"Aikido is 90% atemi"
Terry Morse
the "Is Seagal and Upstanding Aikidoka" discussion. I remember reading an
interpretation of this by one of O-Sensei's students several years ago. I
recollect that it was either in an article in _Black Belt_, or possibly in
volume 5 of _Traditional Aikido_, or both.
The gist of the interpretation is that O-Sensei was referring to
"spiritual" atemi, not just hitting. The notion was that "your attacker
must sense your murderous intent" (i.e., the strength of your spirit). It's
a matter of intimidation to forestall an attack, rather than whacking an
attacker as part of your waza. I'll see if I can locate the references.
--Terry
Terry Morse
mor...@ccmail.orst.edu
************************************************************************
I wasn't kissing her, I was just whispering in her mouth. -- Chico Marx
************************************************************************
Robear
> The gist of the interpretation is that O-Sensei was referring to
>"spiritual" atemi, not just hitting. The notion was that "your attacker
>must sense your murderous intent" (i.e., the strength of your spirit). It's
>a matter of intimidation to forestall an attack, rather than whacking an
>attacker as part of your waza. I'll see if I can locate the references.
This is contrary to my experience. First, Aikido was derived from
a similar, more percussive style in which hitting was fine. Second,
atemi is a physical, not spiritual strike, and can be useful in
stopping an attack. Third, striking someone is often an effective
way of breaking a person's balance by causing involuntary muscle
reactions, at a minimum, and can be used as a setup for a throw.
Lastly, I don't believe that O'Sensei had fully formulated the
spiritual side of Aikido at the time - in that sense, the quote is
a setup, referring to an "older" style. But I do not believe that
Aikido can reasonably deny the utility of a strike in the course of
handling an opponent, even a pre-emptive one. Tomiki certainly
doesn't.
Is it useful to deny that Aikido can be used combatively, and can
be taught in such a way? When I did knife work in Tomiki, if I
missed the block, I got a welt from a heavy rubber knife. Would
you say that combative practice is not Aikido? Or that my partner
and I should not have studied ways of striking effectively? For
example, in this school, the overhead spear hand strike used to
initiate many techniques would finish at the base of the neck or
the collarbone, if you missed it, so the attacker would get some
practice with that strike.
There are many places where Aikido techniques can be made easier with
a sudden light slap to the face. Conversely, if I did that to the
wrong Aikidoist, I'd get nailed :-).
I guess I just don't understand Aikido. Seriously. I always thought
that I could *create* openings with atemi, rather than just waiting
for them. Wrong? Julian?
David Pipes
Julian Frost
[..cut!..]
>
> I guess I just don't understand Aikido. Seriously. I always thought
> that I could *create* openings with atemi, rather than just waiting
> for them. Wrong? Julian?
>
> David Pipes
>
Nope! Quite right (IMO)!
Julian
--
___________) UUCP: {hplabs!hp-sdd ucsd nosc}!crash!odaiko!jfrost
( | ARPA: crash!odaiko!jfr...@nosc.mil
___|____ INET: jfr...@odaiko.cts.com
/ | PACKET: KC6NSE @ KC6NZN.#SOCA.CA.USA.NOAM
(____/ . Public Key for Encrypted Mail available on request.
Steve Gombosi
Steve Gombosi
>
> This quotation from O-Sensei has been mentioned several times recently in
>the "Is Seagal and Upstanding Aikidoka" discussion. I remember reading an
>interpretation of this by one of O-Sensei's students several years ago. I
>recollect that it was either in an article in _Black Belt_, or possibly in
>volume 5 of _Traditional Aikido_, or both.
> The gist of the interpretation is that O-Sensei was referring to
>"spiritual" atemi, not just hitting. The notion was that "your attacker
>must sense your murderous intent" (i.e., the strength of your spirit). It's
>a matter of intimidation to forestall an attack, rather than whacking an
>attacker as part of your waza.
I've certainly heard this interpretation, but it just doesn't jibe with
what I see when I look at the kanji for "atemi". I see "ate" == "hit" +
"mi" == "body". Doesn't sound like there's any hocus-pocus going on there.
I just don't think he would've used the word "atemi" if he didn't have
a real attack in mind. Then, of course, there's his admittedly pre-war,
Aiki-budo description of how to correctly perform ikkyo in _Budo_:
First, smash your opponent's face...
To be sure, if you want your atemi to be effective, your "spirit" has to
be behind it - that's true whether you're actually making physical contact
or just seeking to disrupt your opponent's timing. My contention is that
you can't have your "spirit" behind your strike unless you really mean it
to be an effective physical technique. Referring to "spiritual atemi" seems
to cloud the issue for Westerners, accustomed as we are to the notion of
mind/body duality. Aikido is supposed to be about *unifying* your
mind and body - that seems to imply that "spiritual" atemi cannot exist
independently of a real, physical strike.
In addition, your opponent may simply be too stubborn, unobservant, or
stupid to attempt to avoid your technique. In such a case, relying on
him to respond to your "intent" in order to set up a "real technique"
may be both foolish and dangerous. Far better, IMHO, for
the atemi to be an effective technique in its own right. If your
opponent reacts to it, fine...if he doesn't, well that's ok, too.
Besides, people fall down much more easily
when they're already unconscious ;-). Then again, I may just be letting
my 21 years of Karate sully the purity of my 2 years of Aikido ;-).
Steve
Bill Knittle (Ven. An Tzu)
mor...@ccmail.orst.edu (Terry Morse) writes:
> This quotation from O-Sensei has been mentioned several times recently in
>the "Is Seagal and Upstanding Aikidoka" discussion. I remember reading an
>interpretation of this by one of O-Sensei's students several years ago. I
>recollect that it was either in an article in _Black Belt_, or possibly in
>volume 5 of _Traditional Aikido_, or both.
> The gist of the interpretation is that O-Sensei was referring to
>"spiritual" atemi, not just hitting. r
It's
The interpretation of this I received from both Koichi Tohei and Kiss- n
homaru Ueshiba is that the attacker does all the work and, if he/she .
is not completely and fully into the attack, it is not necessary/
worthy to defend. This goes to the restrictions O-Sensei put on when
Aikido can be legitimately used.
Bill Knittle (Ven. An Tzu)
Terry Morse
>From: rob...@access.digex.net (Robear)
>Subject: Re: "Aikido is 90% atemi"
>Date: 16 Jul 1993 13:28:11 -0400
> David Pipes
I think the issue here is the 90% figure, not whether physical atemi is or
can be a part of Aikido waza (obviously, it can). But let me see if I can
locate the actual references this weekend before I say more.
Eric Sotnak
From: EIW...@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU (Bill Knittle (Ven. An Tzu)):
=The interpretation of this I received from both Koichi Tohei and
=Kisshomaru Ueshiba is that the attacker does all the work and,
=if he/she is not completely and fully into the attack, it is not
=necessary/ worthy to defend. This goes to the restrictions
=O-Sensei put on when Aikido can be legitimately used.
I've heard this quite often, as well, and I've almost always
found that the notion of being "fully into the attack" is
frequently very unrealistic. The most dramitic example that
comes to mind was a club where the members almost unanimously
were of the opinion that being "fully into the attack" meant that
an attacker will be off-balance if s/he attacks realistically.
The attacks in this dojo are generally characterized by uke
leaping/lunging forward and "hanging out" on the front foot. All
I can say is that none of these people has, apparently, seen many
real fights.
Many real-life (tm) fighters make effective use of feints as a
strategic device. I'm not sure that it is unnecessary to defend
against such feints, since one is frequently not able to
determine what movements are feints, and what are serious
attacks. I'm inclined to think that sometimes being fully into
the attack may involve nothing more than an _intention_ to do one
harm. If one has reasonable cause to think one is in danger, it
may be justifiable to launch a pre-emptive strike (or atemi).
As for whether atemi must be physical or "spiritual" (I'm not
quite sure what the latter amounts to), I believe that sometimes
shouting "boo!" in your opponent's face may prove just as
effective in creating the necessary opportunity for
technique-application as a strike, but I'm disinclined to call
that "atemi."
--
********************************************************************
Eric Sotnak | The owner of this signature is
es...@troi.cc.rochester.edu | under construction. We apologize
| for the inconvenience.
Terry Morse
>Subject: "Aikido is 90% atemi"
>Date: 16 Jul 1993 15:41:09 GMT
> This quotation from O-Sensei has been mentioned several times recently in
>the "Is Seagal and Upstanding Aikidoka" discussion. I remember reading an
>interpretation of this by one of O-Sensei's students several years ago. I
>recollect that it was either in an article in _Black Belt_, or possibly in
>volume 5 of _Traditional Aikido_, or both.
> The gist of the interpretation is that O-Sensei was referring to
>"spiritual" atemi, not just hitting. The notion was that "your attacker
>must sense your murderous intent" (i.e., the strength of your spirit). It's
>a matter of intimidation to forestall an attack, rather than [just]
>whacking an attacker as part of your waza. I'll see if I can locate the
>references.
>--Terry
Spiritual Atemi
By Terry Morse
None of the sources I located explicitly stated that O-Sensei's
teaching, that "Atemi counts for 99% of Aikido," refers to anything but
physical striking. However, I believe that the following anecdotes about
O-Sensei's life and demeanor recounted by various of his uchideshi indicate
that the notion of "spiritual atemi" (hitting your attacker with your
"spirit," whether or not you hit him/her physically) was in fact an aspect
of O-Sensei's manner and art, and can justifiably be considered an "inner
meaning" of the above saying.
*******************************************************************************
I) Source: _Traditional Aikido_, by Morihiro Saito (Tokyo: Minato Research
& Publishing Co., 1976); vol. 5: Training Works Wonders.
Page 38: "Atemi (body blow prior to applying technique)
Atemi accounts for 99% of Aikido" was a remark once uttered by the
Founder. ... [T]here are quite a few cases in which the meaning of a
technique becomes incomprehensible if the attendant Atemi is left out."
Comment: Saito Sensei is obviously referring to physical striking
here. Nonetheless, consider the saying, "Atemi accounts for 99% of Aikido."
Taken literally, it is demonstrably false. Aikido is 99% entering and
turning and throwing. What about figurative meanings? There are at least
two:
1) Physical stikes (whether actual or feints) are extremely important
to the proper execution of Aikido techniques; i.e., without the atemi, the
technique doesn't work. This is similar in form to the saying, "genius is
1% inspiration, 99% perspiration." Undoubtedly, this is one sense in which
O-Sensei intended the saying. Could there be other layers of meaning beneath
this obvious one?
2) Could O-Sensei have also been saying, "The inner sense of striking
your attacker is extremely important to the proper execution of Aikido
techniques in real defensive situations, whether or not you deliver an actual
physical blow?"
I think that some of the quotations to follow will support this interpretation
of the saying as well.
****
Pages 132-145: "Rondtable Meeting Regarding the Founder's Life and
Philosophy:
Morihiro Saito (year of initiation: 1946): My unforgettable impression was
that the Great Master's eyes literally gave out a flash.
Mitsuo Ohkoshi (1955): We can look ordinary people full in the face but
the eyes of the Great Master were too piercing to stand a gaze.
Hiroshi Isoyama (1948): Everybody talks about the sharp glitter of his
eyes. He had, on the other hand, very tender eyes. At first, his eyes would
glitter and seemed to have a stabbing effect on the beholder. But when he was
giving a lesson, his eyes would soften and appeared to wrap his trainees with
humane warmth. ...
Ohkoshi: My impression was that his eyes were austere within Dojo. They
assumed a dreadful look particularly when he had a sword with him. ...
(pp.132-133)
Isoyama: The way the Great Master handled his wooden sword was just
terrific. The sword zipped and his yell was amazingly spirited. *An
effective strike is never possible unless accompanied by a decisive cutting
motion with spirit.* (p.138; emphasis added)
*******************************************************************************
II) Source: "The Secret Teachings of Aikido Founder Morihei Uyeshiba: An
Exclusive Interview with His Closest Friend," by James and Mari Berkley.
_Black Belt_ 23(7), July 1985, pp.40-44.
Note: O-Sensei's "closest friend" in this interview is Shoseki Abe who,
according to the authors, taught O-Sensei calligraphy and was O-Sensei's
Aikido student from 1952 to 1969 (i.e., at the end of O-Sensei's life and
career). Therefore, we are not hearing about O-Sensei in his young and feisty
days, but in his later years.
Interviewer: You mentioned the secret teaching of the ryu. What exactly is
that?
Abe: I guess the secret teaching amounts to what O-Sensei called _katsu
hayai_ (to win quickly). ...
Interviewer: It is said Uyeshiba achieved his power without using any
strength at all.
Abe: That's right. That's where the secret teaching emerges. An absolute
metamorphosis is visible. The strength of the body is shed. In that instant,
speaking metaphorically, emerges the power to move heaven and earth. The way
of compacting power, that's the secret. You squeeze it down smaller and
smaller; you wind it up in the hara. When you have squeezed it down as far as
it will go, when you reach the precise instant of having done so -- Pow! The
smaller it gets, the greater the power. ...
Interviewer: it is often said that one must "open the chest," show a large
presence to the opponent. Can one do this while seeking to compress oneself
as you have said?
Abe: It must fluctuate; it must change in an instant. ...
Interviewer: So what is important is neither extreme, but the process of
alternation?
Abe: Right. The alternation. Fractions of a second. To an observer, it
is impossible to grasp. One second you appear huge, the next, infinitessimal.
There is no place where an opponent can strike. *The huge presence scares him,
and he can't strike. No matter what he does, he can't hit you.* then you
appear very small, so small in fact that he can't focus on you. He thinks
"There he is," but when he tries to strike, you aren't there. ... That is the
principle of _katsu hayai_, or instant victory, taught by Uyeshiba O-Sensei.
(pp.42-43; emphasis added)
Interviewer: Winning a real streetfight may involve killing. How do you
reconcile the humanitarian aims of aikido with the need for instant lethality
dictated by circumstances beyond one's control?
Abe: There is a teaching: _hashi kedashi o shire_. This means "Recognize
murderous intent." You may encounter the presence of this intent quite
suddenly. You must be able to recognize it instantly for what it is. For
instance, someone may intend to injure and rob you. You should be able to
recognize the purpose in his eyes. You will be ready for him. He, on the
other hand, can do the same thing. *If you have the killing eye, he will be
ready for you; he will avoid you. So the meaning of _hashi kedashi o shire_
is that by understanding each other's intent, you are able to avoid a
conflict before either of you raises his hand.* ...
The way of aikido is not to destroy the opponent, but rather to
instantly show him his error. ... This is difficult, but if your opponent is
a normal human being, it is possible to guide him as such. If the man is
intelligent, it is relatively easy to deal with him. If he is functioning at
a subhuman level, it is extremely difficult. *With an animal, for instance a
dog, if it tries to bite you, you weaken his will to bite.* Rather than kill
your opponent, enlighten him. This is aikido. (p.44; emphasis added)
*******************************************************************************
III) Source: "The Martial Magic of Morihei Uyeshiba: The Fighting Strategies
of Aikido's Founder," by Gaku Homma. _Black Belt_ 22(10), October 1984, pp.
52-59, 128.
Note: According to the _Black Belt_ editor, Gaku Homma, chief
instructor of the Denver Aikido-kai, states that he was O-Sensei's last
uchideshi (live-in apprentice), so again we are seeing O-Sensei in his later,
"mellow" years, not as a young buck.
In emphasizing selected passages to illustrate a point, I am not doing
justice to the full content of the article. It is well worth reading for its
own sake.
***
"Most of the time, the founder's daily life was that of a martial
artist, rather than an ordinary man. On one spring day in 1967, he was
scheduled to visit Aikikai Headquarters in Tokyo. ...
The founder used to get to Iwama station about an hour before the
train's arrival. ... *At times like this, I didn't see the founder as a frail
old man. He would pick up his cane, hold it in his left hand, and walk
through crowds very strongly.* He was a very fast walker, the bottom of his
hakama swinging back and forth with each step. *On the crowded train, he
walked as if he were cutting into the middle of hundreds of enemy soldiers by
himself.* ...
Before long the train slid into Ueno Station in Tokyo, where we had to
change lines. There was about a five-minute walk between platforms, and the
founder casually picked up his cane and walked straight forward, not bothered
by other pedestrians moving toward and in front of him. It seemed impossible
to walk in a straight line that fast in the crowd, but he always did so.
*When he walked like that, there was a potent energy field surrounding him,
and people sensed it and stepped aside to let him by.* ... (p.55-57; emphasis
added)
*******************************************************************************
IV) Source: _The Way and the Power: Secrets of Japanese Strategy_, by Fredrick
J. Lovret (Boulder, CO: Paladin Press, 1987.) Chapter Six: Aiki: Dominating
Spirit, pp.79-83.
Note: As far as I know, Lovret Sensei never trained with O-Sensei.
Nonetheless, he is an expert teacher of aikijutsu, kenjutsu, and karate, with
extensive training in Japan. Some may remember him as the head of San Diego
Budokan for many years.
While not of O-Sensei's lineage, I think his comments on aiki accord
well with the examples from the later life of O-Sensei, his "gentle years,"
cited above.
****
"The word _aiki_ is written with the same two Japanese characters
as is _kiai_, with the characters in reversed order. While it may be
literally translated as "blending spirits," do not make the mistake of
adding a sense of equality to this.
Kiai [intense ki; glossary, p.309] is something that happens within
you -- you can create a state of kiai even when alone. Aiki, however, is
bringing your kiai to bear upon your opponent. When you have extremely
strong ki, so strong that it is classed as kiai, it affects your enemy.
*Because he senses your tremendous spiritual strength, his own will to
attack is weakened.* Perhaps the best definition of aiki was given by
Takeda Sogaku [O-Sensei's teacher in the Daito Ryu], who said, 'Aiki is the
art of defeating your opponent with a single glance.'"* ... (p.79; emphasis
added. Note the similarity to Shoseki Abe's "killing eye" quotation above)
"Again, the aura you radiate, which is the expression of your
confidence, is kiai. The effect of this upon the enemy, which destroys his
will to fight, is aiki. You feel the kiai; he feels the aiki.
If you think this sounds too esoteric and cannot imagine winning a
fight with aiki, consider the fact that parents use this method with their
children every day. The method is the same. The only difference is in
degree." [In law enforcement, it is referred to as "command presence] (p.81)
"Aiki is the ultimate state of any martial art. It is not an external
show -- you do not frighten your enemy by either action or appearance. Rather
it is a lack of external show. You do nothing because your opponent is not
important enough for you to have to do anything. Your very existence is
enough to defeat him." (p.82)
*******************************************************************************
Flame away!
Terry Morse
mor...@ccmail.orst.edu
******************************************************************************
They are ill discoverers that think there is no land when they can see nothing
but sea. -- Francis Bacon
******************************************************************************
Robear
>I've certainly heard this interpretation, but it just doesn't jibe with
>what I see when I look at the kanji for "atemi". I see "ate" == "hit" +
>"mi" == "body". Doesn't sound like there's any hocus-pocus going on there.
>I just don't think he would've used the word "atemi" if he didn't have
>a real attack in mind. Then, of course, there's his admittedly pre-war,
>Aiki-budo description of how to correctly perform ikkyo in _Budo_:
> First, smash your opponent's face...
This is the other quote I had in mind, to make the general point that
Aikido is still strongly attached to the Real World, where you may
*need* to adjust someone's attitude before blending them with nearby
objects :-).
<chop chop>
>Besides, people fall down much more easily
>when they're already unconscious ;-). Then again, I may just be letting
>my 21 years of Karate sully the purity of my 2 years of Aikido ;-).
Oddly, I found that what I learned in Aikido and Hapkido was really not
completely absorbed until I had done some work in a hard style. That,
combined with some non-formal-MA weapons sparring, gave me a much better
understanding of what I had learned. I now am much more comfortable with
both sets of skills - they don't seem to differ all that much.
I am not sure that soft and hard arts are meant to be exclusive of each
other, just because the philosophies differ. Situations differ too, and
I'd like to be able to address any particular conflict appropriately.
David Pipes
David Scheid
> I've heard this quite often, as well, and I've almost always
>found that the notion of being "fully into the attack" is
>frequently very unrealistic. The most dramitic example that
>comes to mind was a club where the members almost unanimously
>were of the opinion that being "fully into the attack" meant that
>an attacker will be off-balance if s/he attacks realistically.
>The attacks in this dojo are generally characterized by uke
>leaping/lunging forward and "hanging out" on the front foot. All
>I can say is that none of these people has, apparently, seen many
>real fights.
This would be called Chu-den practice (middle level). Sho-den is
learning the basics for defense. (From Jujutsu.)
> Many real-life (tm) fighters make effective use of feints as a
>strategic device. I'm not sure that it is unnecessary to defend
>against such feints, since one is frequently not able to
>determine what movements are feints, and what are serious
>attacks. I'm inclined to think that sometimes being fully into
>the attack may involve nothing more than an _intention_ to do one
>harm. If one has reasonable cause to think one is in danger, it
>may be justifiable to launch a pre-emptive strike (or atemi).
This is Oku-den practice. Very advanced. Most never attain this level
regardless of recognized rank. Sensing the Intention and taking advantage
before an attack is to recognize a Suki (interval) between thought and
action. Successful defense (attack) at such a point is called Kiai
(Aiki, I guess by the Aikidoka). Attack is in Parens because one is
defending. Since the Intent is there, pre-emptive action is really
a legal distinction, not a Martial one.
> As for whether atemi must be physical or "spiritual" (I'm not
>quite sure what the latter amounts to), I believe that sometimes
>shouting "boo!" in your opponent's face may prove just as
>effective in creating the necessary opportunity for
>technique-application as a strike, but I'm disinclined to call
>that "atemi."
It is called Kiai when it is used effectively. Remember, Ueshiba just
reversed Kanji from Kiai to Aiki to put emphasis on Harmony. This (ai_ki) was
taught before he changed it, but was part of the Ku-den (oral teachings)
of most Jujutsu schools.
The idea of "spiritual" seems to be quite a transgression from traditional
schools. Ki_Ai is when one's Life Spirit is in Harmony. (Almost *like* the
state of enlightenment.) When this occurs, projecting one's Ki (ie. Shout)
is to disturb one's opponent quite thoroughly. Being in complete harmony,
one would sense the opponent's breathing in and out, and on the inhale
could strike with modicum force and either KO or kill. When one is
completely startled, they have a tendency to inhale and hold their
diaphragm muscles and tense their body. Taking advantage of this Suki
is important.
This skill and how it is attained was part of the Oku-den (advanced
teachings) of traditional Jujutsu schools.
---
Dave Scheid - All Disclaimers Apply
Earth-daughter
>
>From: EIW...@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU (Bill Knittle (Ven. An Tzu)):
>
>=The interpretation of this I received from both Koichi Tohei and
>=Kisshomaru Ueshiba is that the attacker does all the work and,
>=if he/she is not completely and fully into the attack, it is not
>=necessary/ worthy to defend. This goes to the restrictions
interpretation is a tad diluted - if the person is not committed
in general to hurting you, then i guess i could agree, but that
doesn't always mean a well applied aiki-* technique won't work.
> I've heard this quite often, as well, and I've almost always
>found that the notion of being "fully into the attack" is
>frequently very unrealistic. The most dramitic example that
^^^^^^^^^^ good point.
it seems that many are of the mistaken notion (and perhaps they
are unaware that they hold this notion) that there will be only
one "attack" at a time, or only one at all, just as it is when one
practices a technique, e.g. -- shomenuchi, i defend. stop. shomenuchi,
i defend again. stop. set up. and so on. fights just don't go this
way, obviously.
>comes to mind was a club where the members almost unanimously
>were of the opinion that being "fully into the attack" meant that
>an attacker will be off-balance if s/he attacks realistically.
>The attacks in this dojo are generally characterized by uke
>leaping/lunging forward and "hanging out" on the front foot. All
>I can say is that none of these people has, apparently, seen many
>real fights.
true, except to develop a proper response to a totally committed
strike one must train against totally committed strikes. this makes
training a bit dicey.
my sensei said yesterday that if you practice a totally committed,
completely focused strike, and the target is all of a sudden not there,
you *will* lose your balance. this should not happen if the target
remains in place.
but i do think the people you describe are taking it a bit far. maybe
a totally committed drunk person will strike such that they lose balance
even when the target is there. our seniors encourage ukemi to be such
that attacks are *still* from the belly, not the fingertips.
> Many real-life (tm) fighters make effective use of feints as a
>strategic device. I'm not sure that it is unnecessary to defend
>against such feints, since one is frequently not able to
>determine what movements are feints, and what are serious
>attacks.
i personally am also inclined to think that a response (especially the
response of an aikidoka) to a feint will be quite different than to
a committed attack, and that telling the difference will become automatic
with time. probably a very long time.
> I'm inclined to think that sometimes being fully into
>the attack may involve nothing more than an _intention_ to do one
>harm. If one has reasonable cause to think one is in danger, it
>may be justifiable to launch a pre-emptive strike (or atemi).
i would say it *is* justifiable, if not essential in many cases.
if you are trained properly, after a long enough time you can tell
someone's intent. Then the time between the pre-emptive strike and
the attacker's strike is nearly undectectable except to those who
also have much fighting experience. occasionally what happens is
you sense the person's intent and the so-called pre-emptive strike
actually causes the person to attack you before they are ready.
this gives one a very good tactical advantage. (i have both seen this
happen and had it happen to me, though admittedly it was in a prac-
tice situation.)
this is of course what many hope to have in their set of instinctive
reactions.
> As for whether atemi must be physical or "spiritual" (I'm not
>quite sure what the latter amounts to), I believe that sometimes
>shouting "boo!" in your opponent's face may prove just as
>effective in creating the necessary opportunity for
>technique-application as a strike, but I'm disinclined to call
>that "atemi."
i dunno; it probably depends on how you say "boo!" make it your
kiai and it could scare the **** out of them! }-)
someone mentioned that hocking a big fat loogy in your opponent's
face can be quite effective...i don't know if i'd call *that*
atemi either, but...
>********************************************************************
>Eric Sotnak | The owner of this signature is
>es...@troi.cc.rochester.edu | under construction. We apologize
> | for the inconvenience.
|hallo | Disclaimer: i don't *have* any opinions - i'm just a brown belt.
| |
|g'bye |
---------
Bill Knittle (Ven. An Tzu)
In your post you apparently were quoting someone else quite
extensively, but it appeared from the header that all those
quotes were mine. Actually, mine was only the first one you
responded to.
However, in your response, there is a quote from your sensei
that I disagree with:
>
>my sensei said yesterday that if you practice a totally committed,
>completely focused strike, and the target is all of a sudden not there,
>you *will* lose your balance. this should not happen if the target
>remains in place.
This is true of most of the Aikido practice that I have practiced
and seen. However, it is definitely NOT true of other martial arts.
The essence of training is to be able to attack WITHOUT losing one's
balance, either physical or emotional.
Aikido, as I've mentioned before here, is based for the most part
on a full and complete attack as performed by an UNTRAINED person.
This is the way both Tohei and Ueshiba taught me back in the '60's.
In fact, when I applied principles from other martial arts, both
were unable to deal with them (I hasten to note that the few times
I tried this I was showing MY misunderstanding of Aikido at the time
and later realized that is not the true nature of the art.)
I have studied many martial arts and hold Aikido in the highest
regard. But your statement about losing one's balance in an attack
...I'm sorry...your sensei's comment about losing one's balance in
an attack simply doesn't hold up against other martial arts. However,
let me repeat again, it IS very true in the art and practice of e
Aikido.
>> I'm inclined to think that sometimes being fully into
>>the attack may involve nothing more than an _intention_ to do one
>>harm. If one has reasonable cause to think one is in danger, it
>>may be justifiable to launch a pre-emptive strike (or atemi).
>
>i would say it *is* justifiable, if not essential in many cases.
>if you are trained properly, after a long enough time you can tell
>someone's intent. Then the time between the pre-emptive strike and
>the attacker's strike is nearly undectectable except to those who
>also have much fighting experience. occasionally what happens is
>you sense the person's intent and the so-called pre-emptive strike
>actually causes the person to attack you before they are ready.
>this gives one a very good tactical advantage. (i have both seen this
>happen and had it happen to me, though admittedly it was in a prac-
>tice situation.)
I agree with your intent here, though Aikido training does not prepare
students for such preemptive attack very well, as that is not its
nature. O-Sensei's idea in such cases was to "sense" the attack, then
"blend" with it in its earliest stages.....not to "attack" prior to
the opponent's move, even if it can be "read" beforehand.
Steve Popovich
>on a full and complete attack as performed by an UNTRAINED person.
>This is the way both Tohei and Ueshiba taught me back in the '60's.
>In fact, when I applied principles from other martial arts, both
>were unable to deal with them (I hasten to note that the few times
>I tried this I was showing MY misunderstanding of Aikido at the time
>and later realized that is not the true nature of the art.)
Tohei sensei and O-Sensei, UNABLE to deal with principles from other
arts?! No offense intended to someone with your long experience, but
since all of the Aikido people on the net are probably going to take
offense anyway (:-), do you think that, perhaps, they were UNWILLING
to deal with them in your practice situation, rather than unable to
deal with them at all? I imagine that they would have had to make a
response that was "not Aiki" in answer to your attack, but didn't want
to teach that kind of response at that time.
-Steve
Eric Sotnak
>Hi, Eric....
>In your post you apparently were quoting someone else quite
>extensively, but it appeared from the header that all those
>quotes were mine. Actually, mine was only the first one you
>responded to.
Hi Bill. Actually, it looks like everything you've attributed to me was
written by someone else. Sometimes news makes it very difficult to
determine just who wrote what!
>Aikido, as I've mentioned before here, is based for the most part
>on a full and complete attack as performed by an UNTRAINED person.
>This is the way both Tohei and Ueshiba taught me back in the '60's.
>In fact, when I applied principles from other martial arts, both
>were unable to deal with them (I hasten to note that the few times
>I tried this I was showing MY misunderstanding of Aikido at the time
>and later realized that is not the true nature of the art.)
One of the things I like about aikido is the fact that the "true nature"
of it is so elusive as sometimes to prove non-existent. It seems to be that
aikido can be (and, indeed, in some cases has been) adapted for use against
TRAINED people. I shan't pronounce on whether or not such adaptation is
consistent with the intentions of the founder.
>[..] O-Sensei's idea in such cases was to "sense" the attack, then
>"blend" with it in its earliest stages.....not to "attack" prior to
>the opponent's move, even if it can be "read" beforehand.
This seems inconsistent with some of what O-sensei wrote in _Budo_, and
with what I've been taught in numerous dojo under different instructors,
some of whom served as uchi-deshi for the founder.
--
Bill Knittle (Ven. An Tzu)
popo...@cyclades.ma30.bull.com (Steve Popovich) writes:
>
>Tohei sensei and O-Sensei, UNABLE to deal with principles from other
>arts?! No offense intended to someone with your long experience, but
>since all of the Aikido people on the net are probably going to take
>offense anyway (:-), do you think that, perhaps, they were UNWILLING
>to deal with them in your practice situation, rather than unable to
>deal with them at all? I imagine that they would have had to make a
>response that was "not Aiki" in answer to your attack, but didn't want
>to teach that kind of response at that time.
> -Steve
I know it sounds haughty, etc. The fact of the matter is, it was
quite easy to use "standard" karate punches and kicks and neither
was able to stop them. (By the way...NOT O-Sensei, but his son.)
However, as I noted in my earlier post, I should NOT have tested
my/their skills this way, simply because that is not what Aikido
training is about. What I was showing was my own immaturity in
not understanding Aikido and in thinking that it was a martial
art like any other.
Aikido is a completely unique art and practice that attempts to
show one how to live in harmony with nature. As both Tohei and
Ueshiba (at that time...he tends to downplay it now) used to say,
Aikido deals with training the Ki...the only way we know to train
this ki and learn to live in harmony with nature is through the
practice of the art of Aikido. It is not intended to be a definitive
form of self-defense vs. OTHER martial arts.
Remember, O-Sensei changed from his own earlier training in Aiki-
jutsu, etc. when he created Aikido after having his visions.
Aikido is a wonderful practice and I treasure it dearly. But the
fact remains it is not terribly effective against a trained
fighter....it was never intended to be from the beginning, as
witness O-Sensei's rules regarding the three times it can be
used.
Bill Knittle (Ven. An Tzu)
As I re-read this, I think it's unclear....sounds like I "challenged"
them or something which was not the case. In class, for example,
Tohei would call me up to demonstrate (remember I was fairly young
and one of the very first - I was told THE first- caucasians to
study Aikido in this country) so he very often used me as his
demo partner. (I also always volunteered whenever I could to be
able to feel his techniques first-hand).
On a couple of occasions I thought it would be interesting to use
an attack I had been trained to do, rather than the half-assed
off-balance attacks I was always seeing in Aikido practice. No one
seemed to realize they could punch, kick, etc. while remaining
balanced. So on a few occasions when he asked me to kick hard (same
with Ueshiba) I would do a mae-geri. It was too fast, too high and
too hard. They would "correct" me to kick the way a street-fighter
would. Of course, kicking without lifting the knee and without a
focus, it was quite easy for them to scoop my leg, or whatever
technique they were teaching.
I once talked with Tohei (not Ueshiba...his English wasn't good
enough) about this privately after a class. And he simply said
flat-out Aikido is not intended to fight against Karate or other
arts. When I pointed out that no "trained" fighter would ever
attack the way everyone did in Aikido practice, he agreed and
reiterated that's not what Aikido was about.
It took me a while, but I finally realized what he was talking
about. I'm just stating a fact that should be obvious to anyone
who has ever studied the art. It's one of the things that sets
Aikido apart (and in some ways above) some of the other martial
systems, IMO.
The Dragon
Are there ANY SHIDOKAN KARATE stylists out there?
I practised Shidokan Karate for 2 years under Shihan Leo Katsouras in Greece,
and was told there was one dojo in the States.
I would love to hear from you.
Jerzy Rakoczynski
> Hi, Eric....
[some text throughout deleted]
I'm keeping most of the text in my reply to not lose the thought.
Sorry if this causes problems.
> However, in your response, there is a quote from your sensei
> that I disagree with:
> >
> >my sensei said yesterday that if you practice a totally committed,
> >completely focused strike, and the target is all of a sudden not there,
> >you *will* lose your balance. this should not happen if the target
> >remains in place.
>
> This is true of most of the Aikido practice that I have practiced
> and seen. However, it is definitely NOT true of other martial arts.
> The essence of training is to be able to attack WITHOUT losing one's
> balance, either physical or emotional.
>
> Aikido, as I've mentioned before here, is based for the most part
> on a full and complete attack as performed by an UNTRAINED person.
> This is the way both Tohei and Ueshiba taught me back in the '60's.
I've stated in the past that IMHO Aikido does not teach attacks as an
effective attack (even though they can be used as successful attacks)
but instead a means of teaching defense. This I believe is consistant
with your statement above.
> In fact, when I applied principles from other martial arts, both
> were unable to deal with them (I hasten to note that the few times
> I tried this I was showing MY misunderstanding of Aikido at the time
> and later realized that is not the true nature of the art.)
>
> I have studied many martial arts and hold Aikido in the highest
> regard. But your statement about losing one's balance in an attack
> ...I'm sorry...your sensei's comment about losing one's balance in
> an attack simply doesn't hold up against other martial arts. However,
> let me repeat again, it IS very true in the art and practice of
> Aikido.
There seems to be a popular belief (including the Aikido group) that
commitments to attacks implies that you no longer can change the
inevitable, you are helpless to anything that changes after you have
started, etc. I think this error in thinking comes from the training
that you blend in with your opponent while they are committed to a
particular movement.
But committment does not mean I've planned my entire movement, but
instead, incremental steps. I can commit to attack part way, see
their reaction, and adjust my attack accordingly. If someone says
"that's not a commitment", then think of it another way. You have
blended in with your attacker, taken complete control of them, and
then they trip/bump_into_something/other_outside_force that *SHOULD*
prevent you from continuing that particular move. You then need to
change your motion to what feels right. Well the same thing with an
attack. There does come a point in which an attack cannot be changed,
and this is a key timing point that Aikido practices.
As for losing balance, if you depend on tori being there to absorb
your energy from the attack, then sure you'll lose your balance if
they move. But that is also a poor attack. Attacks should first be
practiced like any other kata, so that whether tori is there or not
makes no difference to the attack. Than when you've learned to
control your attack, you can learn to change in the middle of your
attack as required.
Some people have pointed out that a "skilled" uke would never attack a
"skilled" tori because uke knows that they will be thrown. Nothing
could be farther from the truth, *IF* uke applies the same knowledge
of defense to their attacks. The attacks that are taught may take too
long to perform, etc. but that does not imply that all attacks are
hopeless and destined to fail. I'm sure many don't agree.
> >>harm. If one has reasonable cause to think one is in danger, it
> >>may be justifiable to launch a pre-emptive strike (or atemi).
> >
> >i would say it *is* justifiable, if not essential in many cases.
> >if you are trained properly, after a long enough time you can tell
> >someone's intent. Then the time between the pre-emptive strike and
> >the attacker's strike is nearly undectectable except to those who
> >also have much fighting experience. occasionally what happens is
> >you sense the person's intent and the so-called pre-emptive strike
> >actually causes the person to attack you before they are ready.
> >this gives one a very good tactical advantage. (i have both seen this
> >happen and had it happen to me, though admittedly it was in a prac-
> >tice situation.)
A popular trick by uke in tournaments/randori is to fake tori into
making a preemptive strike. Very easy to do when all your senses are
working at 110%. Then you just time your attack to when tori is
settling down.
> I agree with your intent here, though Aikido training does not prepare
> students for such preemptive attack very well, as that is not its
> nature. O-Sensei's idea in such cases was to "sense" the attack, then
> "blend" with it in its earliest stages.....not to "attack" prior to
> the opponent's move, even if it can be "read" beforehand.
If a preemtive attack is used, it can/usually be used to force your
opponent to react such that you can blend with their reaction. I
guess this is also an area of disagreement.
--
Jurek Rakoczynski, AG Communication Systems, POB 52179, Phoenix, AZ. 85072-2179
UUCP: ...!{ncar!noao!agcs.com!rakoczynskij Voice: +1 602 581 4867
Inet: rakocz...@agcs.com Fax: +1 602 582 7111
Inet: JUREK.RA...@gte.sprint.com <This space intentionally left blank.>
Bill Knittle (Ven. An Tzu)
rakocz...@agcs.com (Jerzy Rakoczynski) writes:
Jurek, I've cut a lot of this to save space. However, I don't believe
we have any major disagreements, at least on a quick read-through. 072-2179
Julian Frost
Many of O Sensei's aikido students were also highly ranked in other
martial arts such as judo, jujutsu, karate, iaido/jutsu, jodo/jutsu,
kendo, kenjutsu, and even sumo. I think Bill's comment above is a
little misleading!
David White
In article <POPOVICH.93...@cyclades.ma30.bull.com>,
popo...@cyclades.ma30.bull.com (Steve Popovich) writes:
>>Aikido, as I've mentioned before here, is based for the most part
>>on a full and complete attack as performed by an UNTRAINED person.
>>This is the way both Tohei and Ueshiba taught me back in the '60's.
>>In fact, when I applied principles from other martial arts, both
>>were unable to deal with them (I hasten to note that the few times
>>I tried this I was showing MY misunderstanding of Aikido at the time
>>and later realized that is not the true nature of the art.)
>Tohei sensei and O-Sensei, UNABLE to deal with principles from other
>arts?! No offense intended to someone with your long experience, but
>since all of the Aikido people on the net are probably going to take
>offense anyway (:-), do you think that, perhaps, they were UNWILLING
>to deal with them in your practice situation, rather than unable to
>deal with them at all? I imagine that they would have had to make a
>response that was "not Aiki" in answer to your attack, but didn't want
>to teach that kind of response at that time.
> -Steve
Does this imply that there are times when a person cannot use their aikido?
David White
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
David White Talk is cheap, pain says so much more..............
d...@sei.cmu.edu ---Old bugei proverb
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
David James Alexander Hanley
(Bill Knittle (Ven. An Tzu)) says:
>
>In article <POPOVICH.93...@cyclades.ma30.bull.com>,
>popo...@cyclades.ma30.bull.com (Steve Popovich) writes:
>
>>
>>Tohei sensei and O-Sensei, UNABLE to deal with principles from other
>>arts?! No offense intended to someone with your long experience, but
>
>quite easy to use "standard" karate punches and kicks and neither
>was able to stop them. (By the way...NOT O-Sensei, but his son.)
I question this. Perhaps they could have done a technique
but it wasn't the one they wanted to show to the class?
>
>However, as I noted in my earlier post, I should NOT have tested
>my/their skills this way, simply because that is not what Aikido
>training is about. What I was showing was my own immaturity in
>not understanding Aikido and in thinking that it was a martial
>art like any other.
I agree with you here. I don't think aikido can be easily
compared to other martial arts.
>I once talked with Tohei (not Ueshiba...his English wasn't good
>enough) about this privately after a class. And he simply said
>flat-out Aikido is not intended to fight against Karate or other
>arts. When I pointed out that no "trained" fighter would ever
>attack the way everyone did in Aikido practice, he agreed and
>reiterated that's not what Aikido was about.
I agree that aikido is not intended to fight other martial arts.
It is altogether another question if it is effective o fight other
martial arts. It sounds like a semantic distinction but it's not/.
Please remember that aikido is derived from aki-jujitsu and jujusu
and these were used for a long,long,time for fighting. many aikido
techniques are very similar to their counterparts. Although it is
probably true many aikido people would get killed in a real fight,
there are also aikido people who would do and have done very well
when forced into combat.
I think the secret to aikido training is keeping in mind the martial
nature of the art while still being able to encompass the nonviolent
and harmonious aspects as well. At least this is what I gain from
reading usheiba. While talking about harmony and nonvioplence, he
still talks about cracking your oponent's elbow. The two, however,
are not mutually exclusive.
So the question might in the end be this: is aidido a 'real'
martial art? I think so. If it is practiced simply as healthful
exercise it probably won't be, as goes for any art( e.g. karate,
tai chi..) . If it is practiced against ukes who are really attacking
and training is carried out with vigor, aikido can be very effective,
though i would be the first to agree it will take more time to be
effective with aikido then, say, boxing
dave
Jerzy Rakoczynski
> > Bill(?) writes:
> > >Aikido, as I've mentioned before here, is based for the most part
> > >on a full and complete attack as performed by an UNTRAINED person.
> > >This is the way both Tohei and Ueshiba taught me back in the '60's.
> > >In fact, when I applied principles from other martial arts, both
> > >were unable to deal with them (I hasten to note that the few times
> > >I tried this I was showing MY misunderstanding of Aikido at the time
> > >and later realized that is not the true nature of the art.)
Please explain a few questions I have?
What you mean "UNTRAINED person". Do you mean that attacks are not
taught, just performed?
What "principles from other martial arts" were they unable to deal
with?
Can you explain more about "MY misunderstanding"?
[some text deleted]
> > offense anyway (:-), do you think that, perhaps, they were UNWILLING
> > to deal with them in your practice situation, rather than unable to
> > deal with them at all?
[filler for posting problem]
:-(
:-(
:-(
Bill Knittle (Ven. An Tzu)
David James Alexander Hanley <U34...@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
> I agree that aikido is not intended to fight other martial arts.
>It is altogether another question if it is effective o fight other
>martial arts. It sounds like a semantic distinction but it's not/.
>Please remember that aikido is derived from aki-jujitsu and jujusu
>and these were used for a long,long,time for fighting. many aikido
>techniques are very similar to their counterparts. Although it is
>probably true many aikido people would get killed in a real fight,
>there are also aikido people who would do and have done very well
>when forced into combat.
>
> I think the secret to aikido training is keeping in mind the martial
>nature of the art while still being able to encompass the nonviolent
>and harmonious aspects as well. At least this is what I gain from
>reading usheiba. While talking about harmony and nonvioplence, he
>still talks about cracking your oponent's elbow. The two, however,
>are not mutually exclusive.
>
> So the question might in the end be this: is aidido a 'real'
>martial art? I think so. If it is practiced simply as healthful
>exercise it probably won't be, as goes for any art( e.g. karate,
>tai chi..) . If it is practiced against ukes who are really attacking
>and training is carried out with vigor, aikido can be very effective,
>though i would be the first to agree it will take more time to be
>effective with aikido then, say, boxing
>
>
>
>dave
Please remember I am talking about Aikido AS IT WAS TAUGHT. One can
certainly use the techniques with strength and use them effectively.
But then it would revert back to being aikijujutsu or another of the
seminal influences....it would not be Aikido as taught by Ueshiba
(at least as it came down via his son and his highest ranking
student).
Also remember that most of Ueshiba's writing was done early...before
he fully formulated the art. Also, I understand he spoke a form of
"older" Japanese (this is what Tohei told me)....and that most or
at least many of his students could not understand all that he said.
That's why I tend to doubt some who try to quote his words.
Bill Knittle (Ven. An Tzu)
rakocz...@agcs.com (Jerzy Rakoczynski) writes:
>> popo...@cyclades.ma30.bull.com (Steve Popovich) writes:
>> > Bill(?) writes:
>> > >Aikido, as I've mentioned before here, is based for the most part
>> > >on a full and complete attack as performed by an UNTRAINED person.
>> > >This is the way both Tohei and Ueshiba taught me back in the '60's.
>> > >In fact, when I applied principles from other martial arts, both
>> > >were unable to deal with them (I hasten to note that the few times
>> > >I tried this I was showing MY misunderstanding of Aikido at the time
>> > >and later realized that is not the true nature of the art.)
>
>Please explain a few questions I have?
>What you mean "UNTRAINED person". Do you mean that attacks are not
>taught, just performed?
I mean that someone who is properly trained in any fighting art
does NOT throw himself/herself off balance in making an attack.
Aside from selected sacrifice techniques, to do so is considered
folly in just about every fighting art. But watch an Aikido
practice and you will see that the attacker is always at least
110% "into" the attack and therefore way off-balance.
Also, other arts "pull" or "knock" the opponent off-balance. In
almost every case, classical Aikido techniques are dependent NOT
on this, but on an attacker throwing himself off balance.
>What "principles from other martial arts" were they unable to deal
>with?
Balance, speed and focus. Tohei asked to be kicked. Apparently he
was expecting a street-style lifting of the whole leg attack. A
simple front snapping kick was apparently higher than he expected
(into the solar plexus) and his "grab" came AFTER the foot was
moving back from his chest. I'm just glad I pulled it a bit short
rather than making it a full-on Aikido style attack, because he
would surely have been on the ground. He "corrected" me that that
was not a "proper" kick (I believe the word he used was "that's not
right way kick"), and had me do it off balance as a non-trained
person kicks. When I did so, he was VERY capable of grabbing my
leg and doing a series (perhaps to get even?) of counters one
after the other.
>Can you explain more about "MY misunderstanding"?
>
Yes. Aikido...classical Aikido...was not intended to defend against
other martial arts. Ueshiba always talked about "defense" and
"harmony".....and I'm very certain (in my heart) that to his mind
no real martial artist would ever attack someone else. Thus, no
need to develop the art that way. I also believe that no true
martial artist would ever attack someone else.
Assume a spherical Balrog...
> In article <22p43g$5...@rako.agcs.com>,
>>
>>Please explain a few questions I have?
>>What you mean "UNTRAINED person". Do you mean that attacks are not
>>taught, just performed?
>
> I mean that someone who is properly trained in any fighting art
> does NOT throw himself/herself off balance in making an attack.
> Aside from selected sacrifice techniques, to do so is considered
> folly in just about every fighting art. But watch an Aikido
> practice and you will see that the attacker is always at least
> 110% "into" the attack and therefore way off-balance.
>
ever corrected me. Granted, my best attack may not be that good...
>
> Also, other arts "pull" or "knock" the opponent off-balance. In
> almost every case, classical Aikido techniques are dependent NOT
> on this, but on an attacker throwing himself off balance.
>
in some manner. It usually isn't a shove or a yank, but more like
_drawing_ uke in some manner. Am I just showing my ignorance? My
knowledge of other martial arts is limited to a few months of Shotokan.
Jim Walters
Mr T.G. Griffiths
Aikido ukes don't have to be off-balance. If they were, then during an
Aikido practice you could just move out of the way of an attack and let them
fall over, or give them a gentle shove to help. Any Aikidoka will tell you
that it takes a lot more skill than just a shove in the right direction to
move an attacker.
Aikido does not teach (or shouldn't teach) using attacks that are
off-balance, or 100% committed. Aikido needs a level of energy, sincerity, and
INTENT for its defenses (esp the more esoteric ones) to work as they are meant
to. Anyone who thinks that Aikidoka pull their punches etc in anyway either has
never practiced it or has done so but in a very 'strange' club (word 'strange'
unsed here for politeness).
Tim
Roger Edmond Avedon
on whether Aikido is vulnerable to martial arts-based or
otherwise "balanced" attacks.
I've spoken with Doran Sensei (Sixth dan, Aikido) about this
on several occasions and he was always careful to remind me
of the importance of ma-ai, or proper distance, in technique.
In kenjutsu (Samurai sword combat), whoever controls the distance
of the conflict will survive to tell about it. Aikido
inherits this legacy. Thus, it makes perfect sense to me
that when teaching Aikido, an instructor would be unable
to deal with a snap kick, for example, delivered in place
of a "naive" football-type punt. In combat, the Aikidoka
would be watching for weight-shifting, etc. (I'm sure many
here could expound on this at length) to maintain proper
distance to defend against such kicks, amongst other attacks.
It's too late once the attack has been launched. The
instructor is not in combat, he or she is demonstrating
a specific principal for a specific situation
What most people seem to forget when discussing Aikido
is that it takes a *long* time to become proficient. Both
dojos I've trained in consider shodan to be the level at which
the student has a clear understanding of the *gross body
motions*. Hence, attacks up to that level tend to be
somewhat artificial. Once someone reaches shodan they
can begin developing real technique. Part of the
time requirement also seems to be that at full speed
Aikido defenses require the attacker to uncoil in
mid-air to avoid joint injuries, a trick which takes
a lot of years and bruising to develop.
Aside from my instructors, I will mention that I have
met one Aikidoka who I had absolutely no doubt about,
vis-a-vis his ability to defend himself. He is a
fifth dan in Yoshinkan Aikido. The image I still
remember is that of an oi-tsuki (straight punch)
delivered full speed at his face, attacker fully in
balance. The defender simply pivoted down onto one
knee, letting one arm rise up to serve as a pivot
for the attacker while the other arm parried the
blow down and out. The attacker flipped completely
over, at about stomach height. Full speed, in balance,
and attacker completely upset by defender's technique.
Someone here mentioned earlier that even a balanced
attack can go awry if the defender isn't where you
expect him or her to be. "Tensho" or redirection is
the aiki principle which captures this idea. Even an
uncommitted ("popping") attack is focused. What if this
focused position is turned into one which is dynamically
imbalanced as it is achieved? That's what I believe
I saw in the oi-tsuki defense described above.
I should mention that Shioda (founder of the Yoshinkai
style) parted company with Ueshiba precisely because he
felt that Aikido was moving away from self-defense. Having
studied both, I can attest to how much more self-defense
oriented Yoshinkai seems. Since I no longer have the
opportunity to study Yoshinkai I augment my Aikido
training with a very hard American style of Aiki Jujitsu
to work on the self-defense aspect. The tensho
concept is still key even in the AJJ.
-- Roger
Mark Truelove
: I mean that someone who is properly trained in any fighting art
: does NOT throw himself/herself off balance in making an attack.
: Aside from selected sacrifice techniques, to do so is considered
: folly in just about every fighting art. But watch an Aikido
: practice and you will see that the attacker is always at least
: 110% "into" the attack and therefore way off-balance.
Maybe in practice -- that's kata, and that's how we're taught to perform,
as uke, so that kata approaches it's ideal (read: choreographed) form.
However, as we're also taught (I'm speaking from the Tomiki perspective
here), we're not just using the attacker's "force" against himself, but we
are adding to the direction of that force with the full weight of our bodies.
A couple of quotes, which my instructor uses over and over with new
students, come to mind (paraphrased):
- There is no fighting in Aikido. Don't fight your attacker. If he is
coming at you, and you attempt to kuzushi him this way, but he starts to
resist, then don't fight him <humorous visual sequence here> like this,
but follow his resistance, instead. He's going in another direction now,
so kuzushi him _that_ way.
- <to a very little girl in her first class, about age seven> Feel my arm.
Okay, now feel your leg. Which is bigger? Your leg? Then guess what,
you win! In Aikido, we don't "fight" each other with our upper body
strength; we remain unbendable so that our legs and the weight of our
bodies can do the work for us.
: Also, other arts "pull" or "knock" the opponent off-balance. In
: almost every case, classical Aikido techniques are dependent NOT
: on this, but on an attacker throwing himself off balance.
I must disagree. A properly performed technique is a continuous of moving
from one kuzushi (to make off-balance, as I understand it) to another,
leaving the opponent neutralized. We merely "throw ourselves" for the
purposes of having kata be more perfect than a typical gutter brawl. :)
: Yes. Aikido...classical Aikido...was not intended to defend against
: other martial arts. Ueshiba always talked about "defense" and
: "harmony".....and I'm very certain (in my heart) that to his mind
: no real martial artist would ever attack someone else. Thus, no
: need to develop the art that way. I also believe that no true
: martial artist would ever attack someone else.
Excellent point, which has been floating around in my head during this
thread. :)
MET
--
--Mark Truelove Pooh's Corner BBS - (410) 327-9263--
= po...@clark.net Internet f1131.n261.z1.fidonet.org =
= Specializing in messaged RPGames and special-interest discussion areas. =
===========================================================================
Jerzy Rakoczynski
> >> > Bill(?) writes:
> >> > >Aikido, as I've mentioned before here, is based for the most part
> >> > >on a full and complete attack as performed by an UNTRAINED person.
> >> > >This is the way both Tohei and Ueshiba taught me back in the '60's.
> I mean that someone who is properly trained in any fighting art
> does NOT throw himself/herself off balance in making an attack.
> Aside from selected sacrifice techniques, to do so is considered
> folly in just about every fighting art. But watch an Aikido
> practice and you will see that the attacker is always at least
> 110% "into" the attack and therefore way off-balance.
There is a lot of stress put on cooperation for several reasons with
adaquate resistance adjust for your opponents skill. Safety is an
important reason but IMO adaquate resistance by uke is a skill that is
not taught, and therefore impacts the learning curve. For me, I think
(Tomiki Aikido) tournaments were a good first step in teaching
resistance and attacks in classical Aikido.
> Also, other arts "pull" or "knock" the opponent off-balance. In
> almost every case, classical Aikido techniques are dependent NOT
> on this, but on an attacker throwing himself off balance.
In principle, you try to gain control of their movement during a weak
(relative to your balance) or transitional part of their move. You
allow them only in enough control to do what you want. For example,
it doesn't help if they trip and fall flat on their face if that's not
what you were CONTROLLING them to do. Knocking or pushing a person is
taught but you are using a large part of your balanced body mass
against a weaker part of your opponent.
[rest of text about front kick and defense against other ma's deleted]
Jerzy Rakoczynski
> Whenever I am uke I try to keep my balance as I strike, and nobody has
> ever corrected me. Granted, my best attack may not be that good...
There is a (un?)conscious tendency to help tori learn the feel for the
direction of a move by "giving in" or guiding tori in the "right"
direction. This is differant than not keeping balance.
Daniel Abramovitch
in Jiu Jitsu. Roger's posting is what he had replied to me (after
consulting with Duran Sensei) when I had asked how Aikido dealt with
uncommitted attacks.
My addendum to his message would be that I agree in general. However,
eventually it comes down to a matter of individual skill, i.e. who
can control the distance. Saying to an Aikidota that they should always
be able to maintain the distance is like saying to a Tae Kwon Doist that they
should always be able to keep the opponent out there at the end of your feet.
You have to have a considerable amount of skill to carry it out. More skill,
I would guess, than moving between styles designed for different distances.
The insistance on one pure fighting style and one pure fighting distance
carries with it a heavy burden of skill.
-- Danny
carries with it a heavy burden of skill.
Terry Morse
>From: po...@clark.net (Mark Truelove)
>Subject: Re: "Aikido is 90% atemi"
>Date: 26 Jul 1993 15:28:36 GMT
[deletions]
Ukemi (rolling and falling) is uke's self-defense. When you feel that you
have had your balance and control taken away (or are about to have your
wrist broken :-) ), you give in and fall safely.
The trick in training with beginners is to know when to give in so that
they can get a feel for the technique, even if you have not really lost your
balance. With more advanced students, protecting yourself is the decisive
factor.
>-->--Mark Truelove
Terry
ivan vasilev
bear with me.
First off, a point was made that the attacks in Aikido lead uke off
center and a train martial artist (of any kind) would not do that. Let me
point out that Aikido was derived to a large extend from swordmanship.
There, you don't get a second chance. It requires full commitment - the
attack is given 100% - if you don't kill him on the first try, he will
kill you. So it is obvious that in a situation as this, one would not
bother with blocks or additional attacks. While it is of utmost
importance in swordsmanship to keep your balance, this is difficult to
achieve when 200% of commitment is required - especially from students
who have been practicing for a few years only.
The second point is that in most cases, uke would throw himself off
balance as to help nage to do his thing. It is a way to accomodate nage
and help him somehow. But if you practice with an advanced student, you
don't necessarily have to throw yourself off balance. Last year I saw a
shihan (Kanai Sensei - 7th dan) easily handle mentsuki (straight punch to
the face) from a very solid uke.
The problem is that many Aikidoka wait for the attack to be 100%
completed and then hope that uke would be off balance and throw him. As
you may guess, this will never work with any karateka. The trick is to
begin the throw BEFORE the attack has been completed. Nage doesn't react
- nage acts as uke acts. Thus nage can use uke's force, lead it and
complete the throw.
I've been practicing the art for a few years only, and this is my
personal opinion - it is as valid as any other opinion.
Sincerely,
Ivan
--
sa...@willard.atl.ga.us (ivan vasilev)
gatech!kd4nc!vdbsan!willard!saint
emory!uumind!willard!saint
Willard's House BBS, Atlanta, GA -- +1 (404) 664 8814
Mark Truelove
: >leaving the opponent neutralized. We merely "throw ourselves" for the
: >purposes of having kata be more perfect than a typical gutter brawl. :)
: Ukemi (rolling and falling) is uke's self-defense. When you feel that you
: have had your balance and control taken away (or are about to have your
: wrist broken :-) ), you give in and fall safely.
: The trick in training with beginners is to know when to give in so that
: they can get a feel for the technique, even if you have not really lost your
: balance. With more advanced students, protecting yourself is the decisive
: factor.
Err, that too. :)
MET
Jerzy Rakoczynski
>
> : >leaving the opponent neutralized. We merely "throw ourselves" for the
> : >purposes of having kata be more perfect than a typical gutter brawl. :)
I might have lost the train of thought this was following but:
"throw ourselves ... kata ... perfect" is a way to help new students
learn the motion of a technique, but as skill increases, leads to very
poor looking, and obviously assisted, kata. It does NOT help tori
when uke anticipates and helps with a movement. For kata, (and were
talking just kata) uke is expected to complete a "proper" attack.
This is what tori expects and anything differant can confuse tori.
Obviously differant skill levels can adjust to a "helpfull" uke, but
it is very apparant when help like this is given. You watch how tori
then responds to this help to evalute kata.
> : Ukemi (rolling and falling) is uke's self-defense. When you feel that you
> : have had your balance and control taken away (or are about to have your
> : wrist broken :-) ), you give in and fall safely.
> : The trick in training with beginners is to know when to give in so that
> : they can get a feel for the technique, even if you have not really lost your
> : balance.
Very important for beginners!
> : With more advanced students, protecting yourself is the decisive
> : factor.
Even with advanced students, uke can easily fall into the habid of
feeling a lose of balance at the beginning of a move and then just
give up for the rest of the move. To help students "learn" of this
problem, do techniques completely open handed (no slight wrap of
finger around joint or other parts), and then stop about half way
through a technique BEFORE they fall and give them back their control.
See how many just continue the fall. This type of help by uke is NO
help at all.
Julian Frost
(quoted from someone else)
> >: Also, other arts "pull" or "knock" the opponent off-balance. In
> >: almost every case, classical Aikido techniques are dependent NOT
> >: on this, but on an attacker throwing himself off balance.
>
> >I must disagree. A properly performed technique is a continuous of moving
> >from one kuzushi (to make off-balance, as I understand it) to another,
> >leaving the opponent neutralized. We merely "throw ourselves" for the
> >purposes of having kata be more perfect than a typical gutter brawl. :)
I don't agree that in good Aikido practise, anyone throws themself.
Their balance should be taken
>
> [deletions]
>
> Ukemi (rolling and falling) is uke's self-defense.
Exactly, Terry! Ukemi (rolling, falling, *or just moving*) is the "Easy
Way Out". The harder way way out is to stand there and fight the
thrower (as he'll change technique/direction or apply serious atemi).
> When you feel that you
> have had your balance and control taken away (or are about to have your
> wrist broken :-) ), you give in and fall safely.
Or, rather, flow with the throwers force and allow yourself to be
thrown (I don't like the term "giving in" as if you flow with nage's
force, you might be able to take advantage of any openings that he
gives you).
> The trick in training with beginners is to know when to give in so that
> they can get a feel for the technique, even if you have not really lost your
> balance. With more advanced students, protecting yourself is the decisive
> factor.
Exactly, again.
fritz kemler
>The
>instructor is not in combat, he or she is demonstrating
>a specific principal for a specific situation
If you are an instructor beeing attacked for demonstrational
purposes, you better consider yourself being in combat. Even
if you want to demonstrate slow motion and consequently
advise the attacker to slow down the attack, you must control
maai, rythm, direction, in short the whole situation completely.
Otherwise you would not be acting as a practitioner of Budo.
I agree with all other points of this article very strongly !
According to the discussion of the quality of attack I would
suggest to use the predicate ***honest***.
In honestly attacking the attacker uses all hes abilities
(focus, balance, speed ...), of course is prepared to control
the attack in case something goes wrong, and most important
pretends not to expect the specific defense which is practiced
at the moment.
Control should be exercised to that extend not to disable
the partner for more then a few days. Some bruises, black eyes
and cracked ribs are perfectly acceptable but you shouldn't
maim or kill somebody in training.
Erasing the imagination of the defense technique you will be
objected to in a moment isn't that easy but essential for
fruitfull work. It is an excellent exercise in controlling
your mind. In the next moment uke should be busy absorbing
the defense technique without injuring himself.
The point of change between attacking and receiving the technique
should be very sharp and not preponed by anticipation of
what is to happen.
The frame of mind "now come on, I'll show you how inefficient
your technique is" is most destructive for training and very
dangerous for uke (with some kinds of tori at least).
The whole concept seems a bit complicated, but without controlling
the mind in that way constructive Budo training is impossible IMO.
We use this concept in our club in Vienna and the results are
very promising. We have very few accidents and a lot of fun
in our version of realistic work.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Fritz Kemler | Who can does, |
--------------------------------| Who cannot teaches, |
| DISCLAIMER: | Who cannot at all teaches teaching |
| My opinions ... (the usual) | (G. B. Shaw) |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Truelove
: Exactly, Terry! Ukemi (rolling, falling, *or just moving*) is the "Easy
: Way Out". The harder way way out is to stand there and fight the
: thrower (as he'll change technique/direction or apply serious atemi).
: > When you feel that you
: > have had your balance and control taken away (or are about to have your
: > wrist broken :-) ), you give in and fall safely.
: Or, rather, flow with the throwers force and allow yourself to be
: thrown (I don't like the term "giving in" as if you flow with nage's
: force, you might be able to take advantage of any openings that he
: gives you).
Well, I'm still a beginner, so all caveats apply. However, I can't see
being uke for a #12 (still lousy with the names) and "flowing" with it
without doing a flying break fall. The "defense" of the fall is a
_learned_ response, and not the direction in which an untrained attacker
would fall. In fact, I think this is one of the harder falls to take, if
the attack were real and the fall were not planned.
Mark Truelove
: Control should be exercised to that extend not to disable
: the partner for more then a few days. Some bruises, black eyes
: and cracked ribs are perfectly acceptable but you shouldn't
: maim or kill somebody in training.
Sorry, but I'm glad this isn't _my_ dojo. I specifically searched for a
school (AND an art) that didn't carry with it this "brutality is necessary
and acceptable" mentality in teaching its students.
Many people who could benefit from the martial arts in their lives won't
go near them, and go wide-eyed when one mentions them, specifically
because of the perception that this is what one has to deal with to learn
them.
MET
Ray Terry
> Remember, O-Sensei changed from his own earlier training in Aiki-
> jutsu, etc. when he created Aikido after having his visions.
And also remember, his training with Takeda in Aiki-jutsu was rather minimal.
Only about 2 to 4 years worth.
Joel Stave
|> Control should be exercised to that extend not to disable
|> the partner for more then a few days. Some bruises, black eyes
|> and cracked ribs are perfectly acceptable but you shouldn't
|> maim or kill somebody in training.
Don't maim or kill anyone in training - good idea. Lets look at
those "perfectly acceptable" injuries:
Bruises: OK, I'll buy that. A doctor once told me that there
aren't any cumulative effects from repeated bruising and my
bruises have never had any impact on my training or day-to-day
life.
Black eyes: Receiving damaging blows around the eye area is not a
healthy thing to do. A black eye means that the strike went very
close to the eyeball itself. If this happens enough, one of those
times the strike will hit *on* the eye instead of *near* it and
damage will be done to the eyeball. This is a Bad Thing.
Cracked ribs: Just for the record, I've had cracked ribs. They
take a *lot* longer than a few days to get better - more like four
to six weeks. Remember, you're talking about breaking bones here.
My feeling is that the aim should be to not disable the partner
at all. Accidents happen, but if they happen on a regular basis,
sooner or later someone *will* get maimed. Even if they're only
disabled for a few days, thats a few days that they can't practice
martial arts (to say nothing of how it may impact their day-to-day
life) Its hard to practice and learn when you're always hurt.
...or were you just over-stating the case for effect?
--
Joel Stave
st...@ch.hp.com
Julian Frost
> Julian Frost (jfr...@odaiko.cts.com) wrote:
> : Or, rather, flow with the throwers force and allow yourself to be
> : thrown (I don't like the term "giving in" as if you flow with nage's
> : force, you might be able to take advantage of any openings that he
> : gives you).
>
> Well, I'm still a beginner, so all caveats apply. However, I can't see
> being uke for a #12 (still lousy with the names) and "flowing" with it
> without doing a flying break fall. The "defense" of the fall is a
> _learned_ response, and not the direction in which an untrained attacker
> would fall. In fact, I think this is one of the harder falls to take, if
> the attack were real and the fall were not planned.
Well, not knowing what a "number 12" is, I can't help you! Generally,
in Aikido, techniques have names (actually, very few techniques have
names, the rest are bunched into huge groups called "Kokyunage" etc),
as far as I know, none have numbers ("Ikkyo" => "Rokkyo" excepted!).
However, I think you missed the point. All I said was that one
shouldn't give in, but flow with nage's force. Also, I believe we were
talking about aikidoka training, not an aikidoka throwing an
"untrained" person. In aikido practise the ukemi (fall, move,
what-have-you) *is* a trained response, as you correctly pointed out.
That is my point. One trains oneself to be able to take an appropriate
ukemi from any technique. One should not pre-plan the ukemi however. If
this is done, then uke will fall over unassisted (he *knows* where he
is supposed to go!), and/or he'll get injured if nage decides to change
directions or his technique.
Julian Frost
According to the Aiki News Encyclopedia, O Sensei studied Daito Ryu
Jujuts for 22 years, not 2-4. Here's the quote:
...Morihei UESHIBA first began his study of the art in Hokkaido in 1915
and received his teaching certificate in 1922 in AYABE.
Then...
Page 128 - Morihei Ueshiba (14 December 1883-26 April 1969). Also
Tsunemori and Moritaka. Son of Yoroko and Yuki UESHIBA. Founder of
Aikido. B. TANABE in Kii Province (present-day Wakayama Prefecture).
Ueshiba is know tohave studied the following martial arts: TENJIN
SHIN'YO JUJUTSU (sic) under Tokusaburo TOZAWA for a brief period in
1901 in Tokyo; GOTO-HA YAGYU SHINGAN-RYU under Masakatsu NAKAI from
c.1903 to c.1908 in Sakai City, near Osaka; judo under Kiyoichi TAKGI
c.1911 in Tanabe; DAITO-RYU JUJUTSU under Sokaku TAKEDA beginning in
1915 in Hokkaido.
The following occurances of the name Morihei Ueshiba in the
EIMEROKU and SHAREIKROKU of Sokaku Takeda have thus far been
documented: 5 March 1915 [...many deleted..] Finally for Tokyo, 29
March 1931. It seems likely that Ueshiba took part in additional
seminars taught by Takeda. Although precise details are not known,
Ueshiba also accompanied his teacher as an assistant while living in
Hokkaido. Moreover, he received a Shinkage-ryu sword transmission
scroll from Takeda during the later's stay in Ayabe in 1922.
Ueshiba was one of the most distinguished pupils of Sokaku and
received the following Daito-ryu scrolls: HIDEN MOKUROKU, HIDEN OGI,
and GOSHIN'YO NO TE. His direct association with this school has so
far been documented from 1915 through 1937. (22 years - jmf)
Mark Truelove
: >in Aikido, techniques have names (actually, very few techniques have
: >names, the rest are bunched into huge groups called "Kokyunage" etc),
: >as far as I know, none have numbers ("Ikkyo" => "Rokkyo" excepted!).
: ...unless you're studying Tomiki aikido, in which the 17 basic
: techniques are frequently referred to by number. #12 is
: kotegaeshi.
_That's_ it -- thanks Charles. :)
I think I missed some of the thread in my absence; oh well.
MET
e_mou
> > Well, I'm still a beginner, so all caveats apply. However, I can't see
> > being uke for a #12 (still lousy with the names) and "flowing" with it
> > without doing a flying break fall. The "defense" of the fall is a
> > _learned_ response, and not the direction in which an untrained attacker
>
> in Aikido, techniques have names (actually, very few techniques have
> names, the rest are bunched into huge groups called "Kokyunage" etc),
> as far as I know, none have numbers ("Ikkyo" => "Rokkyo" excepted!).
>
irimi-nage might be called "Number 1", to help people who have difficulty
with the names. Then they just remember the number.
Of course, some take this too far, and only know the numbers.
Personally, I believe in using the names only. They are descriptive, and
you can converse with aikidoka from other dojos, clearly and cleanly.
Not all dojos seem to use the same numbering scheme (not many around here
use numbering at all) and why learn a "proprietary" scheme, when one can
learn the general scheme, and talk to everybody?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ Ed Mou +
+ joha...@tz.ucs.sfu.ca /+)-------------- +
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
fritz kemler
po...@clark.net (Mark Truelove) wrote:
>Sorry, but I'm glad this isn't _my_ dojo. I specifically searched for a
>school (AND an art) that didn't carry with it this "brutality is necessary
>and acceptable" mentality in teaching its students.
Yeeeaah man ! We are just the goddamn meanest bunch in the whole fuckin'
town.
Besides, nearly half of our members are women and most of us are
students ore graduates all, enjoying being brutalized and brutalizing
their fellows.
Kidding aside. I just meant that for a realistic attack an Aikido practitioner
is able to work with, it is important to feel what an attack really means:
TO DESTROY !!!
If you accept this, you can work relaxed, have fun, and the risk
isn't higher than in any other kind of sport.
Perhaps this obvious contradiction has something to do with Zen,
Koans etc. We are talking about traditional Japanese martial arts, not
about some kind of aerobics.