# No Defense at All In Tai Chi?



## SFC JeffJ (Jun 4, 2007)

A gentleman who is a Yang style instructor has started coming to our advanced jujitsu classes.  After class this Saturday he gave us a little show on the long form and applications of the first few moves.   What surprised me was him saying that there was no   true defense in Tai Chi, but it was all offense.

What do you think?


----------



## Flying Crane (Jun 4, 2007)

This does not strike me as true.  While there are many ways to interpret the movements in tai chi, the most basic and obvious interpretations of the postures are defensive.  They are solutions to an attack against you.

Something that is truly offensive would focus more on initiating attacks, blatant and agressive punches and kicks.  Tibetan White Crane is more on this line.

That's my opinion, based on my experiences.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jun 4, 2007)

SFC JeffJ said:


> A gentleman who is a Yang style instructor has started coming to our advanced jujitsu classes. After class this Saturday he gave us a little show on the long form and applications of the first few moves. What surprised me was him saying that there was no true defense in Tai Chi, but it was all offense.
> 
> What do you think?


 
He's wrong.

Taiji is defensive by nature, it can attack but in general it defends.

Now in Xingyi defense is in general attack but not in taiji.


----------



## pete (Jun 4, 2007)

tai chi is all about balance.  yin within yang, yang within yin.  offense within defense, defense within offense.  therefore, the applications culled from the form will always contain both, offense and defense integrated together, and supporting each other.  one can apply the defensive only, or the offensive only, but that would be but one side of the coin.  perhaps the guest instructor chose to demonstrate the offensive side...not wrong, perhaps just incomplete.

pete


----------



## brianlkennedy (Jun 4, 2007)

I strongly suspect he was saying that for its rhetorical value; something just to shock and amaze the folks at the seminar. All Chinese martial arts have defensive elements. Even xingyi, which often hypes itself as being attack, attack, attackhas at its heart and soul defense.

  For example the very first move that starts most xingyi formswhere you drill/twist your hands up in front of your face---you are defending your head, just like your dad taught you in backyard boxing classhands up. Xingyi also makes a big deal out of stepping off the line of the opponents attackdefensive footwork.

  Now admittedly you can play word games with the term "defense" and say well those are really offensive moves, they are not "true" defense moves. In my view they are. 

  Taiji is same deal as xingyi. Taiji is full of defensive moves (oddly enough I just got done writing an article on the wrestling aspects of Yang taiji for _Classical Fighting Arts _magazine so I have been thinking a bit lately about taiji fighting).

  Taiji has:

Head covers to protect your head from barrages of punches
Backwards stepping (like in western wrestling, taiji teaches never step straight back more that one step, if you have to step back more than one step, spin the trailing leg around to put yourself at a 90 degree angle to the opponent)
Pummeling (which is kind of a defensive move where you are trying to get a superior tie up on the opponent- wave hands like clouds is pummelinga fact that surprises most New Age Taiji practitioners)
And lots of other defensive moves
  So I suspect the guy was either saying that for its shock value or trying to make a combat point (which I very much agree with) that you can not win by defense alone or something along those lines.

  Take care,
  Brian


----------



## Nobody (Jun 4, 2007)

That is an excellent point pete.  

Again when i first started learning Taiji my instructor taught use to use lightness first an that begins to being defensive first.  I think from the sounds of it you probably get what i mean, use a light hand an learn to read the moves of your opponent first an than learn how to use heavy slowly adding to make a attack.  Heavy does start to symbolize the more attack based idea.  The thing i would agree with is that a lot of the Taiji i see is more defensive first, from Xue statement but not only as you point out.

Xingyi use more forward energy(connecting through bridge to develop spine control of opponent) to control the bridge than Taiji so i would say it starts with the attack in mind first.  An it starts with metal as the reference when you talk Hubei style at least.  Taiji Yang would use redirect (ward off first to connect the bridge first and keep structure).  While I do study Xingyi more for an aggressive attack oriented style myself, there is a defensive thing happening to.  Balance has to be the main point to understand the elements both sides have to be looked at of each element.

This mostly just how i went through each of the three style's Taiji, Bagua, and Xingyi all my personal opinion.


----------



## dmax999 (Jun 4, 2007)

Actually there is a shred of truth in that statement, but everone else has already made the points of why it is not true. Advanced Kung-Fu fighters don't rely on defense, instead they know when an opponet is going to attack and they attack into that attack. In Tai Chi, you should be touching your opponent at all times and if your feeling energy is good enough you will feel an opponent's attack as it develops. You should then be able to easily stop the attack by making the perfect counter-attack first. So in a sense there is a shred of truth.

However, you said he claims there is "no defense at all", which is obviously not really true.


----------



## oxy (Jun 4, 2007)

> What surprised me was him saying that there was no true defense in Tai Chi, but it was all offense.
> 
> What do you think?



Well, I think there's a level that one can reach (in any martial art) where every little movement can become defence or offence. The lowly punch for example can be easily used as a defensive or offensive strike.

So in a strictly "words only" sense, it's not really true or false.

That's what I take that opinion to mean, but I would have to see the guy demonstrate what he means be that to truly get what he meant by it. For now, it seems that he's using the "the best defence is a good offence" heuristic, which is not something I would agree with as though it were some universal truth.


----------



## Steel Tiger (Jun 4, 2007)

Flying Crane said:


> This does not strike me as true. While there are many ways to interpret the movements in tai chi, the most basic and obvious interpretations of the postures are defensive. They are solutions to an attack against you.
> 
> Something that is truly offensive would focus more on initiating attacks, blatant and agressive punches and kicks. Tibetan White Crane is more on this line.
> 
> That's my opinion, based on my experiences.


 
The first thing I thought was, "its possible".  I think I can see where he is coming from.  Even though the movements of taiji are essentially defensive it is possible to "attack the attack" with these defences.  The idea of a solution to an attack against you also suggests that there is some element of offense involved.  That being that each defensive movement has an inherent offensive element.  Taiji does not take the offensive, but I suppose you could interpret the defences as offensive if you looked at them in a particular way. 

It is possible that this taiji instuctor was thinking along these lines.


----------



## stickarts (Jun 4, 2007)

The little experience I have has been that there are both defensive and offensive moves, leaning more heavily toward defense.
I guess it depends on the context that he made the statement in?


----------



## Rabu (Jun 5, 2007)

I would lean towards Brians response.  I would add however, that if he was an instructor as stated, he certainly could be emphasizing attack over all other options in what he was teaching.

There are many styles of Yang out there.  Who knows, maybe his version is all about aggressive absorption.


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Jun 5, 2007)

Thanks everyone for your input.  I'll be seeing more of him, so I'll ask for clarification of that statement and maybe about his lineage.

Thanks again,

Jeff


----------



## charyuop (Jun 5, 2007)

But...is there a Martial Art which is lacking of the defensive part???
In my opinion if you don't defend you can't call Martial Art. No matter if you attack while you are attacked. The Martial Art will always provide you tool for defense...if not for else, just in case your attack doesn't go too well...


----------

