Aikido.. The reality?

[isshinryuronin]

It's not smart to try to directly grab an incoming punch. You must first get some control of the arm. Here are a few ways to do this:

1. block the punch hard with technique to cause some trauma to the tendons and cause pain to disrupt the opponent, then grab

2. sidestep the punch, deflect while keeping contact with the arm, strike with the other hand (or kick) to vulnerable target to disrupt, then set the grab - you can also deflect with one hand, then strike with that same hand as your other hand takes over contact and sets the grab.

3. move in to intercept the punch early (which also causes some disruption) as kung fu Wang has suggested, wrap the arm, then set the grab.

In all the above it's important to quickly flow from one step to the next. The grab may have to wait for 3 or 4 moves before you can get in a good position. The opponent must be disrupted and have his arm controlled to some extent for a grab to realistically be set while dynamically fighting.

Of course, counter grabs are easier, since by grabbing you the opponent has basically immobilized his own arm. Still, it's good to pin his hand and get a quick shot in before the grab. Most importantly, a grab by itself is nothing - it must be immediately put to use.

 

[Martial D]

It's not smart to try to directly grab an incoming punch. You must first get some control of the arm. Here are a few ways to do this:

1. block the punch hard with technique to cause some trauma to the tendons and cause pain to disrupt the opponent, then grab

2. sidestep the punch, deflect while keeping contact with the arm, strike with the other hand (or kick) to vulnerable target to disrupt, then set the grab - you can also deflect with one hand, then strike with that same hand as your other hand takes over contact and sets the grab.

3. move in to intercept the punch early (which also causes some disruption) as kung fu Wang has suggested, wrap the arm, then set the grab.

In all the above it's important to quickly flow from one step to the next. The grab may have to wait for 3 or 4 moves before you can get in a good position. The opponent must be disrupted and have his arm controlled to some extent for a grab to realistically be set while dynamically fighting.

Of course, counter grabs are easier, since by grabbing you the opponent has basically immobilized his own arm. Still, it's good to pin his hand and get a quick shot in before the grab. Most importantly, a grab by itself is nothing - it must be immediately put to use.

Here's to hoping your imaginary attacker has no idea what he's doing.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

My biggest success in terms of grabbing a punch has been any punch that I can get to before it hits 50% extension. After a punch passes the 50% mark, it becomes increasingly difficult to catch. Basically by the time I try to grab it, it is already returning to chamber and the other one is now coming out.

Yeah, if you have it jammed, it doesn't develop the speed.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I tried it. It feels weak. Like there was a power connection missing. So when I added the body connection to generate the power I was left with kung fu. Strike and foot land at same time. But in the Aikido clip, the foot lands and then strike lands. Which for me creates some timing issues.

Just out of curiosity what is the guy in the red pants doing. Throwing someone, cutting someone (sword technique) or staff technique.?

It's possible to generate some reasonable power with those chops - moreso with the one to the temple. But both are weaker IMO because of the high arm position. I suspect the overhand attack is meant to simulate an overhand weapon attack (just getting the arm in that orientation), so the power generation wouldn't be an issue.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I think I understand this one now. I had to do it a punch of times to keep it from being kung fu. Those pants threw me off as well. I thought he was stepping forward but didn't realize it until after I got enough of the Kung Fu out of the movement.

So this is what I'm seeing in this video based on what I know. I'll start with the feet.
1. He's stepping at a"45 ish" angle, which means he's stepping off center. If he's stepping off center like that then it's because he's dealing with an incoming jab. You guys have actually seen me do the same foot work. The biggest different is that he walks into the angle and I shuffle into the angle. The challenge of walking into an angle is that you have to be good with seeing the distance between you and your opponent, If you aren't careful you'll walk into a punch.

As I did this, I'm imagining a jab coming in and I'm stepping off the center.line. This only works if your hands are in a fighting stance. My forward movement triggers the jab (hopefully). My left hand must shoot between the jab so and my striking hand so that I can redirect the jab. If I can redirect the jab, then I will have an open shot to the back of my opponents head. Probably right behind the ear. I'm basing this on the angle of the strike and how his left arm treads the space between the attacking jab and the open hand strike.

Doing this movement from a fighting stance with your guard up gets rid of the telegraph strike. I cold be wrong about this as I don't do Aikido, but I've hit people with strikes from similar movements. The fact that his foot work looks very similar to my footwork makes me think that's what's going on.

I went back over the foot work and walking forward makes it easier to thread that left hand. In the clip. That strike works better if your attacker has his left hand forward, power hand back. Which is how most right handed people stand. The step is probably smaller in application than what we see here.

What do you think GpSeymour? Give it a try and see if it feels that way when the technique is used like that.

This is a place where Aikido isn't much like NGA, so I'm mostly talking from very light experience with this stuff. We work against punches, not chops (though we do sometimes use chops as strikes, but it's pretty limited).

But yes, he is stepping off-line. The way this is used (as I've seen in Aikido, and as we use it in NGA) could be against any attack where the opponent is entering. But the idea of slipping a straight punch (or shove, even) is probably the clearest usage. And it gives a bit of momentum to the chop to the temple, as the hips turn to match the new angle.

Aikido tends to focus on larger steps (some NGA approaches do, too) for entry. The idea is to be just out of range and clear to grappling distance in a step. I've been told some of this is derived from sword footwork, but others here would be better authorities on that.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

No it is douchey to expect people to believe you without backing your claim.

I don't expect you to believe it. But claiming you don't believe it because no evidence, then choosing to believe the opposite without evidence is just plain dishonest. You're lying about your reason for choosing that belief. You choose it because you're triggered buy the word "Aikido", and really, really, reeally want it to be bad in all the ways you want it to be.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

It's not smart to try to directly grab an incoming punch. You must first get some control of the arm. Here are a few ways to do this:

1. block the punch hard with technique to cause some trauma to the tendons and cause pain to disrupt the opponent, then grab

2. sidestep the punch, deflect while keeping contact with the arm, strike with the other hand (or kick) to vulnerable target to disrupt, then set the grab - you can also deflect with one hand, then strike with that same hand as your other hand takes over contact and sets the grab.

3. move in to intercept the punch early (which also causes some disruption) as kung fu Wang has suggested, wrap the arm, then set the grab.

In all the above it's important to quickly flow from one step to the next. The grab may have to wait for 3 or 4 moves before you can get in a good position. The opponent must be disrupted and have his arm controlled to some extent for a grab to realistically be set while dynamically fighting.

Of course, counter grabs are easier, since by grabbing you the opponent has basically immobilized his own arm. Still, it's good to pin his hand and get a quick shot in before the grab. Most importantly, a grab by itself is nothing - it must be immediately put to use.

To me, punches are best "grabbed" when closing distance. By that I mean when the punch happens to time with an entry to grappling distance. So if you punch and I make contact (block, deflect, parry, whatever) and am moving in, if my movement happens to time with your arm's retraction (which probably means I had started my entry because I read the punch or even just got lucky on the timing), then the arm won't outrun me. If I can alter your structure with my contact, then I've got a chance to keep that arm and use it to move you.

That's a lot of "if". Much easier to get into grappling distance and get hands on the body, then get arms when they react.

 

[Flying Crane]

This is definitely true if the point of comparing systems is to say one is better than the other. There's a big difference between trying to understand and trying to "write off."

I think there's enough similarities among all fighting systems to give valid clues to how Aikido works in application. The only way this wouldn't be true is if it was developed in a vacuum. I just can't see that.

Things like this video below seem to be consistent across systems including BJJ. Generally speaking, because I Know there are variations. It almost always starts as
1. Strike -> Grapple -> Strike = when not within grappling range. The strike is what hides the Grappling
2. Grapple -> Strike - Grapple = when engaged in grappling

We see this play out in almost every martial arts competition. If this is the norm, the assumption is that Aikido would follow similar principles. One of the things I see Aikido, Taijiquan, and Chin Na practitioners make is that they give away their attack. If I sit there and make it clear that I'm trying to grab your wrist then it will be easy for me to defend against any attempts to grab my wrists.
@:22 you see a strike to the face with allows him to get the wrist. I'm not trying to validate this guy. I'm just pointing out things that are fairly constant.

We even see strikes to the head here. The strikes "hide" the grappling technique

We see it here as well. BJJ has a similar approach. With that in mind. My assumption is that Aikido application would have to follow the same rules or strategy.

What I was getting at is the philosophy and approach to training can be very different from one system to another. And yet with these differences, they still manage quality results.

If a person has experience with a system that they trust and believe in, it can be difficult to look at a different system without comparing it to the experience that they already have. There is a tendency to expect similarities in training methods because past experience had reinforced the worthiness of that particular method.

But one needs to be able to let go of those experiences when looking at something new. It may be different enough that you just cannot compare it.

I know that aikido gets a lot of negative attention from the mma crowd and other competition folks. I’ve witnessed aikido schools that I felt had an unrealistic approach in their training. The intensity was low and the technical drills seemed unrealistic and overly cooperative. So I understand where the criticisms come from.

However, I have also seen some aikido schools where I felt confident they were providing training at a level where people could develop functional skills. San Francisco has a couple of schools in particular, and I’ve heard of a few others in the Bay Area, where high quality training is being conducted. Since I moved to the Sacramento area, I find myself feeling like I missed the opportunity to train under some highly skilled aikidoka in San Francisco. But time is limited and I was busy in the kung fu world, so I can’t regret it. But I would absolutely put trust in those aikido schools to provide high quality training.

I just feel that perhaps the approach that aikido takes in how it trains is different enough to feel foreign to a lot of people who have prior experience. But I would caution anyone against simply writing into off, while at the same time acknowledging that there is a lot of poor quality training going on out there. But hey, I see poor quality training in a lot of schools teaching other systems as well, particularly the daycare Tae Kwon do and similar, including a lot of kung fu schools. I recall a judo teacher telling me about a judo brown belt who visited his school, and was injured the first time he was thrown. The fellow confessed after the fact that in his school, they don’t actually do any throwing or falling. So aikido hardly has the monopoly on poor training.

There is a lot of garbage that gets posted on the internet, places like YouTube. People see the garbage and assume that is representative of the system as a whole when often it is not. It doesn’t take a lot of sophistication to be able to realize that there is more to life than what we find on YouTube, even though a lot of people want to insist that all the truth is to be found there. If it can’t be found on YouTube, then it doesn’t exist. That mentality is idiotic.

At any rate, it comes down to a willingness to put aside assumptions and previous influences, in order to understand a system on its own merits and according to its own methods and norms. Anyone who isn’t willing to do that doesn’t have much to add to the conversation.

 

[Flying Crane]

I'm confused here. If he is

1. chasing his opponent, he doesn't need to step to the side.
2. dealing with an incoming attack, he doesn't have time to step in that far.

For 2, he can step in his left leading leg first, he then steps his right leg to the side (wheeling step), and chops his left hand out. This way he can achieve the same goal without having to move his feet that much.

I must miss something here.

Perhaps he is Isn’t doing anything on the overtly “practical” level, and instead is demonstrating a fundamental body-engagement principal. That type of thing would have a foundational use in everything that they do, and I imagine there are certain drills that are done to develop the foundational skill. But that drill as a stand-alone may not have a direct and obvious fight application. The principles that are developed by practicing the drill are meant to permeate the entire system.

In my system, we do a repetitive back-and-forth rotation drill that serves the same purpose. Any outsider looking in would be befuddled by it. You need to understand the purpose in order for it to make sense. This is what I mean when I say you cannot look at it through the norms of prior experience, when looking at a new (to you) system. Doing so can ensure that you will never understand it.

 

[Deleted member 39746]

It is about proportionate use of force. Which is theoretically more moral but practically keeps you out of jail.

thats not pacifism though, people cite it as pacifism. And that also is in practise not what they do, as its appriopriate to hurt people more than they tend to show and do and enthsisise more times than they think it is. I would like to think the orignal aikido made by the person

This is how I see martial arts which is why I don't like like the peaceful concept of zen. Zen to me is like "being in the zone" everything is working, flowing, and timing of your attacks and defenses are excellent and you get that feeling that you are unstoppable. That is "Zen" to me. That's the way I want to feel if I'm in a fight on the streets or in the ring. That comfortable calmness and not the panic.

I mean its the reverse way around, the calm meaning of zen derives from the buddhism zen. But anyway, Buddhism generally requires you to belive in reincarnation, and i can tell you most practcing ones probbly will take issue if you try to kill them, i think only a few monastic ones or sects of it may prefer to take extreme pacifism as a choice. (as they will be reborn or something like that, i forget the details for the buddhist afterlife) and there are plenty of cases of Buddhists taking up arms and the like. And ones taking up arms would be trained in the contemporary way.

I would like to imagine first generation aikdo and maybe second or third ( i dont know how old it was) was better whan what we get now and was more martial arts like and useful as one. I dont know if the above was relivent or not.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Here's to hoping your imaginary attacker has no idea what he's doing.

This is why it's much easier that

- You punch.
- Your opponent blocks it.
- You then grab his blocking arm.

It's also easier to grab when your opponent is in on guard position. A fake back fist, or a fake hook punch can help you to move your hand closer to your opponent's wrist.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Yeah, if you have it jammed, it doesn't develop the speed.

When your opponent punches right fist at your face, if you use left arm to block his arm, use right palm to push on his right shoulder, you can stop his punch at early stage before his speed and power can be generated. But the requirement is when your opponent punches you, you have to jump in. This require good timing, skill, strategy, and courage.

 

[JowGaWolf]

I'm confused here. If he is

1. chasing his opponent, he doesn't need to step to the side.
2. dealing with an incoming attack, he doesn't have time to step in that far.

I don't think he's chasing his opponent. I think the step forward triggers the jab. My thought is based on how some techniques trigger the punch that you want. So in this case the punch that you want is a jab. Step forward and you'll most likely get jab, his initial forward movement triggers the jab but halfway through that forward movement he steps off the right. Remember, I stated that I thought he was moving forward into the punch but he's not. What I was seeing is probably what I would see if I were to face the opponent.

My theory on kung fu and martial arts in general is that no one waits for a punch. Waiting for the punch that you is like playing the lotto. It's better to trigger the punch that you want. This way you are only dealing with 1 or 2 likely possibilities.

For the #2 concern I thought the same thing. So I shorten my step as if I was trying to do it in a closer range. It worked better that way, which makes me thing that this isn't a long range attack. This is something that is done within punching range.

There's so much out of sync with this movement that I think it was taught incorrectly on purpose, if you try to use it as it's presented, then it doesn't make sense. I know you are probably think I'm reaching, but Jow Ga has a punch that is taught incorrectly and I've seen sooooo many Jow Ga practitioners do it incorrectly. This is why I saying learning how to actually use kung fu helps a person to better understand the techniques in the forms. But in order to get it right the person has to be able to understand how to connect power in various ways.

Give it a try. Don't think of it doing it exactly as you see it. Use what you see as a template and make fix the parts that aren't working. Start with this fix. Instead of Step then hit. Step and hit as the foot lands. Adjust your hands so you can protect your head and open palm strike someone. Change it just enough so that it works but GpSeymour would see the connection between that and the clip.

The technique was probably taught correct at one point, then people stop trying to use it and because of that no one questioned why so much was off.

 

[JowGaWolf]

It's not smart to try to directly grab an incoming punch. You must first get some control of the arm. Here are a few ways to do this:

1. block the punch hard with technique to cause some trauma to the tendons and cause pain to disrupt the opponent, then grab

2. sidestep the punch, deflect while keeping contact with the arm, strike with the other hand (or kick) to vulnerable target to disrupt, then set the grab - you can also deflect with one hand, then strike with that same hand as your other hand takes over contact and sets the grab.

3. move in to intercept the punch early (which also causes some disruption) as kung fu Wang has suggested, wrap the arm, then set the grab.

In all the above it's important to quickly flow from one step to the next. The grab may have to wait for 3 or 4 moves before you can get in a good position. The opponent must be disrupted and have his arm controlled to some extent for a grab to realistically be set while dynamically fighting.

Of course, counter grabs are easier, since by grabbing you the opponent has basically immobilized his own arm. Still, it's good to pin his hand and get a quick shot in before the grab. Most importantly, a grab by itself is nothing - it must be immediately put to use.

This is what I've been using because I believe it applies to all Martial Arts / Fighting system. It's one of those universal truths that all systems must follow. Even if they say that they don't, in application the rules will hold true. If someone from Aikido or in Tai Chi told me differently then I would think they don't understand why. Then I would ask them to show me in application (through sparring) how that works.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

The technique was probably taught correct at one point, then people stop trying to use it and because of that no one questioned why so much was off.

If you try to punch from

- kicking range, you will need to full step footwork (such as to step in your back foot).
- punching range, you only need 1/2 step footwork (such as front foot step in, back foot slide).

This is why to use kick to replace that full step footwork make sense.

 

[JowGaWolf]

It's possible to generate some reasonable power with those chops - moreso with the one to the temple. But both are weaker IMO because of the high arm position. I suspect the overhand attack is meant to simulate an overhand weapon attack (just getting the arm in that orientation), so the power generation wouldn't be an issue.

My chop was stronger and faster when my foot and chop lands at the same time. In addition stepping then striking present a timing risk. It makes you slower

Aikido Step 1= Step off center -> Opponent's Step 1= be caught off guard
Aikido Step 2 = Strike with chop -> Opponent's Step 2 = regain defense.

If this chop doesn't land within Step 1 then it will never reach the opponent. The only way to land it, is to strike as soon as that foot that is stepping off center lands. You'll notice a significant increase in power just from that. There are still some other power connections that can be added, but they can't be added without this first one.

I think the High arm position is an exaggeration because holding it around fighting guard position makes the movement too fast. So in application I put the chopping hand Jaw height as if I'm trying to keep it close to defend a punch coming in to that side. I use my body movement to help generate the power. The best way I can describe is to Step forward then turn into horse which will make your face your left. If you feel the power connection from that then that 's what I'm using. You can turn it as much as you need. I tried to get the same angle as what I think I see in that video. I'm assuming that my opponent will try to flee to his right once I get on his left side. So I'm striking where he will be and not where he is. If you look at the Aikido clip you can see that the strike is not in front. It's at an angle as if there is anticipation that the person will be there.

To me, punches are best "grabbed" when closing distance. By that I mean when the punch happens to time with an entry to grappling distance. So if you punch and I make contact (block, deflect, parry, whatever) and am moving in, if my movement happens to time with your arm's retraction (which probably means I had started my entry because I read the punch or even just got lucky on the timing), then the arm won't outrun me.

The step forward to trigger the punch fits with your understanding of when the best time to grab. It's during an entry and as that first step triggers the punch. Everything else will be sync according to Aikido and how you explained it above.

 

[JowGaWolf]

At any rate, it comes down to a willingness to put aside assumptions and previous influences, in order to understand a system on its own merits and according to its own methods and norms.

Totally agree. As that's exactly what I'm doing as I'm trying to figure it out as an outsider. I use somethings that I believe are universal and I work from there. Like when it felt like I was doing kung fu, I had to dump that. For starters I don't want it mess up my kung fu lol, but like you stated. I have to empty a lot of the influences and try to follow the Aikido in the approach. In Kung Fu we would just step off center so that extra step that Aikido takes is nuts to me. But if I'm trying to draw a jab or straight punch then I would lower my lead hand just low enough to make it look as if the Jab will be the easiest punch to land. Then I would raise my lead left hand to redirect the jab, step off angle so I don't get punched, and then twist into the chop. It should work as long as I can invite the jab.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Perhaps he is Isn’t doing anything on the overtly “practical” level, and instead is demonstrating a fundamental body-engagement principal. That type of thing would have a foundational use in everything that they do, and I imagine there are certain drills that are done to develop the foundational skill. But that drill as a stand-alone may not have a direct and obvious fight application. The principles that are developed by practicing the drill are meant to permeate the entire system.

In my system, we do a repetitive back-and-forth rotation drill that serves the same purpose. Any outsider looking in would be befuddled by it. You need to understand the purpose in order for it to make sense. This is what I mean when I say you cannot look at it through the norms of prior experience, when looking at a new (to you) system. Doing so can ensure that you will never understand it.

This is what I often mean when I say that something is intentionally taught incorrectly. If it's demonstrating a fundamental body-engagement principal then there will be a whole a lot of things that won't work in application, because it's the principal being taught and not the application.

 

[JowGaWolf]

I would like to imagine first generation aikdo and maybe second or third ( i dont know how old it was) was better whan what we get now and was more martial arts like and useful as one. I dont know if the above was relivent or not.

It is. I don't know of any major religion that doesn't have a history of where they didn't spill the blood of another. Not everyone is born a monk or a religious man. We all bring our sins and previous life and understanding when we make the choice for a "peaceful life." Then when things get rough and heads need to be split open, that "old you" pops up and does what needs to be done.

A tiger is a tiger and will still try to eat or attack you if it feels the need to. It does not stop being a tiger just because a person is nice to it. And there are so many things in life that are like that.

I think you are right about the 2nd and 3rd generations being better. If people only train martial arts for health and mediation, then a lot of application will be lost. People will soon no longer pass along why things are done a certain way. Tai Chi is the best example. How many people do Tai Chi for health and have no understanding of reason behind the movement. Some will see palm strikes as pushing Chi, other will see it as pushing out stress, and still other may even say that it helps improve breathing and relaxation. I think Aikido has taken a similar path. Not enough people training it for function so things get lost.

 

[Flying Crane]

This is what I often mean when I say that something is intentionally taught incorrectly. If it's demonstrating a fundamental body-engagement principal then there will be a whole a lot of things that won't work in application, because it's the principal being taught and not the application.

I think then that if the underlying principal is the intent, then it is being taught correctly for that goal. It is perceived as incorrect if people assume it is meant to have a direct practical application as it is. If direct application is not the purpose, then there may be nothing incorrect about it.

Going back to my reference of the rotational drill found in my system, by way of example. You have seen it in some video. That drill is not meant to be a direct fighting application. It is meant to develop full-body connection, which then permeates everything that we do. For that purpose, it works well. However, it is also possible to identify some direct application with that drill. They are a bit vague and perhaps not the best options, but I honestly think potentially effective. But I would never put forth those applications as the real intent of the drill. The drill isn’t meant for direct application, even if you can find direct application for them.