Some questions about Aikido.
alan.haden
I would like to ask another question regarding Aikido and O'Sensi. In the
reading I've been doing about the life of O'Sensi and his development of
Aikido I have found some points I would like to discuss.
O'Sensi started by learning a lot of different types of Martial arts
including Aikijutsu, sword and spear fighting. After studying these to the
higher levels he decided to modify them into his own style, which as we now
know eventually became know as Aikido. O'Sensi then decided to teach others
this new Martial art called Aikido.
The pre-requisite for training with O'Sensi was that the pupil had a good
understanding and background in other forms of martial arts. I read an
excerpt from an interview with Gozo Shioda, in which he justified the
hardness of the Yoshinkan style by saying something similar to "When we
trained with O'Sensi we all had prior martial arts training and we were all
extremely fit" He also said that pre-war O'Sensi's Aikido and training was
very hard and aggressive, although as he got older it changed by relying
less on strength. He said that O'Sensi didn't need to rely on strength as
over the years he'd acquired great enough skill and technique that he no
longer needed to use his strength. So this is the reason that Yoshinkan is
hard, because we dont have the skill of O'Sensi.
After reading this and then reading about O'Sensi developed Aikido into a
softer style as he got older it made me ask a few questions. I would like to
ask them to this NG and see what others think.
I would like to know why people who train in Aikido nowadays feel that they
don't need an understanding of other martial arts, or perhaps they do ?
Also why people believe, if in fact they do, that they can emulate the soft
flowing style of O'Sensi when they don't have his martial arts background or
skill?
Are all styles soft like this or are some hard still?
After doing a lot of research into Aikido which includes reading and
practising and observing different types of Aikido I have come to these
conclusions. I think it strange that people only ever learn Aikido and not
try other styles. I also think it strange that Aikidoka are on the whole
idealistic purists. By this I mean they think that there's no need to learn
to punch and kick as Aikido can neutralise any attacks, even when O'Sensi
said that 80% of Aikido is Atemi, and that Aikido and O'Sensi are the
ultimate in Martial arts.
I have decided to study Wado ryu Karate as my core art and then learn some
Aikido to complement it. At the moment the only Aikido club I have near to
me is a traditional club, so I will wait until I finish University and move
somewhere that has a more modern club, then I will learn Aikido again.
Whilst O'Sensi did a lot of good things for the martial arts I am not sure
that everything he did was great, but I could be wrong also.
I personally prefer Tomiki Aikido. After all it moves with the times and is
very effective. It has Randori so that you can get used to full speed
attacks and a good syllabus to follow.
There is a great article discussing kata and the Tomiki style called 'Kata
Training and Aikido' by Diane Skoss on the Aikiweb, check it out.
The main reason I think it is the best Aikido is that Kenji Tomiki trained
with not only O'Sensi but also the founder of Judo, this unique position
gave him an even better less biased idea of how Aikido should progress. He
trained with O'Sensi for the longest of all his pupils and reached 10th
dan. He was a clever man and it's a shame his talent is not given the
recognition it deserves in the Aikido world.
Let me know what you think and I look forward to your replies.
Regards
Alan.
Russell Eberhardt
<alan....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>I would like to know why people who train in Aikido nowadays feel that they
>don't need an understanding of other martial arts, or perhaps they do ?
I think you are labouring under a misapprehension, Alan. Many people
come to Aikido with experience of other arts. I had a few years
experience of Judo before taking up Aikido. My present students
include three Karate 1st Kyu, two Tai Kwando 2nd Kyu, one Judo 2nd
Kyu, a student of Kempo, and one of Win Chung.
>Also why people believe, if in fact they do, that they can emulate the soft
>flowing style of O'Sensi when they don't have his martial arts background or
>skill?
I don't think many do. Very few of us can train as hard and as long
as O Sensei did. We have full time jobs, family, etc. Some people,
however, who only practice very soft styles can delude themselves into
thinking thta they have good Aikido. Just as a Japanese sword gains
its strength and endurance from the combination of hard and soft steel
so a good Aikidoka must combine elements from hard and soft styles.
>Are all styles soft like this or are some hard still?
Not all styles are now soft. Try Yoshinkan or Iwama style. Either of
these will eventually (after many years training) give you a good
foundation on which to build the softer more flowing styles. If you
think Aikikai style is soft try training with Chiba Sensei!!
>After doing a lot of research into Aikido which includes reading and
>practising and observing different types of Aikido I have come to these
>conclusions.
..and exactly how many years training have you done, in how many
different dojos to reach these conclusions? You can't learn about
Aikido just from books.
>I think it strange that people only ever learn Aikido and not
>try other styles.
This is not strange. It is not true.
>I also think it strange that Aikidoka are on the whole
>idealistic purists. By this I mean they think that there's no need to learn
>to punch and kick as Aikido can neutralise any attacks, even when O'Sensi
>said that 80% of Aikido is Atemi, and that Aikido and O'Sensi are the
>ultimate in Martial arts.
Atemi is very important but its purpose is not the same as a blow in,
say Karate.
>I have decided to study Wado ryu Karate
Good for you.
>Whilst O'Sensi did a lot of good things for the martial arts I am not sure
>that everything he did was great, but I could be wrong also.
Of course, he was human.
>I personally prefer Tomiki Aikido. After all it moves with the times and is
>very effective.
Most styles are still changing and any GOOD style is effective.
>It has Randori so that you can get used to full speed
>attacks and a good syllabus to follow.
So do most other styles.
>The main reason I think it is the best Aikido is that Kenji Tomiki trained
>with not only O'Sensi but also the founder of Judo, this unique position
>gave him an even better less biased idea of how Aikido should progress.
Or maybe it gave him a biased view??
>He
>trained with O'Sensi for the longest of all his pupils and reached 10th
>dan.
I'm not sure that he did train the longest with O Sensei. IIRC Saito
Sensei also claims that honour. IIRC Tohei was the only student whom
O Sensei graded to 10th Dan ... but I'm sure someone will correct me
if I am wrong.
>He was a clever man and it's a shame his talent is not given the
>recognition it deserves in the Aikido world.
I think he has as much (or even more) recognition as most of his
contempories.
Regards,
Russell.
Peterborough Aikido Club
http://www.reberhardt.freeserve.co.uk/aikido
TO REPLY BY EMAIL:
Change nospam in reply address to iee
Sean
alan.haden wrote in message ...
> I would like to know why people who train in Aikido nowadays feel that
they
> don't need an understanding of other martial arts, or perhaps they do ?
Of the people I've met, some do and some dont.
I'm not really qualified to comment on the martial effectiveness of 'stand
alone' aikido.
Its worth bearing in mind though, that different people have different
reasons for studying aikido. For many people, martial 'effectiveness' isn't
a primary consideration, they are more interested in mental self-discipline,
relaxation, fitness or just enjoying training because its fun !
> Also why people believe, if in fact they do, that they can emulate the
soft
> flowing style of O'Sensi when they don't have his martial arts background
or
> skill?
It took a man of Ueshiba's remarkable ability to invent his soft flowing
style, but does that necessarily mean you need that kind of ability to study
it? I dont know.
A possible analogy: It took a man of Albert Einstein's genius to devise the
theories of special and general relativity. But millions of physics
students world-wide now study and understand his theories, precious few of
whom have Einstein's background or skill.
> There is a great article discussing kata and the Tomiki style called 'Kata
> Training and Aikido' by Diane Skoss on the Aikiweb, check it out.
Ok, I will, thanks. :o)
> The main reason I think it is the best Aikido is that Kenji Tomiki trained
> with not only O'Sensi but also the founder of Judo, this unique position
> gave him an even better less biased idea of how Aikido should progress.
He
> trained with O'Sensi for the longest of all his pupils and reached 10th
> dan.
Actually, Kenji Tomiki was one of several people who trained under both
Jigoro Kano and Morihei Ueshiba. Before the war the grading system as we
know it today didn't exist, but Kenji Tomiki was the first of O Sensei's
students to be awarded a menkyo-kaiden certificate. When the current system
was introduced, the menkyo-kaiden award was translated to 8th dan. Tomiki
sensei remained 8th dan for the rest of his life.
Another student of both Kano and Ueshiba was Minoru Mochizuki, who founded
the Yoseikan style (a lot of people confuse it with Yoshinkan, but its quite
different). I've never seen this style in the flesh, but from what I've
read about it, I think it might interest you (Alan) very much. Mochizuki
incorporated elements of judo and karate into his aikido, to create a very
'martial' style.
Unfortunately, your chances of having a Yoseikan dojo in your area aren't
great, but you never know your luck!
> He was a clever man and it's a shame his talent is not given the
> recognition it deserves in the Aikido world.
Indeed.
Its worth remembering that Kenji Tomiki studied directly under O Sensei for
a great many years, received the first menkyo-kaiden ever issued in aikido,
and was sempai to Minoru Mochizuki, Gozo Shioda, Morihiro Saito and Koichi
Tohei to name a few.
A great many aikidoka are vigorously opposed to the idea of 'competition' in
aikido, but the more broad minded among them manage to reconcile their
disapproval of the 'sport-budo' approach to aikido with some respect for
Professor Tomiki's experience and ability.
Sean
x
alan.haden
To start I would like to apologise if I have upset anybody, and also for my
mistake with the Dan grade of Tomiki. I would also like to make clear that
I am not attacking any style of Aikido or O'Sensi, I am just being
inquisitive and asking questions in order that I can understand better.
So to clear up what I said in my previous post I will try to expand upon
what I really meant.
When I spoke of previous martial arts experience I was trying to understand
what Gozo Shioda had said about O'Sensi. That being all those who trained
with O'Sensi pre-war already had a good martial arts background. Gozo Shioda
also said that the training was extremely hard and they were all
exceptionally fit.
The point I have difficulty understanding is, why if O'Sensi's students had
to have previous experience in those days don't they now?
To my way of thinking O'Sensi's Aikido is much more than that which is
practised today. O'Sensi was already a great jujitsu student/teacher when
started his own search for his personal martial art. He was obviously not
happy with what he already knew and wanted something else in a martial art.
He was deeply religious and blended this passion with the jujitsu he already
knew. By doing this he started to alter the jujitsu he practised. This
eventually evolved into something known as Aikido, which as we know was
continually evolving throughout his life.
If one of his Aikido techniques didn't work then O'Sensi could always fall
back on his Jujitsu knowledge and just smash his opponent with an Atemi.
This brings me to my point about prior martial arts training.
If your technique fails what do you do then?
I know most Aikidoka are of a passive nature but sometimes circumstances
mean you have to be aggressive or you could be KILLED. This is why I think
you need to train in other martial arts, in fact more specifically striking
arts. The reason is things do go wrong and you need to react, unconsciously.
You cannot do this if you don't practice anything else other than Aikido.
In Russell's reply he asked the question.
..and exactly how many years training have you done, in how many
different dojos to reach these conclusions? You can't learn about Aikido
just from books.
You don't need to have any years of training to come to these conclusions
it's just common sense. If you haven't practised how to punch, kick or
headbutt, how are you going to be able to if this happens in reality, it's
too late to learn then.
And I do feel this violence is justified in Aikido. For Aikido is the way of
harmony. They, the attacker, stepped outside of harmony and you busted
their heads back into harmony.
Finally my reason for liking Tomiki Aikido, the training is straightforward
and modern. It has a kata to follow and it keeps you extremely fit. They
don't concentrate too much on the spiritual side and it has a modern
approach, not afraid to break the mould. I have nothing against the
spiritual side but some people take it too far. As for Tomiki Aikido, I
really enjoyed it a lot and hope to study it again one day when I leave
University.
I did advocate violence earlier in my post but I would like to make clear
that I do consider myself a pacifist, but after all this is a violent world.
As I stated at the beginning of this paper I am not attacking Aikido I'm
just asking questions, perhaps they are not pleasant questions, but they are
questions just the same.
Anyway I am going to sign off now so I'll leave you with the words of
another pacifist.
'Non-violence is infinitely superior to violence. But the message of
non-violence is for those who know how to die - not for those who are afraid
of death. If one has not that courage, I want him to cultivate the art of
killing and being killed, rather than in a cowardly manner to flew from
danger.'
Mahatma Gandhi
I look forward to your replies.
Cheers
Alan.
Russell Eberhardt <reber...@nospam.org> wrote in message
news:3ae01958...@news.demon.co.uk...
miked
"alan.haden" <alan....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:yMSD6.610$991....@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
>
> The pre-requisite for training with O'Sensi was that the pupil had a good
> understanding and background in other forms of martial arts. I read an
> excerpt from an interview with Gozo Shioda, in which he justified the
> hardness of the Yoshinkan style by saying something similar to "When we
> trained with O'Sensi we all had prior martial arts training and we were
all
> extremely fit" He also said that pre-war O'Sensi's Aikido and training
was
> very hard and aggressive, although as he got older it changed by relying
> less on strength. He said that O'Sensi didn't need to rely on strength as
> over the years he'd acquired great enough skill and technique that he no
> longer needed to use his strength. So this is the reason that Yoshinkan is
> hard, because we dont have the skill of O'Sensi.
As a Yoshinkan Aikidoka, I would dispute your understanding of "hard" as not
being flowing or using more strength than skill. I don't know of any Aikido
of which this would be true. Supple, relaxed, flowing movement is
absolutely necessary - the movements simply don't work if you try to
"muscle" them. We have a woman in her 80's still active in the dojo - how
"hard" do you suppose it can be?
>
> I would like to know why people who train in Aikido nowadays feel that
they
> don't need an understanding of other martial arts, or perhaps they do ?
>
I myself came to Yoshinkan Aikido with a 2nd Dan in Taekwondo - I can't
think of a style that could be more different, but I do feel the physical
conditioning and, perhaps more important, mental discipline was very
important.
BTW, you may find our web site of interest http://www.yoshinkai.org/, and
especially some of the articles from our monthly newsletter
http://www.yoshinkai.org/doshinkan/doshin.htm.
Osu!
miked34
storys
"alan.haden" <alan....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:yMSD6.610$991....@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
>
> understanding and background in other forms of martial arts.
Now they often do not as there are more and more reasons for studying a
martial art than just martial fitness.
> longer needed to use his strength. So this is the reason that Yoshinkan is
> hard, because we dont have the skill of O'Sensi.
>
No. It is hard as you are supposedly still using the proper atemi etc. that
O'sensei used at this point in his life.
>
> I would like to know why people who train in Aikido nowadays feel that
they
> don't need an understanding of other martial arts, or perhaps they do ?
>
I do not formally study Aikido ( only so many hours in a day ) That said my
main instructor to my current level ( Shodan ) in my base art was also a
Shodan in Aikido! I found he entwined the two so completely that I would
learn a technique and think it one thing but later find out that it was some
other. I remember him teaching a thing we called a corkscrew. I'm sorry I
don't know the proper name. We couldn't get it with the Aikido footwork at
all. Finally he said just as the person attacked, "Female horse, straighten,
female horse,straighten, Kia" The technique then worked perfectly. By the
end of the class we were doing it with the proper footwork. One art had
helped us to learn another.
.............Tom.............P.S. beware of Aikidoka, not all of them are
just Aikidoka. Many are highly ranked in other arts. The one I mentioned
above was a Yodan in karate.
JSP
[snip]
>
> When I spoke of previous martial arts experience I was trying to
understand
> what Gozo Shioda had said about O'Sensi. That being all those who trained
> with O'Sensi pre-war already had a good martial arts background. Gozo
Shioda
> also said that the training was extremely hard and they were all
> exceptionally fit.
>
> The point I have difficulty understanding is, why if O'Sensi's students
had
> to have previous experience in those days don't they now?
>
>
> If one of his Aikido techniques didn't work then O'Sensi could always fall
> back on his Jujitsu knowledge and just smash his opponent with an Atemi.
> This brings me to my point about prior martial arts training.
>
I don't think he would have needed to 'fall back' on anything. I do not
think that he will have created from all that he knew an 'inferior' art, or
one that he did not find worked sufficiently well - and remember, other
martial artist would come to challenge him to see if Aikido was worth
studying.
Personally I do not train in another style. I am considering it, but time
is likely to rule it out. My reason, though, is not to fill gaps in Aikido,
but to be able to offer better attacks when acting as uke and to have a
better understanding of striking arts and the moves they might actually
make. I have enough confidence in Aikido that it will do the job (although
I might need some more practice first)
> If your technique fails what do you do then?
>
> I know most Aikidoka are of a passive nature but sometimes circumstances
> mean you have to be aggressive or you could be KILLED. This is why I
think
> you need to train in other martial arts, in fact more specifically
striking
> arts. The reason is things do go wrong and you need to react,
unconsciously.
> You cannot do this if you don't practice anything else other than Aikido.
>
I might be over ruled by more senior members here but..
I do not think this is a situation that need concern us. (maybe I am just
utopian). I think if you understood Aikido a little more then you would see
this too. To change into 'striking art' mode would be a large shift from
Aikido move. Sure, if the going gets tough then Aikido soon can include
atemis that will break an elbow/wrist/shoulder/neck, but that still flows
from Aikido technique. e.g. with irimi nage I can chose to throw the person
to the floor gently or slam them on their backs. I could chose to give a
strong atemi to their chin on the way up with a completely different effect.
I'm waffling now, but you get my point.
> In Russell's reply he asked the question.
> ..and exactly how many years training have you done, in how many
> different dojos to reach these conclusions? You can't learn about Aikido
> just from books.
>
> You don't need to have any years of training to come to these conclusions
> it's just common sense. If you haven't practised how to punch, kick or
> headbutt, how are you going to be able to if this happens in reality, it's
> too late to learn then.
But you do need more understanding of Aikido.
Simon McElvanney
If O Sensei had just wanted people who had previous martial arts experience,
he would have stipulated that. Also, when I failed my first shodan test (a
few years ago now), Chiba Sensei would have told me to take up another
martial art.
If you fail to 'pull off' a technique in the street and you have to make an
atemi (for whatever reaqson), do you expect to have to stand there sparring
with the guy for 3 minutes??? Personally I would just smack them in the
face hard (pardon my coarsness). Do I need to train in another martial art
to know how to do this??? I simply involes pushing my fist (or palm or few
other things) into his face at speed and with power (my centre) it will not
take decades of practice to learn this.
What If the atemi didn't work??? What if the guy had a jaw like the back
end of a bus and a body like a barn??? Would I then be forced to use a
technique???
I do teach my students how to attack properly but I don't ask them to spar
with gloves on and no contact like other martial arts.
Sean
alan.haden wrote in message ...
> If one of his Aikido techniques didn't work then O'Sensi could always fall
> back on his Jujitsu knowledge and just smash his opponent with an Atemi.
> This brings me to my point about prior martial arts training.
>
> If your technique fails what do you do then?
Something else, obviously. Another techique, run away, hand over your
wallet, foetal position and hope for the best. Who knows, its all
circumstances innit ?
> I know most Aikidoka are of a passive nature but sometimes circumstances
> mean you have to be aggressive or you could be KILLED. This is why I
think
> you need to train in other martial arts, in fact more specifically
striking
> arts. The reason is things do go wrong and you need to react,
unconsciously.
> You cannot do this if you don't practice anything else other than Aikido.
There seems to me to be an unspoken assumption in the above that striking
techniques are somehow 'foolproof', and where a throw or pin may fail to
work, a punch never will. This is not necessarily so, sometimes when you
hit someone it just makes them angry.
The dojo I train at is shared between a Shodokan aikido club and a GojuRyu
karate club. Watching the karate club train, I get the feeling that many of
the less experienced karateka think their strikes are very much more
effective than they actually are.
At least when one of my techniques fails to work in the dojo I know it
failed.
In a 'real life situation' it seems to me that over-confidence or excessive
agression are pretty likely to get you killed too. They may prompt you to
get into a fight you could avoid altogether, for example. A person who is
convinced his favourite killer punch will end a fight may find that what it
actually does is start one.
Someone with a fiery temper may find himself getting into fewer scrapes
having learnt to control it through meditation and breathing excercises.
Maybe for some, it could actually be the 'spiritual' side of aikido that
keeps them out of trouble.
I have seen literature (and websites) of organisations who teach unarmed
'self defence' techniques against handguns. What if someone thinks they've
mastered such a technique and actually tries it? Probably, they get shot,
thats what.
> You don't need to have any years of training to come to these
> conclusions it's just common sense. If you haven't practised how to punch,
kick or
> headbutt, how are you going to be able to if this happens in reality, it's
> too late to learn then.
Personally, I think anyone looking only to learn 'self-defense' would be
very much better off finding a good self defense course than studying any
martial art per se. There are a great many skills in 'self-defence' which
do not involve any form of fighting. To a large extent they're skills we
all learn in childhood, social skills, communication skills, etc., but
they're generally not explicitly taught in any martial arts dojo.
> And I do feel this violence is justified in Aikido. For Aikido is the way
of
> harmony. They, the attacker, stepped outside of harmony and you busted
> their heads back into harmony.
I could be learning how to 'bust heads', but I hope to develop skills which
will give me the option of not busting anything. Its going to take some
time: its much more difficult to learn.
Sometimes your attacker may be someone you dont want to hurt.
For example you could be a nurse working with the mentally ill, you need to
protect yourself, but you also have a professional duty to protect your
attacker.
> Finally my reason for liking Tomiki Aikido, <snip>
I like it too, Shodokan is very much 'my' style of aikido, for largely the
same reasons you like it.
I wouldn't go so far as to say its right for everyone, though. Some people
like to concentrate on the spiritual side almost entirely, and if thats
their thing good luck to them.
If someone is into tai-chi, its rather missing the point to try to persuade
them to take up full-contact karate instead, because its better for fighting
with, wouldn't you say? (Besides which, it might not be true anymore when
you're eighty years old with fifty years training under your belt.)
> As I stated at the beginning of this paper I am not attacking Aikido I'm
> just asking questions, perhaps they are not pleasant questions, but they
are
> questions just the same.
Of course. I dont find your questions unpleasant or offensive in any way.
Likewise, my attempts at answers are just my opinion. Its not even an
expert opinion, and I reserve the right to have a completely different
opinion tomorrow. :o)
Sean
x
storys
"Simon McElvanney" <simonmc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:h42E6.2795$991.2...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
>
> If O Sensei had just wanted people who had previous martial arts
experience,
> he would have stipulated that.
But he had this experience so I doubt he would say that it is wrong to have
it.
>
> If you fail to 'pull off' a technique in the street and you have to make
an
> atemi (for whatever reaqson), do you expect to have to stand there
sparring
> with the guy for 3 minutes??? Personally I would just smack them in the
> face hard (pardon my coarsness). Do I need to train in another martial
art
> to know how to do this???
Yes you do have to train another art to smack them in the face as you put it
if you want to do it effectively and with real power. Also there are much
better places to hit than the face & other arts teach just where these
places are and how best to hit them. Arts like some forms of karate teach
proper joint sequence and angular momentum such that size etc. have less
effect on how hard you hit. They teach proper technique. That said there is
nothing wrong with Aikido. There is however nothing wrong with knowing just
a bit more.
> I simply involes pushing my fist (or palm or few
> other things) into his face at speed and with power (my centre) it will
not
> take decades of practice to learn this.
>
Punching is much more than you think. No it doesn't take decades to learn
but then like Aikido other arts involve more than just one thing.
> What If the atemi didn't work??? What if the guy had a jaw like the back
> end of a bus and a body like a barn??? Would I then be forced to use a
> technique???
>
Perhaps a different technique? Perhaps you would use some other part of your
anatomy that can deliver a much stronger blow? Punching is a technique. Ask
a boxer about punching. He has names for punches that most have not even
thought of.
> I do teach my students how to attack properly but I don't ask them to spar
> with gloves on and no contact like other martial arts.
>
Maybe there is a reason for this? Maybe other arts use semi or even full
contact? BTW the gloves are not worn to protect the one punching ( in boxing
there is an element of this ) They are worn to protect the one receiving the
technique.
..............Tom.....................
storys
"Sean" <se...@deepMUNGEsoup.freeuk.com> wrote in message
news:9bqej5$3l$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> There seems to me to be an unspoken assumption in the above that striking
> techniques are somehow 'foolproof', and where a throw or pin may fail to
> work, a punch never will. This is not necessarily so, sometimes when you
> hit someone it just makes them angry.
I didn't get this from the above.
> The dojo I train at is shared between a Shodokan aikido club and a GojuRyu
> karate club. Watching the karate club train, I get the feeling that many
of
> the less experienced karateka think their strikes are very much more
> effective than they actually are.
These are the kyu belts you are speaking of, correct? Like any art the real
beginners are often at sea when it comes to understanding. They will have
their heads handed to them on a platter soon enough. You say Goju but you
don't specify just which style so I can't comment any more specifically than
that. Goju spans all the way from NO sparring to rather extensive sparring
of varying kinds so I can't really get into it any more deeply
> At least when one of my techniques fails to work in the dojo I know it
> failed.
>
And they don't? Perhaps they may not know that their killing strike failed
but hopefully they won;t ever have to use it for real and NO ONE really
thinks that they will get a fight ending stike right every time. I will do
it more often than a kyu belt but less often than a more experienced Dan
grade. If it doesn't work then we move on to other things that might. This
would range from an Aikido technique to a joint lock ( Jujitsu ) or a truly
brutal strike ( if called for )
> In a 'real life situation' it seems to me that over-confidence or
excessive
> agression are pretty likely to get you killed too.
This is axiomatic practically
> They may prompt you to
> get into a fight you could avoid altogether, for example. A person who is
> convinced his favourite killer punch will end a fight may find that what
it
> actually does is start one.
>
Not if he is a properly taught person. He will have been taught to avoid
fights in the first place. Aikido is not the only art to seek to avoid its
practical use as much as and when possible. This is why every karate kata
starts with a block.
>
> I have seen literature (and websites) of organisations who teach unarmed
> 'self defence' techniques against handguns. What if someone thinks
they've
> mastered such a technique and actually tries it? Probably, they get shot,
> thats what.
>
These are for when you are in a situation where you are going to be
shot/killed anyway & trying to disarm etc isn't going to make matters any
worse than they are now. IF you look at them closely you can see that they
will only work against an idiot who doesn't really know what he is doing to
begin with. A person who knows what they are doing will never come close
enough for you to do anything anyway & you are dead before you start.
> Sometimes your attacker may be someone you dont want to hurt.
> For example you could be a nurse working with the mentally ill, you need
to
> protect yourself, but you also have a professional duty to protect your
> attacker.
>
Virtually any striking art worth its salt gives options like this. When
talking to students ( kyu belts I use the example of Great Aunt Harriet who
is rich and who has mentioned you in her will & who has just entered your
living room pursed lips ready to plant a wet one on you. What technique do
you use & how does it compare to what you might do if you are jumped in a
dark alley.
...................Tom...........................
alan.haden
Before I begin, I would like to make clear my reasons for writing these
posts. I am really just asking questions in order to help myself and others
understand the fascinating art of Aikido. I am not attacking anyone or
anything, I'm just questioning everything that is said in order to
understand.
From reading your replies so far it appears to me as if some Aikidoka don't
really understand other forms of martial
arts. For example take a look at a selection of replies from members of the
NG below.
Simon says:
'If you fail to 'pull off' a technique in the street and you have to make an
atemi (for whatever reason), do you expect to have to stand there sparring
with the guy for 3 minutes??? Personally I would just smack them in the
face hard (pardon my coarseness). Do I need to train in another martial art
to know how to do this???'
JSP says:
'I don't think he would have needed to 'fall back' on anything. I do not
think that he will have created from all that he knew an 'inferior' art, or
one that he did not find worked sufficiently well - and remember, other
martial artist would come to challenge him to see if Aikido was worth
studying.'
These replies suggest to me that some practitioners of Aikido believe it's a
superior Martial art. As it has no strikes or kicks people seem to believe
it's the only defensive art. I'm sure that if you had to use your Aikido in
a true life situation it would not be as passive as we are led to believe.
With the fear and adrenaline flowing I'm sure Aikidoka would do as much or
little damage as someone trained in the striking arts.
Below is a selection of observations to support what I've been trying to
say. These comments were made by Eric Sotnak who wrote the 'Aikido Primer'.
'Aikidoists frequently have a very poor understanding of atemi (literally
"striking the body" - usually, a strike delivered for the purposes of
setting the attacker up for application of a technique). I have seen very
high level Aikido instructors demonstrate a technique in which a single
atemi strike is delivered , thereby "ending the fight." This both
overestimates the ability of the vast majority of Aikidoists to deliver
effective atemi, and underestimates the ability of most attackers to
withstand such atemi. To be fair, I should mention that many practitioners
of karate are guilty of the same error.'
'Practitioners of Aikido sometimes exhibit a kind of moral smugness,
asserting that only Aikido among all martial arts permits one to defend
oneself without doing serious or permanent injury to an attacker. To defend
against an attack using punches and kicks is seen as barbaric, and as in
every case excessive use of force. As any aikidoist should know, however,
Aikido techniques avoid injuring an attacker only in the ideal case.'
' Many Aikidoists do not realise that the most commonly practised striking
attacks in Aikido are modelled on attacks with a sword, and would not be
especially effective as empty hand attacks. In addition, Aikidoists
frequently continue to deliver their attacks slowly, even when they are
working with advanced practitioners. In order to help one's partner improve,
one should gradually increase the speed and power of one's attacks so that
one's partner learns to deal effectively with them. Instead, one frequently
sees attacks in Aikido dojo that are sad parodies of what would be
realistic. This would not be so bad were it not that some of these same
practitioners do not hesitate to pronounce authoritatively on what "real
life" attackers will and will not do.'
This is just a small selection of what is written on Mr Sotnak's website.
Mr Sotnak is a high level Aikidoka and he appears to be suggesting the study
of other martial arts would be of great benefit for the Aikido practitioner.
In Traditional Karate magazine Volume 13 issue 6 (Feb 2000) Professor Rick
Clark said the following:
'Essentially, all martial arts are the one and the same; they just place
their emphasis on techniques at different points in your training' he goes
on to say 'There is no such thing as the ultimate martial art: each has it's
own deficiences inherent in the style. A karate student for instance, will
be deficient in nage waza (Throwing techniques) and kansetsu waza (joint
locking techniques) and can therefore benifit from a study of Ju jitsu. An
Aikido student, though proficient in kansetsu waza, will be lacking in atemi
waza (striking tecniques) and can benifit from a study of a percussive art,
including Karate.'
From my research I have come to the following conclusions. As Professor
Rick Clark says ''Essentially, all martial arts are the one and the same;'
so we should all be trying to understand each others arts, not saying mine
is better or I don't think 'I don't think he would have needed to 'fall
back' on anything.
Aikido is 'The way of Harmony' but from the posts I have read it seems that
most Aikidoka have still not fully understood this.
By claiming one art is better perhaps even superior to another are we not
being a little egotistical/competetive. This is not 'The way of Harmony'
this is 'The way of Elitism'. O'Sensi said competition was bad yet a lot of
his practicioners are being competetive in the way they think and act. This
is why I am confused, because it all seems very contradictiory.
Wado ryu Karate means 'The way of peace and Harmony', Ju jitsu is the gentle
art. We are all trying to get to the same destination, it's just we are
using different paths. Anyway I will finish for now, I hope someone can help
me with my questions.
I look forward to your replies.
Cheers
Alan.
David Harvey
I don't know if you are a troll or not, but may I suggest it is in the
"doing" and not in theorising about it. just make your choice, whatever the
martial art, and do it.
Did you ever see the bathtub scene in the old spaghetti wesetern movie, "The
Good, The Bad and the Ugly"?
All this talking is just going to confuse and discourage any newcomers.
Find a dojo you like. Go for it. Don't talk.
Cheers.
--
David Harvey (in Sydney, Australia)
geda...@yahoo.com
http://www.gedanate.com/aikido.htmlnews:gpbE6.157$jh4....@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
Sean
alan.haden wrote in message ...
> In Traditional Karate magazine Volume 13 issue 6 (Feb 2000) Professor Rick
> Clark said the following:
Something I've always wondered about Professor Clark, where is he a
professor, and what is he a professor of ? Is there a university somewhere
with a professorial chair in Ju Jitsu, or is he a professor of something
else ? (Or does his 'Professor' status have the same validity as Professor
Yaffle's ?)
> Aikido is 'The way of Harmony' but from the posts I have read it seems
that
> most Aikidoka have still not fully understood this.
What, you expected profound understanding and wisdom?
On Usenet !? Tee hee. :o)
> By claiming one art is better perhaps even superior to another are we not
> being a little egotistical/competetive.
I haven't seen anyone in this forum claiming that at all.
People study aikido because they think its best *for them*, and if you ask
they'll try to explain why they feel this way. Thats not the same as trying
to say which is better for anyone else.
> This is why I am confused,
> because it all seems very contradictiory.
Thats what comes of too much reading and talking about it without
getting into the dojo and having a go.
Sean
x
David Harvey
Sydney, we used to have an elderly male student -- I'll call him Billy, to
protect his identity.
Billy was very keen on Aikido, and had the most extensive library of
books on Aikido that I have ever seen. He had books by every famous Master
of the art, books that were rare and out of print. many books that i had
never seen before or since...
And Billy would come and train with us for a few weeks, drop out for a
few months, come back again for a couple of weeks, go for a few months and
so on. He never got beyond white belt because he never learned anything.
If you showed him a technique, he would stop proceedings by announcing
grandly; "But Master So-and-So says this..."
He didn't want to learn anything, because in his own mind he already knew
everything.
Eventually, I asked him not to come back.
After all, what could any of us mere mortals teach this guy?
The trick is to DO IT, not talk about it.
alan.haden
No I am not a troll, I am just an inquisitive martial artist.
Is it wrong to ask questions, I don't think so?
Surely this is the way we learn?
I don't think questioning the art of Aikido will confuse and discourage any
newcomers, come on David give them some credit. It will help them understand
what Aikido is and make the correct decision. A NG is for discussions about
a particular subject, I am just discussing the art of Aikido and addressing
some of the contradictions I see in it's philosophy and practice.
It can only be a good thing to question, like I said, this is how we learn.
Yes, it's true that we also need to practice in order to learn as well,
otherwise we are only theorising as you quite rightly pointed out. But the
trouble with just doing a martial art, or anything come to think of it, is
that it can become somewhat like a cult. The leader is given/earns a black
belt/hakama and then all of his disciples/students usually take everything
said as gospel. And if you throw in some eastern philosophy and mysticism
about the energy force then you have most westerners following everything
you say blindly, this is not good.
As a society we don't question enough, this is why the world is like it is.
People wasting their lives on the internet, watching TV basically living
their lives through others. People do need to question things. Orwell was
right 'TV is the Opium of the masses', and now it appears to apply to the
web as well.
Remember an unexamined life is not worth living. Questioning things is good,
but like you say we need also to have the practical side too.
In a previous post I said that some martial arts have given way to dogmatic
and fundamentalist followings, just like some religions. This is wrong, we
don't want a martial art to be like a religion do we, after all a martial
art is an art form. And as we all know an artist needs to be free to express
their creativity, how can this happen if we are not even given the freedom
to question things.
We need to and must question things in order to be sure we are doing the
right thing. It is not wrong to ask questions. The only thing wrong with
questioning things is we may not like the answers we get.
Anyways I'll leave you with a couple of my favourite quotes.
"Follow me and you will lose yourself; but follow yourself, and you will
find both yourself, and me."
Jesus Christ.
"Freedom is a road seldom travelled by the multitude"
Chuck D.
Sean
storys wrote in message ...
> > I get the feeling that many of the less experienced karateka
> > think their strikes are very much more
> > effective than they actually are.
>
> These are the kyu belts you are speaking of, correct? Like any art the
real
> beginners are often at sea when it comes to understanding. They will have
> their heads handed to them on a platter soon enough. You say Goju but you
> don't specify just which style so I can't comment any more specifically
than
> that. Goju spans all the way from NO sparring to rather extensive sparring
> of varying kinds so I can't really get into it any more deeply
I didn't realise there were different styles within Goju Ryu, but theres no
need to get in more deeply, I take your point so I'll leave it there.
Incidentally, our dojo wall has pictures of Morihei Ueshiba, Kenji Tomiki
and Chojun Miyagi hanging up side by side. Its great fun watching visiting
aikidoka trying to work out who the 'third man' is when they're too
embarassed to ask in case they ought to know. :o)
> > In a 'real life situation' it seems to me that over-confidence
> > or excessive agression are pretty likely to get you killed too.
> This is axiomatic practically
Indeed. It doesn't hurt to state the obvious though. :o)
> > I have seen literature (and websites) of organisations who teach unarmed
> > 'self defence' techniques against handguns. <snip>
> These are for when you are in a situation where you are going
> to be shot/killed anyway & trying to disarm etc isn't going to
> make matters any worse than they are now.
That is an assessment that isn't so easy to make.
There are real courses, for people who may actually face that situation (I'm
happy to say I'm *not* such a person), and I believe they focus very much
more on psychology than on any physical technique. The object isn't to
retain your wallet, pride or dignity, its to survive.
And then there are muppets in dogi who think they're batman.
Nothing wrong with that, its all good clean fun, just dont try this at home
kids!
> Virtually any striking art worth its salt gives options like this. When
> talking to students ( kyu belts I use the example of Great Aunt Harriet
who
> is rich and who has mentioned you in her will & who has just entered your
> living room pursed lips ready to plant a wet one on you. What technique do
> you use & how does it compare to what you might do if you are jumped in a
> dark alley.
Nice one.
(Which kata teaches you to pucker up and think of the money? :o)
Sean
x
alan.haden
Fair enough point about Billy although I don't really understand why you
have told us this story.
I suppose if you read lots of books and just talk about them you won't
progress. This is common sense.
It always seems to be the case that the people with the best equipment or
most books make very little progress.
'Those who speak do not know, those who know do not speak'
Zen quote author unknown.
You said "If you showed him a technique, he would stop proceedings by
announcing grandly; "But Master So-and-So says this..." He didn't want to
learn anything, because in his own mind he already knew everything.
No wonder he never learnt anything with that sort of attitude.
Like you said "He didn't want to learn anything, because in his own mind he
already knew everything."
Well he was not questioning anything he was just regurgitating stuff that he
had read from books. When I previously spoke of questioning, I was talking
of something completely different. I said that we should question what we
don't know in order to learn. We should also formulate our own questions
(true this is difficult to do) and think for ourselves not just accept
things.
Sure if you at a club then you should respect the Sensei. But if you have
questioned everything carefully and done your research then you will be at
that particular club because it's the right one for you.
You also said "The trick is to DO IT, not talk about it."
Perhaps the trick as you call it is to 'DO IT and TALK ABOUT IT.', at least
that way you would have the balance between practice and theory correct.
I understand you no longer train, I would be interested to know why not?
Again I would like to reiterate I am not trying to upset anybody with my
posts. What I'm now trying hard to understand is why I seem to have upset
some people by questioning the Martial arts.
Aikido is one of the many great martial arts out there but like Professor
Rick Clark says 'Essentially, all martial arts are the one and the same;
they just place their emphasis on techniques at different points in your
training'. So why has my questioning of the various Martial arts upset
people. I just thought that it was interesting that Mr Clark and Mr Sotnak
have such a modern view of integrating the martial arts. I also thought it
would be a good topic to discuss.
Obviously some Aikidoist's are not so open-minded, this is a shame.
Hopefully in the future all martial artists will respect each other arts and
work together, this truly would be known as the 'Way of Harmony'.
I look forward to your comments.
Peace to you all.
Alan.
JSP
"alan.haden" <alan....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:gpbE6.157$jh4....@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> Hi there NG,
Hi again
> From reading your replies so far it appears to me as if some Aikidoka
don't
> really understand other forms of martial
> arts. For example take a look at a selection of replies from members of
the
> NG below.
>
[snip]
> JSP says:
>
> 'I don't think he would have needed to 'fall back' on anything. I do not
> think that he will have created from all that he knew an 'inferior' art,
or
> one that he did not find worked sufficiently well - and remember, other
> martial artist would come to challenge him to see if Aikido was worth
> studying.'
>
> These replies suggest to me that some practitioners of Aikido believe it's
a
> superior Martial art. As it has no strikes or kicks people seem to believe
> it's the only defensive art. I'm sure that if you had to use your Aikido
in
> a true life situation it would not be as passive as we are led to believe.
> With the fear and adrenaline flowing I'm sure Aikidoka would do as much or
> little damage as someone trained in the striking arts.
>
Although I can understand how you read it into my message, I did not intend
to name Aikido as 'superior', just as 'not inferior'. i.e. it could stand
up just as well. All arts are different, I know, and suit people
differently. Aikido suits me.
As for agressive use, sure, if the only way out was to injure the aggressor
then so be it. The techniques are there. As for adrenaline, then my aim
(maybe far off), as for many MA's would be to not be subject to such flow.
I have faced quite a few confrontations with possible hostilities, including
knives, chairs and baseball bats (not all at the same time) and have never
yet found adrenaline to be an issue. Calmness, focus. BTW, this has
nothing to do with Aikido - they all happened before I ever took up Aikido.
As for the quote from Eric Sotnack - Ithink there is a lot of truth there.
I have too seen Dan grades practicing with uselessly slow attacks. In our
club we always try to push the nage, once they have a grasp of technique. I
am 5th kyu (going on 4th) and we practice our techniques for grading up to a
reasonably realistic attack speed. (slower and more flowing for grading
though ;) )
John
David Harvey
It's on my web page -- a link (with photo) of the club I started and how I
walked away from it. Politics, and my inability to handle them. In a
nutshell.
--
storys
>
> storys wrote in message ...
>
no
> need to get in more deeply, I take your point so I'll leave it there.
>
O.K. Just be aware that some styles spar & others don't. All styles tend to
teach the real damaging strokes & practice them safely but NOT in sparring.
You are taught that NOTHING is certain & that if you find something doesn't
work you flow into another technique. The Ju in Goju refers to soft
techniques. As an interesting thing to do ask the Goju Sensei to explain the
JU part of his art to you. It is very like Aikido in many ways & the art of
Goju blends with Aikido very well.
>
> > These are for when you are in a situation where you are going
> > to be shot/killed anyway & trying to disarm etc isn't going to
> > make matters any worse than they are now.
>
> That is an assessment that isn't so easy to make.
> There are real courses, for people who may actually face that situation
(I'm
> happy to say I'm *not* such a person), and I believe they focus very much
> more on psychology than on any physical technique. The object isn't to
> retain your wallet, pride or dignity, its to survive.
>
Precisely. I've spent the last day or so trying to remember or come up with
a disarm for either knife or gun that doesn't involve some serious injury
for the weapon weilder. I cannot think of one. I hope never to face such a
situation but life as taught me never to say never B-) Thus I have learned
and I practice several
> And then there are muppets in dogi who think they're batman.
> Nothing wrong with that, its all good clean fun, just dont try this at
home
> kids!
>
And they never seem to last all that long. We used to have a guy who was old
enough to know better. He would go on ad nauseum about how he was going to
be a world champion ( we have a few who have won at the worlds WKA) He got
as far as green belt and then the hard work got to him.
>
> Nice one.
> (Which kata teaches you to pucker up and think of the money? :o)
>
Sanseru has a nice avoidance in it as does Seyuchin. Couple this with a peck
on the cheek and she is satisfied ( if you enthuse enough ). The point here
is to make them think. You don't have to always go for the gore. I grant you
that most Aikidoka would be shocked by the bloodthirsty humour exhibited by
most Goju stylists but every Goju person thinks in levels of response from
avoidance to outright attack. Just one example...My wife & I host exchange
students. One of them was from France & she was a beauty. She was about
5'10" and had a model's or a dancer's build. At school she had a problem.
Certain boys ( we are talking of teenagers here ) would come up on her from
behind drape their arm over her shoulder and their hand would just happen to
fall you know where. She asked my son who is also a Blackbelt for a
technique to handle this. His view is that any man who puts his hand on a
woman who doesn't want it deserves anything she happens to hand out. He
taught her how to use this arm for a particularly nasty kind of shoulder
throw that can really do damage to the shoulder and hurts like hell on the
landing. I came into this while she was throwing him for practice in the
backyard. When I got the explanation of why this was being taught I showed
her another much less dangerous way to escape the grab and how to warn the
idiot that this was NOT welcome attention & so on. Both what Andrew showed
her and what I showed her were Goju.
.............Tom..................
JSP
[snip]
>
> After doing a lot of research into Aikido which includes reading and
> practising and observing different types of Aikido I have come to these
> conclusions. I think it strange that people only ever learn Aikido and
not
> try other styles. I also think it strange that Aikidoka are on the whole
> idealistic purists. By this I mean they think that there's no need to
learn
> to punch and kick as Aikido can neutralise any attacks, even when O'Sensi
> said that 80% of Aikido is Atemi, and that Aikido and O'Sensi are the
> ultimate in Martial arts.
>
I was musing on this again during the day and thought that ultimately it
really depends on what you want to get out of it all. If you want to be a
successful street fighter, or win in no rules competition then you would
definitely need to cross train.
Personally I train in Aikido because I want to train body and mind. (I used
to play squash for the same reason but thought - this won't last). I do
want what I learn to be useful (in theory - in practice I 'd rather avoid a
fight than use Aikido to win it) but to be honest, even if I did end up in a
scrape the chances of it being a hardened and skillful fighter are slim, so
Aikido will just do me fine. (as would any martial art)
John
alan.haden
You said:
"Personally I train in Aikido because I want to train body and mind.(I used
to play squash for the same reason but thought - this won't last). I do want
what I learn to be useful (in theory - in practice I 'd rather avoid a fight
than use Aikido to win it) but to be honest, even if I did end up in a
scrape the chances of it being a hardened and skillful fighter are slim, so
Aikido will just do me fine.(as would any martial art)"
Thank you for writing back with your reasons for practising Aikido. This is
a great reason for practising Aikido and I think it's probably the same
reason that most people practise Aikido. I guess O'Sensi had a similar
reason for practising also. I talked in my previous posts about how
O'Sensi's early martial stlye was hard and aggressive,and then how he
changed to a softer style as he became older. I imagine he did this because
1) He was getting older and therefore could not rely on his strength so
much. 2) He was apparently extremely upset by the war, so I guess he was
looking for more peace.
He said that Aikido was for the whole world and for peace and harmony, I
admire him for the vision that he had. In order for their to be harmony in
Aikido I guess we all have to respect one another and respect our different
reasons for practising this martial art. John I like your reasons for
practising it's very honest and you seem extremely peaceful, I wish you all
the best.
I have learnt a lot about Aikido from each of you over the past couple of
days, thank you.
Regards
Alan.
Simon McElvanney
Yes, I would like to study 10 different martial arts and become highly
compotent in them but there is one thing stopping me. Time.
I just havn't got the time to be honest. The reason I chose Aikido (or it
chose me-not sure) is because I believe it is the quickest route (although
it takes a long time) to be the person I want to be and to do what I want to
do. Simple as that.
I would like to study other martial arts but I have too many other
comitments in my life. (At the end of it I don't want to look back and see
nothing except the inside of a Dojo).
Its like trying to tell someone what Aikido is. You can never explain
because it is many things to many people). You will only ever understand by
training.
Allan
Sean
storys wrote in message ...
> As an interesting thing to do ask the Goju Sensei to explain the
> JU part of his art to you. It is very like Aikido in many ways & the art
of
> Goju blends with Aikido very well.
It will be a contender if I'm ever looking for another art to 'cross-train'
in, although that is unlikely for the forseeable future. Its difficult
enough to find time for my aikido training, isn't it funny how the more you
study the less you seem to know! :o)
> Sanseru has a nice avoidance in it as does Seyuchin.
I've often seen these practiced, but almost always as a solo kata, which
makes it rather difficult for the casual observer to work out whats going
on.
> Just one example...My wife & I host exchange
> students. One of them was from France & she was a beauty. She was about
> 5'10" and had a model's or a dancer's build. At school she had a problem.
> Certain boys ( we are talking of teenagers here ) would come up on her
from
> behind drape their arm over her shoulder and their hand would just happen
to
> fall you know where. <snip>
> Both what Andrew showed her and what I showed her were Goju.
Can you hear all the aikido folk reading your story and shouting 'SANKYO!'
at their screens? :o)
(Not me though, as a shodokan type, I'm shouting 'tenkai kote hineri', same
technique, less catchy name.)
Did she manage to make herself understood by the teenage twits?
Sean
x
Sean
alan.haden wrote in message ...
> Is it wrong to ask questions, I don't think so?
No of course it isn't wrong. (As long as you're not daft enough to keep
interrupting someone whose trying to teach a class, which I see you're not.)
You're expecting a lot though, if you want enlightening answers from a forum
like this. All you are doing is collecting a lot of (often conflicting)
opinions from more or less experienced beginners in various arts.
> Surely this is the way we learn?
Yes and no.
In aikido, mostly no.
Its one way to learn things intellectually. But thats no help at all in
really understanding any martial art, least of all aikido, because you
haven't learned a technique until you perform it with your conscious mind
completely out of the loop.
Imagine I wanted to learn to ride a bicycle. I could read up on all the
different types of bike, and maybe choose which is the best one for me. I'd
ask pertinent questions on rec.cycling and read about the personal
philosophies of the greatest cyclists in history. Perhaps you could tell me
all about the physics; leverage, momentum, the gyroscopic effects of the
wheels, all that. I could spend years becoming a world authority on the
manufacture, mechanics and theory of bicycles.
I still wouldn't know how to ride a bike though, because you only learn that
by doing it.
At first it takes all your concentration to wobble along falteringly, but
after lots of practice it becomes entirely automatic. Your conscious mind
is no longer involved, while another part of you entirely gets on with the
business of balancing the bike quite effortlessly. Learning aikido (or any
other MA, as far as I know) is like that, except much more difficult, which
is why it takes so much longer.
> I don't think questioning the art of Aikido will confuse and discourage
> any newcomers, come on David give them some credit. It will help them
> understand what Aikido is and make the correct decision.
The best advice they can get here is where to find a dojo, some hints about
how to tell if its a good one, and encouragement to go along and try it. If
they dont like it, there may also be some advice on what else they could
try. From then on, they (like the rest of us) just need practice.
Information is not knowledge.
> But the trouble with just doing a martial art, or
> anything come to think of it, is that it can become
> somewhat like a cult. The leader is given/earns a black
> belt/hakama and then all of his disciples/students usually
> take everything said as gospel. And if you throw in some
> eastern philosophy and mysticism about the energy force
> then you have most westerners following everything
> you say blindly, this is not good.
ROFL, blimey!
Where on earth did you read that!?
Hang on a mo. I read something like that a few years ago, in a rather
comical christian leaflet about the martial arts being occult in nature, and
how basically any art with a hint of a spiritual dimension to it was
satanic. Thats not your angle is it ?
> Remember an unexamined life is not worth living.
Really!?
Do you have to be a geologist to bask on a rock?
Bad news for lizards. :oP~
Sean
x
storys
>
> > Sanseru has a nice avoidance in it as does Seyuchin.
> I've often seen these practiced, but almost always as a solo kata, which
> makes it rather difficult for the casual observer to work out whats going
> on.
>
This is NOT an accident. One purpose of kata is to hide things from outside
observers. Ask a practitioner about bunkai if you want to learn more. The
avoidance technique I was thinking of is right near the end where you spin
about into a double wrist strike. One bunkai for the spin is to move the
attackers hands ( G.A, Harriets? ) to one side as you step through and away.
They are practices solo as training in groups was forbidden at many times in
history.
> > Both what Andrew showed her and what I showed her were Goju.
> Can you hear all the aikido folk reading your story and shouting 'SANKYO!'
> at their screens? :o)
Do you mean that Sankyo is the same as what Andrew showed her? If it is I
wouldn't be surprised. There is a terrific amount of similarity between arts
that throw.
> Did she manage to make herself understood by the teenage twits?
>
Yes, She used what I showed her which was very similar in philosophy to
Aikido ( avoidance ) and then loudly expressing her displeasure. At this
point the teachers took notice & they decided that she just wasn't a good
victim. She did have the shoulder throw in reserve though and so she should.
..................Tom................
Simon McElvanney
Do you think the more striking based arts ever wish they spent more time
grappling, throwing etc?
Although we do not spar in Aikido, that doesn't mean we don't know how to
attack. If you can't give a real attack, how do you expect the other person
to really defend themselves properly. I certainly teach my students to
attack properly as I cannot stand to see a weak attack, because you might as
well not attack at all.
This wastes tori's time, uke's time and my time. What the point? Might as
well all go home if we are not going to attack properly and have a little
dance or something.
Like I said before, O Sensei never stipulated that all aikido students must
have studied other MA's. Would he have created another MA that he knew
wasn't complete???
Story said...
'But he had this experience so I doubt he would say that it is wrong to have
it.'
Of course O Sensei had this experience otherwise Aikido would not have been
developed - he's not suddeenly going to say 'Oh I wish I had never studied
these other MA's and just taken up Aikido (which didn't exist)'
Just because a racing driver knows how to drive a car well, doesn't mean
that to be the best racing driver he has to study the history of the car,
how engines are made, how metals are forged etc. He just gets in a drives
as best he can.
storys
> erm...just to carry on typing and contridict my earlier answer...
>
> Do you think the more striking based arts ever wish they spent more time
> grappling, throwing etc?
>
Since my name is below I'll answer this. Some so-called striking arts
already incorporate much grappling and throwing. It is true that this is
most evident in the more combative styles and to a much less extent in the
ones that are for fitness etc. However these techniques do exist and while
they are not always emphasised in the kyu ranks they are taught and
practiced later on. In my own style they start right at the beginning and
the Aikido based techniques a bit later when ukemi is more developed.
> Although we do not spar in Aikido, that doesn't mean we don't know how to
> attack. If you can't give a real attack, how do you expect the other
person
> to really defend themselves properly.
I'm glad to hear this as I find myself in total agreement. You must admit
though that it is a fault most generally ascribed to Aikido.
>
> Just because a racing driver knows how to drive a car well, doesn't mean
> that to be the best racing driver he has to study the history of the car,
> how engines are made, how metals are forged etc. He just gets in a drives
> as best he can.
>
No but in the crunch his skill and experience will not desert him just
because some fool cuts him off on the freeway. He won't give chase ( nothing
to prove ) but neither will he be so rattled that he has a needless
accident.
.................Tom..................
Sean
storys wrote in message ...
> The avoidance technique I was thinking of is right near the end
> where you spin about into a double wrist strike. One bunkai for
> the spin is to move the attackers hands ( G.A, Harriets? ) to one
> side as you step through and away.
I'll keep an eye out for that next time I see it.
> Do you mean that Sankyo is the same as what Andrew showed her?
No, its an aikido technique that could have been invented for that
situation. Its a wrist lock technique, so its more likely to resemble the
less violent technique you plumped for than the shoulder throw.
> > Did she manage to make herself understood by the teenage twits?
> Yes, She used what I showed her which was very similar in philosophy to
> Aikido ( avoidance ) and then loudly expressing her displeasure.
A job well done. :o)
Sean
x
Paja
I think, that it's very good, if the Aikidoka has previous experience with
other Martial arts.
When I say experience, it doesn't mean 1 year karate ( or judo or taekwondo
or...) - it's almost nothing.
For example Karate is good for atemi, and also for good attack (tsuki, uchi
....). I know several Aikidoka with Shodan or nidan, with no other MA
background, and their attacks are rather poor. Because to learn, how to
punch or strike, is not easy thing. And receiving theese bad attacks can
make our techniques get worse. At least it can be very suprising, if
suddenly somebody attacks properly after series of poor attacks. I know, to
be good uke doesn't depend on ability to do good tsuki (uchi) only, but good
strikes are important part of uke's repertoir.
But it's not easy (my opinion) to do Aikido and other MAs together. It's not
easy, if you work 9 - 17, have a family... - you have no time. When I
started Aikido, I continued with my Karate (ten years) for one year, but
then I had to give up my Karate, because I fell in love with Aikido, and I
had no time to do both arts well.
But If somebody can managed his time, to be able to train Aikido and other
MA properly, why not.
Regards,
Paja