On Feb 8, 2005, at 2:14 AM, Tsarren wrote: > > Anyone on the list study aikido or something similar? For those who > don't, > aikido is based around the idea that you can use your attacker's energy > (resources, whatever) against them instead of initiating your own > attacks. > A question I asked my sensei once when we were studying katana > technique > (one of the roots of aikido is how to survive in battlefield chaos when > you've lost your sword for some reason) was, "assuming two opponents of > equal skill, is there ever an adavantage to attacking first?" > > Anyone care to discuss the question, on any scale? > > Kat > > I was an aikidoka for awhile. This is one of those questions that generates lovely (and often vigorous) discussions. I'll take a crack at it anyway. Attacker (uke) has initiative. If he can properly utilize it a bout can often be won right there. However, defense (nage) is generally considered to be the stronger position. Once uke commits to an attack he necessarily exposes certain targets which nage can then, in his turn, address. I've often compared a bout to a tennis match in that the winner is usually the one who makes fewer mistakes. I seem to recall Sethra saying something like this at one point (ISSOLA?). One of the things that initially drew me to aikido was a diagram I saw in the Westbrook & Ratti text (AIKIDO & THE DYNAMIC SPHERE) concerning the four ethical levels of combat. Terrific concept!