PDA

View Full Version : IS ATTACK THE BEST FORM OF DEFENCE?



TIM BURTON
29th December 2000, 20:37
“Attack is the best form of defence”, so the constantly used phrase goes, but have we ever stopped to consider this little gem of wisdom? In order to survive in combat, warriors of all countries have learnt this valuable lesson and passed it down to the next generation. Taiho Jutsu embraces, like most Japanese martial arts, the concept of Sensen no Sen, Sen no Sen and Go no Sen. These are the identified opportunities where by one can end a conflict. Sensen is a preemptive strike, which ends a possible violent action before it begins, within the constraints of the law it would be difficult to use and justify the principle of Sensen. Though this is considered the highest skill of negating an attack as the thought enters the aggressors mind. It would be termed an unprovoked attack, an assualt or a mugging in the eyes of the law and a practitioner would have a very hard time convincing a court that they had perceived a violent thought.

The next is Sen or striking first, here far more indication of an attack has been received and the practitioner delivers a technique faster than their opponent in order to nullify the attack at its generation before it can gain momentum. Again one must be careful that the indications that you are about to be attacked are clear to yourself and any third persons before delivering a first strike.

The final principle is Go no Sen, which defines the action of counter attacking. This is much more easily defended in a court of law, as long as your response has been reasonable, when balanced against the threat you were faced with. However, in terms of practical combat it leaves the practitioner in a very vulnerable position and likely to suffer defeat if we are to bear in mind the maxim “Attack is the best form of defence”.
So bearing the above information in mind Taiho Jutsu attempts to encourage a practitioner to operate in the Sen no Sen response. In order for this to be so a practitioner must develop, speed and technique. Our reaction time must be cut down by specific training, whilst our technique must be maintained by constant monitoring. It is vitally important to take the initiative from the aggressor by reacting faster, striking quicker and maintaining this advantage by continued attacks, controls or restraints.

If we receive an attack from someone employing Sensen no Sen, then we may never see what hit us, so we must be constantly vigilant, of our surroundings to prevent this occurring. Observation and the reading of visual clues is the only thing that can prevent us becoming a victim of a preemptive strike. If we survive a preemptive attack, or are put in a counter attacking situation, it is imperative that our main aim is to regain the advantage and this can only be achieved by attacking.

Imagine if it helps a typical gun fight in a western. Both parties square up and their posture indicates that they are about to engage in a fight. The survivor is the gun fighter who draws the fastest (speed) and whose aim is on target (technique). This speed and technique can be further enhanced by choosing the correct range from which to fire (distance) and utilising sense of direction shooting (reactive) rather than aimed shooting (planned). Finally if the gunfighter employs a fanning action on the hammer of his pistol and fires a number of shots in a short period of time (attacking) his chances of survival also increase.

Neil Hawkins
30th December 2000, 01:45
Sorry Tim, I'm in a bit of a hurry this morning, I'll give you a full response later.

but I'll leave you with this quote from an artilce I wrote for Joe Svinth and EJMAS (www.ejmas.com).

Reaction is slower than action - being prepared for action is good, but dominating psychologically and physically is the key to pre-empting a situation. The moment you perceive a danger go on the attack, don't be intimidated, mentally take charge of the situation and act as if you initiated it in the first place. Surprise your opponent, use this to off-balance him and never let him catch up.

Now I should stress that this doesn't necessarily mean hitting first, you can pre-empt without resorting to violence, think back to the scene from Seven Samurai where they are testing the three samurai by hiding behind a door.

I will have more later, though maybe not until Monday. Have a happy and safe New Year.

Neil

kusanku
30th December 2000, 21:59
If what s meant s that when a person is about to attack preempting them is best, yes.

If it means be the aggresssor before the opponent forms the intent to atack, no.

You may win the battle but you will lose the war.

Kusanku

Brently Keen
1st January 2001, 02:53
I have to agree with the prevoius two posts.

What's best is to foil, or negate the opponent's imminent attack and/or intent with a positive or decisive action. That requires an offensive mindset, but does not require an offensive, aggressive or preemptive attack.

Actually, attacking as a defense to the perceived threat or violent thought of an opponent would not be wise in most cases (from a practical as well as legal standpoint). Why? Because as long as the opponent's attack is still forthcoming and not yet manifested it may simply be a ploy to get you to commit and/or make the first move. In which case he's liable to counter your "aggressive" attack.

Your making the first agressive move is not going to surprise a skilled opponent, because he would have elicited it from you, by threatening or egging you on in some way. More likely you'd end up being surprised when your first move accomplishes what the attacker could not do himself, and that is draw you into the conflict and get you to commit on his terms.

It's much better move decisively in such a way as to either cause the opponent to commit his attack, or simultaneously negate or foil his attempt in the process by changing your position (or his). Allowing, or better yet - causing the opponent to make the first offensive move or agressive attack will open him up to be countered and defeated with the help of his own actions. This is much easier and more efficient than simply overcoming an aggressive opponent, because he'll actually contribute (albeit unintentionally) to your objective rather than fight against you. This is the principle of "Ju" is it not?

"The best defense is a good offense", unless properly understood, this phrase probably applies better to football and other sports than it does to combat or martial arts. Properly understood, I think it has more to do with mindset and taking decisive action (offense) as opposed to mere reaction (defense). I'd caution against failing to make the proper distinction between aggression and offense as well. The ideal is really offense and defense as one (kobo ittai), or "in-yo ittai", as Karl Friday describes it very well in his book, "Legacies of the Sword".

Obviously, it takes a lot of guided practice to be able to understand much less be able to realize any of this.

Brently Keen

Neil Hawkins
1st January 2001, 11:00
I'm 100% with Brently on this, and to me this is the essence of zanshin, preparation is critical. You must be constantly ready, if you percieve a threat act decisively.

That act should be at the very least sabaki, put yourself into a defensive position one that has no, or limited openings, as Brently said you could be being set up. I would prefer to totally avoid the situation.

As is often the case, the adage 'offense is the best defense', originated from the military and when applied to troop warfare it does make a little more sense, however there are still a number of considerations. Sun Tzu wrote in around 500BC, that the best policy is to take a state intact; to ruin it is counterproductive. He goes on to give some strategies that will assist in making a successfull victory; to attack the enemies strategy is the best option, second is disrupting his alliences, last is attacking his army.

In actual confrontation the risk is high as is the chance of failure.

As I'm sure you're aware, this can easily be translated to individual fighting, Sun Tzu put winning without fighting at the very top of his list of strategies and so should we.

Regards

Neil

TIM BURTON
1st January 2001, 14:41
Kobo-itchi or let the situation dictate the tactics is a main stay in taiho-jutsu, and I am the first to agree with your comments. What then happens when we cannot avoid the situation and must control the situation, as in the case of police officers for which taiho-jutsu was created. If summoned to a scene, the options of avoidance or disengagement become less opportune as a social function has to be performed and there is a duty to complete this. When the talking has stopped (90% of police confrontation is resolved by tactical communication) we are left with a situation where action must be taken. Here I am discussing the preemptive use of force, whether it be a restraint, push to the ground or a higher level of response in order to prevent an escalation of the situation/violence in which your odds of survival drop for the first minute of an encounter. I am not advocating excessive or unnecessary use of force simply questioning the fact that certain elements forming the martial strategies may not be options we can use. In most cases of arrest these days the officer has to make the first move.

“The concept of Kobo itchi, in which the priority of offensive or defensive action depends on the appropriateness of either to the situation, is fully recognised in Taiho Jutsu, where it is manifested as sen or initiative. Sen is of three degrees. The first of these, and the most desirable is sen sen no saki, or the ability of the arresting officer to act to control his assailant before the latter can launch an attack. Saki the second level of sen , enables the arresting officer to join in an assailant’s attack, already started and then gain the advantage over and control the assailant. Ato no saki the third level of sen , is the ability of the arresting officer to receive a surprise attack and to counter it.” Donn F Draeger Modern Bujutsu & Budo.

Sun Tzu also said, “aim at speedy victory and not prolonged campaigns”

yours
Tim Burton Taiho Jutsu

TIM BURTON
1st January 2001, 21:52
When we apply the martial art philosophies that we have been taught by our sensei, which describe old style principles, that they have inherited from their teachers and take on these values, clasping them to our breasts as the ultimate truth. We must try to understand that we are living in a different world and a different time. That we have grasped the concepts of our style, that have remained unchanged for hundreds of years, does not make us the next sensei of our generation. We can make political and strategic statements regarding the art we practice, but in this world of the twenty first century, These concepts may now be null and void. It is a bit like quoting Latin when English is the language of the day. We can embrace the code of the samurai, but we must also understand that no one, who is going to harm us today, understands the codes we believe in and live by.
The concepts of Kobo – itchi may be better conferred in this statement.
Is that a gun in their hand? Should I act? Sen sen no sen.
It is a gun in their hand! Do I act? Sen no sen.
They have fired a gun in their hand! I must act! Go no sen.
The participation in the modern martial arts prepares us for expected combat against our peers, or combat against selective adversaries.
That we are able to debate the ideal state of combat in our chosen art, does not mean we are able to accomplish martial feats that will secure our preservation.
Sitting in ivory towers, relying on experience of shiai that has rules, will not allow the growth of a jutsu, that one relies upon to preserve life.
An individuals ability does not secure the succession of their school, what they are able to achieve should not be viewed as the epitome of their teaching.
We can argue the rights and wrongs of combat, based on kumite and knowledge passed down from generations of masters. But we live in today and we must survive in today, unfortunately most of the pukes you encounter cannot be reasoned with, nor act in a predictable fashion (due to narcotics), open a door in a raid and you have to be first, or your dead!
Tim Burton

Bob Steinkraus
5th January 2001, 18:28
Mr. Burton et al -

The concept of attack vs. defense was tested in a rather interesting way. The following is anecdotal, but...

During the Manhattan Project in WWII, J. Robert Oppenheimer, who was in charge of the project (they developed the atomic bomb used on Japan), decided to resolve a discussion similar to your OP.

He issued squirt guns to the physicists and technicians, and they spend several weeks attacking each other both in confrontational mode ("Draw, pardner") and from ambush. They tracked the results and compiled them at the end of the 'experiment'.

They found that unless the attack was from ambush, the attacker lost more often than the defender. The reason given was that the attacker was in too much of a hurry to aim accurately. Attackers got off the first shot, but defenders got off the first hit.

Food for thought. I would expect that practice would make perfect, but the adrenaline dump of a real gunfight would tend to reproduce the condition of being a relative beginner. Thus my advice to someone going out to shoot it out at high noon on Main Street in Dodge City with Black Bart would be to spend an extra second or two aiming, and not to worry (if possible) about getting off the first shot.

Or shoot from ambush, and not worry about the Code of the West.

Neil Hawkins
6th January 2001, 01:06
Musashi wrote about three modes of striking, Ken no Sen where you take the initiative and strike first, Tai no Sen where you wait until attacked, and finally, Taitai no Sen where both strikes are simultaneous. He doesn't draw any real conclusions but does advocate his preference for initiating the attack and putting the opponent on the defensive.

I have to say that in my experience I prefer to have something to work with. If I am mentally prepared and have enough time, an attack allows me to respond in a way that is appropriate, this to me is being mentally offensive, though not necessarily physically offensive. However, if the attack is a total surprise you are at a huge disadvantage. It takes many years of training to get any degree of perception and so this is not always suitable for self defence.

Often I will try to precipitate and guide the attack so that I can perform a technique, I'll give an opening or provoke a wild attack that is easier for me to defend against. This works well against relatively un-trained opponents, but if they know what they are doing they will often not be suckered into doing what I want them to do, in this instance you may have to go on the offensive physically.

The point is though that very rarely is a fight fair, in face to face confrontation you will often have the ability to control the situation mentally and then respond effectively, you also have the option of taking the initiative and striking first. But if you are ambushed you have little option but to react.

In this day and age there are many liabilities and to strike first will often turn you into the agressor, at least in the eyes of witnesses. I would be careful before advocating that response, it would depend on the percieved risk, the degree of threat and the number of opponents. It is however a very practical and valid response to aggression, wether it's the best is very open to ddiscussion.

Neil

MarkF
6th January 2001, 12:06
I may be wrong, but I think Tim's point, if any, was to master all three, if possible, is preferable to not having leared these modes of attack and counter attack. Even judo has aspects of all three, but many, if lucky, learn the go no sen, and not the other. While the principle of ju may be that sen sen no sen is not proper, I think it also says be prepared, just like a boy scout.:D

OK, I know when I'm outgunned in a discussion among police occifers.;)

Jerry Johnson
14th January 2001, 05:24
I don't post often here and I don't think people will respond since this might be taken as a bit forward. I completely understand if I am left in the cold.

I remember siting in my uncle's bar as a kid. It was called the Red Rooster?!? anyway a fight broke in the bar. My uncle being a bounce as well and trained in some kind of Kungfu in the 50's or 60's, didn't tolerate such behavior. My uncle calmly stepped between the two and push the brawlers apart. Then both stumble back a ways. My uncle walked over to the guy who started it all and grabbed him by the nape of the neck, the guy swung and missed my uncle. Then he tossed the guy out the door like a limp puppy who wet the rug. The guy hit the parking meter head first after he when out the front door. He was out cold. The other guy then came after my uncle when he realized he was next. The guy began to swing, my uncle hit him at the temple before the guy could extend his arm. My uncle hit him almost as a slap on the back, it was with an open hand slapped that seemed like a swat. The guy's knees buckled instantly. He drop in his tracks to the floor. Upon hitting the floor he did a vertical jig. Then was out cold. All were sober. Needless to say my uncle was my inspiration.

If anyone is like me and gets lost in the commentary or philosophy of technical jargon and coded language, I am sure understand your frustrated. But, describing the how to of something like that isn't easy to put in words. I was told there was a time in Japan and China when stuff like this was put in coded language for a reason. The point is simple elements applied often result in outstanding results. That are difficult to communicate in technical language. But, at this point why not kill the technical Buddha and engage the art of storytelling?

What I am trying to say is, as much as I respect the insights of others, coded buzz words and ancient maxims exaggerate and ornament the simple application of things, and who says they are right anyway? How do we really know? Sun Tzu, Mushashi, Wyatt Earp, Pat Garrett, Ali, Bruce Lee and others all had one notion in mind, and that was to win, losing not an option. Describing how they didn't was the last thing they did. Even if language failed them, or they tried to hide their edge in coded language. In a nutshell, all fighting boils down to simply getting the better of the other guy before he gets you. Be better, be first, be accurate, and don't give the other guy a chance. Take Pat Garrett who killed Billy the Kid to illustrate what I mean. The demise of Billy the Kid wasn't in a street at high noon, mid summer, where gun fighters are face to face quick drawing and fanning pistols. Billy the Kid walks into a room, unknown to him Garrett is waiting. Garrett shoots Kid as he walks into the room. To sum it up, take control and dominate the fight or situation. A Boxer's simple philosophy- Boxer is my dog. Ever watch two cats fight from beginning to end? How about two dogs? Has any one put that down in technical words or do we just say, "ever watch two cat fights? Or how about two dogs?" We get too caught and become way over complex and lose sight of the simple actions of things.

I have seen a lot of untrained people succeed in a situation where trained people have failed too. Some trained people seem to over intellectualize and flub up. Don't get me wrong, trained reaction in a situation is paramount to success. It's the thinking that gets in the way of acting, as well a poor preparation, and over confidence.

MarkF
14th January 2001, 09:18
Hi, Jerry,
I've known two people by the name of Jerry Johnson, one was a music and television/stereo store owner where I worked for a time in the LA area. The other (at a later time) was a baseball player (at the time with the SF Giants), both in the sixties/early seventies. Any relation here?:)

Stop explaining yourself. There are people with half dozen posts who have been here since the summer of 1999, so your opinion is as valid as anyone's. It also is not the first, nor will it be the last, to define the practical in martial arts/koryu or gendai. Self defense may be the original reason a person plays the game, but if one sticks around, that becomes old quickly.

BTW: The myth is that Pat Garrett shot the Kid dead, but they were close friends, too, and much of recent study into who really resides in Billy's grave is still well up in the air. One man, by the name of "Brushy Bill Roberts," who died an old man in the late forties here in New Mexico, claimed for most of his latter life that he indeed was William H. Bonney, and new certain facts which made many believe he really was the kid. There were no witnesses, and it is doubtful Pat or Bill walked in a room, with the Kid being shot dead. But that is for an history of the old west board, and not this one, but your point is well made.

Actually, if you really wanted to learn self-defense only, a class grounded in this for six months, two to four times weekly would probably teach you about self defense better than most traditional jujutsu ryu, and the army or a weapon of modern day automatice pistols certainlty work better than an empty handed art, or taijutsu, even those which learn kumi uchi, or center on arrest techniques. That isn't the point with most, the art itself, preserved as well as can be expected, or that which evolves over time, is what interests most folks. This is why you see so many forums here which do not speak of budo at all, but the culture in which they first existed, and why reiko is observed, even in the arts which are most practical, judo, karatedo, etc.

Keeping it simple is why we do it. As your uncle proved, most times it takes little to rid one of the bother of a couple of drunks, although since he may have known the two, he saw little risk in throwing them out. There are many bouncers, security people, military, and police officers who find even the oldest of them, and even when the point is kenjutsu, they find a way to make it practical, and why judoka, an art with about 119 years of existence, are finding the traditional ways are being lost, and play judo as one would any other MA. There is something nice about the nicities of fighting, and practicing full bore, and basically not being hurt.

So, you are right, but wrong too. Bottom line, some want to learn strictly for the sel defense while others just want to get in shape, shape the mind, and play nicely.

Mark

Jerry Johnson
14th January 2001, 20:38
Before I tuck my tail between by legs and run in shame, I want to say I wasn't treading on anyone, honest. Technical language usage is rough to understand when it is so undefinate and specialized. I was just hoping to bring things down to a more digestable level.


Can I make a correction? The two men where not drunk, and my uncle didn't know them. The bar was located in bad part of town. It was a tough and ugly place. I do see your point and what your getting at. I was lead to believe martial arts is not about getting in shape. That is called exercise. Harsh sounding I know. I am not trying to turn my nose up, but the thigh master is for a shapely butt. Low Impact Aerob. won't work in a bar fight either. Keeping a clear defination is important. And I bet your thinking Tae Bo. Well, I have yet to call that martial arts. Billy Banks isn't someone I would want to cross in a dark alley, or call sissy. But, he ain't teaching self-defense. So, I think that is why his tapes are popular because they are exercise. People don't have to take risks of injury as they do in a martial arts class, their is no contact in exercise. I think Billy Banks has done a good job giving people an exercise that has the flavor of martial arts without the risk.

Someone else asked me also if I was someone they knew too. I can't recall who it was, but sorry to both. I wish I was that famous. In the 60's and 70's I was a kid. I went to my first Twins game in the mid 70's, does that count?. They played and lost to the Angels at home. Never went to a game since. And the Vikings! Oh the Vikings, I need a tissue. I can't talk now. I thought this would get my mind off of it.

[Edited by Jerry Johnson on 01-14-2001 at 02:43 PM]

Neil Hawkins
15th January 2001, 10:08
Jerry,

Don't worry, I didn't think you were treading on anything, certainly nothing to be ashamed of.

I apologize for making things complicated, the problem is that it is hard for me to advocate anything that might get you into trouble.

I agree that offense is a very valid response to aggression, but as I said you need to weigh all the consequences. In pure combat you have a lot of leeway, you can do anything to survive, but that situation does not exist in the world today. Even in the military you are held accountable for your actions in some way.

Self defense is defined by a court of law, after the event. If you do not take into consideration the possible consequences, there is every chance that you will end up in a lot of trouble.

There are many reasons why people train in the martial arts, I have been doing it for twenty years and have never had any interest in fighting. Self Defense is a bonus to me, I didn't look for it, but it was there.

To me Self Defense is about avoidance and escape, never about fighting. You have to break contact, not prolong it. Occasionally getting in the first punch is important, but not as a primary response. I do teach offense but it is a small part of the training and only in very special circumstances.

But that's just me. ;)

Regards

Neil

MarkF
15th January 2001, 11:26
Originally posted by Neil Hawkins

Self defense is defined by a court of law, after the event. If you do not take into consideration the possible consequences, there is every chance that you will end up in a lot of trouble.



It's nice to have someone who can point out the folley in playing it too narrowly.:)

Jerry,
Believe me, I was only pointing out you don't have to excuse yourself for posting. As you showed in your last post, you have an opinion and it interests folks around here.

Your correction is noted, and nowhere does it say they were drunk. I took it that way by the description of how rickety these two were, and made an assumptiom, again, that they were just bad drunks, and that I wasn't looking at this the way you intended.


My uncle calmly stepped between the two and push the brawlers apart. Then both stumble back a ways. My uncle walked over to the guy who started it all and grabbed him by the nape of the neck, the guy swung and missed my uncle. Then he tossed the guy out the door like a limp puppy who wet the rug.

This is what I read into the description, and took it for granted, because of the words "brawlers, stumbles, limp puppy." In other words, I didn't READ it. I saw bar and thought drunks.

Sorry for the hostory lesson, too. Out here, it is the same as calling the area "the bible belt." It is taken seriously. Our "Kid" history is like a nap, then realizing your late for work; always trying to make up time.

Reasons people take it up are many, but few stay for what the future holds. Getting in shape is as good a reason for starting in a program like judo/jujutsu, but rarely is that the reason people stay.

The first to actually bring judo to this country was Teddy Roosevelt, and he did it because he heard it was effective in taking weight off. While it didn't last beyond Teddy at the Whitehouse, judo stayed, for better or worse, and is one of the more popular person to person participation combative sports. I began because as a gnat-sized little kid, I wanted to learn to keep up with the kids who were growing at great stride. It wasn't self-defense for much longer, although I learned things concerned with that which I still do today. Fighting is what got me through the lean days, and the traditions and mostly what is not taught traditionally, is what keeps me here, and why I left Los Angeles so as to get away from the "stars."

So apologies all round here. I need to do more than read, I need to digest as well.

The Twinkies? Well, I don't think he did, but he did move around a lot. The last I heard, he was playing for the Braves, but that was about 1970 or so.

I've been wearing my Raiders hat all season to see them in the big game, and I'm having a rough time, too. It just breaks your heart.:cry:

Mark

Jerry Johnson
15th January 2001, 16:36
Thank you everyone for being understanding. I am new to this so I am a little nervous. I 've see what other places do to newbies, like the house of fighting.

I didn't know the interweaving of the words self-defense and exercise mean different things. I learned what some call junk jujutsu. It's a mix of things granted and because of that I am looking into Brazilian Jujutsu. I am not a fanatic like some guys are. I am not 22 anymore. Rounding out the 30's and a bit more realistic. I just want to stay in shape now. Did I counter myself? Insert foot in mouth. Before I put my foot more in my mouth, my view is what I will be doing is exercise not martial art. Martial art is a whole different attitude, it's ruff n' tumble. Exercise is not martial.

But, then with the input of you guys, I have to rethink it. Sure, if I got into a scrap, which I haven't since the first displaced testostrone rush in high school, I might use what I learn in either jujutsu. Wow, if it worked what a plus! I did start jujutsu with a testostrone attitude. I wanted to become a fighter- for the full of effect of that add echo and trumps in 5ths. Then age and reality set it like post-teen senility. My dreams of being David Carradine in never ending character didn't turn-out as I planned. I couldn't get a job. Then neither did the Master Poe stint in the strip mall. I am now just realizing the wondering Ronin bit is getting old with the family. Make things worse the fat is setting in like a platter of left-over ludifisk, it's not going away. A cross roads it is, I face in my life Yoda-sama. I don't want to admit age, a growing pot -belly, or the Vikings loss…again…and…again. I don't know how many more deja-voodoo's I can handle with the Vikings?



All points noted.

Thanks

[Edited by Jerry Johnson on 01-15-2001 at 11:06 AM]