Does Steven Seagal still teach Aikido?

[K-man]

So how did Aikido get changed and why did it branched off from Aikijutsu?



No, I have sorta of choreographed move stuck in my head base on some videos I watched that I want to train on.

I know self defence on the streets it will be more ugly and not play out so nice with skilled and unpredictable fighter.

The self defense scenario tough in class on how to respond to attacker.

The attacker runs,charges, moves goes after.

Step one - Strike
Step two -Throw/ take down
Step three- finished move hold or strike



K-man like said I watched thee videos and this what I'm trying to get at.

This sorta of what is stuck in my head how I would like to train.

I watched these videos and this is how I would like to incorporate the striking and train like.

Well yes I know in real defense scenario it would be ugly and not play out so nice with skilled unpredictable fighter.





Oh other thing I think I'm misunderstanding about aikido I think what Hyoha getting at is number of things I read but not understanding it.

That these throws and take downs work better when.

1 using the attackers own energy against him
2 unbalance the attacker
3 move the attacker in the directions he moving or wants to go
4 use the flowing and smoothing movement
5 use the attacker momentum is still in movement against him


Than I can see if you used block or strike ( like I wanted ) and incoming attacker coming at you the interrupt it causing the attacker to come to stand still. Making the throw or take down harder.

There may be times when attacker is not moving when you may have to strike or moving really slow.

If so than I think I'm missing up how aikido moves work with some other arts that are different. With some of them that use more force to deal with force.

If so that would explain why there is lack of striking in coming attacker and why you would not want to strike.



Any think with word combat will have more striking and be more rough than a self defense were goal is to get way from the fight. So in self defense if you can get him on ground and run away you won.

Where the combat would put in more sticking to the attacker gets injured or say I had enough.

In self defense Judo or Aikido would play out better in court than Krav Mag or combat Jiujitsu. Will they will say you become too aggressive. A take down to ground may be better than punched to throat,eye gouging,neck twitching and chokeholds.

And striking more than two times may be seen in court you are too aggressive.

Only time Krav Mag may be good is if you getting beaten not attacked and the guy is really big you may have no choice but to fight rough and dirty. Otherwise you may want to go bit more softer.

Moonhill, I'm pulling out of this discussion. You are not listening to anything people are telling you. You know what you want. Go find it! Good luck.

 

[moonhill99]

Moonhill, I'm pulling out of this discussion. You are not listening to anything people are telling you. You know what you want. Go find it! Good luck.

What paragraph? I quoted 4 paragraph of your messages reply to me in that post. Was the the Aikido was derived from Daito Ryu, a style of Jujutsu. Initially it was referred to as Aikijutsu. These are your words.

Has for the striking it was explain many times here that in past aikido was more rough than Morihei Ueshiba soften it!! Yes when he got older and more religious.

Did you not read Spinedoc post saying The striking is often complimentary. We use strikes to maintain maai, distract our opponent, unbalance them, and to provide openings for other techniques.


Than you posted video of Aikido doing striking and I said it did not look so nice because of lack of smooth and flowing movements.

Did you not read elder999 post saying ''For the same reasons that people insist there is no striking in judo: because of the way it is taught by many people.

Aikido became popularized (as in, "spread across the world") during the time when Ueshiba was an old man who was emphasizing (correctly) positive values, peace, and harmony. The lack of emphasis on atemi grew out of this-there are those threads of aikido, like Iwama, that demonstrate more emphasis on atemi-but it's still aikikai aikido.'''


Some of other members saying some schools have more striking than others schools.

Than you post video with striking and I'm saying it not nice Aikido because it not flowing and smoothing but more gritty.


It seems you the one with the reading comprehension problem if that is what you getting at above post above.


Really in end some one like Aikido or they don't.End of story, There are other styles out their more rough and lots striking for people into that kind of stuff.

 

[moonhill99]

By "watching Seagal closely, relatively recently" do you mean "after watching his latest movies," or "after watching him teach?"

I think he means Steven Seagal teaching the rough and gritty Aikido in Moscow and getting taken down to the ground by young student doing wrist lock on Steven Seagal!!!

That in is prime that would never happen.But saying now that he is older it is showing.

 

[elder999]

I think he means Steven Seagal teaching the rough and gritty Aikido in Moscow and getting taken down to the ground by young student doing wrist lock on Steven Seagal!!!

That in is prime that would never happen.But saying now that he is older it is showing.

Uh.....no.

You do realize that was an instructional moment? That he was merely taking a fall from a student, rather than "being taken down to the ground..."



Get to a dojo. Seriously.

 

[Hyoho]

I think he means Steven Seagal teaching the rough and gritty Aikido in Moscow and getting taken down to the ground by young student doing wrist lock on Steven Seagal!!!

That in is prime that would never happen.But saying now that he is older it is showing.

If you cant even see the difference between losing and instruction in a video? I'm out too. Not that I helped much anyway

 

[Chris Parker]

Aikijujutsu

I have not seen Aikido done in way like those videos of Aikijujutsu.

Sure I'm not sure where those phrase and talk harmony, soft hard,gentle art, love and peace than come from.

Unless like the above poster saying use striking to maintain maai, distract our opponent, unbalance them, and to provide openings for other techniques

not striking in way other arts use striking.

And I don't see any striking when the attacker is on the ground like I do in Aikijujutsu or some jujutsu schools. But they do have ways of putting the attacker in pins and holds on the ground if they want to.

Not really wanting to delve into some of the bizarre aspects of this thread, but it should be noted that the "Ogawa Ryu" is not in any way authentic Japanese martial arts… it's a system devised by some Brazilian's who copied videos of old Japanese systems, made up a completely fabricated history, and claimed to be a historical system. It is not something to look to as a good example of anything other than a good fake.

As for the rest, Moonhill, the simple fact of the matter is that you are still applying your very inaccurate understandings of, well, pretty much everything you are trying to discuss. I recommend (strongly) that you start from a position of accepting that you're not right about anything…

 

[moonhill99]

Chris the frustration here in this thread and else where people say yes and no.

There is striking and other people say there is little striking.

It like saying it takes year for earth to go around the sun that is true and false. And when people see striking or rough fighting like chokeholds, kicks, elbow strikes,knee striking and such people say that is not Aikdo.

Saying Aikdo is base on non violent art of peace,love and harmony.

Than some people say in past Aikdo was really rough and had more striking than got softer later on. So where did this peace,love and harmony come from?

Than some people say schools that use old school training ways more rough and striking.

That the founder toned down the training in his later years but some still tech and train to old ways.

Some people say some other forms of Aikdo more rough and striking.

 

[moonhill99]

I wonder if some of the striking confusion in threads is more a miscommunication problem of what posters view of striking is vs striking they use.

Here is striking in Aikdo. But it may be a miscommunication problem of what posters view of striking look like than the striking they use.

Thinking more along karate striking ,street striking or Krav Maga. Than striking they use that is different.

If so may be that miscommunication why people say yes and no.

 

[Chris Parker]

No, Moonhill, the issue is that everyone else knows what they're talking about, and are coming from a level of experience, whereas you are coming from absolutely no experience, no understanding, some reading, and no comprehension.

These things have been explained to you again and again. If you still don't get it, that's frankly your problem. There is no simpler way to put things to you.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Moonhill

I really have no desire to extend this train wreck of a thread and I have no direct experience in Aikido but it is obvious that you are either not comprehending what has been written, not thoroughly reading what was written or blatantly being disagreeable to cause strife and division for whatever reason you have.

First, I do not think anyone in Aikido ever said Peace, Love and Harmony, Peace and harmony yes but not love…. But then I could be wrong there. But regardless I don’t think you have the slightest understanding of everything that is being said, as it applies to Aikido, when you read or hear harmony and peace.

Also if you want to train a system with more striking than Aikido might I suggest going and looking at another system since I seriously doubt Aikido will change to fit you. Might I suggest something like Jujutsu to Aikijutsu. Now like just about everyone else in the posts has said, futher discussion would be pointless and you really need to get yourself to a dojo and train…that is if in fact you are serious about training and not just being intentionally irritating

Have a nice day

 

[moonhill99]

No, Moonhill, the issue is that everyone else knows what they're talking about, and are coming from a level of experience, whereas you are coming from absolutely no experience, no understanding, some reading, and no comprehension.

These things have been explained to you again and again. If you still don't get it, that's frankly your problem. There is no simpler way to put things to you.

Chris I'm going to try one last time than I'm pulling out of this discussion.

Here are quotes.

 

[moonhill99]

I'd agree that the way my dojo does aikido is a bit more aggressive then some other aikido dojos but there's other styles of aikido out there that apply aikido just as aggressive as we do.

yes that is what is taught now but the original Aikido was much more violent and brutal only evolving to this softer art we see in most schools over a period of many years.

Atemi is striking (当て身) .....Ueshiba said, as I posted upthread, that :


and, elsewhere, :


but this is also the man who said that his physical training ended in 1941, and that he'd been studying "the way of the gods" ever since.





For the same reasons that people insist there is no striking in judo: because of the way it is taught by many people.

Aikido became popularized (as in, "spread across the world") during the time when Ueshiba was an old man who was emphasizing (correctly) positive values, peace, and harmony. The lack of emphasis on atemi grew out of this-there are those threads of aikido, like Iwama, that demonstrate more emphasis on atemi-but it's still aikikai aikido. In fact, I believe that Seagal Sensei trained pretty extensively with an Iwama sensei (Kobayashi?), and this might account for some of what he does.Another thing that accounts for it is his size-he's 6'5", and uses his body to his advantage, which is as it should be.

As to the original post, I know he was still doing seminars as recently as 2011-I attended one in the Tenshin dojo in Taos, NM, back in 2004. I don't know that he's had any since 2011, though, or even if there is still a Tenshin aikido dojo in Taos......

In any case, we all can aspire to aikido's ideals of positivity: peace, harmony, good relationships.....and practice atemi when necessary. Ideally, sure, I'd love to be able to defend myself without hurting an assailant. Realistically, that's just not likely: I'll just never be that good....

EDIT: Dunn Sensei still has a dojo in Taos, but he apparently doesn't call it "Tenshin" anymore...

Here are some of quotes.

 

[jks9199]

Chris the frustration here in this thread and else where people say yes and no.

There is striking and other people say there is little striking.

It like saying it takes year for earth to go around the sun that is true and false. And when people see striking or rough fighting like chokeholds, kicks, elbow strikes,knee striking and such people say that is not Aikdo.

Perhaps, it's like the story of the blind men and the elephant -- with the answer shaped by the student's experience...

 

[elder999]

Here are some of quotes.

If you want aikido with strikes, it's out there-you have to find it.

If you want aikido that's all about peace and blending, it's easier to find, and might not work, but it still has strikes.

 

[moonhill99]

Other mismatch of information

Who says there is no striking in Aikido? There is in the advanced techniques. Strikes are usually not done so much from far away (as in sports Karate) as they are done at the same time you apply a joint lock or arm bar. By the time you hit the ground an accomplished Aikidoka should have hit you a few times as well. There are plenty of openings when doing a technique in which you can insert a number of strikes. In Aikido strikes are learned later as they are learned easier than the more complicated armbars and joint locks. This gives you more time to practice the hard stuff first. The strikes are easy to insert later when you are good with the hard stuff.

other


On one hand, to strike can mean to assert force to the opponent, an anathema in Aikido. In this regard, there isn't any striking in Aikido, simply because the power of the strike does not come from the opponent. It doesn't mean the Aikido-ka can't take a shot at the opponent when the opportunity presents, but in so doing, the Aikido-ka isn't using Aikido. Such is not harmony.

On the other hand, if nage/defender were to assume a pose whereby the defender's own momentum would cause his face to meet nage's fist, well, that's what we call "atemi". The difference is that in atemi, the significant source of power comes from the opponent, whereas in a common "strike" to hurt, the power comes from nage - the defender. In the latter case, this has the potential to off-balance the defender; the defender becomes the aggressor (not necessarily in the legal sense) and as such, can easily be reversed.

other

The very philosophy of Aikido is of nonviolence. Ueshiba Morihei wanted it to be a spiritual practice as much as it is a self defense system, therefor it's primary focus is on Aiki-jutsu, or the skill of returning your opponent's energy and momentum against them.

Make no mistake, though. Aikido is painful. It doesn't have seemingly the same strikes as other martial arts has, but there are contact methods that can cause pain.

I wish people wouldn't underestimate Aikido so much. It's an excellent art that transcends a person. The fact people disrespect a nonviolent and peaceful style makes my horribly irksome over society's mentality for brutality.


other

Okay it was explained to me this way. Aikido is a very pacifistic defensive martial art. They don't often strike, because aikido is reactionary and will take the strikes and grappling techniques and throw them out in a non injury inducing way. Such methods calls for grappling techniques rather than a strike as strikes are more likely to cause pain and injury(especially if used in aikido like countering way).

There are strikes called atemi in aikido and a famous sensei supposedly said, "90% of a fight is atemi"(kind of paraphrasing because I don't have the source in front of me), however atemi isn't a strike as we would think of it as in kickboxing sense. It's a strike designed to cause a reaction, like shift in weight or some kind of movement. Such action causes momentum in a person's body and aikido uses the changes in balance and opponent's own momentum to throw their opponent. So I understood the sensei's words as 90% of the time you are using atemi to create an opening, and that opening will be what aikidoka will use to finish the enemy.

other

I've been practising Aikido for about 6 months now and while I've enjoyed the training, I find myself getting a bit frustrated at the lack of striking and sparring involved. I just noticed that there is a Ju Jitsu place nearby so I'm planning on checking it out, but I'm wondering if I can use some of what I've learned in my Aikido training as I hear they are quite similar styles?

other

Aikido in the form we know it today has more of a spiritual edge to it (for want of a better word), but a lot of the actual waza originates from older Japanese Bujutsu systems such as Yagyu Shingan-ryu, Kashima Shinto-ryu and of course Daito-ryu.

other

There are different flavors of Aikido. I had tried one "Iwama Ryu" I believe, many many moons ago for a few months and did not like it at all. My friend on the other hand teaches "TenShin" Aikido, and it is totally different. It is a harder system in its application, more dirrect with it's techniques and uses smaller, tighter deflections. Although I do not train with him, we do share ideas and speak about how different paths are.

 

[moonhill99]

Like I say I try one last time today for others here to clear this up and explain the information I read here and else where than I'm pulling out of this discussion by tomorrow if it is not going any where.

May be I and some other people are getting aikido mixed up with Aiki principle.



Aiki martial arts principle - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Aiki is a Japanese martial arts principle or tactic in which the defender blends (without clashing) with the attacker, then goes on to dominate the assailant through the strength of their application of internal dynamics or Ki energy to affect techniques. Blending with an attacker's movements allows the Aiki practitioner to control the actions of the attacker with minimal effort. One applies aiki by understanding the rhythm and intent of the attacker to find the optimal position and timing to apply a counter-technique.


1) Blending not clashing

Aiki typically describes an idea of oneness or blending in the midst of combat. In aikido it generally describes the more elevated notion of blending rather than clashing. "Blending" is often described even within aikido as "awase".[3] Many definitions for "aiki" seem to be based around "awase". Emphasis is upon joining with the rhythm and intent of the opponent in order to find the optimal position and timing with which to apply force. To blend with an attack, it is usually necessary to yield to incoming forces, so aiki is closely related to the principle of ju.
2) Leading the assailant

The aiki practitioner is able to lead the attack, and thus the attacker, into precarious positions. The influence over an assailant grows as the assailant's balance deteriorates. Body movements (tai sabaki) used for this may be large and obvious or small and subtle. Subtle weight shifting and the application of physical pressure to the assailant enable one to lead an assailant, keep him static, or keep him unbalanced (kuzushi) in order to employ one’s own technique. In the same manner, through deceptive movements, the aiki practitioner may negate a defence response from the assailant or create a defence response from the assailant that puts him even further into peril. There is a strong degree of intent, will or psychology[4] to this aspect of domination. Mind and body are coordinated.
3) Use of internal strength - Ki energy

Kiai and aiki use the same kanji (transposed) and can be thought of as the inner and the outer aspect of the same principle. Kiai relates to the manifestation, emission or projection of ones own energy (internal strength), while Aiki relates to the merging of one's energy with the energy emitted from an external source (blending). Thus kiai is union with our own, internal energy while aiki is union with an attacker's energy. Kiai consists of all parts of the body being unified and directed to one intent. Aiki, ultimately has to do with a very good ability to manipulate kiai upon contact so that the practitioner blends his ki with the attacker’s ki instantaneously. This use of ki will involve the use of kokyu power, i.e. breathing is coordinated with movement.[5] Kokyu Ryoku is the natural power that can be produced when body and consciousness (mind) are unified. The term "kokyu" can also be used to describe a situation in which two opponent's are moving with appropriate timing.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Like I say I try one last time today for others here to clear this up and explain the information I read here and else where than I'm pulling out of this discussion by tomorrow if it is not going any where.

Why wait, pullout now and do us all a favor

 

[elder999]

Like I say I try one last time today for others here to clear this up and explain the information I read here and else where than I'm pulling out of this discussion by tomorrow if it is not going any where.

It's hopeless.

 

[moonhill99]

If you want aikido with strikes, it's out there-you have to find it.

If you want aikido that's all about peace and blending, it's easier to find, and might not work, but it still has strikes.

elder999 are you saying like some other people else where on the internet that some other forms of aikido have more striking and rough.

Or the problem is with a lot of schools today?

Like some Judo schools hard to find that do self defense than sports Judo and old dirty Judo moves that are unsafe in sports and are banned in sports.

 

[moonhill99]

Why wait, pullout now and do us all a favor

Tell me where I have reading comprehension problem where some of you are saying? I quoted the replies.

I have the information in front of me here as I type!!!

I read this thread over many times. This not stuff I'm just making up.

Why don't some of you reply to quotes or information I quoted and explain what is right or wrong or misunderstanding from me reading it. Than keep saying moonhill has a reading comprehension problem.

Take post 75 and 76 and explain what is right or wrong or misunderstanding in quotes than just saying moonhill as a reading comprehension problem and not understanding what we are telling him.