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:
TheSelfDefenseLady.com said:
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.
