What is "Defense" in Martial Arts? (Part One)

This clip starts with the idea that there is "no defense" in boxing and kickboxing. The Japanese phrasing Master Su used was 「Boxing? Kickboxing? [Gestures to Section of Chart dealing with Direct Attack Systems] 攻撃ばっかりなの、Defenseほとんどない」 ('Boxing? Kickboxing? kougeki bakkari na no, Defense hotondo nai') (Boxing? Kickboxing? It's all attacking, there's really no defense). Hotondo does not mean "absolutely," but it does mean that whatever the thing is, the quantity (here 'nothing') is extremely small, like the word "hardly" but probably even more close to "absolutely none" than "hardly none." Even so, settling on "hardly none" for translation's sake is not a bad choice. Perhaps a better interpretation at the time would have been "there is hardly any defense in boxing." And, a further improvement could have been, "there is hardly any 'defense' in direct attack systems." But I still stand by my original interpretation, for reasons described below, which was, "there is no real defense in [direct attack systems]."

I think that to really grasp what Master Su is saying here one has to think about the word "defense." Because the root of "defense" in English carries different connotations than those found in the Chinese, we are at a bit of a disadvantage discussing "defense" with Master Su. The word in Chinese and Japanese, 防御 (bougyo in Japanese) is a compound word, the first character of which (防) is explained by Master Su as meaning "prevention" and the second of which (御) is "control."

If you look at the etymology of "defend" (searching the net a bit) it comes from "defendere" out of Latin, which includes the idea of "ward off, repel, keep off, avert." While these are closer to what the Chinese word means than the other meanings of the Latin word in modern English ("resist, protect guard") there's still quite a gap (no feeling of "prevention" here, and no focus on "control"). At any rate, when Master Su says "defense" in English, you must consider that he's really talking about what the word "bougyo" means: "Prevention and Control."

Many viewers of the clip seem to assume that Master Su is focused on "boxing." However, in EOE boxing is an example of a "Direct Attack System." It's a little hard to make out in these clips, but the chart under the whiteboard referred to several times (with the red border), is a taxonomy of martial arts. Boxing is a "Direct Attack System." Direct Attack Systems are bound by rules, and are mostly sports-focused.

In a sport, the rules control what attacks are allowed. For instance, boxers are not allowed to hold you with one hand and then punch you with the other. They may not punch with both hands at once. They may not press down your arms with one hand and then strike with the other. If they miss, they must pull the arm back and try again "from zero." (In essence, the strike, once initiated, may not radically change directions.)

These are all fine rules so far as ring-fighting goes. Without these rules boxing would not be "the sweet science" - it would be brawling or something closer to actual street fighting or military hand-to-hand combat. These rules allow boxers to measure themselves against each other based mainly on differences in speed and power. Further control over tactical advantages is maintained by having strict weight classes, controlled time limits, a referee in the ring and a carefully prepared fighting environment. All these things come together to make the winner of a boxing match a person who has prepared very carefully for an environment where the unknown variables are limited mostly to the two fighters in the ring, more specifically what can each of them do to each other as the fight progresses, within the confines of all these rules and controls?

Direct Attack Systems are based in rules like these. The attacks are typically based in power and speed. (There is nothing wrong with these things and watching masters of them is often satisfying.) Additionally, because Direct Attack systems are easy for non-practitioners to understand, they are popular. It doesn't take someone who has trained deeply in them to see what is going on. This makes them big money earners, and explains, for instance, their prevalence in popular media like movies and why professional boxers make so much money.

However, Direct Attack Systems are not the all there is to Martial Arts! There are also Indirect Attack Systems. These tend to be more obscure styles (particularly in the West), including Hsing Yi Chuan and Ba Gua Zhang. The most well known example is the world's most practiced and popular "Martial Art" (though there have been no ring/leitai or MMA fighters who profess to use it): Tai Chi Chuan.

"Indirect Attack Systems" don't do the same things Direct Attack Systems do. I believe the underlying strategy driving Indirect Attack Systems is of the type found in military conflict, not that found in ringfighting. One strategic example is, "ground taken is not ceded, unless that would be tactically advantageous." For instance: If an arm is out in a strike that does not reach its mark (but is not overextended), it is not withdrawn but converted into a new attack (territory is not ceded). You don't send an infantry attack out and then withdraw it back to its starting point if the point of the movement is to attack (i.e., close with the enemy). You send the men further on in attack, or you keep them in place to consolidate gains. If contact with the enemy is made (arms are crossed), this is used to advantage and the attack is not declared "finished" because the opponent's "guard" is up. (Consider Master Su's treatment of my "guard" in the video, where he literally strikes me with my own fists.)

in EOE contact with the opponents arms is called "Crossing." In Indirect Attack Systems striking a resisting opponent usually occurs only when the opponent's arms are controlled, however briefly the period of control exists for. This is tactically equivalent, on the battlefield, to pinning an enemy down with one unit or weapon, and then sending in an attack from another angle, perhaps using artillery or air power.

So, the entire strategy/tactics/technique continuum for attack and defense, is very different in Indirect Attack Systems. One first secures one's safety, then attacks. For this reason, the idea of "defense" in the Indirect Attack Systems is more comprehensive than that found in the Direct Attack Systems.

In EOE we consider the hands to be weapons - and I think all martial artists would agree this is true. But, and I think I'm right in this, in EOE we consider the hands to be more dangerous than most martial artists seem to act as though they believe. For instance, why is it acceptable, even to the point of being considered a defense, to allow oneself to be hit in boxing or kickboxing? (Though, let us recall that Mike Tyson's use of flat forearms in front of the head was called a "guard" and not a "defense.") In boxing, being hit is routine, and so long as it is "only" one's arms that are hit, it is considered "defense." (Not to mention the famous "rope a dope" trick.)

EOE does not believe this is "defense." Sure, there are times when one cannot avoid being hit, and in thoses cases it is necessary to minimize the damage as much as possible. I do not believe EOE would say you should not use a "guard" if absolutely necessary. In fact I can think of times, when discussing surprise attacks, when Master Su discussed "protecting the face" in a manner very similar to what boxing calls "defense." However, the point of Martial Arts is to learn how to hit while not getting hit, not to get used to being hit or to practice "last ditch defenses." (After all, even a child knows to protect its face.)

Boxing (and kickboxing just the same, though with more allowed attacks), has no defense, in the same way we would not consider a bomb shelter a defense. A bomb shelter is a last resort when protection from attack is not possible. People in a bomb shelter are not engaged in defense - they are hiding and praying for their lives.

Regarding "dodging" or "bobbing and weaving" as a "defense": If someone throws a punch or a kick at you, and you merely move out of its way, then the opponent is free to attack again. This is not "defense"; it is merely postponing the inevitable. In EOE, if we consider ourselves to be in a fight, then we accept as true the idea that the opponent is determined to hurt us. We do not believe he will give up after "missing" or falling short on an attack. For this reason any movement forwards by the opponent is considered an attack. We do not consider it, therefore, good strategy to "dodge" or "weave" because this allows the opponent too much freedom - it allows the opponent to continue to attack us. Just as an infantry commander would not expect an attacking enemy squad to retreat back to its starting point when it failed to make contact with its enemy (assuming it was not overextended and therefore vulnerable), EOE considers the threatening extended arm (i.e., a weapon in "our territory") a threat per se and works to minimze any advantage it has. But first off, its mere presence in one's territory must be addressed. (Just as no country allows enemy fighters to cross into its own air space, or enemy ships to sail into its territorial waters without at least addressing the situation.)

For these reasons, I understand the EOE position to be that the "defense" we see in Direct Attack Systems is not "defense." It is a technique for minimizing damage in the case of "the guard" or is thinking based in the idea that the opponents attack is exhausted when it misses, and poses no further threat. In the Direct Attack Systems you get one choice: Attack or "Defend." EOE advances the idea that, with Crossing, we get to Attack and Defend ourselves at the same time. We are able to hit while we have rendered the opponent unable to hit us at that moment. The skilled fighter continues to advance until the opponent is controlled, just as the tactical commander seeks to control all contested territory and end skirmishing along its borders in infantry combat. As in infantry, dodging does not advance one's protection and being hit is specifically what we seek to avoid.