The Nature of Martial Arts

No martial art worth its weight in those who practice it is "defensive". The only exceptions I'm aware of are perhaps the asian style of aikido, where one seeks only self defense without harming ones opponent if at all possible.

To defend is to prolong defeat. Some would say the italian styles of medieval martial arts are "defensive". Why? Because they show it as a list of counters? All do. Because Master Fiore initiates most of his attacks/counters from crossed blades?

Fighting with only counter attacks leaves one vulnerable, even moreso in war or against several opponents. Only reacting to your enemies attacks is inviting disaster. It's also the nature of these arts, that although they are taught as mainly lists of counters, all of these "counters" are meant to be used as attacks as well. You can initiate them just as well as react with them, by seeking binds and crossings, using feints and falsings, and flowing to them from your attacks and handwork, and combinations.

Another example, partly my inspiration for this article, is the modern self defense art I study as well. It is the most aggressive primarily unarmed style I have seen, yet it is taught mainly as a large list of categorized counter attacks, because these give them a good context, and are more helpful to the beginning student. They, of course, are all excellent attacks as well, which is readily learned as you progress in skill.

Many say the medieval german styles are more aggressive, because they wrote down some initiated attacks, yet the principles and the universal truth of combat are the same, and the core of their writings are still the counterattacks. Should we assume that because the italians didn't write down specific assaults instead of the counters, that they fought only in reaction to the enemy, tempting fate? No. Counter attacks are for the very skilled and those who out of suprise, timing, slowness or necessity, or who are simply outclassed or fail to gain the initiative, must resort to. Which, happens to everybody, but is not the ideal way to fight. Martial arts, again by nature, are usually taught first as your savior for worst case scenarios, again mainly as counter attacks.

Another thing that spreads such impressions, are the individual "styles" of those who study. We can't see the personal styles of those who really used these arts, but when seen in the flesh by those who practice them now, beginners often make their judgements of the art by the method of the one they see putting it to action. If the practitioner interprets the art as defensive, when he puts it into action, his personal style of that art will be defensively executed, reinforcing the beliefs of those who have seen it who don't take it into account that it can be used with the same principles and techniques, but in any fashion the individual sees fit.

By only counter attacking, one more easily allows themself to be taken in by falsings, combintions, etc. I think this is another meaning behind the term used by so many, "If you are fearful you should not learn to fence." Not merely in fear of recieving and countering your enemies attacks, and fear of closing with him, but you should not be afraid to initiate your own attacks and combintions.

Another core principle of the martial arts is to end the fight and eliminate the threat your enemies pose to you as quickly and decicively as possible. Can you do that by fighting defensively? By only using counters? Not as quickly as you could with a well done attack.