8 posts / 0 new
Last post
Paul_L
Paul_L's picture
Initiative In Kata

In Wado Ryu there is a priciple regarding initiative which I am sure people already know, but I will list them anyway:

Go No Sen – “Late Initiative.” Accepting and blocking an attack and countering after.

Sen No Sen – Meeting an attack with a simultaneous counter.

Sen Sen No Sen – “First Initiative.” Anticipating an attack and acting pre-emptively.

Working on the assumption that this concept exists in all Karate in one form or another, and not just Wado Ryu, my question is whether in any katas there are specifc examples of these different initiatives, or do you have to be a bit pragmatic in how you view the movements in kata in this regard. 

Mark B
Mark B's picture

I personally don't look for this in kata, although others may and there's nothing wrong with that. These are simply combative pre engagement principles and really I don't think we need kata for that.

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Hi Paul,

The concept of Sen is widely used throughout all Japanese martial arts. It’s found in Wado, but I don’t think we can say it is a Wado principle as such. It’s fairly generic. Musashi even writes about it in ‘The Book for the Five Rings’ (he died around 250 years before Otsuka was born).

Back on point, I think we can see all of those in all kata. Indeed, most motions can be applied in all three ways i.e. I can gain control of the enemy’s arm proactively, as they move it, or after they have moved it.

One thing to note is that Sen Sen No Sen is always the easiest to pull off, with Go No Sen being the most difficult.  Something that Musashi comments on if memory serves. Certainly, all three of Otuska’s karate sensei did, although they did not specifically use the “Sen Sen No Sen terminology” as Musashi does.

“When faced with someone who disrupts the peace or who will do one harm, one is as a warrior in battle, and so it only stands to reason that one should seize the initiative and pre-empt the enemy’s use of violence. Such action in no way goes against the precept of ‘no first attack’ …the expression ‘karate ni sente nashi’ [no first attack in karate] should be properly understood to mean that the karateka must never take a hostile attitude, or be the cause of a violent incident; he or she should always have the virtues of calmness, prudence and humility in dealing with others.” – Kenwa Mabuni

“There is a saying ‘no first attack in karate’ …To be sure, it is not the budo [martial art] spirit to train for the purpose of striking others without good reason. I assume that you already understand that in karate one's primary goal must be the training of mind and body… But when a situation can't be avoided and the enemy is intent on doing you serious harm, you must fight ferociously. When one does fight, taking control of the enemy is vital, and one must take that control with the very first move. Therefore, in a fight one must attack first. It is very important to remember this.” – Choki Motobu

"When there are no avenues of escape or one is caught even before any attempt to escape can be made, then for the first time the use of self-defense techniques should be considered. Even at times like these, 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 surprise, escape and seek shelter and help." – Gichin Funakoshi

So, all three kinds of Sen can apply to almost all kata motions, but tactically we should favor Sen Sen no Sen. The others are methods of necessity and not choice. In my dojo, I get them to apply most of the motions proactively first, and then we look at how they can be applied reactively later on. The mindset and tactics being the key issues here.

All the best,

Iain

Paul_L
Paul_L's picture

Thanks for the replies. The other day I realised that whenever I am asked to demonstrate an application from part of a kata I always resort to "my opponent attacks me like this and I defend and counter like that", which would not really be the most tactically advantageous thing to do. I started to wonder how I next time I could present something that is more pre-emptive and pro-active rather reactive.

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

You’re welcome. I’m pleased that was of some use.

Paul_L wrote:
I always resort to "my opponent attacks me like this and I defend and counter like that", which would not really be the most tactically advantageous thing to do.

VERY common! If we see kata as a list of responses to the enemy’s violent actions then inherent in that is the acceptance that we concede the initiative to the criminal. That’s not good.

Of course, we need to learn “defensive” actions too so we can regain the initiative should we lose it, but the emphasis should firmly be on gaining it from the very beginning and keeping it. We should “seize the initiative” (Mabuni) and “take that control with the very first move” (Motobu). The past maters knew what they were talking about. Seeing kata as primarily being a list of responses to the criminal’s actions fits in just fine with the criminal’s modus operandi.

The video in this old thread is worth a watch on that:

https://iainabernethy.co.uk/content/best-information-comes-worst-people-ted-talk

Notice how criminals assume dominance. We should not assume that too otherwise we are consenting to their game plan.

Paul_L wrote:
I started to wonder how I next time I could present something that is more pre-emptive and pro-active rather reactive.

That’s how I do it. The majority of my stuff sees us working from a position of advantage, and responding to the enemy’s attempts to take away that advantage such that the advantage is maintained. Sure, we do some reactive stuff too … but the mindset and tactics are firmly about “being the hammer and not the anvil”; as one of my teachers would put it.

When the situation can’t be avoided then it is OURS. We will dictate the situation. The criminal will quickly find they have chosen the wrong target because we have zero interest in playing their game their way.

All the best,

Iain

Paul_L
Paul_L's picture

Thanks Iain,

Next time I am asked to demonstrate an application of a kata I will be either a hero or a big-headed-show-off, hopefully the first!

Mark B
Mark B's picture

In my experience criminals assume dominance if they're allowed, and that includes pre engagement. There's a saying "wolves recognise sheep, and other wolves". Many martial arts enthusiasts may need to assume a slightly more predator mindset. This alone can sew the seeds of doubt in the minds of "criminals". I know that from experience. In the same way a complete stranger with a criminal mentality will give me a nod as he walks down the street, scanning the environment as he goes, he's already decided there's easier targets. Tactically manage the gap between yourself and another and control the centreline. In training get into the habit of working from that and basically not caring what the other guy brings. I often read about how we should be proactive, hit first if physical actions are required but the reality is very different if you've never done it. I've said this many times - the criminal will have no qualms about striking first, and they won't particularly care where or when it happens. Decent people have an inbuilt mental block where striking first is concerned due to years of social conditioning, particularly in a social well populated situation ie supermarket etc. This is a fact criminals know well. Being proactive is great but managing the distance and centreline is an excellent way to create an excellent "proactive reactive". Regards

Wastelander
Wastelander's picture

I'm afraid I don't believe that initiative can be transmitted through a solo form. The three initiatives of swordsmanship can be applied to any fighting art, of course, but without an opponent, you won't know which initiative you have taken. I see figuring this out as part of the bunkai process