“What’s the best pressure point to strike during a fight?”
That was a recent question posted in a karate forum. It wasn’t the question that bothered me but rather the flurry of replies: driving knuckles into the throat, finger strike to the eyes, and a litany of recommended vital point strikes that could cause anything from temporary paralysis to death if executed properly.
No one stopped to ask what the person wanted to accomplish, the scenario he saw himself in, or even what his intended result was. Regardless of your views on the effectiveness of kyusho, the willingness of people to immediately – and recklessly – suggest lethal strikes really bothered me and got me thinking about the role of morality in our training as karateka and how we can develop and maintain a moral framework within which we can study and apply karate outside of the dojo.
Let’s talk about this in terms of a likely scenario: as you’re walking down the street, you pass by a pub and a drunken person stumbles out and bumps into you. And, in his drunken state, he challenges you to the fight. What do you do?
According to a lot of people on forums, end the confrontation by forcibly striking his windpipe. Or drive a thrust kick into his abdomen. But is his drunken challenge really a capital offense? Does he deserve an immediate death sentence because he shoved you and now wants to exchange some punches?
And this gets to the heart of my concern – the unprincipled application of violence.
I believe that, as karateka, our first obligation is “awareness, avoidance, and de-escalation.” But when faced with unavoidable confrontation, we must make our attack “quick, brutal, and decisive.” After all, our goal is to end the attack as quickly as possible and escape. But such application of violence doesn’t require us to use lethal force as our default position. To speak about being brutal is to talk about applying the appropriate strike with enough force and energy to stop the attack. It is not… it cannot… be a justification for immediately applying lethal force (now would be a great time to check out Jaredd Wilson’s You DON’T Practice a Martial Art).
So where do we start? Where do we begin to create that framework?
In the children’s classes we teach, we start asking on the very first day, “do we do this on Mom & Dad? How about grandma and grandpa? Brothers and sisters?” And every time, they can shake their heads “no “in a very serious matter.
And this is their start of the journey in karate; a start that includes them thinking about when it’s OK – and when it’s not – to use karate. Even kids as young as four have no difficulty learning not to use what they’re learning on just anyone.
And we continue that conversation with them almost every single class, from white belt on up. Each time their answer remains firm.
As we get older, that worldview starts to be challenged and we find ourselves questioning our own values and judgment when it comes to the use of our karate. We get stronger, we develop our martial skills, and start looking for ways to test our knowledge.
Next thing you know, you’re walking down the street and a drunken person steps out of a bar and bumps into you, challenging you to a fight.
It’s our moral framework that determines if we’re going to respond to a challenge or not.
The importance of being able to immediately determine if/how to respond to the threat – and the severity of the reply – is one of the most important skills we need to develop. It’s how we advocate for our part, it’s how we develop those coming after us, it helps us articulate who we are as karateka.
The moral framework is what guides us through those split-second encounters, to guide our action in times of stress so that we act in the way we claim to believe in times of peace. For what’s the value in claiming that, as a karateka, we strive to be a better person but, as soon as we feel that we are in danger, we lash out with intent to maim or kill.
There’s almost a type of “muscle memory” that we need to develop when it comes to our character and our morals. In the same way that a block and counter-strike must be studied and practiced so that its application becomes immediate and intuitive, so must our values be held the same way. So that, when a danger presents itself, we are never holding ourselves back, trying to determine how brutal a defense to present.
That ability to apply a sense of appropriate response to any given danger or challenge without conscious thought is our moral framework in action.
At this point, I need to say that, according to my own principles and values, I understand and accept the need for lethal force but only when absolutely called for. I would never advocate for anything less, or more, than a measured response. If I can walk away, I will because an ego that’s bruised by walking away from a challenge will heal as quickly as I let it.
To follow a moral path, to exercise our knowledge, to defend ourselves and our loved ones, requires that each and every one of us decide for ourselves what an “appropriate level of response” is to any given situation, and then practice it, study it, and live it so that when the time comes, we can recall it.
The moral framework by which we determine when and how we will apply the use of violence is an intensely personal one which, ultimately, we can only create for ourselves.
But it’s critical to formulate one.
Otherwise, when presented with a question in the form about the best pressure point to attack in a fight, we will find ourselves listing the point that we think will cause the greatest pain or injury, instead of asking “why” or (my favorite reply) “What does your moral framework allow you to do in that to situation?”
“A monk cannot fulfill the Buddhist Way if he does not manifest compassion without and persistently store up courage within. And if a warrior does not manifest coverage on the outside and hold enough compassion within his heart to burst his chest, he cannot become a retainer. Therefore, the monk pursues courage with the warrior as his model and the warrior pursues the compassion of the monk.”
– Hagakure
- John Wick #9 vs Enter the Dragon #1 – Votes Needed! - May 18, 2019
- Martial Arts Movie Madness: #11 Ip Man 2 vs. #6 Ong Bak - April 17, 2019
- John Wick – Movie Review - April 5, 2019
Sensei Domaschuk,
I really enjoyed your article here. What a great piece for your first contribution! I agree, being a kenpoist and all, that sometimes we can forget the context of the situation when we are talking about vulnerable targets on the body. I do try to keep that in mind, but catch myself from time to time losing sight of the whole picture. What you have said here has really given me a concrete and tangible thought process to incorporate into my training, and instruction of my students. Thank you sir!