Rating: 
Summary: almost
Review: To be fair, there is knowledge to be gleaned from this book. However, the work is erroneous and incoherent relative to Mr. Webster-Doyle's thesis. Karate, and martial art in general, is strategy--simultaneously physical and mental. At page one, the author juxtaposes words of Funakoshi and Musashi, claiming that Funsakoshi presents a nonviolent methodology while Musashi presents a dangerously violent approach.This is little more than nonunderstanding. Funakoshi's words are explained in relation to an internal enemy, and Musashi's are explained in relation to an external one. Nonsense. If, as the author suggests, one considers the context of the words, we remember that Musashi studied at the end of his life in seclusion. He only had internal enemies to conquer. It was after this time in isolation that he wrote the Five Rings. Follow Mr. Webster-Doyle 3/4 of the way through his work and you will see that he insists that 'trickery' should be resorted to to 'subdue' the 'opponent' in a 'peaceful' manner. This is nothing short of employing deception--or strategem--to avoid physical confrontation. In any case, on nonviolence, Ghandi stated that "nonviolence presupposes the ability to strike." Funakoshi, like any of the Masters, had the ability to strike. To claim nonviolence without this ability is incongruent with the reality of competency in martial training--which is only to suggest that decent human beings bring peace to martial study. It would be best to read Musashi and understand him before categorically dismissing him. There is valuable information in all paths. There are only two decent western translations of Musashi's work: 1) The Martial Artist's Book of Five Rings, by Stephen F. Kaufman, Hanshi (10th Dan); and 2) A Book of Five Rings, by Victor Harris.
| 
