15 posts / 0 new
Last post
Chris R
Chris R's picture
Shotokan's Strategy

Hi everyone,

In the book The Way of Kata by Kane and Wilder, there is a section about strategy and tactics. They describe the differences between the two terms, and state how this relates to styles and finding kata applications. They explain that understanding your chosen style's strategy is important, as it will allow you to make optimal use of the tactics you learn. Overall, knowledge of this strategy provides a foundation for finding applications within the kata of your style. They then go on to describe goju ryu's strategy, and provide examples from kata. 

So ... What is shotokan's strategy? I'd like to discuss this with anyone who has ideas to share.

Cheers,

Chris

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

In the hierarchy of things, it is the goal that determines the strategy. There is therefore not one “Shotokan strategy” because modern Shotokan practitioners have many disparate goals (i.e. self-protection, competition kumite, competition kata, art, pass gradings, health, personal challenge, etc).

If we take self-protection as being the goal, then the strategy is determined, not by “Shotokan”, but by the requirements of self-protection. Therefore, everyone with a self-protection goal will converge on the same strategies; irrespective of style.

I believe it is a facility to talk of a Krav, BJJ, or karate “approach to self-protection” because inherent in such talk is the style being put above problem i.e. “I have a style; how can it be applied to the problem?” as opposed to a more objective and efficient, “I have a problem; what is the best solution?”

If I have the problem of needing to knock a nail into a piece of wood, we would hopefully agree that stating, “I have a screwdriver. How can I use a screwdriver to do that?” is the wrong question to ask. The right question is always, “What is the optimal tool for this task?”

I therefore believe talk of “Shotokan strategy” is problematic. Instead we should have discussions on goal focussed strategies i.e. how best to approach self-protection, how best to maintain health and fitness, how best to win this event, etc.

If we read the works of Funakoshi, we can see this is his thinking. He advises avoidance and pre-emption for self-protection; he advises challenging training and introspection for character development; he advises regular activity and moderated appetites for health; etc. If we insist on defining a “Shotokan strategy” – putting aside that Funakoshi was opposed to the notion of styles and did not care for the label “Shotokan” – then it would be “define the goal to define the strategy”; as it should be for all objective martial artists.

All the best,

Iain

Chris R
Chris R's picture

Thank you for your response. I fully agree with your statements, but for the purpose of this thread I think we're talking in different contexts. My post was based on the content of Chapter 2: Strategy & Tactics in the book The Way of Kata, which tells us to consider style specific strategies when analysing kata. In the book, they determine what they believe is the fundamental strategy of Goju Ryu kata, and then use that to analyse various kata. My intention with this thread was to discuss what that strategy might be for Shotokan instead of Goju Ryu. There is fairly lengthly justification for this approach in that chapter, and to me it appears to be sound. Your post and the book do not conflict in my mind, so I think we're talking about strategy in different contexts. Unless I misunderstood, and you disagree with the approach outlined in the book?

Thanks,

Chris

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Chris R wrote:
In the book, they determine what they believe is the fundamental strategy of Goju Ryu kata, and then use that to analyse various kata. My intention with this thread was to discuss what that strategy might be for Shotokan instead of Goju Ryu …

It is a great book. The authors are Goju practitioners and the book is written from that perspective.

The point I was making can be broken down as follows:

1) The nature of self-protection is what determines the optimal strategy for self-protection.

2) The strategy expressed in Goju kata is therefore determined by the nature of self-protection.

3) Likewise, the strategy expressed in Shotokan kata is also determined by the nature of self-protection.

4) There is therefore no meaningful distinction at the level of strategy between Shotokan and Goju (and all other traditional styles) because that strategy is determined the nature of self-protection; which is common.

The kata of the styles may differ in terms of technique, but not at the level of strategy or tactics. I have taught seminars comparing Tekki Shodan with Seienchin, the Heians with the two Gekisai, etc and I think it is demonstrable that there is no meaningful difference beyond the surface level. The reason being that they are representative of a common methodology; which is determined by a common goal.

Mabuni was very familiar with a wide range of both “shurit-te” kata (the basis of Shotokan kata) and “naha-te” kata (the basis of Goju kata) and he famously said:

There are no styles of karate; only varying interpretations of its principles”.

I’d agree with that. There is a common set of principles – which are expressed in differing ways in the various kata – but there remains a deep commonality which makes the “styles” impossible to separate at the levels of principles, strategy and tactics.

Like Mabuni, Funakoshi was also not keen on the idea of separating karate into “styles”:

“There is no place in contemporary karate-do for different schools … Indeed, I have heard myself and my colleagues referred to as the Shotokan school, but I strongly object to this attempt at classification.”

If I was writing a book on Shotokan, I could talk about “Shotokan Strategies”. However, it does not follow the strategies under discussion are unique to Shotokan and district from everything else. In truth, the strategies expressed in Shotokan kata are self-protection strategies; and they are common across the piece.

If there was a meaningful distinction at a strategic level between the styles, then we would expect to see that expressed in the writing of the people who originated these styles. We see the opposite with the view that there is no meaningful distinction being strongly expressed.

“Self-Protection Strategies” are “Karate Strategies” are “Style Strategies”.

Differences do exist in the examples used to record and express these commonalities (the kata); but that’s not a meaningful difference when it comes to the application of those kata (combative habit, principles, strategies, tactics, etc).

So, for me, I would say that the idea of “style specific strategies” is flawed due to common goals and the common strategies that result. This also seems to the be position taken in the past.

All the best,

Iain

PS Kris Wilder (author) is a good friend of mine and we have taught together numerous times. While there are differences at a technical level (i.e. preferred methods of power generation, etc.), we have loads in common beyond that. I have never heard him express anything at a strategic level that I – as a non goju karateka – don’t recognise within karate as I also practise it.

Chris R
Chris R's picture

Thanks for that explanation, I agree about the huge extent of similarities, and I originally wondered if there were any notable differences. What inspired my question was that in the book they recommended the reader to look into the strategy of their own style, and I was trying to go through that process. Perhaps that led me a bit off track in my thinking. Anyway, thanks again for the clear explanation, it was helpful.

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

My pleasure. I’m pleased that was of some use. For clarity, I think there are notable differences in kata (obviously) and in the execution of technique, but I don’t think there are strategic differences for the aforementioned reasons. Other viewpoints are of course available, but that’s how I see things.

All the best,

Iain

Tau
Tau's picture

Iain Abernethy wrote:
PS Kris Wilder (author) is a good friend of mine and we have taught together numerous times. While there are differences at a technical level (i.e. preferred methods of power generation, etc.), we have loads in common beyond that. I have never heard him express anything at a strategic level that I – as a non goju karateka – don’t recognise within karate as I also practise it.

Going a little off on a tangent, I've been fortunate enough to train with Kris several times including twice along with Iain. And I've also trained with Iain once or twice besides. If ever you get a chance to train with Kris please do so; he's awesome. Iain isn't too bad either ;-)

Tau
Tau's picture

In martial arts I find "strategy" to be a funny word. I might talk strategy in terms of how I'm going to compete - close the distance, aim for the wastelock, valley drop, mount, arm bar. Anything that deviates from this must be dealt with with the goal of returning to that strategy. 

For self protection I think more in terms of goals - successful escape with minimal harm coming to myself and my loved one and whilst staying within the law. I then think of principles - power generation, active hands, stay on the feet etc.

There's also a triangle of priorites - kit, techniques, tactics, strategy, mindset. Can anyone provide the reference, please and indeed elaborate on these points? 

Chris R
Chris R's picture

I understand what you mean, as the word strategy can be used in multiple ways in the martial arts. In the book, strategy is what determines your course of action, while tactics are the maneuvres used to carry out that strategy. So for example, they stated that the first part of goju ryu's strategy is to close distance. Knowing that allows them to more easily interpret the movements and tactics found in the kata. The reference here is the second chapter of the book mentioned previously. The alternative approach would be to use self protection strategies rather than attempting to find style specific strategies, which is what I believe Iain was describing.

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Tau wrote:
I might talk strategy in terms of how I'm going to compete - close the distance, aim for the wastelock, valley drop, mount, arm bar.

I would label some of that as tactics and technique. Strategy is the overarching plan. Tactics are actions taken to achieve the overarching plan.

The goal determines the strategy. The strategy determines the tactics. The techniques are used to enact the tactics. As an example:

GOAL: Win boxing bout.

STRATERGY: Opponent starts strong but often runs out of gas after 3rd round. The strategy is keep moving and maintain a strong defence in the first 3 rounds; before exploiting exhaustion in the 4th round onward.

TACTICS: Round 1 to 3: Use jab to keep opponent at a distance while constantly moving. Round 4 onward: Close gap and relentlessly attack with extended flurries of punches.

TECHNIQUE: Defensive jab, specific evasive foot work motions, specific foot movements to close gap, specific punching combinations, etc.

Tau wrote:
There's also a triangle of priorities - kit, techniques, tactics, strategy, mindset. Can anyone provide the reference, please and indeed elaborate on these points?

I originally picked that model up from Dennis Martin at a BCA instructor’s course in the early 2000s. I mention it in this article too:

https://iainabernethy.co.uk/article/two-things-criminals-know-about-violence-you-should-know-too

Chris R wrote:
The alternative approach would be to use self-protection strategies rather than attempting to find style specific strategies, which is what I believe Iain was describing[

To finesse the point I was making: a self-protection focused style would have strategies based on self-protection. Self-protection strategies are therefore the strategies within the style. Because “style strategies” and “self-protection” strategies are one and the same, I don’t think we can discuss them as being alternatives to one another.

All the best,

Iain

Josh Pittman
Josh Pittman's picture

But, Iain, doesn't your podcast on Chinto argue from a historical standpoint that the person on whose fighting "style" that form is based had different answers to problems than his opponents had seen before? E.g., the first movement as an answer to a collar tie being different from what other forms show?

Marc
Marc's picture

Definition of strategy and tactics

Firstly, a quote from the book will help people who don't know the book understand how the authors define "strategy" and "tactics":

"Strategy is a plan of action, especially for obtaining a goal. It is high level and philosophical in nature. Tactics, on the other hand, are expedient means of achieving an end. They are low level and immediate. Strategy is what you do to prepare for contact with the enemy while tactics are what you do during contact with the target. This difference is paramount."

The Goju Ryu strategy

Secondly, here's what the book says would be the Goju strategy:

"In Goju Ryu karate, the fundamental strategy is to (1) close distance, (2) imbalance, and (3) use physiological damage to incapacitate an opponent."

"Responses must follow a "decision stick." They must be straightforward, simple and immediate. In combat everything else is meaningless."

The strategy is not really style specific

Kane and Wilder explain that this strategic approach would be largely the same accross styles.

"While predilections regarding usage vary widely, almost all martial arts use these same tactics."

(In this sentence "tactics" actually refers to the "strategy" explained in the preceding sentence.)

"As a person becomes more skilled they see, like a mountain climber, that there are other routes to the top. The farther a person climbs the closer those routes become until the summit is reached. [...] So what appears to be totally different early in one's training may well prove to be very similar in the long run."

"All styles will have a similar stategic foundation upon which their applications are built. In fact, many other styles have strategic and/or tactical elements in common with Goju Ryu simply because there are only a limited number of ways in which the human body can move as well as a finite set of vital points where it can be broken easily."

Styles and their katas

In chapter 3 they lay out the principles for contextualising kata interpretations. These principles are strategic in nature. - I personally cannot see how these principles could be different for the Shotokan style or any other style of karate. Because this is how katas work, because this is how self-defence works.

Although katas have been "collected" by styles, in that certain katas are practiced within the different styles, each kata originally was a unique self-defence system. People talked about the "Passai style" or the "Chinto style" and so on.

What made these styles different from each other wasn't the strategy but the techniques used to achieve the tactical goals. The strategy is based on self-defence goals and is largely the same for all styles.

We might be able to deduct the strategy of a style from the fighting principles encoded in the kata and from the order in which the principles are layed out in the kata. But since katas focus more on the principles of successful fighting, I would see them more on the tactical side than on the strategic level.

The Shotokan strategy

To understand the strategy of a style we should rather refer to the writings of the respective master the style was founded on.

Here is some strategic advice by Gichin "Shoto" Funakoshi:

"The secret principle of martial arts is not vanquishing the attacker but resolving to avoid an encounter before its occurrence." (Kyohan)

"Running away as far as possible and seeking shelter in someone's home or shouting for help would be the best forms of self-defense." (Kyohan)

"[If a physical altercation is unavoidable] do not show any intention of attacking, but first let the attacker become careless. At that time attack him, concentrating one's whole strength in one blow to a vital point, and in the moment of suprise, escape and seek shelter or help." (Kyohan)

"[...] the point to remember is the quickness of the counterattack, which is executed almost simultaneously while escaping from the attacker's hold." (Kyohan)

"In karate there is no initiative [for starting a fight]" (#2 of 20 precepts, "karate ni sente nashi")

"Don't think of winning, The thought of not losing is necessesary." (#12 of 20 precepts)

From these statements I would conclude that Shotokan's strategy could be described as follows:

a) Don't start any fights.

b) If attack seems probable, escape to a safe location.

c) If not possible, pre-empt, then escape.

d) If not possible, receive the attack and immediately dominate the situation by completely overwhelming the attacker, then escape.

I would say that is an even broader strategy than the one given for Goju Ryu by Kane and Wilder. And it is completely in line with self-defence goals.

The overall karate fighting strategy as required for c) and d), is, in my opinion, well expressed by a quote from Motobu, who said:

"Against True China-Hand continuous punches and the like won't happen. That is because when True China-Hand has received/defended, [then] the opponent's next hand won't be going out."

Or to put it simply: True karate does not allow the enemy a second attack.

Styles in karate? - In the end it's all the same

Anyway, as has already been pointed out, the strategies are not really style specific. They are karate strategies.

Here's what Funakoshi had to say about styles:

"One serious problem, in my opinion, which besets present-day karate-do is the prevalence of divergent schools. I believe that this will have a deleterious effect on the future development of the art." (My way of life)

"Indeed, I have heard myself and my colleagues referred to as the Shotokan school, but I strongly object to this attempt at classification. My belief is that all these "schools" should be amalgamated into one so that karate-do may pursue an orderly and useful progress into man's future." (My way of life)

"Karate techniques of the present day have adopted the best qualities of both schools [Shorei & Shorin ryu]. Again I say that this is as it should be. There is no place in contemporary karate-do for different schools." (My way of life)

In my view, all of this is even true across different systems like karate, wing-chun, krav-maga and all of the other systems that can be used for self-defence.

All the best,

Marc

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Hi Josh,

Josh Pittman wrote:
But, Iain, doesn't your podcast on Chinto argue from a historical standpoint that the person on whose fighting "style" that form is based had different answers to problems than his opponents had seen before? E.g., the first movement as an answer to a collar tie being different from what other forms show?

It does, but I’m not sure how that is relevant to the topic under discussion or at odds with anything I have said in this thread? We are talking about strategy and not technique. Being introduced to a new technique does not mean a new strategy is required. Am I misunderstanding the point you are making?

All the best,

Iain

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Hi Marc,

Fantastic post! I thiunk that adds much clarity to the specific issues being discussed.

Marc wrote:
We might be able to deduct the strategy of a style from the fighting principles encoded in the kata and from the order in which the principles are laid out in the kata. But since katas focus more on the principles of successful fighting, I would see them more on the tactical side than on the strategic level.

I’d agree. Of course, it is impossible to clearly separate strategy, tactic and technique in application. The technique exists because it can achieve the tactical objective, and the tactic exists because it can achieve the strategic objective. A strategy can’t be enacted in the real world without the associated tactics and techniques also being present.

The methodology of the kata therefore is therefore in full accord with the wider strategy. I’d agree that it can’t show all aspects of that strategy because, as you say, it does focus on the physical elements i.e. no verbal de-escalation in the kata :-) Additionally, because the kata is a map we consult and not the terrain we walk, we do need the full kata process to be active (partner work, internalising principles, contextually appropriate live practise, etc) in other to see the strategy and tactics being truly utilised. The kata illustrates these things and gives examples of concept, but the illustration is not the thing itself: the map is not the terrain.

All the best,

Iain

Marc
Marc's picture

Iain Abernethy wrote:

Fantastic post! I think that adds much clarity to the specific issues being discussed.

Thanks, I'm glad it might be of some use.

I would like to add two points to the karate strategy that I have not found in the writings of Funakoshi or other style founders, but that I think are relevant for a modern self-defence strategy. They are:

e) Be aware of the law. Practice tactics that you can rightfully use, and stick to them.

f) Be mentally prepared. Think about your values, your capabilities, your options and possible actions plans when you have the time to do so. This way you don't have to in case of an emergency.

In short: Break branches off your decision stick!

A few examples from everyday life:

When you stay at a hotel and have found your room, take a quick look at the fire escape plan. In case of a fire alarm do you leave your room left or right?

Take a first aid course every few years, so you know what to do when somebody has an accident.

Read the f* manual, especially the safety instructions.

And since you've bought a chainsaw to cut down that tree that is blocking your view. Is it legal to do so?

Bang! You have a flat tyre. Do you know what do do next?

No backup, no compassion. (A classic system administrator's mantra.)

Are these too many examples already? I could go on. It's not just self-defence. It's life.

Take care!

Marc