Attack or defence

[Gerry Seymour]

I was talking about this with my son today who's a brown belt in kenpo and a green belt in taekwondo. We were talking about what's more important to learn first attack or defence. Now I trained my son for years before he started training at a school with his friends then decided to do taekwondo as well but we're both different types of fighter he's a very co-ordinated fighter can work well on the inside and use footwork and timing well and has great knowledge of his stances. My styles more agressive move in and out and work the counter and pick off with kicks And we have totally different ideas.

He believes that attack should be the first thing that's taught because you need to know how to put someone away as quid as possible but I think defence is most important to learn first since if you can't defend and you get a hard hit and get knocked out your attack is no good.

Just wondering what others think.

I don't see a stark dividing line between them. I teach both from the very beginning. I teach a simple grip escape (actually, the foundation of both escapes and techniques); a simple, direct block; simple strikes; etc. as first work. In grappling, attack and defense are less obviously divided, since a block is also an attachment to the striking limb and a counter is also the beginning of a takedown. When we're talking specifically about strike vs. strike, it's a toss-up. I teach the block first, but only because I want to teach the strikes as a follow-up to the block. They happen in the same class.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

You serious?

Then you use footwork to fight from those positions.

@gpseymor there you go another classic example of this weird self defense is so different from fighting that footwork doesn't even exist.

I'm with you on this one. The context changes, but if we use MMA as our "sport" example, the footwork there certainly has application in situations like this, exactly as you pointed out.

There are sport styles that use footwork and movement I actively discourage for defense. I think you'd probably discourage them in MMA, too. (I'm thinking the rhythmic bouncing one of my students brought from his Shotokan Karate-do sparring).

 

[Gerry Seymour]

What if you can't use any footwork, we're talking about real fighting not the ring. What if you're pinned against a wall or surrounded by a few guys or in a tight space like a nightclub

That's still a footwork situation. The movement I'd use for that probably uses some similar principles to what Drop Bear would cite from his MMA experience. If you're not using footwork, you're standing still, and that's probably the worst option, even when you're backed up to a wall. Perhaps especially then.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Footwork.

In uniform stance (both my opponent and I have right side forward), to move my left back foot to line up with my opponent's both feet will be the 1st thing that I'll do.

Old saying said, "You may not find any opening to attack. As long as you keep moving around, soon or later you will find that opening." In other words, don't just standing still as a sitting duck, move.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Some strategy can be used for both offense and defense. You try to drill a hole between your opponent's arms.

 

[JP3]

I was talking about this with my son today who's a brown belt in kenpo and a green belt in taekwondo. We were talking about what's more important to learn first attack or defence. Now I trained my son for years before he started training at a school with his friends then decided to do taekwondo as well but we're both different types of fighter he's a very co-ordinated fighter can work well on the inside and use footwork and timing well and has great knowledge of his stances. My styles more agressive move in and out and work the counter and pick off with kicks And we have totally different ideas.

He believes that attack should be the first thing that's taught because you need to know how to put someone away as quid as possible but I think defence is most important to learn first since if you can't defend and you get a hard hit and get knocked out your attack is no good.

Just wondering what others think.

It depends.

Just kidding.

The best defense is a good offense, I've heard. However, I've heard defense wins championships, too.

From a teaching perspective, I think that a person should learn simple attacks first, so they understand what they are and what you are attempting to do with them. While you are learning this, you are learning how to defeat them, i.e. defend against them, because to knowing about the attack is knowing how to defend against it.

Then, you take that concept with you, right up the rank and technique ladder.

 

[drop bear]

It depends.

Just kidding.

The best defense is a good offense, I've heard. However, I've heard defense wins championships, too.

From a teaching perspective, I think that a person should learn simple attacks first, so they understand what they are and what you are attempting to do with them. While you are learning this, you are learning how to defeat them, i.e. defend against them, because to knowing about the attack is knowing how to defend against it.

Then, you take that concept with you, right up the rank and technique ladder.

Someone has to learn to attack so the other guy has something to defend.

 

[JP3]

Someone has to learn to attack so the other guy has something to defend.

Man, I was trying to incorporate Sun Tzu and here you come in with Common Sense.

 

[Mou Meng Gung Fu]

This is an interesting topic for discussion. It reminds me of the taijitu (yin-yang symbol). When I was a student in Shotokan Karate, one of the first lessons I learned was the concept of yin-yang. I was taught that every defense was an attack in disguise, using arm-blocks to strike the opponent's soft spots. As I withdrew one hand back to defend, my other hand would go flying forward. This was the way I understood yin-yang from a Karate perspective. But once I became a student in Wing Chun, my perspective changed. I started learning how to use both hands simultaneously to attack and defend at the same time. Whereas the lesson in Karate gave me an understanding of the basic tomoes/teardrops in the taijitu, the lesson in Kung Fu gave me a better understanding of the tiny contrasting circles within the tomoes/teardrops on the taijitu. It was no longer "yin" and "yang" (attack and defense). It was now "yin-yang" (attack-defense), one whole motion or movement without separation or distinction. Today, this is the yin-yang concept that I still believe in and teach. It is hard for me to say which approach should be learned first, because in my style, both are learned at the same time. There is no distinction between attack and defense. It is one notion. This understanding in itself is actually central to Mou Meng Gung Fu, the "art of namelessness" and why it is nameless.

 

[drop bear]

Man, I was trying to incorporate Sun Tzu and here you come in with Common Sense.

Yeah well I get my philosophy from Rocky movies so what did you expect.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

The best defense is a good offense,..

During the Irag war, I didn't see any defense skill used by US.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Someone has to learn to attack so the other guy has something to defend.

This is a big deal, IMO. If a grappling school wants to develop the ability to deal with striking attacks, they need students with good striking attacks. The same holds true in the other direction.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

The best defense is a good offense, I've heard.

I prefer, "The best defense is an overwhelming offense."

If your offense isn't strong enough to overwhelm, you'll still have to play some defense between attacks.

 

[wingchun100]

In the case of multiple people versus you, then you want a good offense. You need to be aggressive as hell to get out of that, due to the overwhelming odds.

Having said that, I don't feel like I can pick one as being more important than the other. I mean, if someone comes at me with an attack, I don't want to let it land, so I will defend. However, I don't want to block or parry all day because odds are that sooner or later, one of those attacks would land.

 

[jobo]

During the Irag war, I didn't see any defense skill used by US.

I did, they kept bombing people from a long way away. Being out of range is the best defence

 

[Paul_D]

I did, they kept bombing people from a long way away.

And unfortunately, not always the enemy.

 

[The Great Gigsy]

I would have to go with defense. I like to attack off the counter.

 

[Buka]

I'm going with your son's opinion.

 

[JowGaWolf]

I believe defense is more important, if an attacker keeps attacking but your defense is solid he will tire himself out. If your attack is strong but his defense is stronger you will tire yourself out.

Either that or you'll start seeing openings where counters can be launched.

 

[JowGaWolf]

What if you can't use any footwork, we're talking about real fighting not the ring. What if you're pinned against a wall or surrounded by a few guys or in a tight space like a nightclub

you would still need to use footwork. If you are pinned against a wall then it's because you didn't use your footwork.