What do people mean when they ask if an art is more offensive or defensive?

[Marcy Shoberg]

Many times over the years people ask my opinion if a certain art is more offensive or more defensive than another art. I usually just fake my answer and talk in generalities because I honestly do not understand the question. Any help anyone?

 

[WC_lun]

Some arts are more aggressive, say Shotokan. Other arts, are focused more on using counter-fighting, making it more passive at the beginning of a confrontation. There really is no hard and fast rule for this. Some instructors teach more aggressive systems with more passive principles and vice versa.

 

[Chris Parker]

Many times over the years people ask my opinion if a certain art is more offensive or more defensive than another art. I usually just fake my answer and talk in generalities because I honestly do not understand the question. Any help anyone?

Hmm. They mean whether an art is more defensive or offensive (in tactics and strategy). An example would be Aikido for a more "defensive" art, and most sporting systems as more "offensive" ones. But I gotta ask, don't you have an online/DVD home course for self defense? Surely you'd understand the difference between offensive, defensive, and evasive tactics, yeah?

Actually, I just visited your blog, and to be frank, I'm wondering what makes you an "expert" on self defence, as you describe yourself there. Honestly, there were a couple of okay bits, but overall, there were quite a few issues, as it was dealing more with consciously thought out advice, rather than something from deeper understanding, especially of what self defence is designed to come up against. I applaud what you're trying to do, but I'm not sure that you're really getting the result you want.

 

[Tez3]

I find some McDojos offensive when they sell belts for money and leave people thinking they can do martial arts.

Seriously though I have to go with Chris' answer.

 

[Cyriacus]

Offense tends to mean bringing the fight to the other guy.
Defense tends to mean letting Them bring the fight to You.
I prefer being able to do both.

 

[oftheherd1]

Real simple: Offensive - to think like an attacker more often than not. Defensive - think of defending yourself more often than not.

But I think a Martial Art should give you both options in what is taught.

I must admit I am surprised at your answers to those who ask. Did you never ask any of your teachers?

 

[Gentle Fist]

One of my training partners last night had really bad gas. I would say he was all offensive...

 

[jks9199]

Hmm. They mean whether an art is more defensive or offensive (in tactics and strategy). An example would be Aikido for a more "defensive" art, and most sporting systems as more "offensive" ones. But I gotta ask, don't you have an online/DVD home course for self defense? Surely you'd understand the difference between offensive, defensive, and evasive tactics, yeah?

Actually, I just visited your blog, and to be frank, I'm wondering what makes you an "expert" on self defence, as you describe yourself there. Honestly, there were a couple of okay bits, but overall, there were quite a few issues, as it was dealing more with consciously thought out advice, rather than something from deeper understanding, especially of what self defence is designed to come up against. I applaud what you're trying to do, but I'm not sure that you're really getting the result you want.

I kind of have to agree with Chris. From your site, I couldn't see anything other than martial arts that qualified you to teach self defense. They're not the same thing... and in fact, some lessons of the (generic) martial arts are absolutely inappropriate for self defense instruction. For example, few martial arts schools really do more than lip service with either avoiding a situation or dealing with the legal and psychological aftermath of real violence. Many martial arts schools don't even prepare you for real violence at all, teaching instead dueling strategies or ridiculous overkill. (There are plenty of threads on that...)

What's your purpose with the question here and now?

 

[Marcy Shoberg]

My purpose with the question here and now is that my uncle who does not practice martial art said to me that he has the impression that taekwondo is a more defensive art and jiu jitsu is a more offensive art. But, obviously in the sport of taekwondo there are offensive strategies where you choose your own move to throw and time to throw it and there are defensive strategies where you wait for your opponent to kick and use that as your chance to score. But, he wasn't talking about sparring. I think he was talking about self-defense, which in my opinion bears little relationship to either taekwondo or juijitsu.

Anyway, am I not correct that practically every move in juijitsu involves hanging onto the other person? So, to use juijutsu defensively, one must wait until they are grabbed but to use it offensively one would simple walk up and grab onto the opponent. Now, since taekwondo is mainly kicking, that might lead a person to say it is mainly offensive because you have no need to wait until the person grabs you to use what we spend most of our time on. But still, one could choose to kick a person when they are attacked, making it defensive.

Sorry, I still don't get it.

I'd also like to point out for anyone who has not seen my website that I do not say I am a self-defense expert but rather point out that it is practically impossible to be a self-defense expert because anyone who is any good at self-defense will have a great ability to stay out of fights and therfore not have much experince with the physical side of self-defense.

I am expert enough to notice when someone is bullying me, however. But, possibly at this time of night I am not expert enough to avoid snipping back.

Anyway, I appreciate you all trying to help me out but I still don't see how some martial arts have techniques that can't be used offensively while others have techniques that can't be used defensively. Possibly is the difference not in the technique but rather in the typical mindset of the typical instructor?

 

[Chris Parker]

My purpose with the question here and now is that my uncle who does not practice martial art said to me that he has the impression that taekwondo is a more defensive art and jiu jitsu is a more offensive art. But, obviously in the sport of taekwondo there are offensive strategies where you choose your own move to throw and time to throw it and there are defensive strategies where you wait for your opponent to kick and use that as your chance to score. But, he wasn't talking about sparring. I think he was talking about self-defense, which in my opinion bears little relationship to either taekwondo or juijitsu.

I'm going to be rather blunt in this post, Marcy, hopefully you can forgive that.

You have a history, starting in 1982 at the age of 11, which has seen you train and teach TKD, currently with the rank of 5th Dan, as well as having a 5th Dan in Chung Ki Hapkido, state you have "learnt Krav Maga from a book" (?), run an online self defence program, have written a self defence column for at least one newspaper, as well as publishing articles, newsletters, and books (or are getting some done), and you have completely failed, in the last 30 years, to gain this very basic appreciation of the application of tactics, and the dominant approach that different systems take, including how they can be categorized? Look, I'm going to see if I can explain it clearer to you through this post, but this really has me doubting what you've really learnt in your three decades, and what you're passing on.

Anyway, am I not correct that practically every move in juijitsu involves hanging onto the other person?

Yep, you're not correct. For one thing, what jujutsu are you talking about? BJJ is different to a large range of other jujutsu systems, especially a large range of Japanese systems, as well as more modern "eclectic" Western forms, which could be equal in their usage of striking and grappling, depending on the system itself.

So, to use juijutsu defensively, one must wait until they are grabbed but to use it offensively one would simple walk up and grab onto the opponent.

That's quite simplistic, and not really accurate, when it comes down to it. To use something offensively, you need to use it offensively. No matter who initiated it. But you're looking at the wrong aspect... you're thinking too small (thinking of the use of individual techniques). The question is about the overall focus and approach of the art. Not it's techniques.

Now, since taekwondo is mainly kicking, that might lead a person to say it is mainly offensive because you have no need to wait until the person grabs you to use what we spend most of our time on. But still, one could choose to kick a person when they are attacked, making it defensive.

Nope, too simplistic, and off base. The focus of a sporting system is to score points on your opponent. To do that, you need to pursue a scoring approach (aggressively, or offensively seeking to apply your techniques, no matter what they are). As a result, it can be said that pretty much all sporting systems are, at least to a fair degree, offensive. Aikido, as noted earlier, has a particular philosophy of seeking to avoid unduly injuring the opponent, with the idea of attacking someone being the furthest from the Aikido ideal. As such, it is probably the epitome of a defensive system, even though many of it's techniques can be quite devastating in their application.

Sorry, I still don't get it.

Forget about thinking of the individual techniques, and look at what the art teaches. Does it teach to wait, and receive an attack first, or does it teach to look for an opening to exploit? What makes an art offensive or defensive is it's overall approach. Not it's individual techniques. Honestly, if you haven't understood that by now, there's not many more ways to say it... I'd advise looking at everything you've learnt, and see what you can see. But, really, I'd discount the Krav Maga if it's only from a book. I just don't trust that anyone can really get it that way (or any art, really).

I'd also like to point out for anyone who has not seen my website that I do not say I am a self-defense expert but rather point out that it is practically impossible to be a self-defense expert because anyone who is any good at self-defense will have a great ability to stay out of fights and therfore not have much experince with the physical side of self-defense.

From your website, linked by you in the "Home Study Course" thread:

What I am an expert in is explaining self-defense and teaching self-defense to people of various ages and backgrounds.

Honestly, this line of thinking is rather flawed. You can absolutely be an expert in self defence, by having a real insight into the subject from a range of viewpoints, and having sufficient understanding of the subject backed up by experience (either your own, or others), as well as having a real basis in education on the subject. That, I'd say, is where you fall down. What you can't be, though, is an expert at explaining self defence and teaching self defence without having any expertise in self defence. There are quite a few here who I would refer to as self defence experts, as well as a number I know outside of this forum, and all of them share these qualities that are missing from your site and blog. While I wouldn't put myself as an expert there, I certainly do learn from and listen to a number of them very regularly (in some cases, daily).

I am expert enough to notice when someone is bullying me, however. But, possibly at this time of night I am not expert enough to avoid snipping back.

There hasn't been any bullying here, Marcy. You have come along to a forum where there is a large pool of knowledge and experience, including the aforementioned experts, LEO's, security officers, experienced fighters, and serious martial artists. Coming into that kind of environment and claiming to present valuable information is going to invite some to examine what it is you're bringing to the table. If it's good, that'll be said. If it's lacking, that'll be noted as well. Hopefully so that it can be improved upon, even if the improvement that suits is more seasoning of the presenter.

Anyway, I appreciate you all trying to help me out but I still don't see how some martial arts have techniques that can't be used offensively while others have techniques that can't be used defensively. Possibly is the difference not in the technique but rather in the typical mindset of the typical instructor?

The question was not the instructor, nor the techniques. It was the art. Look to that. Forget what you think, as you're focusing on the wrong things here. You have noted, for instance, that TKD is dominantly kicking. How does it teach to apply those kicks? Does it teach you to apply them offensively, seeking openings, or creating them, and exploiting them in order to defeat the opponent? Or does it teach you to kick defensively, using them to counter strikes and kicks from an opponent? There's your answer.

But to get back to the crux of it all, if, after 30 years, such things as this stump you, I'd reconsider your position as a teacher of self defence. A teacher of techniques, sure. But self defence seems a little outside of your experience here, based on your posts and website.

 

[jks9199]

My purpose with the question here and now is that my uncle who does not practice martial art said to me that he has the impression that taekwondo is a more defensive art and jiu jitsu is a more offensive art. But, obviously in the sport of taekwondo there are offensive strategies where you choose your own move to throw and time to throw it and there are defensive strategies where you wait for your opponent to kick and use that as your chance to score. But, he wasn't talking about sparring. I think he was talking about self-defense, which in my opinion bears little relationship to either taekwondo or juijitsu.

Anyway, am I not correct that practically every move in juijitsu involves hanging onto the other person? So, to use juijutsu defensively, one must wait until they are grabbed but to use it offensively one would simple walk up and grab onto the opponent. Now, since taekwondo is mainly kicking, that might lead a person to say it is mainly offensive because you have no need to wait until the person grabs you to use what we spend most of our time on. But still, one could choose to kick a person when they are attacked, making it defensive.

Sorry, I still don't get it.

I'd also like to point out for anyone who has not seen my website that I do not say I am a self-defense expert but rather point out that it is practically impossible to be a self-defense expert because anyone who is any good at self-defense will have a great ability to stay out of fights and therfore not have much experince with the physical side of self-defense.

I am expert enough to notice when someone is bullying me, however. But, possibly at this time of night I am not expert enough to avoid snipping back.

Anyway, I appreciate you all trying to help me out but I still don't see how some martial arts have techniques that can't be used offensively while others have techniques that can't be used defensively. Possibly is the difference not in the technique but rather in the typical mindset of the typical instructor?

Well, first, I'd suggest that the person who can explain your uncle's statement best is your uncle... but, since he's going by perception and not experience, I'd guess that he's seeing the presence of self defense techniques defined as such to make his statement.

Jiujitsu is a pretty broad term. Brazilian jiujitsu is more oriented towards grappling and holds, and is actually kind of a back evolution of judo which derived from some forms of jiujitsu. Other forms of jiujitsu include lots of striking...

As to self-defense... Maybe I'm wrong, but nothing that I saw on your website suggests that you've actually gone beyond the one-step type self defense drills in TKD. As I intimated earlier -- there's much more to it than that; for example, do you understand the legal implications of using force to defend yourself? Do you know what happens in most commonly in violent attacks? You can certainly learn and then teach these sorts of things -- but I don't see where you have done this.

 

[Tez3]

I haven't trained with these, my instructor has though, but when speaking of self defence it's these instructors and their methods that comes to my mind.

http://peterconsterdine.com/portal/
http://www.geoffthompson.com/

 

[Marcy Shoberg]

Ok, here's what I've learned so far:
1) I need to put some explanation on my website of what all I've studied besides traditional martial art. It's a sad thing indeed that the general public thinks martial arts credentials are self-defense credentials. But, it's also an issue that many martial arts and self-defense people think LEO training is necessary to defend ones civilian body.
2) I'm overly sensitive when posting late at night.
3) I might benefit from more knowledge of the difference between JJ and BJJ.

But, I guess I'm either overly semantic or thick headed because I don't get the answer to my original question. Someone said earlier that Shotokan is an offensive art. What about Shotokan makes it so? I always thought the essence of a martial art was it's techniques. But, possibly all teachers of Shotokan teach a philosophy of do not wait until you are in danger to defend yourself and that is what makes it offensive? I mean no disrespect to Shotokan, but chose it as an example because someone mentioned it earlier. But, someone else said something that implied to me how much permanent damage the techniques of the art cause to an attacker might define it as offensive or defensive.

Let's take Krav Maga, which is not an art but rather an integrated, tactical self-defense and combat system. One could say that, as self-defense, it is offensive because it teaches immediate counterattacks as necessary to neutralize the threat. I would say someone who says this is wrong. That is not "offensive" but "logical" because until you cause the person to think about something else besides hurting you, you are not finished defending yourself. As combat (defined as a fight between two willing participants where the rules are only in their own minds) it has offensive defensive components, as does any fight, sport or other.

Thanks for your help. Sorry for sounding like a wuss last night.

 

[jks9199]

Ok, here's what I've learned so far:
1) I need to put some explanation on my website of what all I've studied besides traditional martial art. It's a sad thing indeed that the general public thinks martial arts credentials are self-defense credentials. But, it's also an issue that many martial arts and self-defense people think LEO training is necessary to defend ones civilian body.
2) I'm overly sensitive when posting late at night.
3) I might benefit from more knowledge of the difference between JJ and BJJ.

But, I guess I'm either overly semantic or thick headed because I don't get the answer to my original question. Someone said earlier that Shotokan is an offensive art. What about Shotokan makes it so? I always thought the essence of a martial art was it's techniques. But, possibly all teachers of Shotokan teach a philosophy of do not wait until you are in danger to defend yourself and that is what makes it offensive? I mean no disrespect to Shotokan, but chose it as an example because someone mentioned it earlier. But, someone else said something that implied to me how much permanent damage the techniques of the art cause to an attacker might define it as offensive or defensive.

Let's take Krav Maga, which is not an art but rather an integrated, tactical self-defense and combat system. One could say that, as self-defense, it is offensive because it teaches immediate counterattacks as necessary to neutralize the threat. I would say someone who says this is wrong. That is not "offensive" but "logical" because until you cause the person to think about something else besides hurting you, you are not finished defending yourself. As combat (defined as a fight between two willing participants where the rules are only in their own minds) it has offensive defensive components, as does any fight, sport or other.

Thanks for your help. Sorry for sounding like a wuss last night.

I can't really answer your original question, because I don't understand it, either, as you pose it. Instead of answering in vague generalities, let me suggest you try to understand what they're asking you. Ask them to explain what they mean. Rephrase and repeat until you do understand. Most people will be very patient IF they really feel like you're trying to understand them sincerely, not simply playing games with them. Because, as you've already said, every art is offensive and defensive. Some have a more defensive orientation, like aikido, and others a more aggressive response, like krav maga -- but they all have offense and defense.

 

[monk64]

Some arts are more aggressive, say Shotokan. Other arts, are focused more on using counter-fighting, making it more passive at the beginning of a confrontation. There really is no hard and fast rule for this. Some instructors teach more aggressive systems with more passive principles and vice versa.

There are systems that teach offensive techniques - i.e., how to approach and attack someone.

There are others where such things would never be taught and from start to finish it's a response-to-aggression system.

I think it's hard to pigeon-hole most arts into strictly one or the other, because in many cases you can use the techniques for multiple purposes.

 

[Dirty Dog]

Ok, here's what I've learned so far:
1) I need to put some explanation on my website of what all I've studied besides traditional martial art. It's a sad thing indeed that the general public thinks martial arts credentials are self-defense credentials. But, it's also an issue that many martial arts and self-defense people think LEO training is necessary to defend ones civilian body.

I would counter by saying that it's a sad thing that it's possible to earn martial arts credentials without learning self defense applications for the skills (not just the techniques) they've been taught.

2) I'm overly sensitive when posting late at night.

Aren't we all?

3) I might benefit from more knowledge of the difference between JJ and BJJ.

Not just JJ and BJJ, but the differences between various styles of Japanese JJ too.

But, I guess I'm either overly semantic or thick headed because I don't get the answer to my original question. Someone said earlier that Shotokan is an offensive art. What about Shotokan makes it so? I always thought the essence of a martial art was it's techniques. But, possibly all teachers of Shotokan teach a philosophy of do not wait until you are in danger to defend yourself and that is what makes it offensive? I mean no disrespect to Shotokan, but chose it as an example because someone mentioned it earlier. But, someone else said something that implied to me how much permanent damage the techniques of the art cause to an attacker might define it as offensive or defensive.

A martial art is more than just the techniques. It is a philosophy and an integrated system for dealing with physical (and mental) conflicts. If your idea (that is the generic 'your', not the specific) of self defense is limited to one step sparring with a willing opponent, than that idea is badly flawed. One step, two step, three step, free sparring, are all tools used to teach the concepts of timing, distance, attack, defense, counter attack.

When we teach a student to perform an inside middle block with the fist just...so... and the elbow right...here... what we're teaching is the concept of an inside middle block. The details (other than in forms) have to be adapted to the specific circumstances in which that technique is being used. The specific techniques, as taught to a strict standard, are just tools to help a student learn the concept.

Is the overriding philosophy of the art offensive (the concepts taught are intended to injure the opponent) or defensive (the concepts are intended to avoid or redirect the attack, without injuring)? I don't think there are any arts which are entirely offensive or defensive. I would consider TKD, with it's powerful, hard-hitting style, as being on the offensive side. Aikido, with it's emphasis on avoidance, redirection and an intent to NOT cause injury, is more on the defensive side.

I would have to agree with others, in that I do not think you can be an expert at teaching self defense, if you don't have real self defense expertise.

 

[Marcy Shoberg]

Thanks everyone. It all seems obvious to me now. When someone asks "Is ____ more of an offensive or a defensive art?" Then, the correct response is "What do you mean by that?"

 

[Dirty Dog]

Thanks everyone. It all seems obvious to me now. When someone asks "Is ____ more of an offensive or a defensive art?" Then, the correct response is "What do you mean by that?"

Odd... it's not that late. Only 8:21PM here. Is it all that much later where you are?

The only person who keeps asking versions of "what do you mean by that" seems to be you. Your question about the difference between offensive and defensive orientation of various martial arts has been answered several times by several different people. Each has given pretty much the same answer, but expressed in various ways since you keep saying 'I don't get it'. If you still don't get it, then perhaps you need to look within.

 

[Marcy Shoberg]

I respectfully disagree. It seems to me that . . .
Some look at whether the techniques can more easily be used to bring the fight to the other person.
Some look at how damaging the techniques are.
Some look at the mindset of the typical instructor.

Remember, too I don't commonly discuss this with martial artists. The people who commonly ask me these questions really want to know if they or their child will become aggressive in classes.

 

[Tez3]

I respectfully disagree. It seems to me that . . .
Some look at whether the techniques can more easily be used to bring the fight to the other person.
Some look at how damaging the techniques are.
Some look at the mindset of the typical instructor.

Remember, too I don't commonly discuss this with martial artists. The people who commonly ask me these questions really want to know if they or their child will become aggressive in classes.

Please don't take this the wrong way but I think you do need to discuss this with martial artists if you have had thirty years in martial arts and need to ask on here how to answer a question about whether a child will become aggressive,
Can I ask too respectfully, if you learnt Krav Maga out of a book why are you teaching it as your main form of self defence as it says on your website? I would disagree that you need to be a police officer to understand how to defend yourself but I do think you need an understanding of the environments, the warning signs etc that being actually involved in something like door work, police work etc can bring you. I don't think simply doing one and three step is going to give the understading you need. At the very least some training from a reputable self defence instructor would help.