Aikido hate

[oftheherd1]

I believe the competition rules allow only thrusts with the knife and allow only official Aikido techniques for the person countering the knife.

That would explain what we are seeing. It just seems a strange way to do things.

 

[drop bear]

True. One should probably not even attempt to learn knife defense until just before BB or better, after attaining BB. The greater one's skills are, the better the chance of learning to be adept enough to survive. And then those skills need to be practiced often.

Much of a muchness. Most people get stabbed in that sort of training Even experts. (it is just that hard to stop a knife with intent) So you either do it and constantly eat crow. Or make the situation unrealistic so you win.

Personally i like the akido method there because it at least gives an honest assessment

 

[Gerry Seymour]

True. One should probably not even attempt to learn knife defense until just before BB or better, after attaining BB. The greater one's skills are, the better the chance of learning to be adept enough to survive. And then those skills need to be practiced often.

We incorporate strategy and movement from early in training toward the end of improving chances against a knife. I start from the premise (based upon a lot of reports) that often the knife isn't even seen when the attack starts (and sometimes, not at all), so we don't "take" any punches. We always assume if the first hand doesn't have a knife, the second one could, so we focus on disrupting structure as quickly as possible on the first hand. If we fail that and the second hand has a chance to attack, it's unlikely the knife was in the first, so the focus is on defending the second hand. Early on, they don't know how much of this is preparation for an unseen knife, but it's there.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Much of a muchness. Most people get stabbed in that sort of training Even experts. (it is just that hard to stop a knife with intent) So you either do it and constantly eat crow. Or make the situation unrealistic so you win.

Personally i like the akido method there because it at least gives an honest assessment

I like that they don't expect to win every time (unrealistic, otherwise), but I don't like the limitations they put on the attacks and defense. I'd hope they also train against attacks where the "attacker" doesn't display the knife before the attack.

 

[drop bear]

I like that they don't expect to win every time (unrealistic, otherwise), but I don't like the limitations they put on the attacks and defense. I'd hope they also train against attacks where the "attacker" doesn't display the knife before the attack.

Yeah there is lots of things you could do. But how you do them is the trick. I would like to see striking but i would be buggered if i am going to jab you with a foam knife while you king hit me in the head.

That minimalist approach gives you some tools that give a base for a bit of exploration.

So if at the very least you can hit a controlling grip on a guy. That gives you a bit to work with. Because you kind of have to be there before you can do anything else.

What we have,i think is a huge portion of knife defence.

 

[Chris Parker]

Are the same rules applied to other arts? Is a regular practitioner of Judo or Karate referred to as a Judo-in or Karate-in?

Well, yeah, technically... of course, the "ka" suffix is largely accepted (although a bit grandiose, to a Japanese ear), but you do occasionally hear terms such as "karate-jin" 空手人... pretty literally "karate person/man"... instead. These are broad terms, though, and specific systems/schools may use their own preferred terminology... such as monjin... or base it on the level of status/exposure to the art itself. "Ka", thought, would be closest to our term "adept".

And as a follow up question, what's the correct term for a person who does jiu jitsu ? I've heard jiujitsuka, jiujitsu player, jiujitiero, and luchador. But mostly, people just say "person who does (or trains) jiu jitsu.

Jiu-jitsu? Not Japanese, so I'd leave that one to you... Jujutsu? Same as above....

Something I can agree with you on Chris Parker.

I think Kung Fu Wang makes the mistake that many do when trying to compare two different martial arts. It is kind of the saying if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail; so if you try to explain everything from your art's point of view, you will find it difficult to understand other art's point of view. But ...

1. If I attack first (and I assume Aikido has attacks just like the Hapkido I studied) I invite a counter attack. Why not wait for the opponent's attack and counter that?

While there are attacks in Aikido, they are largely considered the least-preferred ideal... meaning, in a practical sense, there really aren't many at all. Instead, there is the use of irimi, which can incorporate atemi or not, and use any of the three major timing forms (Go no Sen, Sen no Sen, Sen Sen no Sen).

2. I don't think the wrists are the main point of contact. They are an often used one. But we attack whatever is most convenient in a counter attack. That might be legs, elbows, upper arms, eyes, neck, hair, Pressure points, or just about any other body part that presents itself to attack or manipulation with the least danger to ourselves. But ...

Yeah, I'd say the elbow is a much more frequent point of control in Aikido than the wrist... that comment of John's just showed how little exposure to Aikido he has... the wrist is often a fulcrum, or pivot point, as it's the furthest extension of the arm to take the opponent's balance... but, even then, it's not the main point of contact. I'd actually say the main point of contact in Aikido is the hara... and the contact isn't a physical one.

3. I am often bemused by primarily striking or takedown artists who watch a demonstration of a technique, then try it and can't make it work. One of the most common put downs are, you have to make it work against a resisting opponent. But done properly there is no resistance, unlike your practice opponent who is fully informed exactly what you are trying to do. They also don't see that the opponent is being moved in such a way as to prevent the opponent from resisting or counterattacking.

Yep.

And I have no idea what you mean by keeping an opponent too far away. First, that just sounds silly. If I haven't for some reason got good enough control to prevent him counter attacking, why would I want him closer? But that aside, None of the techniques I learned made a point of keeping an opponent away, but on properly controlling the opponent so he couldn't do anything except what I wanted him to.

Yep, absolutely. The point of centring on the wrist is to extend the opponent's balance, taking them to the point where they do not have the ability to resist, as they're too busy trying to not fall over...

And for your information, one of the hardest things I had to learn was not retreating from an attack, but to move into the attack, either straight in, or to the side, as part of my counter attack technique. I'm surprised you didn't mention that.

It's not something that should be underestimated, and is one of the first (and biggest) challenges of martial study... not just learning to move in, but learning to make that the new instinct, the new standard response.

Oh, and as an aside, I was obviously monumentally lucky that I was already married when I began studying Hapkido, no need to worry about finding aggressively minded or simply women kind enough to assert themselves.

Ha, awesome.

4. In the Hapkido I studied, we certain did use leg skills. But not primarily the way you seem to be saying. They normally fit with the rest of any technique. They kept me balanced, got me where I needed to be for a technique, and attacked the opponent's balance or position. What more do you need your legs to do? EDIT: Oops, I keep reminding myself not to try to answer posts while at work: I meant to point out that often when attacking an opponent's balance or position, we are striking with our feet or knees. We can do anything you can with our feet, but we have a different mindset.

Yeah... look, what John was describing was the equivalent of saying that training with a knife isn't very good, because this bayonet is a much better strategy... showing no clue at all about how the art works, expecting his personal experience to be what everyone wants and the only thing that works...

Anything I have said about Hapkido I would assume would apply to Aikido. If not, Chris Parker or any other Aikido practitioner, please correct me.

Not entirely... no... while Hapkido is from the same family as Aikido (very, very closely related), the direction it's gone in has taken a lot of it's approach away from Aikido's, especially tactically, rather than mechanically. But the points all still stand.

And, for the record, while I have had exposure to a number of different forms of Aikido over the years (Iwama Ryu, Takemusu, Aiki-kai, Yoshinkan, Tomiki), I am not an Aikido practitioner presently.

Did you guys catch the video on the site that JP3 linked to (thanks for that btw) ?

I enjoyed watching it. I for one had never seen a vid of Aikido practitioners wielding their craft in a live setting against un-cooperative opponents. Looks like a boat load of fun.

It does make me think that even a well trained MAist, face to face with a knife brandishing baddie, had better be wearing body armor if he wants to throw his assailant to the ground.

Yeah... Tomiki Aikido (Shodokan Aikido) was created by Tomiki Kenji Sensei, who was a student of both Ueshiba Morihei and Kano Jigoro. He brought in some of the ideas from his Judo training into his expression of Aikido, leading to his creation of his shiai methods seen in the video. Because it encourages a number of aspects that go against the ideals of Aikido as expressed by the founder (in many Aikido-ka's view), it is sometimes referred to as corrupted, or not authentic Aikido. Obviously, that is up to the individual to interpret... but it's important to note that the competitive aspect does move quite a bit away from the ideals of many Aikido forms, which also then influences and affects the physical expression of the art.

Additionally, I see a number of aspects of competitive training that I find fairly negative... such as the habit of simply disengaging and walking off, turning your back on the opponent at the end of a bout...

Other arts just call it good technique.

Er... what? No. Aiki is not present in all martial arts... that's the whole sentence. It's not just the same thing under a different name... it's not a part of all arts. Period.

Well, I would agree that fighting against a knife wielder requires good skill. It is not to be taken lightly. Any slight miscue can be fatal.

And another problem is that many arts don't seem to train much against knife attacks.

However, I was surprised at the number of times scores appeared to be made. It seemed as if only thrusting attacks were made and they had to be defended by arm throws and/or bars. That would cut down your options if true.

There are 17 basic waza allowed by the tosh (empty handed side) in tanto randori, the tanto person can resist/respond with 5 different waza themselves. Importantly, both the tanto and toshu sides are able to score (and win). There is also toshu randori competition, where both participants are unarmed, and kata competition within Tomiki's competitive forms.

Much of a muchness. Most people get stabbed in that sort of training Even experts. (it is just that hard to stop a knife with intent) So you either do it and constantly eat crow. Or make the situation unrealistic so you win.

Personally i like the akido method there because it at least gives an honest assessment

An honest assessment of what? And how is it honest? I'm genuinely curious as to how you would answer that.

 

[Spinedoc]

I like that they don't expect to win every time (unrealistic, otherwise), but I don't like the limitations they put on the attacks and defense. I'd hope they also train against attacks where the "attacker" doesn't display the knife before the attack.

When we work on tango-dori, or knife defense, everyone knows that in a real situation you will get cut. My Sensei always says that IF you get attacked with a knife, the best thing to do is get out of the situation as fast as possible. IF you cannot, and you are forced to actually physically handle the situation....well, you will get cut. What we are trying to do with our training is to minimize that, and hopefully....not die. But, you almost certainly will end up cut.

 

[Spinedoc]

Well, yeah, technically... of course, the "ka" suffix is largely accepted (although a bit grandiose, to a Japanese ear), but you do occasionally hear terms such as "karate-jin" 空手人... pretty literally "karate person/man"... instead. These are broad terms, though, and specific systems/schools may use their own preferred terminology... such as monjin... or base it on the level of status/exposure to the art itself. "Ka", thought, would be closest to our term "adept".

While there are attacks in Aikido, they are largely considered the least-preferred ideal... meaning, in a practical sense, there really aren't many at all. Instead, there is the use of irimi, which can incorporate atemi or not, and use any of the three major timing forms (Go no Sen, Sen no Sen, Sen Sen no Sen).

Yeah, I'd say the elbow is a much more frequent point of control in Aikido than the wrist... that comment of John's just showed how little exposure to Aikido he has... the wrist is often a fulcrum, or pivot point, as it's the furthest extension of the arm to take the opponent's balance... but, even then, it's not the main point of contact. I'd actually say the main point of contact in Aikido is the hara... and the contact isn't a physical one.

Yep, absolutely. The point of centring on the wrist is to extend the opponent's balance, taking them to the point where they do not have the ability to resist, as they're too busy trying to not fall over...

Not entirely... no... while Hapkido is from the same family as Aikido (very, very closely related), the direction it's gone in has taken a lot of it's approach away from Aikido's, especially tactically, rather than mechanically. But the points all still stand.

Er... what? No. Aiki is not present in all martial arts... that's the whole sentence. It's not just the same thing under a different name... it's not a part of all arts. Period.

1. Thank you Chris for that explanation.

2. Yeah, kind of what I meant when I said that the attacks don't really matter. Heck, last night in class, we worked on the "Trump Handshake Defense" basically, when someone is trying to pull you in by your wrist or your hand, how do you blend with that. Most people, including junior Aikido students, get "hung up" on the wrist, and the small details happening away from them. For example, working with a student last night on a simple Ai Hanmi Katatedori Ikkyo blend. He was focusing on the blend and trying to make the circle, elbow to the ear, all those things we tell him......However, he wasn't connecting to his center, and was trying to do all of this stuff with his arms way extended leaning forward. Once I got him to really step in, so that his elbow is almost hitting my ribs, and got him to straighten up and connect to his center....bam. It worked for him. EVERYTHING in Aikido...EVERYTHING is the hara. My senior Sensei, a godan, talks all the time about "washing machine", and how your trunk rotation, and hip motion is actually what throws someone....your arms have nothing to do with the throw itself, they merely guide uke into the right position for the throw. There's really only 4 main entries in Aikido when you break it down. Irimi, Tenkan, Tenshin Irimi, Tenshin Tenkan, now, there are a myriad of variations on those.....Irimi Kaiten, etc.etc.etc.etc.

3. Which brings us to this point, which is correct. Extension....Every technique in Aikido is about 5 things. 1. Kokyu.....2. Aiki....3. Unbendable Arm....4. Mental State (Go no Sen, Sen no Sen, Zanshin, Mushin)...and finally 5. EXTENSION.....everytime. This is where sword work really shows up. When you cut, at least cut properly, with a ken, you are extending the cut, it's not a chop....it's a cut. The same is true with Aikido......relaxed extension.

4. Having practiced Hapkido when I was younger, and Aikido now...they are fairly different. On the surface there are similarities, but there are profound differences in attacks, blends, even techniques. Hapkido can be, at least in my limited experience, much more linear, more direct, and much less "Aiki". That's not necessarily right or wrong, and I would never say one was better than the other, just, that they are different.

5. 100% agree. Aiki can be hard to explain, but most martial arts don't have it.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

It's not something that should be underestimated, and is one of the first (and biggest) challenges of martial study... not just learning to move in, but learning to make that the new instinct, the new standard response.

I've even noticed with some experienced martial artists (several years of study) that they have a tendency to move off (sideways or to a wide angle) or back when given an attack they aren't used to (so, someone from a striking art getting a grab attack). And some arts appear to favor that distance because of the way they compete within their art. Within NGA, I'd noticed most students took many years to develop an entering habit, to the point that I changed how I teach from their first techniques (including adjusting forms) to develop that faster.

Er... what? No. Aiki is not present in all martial arts... that's the whole sentence. It's not just the same thing under a different name... it's not a part of all arts. Period.

I think it shows up in most advanced practitioners of grappling arts (at least, as I define the term "aiki", which I'm not good at giving in words). It's not inherent in those arts, and isn't taught in them so far as I know, but when technique turns into principles it will eventually show up to some extent.

 

[Steve]

Reading through the descriptions of Aiki here and also from other aikidoists who have written descriptions of Aiki on their blogs and school websites, it sounds like there is some room for interpretation, even within the community.

It sounds like some believe there is a mystical quality to it (focusing of ki or channeling of internal energy). Is this another one of those, "you have to be Japanese to understand" it things?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Reading through the descriptions of Aiki here and also from other aikidoists who have written descriptions of Aiki on their blogs and school websites, it sounds like there is some room for interpretation, even within the community.

It sounds like some believe there is a mystical quality to it (focusing of ki or channeling of internal energy). Is this another one of those, "you have to be Japanese to understand" it things?

It's entirely possible one would have to have a firm understanding of Japanese culture/language to get the original Japanese definition. Part of the problem, though, is that it has become a martial arts term used by many of us who don't have that understanding. So, we define the term in our own way, to explain the concept as we see it. And there's some distinct disagreement between those definitions, even among those of us not attempting to replicate what we think the Japanese concept is. Within NGA, with the folks I trained with and under, the term wasn't actually used a lot, so personal definitions of it are probably more variable within NGA than within Ueshiba's Aikido.

 

[Steve]

It's entirely possible one would have to have a firm understanding of Japanese culture/language to get the original Japanese definition. Part of the problem, though, is that it has become a martial arts term used by many of us who don't have that understanding. So, we define the term in our own way, to explain the concept as we see it. And there's some distinct disagreement between those definitions, even among those of us not attempting to replicate what we think the Japanese concept is. Within NGA, with the folks I trained with and under, the term wasn't actually used a lot, so personal definitions of it are probably more variable within NGA than within Ueshiba's Aikido.

Yeah, I get it. And speaking plainly, a discussion about aiki could quickly go the same route as the discussion regarding bowing.

So, first, acknowledging that I am probably mostly wrong, it SEEMS from what I have read here and elsewhere, that aiki is experienced when a technique is performed exactly right and at exactly the right time, so that it is effortless.

This guy (who writes a blog I found on google, and so could be VERY knowledgeable... or not...) defines it as this:

In Sagawa sensei’s “Principles of Aiki Budo”, introduced in the beginning of this book, appears the following passage:

暴を奮う者に対しては合気の理に依りこれをなだめ融和致させ、また敵の既発に対しては同じく合い気の理により敵の攻撃に随い転化または変更して融和致さすのである。

Through the principles of Aiki pacify and reconcile those threatening violence. Also when the enemy has already attacked, likewise transform and change according to the attack of the enemy through the principles of fitting together Ki and achieve reconciliation.

This is somewhat abstract, but it states the fundamental principles of Aiki.

Following Sensei’s teachings, this is my interpretation of Aiki: “Aiki is a technique for the efficient use of power in offense and defense, a technique for fully realizing the power naturally possessed by human beings.”
​

 

[Tony Dismukes]

It's entirely possible one would have to have a firm understanding of Japanese culture/language to get the original Japanese definition.

There's also the question of whether Japanese practitioners would all completely agree on the true original Japanese definition. Many Japanese Aikido practitioners may feel that Tomiki Kenji took his branch of the art away from the principles of aiki. Obviously, Tomiki sensei (who was Japanese) disagreed.

 

[Spinedoc]

When we work on tango-dori, or knife defense, everyone knows that in a real situation you will get cut. My Sensei always says that IF you get attacked with a knife, the best thing to do is get out of the situation as fast as possible. IF you cannot, and you are forced to actually physically handle the situation....well, you will get cut. What we are trying to do with our training is to minimize that, and hopefully....not die. But, you almost certainly will end up cut.

BTW, friggin spell correct. That should say Tanto Dori, not Tango Dori.....ugh.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

So, first, acknowledging that I am probably mostly wrong, it SEEMS from what I have read here and elsewhere, that aiki is experienced when a technique is performed exactly right and at exactly the right time, so that it is effortless.

From conversations with Gerry and others, I would probably modify that to read: aiki is experienced when a technique is performed exactly right and at exactly the right time using the energy of the opponent, so that it is effortless.

Practitioners of aiki-centric arts, how do you feel about that definition?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Yeah, I get it. And speaking plainly, a discussion about aiki could quickly go the same route as the discussion regarding bowing.

So, first, acknowledging that I am probably mostly wrong, it SEEMS from what I have read here and elsewhere, that aiki is experienced when a technique is performed exactly right and at exactly the right time, so that it is effortless.

This guy (who writes a blog I found on google, and so could be VERY knowledgeable... or not...) defines it as this:

In Sagawa sensei’s “Principles of Aiki Budo”, introduced in the beginning of this book, appears the following passage:

暴を奮う者に対しては合気の理に依りこれをなだめ融和致させ、また敵の既発に対しては同じく合い気の理により敵の攻撃に随い転化または変更して融和致さすのである。

Through the principles of Aiki pacify and reconcile those threatening violence. Also when the enemy has already attacked, likewise transform and change according to the attack of the enemy through the principles of fitting together Ki and achieve reconciliation.

This is somewhat abstract, but it states the fundamental principles of Aiki.

Following Sensei’s teachings, this is my interpretation of Aiki: “Aiki is a technique for the efficient use of power in offense and defense, a technique for fully realizing the power naturally possessed by human beings.”
​

Yeah, that definition is as vague to me as the term itself (undefined).

Your thought above ("aiki is experienced when a technique is performed exactly right and at exactly the right time, so that it is effortless") I think highlights what I haven't communicated well, Steve. That feeling of effortlessness from a great technique isn't quite aiki. There's some similarities, and sometimes you'll feel that effortlessness because of aiki, but I can also get that feeling just by excellent use of timing and leverage, which isn't aiki, by my definition.

For me (and I keep stressing that, because I believe - don't know, just believe - that my definition differs from what you'd likely get from someone in Ueshiba's art), aiki is mostly expressed by (nearly) all of the functional energy/momentum in a technique coming from the "attacker". So, even within a given technique (let's use a standing Arm Bar), there are both aiki and non-aiki variations. Executed properly, both can feel effortless, especially if I catch my opponent "in the void" (that point where they are between bases and easily disrupted). The aiki version of the technique will blend into their movement, either redirecting it or accelerating it into an overextension (actually, mostly the same thing). The non-aiki version doesn't blend with their movement, but interrupts it and redirects their weight through leverage. To muddy things up, these aren't necessarily far apart, and I can execute the technique at several points along a continuum between the two.

There. Sort out that muddiness, Steve!

 

[Gerry Seymour]

BTW, friggin spell correct. That should say Tanto Dori, not Tango Dori.....ugh.

I want to learn the Tango Dori techinques. I think I could attract new students with those.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

There's also the question of whether Japanese practitioners would all completely agree on the true original Japanese definition. Many Japanese Aikido practitioners may feel that Tomiki Kenji took his branch of the art away from the principles of aiki. Obviously, Tomiki sensei (who was Japanese) disagreed.

I think you're right, Tony. I'd love to sit down with an experienced Tomiki student and hear their thoughts on it. There's a concept I've been working on in my own mind, of there being more than one way to view aiki even within NGA. I can't quite wrap my head around what I think that means yet, but I think the Tomiki folks' view would clarify it.

 

[Steve]

Yeah, that definition is as vague to me as the term itself (undefined).

Your thought above ("aiki is experienced when a technique is performed exactly right and at exactly the right time, so that it is effortless") I think highlights what I haven't communicated well, Steve. That feeling of effortlessness from a great technique isn't quite aiki. There's some similarities, and sometimes you'll feel that effortlessness because of aiki, but I can also get that feeling just by excellent use of timing and leverage, which isn't aiki, by my definition.

For me (and I keep stressing that, because I believe - don't know, just believe - that my definition differs from what you'd likely get from someone in Ueshiba's art), aiki is mostly expressed by (nearly) all of the functional energy/momentum in a technique coming from the "attacker". So, even within a given technique (let's use a standing Arm Bar), there are both aiki and non-aiki variations. Executed properly, both can feel effortless, especially if I catch my opponent "in the void" (that point where they are between bases and easily disrupted). The aiki version of the technique will blend into their movement, either redirecting it or accelerating it into an overextension (actually, mostly the same thing). The non-aiki version doesn't blend with their movement, but interrupts it and redirects their weight through leverage. To muddy things up, these aren't necessarily far apart, and I can execute the technique at several points along a continuum between the two.

There. Sort out that muddiness, Steve!

okay. The only head scratcher in your explanation is, in my mind, if a technique is effortless, by definition any energy would be coming from the other person, wouldn't it?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

okay. The only head scratcher in your explanation is, in my mind, if a technique is effortless, by definition any energy would be coming from the other person, wouldn't it?

Not always. I can make a technique effortless by getting their weight to that void. If I move them there, it's not aiki. If I let their own momentum do the movement, it can be aiki. I think maybe the easiest way to see the difference is by not separating the set-up from the technique. Let's say you're doing a leg sweep (the version where you are facing opposite your opponent, just off his hip, his weight is at his heels, and you take the near leg). If we start from the moment of the sweep, we miss the difference. If I came at you (maybe going for a clinch and you prevented it), let's look at two ways you got me there.

1) As I stepped in, you got good contact on my shoulders, pulled me in and turned me. Now you sweep. The sweep is entirely effortless, but you provided much of the energy to get me there.

2) As I stepped in, you blended in with me and redirected my momentum before I finished the step, tipping my weight just enough that I step to catch my weight, putting me in the position. The sweep is entirely effortless, and the energy that put me there is almost entirely my own momentum (a little of your weight dropped in to change the direction of my momentum). This one is more aiki, though the finishing technique may be entirely identical.

Now we can also add in some timing differences in some techniques. Some techniques can be very easy even if you let their weight just settle to a stopping point. By my definition, it's not aiki if you let them stop, because their movement is no longer committed into the technique. So, with those two sweeps, if I time the first one to just at the moment when their weight stops, and the second to a point before their weight stops, there's even more of a difference in them.

Did that clarify, or muddy it more?