The Way of Least Resistance

I've received many messages and comments on social media and privately regarding my recent article " Enter the interception ". A common response is exemplified by "Nelson's" below: ""When in doubt strike out." was the maxim under which I was trained. This I took to mean when confrontation is inevitable you must have the wherewithal to react BEFORE you get popped whether it be by a knife, gun or fist. If you insist on being a dojo lawyer and giving an opponent the first shot you'd better stay on the "good" side of town only in daylight hours."   This is a variation on the old " I'd rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6 ". I have to say, it has a lot of emotional appeal and seems unimpeachable when it is raised: no one can disagree with it in principle . However I don't feel this provides any kind of formula for conflict management . To me, it is far too simplistic to capture the myriad social cir...

The need for a summary A random snapshot of our sparring. I'm using a classic open hand rising block - even though it was totally unscripted.  Those of you who have been reading this blog for a while will know that the assertion that "there are no blocks" is a major source of irritation to me.  It's another way of saying that the movements in karate etc. commonly called "blocks" are always  something else entirely. "They have to be, after all, because "blocks don't work" - everybody knows that!"  Those of us who don't agree are just kidding ourselves. Over the years I have attacked this assertion in a number of ways and from a number of different angles.  But this is not to say that each of my arguments is somehow separate and unconnected: rather they are all mutually consistent and supportive of each other, creating what I think is a compelling, indeed undeniable, picture of how blocks are a vital part of the traditi...

Introduction I have been asked recently by email what it is I have against "simultaneous initiative". For those who have come in late, "simultaneous initiative" is where you effect a simultaneous block/deflect and counter - or alternatively strike in a manner that negates the need for any block 1 or deflection. By contrast, "late initiative" is where you are forced to evade or block/deflect, then effect a counter. The common criticism is that this separates the defence and counter into two movements. Simultaneous initiative, by contrast, comprises just one movement. Now I must make this point: I have absolutely nothing against simultaneous initiative. I don’t prefer late initiative – in fact the reverse is true. I hold it to be self evident that one should never do two movements where one is possible. Correspondingly you should never "wait" for an attack where you can simply strike your attacker. I remember learning the latter lesso...