Maybe, throwing the first punch is not the first attack.

 

[Badhabits]

First rule of self defense- don't be a jerk and make other people wanna kick your ***

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

What is "pole hanging?

 

[OnlineChunner]

In my teenage years I saw the 'no first strike in karate' thing as a piece of political correctness, a mere sop so that society would allow us to beat the hell out of each other for fun. Later on my understanding deepened to the point where it was more like "When a shitzu picks a fight with a rottweiler, it doesn't matter if he attacks first". Now my knowledge has been expanded by this thread as well. Learning, see?

It's a Shotokan thing, if you're into the precepts of Shotokan, Funakoshi Gichin made that rule. "Karate no sentei nashi" or "There is no first strike in Karate".

Although, tbh, this does not always apply. There are times where you personally have to strike first given a situation. In the world now, threats are differential. So the movements should be differential as well. There are times you need to strike first, or defend first.

My 6th Dan Goju Ryu sensei has this to say about this:

"If I am about to get killed, should I still be waiting for the opponent to attack me or I should strike first instead to defend myself?"

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

If both guys believe they should not strike first,

- In tournament, both guys will get dis-qualified for not willing to fight.
- In street, both guys will starve to death.

 

[OnlineChunner]

In tournament, if both guys believe they should not strike first, both guys will get dis-qualified for not willing to fight.

yep. a penalty for not engaging.

 

[opr1945]

So in tournament there is a penalty for only using your skills in a defensive manner?

What if only one competitor is the only aggressor, the other only engaging in defensive actions so that at the end neither has scored a point?

 

[OnlineChunner]

So in tournament there is a penalty for only using your skills in a defensive manner?

What if only one competitor is the only aggressor, the other only engaging in defensive actions so that at the end neither has scored a point?

Yes, because it's a kumite competition. You need to strike. You need to get a point. If you're defending, you need to wait for your opponent to strike first and set a counter. This is the 後の先 or Go No Sen concept, meaning taking the initiative after your opponent strikes.

"What if only one competitor is the only aggressor, the other only engaging in defensive actions so that at the end neither has scored a point?"

Well, the aggressive fighter needs to hit. He / She needs to strike a point. I had a competition when I was a beginner where I was the defender mostly because it was my first time, trust me, defending and defending all the time is useless. The best defense, is for you to attack.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

So in tournament there is a penalty for only using your skills in a defensive manner?

What if only one competitor is the only aggressor, the other only engaging in defensive actions so that at the end neither has scored a point?

There was a SC (Chinese wrestling) tournament in Taiwan. During the final match, both persons didn't attack. After 3 rounds of tie. Both were disqualified. The 3rd place became the 1st place, and the 4th place became the 2nd place.

If there is no score, the aggressor usually will be the winner. Some tournaments (such as Chinese wrestling) that encourage aggression. People will give credit to those who plays offense and loses than those who plays defense and wins. The reason is simple. The one who plays offense will develop good throwing skill one day. The one who is afraid to apply throwing skill will never be able to develop any throwing skill.

In battlefield, the goal is to kill your enemy. Not to be killed is not good enough to be a soldier.

 

[isshinryuronin]

In battlefield, the goal is to kill your enemy. Not to be killed is not good enough to be a soldier.

I'm starting a new thread to explore this more thoroughly - To Win or Not to Lose?

 

[windwalker099]

If there is no score, the aggressor usually will be the winner. Some tournaments (such as Chinese wrestling) that encourage aggression.

Aggression an emotion.

Maybe neither one of them could sense the others timing.
Or they could, not finding an opening in it through which to attack.

The fastest strike isn’t always the one that moves first, it’s the one that lands at the right moment.
In Taiji this is called 后发先至 "fā xiān zhì" : “start late, arrive first.”

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

In combat, the fastest strike isn’t always the one that moves first, it’s the one that lands at the right moment.
In Taiji we call this 后发先至 "fā xiān zhì" : “start later, arrive first.”

If you and I are 8 feet apart. I step into your punching range and you punch me. Do I attack you first, or do you attack me first?

IMO, it's not who throw the 1st attack. It's who steps into the combat range that count.

 

[windwalker099]

If you and I are 8 feet apart. I step into your punching range and you punch me. Do I attack you first, or do you attack me first?

IMO, it's not who throw the 1st attack. It's who steps into the combat range that count.

Maybe there's a misunderstanding.

In practice we shift the question from “who strikes first” to “whose intention enters the space first.”
This perspective reflects the classical principle: “后发先至” (hòu fā xiān zhì) “He starts later but arrives first.”

Using your example as soon as you step forward, regardless of physical range, your intent (意, yì) has already moved.
Even if you're not consciously committed to a strike, that intention can still be sensed if one’s (tīng jìn) or listening skill is well-developed at higher levels.

This frees one from needing to wait for a physical action in order to respond.
We train this through three stages:
before contact, during contact , and after contact
Most begin by sensing after contact, then progress to during, and eventually to before contact.

The skill classically developed through push hands, why the approach and purpose of training matter.
IME, not all methods depending on focus, develop the same skill sets.

When I work with people, I help them realize that they already occupy the space the other wants.

Their responsibility is to maintain their 重心 (zhòngxīn, center of gravity) — staying balanced, mobile, and structurally sound.
That’s what allows them to respond appropriately — not just on a physical level, but through awareness and intention.

The strategy is very similar to the game of Go (围棋), where position, timing, and quiet control of space are more important then gaining direct control, "directly"