Is there a martial art that is 100% defensive?ONLY blocks and evades.MAYBE some holds or locks but ideally just defense.>inb4 running awayYeah yeah I get it but still please.
running away doesn't work anyway, if someone's coming after you it's because they're confident they can overpower you so they're probably faster than you tooaside from that they can react to where you go faster than you can plan new routes since they're just following until you make a mistakeit's a persistence hunt, you need to keep distance the entire time, they need to catch up just once
>>212054I think that's the theory of aikido, you don't oppose energy but redirect it and become harmonious with it. Of course, that has waaaaay more to do with the founder's philosophy and spirituality than it does with fighting.IMHO, in general the defensive elements of any martial art are probably going to be the most useful in a real emergency. Striking defense is more important than striking, takedown defense is more important than takedowns, etc. The defensive skills allow you to either GTFO or get to a weapon or whatever. Of course, the only way to get good at those defensive skills is to practice and train against resistance, so you're gonna have to practice the offensive skills as well.
>>212065Thanks for the answer. I don't know much about aikido are you still allowed to "reach" for the opponent?I'm thinking of a style that never "adds force" to the conflict but redirecting blows tripping someone etc. are okay.Not completely decided on locks and holds.This is mostly a hypothetical exercise like something a 100% pacifist could use and never be accused of hurting the opponent. That this is seriously detrimental to practically I understand.>Striking defense is more important than striking, takedown defense is more important than takedowns, etc. The defensive skills allow you to either GTFO or get to a weapon Interesting perspective>>212058I guess the idea is to run to a more crowded place where crime isn't feasible.
>>212054fake having an asthma attack
No. It got beat by a guy who could do one attack and 99% defense.
>>212054>>212067NTA but he's correct about Aikido being a defensive martial art. Aikidoka's still aren't 100% pacifists though, in a class they will learn to perform some open handed strikes, infact half the time spent training will be performing these strikes while the other half will be grappling against them. Aikido's locks are also somewhat dangerous, not by design, but by the fact that if you are manipulating someone's joints while they struggle to resist something is likely to pop.I also disagree with what that other anin said about defense being the most useful aspect. In grappling it can be but it striking it is almost always better to have a strong offense and beat your opponent quickly. Remember, fail to dodge or block one punch and that could be lights out.Why are you interested in purely defensive martial arts?I know I developed an interest after I once had a young teenager try to pick a fight with me, I knew if I hurt him in any way the law would come down on me hard but I was honestly in the moment struggling with a way to stop him without absolutely destroying him (seriously thought that if I punched the little shit he would die because he was that scrawny).Due to the size difference I ended up just bear hugging and holding him by the collar and that was enough.It got me thinking though and honestly, I think that if you really want to ensure you aren't going to hurt someone you really just need to be way stronger than them.1/2
>>212054>>212065>>212067>>212075Martial arts are usually tips and tricks for overcoming opponents who are threatening and those often rely on some sort of gimmick as opposed to having full control. Aikido puts the full weight of the defenders body against the small joints of an opponent, Judo uses gravity and pivoting to do the work for the defenders, BJJ leverages multiple muscle groups against pressure points like the throat. All these things can go very wrong.Btw, never run from a fight, you never know how fast your attacker is and you could get hit in the back of the head.2/2
>>212054Even if there was one, you don't stop a fight and train yourself to avoid ever dealing damage to an opponent. At most, you've created a stalemate, at worst, you can never end a fight and a persistent enough asshole can and will beat you. A good offense is a good defense, ask afganistan and the concept of Jihad. If you're looking for advice on what to look into to actually train, train muy thai, or some other battle-tested martial art, realize the importance in philosophically understanding that even violence can be defensive.
>>212065>I think that's the theory of aikidoYou mean one of the martial arts whose founder told their students that they needed to learn Judo as well? Aikido and traditional Jiu Jutsu were useless without Judo.https://www.youtube.com/shorts/rTuebI-8lUI>>212054As for you, "the best defence is a good offense" (the original quoter is unknown, but many people believe it was George Washington). I've never heard of any martial art being exclusively defence. It does sound like a cool concept though.
>>212077No thank you I know what I'm doing.>realize the importance in philosophically understanding that even violence can be defensivelol>>212075>Remember, fail to dodge or block one punch and that could be lights out.Yeah but that goes double for you offensive dudes.>Why are you interested in purely defensive martial arts?Because it's irritatingly difficult to find info on that like I'm one of maybe 10 people in history who thought of that. All self defense larp is presupposing that you win including most the goobers in this thread but that's not realistic and steems mostly from ego. If you hit someone and lose you just lost all deescalating persuasive power for nothing. Same if you win and now he pulls a weapon or his friends step in or worse he takes revenge by harming your family and so on. I am interested in a system that absolutely does not implicate the defender in the violence.
>>212080>As for you, "the best defence is a good offense"I don't think that's true at all. Pic rel. But I am interested in a philosophical/hypothetical manner. A man who absolutely does not implicate in the violence. Be it out of christian pacifism or to shield others from retribution or whatever. You cam come up with a scenario that suits you as to why a man might chose not to attack someone back.And if you can't my points about presupposing victory apply.
I realize my examples might make it seem like I'm thinking of non resistance but that's not what I meant. I mean actually defending yourself just not counterattacking in any way. Efficacy does not factor into that everyone knows this by now. I want to know/discuss if something like this exists.Thank you
>>212086>Efficacy does not factor into that everyone knows this by now. I want to know/discuss if something like this exists.or everyone knows what is effective by now.I want to know even if it's inefficient.I don't plan to hinge my personal safety on such a system this is all hypothetical so sky is the limit for your recommendations.
>>212084>>212086No offence intended, but this really sounds like someone who has never fought. If anyone ever becomes a determined attacker, they won't stop attacking until they've won or lost. The guy who is defence only has to successfully block or dodge every time, while the attacker only needs to get lucky once. Even pro fighters can't competely avoid getting hit.
>kill attacker>100% defense against all future attacks
>>212088Like I said multiple times effectivemess is not a relevant factorhere.>No offence intended, but this really sounds like someone who has never fought.You're wrong but I'll give that right back if it is seriously impossible for you to engage with a hypothetical.>>212089Okay killer. You're very tough. Now for our discussion about a martial art that doesn't counterattack but only uses defensive moves.
>>212084bro you're already like three maybe four layers deep into the survivability onion if you are in a fight. the best way to satisfy "don't be hit/penetrated/killed" is to remove the threat's ability to do those things. any method that is taking away their ability to hurt you generally involves hurting them unless you are freakishly strong and even then a dude with a knife will still fuck you up. so really pacifism means being okay with someone whooping your ass if they are really dead set on it. sorry bro.
>>212091Great insight. A guy attacking me with a knife will harm me if I don't fight back?I'm sorry I know I sound like an asshole these last replies but come on. I get it. Everyone gets it. This isn't what's up for debate here.I was unable to find ANY info about a non attacking martial art on the Internet so i asked here. Just engage with the hypothetical please .
>>212092probably because a non attacking martial art is a martial art where you clam up and get beat on so no one fucking bothers, bro. use your fucking brain lmao.
Hakko Ryu
>>212090>if it is seriously impossible for you to engage with a hypothetical.Let me teach you some English then. A hypothetical is a proposition or statement that is being supposed but is not necessarily real or true. Nothing in the original post >>212054 is proposing anything hypothetical. OP (which I'm assuming is you) asked if any such martial art exists, and everyone else here has clearly told OP that no, it doesn't exist.>>212092>I was unable to find ANY info about a non attacking martial art on the Internet so i asked here. >Just engage with the hypothetical please .You couldn't find it because it doesn't exist. The same way I can't find any leprechauns willing to give me free gold at the end of a rainbow.
The best thing would be to learn actual fighting and then just not make use of the attacks>someone punches you?Block or evade like you learnt in Boxing>Kicks and knees?Learned that in MMA>avoid getting thrown or in a lock?Learned that in jiu jutsu.How you actually manage to break off the fight is the difficult part. If you can't frustrate his attacks long enough to make him disengage which is not realistic you need to create either an opening for running by throwing him for example or hurt him enough to discourage him.
>>212100People listed all kinds of martial arts such as aikido variations. The hypothetical here is a man who wants to defend himself but not attack.But hey just feel free to ignore the thread if you don't think it exists or don't care.
>>212105Go watch any Aikido competitions and tell me if they're not attacking each other. It always looks like an amateur judo competition.
>>212084>A man who absolutely does not implicate in the violence.But he is already implicated by being attacked... why is he being attacked? How do you break combat if you don't attack or don't run away exactly? What's the goal. You want the opponent to fight with no incentive to do so but... realize he can't hit you? >holds and locksDo try to get someone in a compliance hold and make them understand you don't try to fight them... It's in the people's head, not in your power.You say that this is a unique idea that you're one of the select few to have thought of it, but that's mainly because there's no practical manner to it.The best sort of defense like this would be to not even get to the point where punches, kicks and attacks are made, deescalating before.In the end, as an other anon said, just learn any art and don't attack. You do realize that if you're "maybe one of 10 people in history who thought of that", it's because nobody is interested in developping something that looks like what you're looking for?
>>212082Aight man I was almost sympathetic with your cause but now I can tell you're just a dumbass or trolling.Simply, What you're asking for doesn't exist, because it's not a martially sound and effective mindset. If you have found yourself in a situation where this kind of self defense is REQUIRED, then it becomes necessary that you present an actual offensive threat to the opponent, lest they just continue to barrage you until you inevitably fuck up, as many others have mentioned.Realistically, what if the person is incredibly drunk, on meth, unable to be reasoned with? "You offensive dudes".. jfc you're hopeless. Are you sure your pacifism isn't coming from the Ego? To be perceived as all "do no harm namaste no IMPLICATION"? I promise you that more than 10 people in history have thought of pacifism. And yes, intelligently leveraged violence can prevent much more violence from taking place.Here's a hypothetical to engage with, a game you can play with a friend. They have a sharpie and they just need to draw a line or MAYBE two anywhere on your body to win. You aren't allowed to "attack" them in any way that might "implicate" you're self. When you're feeling really confident you can switch out the sharpie for a pocket knife. (:
>>212054Pacifism is an untenable moral position. The only way you could justify pacifism is if you assert that no action could possibly be wrong. It's not wrong to steal, it's not wrong to assault or batter, it's not wrong to rape, it's not wrong to murder. Therefore, since those things aren't wrong, there is simply no need to oppose them with force. But by the same reasoning, using force to stop an act of violence could not possibly be wrong. Pacifism collapses.But the inverse IS true: regardless of whatever ethical system you prefer, if you agree that certain things are evil, then it can't be wrong to use force to prevent commission of evil. There is absolutely no moral imperative that requires me to stand by and do nothing when an evil person commits evil acts against me or my loved ones.At best, perhaps one could say that they personally either can't or won't use force to prevent evil, but in that case they have an even greater obligation to avoid the possibility of exposing themselves to the risk of violence, and should support the people who do oppose evil because those people enable them to outsource their violence and live the pacifist lifestyle they prefer.OP, I'm pretty sure the idea you're positing has used as a gimmick in a Hong Kong kung fu flick, like "the way of the peaceful warrior" or something, the magic monk that beats all the bad guys without ever raising his fist, but it's simply not borne out in reality.
>>212186based
>>212084>Don't be penetrated
>>212054I unironically think that the least offensive/dangerous martial art is BJJ
>>212054>Is there a martial art that is 100% defensive?The ancient Mohist kung fu of fortification and diplomacy. >>212067>I'm thinking of a style that never "adds force" to the conflict but redirecting blows tripping someone etc. are okay.Redirection and tripping require the application of force. >>212058>>>/xs/parkour lets you clear obstacles more efficiently than non-practitioners and can create significant space in a chase. >>212075Scholastic wrestling offers a good skillset for controlling people without injuring them. >>212105You need a better definition of what you're looking for if you want a more coherent and focused discussion around it. >>212247Chokes and joint locks make it higher risk than scholastic wrestling.
>>212247The one with arm bars and chokes? lol
>>212054You know if you learn a real martial art, dont be cringe and go along with it. Then you could just be defensive as you want, you dont need to throw the first punch in boxing, but it you inherently have an advantage if you attack first.
>>212054The fuck is Tarantino's problem?
>>212058>so they're probably faster than you tooYou are as observant of life around you as a blind rightwinger with alzheimer's.
>>214565>as observant of life around you as a blind rightwingerIn my experience living innacity libshits have absolutely terrible situational awareness on average.
>>214632Well I have outran people who could kill my ass.
