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

[Cyriacus]

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.

We all seemed to be looking at how the Systems are applied in here. All Martial Arts function in a fight against another person, thats hardly relevant.

Will a child become aggressive in classes?
Martial Arts generally make people less aggressive.
And furthermore, normally the sorts of people who want to hurt Your child, are aggressive.

 

[Chris Parker]

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.

Uh, no... it may be better if you answered the questions here as to what such qualifications might be. I've asked a couple of times, as has JKS, so far to no avail. And we don't need to know everything you've studied, just what would place you in a position to think you should be, or could be giving information in this area... so far, nothing has really stood out as being particularly good. Especially things like your advice in the two-part "Who's At The Door?" blog...

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

Then I might suggest refraining from posting late at night. I notice you're also over on MAP. That could be interesting...

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

Er... okay. Not really sure of the relevance, other than you recognizing that there are gaps in your understanding and knowledge base. More knowledge is good, though.

But, I guess I'm either overly semantic or thick headed because I don't get the answer to my original question.

I'm not really sure how better to answer it... if an art has an offensive approach to combative situations and application of it's techniques, it's offensive (dominantly). If it's primarily defensive, then it's defensive. There really isn't much more to it.

Someone said earlier that Shotokan is an offensive art.

Yes, that was one example given. Honestly, I'm not really sure that I'd agree, but that's another argument.

What about Shotokan makes it so?

I believe the reasoning used was that Shotokan uses very strong stances, strikes, kicks, and blocking methods, making it a "hard" system. It's approach is very linear, and employs little in the way of evasive actions, which again can give it the feeling of being more offensive in it's actions. However, there is a philosophy inherent in Shotokan of "Karate ni Sente Nashi", or "In Karate there is no first strike", implying that the focus is defensive. It's a hard-edged approach, but it's defensive at heart.

I always thought the essence of a martial art was it's techniques.

Nope. They are the expression of the essence of a martial art, not it's focus itself.

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?

If they're teaching a philosophy of attacking, then they're teaching a different art to Shotokan. Note here that a pre-emptive defense is not the same as an offensive approach, but it's certainly similar. If all you think of as being a martial art are it's techniques, then you'll never understand martial arts.

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.

How much damage? Nope. The intention to cause such damage, on the other hand, the aim to cause damage rather than just avoid injury yourself, that is more of an offensive approach...

Let's take Krav Maga, which is not an art but rather an integrated, tactical self-defense and combat system.

Really? Not a martial art? Hmm.

One could say that, as self-defense, it is offensive because it teaches immediate counterattacks as necessary to neutralize the threat.

Hmm. No, I'd say that Krav Maga has an offensive approach due to it's philosophy of using an overwhelming response to an attack(er).

I would say someone who says this is wrong.

Out of interest, who said it? You seem to be presenting an argument yourself, then telling yourself that it's 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.

Uh... logic really doesn't have a huge role when dealing with self defence, or combative methods in general. Wrong part of the mind. But, for the record, I wouldn't agree with that definition. I'd say that you haven't finished defending yourself until you have managed to alter circumstances to the point where you are no longer being attacked, or in danger. That might be leaving the environment, it might be knocking someone out, it might be restraining an aggressor, it could be any of a number of things. If you've just got the attacker to think about something other than attacking, that could be rather momentary, especially in the context of the Krav Maga approach you describe.

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.

Where did you get that definition from? "Two willing participants"? How does that then feature in gang assaults? Or pitched battle? And "willing"? How often is the mugged victim "willing"? And you're really not getting what you're being told here. Yes, most, if not all systems will feature both offensive and defensive actions, the question is about the overall focus/approach of particular arts.

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?"

Uh... nope. The correct answer, if you are unfamiliar with the art in question, is to say that you're unfamiliar with the art in question.

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.

No. Whether an art is offensive or defensive is about the art itself, not the instructor, or the techniques.

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.

Tell them it's up to them as parents.

 

[MJS]

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?

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?

The first thing that comes to mind would be Aikido. If you watch that art, it seems, to me at least, that they let the attack come to them, and then they deal with it. Seems like you don't see them going on the offensive. Now, I'm not a student of Aikido, so I can only go off of what I've seen of it.

Other arts, such as KM, as Chris mentioned, IMO, too, would also be more of what I'd say offensive in nature.

 

[MJS]

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.

Where did you get that definition from? "Two willing participants"? How does that then feature in gang assaults? Or pitched battle? And "willing"? How often is the mugged victim "willing"? And you're really not getting what you're being told here. Yes, most, if not all systems will feature both offensive and defensive actions, the question is about the overall focus/approach of particular arts.

I view fighting and SD as 2 different things. Fighting: Usually the ego driven, need to prove something, mentality. Meeting at a set time and place. Thus, it'd make the participants willing.

SD: The mugging...standing at an ATM, someone comes up either with a weapon or without; making threats of physical violence. IMO, only 1 person is willing in that case, and thats the badguy.

Gang assaults....1 gang against another...I'd view that as a fight. A gang of punks attacking someone walking to their car...I'd say that'd fall into the SD category.

And yes, I agree....most systems include a mix of both, offensive/defensive.

 

[jks9199]

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.

Which is a completely different question from what you posed originally...

 

[Dirty Dog]

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.

Perhaps the problem lies in your apparent inability to understand the difference between techniques and philosophy of an art.

And of course, the art has absolutely nothing to with the answer to your latest question.

 

[Marcy Shoberg]

Perhaps the problem lies in your apparent inability to understand the difference between techniques and philosophy of an art.

I would say arts don't have philosophies. Arts have techniques and people have philosophies. I look forward to other opinions on this matter.

BTW, thanks everyone for your help. Even though I don't understand exactly what everyone means with each reply, and I can sometimes tell that not everyone understands what I mean with everything I've written here, this discussion has helped me immensely. The best thing it accomplished is that I understand the need to ad to my webpage my explanation of my self-defense "credentials." I'll post here soon, when I have it finished. Some of you will probably pick on me about it, but thus is life.

 

[oaktree]

Hi Marcy,
The martial art Xingyiquan is an aggressive art meaning that it moves forward, its offense is its defense, it does not yield and it is like a truck trying to drive through it's opponent.

Taijiquan rather follows an opponent's energy or attack, redirects it, using the opponent force against him. The theory is about giving, yielding,redirecting, sticking,following.

Understanding the principles on an art will show you if an art is one that believes more in being offensive over a more defensive art. Now just because one is more offensive or defensive doesn't mean one is more or less violent than another or a defensive art can not strike first or prepare a setup, it simply means that the principles as to how each deal with force differ.

 

[Cyriacus]

I would say arts don't have philosophies. Arts have techniques and people have philosophies. I look forward to other opinions on this matter.

Not really.
Techniques, or Methods, as I prefer calling it, are subject to how They are applied.
But Youve already been told about that.

 

[oaktree]

Hi Marcy,

I would say arts don't have philosophies. Arts have techniques and people have philosophies.

If I as a Taijiquan practicer make a fist and throw a punch and someone who does Thai boxing makes a fist and throws a punch we both have the technique of punch.
The theory on how a Taijiquan person punches differs: At the 3:57-4.00 mark

Thai Boxing

Though both are punching the issuing energy differs. The underlying theory on how and why each art throws the punch differ. The Taijiquan punch is not meant as a jab, it is meant as a whole body/mind hit. I once asked my teacher what a certain technique does and its application, he said what does it not do?

Meaning if you understand the principle of the art then you can apply the technique as you choose, if you only know techniques you will be stuck only in a predetermine sequence. In other words, it is the diference of knowing the theory of a math formula verus knowing how to do only that particular math problem. You can solve only that problem, but knowing the math formula you can solve each math problem in that area of math.

 

[Chris Parker]

I view fighting and SD as 2 different things. Fighting: Usually the ego driven, need to prove something, mentality. Meeting at a set time and place. Thus, it'd make the participants willing.

SD: The mugging...standing at an ATM, someone comes up either with a weapon or without; making threats of physical violence. IMO, only 1 person is willing in that case, and thats the badguy.

Gang assaults....1 gang against another...I'd view that as a fight. A gang of punks attacking someone walking to their car...I'd say that'd fall into the SD category.

And yes, I agree....most systems include a mix of both, offensive/defensive.

Hey Mike,

The point I was making was that Marcy's definition of "combat" was rather limited and inaccurate... each of the examples I gave are forms of "combat", which went against her definition. I agree with the individual comments here, though.

I would say arts don't have philosophies. Arts have techniques and people have philosophies. I look forward to other opinions on this matter.

Then I'd suggest that you either don't understand what is meant by "philosophies", martial arts, or both. I'll try to explain...

A philosophy is a set of self contained and internally congruent beliefs and values. It is not an inherently spiritual idea, but a guiding concept that shapes and forms outward expressions. In the case of martial arts, each individual martial art has it's own inherent philosophy. That philosophy is where the techniques come from, and dictate not only what is included, but what is excluded, as well as how such techniques are performed.

The philosophy itself can come from a range of influences, such as social, political, mechanical, spiritual, ideological, and many more. For example, Aikido's philosophy is largely influenced by Ueshiba's experiences in war, as well as the concepts of the Otomo sect of Buddhism, combined with the mechanics of Daito Ryu Aikijujutsu, and, to a lesser degree, Kukishin Ryu, Yagyu Shinkage Ryu, and a number of others. It's philosophy of avoiding injuring others (as extolled in Buddhism) leads to a large number of controlling, or pinning actions, taken from Daito Ryu, with a lowered emphasis on striking and damaging actions. Judo's philosophy is based on the ideas of strengthening the people of Japan, particularly the youth, which lead to the techniques being developed from Kito Ryu and Tenjin Shin'yo Ryu in a way that can be trained safely in a tournament fashion. Obviously, there's more to these, but this is just an example.

As you can see, the techniques are based on the philosophy, and cannot be separated from it. If you only look at the techniques, frankly, I'd say you've missed one of the most fundamental aspects of what makes each martial art unique. From someone who has only trained one, and isn't aware of the range, that's one thing... but for someone who claims 5th Dan in two separate systems (TKD and Chungki Hapkido), as well as having learnt Krav Maga (from a book...), it shows a desperate lack of understanding.

BTW, thanks everyone for your help. Even though I don't understand exactly what everyone means with each reply, and I can sometimes tell that not everyone understands what I mean with everything I've written here, this discussion has helped me immensely. The best thing it accomplished is that I understand the need to ad to my webpage my explanation of my self-defense "credentials." I'll post here soon, when I have it finished. Some of you will probably pick on me about it, but thus is life.

How about you start by telling us here? At the moment, I'm seriously concerned that you believe you can offer far more than you actually can.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

Let's take Krav Maga, which is not an art but rather an integrated, tactical self-defense and combat system.

I'd say most martial arts are (or should be) "integrated, tactical self-defense and combat systems" at the very least, although they may encompass more than that.

I always thought the essence of a martial art was it's techniques.

I would say arts don't have philosophies. Arts have techniques and people have philosophies.

As others have pointed out, you seem to be missing something rather important about what makes a martial art.

Lets try a thought experiment. Suppose I were to invent my own "martial art" (Tonyisthebestever Jutsu) and teach a curriculum consisting of the following elements: kamae (postures) and footwork from Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu, hand-trapping techniques from Wing Chun, kicking methods from Olympic Tae Kwon Do, takedowns from freestyle wrestling, and weapons forms from Choy Lee Fut. What would I have?

The answer is that I would have an addled monstrosity that would almost certainly make students less able to fight or defend themselves than if they studied nothing at all. Any good martial art has a unifying set of principles (body mechanics, tactical doctrines, training methods) that ties together all of its techniques. (That's what people are talking about when they speak of an art's philosophy.) In the case of the techniques I listed for my hypothetical art, the underlying principles are wildly discordant and will work against each other.

When you understand the tactical doctrines and training methods for a given art, you'll have a sense of whether it can be described as "offensive" or "defensive". (Although I would argue that those are rather imprecise descriptors for an art.)


The question of whether training in an art will make a child more agressive is rather different. I'd say that the answer depends more on the instructor's approach to teaching, the child, and the child's parents than on the particular style of martial art.

 

[Marcy Shoberg]

Allright . . . I tap. Martial arts have philosophies becasue the people or group of people who decided what techniques to include in the art chose them for reasons.

Here I finally post my self-defense teacher credentials: http://www.goldmedaltkd.com/the-self-defense-lady/my-self-defense-teacher-qualifications/
In an ironic twist, I've decided that the question of "how qualified am I to teach self-defense?" should be answered by the question "what do you mean self-defense?"
Please no one tell me that everyone means the same thing when they use the term self-defense.

 

[chinto]

OK..You seem to have a complete misunderstanding of what self defense means. Self defense means the ability to defend one's self from attack. there are a lot of ways to go about this. However, in the end effective self defense entails both offensive and defensive techniques, doctrines and tactics.

For instance Okinawan Karate has both offensive and defensive techniques, doctrines and tactics with the strategies to supported by them. the practioner will depending on the perceived level of threat , and choose how to deal with that. Aikido tends to for instance, counter fight by entering and blending with the attack and countering. most Karate systems tend to evade, block and counter, or even attack first if they feel that the threat is one that can NOT be evaded and the optimum response is first strike. but practitioners in both arts may be more or less offensive, and their responses may be much more or less damaging by choice.

Self Defense is about survival. some times its running for your life, others its attacking with lethal intent. Most arts that are older at least and not overly sporterized in the way they were taught are capable of dealing with the person who is drunk and not really a danger, or the encounter where to loose is to die!

there is nothing in Krav Maga that is not in most martial arts, and actually less technique then in most martial arts. This was intentional, as it is a troop style. intended to give a limited number of techniques and be taught quickly to conscript soldiers and police and give them the basic ability to deal with unarmed combat situations. It was not intended to be used when dealing with a trained martial artist. ( you are not going to meet one on the battle field under normal circumstances.)

 

[Sanke]

Allright . . . I tap. Martial arts have philosophies becasue the people or group of people who decided what techniques to include in the art chose them for reasons.

I don't think that's quite it. The techniques weren't chosen to suit the philosophy, way I see it, they *are* the philosophy, expressed in physical forms.
I know it sounds like I'm arguing semantics, but I feel it's an important distinction.
It's not just the people who influence the arts If anything, I'd say the reverse is more accurate.



Sanke on the move.

 

[WC_lun]

In my opinion, self defense is training with the sole goals of awareness to not get into bad situations and if in a situation where violence must be used, to use it in the most effective and effecient manner as possible. Many, many, schools that claim to do this, do not. Usually a school trains for other quite valid reasons then try to meld that training into self defense. That dilutes the effective and effecient part of the equation. For example, a person who trains primarily to point fight in tournaments definitley gains skills doing so. He also gains body mechanics that follow the rules of that sport. So he relaxes after a strike or successful defense, or uses techniques which are great for points, like head kicks, but not so great in a self defense situation. He might freeze up if confronted with grappling or attack routines that aren't prevailant in point fighting. It isn't that he isn't skilled, but you will fight how you train because you have trained those things into your muscle memory and brain.

So you will probably get many different answers about self defense, but not all of them are equally as valid from a true combat perspective. The smart martial artist understands this, no matter from what perspective he has trained in.

 

[Tez3]

Allright . . . I tap. Martial arts have philosophies becasue the people or group of people who decided what techniques to include in the art chose them for reasons.

Here I finally post my self-defense teacher credentials: http://www.goldmedaltkd.com/the-self-defense-lady/my-self-defense-teacher-qualifications/
In an ironic twist, I've decided that the question of "how qualified am I to teach self-defense?" should be answered by the question "what do you mean self-defense?"
Please no one tell me that everyone means the same thing when they use the term self-defense.

To be blunt and because I can't type much on my phone, I can read all the medical books and attend as many lectures as I want but I'm still not going to be a doctor without the proper training. The basic question is, as it often is, can you fight? Can you demonstrably defend yourself against a proper attacker not the stuff we see on your website with your students nor the other stuff which is mostly from other peoples sites. As a woman there's nothing in your qualifications that gives me confidence you can teach me to defend myself.

 

[clfsean]

As a woman there's nothing in your qualifications that gives me confidence you can teach me to defend myself.

Wow.... that's just ... :jaw-dropping:

It doesn't get more simpler than that...

 

[Tez3]

Wow.... that's just ... :jaw-dropping:

It doesn't get more simpler than that...

Sorry, am working, on phone and anyway I can't be very tactful about self defence. Reading books and passing info on isn't going to do it however good the books are. One has to 'do' Krav maga not read about it, one has to be able to actually fight not just read about it or go on a course. No good poopoohing police officers or door supervisors experiences as what they do is real. I don't doubt the intentions are good and real but it's the practice that worries me.

 

[clfsean]

Sorry, am working, on phone and anyway I can't be very tactful about self defence. Reading books and passing info on isn't going to do it however good the books are. One has to 'do' Krav maga not read about it, one has to be able to actually fight not just read about it or go on a course. No good poopoohing police officers or door supervisors experiences as what they do is real. I don't doubt the intentions are good and real but it's the practice that worries me.

Nah Tez... I thought that one statement was just brilliant. It summed up the entire thread in one single sentence. Props!