Fighting Strategy

In an entry last year, I asked if your teacher (or you) had a strategy about and for your fighting art. This doesn't pertain to sport kumite/sparring; it is relevant to the fighting system you and I study, whatever that art happens to be. My former Yoshukai Karate teacher had a maxim: block, strike, take the joint, and throw. This strategy was/is essentially and escalation of violence on the part of the person receiving an attack, or defender if you prefer.


For years I followed this mantra, but as we do as we mature in the arts, I began formulating a strategy that more effectively mimics that upon which I teach and focus. To me, kata is the essence of karate-do, and within that karate is the stratagem created by the old masters who then passed the art to the next generation of budo-ka. Kata practice for me is one of technique/application centered violence used to counter "intent," rather than off-set another technique.


What does that mean? A prime example is the raising of fists by an attacker--this is intent. I have little desire to wait for him to throw a punch at me to know what the result will be, nor do I want to get into a battle of counter-fighting. I prefer to be on the offensive given the opportunity once I glean enough information to warrant an attack by me.


I realize much of what I'm writing here is likely counter to everything modern budo-ka are taught, but for me it's reality and what I have trained myself to do and react. This is what I teach my students, and I stand by this creed. Never do I condone looking for trouble or embroiling oneself in violent behavior, but should the intent of another human being be one of harm, then I fully endorse defending one's self in every manner possible.


With that, I will outline my fighting strategy as I've come to understand the art I study and teach:


Engage
Disrupt
Destroy


Here, I will attempt to explain each of these three categories. When I teach engagement, I mean make contact. That contact may come by means of a punch or kick, grabbing to set up a throw, or simply placing a hand on the opponent to make initial contact (being sure to maintain the connection until a desired technique or outcome is affected). Engagement means the critical distance between self and opponent is established and violence is imminent, and the defender makes and maintains contact until such time as his/her attack has been deployed. Engagement may last a split second, or take a little longer depending on the situation, but the space between attacker and defender is an intimate one.


Like engagement, disruption can take several forms. In a nutshell, disruption causes the opponent to cease motion and intent and fall back to countering or a defensive posture. Disruption can mean an attack is launched by the defender essentially removing or circumventing his original intent. To take it to the next level, stopping an attack on a mental and physical level is disruption, which sets up the last piece in my personal violent strategy.


To destroy sounds ominous, but it doesn't necessarily mean to render another human being lifeless. Like the previous explanations, destruction comes in several forms and layers, the final one being the warranted taking of life. Destruction means, in my mind, total commitment to a technique until such time the attacker no longer has the wherewithal to press onward. Destroying an opponent's will to fight, destroying a bone or joint, or simply destroying his balance is all part of the definition. What does not change is the commitment to technique and application by the defender until such time the attacker is incapable or  no longer desires to continue.


This is my condensed stratagem taught to my students and practiced by me. Your thoughts on the topic are appreciated and welcomed!