Aikido hate

[drop bear]

I agree with most of what you've said, and like with Gerry, I think the difference in what I think as vs. yours is based in my definitional nomenclature, as I've grown to understand it. For me... I tend to think there's aiki all over the place, to be taken advantage of and used, whereas to me it appears that you and Gerry share the viewpoint that for it to be aiki at all it needs to fall into that well-nigh effortless category. You guys may be right, I'm not so awesome or arrogant to assert that my concept defeats yours. However, in explanation, in yours above you're discussing the increasing breakdown of posture inherent in the opponent-uke, using kuzushi to induce movement or affect posture, and I think there's aiki all over the Subtle application of "building" kuzushi as you described above.

The pure aiki idea seems to be a way of exploring a concept.

Like doing boxing to learn to punch.

 

[drop bear]

I think the whole concept of Aiki though has little to do with techniques, at least as I have been taught. In a general sense it has nothing to with external movements or harmonizing with an opponent, etc. It has to do with harmonizing with your own spirit internally. It's difficult to explain to be honest....

Even then it doesn't separate itself from other martial arts.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

I agree with most of what you've said, and like with Gerry, I think the difference in what I think as vs. yours is based in my definitional nomenclature, as I've grown to understand it. For me... I tend to think there's aiki all over the place, to be taken advantage of and used, whereas to me it appears that you and Gerry share the viewpoint that for it to be aiki at all it needs to fall into that well-nigh effortless category. You guys may be right, I'm not so awesome or arrogant to assert that my concept defeats yours. However, in explanation, in yours above you're discussing the increasing breakdown of posture inherent in the opponent-uke, using kuzushi to induce movement or affect posture, and I think there's aiki all over the Subtle application of "building" kuzushi as you described above.

I'm not attached to any particular definition of aiki. I'm just going with what seems to be the most commonly expressed ideas I see from Aikido practitioners regarding what it means in order to be able to communicate. I'm happy to go with any other explanation as long as it enables us to have a conversation and understand what we're talking about.

 

[JP3]

In the Hapkido I learned, knife defense is taught so that one doesn't get cut. But as with all techniques, you must be fast and accurate.

My own hapkido training had some of that too. Fast & accurate, indeed. To be more precise, you needed to be Faster & more accurate than the person with the knife. I don't know about your knife-defense, but ours had very little of the modern knife-fighting tactical points about it. There were a couple simple cutting actions, mostly thrusts.
Then I attended a long seminar from an Escrima/Arnis instructor on knife tactics and defense and my thoughts about what I knew, changed. See Bill Maddox's post "On Studenting." Whew! We were training fast, using Sharpie pens and other markers as the "knives" andmoving with some speed. Oh, I forgot to mention that the dress for the seminar was requested to be a new, or at least clean, white -T-shirt. After the very first encounter, the instructor told everyone, OK look at everyone and you tell me who got cut and who didn't. Every single person had marks on their hands and arms, and the only one without a mark or seven on the shirt was a particularly short girl... but she had a nifty line running down the left side of her neck. Ewww. Deader. The seminar continued, much subdued, and although we got better witht he coaching, everyone still continued to get cut. It was How and Where you were getting cut that mattered.

I think the whole concept of Aiki though has little to do with techniques, at least as I have been taught. In a general sense it has nothing to with external movements or harmonizing with an opponent, etc. It has to do with harmonizing with your own spirit internally. It's difficult to explain to be honest....

IMO what you are trying to describe appears to me to be from the later lines of aikido teachers, such as Tohei's Ki Society (his group way to the extreme left of a continuum on this topic), Tohei Sensei's viewpoint is at the opposite end of teaching as that of Kenji Tomiki or Gozo Shioda. For me, I break down that pedagogical difference as Tohei's persuit of the use of Ki as an end in and of itself, and at the other... end, I guess we'd call it, is the thought that Ki is something that is shown and felt when everything else is done correctly, or falls into place out of good fortune, i.e. you got lucky.

Either viewpoint is valid, I think. Each teaching methodology brings about skilled people, so... *shrug*

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Well, for the record, I only suggest that if you say your art is effective, you should be prepared to share your definition of effective. And if you can't, that's a problem.

So, for example. When you say "20 years to high competency," what do you mean by high competency. What can a highly competent aikidoka do? We know that this doesn't mean "able to compete in MMA." And that's fine, but what does it mean?

And then further, how does one know if their own aikido skills meet your own criteria for "high competency?"

It's not my statement, so I don't think I'm the authority on what it means. I've heard versions of it from multiple people within Ueshiba's art. I believe they meant being able to use the techniques easily, fully flowing, regardless of the attack.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I'm not attached to any particular definition of aiki. I'm just going with what seems to be the most commonly expressed ideas I see from Aikido practitioners regarding what it means in order to be able to communicate. I'm happy to go with any other explanation as long as it enables us to have a conversation and understand what we're talking about.

Here's something interesting Jonathan Wilson posted on ngaexperience.com this month. He's quoting Pranin Sensei on his experience in taking ukemi from several high-level practitioners of Ueshiba's Aikido (including some offshoots) and Daito-ryu.

The Late Stanley Pranin on his experiences taking ukemi from aikido and daito-ryu masters.

Noriaki Inoue (Aikido): I was thrown by him when he was an old man, but he was still powerful.

Saito Sensei (Pranin's Sensei): was a supurb tecnnician, perfect tecnnique, powerful, and precise. He had a computer for a mind, and a labyrth organizational system that cataloged everything he had learned from O'Sensei.

Kondo Sensei (Daito-ryu): Was a like a bull. Really strong, powerful and you said a small prayer before you grabbed him. Very effective and dangerous.

Tokemuni Sensei: He threw me a little bit in suwari waza. He was stronger than Saito Sensei if you can believe that, and he was powerful, even though he had lost weight.

I saw Sagawa Sensei. He was one of the most famous Daito-ryu teachers but he was reclusive, and he didn't want to teach foriegners. He was very hard to see, and when I was finally able to see him, they wouldn't let me touch him.

Kimouri Sensei threw me many times. He was very, very good.

Tomiki Sensei ~ I met him on about three occassions he was powerful, but less technical.

Shioda Sensei ~ his aikido was like an explosion, but he wasn't using power. It was based on precision, positioning, timing, and ki. He would throw his uchi-deshi very hard. At many points, I thought he may have injured them. He was very good, and he was so small. He probably weighed less than 100 pounds. He was O'Sensei's height, and thin.

On Aiki: There was aiki with all of these men, but there are different types of aiki. Some forms of aiki are like a caress. They move you so well that it's like the wind blowing through the trees, but other forms of Aiki are like an explosion.

It seems there's some significant difference in what one man (Pranin) experienced as "aiki" when receiving techniques from different people.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

What is aikido designed for? I've asked this question several times, and only hear about more things it isn't.

I think that depends at which point you ask the question. Shioda was an early student, and his Aikido (Yoshinkan) is pretty clearly designed for defensive combat. Tohei was a later student, and his appears to be for development of ki.

 

[Steve]

It's not my statement, so I don't think I'm the authority on what it means. I've heard versions of it from multiple people within Ueshiba's art. I believe they meant being able to use the techniques easily, fully flowing, regardless of the attack.

I know you seem to have a very healthy approach to training. What is your criteria for measuring competency?

 

[oftheherd1]

My own hapkido training had some of that too. Fast & accurate, indeed. To be more precise, you needed to be Faster & more accurate than the person with the knife. I don't know about your knife-defense, but ours had very little of the modern knife-fighting tactical points about it. There were a couple simple cutting actions, mostly thrusts.
Then I attended a long seminar from an Escrima/Arnis instructor on knife tactics and defense and my thoughts about what I knew, changed. See Bill Maddox's post "On Studenting." Whew! We were training fast, using Sharpie pens and other markers as the "knives" andmoving with some speed. Oh, I forgot to mention that the dress for the seminar was requested to be a new, or at least clean, white -T-shirt. After the very first encounter, the instructor told everyone, OK look at everyone and you tell me who got cut and who didn't. Every single person had marks on their hands and arms, and the only one without a mark or seven on the shirt was a particularly short girl... but she had a nifty line running down the left side of her neck. Ewww. Deader. The seminar continued, much subdued, and although we got better witht he coaching, everyone still continued to get cut. It was How and Where you were getting cut that mattered.
...

Bolded: You are correct. That is pretty much how all the Hapkido techniques I learned had to be done. You are often moving into attacks.

Underlined: We learned from up to down attacks, slicing attacks from either right or left, and yes, thrusts. We also learned some sword defense.[/QUOTE]

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I am not sure i am sold on this idea that training exclusively for multiple attackers with weapons is a good thing.

I endorse conservative,basic and safe for self defense. And i think you start to move away from that with multiples and weapons.

Actually, we train similarly in NGA. The concept doesn't have to change things dramatically, but the changes are important. Here's are two parts of the difference between training with multiple attackers in mind, and with weapons in mind, versus training for sparring/competition:

• With training for sparring, you need to be aware of surroundings enough that you don't back yourself into a corner (or you do back them in), that you have room for whatever you try next, etc. There's not much concern (in competition) that you'll be jumped by a second guy, so you can afford to focus more closely on a single person. Training for multiple attackers means always working to watch for the "other guy", keeping a secondary awareness for movement that might indicate someone stepping into the fight. Mind you, in many MMA gyms, there are a lot of folks training at the same time, so you're doing some of this awareness training. What you're likely not doing, though, is working on movement patterns to keep other people from your back, to control where the "room" is, in relationship to you and your opponent. That wouldn't be an important factor in most competition.
• With an assumption there can always be a knife, there's no "taking a punch" (or variations thereof). In competition training, if a strike isn't effective for the ruleset (not hard enough, perhaps, in MM), then it can be partially ignored to allow you to enter and attack. With the assumption there may be a knife, we always defend every attack, even if it appears ineffective, because an ineffective punch can look a lot like a sloppy stab, which is far more effective. Will we still get hit sometimes? Sure, and we'll get "stabbed" by knife attacks, too. But we always defend every attack that could connect.

How important are those differences? I think they are very important. Others will disagree. I'm not sure there's a good way to settle that difference of opinion, and I'm okay with that.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Okay. All kidding aside, according to what has been called aikido, that wasn't it. That disarm could also be called "kenpo like" or "Krav maga like."

Where was the aiki? Where was the philosophy of ueshiba? The bad guy fed him literally zero energy, which is anathema to what aikido is said to be all about. Isn't it?

Not anathema. Just not my definition of "aiki". To me, not everything in Aikido must be fully aiki. There's a long continuum, and I teach a lot of things that are nowhere near the "high aiki" end of that continuum.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Not an akido technique. Not the blending not the distraction. Nothing.

A martial arts technique that many people have learned in many different styles.

Don't stress about steve. Ok. Suggesting he doesn't understand the mechanics of the bjj wristlock in the video might bite a bit. But he will get over it.

By the way, why do you refuse to spell Aikido and aiki properly?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I know you seem to have a very healthy approach to training. What is your criteria for measuring competency?

For me, it's the ability to defend realistic attacks, to smoothly choose an appropriate technique (including strikes and non-aiki options), and to be able to work with some effectiveness against someone of similar level of training.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

In the Hapkido I learned, knife defense is taught so that one doesn't get cut. But as with all techniques, you must be fast and accurate.

IMO knife defense should be taught to avoid getting cut, with the assumption that you will get cut, anyway. Sometimes people will manage to not get cut, but that should never be the expectation. I actually have seen places that stop the defense as soon as the defender gets cut. That's assuming every cut is disastrous, and is building bad habits.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Brilliant!

The weakness of Aikido has finally been outed. Thanks Steve.

Another commonality with other styles, I think. Not attacking will stop pretty much anyone from successfully defending.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Been meaning to reply to this, but I've been fighting off a bug for the last couple of weeks and my brain has been a bit too fuzzy for writing coherently very much.

I think there is more aiki occurring in Judo competition than you see, but it only happens for split seconds at a time, which makes it hard to perceive.

As you note, an experienced grappler will know to maintain a solid, well-balanced base and avoid overcommitting momentum. So as a judoka, you start the match by trying to disrupt that base with kuzushi - pulling, pushing, maybe throwing a few light foot sweeps. No aiki so far. You can generally assume that your opponent's base will be good enough that you can't just pull him off his base and into a throw right away. But he does have to react to that kuzushi somehow. If he doesn't, then his base and posture will become progressively more compromised and you will be able to just step in and force the throw. So then you try to time his reaction to your kuzushi and use it to your advantage. Perhaps you pull him forward and as he resists that action you switch your direction to move with his energy for a backwards throw. It's still not aiki, because he's just adjusting his posture and not giving you enough energy to complete the throw. But now you're coming in with what you've referred to in other comments as "Judo mechanics", applying powerful kuzushi, body alignment, leverage, etc to force the throw. Since your opponent was already moving in the same direction anyway, it's a lot harder for him to just settle into his base and stuff the throw. Now he has to commit to a bigger action to stop your entry or launch an counter-attack of his own. In this moment, one or both players have finally committed to some serious momentum. This is the moment where the opportunity exists for one of the judoka to find that perfect timing, that perfect positioning, to blend with their opponent's movement and make the throw completely effortless. The match may have gone on for four minutes, but the aiki happened in just a split second at the end. (Furthermore, the aiki opportunity would not have arisen if not for the other threats which were brought to bear beforehand.)

It doesn't always happen, of course. More often the judoka will compromise the opponent's balance just enough or blend with their energy just enough so that when he or she enters with a forceful throw using good body mechanics the opponent cannot adjust in time. I believe this is what you mean when you refer to "Judo approach" as opposed to "Aiki approach". But it does happen. I'm a crappy judoka myself (probably equivalent to a mediocre brown belt when it comes to throws) and I've experienced multiple times that sense of my opponent seeming to throw himself with no real effort on my part. I'm sure any high-level judoka has experienced it much more frequently.

The Nage no Kata practiced in Judo took some getting used to when I had the opportunity to practice it. It basically requires the uke to deliver the sort of energy you might see in an Aikido demo. When performing the uke role I felt like I was expected to practically throw myself and it took concentration to not ground myself and adjust my base to avoid doing so. Afterwards I came up with the theory that the purpose of the kata is do simulate that "aiki" feel of the ideal throw where the opponent gives you all the energy you need to and all you have to do is let the throw happen. Since randori and shiai typically require a lot more aggressive work it would be easy for a judoka to fall into the mindset of always athletically forcing the throw. Doing the kata may be meant as a reminder to recognize and use those "aiki" opportunities when they occur.

The Aikido folks here can correct me if I'm wrong, but from watching classes and demos and reading things written by Aikido practitioners, it seems like most Aikido practice is commonly focused more around the idea of the opponent feeding you that fully (or over-) committed attack energy continuously right from the beginning so they never have to apply anything but aiki. Obviously this is problematic for competition. There's a greater chance of an untrained street attacker giving you that kind of energy, but you can't necessarily count on it in that context either. I do think there is value in recognizing and being able to use the opportunities for aiki when they occur. Even more value if you have the skills to provoke your opponent into creating those opportunities. I'm just not sure that training in a context where your uke gives you the openings to apply aiki for free every time is the best way to develop those abilities.

Thoughts?

That's a good explanation of where aiki shows up in Judo competition, Tony. And it fits my definition of the concept nicely. (As you can see in this thread, others may have a broader definition).

As for how Aikido folks (speaking here of Ueshiba's art, not the family of arts), I think that is a common practice for many of them. It has been in schools I've visited, though I'll admit I haven't been to many advanced/yudansha classes at those, so it's possible they include other types of attacks, as well.

 

[oftheherd1]

IMO knife defense should be taught to avoid getting cut, with the assumption that you will get cut, anyway. Sometimes people will manage to not get cut, but that should never be the expectation. I actually have seen places that stop the defense as soon as the defender gets cut. That's assuming every cut is disastrous, and is building bad habits.

That seems to be a very sound practice, for the reason you stated.

Another commonality with other styles, I think. Not attacking will stop pretty much anyone from successfully defending.

A Priori if there is no attack, there can be no offense. Edit: But I was being a little facetious in my answer to Steve.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I agree with most of what you've said, and like with Gerry, I think the difference in what I think as vs. yours is based in my definitional nomenclature, as I've grown to understand it. For me... I tend to think there's aiki all over the place, to be taken advantage of and used, whereas to me it appears that you and Gerry share the viewpoint that for it to be aiki at all it needs to fall into that well-nigh effortless category. You guys may be right, I'm not so awesome or arrogant to assert that my concept defeats yours. However, in explanation, in yours above you're discussing the increasing breakdown of posture inherent in the opponent-uke, using kuzushi to induce movement or affect posture, and I think there's aiki all over the Subtle application of "building" kuzushi as you described above.

I think the difference is all in how you use the term (part of Pranin's assertion in the article posted in this thread). If you and I threw away the term "aiki" (as Pranin did in his Zone Theory), we'd have little left to argue about. So, in the interest of interestingness....no, you're wrong. My definition is right, and always will be.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I think the whole concept of Aiki though has little to do with techniques, at least as I have been taught. In a general sense it has nothing to with external movements or harmonizing with an opponent, etc. It has to do with harmonizing with your own spirit internally. It's difficult to explain to be honest....

That sounds in line with how much of the later-lineage Aikido (Tohei, etc.) views aiki. It becomes almost a philosophical concept, rather than a physical principle of the technique.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I disagree almost entirely with his initial point. That's one tool, and one that is not always available (for some of us, very sporadically). So, where he says "period", he's far overstating the case for concealed carry.