Funakoshi vs. Chin Na

My Chin Na instructor gave me several pages of information that I will eventually be tested on. I was skimming it this weekend and came across a paragraph that got me to thinking. Paraphrased, it says that when using Chin Na to control an opponent one should always have a backup plan: Be prepared to punch or kick so you can destroy an enemy’s capacity to fight if your attempt to control fails.

I like it when teachers of a given martial art are honest. I already heard our instructor say that a given Chin Na technique may work well on one person while a second person may be practically immune. So when in doubt doing something (i.e. punching and kicking) is better than doing nothing or doing the same something, even if it’s obviously failing.

The more I think about this the more I realize how much my four years of working in two prisons have influenced my martial arts. At least a dozen times I saw people try techniques taught at the academy which would fail on certain inmates. Yet other times those same techniques worked perfectly. I also saw situations where the person was not thinking beyond their first technique and when it failed they usually got hurt because they lacked a “plan b”.

If you see that you need to hit him, do not hesitate. Remember, to show mercy to your opponent is to be cruel to yourself.

This is a direct quote from my Chin Na materials. I tried a Google search for the quote and found a similar version of it on what appears to be a Wing Chun site. I’d love to track down the originator of the quote to get at the philosophy behind it.

It’s basically saying that when all other options have failed including control, you need to disable the opponent so he or she cannot fight and harm you. A good example of this can be seen in the student I call “Tornado”. He’s about half my age and is certainly stronger and faster than I am. However, I have him on skill and breadth of techniques that range outside of taekwondo. Still, he’s overwhelmed me before with brute strength, speed, and luck. Enough times in fact that I realized if I’d ever face off against a “Tornado” in a real self-defense situation and de-escalation failed, I’d have to use every dirty trick I knew to disable him. In a life-or-death situation it would be too risky to show mercy because if I did, a person like this could possibly take the upper hand from me.

Naturally, this does not mean you should necessarily kill a person. However, it does mean somehow destroying their capacity to fight so they cannot harm you and you can escape.

As fate would have it I found myself thumbing through Gichin Funakoshi’s Karate-Do: My Way of Life this weekend. Funakoshi developed his karate (and it was his karate based on his melding of two different styles) into a moral philosophy. So much so that he would not approve at all of the competitive or sport aspects of karate. For that matter, Funakoshi believed one should not use karate to defend one’s self…

Funakoshi taught that the ultimate goal of karate is to respect life and avoid conflict at all costs.

But this was how Funakoshi wanted it. He taught that karate should not be used for self defense-even as a last resort-because once karate was used, the conflict became a matter of life or death, and somebody was going to get injured.

He’s rumored to use his karate only once: Funakoshi was assailed by a robber and held the poor sap by his testicles until the authorities arrived. Even this one event was a great source of shame for Funakoshi:

Although Funakoshi had not started the altercation, he later revealed that he always felt shame about that day because he had not avoided the confrontation.

Now perhaps this altercation was avoidable and Funakoshi is justified in being ashamed. I do not know for certain. Still, from my view there are situations where violence is unavoidable. Moreover, Funakoshi could have easily harmed and probably killed the robber. Instead he held the guy until the police arrived. From my view that’s honorable. Apparently not from his perspective!

My taekwondo school’s approach to self-defense is somewhere between Funakoshi and the Chin Na approach. The attack is never initiated, you should try to de-escalate without violence, and if that fails you can only respond if attacked. Once you do, however, you need to put the person down and escape. Given the litigious nature of society this is probably a good approach. Still, it has at least one flaw: It assumes that you can control or defeat your opponent once all other options fail.

I’m sorry but there is not a one size fits all black belt. In fact, those of you that are honest will realize that there are “A”, “B”, and “C” grade black belts. While a “natural” who is almost perfect in a given art might be able to defeat and control most attackers almost every time, the rest of us poor schmucks cannot!

This is why I prefer a modified version of what was taught to me back in my prison days:

• Level one: Announcing that you have martial arts skills
• Level two: Attempting verbal de-escalation (walk away if you can!)
• Levels three through five are essentially the same

Our general rule was you could only use one level of force beyond the amount of force being applied to you in order to regain control. For example, if an inmate was being passively resistant (i.e. a sit-down strike) you could use soft techniques to move them from the area.

If an inmate came at you with punches you could use hard techniques (i.e. punches and kicks) to regain control. If control could not be gained and your life was in danger you could resort to level five, or deadly force.

I think the Kung Fu/Chin Na approach is at least one step removed from this model. Namely, it would tell you to skip announcing your skills because doing so warns your opponent and negates your ability to surprise them. You could still try verbal de-escalation (“I don’t want to fight”, etc.) but it that fails, the last three levels are the same except for one thing: Initiative. Even if you are attacked you still might have the initiative. That is, your technique is probably faster than a bar room brawler’s “hay maker” telegraphed punch.

In the taekwondo and karate world, for the most part, you’d either take the punch with a hard block or use a softer technique to dissipate the punch. Then you’d dispatch the opponent with a technique. Looks good on paper but it erroneously assumes that all black belts are created equal. This simple fact of the matter is that they are not and you could be overpowered.

The Kung Fu/Chin Na approach would say attack them in mid-attack, thereby disrupting their initial attack. For example, a low stop kick would disrupt the attacker in mid-punch and allow you to apply another technique. Or a very quick stiff jab might knock them out before they could even land the hay maker!

Same goes for grabs with the intention of getting you to the ground: If you wait around long enough you may end up on your back and get pounded. Chin Na would say grab the grab and destroy the joint, thereby eliminating the attacker’s ability to harm you further. Alternately, you could attempt to control them through pain compliance. However, unless you can hold the person Funakoshi nut-grab style until the cops arrive, you’re probably safer disabling them. Again, based on prison I’ve found that pain compliance may work but you can’t hold the person like that forever. In addition, it’s of little use if you have multiple attackers and pain compliance often makes the attacker mad and only escalates the situation to the next level.

Incidentally, this is one of my complaints of Aikido’s pacifist approach to self-defense. While I’m sure an Aikido master could easily take down a street fighter ex-inmate and make them “give up” through pain compliance, I can tell you that most inmates (or ex-inmates) who like to fight, will get up very pissed and continue to fight. In short: They’d lie to get out of the hold and once they escaped they’d continue to attack you. I guess the assumption that Morihei Ueshiba and Gichin Funakoshi had was that everyone is honorable and when someone gave up they really meant it. Unfortunately, the world is full of people who will use every dirty trick including lying to gain victory.

~BCP