Aikido.. The reality?

[Gerry Seymour]

I'm not disagreeing with what you are saying but I'm not sure we are looking at same thing in terms of that chop. Just over all, I don't discard Jow Ga techniques because of the quote below.
I understand this is you personally, so in return what I'm saying is just my perspective.
Here's what I see.

• People drilling a chop not a entry. In this case an entry would be more linear and less hammer like. I understand the entry part because I've used it in sparring and it didn't have a hammering feel to it.
• People drilling to flow with a chopping motion not an entry motion.

What you are presenting are "ways that it can be used" which I don't disagree with. But I don't want to get far from the Chopping motion or the reaction to the chopping motion. The frequency that a technique is done is of minor concern. Tornado kicks aren't that frequently done in MMA but they have been done. A chop may be similar. It's not the common thing, but a thing. Like that tool in the tool box that you only use every 2 or 3 years.

What you have written is what I would say to student to help them see beyond that a single technique. Instead of thinking "that's all there is" they would learn to see things that can it can be used for. For me. I'm just focusing on that 1 technique and that 1 reaction to it. Unfortunately, I'm at a huge disadvantage because I don't train Aikido and I'm currently not in a position where I can test this against a variety of chopping like attacks and entries that are actually used.

My biggest hang up is the idea of training of flow against a movement that doesn't exist in fighting. That doesn't make sense to me. I can't learn the flow of swimming by training the flow of running, because the running movement doesn't exist in swimming. So to train flow on an attack or movement that doesn't exist is difficult for me to understand the logic of.

I think part of his point is that the focus on it being a chop (in training) is focusing on a minority usage. I suspect this is true, and that it was viewed differently in pre-WWII Aikido.

 

[Shatteredzen]

I'm not disagreeing with what you are saying but I'm not sure we are looking at same thing in terms of that chop. Just over all, I don't discard Jow Ga techniques because of the quote below.
I understand this is you personally, so in return what I'm saying is just my perspective.
Here's what I see.

• People drilling a chop not a entry. In this case an entry would be more linear and less hammer like. I understand the entry part because I've used it in sparring and it didn't have a hammering feel to it.
• People drilling to flow with a chopping motion not an entry motion.

What you are presenting are "ways that it can be used" which I don't disagree with. But I don't want to get far from the Chopping motion or the reaction to the chopping motion. The frequency that a technique is done is of minor concern. Tornado kicks aren't that frequently done in MMA but they have been done. A chop may be similar. It's not the common thing, but a thing. Like that tool in the tool box that you only use every 2 or 3 years.

What you have written is what I would say to student to help them see beyond that a single technique. Instead of thinking "that's all there is" they would learn to see things that can it can be used for. For me. I'm just focusing on that 1 technique and that 1 reaction to it. Unfortunately, I'm at a huge disadvantage because I don't train Aikido and I'm currently not in a position where I can test this against a variety of chopping like attacks and entries that are actually used.

My biggest hang up is the idea of training of flow against a movement that doesn't exist in fighting. That doesn't make sense to me. I can't learn the flow of swimming by training the flow of running, because the running movement doesn't exist in swimming. So to train flow on an attack or movement that doesn't exist is difficult for me to understand the logic of.

There is a disconnect here, what you are seeing/thinking of is the picture of the Hakama wearing aikido practitioner laying about themselves with knife hands. This a form/style thing that shows up a lot and is often not applied with any particular rhyme or reason. I am saying not to do this, if you watch either of the videos, especially the second one, you can see what I am talking about using a sweeping motion to intercept the limb while using the bladed hand to intercept the body and create a hinge point. Instead of entering the opponents line of attack wielding a karate chop, which is what your talking about, both arms are used to intercept the opponents limb and halt that line of attack or to simultaneously attack and defend with a hand sweeping away the opponents attack and the other hand striking or grappling to execute a throw/takedown, etc.

The "receiving posture" you see in uke/nage drills where the guy defending is doing the 1980's style double knife hand defensive stance is silly and impractical, it IS useful for teaching new students the concept of "receiving" the enemy attack but its practical use should be a nice, relaxed and open stance, feet center width apart, hands down in front or slightly raised in a "hey lets not fight" kind of motion, you can see this in the aikidoflow video. When I train students, I try to keep telling them to relax and "just wax on, wax off" as they go through getting the rhythm down, I also use the Kali flow drill for this. That robotic chop or chop then move motion you keep seeing is bad form, unfortunately, it is very common because everyone keeps watching the old Morihei Ueshiba or Steven Seagal demonstrations and keeps thinking that exaggerated demo posture and movement is the way to go in a fight and its not.

If you watch Kendo in practice, the movements are very choppy, staggering and everything looks super rigid, watch a Kendo bout however and there is a definite rhythm and flow that you don't see in the practice or demo portion of the training. Aikido is based on the Japanese sword techniques, so it looks very choppy, it shouldn't however, look like that in practical application but you see it because of the training issues within the community we keep discussing, the lack of realistic resistance and dynamic movement, etc. I used aikidoflow as an example and that video in particular because he is explaining the problem with that rigid movement and he does not use Aikido in that way, although he is using traditional Aikido throughout his videos.

 

[Martial D]

You basically just reiterated your previous statement, still not describing how the listed scenarios don't reflect reality. They are based on a "real" attack. That's why I emphasized landing strikes and gaining arm control prior to the grab.

From your tone, it seems you do not think that grabbing the opponent's arm or wrist is possible in a fight. Correct? If not, under what circumstance or scenario do you think it's possible? IMO, if you are unable or unwilling to back up your assertions, you should refrain from making them.

Of course it's possible, if you already have control of their body once a grappling exchange has started. But if you think you are catching punches as they enter or attacking a striking arm you either have superhuman reflexes or you have been sold some hooey. Show me any example of these sorts of things working on someone that isn't fully cooperative.

 

[Shatteredzen]

I think part of his point is that the focus on it being a chop (in training) is focusing on a minority usage. I suspect this is true, and that it was viewed differently in pre-WWII Aikido.

Yes, I am not even going to try to defend the Aikido community or the art as a whole, I am here saying that a MAJORITY of the schools are complete rancid garbage. It is super hard to find people who understand or "get" Aikido, even among the practitioners, there's so much leftover esotericism and bullshido that came with its importation to the US and it has never gotten straightened out. I've talked to several black belts over the years from traditional schools with lineages unbroken back to the best schools in Japan who were drinking the koolaid on the non violent / pacifist, post war stuff. I would guess that most Aikido students don't read any of the actual philosophy from Ueshiba except for his post war stuff and have no idea that it was so deliberately neutered post war. Your comment earlier that Aikido seems to be what works for a small group is very on the nose, there's a small group of nerds who put the time in to "get it" and desperately try to make the good stuff available to anyone/everyone.

The issue I see is that John Q Public has zero practical reason to sort through the sea of ******** schools trying to find a good trainer they can learn from without having to join the cult of Aikido proper which does not use modern or varied techniques or attempt to integrate itself into other arts. In many ways, modern Aikido is much more rigid than it ever was under Ueshiba since it was always meant to be added to someone's Ju-Jutsu, Judo, karate, etc. Why go to class after class searching for a competent and realistic Aikido teacher, learning all sorts of nonsense along the way when you can join any number of MMA gyms with some washed out fighter teaching who at least has a half dozen fights under their belt to show they know how to at least take a punch. You can take any old martial arts class and feel good about yourself and maybe even defend yourself after a few months of training, where Aikido takes you already knowing one or two other arts and really doesn't start paying super good dividends until at least the "journeyman stage". So somewhere between a thousand and ten thousand hours to mastery, you get the big payout where it all starts to click, if you had a good trainer and you did the extra credit homework with all the background research. Why deal with that when you can learn to triangle choke your buddy, today for $50?

I'm not saying you get nothing until you go all in, when its rolled into a mixed style of training and/or if you get a good teacher it can start paying off right away just like any martial art. But understanding all the concepts, mastering the movement and techniques and the reasoning behind everything in a practical manner, it takes a long time. this said, it was my first style where I reached "mastery" and its continued to be like my first love, it is part of everything and every technique I use and its the central pillar in my methodology/philosophy with martial arts and I really do believe its led to the successes I have had with all the other systems I have studied.

 

[JowGaWolf]

I think part of his point is that the focus on it being a chop (in training) is focusing on a minority usage. I suspect this is true, and that it was viewed differently in pre-WWII Aikido.

I'm fine with it being a minority use thing. That's the norm for kung fu so I won't go down that path of people don't attack like that. I try to keep things in context then build out from that into variations.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Yes, I am not even going to try to defend the Aikido community or the art as a whole, I am here saying that a MAJORITY of the schools are complete rancid garbage. It is super hard to find people who understand or "get" Aikido, even among the practitioners, there's so much leftover esotericism and bullshido that came with its importation to the US and it has never gotten straightened out. I've talked to several black belts over the years from traditional schools with lineages unbroken back to the best schools in Japan who were drinking the koolaid on the non violent / pacifist, post war stuff. I would guess that most Aikido students don't read any of the actual philosophy from Ueshiba except for his post war stuff and have no idea that it was so deliberately neutered post war. Your comment earlier that Aikido seems to be what works for a small group is very on the nose, there's a small group of nerds who put the time in to "get it" and desperately try to make the good stuff available to anyone/everyone.

The issue I see is that John Q Public has zero practical reason to sort through the sea of ******** schools trying to find a good trainer they can learn from without having to join the cult of Aikido proper which does not use modern or varied techniques or attempt to integrate itself into other arts. In many ways, modern Aikido is much more rigid than it ever was under Ueshiba since it was always meant to be added to someone's Ju-Jutsu, Judo, karate, etc. Why go to class after class searching for a competent and realistic Aikido teacher, learning all sorts of nonsense along the way when you can join any number of MMA gyms with some washed out fighter teaching who at least has a half dozen fights under their belt to show they know how to at least take a punch. You can take any old martial arts class and feel good about yourself and maybe even defend yourself after a few months of training, where Aikido takes you already knowing one or two other arts and really doesn't start paying super good dividends until at least the "journeyman stage". So somewhere between a thousand and ten thousand hours to mastery, you get the big payout where it all starts to click, if you had a good trainer and you did the extra credit homework with all the background research. Why deal with that when you can learn to triangle choke your buddy, today for $50?

I'm not saying you get nothing until you go all in, when its rolled into a mixed style of training and/or if you get a good teacher it can start paying off right away just like any martial art. But understanding all the concepts, mastering the movement and techniques and the reasoning behind everything in a practical manner, it takes a long time. this said, it was my first style where I reached "mastery" and its continued to be like my first love, it is part of everything and every technique I use and its the central pillar in my methodology/philosophy with martial arts and I really do believe its led to the successes I have had with all the other systems I have studied.

I'm an analytical person and by default will try to understand one or two things in a system that I don't train. Show me a video and I'm all over it. But based on what you have been sharing it seems as if more has been stripped from it than I was willing to accept which is a shame. I was looking forward to explore some of what I was seeing.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Yes, I am not even going to try to defend the Aikido community or the art as a whole, I am here saying that a MAJORITY of the schools are complete rancid garbage. It is super hard to find people who understand or "get" Aikido, even among the practitioners, there's so much leftover esotericism and bullshido that came with its importation to the US and it has never gotten straightened out. I've talked to several black belts over the years from traditional schools with lineages unbroken back to the best schools in Japan who were drinking the koolaid on the non violent / pacifist, post war stuff. I would guess that most Aikido students don't read any of the actual philosophy from Ueshiba except for his post war stuff and have no idea that it was so deliberately neutered post war. Your comment earlier that Aikido seems to be what works for a small group is very on the nose, there's a small group of nerds who put the time in to "get it" and desperately try to make the good stuff available to anyone/everyone.

The issue I see is that John Q Public has zero practical reason to sort through the sea of ******** schools trying to find a good trainer they can learn from without having to join the cult of Aikido proper which does not use modern or varied techniques or attempt to integrate itself into other arts. In many ways, modern Aikido is much more rigid than it ever was under Ueshiba since it was always meant to be added to someone's Ju-Jutsu, Judo, karate, etc. Why go to class after class searching for a competent and realistic Aikido teacher, learning all sorts of nonsense along the way when you can join any number of MMA gyms with some washed out fighter teaching who at least has a half dozen fights under their belt to show they know how to at least take a punch. You can take any old martial arts class and feel good about yourself and maybe even defend yourself after a few months of training, where Aikido takes you already knowing one or two other arts and really doesn't start paying super good dividends until at least the "journeyman stage". So somewhere between a thousand and ten thousand hours to mastery, you get the big payout where it all starts to click, if you had a good trainer and you did the extra credit homework with all the background research. Why deal with that when you can learn to triangle choke your buddy, today for $50?

I'm not saying you get nothing until you go all in, when its rolled into a mixed style of training and/or if you get a good teacher it can start paying off right away just like any martial art. But understanding all the concepts, mastering the movement and techniques and the reasoning behind everything in a practical manner, it takes a long time. this said, it was my first style where I reached "mastery" and its continued to be like my first love, it is part of everything and every technique I use and its the central pillar in my methodology/philosophy with martial arts and I really do believe its led to the successes I have had with all the other systems I have studied.

Just realized that this fits my thoughts about stuff intentionally being left out or shown incorrectly like stepping then chopping vs doing both at the same time.

 

[Flying Crane]

I'm an analytical person and by default will try to understand one or two things in a system that I don't train. Show me a video and I'm all over it. But based on what you have been sharing it seems as if more has been stripped from it than I was willing to accept which is a shame. I was looking forward to explore some of what I was seeing.

I feel like aikido is something that cannot be understood piecemeal. I suspect you need to take it as a whole, and then you can understand how the pieces work together because they cannot be separated and looked at as discrete items.

I feel like Chinese martial arts is very much similar in that regard, although people will often try to analyze it on a piecemeal level. Some of them may withstand that kind of analysis better than others, but I think much is missed that way.

 

[Shatteredzen]

I feel like aikido is something that cannot be understood piecemeal. I suspect you need to take it as a whole, and then you can understand how the pieces work together because they cannot be separated and looked at as discrete items.

I feel like Chinese martial arts is very much similar in that regard, although people will often try to analyze it on a piecemeal level. Some of them may withstand that kind of analysis better than others, but I think much is missed that way.

More than anything, there is a ton of FUD floating around that other people have put into the system since the founders death and for their own reasons. More than many others because you have the whole pacifism thing from the post war stuff which actually completely changed some of the techniques and then you have the fact that there's no combative drilling in most schools, just uke/nage drills, this builds lazy technique and bad habits and encourages the hocus pocus type "teachers". The way I have always been taught and the way I would recommend practicing Aikido, is for the instructor to demonstrate the technique slowly, then half speed, then full speed on each student, also elevating the force in applying the technique from gentle to as painful as possible without causing actual injury. Then have the students do the same for each other. Not only do you learn much more personal control from this, you learn what is working and what's wrong, if the technique doesn't work then it doesn't work and you can correct it individually.

I also suggest full contact sparring periodically, at least once per class or at least every other class, have the students throw on some headgear and some MMA gloves and tell them to rough house without hurting each other, this way they get to constantly test and try to apply stuff with resistance and encourage them to think outside the box. Getting a few taps to the head because you tried to follow an arm teaches you to not do that in a confrontation real quick. We also throw in trainer knives or the foam batons or even another student to attack the two sparring every once in awhile to mix things up. As you might guess, this looks nothing like uke/nage drills, but it's still very much Aikido. You learn very quickly that if you are being punched in the face, you need to commit to get that arm manipulation or that trying for that perfect wrist/thumb lock isn't going to work so maybe go for the hip throw as you pass, etc.

 

[JowGaWolf]

I feel like aikido is something that cannot be understood piecemeal. I suspect you need to take it as a whole, and then you can understand how the pieces work together because they cannot be separated and looked at as discrete items.

I haven't even gotten to that point point. Here's where I'm

1. What is he doing when he makes that motion? That's it. Is it a chop or is it something else? Once I understand that I can then look at 2.
2. What is the response to that motion? Is it a defense or is it something else?

These are very basic. I can take any fighting system or supplement system like Chin Na, that's out there and use the same logic. It is impossible to look at the whole if you don't know what some of the parts. I think this is where people go wrong. They see the whole without understanding the parts and as a result they usually lack the understanding or knowledge needed to understand the whole.

Here's another example. When you look at a tree, how can you understand the whole if you do not understand the root, the bark, the trunk, the leaves, or the environment that it lives in. To me this is a universal truth. When you look at the whole of chess, how can you understand the whole, if you do not understand some of the pieces?

If I'm doing a chopping motion, how can I understand that chopping motion if I do not understand the parts that make it up, for example, the foot work, the direction of the chop, the location in which the strike lands. If you cannot define or understand the pieces then how can you know the whole.

Do you know "the whole of me because of the color of my skin" or Do you know "the whole of me because of the the parts that make me up." There's nothing in this world that would make me see otherwise because there are so many things that follow that logic. Here's another example, Someone recently posted a picture saying that they did a "Perfect kick" what later came out was that they couldn't tell if it was a perfect kick or not. Did the person just raise their leg then take a picture? Did the person shift their weight correctly? Was the power of the kick generated correct if at all? All of these are small parts that make the whole of the kick. You cannot teach the Whole of Karate, Kung Fu, Kali, or any system by trying to learn everything at once. We learn things in parts, we build upon a small understanding until it grows until a larger and more complete understanding. I don't know or train Aikido but I'm sure they started small.

I feel like Chinese martial arts is very much similar in that regard, although people will often try to analyze it on a piecemeal level. Some of them may withstand that kind of analysis better than others, but I think much is missed that way.

This is how I learned my kung fu and is why I'm able to actually use the techniques. When I analyze the technique, I don't care about form as much as purpose. The form of the technique may just be a template in which more practical variations are built. If I see a movement that's moves similar to a crude chop, then there's no reason for me to assume that it's an uppercut and that the chopping movement is done for some other health benefit or strength benefit that aids the system. Things that fall into that category usually don't have an Attack - Defense drill.

When I saw "the step then chop." It reminded me of Jow Ga's "step, then punch." Jow Ga schools intentionally teach it incorrectly because they feel that it helps students understand how to drive the punch. I don't teach it because in application, that's not how the punch is driven and not how it feels in application. Yet many Jow Ga schools teach students that way. If you ever spar and paid attention to driving power in your punches during sparring, you would learn through trial and error "what feels better." "What feels connected" Your first thought will also be "why did that person step then punch instead of doing both at the same time?" From just that Chop and Footwork, I think there's a lot of things like that in Aikido. I could easily be wrong, but that's my first impression of what goes through my mind.

Am I the only one who has asked "Why is the chop so robotic?" "Why does the power generation feel disconnected." Even GpSeymour made the statement about how the chop was done.

The strike they show wouldn't have a lot of power

I agree with it. As show the chop doesn't have a lot of power to it, but it could if you just added a few key things and you'll end up with a similar motion, step and all.

This is the application that GPseymour was mention. In this situation it wasn't done against a strike, It was done against someone trying to push me. The move that my hand made wasn't a chopping motion. It went forward like a vertical punch but open hand. I was able to do this twice back to back, with no problem and quite to my surprise. He fell to the ground with ease, the first time he hit the ground hard, the second time I tried to reduce his impact. I've pushed empty shopping carts with more effort than what this took. But that motion wasn't a chopping motion. In terms of Aikido, I would say it was close to a stabbing motion as if my arm is the sword, and not as if I'm holding one. Imagine someone cut your hand off and stuck a knife on the end of it. That type of stabbing motion.

Am I going to be stubborn with this. Yes. But not in defense of Aikido. But in the understanding that there are just some universal movements and physics that apply to people with 2 arms, 2 hands, and 2 legs.

 

[Flying Crane]

I haven't even gotten to that point point. Here's where I'm

1. What is he doing when he makes that motion? That's it. Is it a chop or is it something else? Once I understand that I can then look at 2.
2. What is the response to that motion? Is it a defense or is it something else?

These are very basic. I can take any fighting system or supplement system like Chin Na, that's out there and use the same logic. It is impossible to look at the whole if you don't know what some of the parts. I think this is where people go wrong. They see the whole without understanding the parts and as a result they usually lack the understanding or knowledge needed to understand the whole.

Here's another example. When you look at a tree, how can you understand the whole if you do not understand the root, the bark, the trunk, the leaves, or the environment that it lives in. To me this is a universal truth. When you look at the whole of chess, how can you understand the whole, if you do not understand some of the pieces?

If I'm doing a chopping motion, how can I understand that chopping motion if I do not understand the parts that make it up, for example, the foot work, the direction of the chop, the location in which the strike lands. If you cannot define or understand the pieces then how can you know the whole.

Do you know "the whole of me because of the color of my skin" or Do you know "the whole of me because of the the parts that make me up." There's nothing in this world that would make me see otherwise because there are so many things that follow that logic. Here's another example, Someone recently posted a picture saying that they did a "Perfect kick" what later came out was that they couldn't tell if it was a perfect kick or not. Did the person just raise their leg then take a picture? Did the person shift their weight correctly? Was the power of the kick generated correct if at all? All of these are small parts that make the whole of the kick. You cannot teach the Whole of Karate, Kung Fu, Kali, or any system by trying to learn everything at once. We learn things in parts, we build upon a small understanding until it grows until a larger and more complete understanding. I don't know or train Aikido but I'm sure they started small.



This is how I learned my kung fu and is why I'm able to actually use the techniques. When I analyze the technique, I don't care about form as much as purpose. The form of the technique may just be a template in which more practical variations are built. If I see a movement that's moves similar to a crude chop, then there's no reason for me to assume that it's an uppercut and that the chopping movement is done for some other health benefit or strength benefit that aids the system. Things that fall into that category usually don't have an Attack - Defense drill.

When I saw "the step then chop." It reminded me of Jow Ga's "step, then punch." Jow Ga schools intentionally teach it incorrectly because they feel that it helps students understand how to drive the punch. I don't teach it because in application, that's not how the punch is driven and not how it feels in application. Yet many Jow Ga schools teach students that way. If you ever spar and paid attention to driving power in your punches during sparring, you would learn through trial and error "what feels better." "What feels connected" Your first thought will also be "why did that person step then punch instead of doing both at the same time?" From just that Chop and Footwork, I think there's a lot of things like that in Aikido. I could easily be wrong, but that's my first impression of what goes through my mind.

Am I the only one who has asked "Why is the chop so robotic?" "Why does the power generation feel disconnected." Even GpSeymour made the statement about how the chop was done.

I agree with it. As show the chop doesn't have a lot of power to it, but it could if you just added a few key things and you'll end up with a similar motion, step and all.

This is the application that GPseymour was mention. In this situation it wasn't done against a strike, It was done against someone trying to push me. The move that my hand made wasn't a chopping motion. It went forward like a vertical punch but open hand. I was able to do this twice back to back, with no problem and quite to my surprise. He fell to the ground with ease, the first time he hit the ground hard, the second time I tried to reduce his impact. I've pushed empty shopping carts with more effort than what this took. But that motion wasn't a chopping motion. In terms of Aikido, I would say it was close to a stabbing motion as if my arm is the sword, and not as if I'm holding one. Imagine someone cut your hand off and stuck a knife on the end of it. That type of stabbing motion.
View attachment 23752

Am I going to be stubborn with this. Yes. But not in defense of Aikido. But in the understanding that there are just some universal movements and physics that apply to people with 2 arms, 2 hands, and 2 legs.

See, I disagree with how you are looking at it. I don’t think you can properly understand application until you understand the type of engine under the hood. And I’m not trying to make a driving analogy. Yes, you can drive a car without understanding how the engine works. But I feel martial arts are fundamentally different. On some level you CAN understand function and application without understanding the engine, but likely your application is inefficient and sub-optimal and to some degree you may be trying to pound a square peg into a round hole. You might get it to fit if you pound hard enough, but you work harder than you should and it never quite works how it is intended.

So that chop, well, maybe it’s a chop or maybe it’s something else and isn’t applied like a chop. I dunno. I just feel like there is more that should be going on there. But as has been pointed out, a lot of garbage schools, so maybe we haven’t yet seen a good example.

I will also say that I can get a lot of power from something similar to that chop. I wouldn’t lead in with that, it’s too obvious. But in the right place, hell yeah, I can hit hard with something similar to it.

 

[JowGaWolf]

We also throw in trainer knives

Trainer knifes are a funny concept. Even thought they don't cut, those suckers still hurt. My body reacts to hard plastic trainer knives like a real knife because those 2 instructors I had would stab the heck out of the older students. They told me a story of the fencer who joined the class and when it came to stabbing that guy was king. Unfortunately the knife "training wasn't focused" I would have like to have learned the double dagger form then trained knifes. maybe one day in the future, I'll get to feel those training knifes.

 

[isshinryuronin]

Of course it's possible, if you already have control of their body once a grappling exchange has started. But if you think you are catching punches as they enter or attacking a striking arm you either have superhuman reflexes or you have been sold some hooey. Show me any example of these sorts of things working on someone that isn't fully cooperative.

Thank you for adding some context and detail to your original comments. I never mentioned "catching" a punch. Let's look at it from the opposite perspective: How often can you square off with someone, throw one punch, and have it land against someone, unless very unskilled or "fully cooperative?" Not too many one punch fights. "You either have superhuman reflexes, or you have been sold some hooey."

Of course, whether landing a knockout punch, OR setting a grab, one must set up the opponent by preliminary attacks, gaining control of the arm, position, manipulation, or some sort of disruption which enables you to execute it. It usually takes some work and skill for that to develop.

 

[JowGaWolf]

See, I disagree with how you are looking at it. I don’t think you can properly understand application until you understand the type of engine under the hood.

I guess you don't disagree with me, because I agree with this. That is just a small piece of the whole. Which is why I mentioned that while I was performing that chopping motion, that I felt a lot of disconnection of power. If I do it as shown in the video, it's going to be weak. There's no way that motion can be strong. But the moment I started connecting simple things like landing my foot down at the same time I did the strike, the power for a chop (if that's what it is) was there.

But I feel martial arts are fundamentally different. On some level you CAN understand function and application without understanding the engine,

This is what I don't agree with. Because "on some level" can is can be anything from getting to gist of it, or understanding something "completely" or in a deeper sense.

In terms of martial arts "some level" can look like this

With martial arts, we get the gist of things and we don't grasp a good understanding of it until we try to apply it. Failing at it is just as important as being successful with a technique. Both help the person gain a better understanding. Your next statement speaks to this same perception.

your application is inefficient and sub-optimal and to some degree you may be trying to pound a square peg into a round hole. You might get it to fit if you pound hard enough, but you work harder than you should and it never quite works how it is intended.

This statement = the Errors, Mistakes, and Success that comes along with tying to apply a technique. For example, with the chop, I didn't just look at it, I tried it. If I had a quality sparring partner to actually test it, I would have been willing to take a few punches to the face. Those punches that I eat = "inefficient and sub-optimal...pound a square peg into a round hole." I know when I get it right because the technique will stop feeling like that and I will have more success of actually landing the technique. So in this area. You and I are on the same page.

So that chop, well, maybe it’s a chop or maybe it’s something else and isn’t applied like a chop. I dunno.

I'm still trying to figure this out. I'm trying to pick up as many clues as possible, reviewing the footwork. Asking questions about what I see. Things like

• Does he move off center because moving off center is part of the thing of Aikido?
  
• why is he moving off center when the other person isn't attacking?
• why does he step first then chops?
• Am I looking at a chop or is it something else."
• What is the person trying to do with that striking motion. What target was he aiming at if any?
• If both are Aikido (Style A vs Style A) then why do those the person attack so far out?
• If I step forward like shown in the video, what is the likely action that my enemy / opponent / sparring partner do?
• In the "chopping drill" (I'll get the official name right sometime this week). Why does he drill the "chopping technique" off center, but in the 2 man drill, everyone attacks head on instead of off center.
• What would happen if you tried to attack someone like that while moving off center.
• Why does the strike end at an angle as if you are standing on someone's flank?
• If it's knife stab simulation then why is the hand open?

Person on the right strikes head on and not off center like in the drill. Off center would place him on the left flank of the defender and he would be facing the camera. Here we can see that is not the case.

• Why does he hold his hand across his chest. If the "chop is an Aikido thing" then I'm assuming there is a successful version of this attack
• If there's a successful version of this attack where would his hands be.
• If Kung Fu Wang was fighting this guy, The guy on the right would have been punched in the face at the same time the defender made contact with his left arm. (block and strike at the same time. Is that only a Chinese concept? Did the Japanese have a similar concept?
• If there's a successful version of this attack then why wasn't it used in this scenario? Do they train against things that are "crappy"
  
• If I asked the teacher to show me how the chop works, how might he show me? Would he move off center line?

Here we see the teacher doing the chop. A punch is thrown the teacher takes an angle. We can tell because we can see the back of the head. The feet are also not far apart, which is the same with kung fu for a similar strike, in Jow Ga,it's called a nail strike and foot work wise, you end up facing in this direction. The stepping off center and turning into the strike is what helps to generate the power. In this scenario he's safe from the left punch because that punch cannot leave until the other one comes back to at least the 50% mark, starting at the point where the punch began.

• Why does the teacher step off center when he does his chop, but the student does not?
• If I had to do a similar technique, is there a benefit from stepping off center?

These are just a few things that run through my mind when I analyze things that I don't understand, including Jow Ga techniques. I can answer many of these questions quickly if I have a sparring partner and got punched in the face a few times. Sparring is an excelling way to detect some BS if you have a sparring partner willing to punch you in the face.

• Is this a common way to position across martial arts system or is this something only Aikido does?

Is this the application of a chop in Aikido

So as you can see. I first go through these question to see what answers I get or can find. What do I see. what do I know. I know without a doubt that staying on center line is a good way to eat a punch. I know without doubt moving off center is a good way to avoid a punch while landing a strike. I know that when I see real fights, where a gets nailed with a straight punch is because he didn't move off centerline or parry.

So you can see that I'm asking questions about what I'm seeing

 

[JowGaWolf]

Of course, whether landing a knockout punch, OR setting a grab, one must set up the opponent by preliminary attacks, gaining control of the arm, position, manipulation, or some sort of disruption which enables you to execute it.

This is how I see it as well. Setting up vs Playing the Guessing Game.
Setting up helps to narrow the options of "what comes next" this makes it possible to get your opponent to throw the type of punch that you want when you want it. Counter punchers do it all the time. I like how you can hear some of them finish the other guy's punching rhythm

But back to Set up vs Guessing Game. The guessing game never worked for me. It puts me in the mindset of waiting for something to happen vs actually attacking and I end up with the "fly swatting" hands always late to stop the punch.

 

[JowGaWolf]

if you watch either of the videos, especially the second one, you can see what I am talking about using a sweeping motion to intercept the limb while using the bladed hand to intercept the body and create a hinge point.

So you want me to ignore the Karate chops and follow this? I can do that, to me it's just a variation. If this is the Aikido approach I should look at, then I can look at that and from there. I can drop the karate chop and analyze the application that you speak of.

The only reason that I ask is because you better point this out in terms of Aikido. Just from my Aikido searches on youtube there's a lot of chops.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

See, I disagree with how you are looking at it. I don’t think you can properly understand application until you understand the type of engine under the hood. And I’m not trying to make a driving analogy. Yes, you can drive a car without understanding how the engine works. But I feel martial arts are fundamentally different. On some level you CAN understand function and application without understanding the engine, but likely your application is inefficient and sub-optimal and to some degree you may be trying to pound a square peg into a round hole. You might get it to fit if you pound hard enough, but you work harder than you should and it never quite works how it is intended.

So that chop, well, maybe it’s a chop or maybe it’s something else and isn’t applied like a chop. I dunno. I just feel like there is more that should be going on there. But as has been pointed out, a lot of garbage schools, so maybe we haven’t yet seen a good example.

I will also say that I can get a lot of power from something similar to that chop. I wouldn’t lead in with that, it’s too obvious. But in the right place, hell yeah, I can hit hard with something similar to it.

And in this case, that chop may be a result of degraded understanding of the art (as @Shatteredzen said), in which case drawing any understanding from that practice is problematic.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Is this the application of a chop in Aikido

The way he's describing the first technique, this isn't a powered strike - it uses the weight of the limb. I actually had something similar shown to me at an Aikido dojo in LIsbon. They were using it as a deflecting block, and described it like dropping a wet towel on the striking limb. This seems similar to what he's doing in the first technique.

 

[drop bear]

Just realized that this fits my thoughts about stuff intentionally being left out or shown incorrectly like stepping then chopping vs doing both at the same time.

There is also a premis in drills that you will attack correctly.

This is often taken too far.

It also doesn't matter if it is a chop or a punch. If the general concept is wrong.

For example we could say. Use a knife and do a realistic attack and it would clean the system up.

But we know this isn't really a realistic attack either. It is just better acted out.

 

[drop bear]

Thank you for adding some context and detail to your original comments. I never mentioned "catching" a punch. Let's look at it from the opposite perspective: How often can you square off with someone, throw one punch, and have it land against someone, unless very unskilled or "fully cooperative?" Not too many one punch fights. "You either have superhuman reflexes, or you have been sold some hooey."

Of course, whether landing a knockout punch, OR setting a grab, one must set up the opponent by preliminary attacks, gaining control of the arm, position, manipulation, or some sort of disruption which enables you to execute it. It usually takes some work and skill for that to develop.

It depends where you are standing. If you are in the wrong place you may not react in time.

You don't gain control of the arm by the way. You gain control of either the head or the shoulder. Then you can isolate an arm and then you can do some funky wrist control.

Otherwise you really just get punched in the face a lot.

You see it with knife defense and how people can't even catch one arm. Let alone both of them.