Do you attack first or do you let them?

[Sihing73]

I've read both. From what I remember, the Art of War is a discourse on military strategy relating to an army on foot and possibly horseback. The Go Rin No Sho (5 rings) is 5 chapters (earth, water, fire, wind, void) and was very metaphysical from my recollection.

There may be quotes pertaining to attack/counterattack in each I don't remember, but in general the scope of both works doesn't really pertain to unarmed hand to hand combat - one is army movement and strategy and the other is swordfighting and the zen behind it. Any learning that pertains to unarmed combat would be extrapolation and conjecture.

I would (when not being sarcastic) think that it is dependant on other factors. And I would agree with you that thinking in absolutes is limiting.

I suppose it depends on whether one thinks in terms of technique or concepts. Both works have been adapted to business strategy and practices with not a little success. A little far from the battlefield and armed combat.

I guess it all depends on what one is looking for and whether they are willing to see something not apparent. Some people can look at a cloud and see nothing but a fluffy shape. Others can look at the same cloud and draw inspiration for a myriad of different things. Same cloud..............different points of view.

[Lucas]

“When you decide to attack, keep calm and dash in quickly, forestalling the enemy...attack with a feeling of constantly crushing the enemy, from first to last.”

“The important thing in strategy is to suppress the enemy's useful actions but allow his useless actions”

[Wayfaring]

I suppose it depends on whether one thinks in terms of technique or concepts. Both works have been adapted to business strategy and practices with not a little success. A little far from the battlefield and armed combat.

My view of the business applications works based upon both of those books are that they are very gimmicky and weak. They play upon the ego of a businessman to have a self image of some kind of ancient warrior.

"Why yes, Jones, let's file that advertising campaign one day early, thus presenting a surprise flank attack upon their army".

As much as Jones wants to be a ninja, in reality he is still just sending an email with an attachment.

I guess it all depends on what one is looking for and whether they are willing to see something not apparent. Some people can look at a cloud and see nothing but a fluffy shape. Others can look at the same cloud and draw inspiration for a myriad of different things. Same cloud..............different points of view.

And yet still others see the cloud and notice the man with the crack pipe at the base of it exhaling smoke.

[Sihing73]

My view of the business applications works based upon both of those books are that they are very gimmicky and weak. They play upon the ego of a businessman to have a self image of some kind of ancient warrior.

"Why yes, Jones, let's file that advertising campaign one day early, thus presenting a surprise flank attack upon their army".

As much as Jones wants to be a ninja, in reality he is still just sending an email with an attachment.


And yet still others see the cloud and notice the man with the crack pipe at the base of it exhaling smoke.

Interesting response..........did not know I struck a nerve

All is good my friend...........everyone has, and is permitted thier own opinion.

[Wayfaring]

Interesting response..........did not know I struck a nerve

All is good my friend...........everyone has, and is permitted thier own opinion.

Glad it is interesting. No nerve struck - there is no conflict inherent in my response - just conversing.

I enjoyed both Sun Tzu's Art of War and Musashi's Book of 5 Rings. I have read both works probably half a dozen times over years. The works as well as the authors are very interesting.

I have gone back and forth over years between viewpoints on them. I've read them as literal, and read them with a view to extract abstract concepts to help with fighting strategy in empty hand combat.

My current views fall more in the pragmatist / realism categories. I think first most applicable are the direct lessons - especially Sun Tzu. He is read in the armed forces in military strategy colleges. Secondarily IMO is the value in abstracting principles.

I suppose the attack first vs. counterattack strategy can be considered both pragmatically from a technique perspective as well as an overall strategy perspective.

IMO the "you strike I strike first" WCK type principles embody a couple core tenets of the art - economy of motion and counterattack. Centerline is implied. I do not feel that the overall intent of WCK is attack, but more counterattack. I think that arts like fencing and the boxer's jab are primary attack strategy tools. WCK and fighters like Lyoto Machida are effective counterattackers.

[Yoshiyahu]

“When you decide to attack, keep calm and dash in quickly, forestalling the enemy...attack with a feeling of constantly crushing the enemy, from first to last.”

“The important thing in strategy is to suppress the enemy's useful actions but allow his useless actions”

Lucas pretty good points. All though some of it I think went over some peoples heads...Especially the part about allow his useless actions. lol...

Here are some qoutes i like

“Attack is the best form of defense”

“Nobody ever defended anything successfully, there is only attack and attack and attack some more.”

“Strength lies not in defense but in attack”



The Good thing about WC is you defend while you attack. There fore the safest place to be is in the Lions den. In my opinion sitting there waiting for your opponent to attack will make you sluggish. WC tools are best utilize in midst of action. Being a counter figther is Good. But the best way to counter is from a distance. The best counter fighter are long range fighters in my opinion because they wait for you commit. When you attack with WC your mind shouldnt be to strike and get out of range. But to strike and keep striking and keep striking them until they can't defend any more.


When i hear wait for your opponent to attack first I think of something like Tai Chi which onces to borrow your force. With out force Tai Chi wont be as successful. It needs to receive to utilize your force. WC is not the same in my opinion. We do borrow force. But we do so in the midst of the thick of things. Since we are a short range system our main goal is to get into striking range where are tools are more beneficial. One problem with waiting for your opponent to attack is if he is good long range fighter he will just launch round houses and side kicks at you an move out of range when you try to bridge or connect or strike back. He will continously throw attacks off you which you will be too slow to intercept due to fact your waiting on him.

Force your opponent to defend against your flurry of attacks. Hard knocks and steady blows will eventually gain you entry.

Just some things i stay mindful of

Don't Wait on your opponent to Attack first "- Do not be lax when your opponent is not advancing."

Always Attack First " Make the first move to have control. Attack according to timing."

Rush in where ever there is a no contact - "Charge into the opponent. Execute three moves together."

Bridge the Gap my Striking - "The thrusting and fast attacks are well suited for closing in."

If you wait on your opponent to strike first you will loose - "Persistent attacks will surely gain you entry. Staying on the defensive too long will surely get you into trouble."

You utilize the bridge to controle your opponent - "Create a bridge if the opponent's bridge is not present. Nullify the bridge according to how it is presented. "

Above our things that come to mind when i think of the following qoutes. In addition to that i find just going in attacking charges your energy, mind and spirit. Where as waiting your sitting duck always waiting for your opponent to make a move first!