How appliable is aikido for self-defense?

[Gerry Seymour]

Jerry, no worries. Sometimes the Japanese, with its layered meanings, actually works better, sometimes not.

Only three fundamental wrist locking "positions," if you will.

Gaeshi (typically associated in wristlocking techniques with kote-gaeshi) can mean, depending on who is doing the translation as "reverse" or "turn."

A very simple way to see/feel kotegaeshi happening to you is to extend your right arm out in front of you, palm up. Keep the palm up and then bend the right elbow so your right hand gets closer, still palm up. Then reach across and grasp the right hand with the left one, fingers going around the back of the hand and grasping the base of the right thumb, and then attempt to twist your right hand at the wrist to get your own thumb to point down at the ground. That's a simnple kote-gaeshi.

Hineri is the rotational opposite of kotegaeshi.

Put your right arm out in front of you, palm up again to start. Then rotate the right hand counterclockwise so that the right thumb first points left, then down, then try to keep rotating it until you have to let the elbow bend to allow it to get any farther. Once you get it so that your right thumb is again pointing to the right, you've most likely got a bent right elbow (unless you're really flexible at shoulder and wrist). Now, imagine Segal grabbing your now downwards-pointing fingers at their base (which includes the hand itself), and both lifting and pushing the hand back into your body (consider it a scene from... I think it was Hard to Kill, he's making a mean face while he's doing it). This interesting sensation is kote-hineri.

Mawashi is actually a compression lock on the wrist.

Same start position, right hand out in front of you, palm up. Rotate it over until the palm is now facing down. Keeping the palm facing directly downwards, pull the hand back by bending the elbow, right hand at shoulder height in front of the right shoulder. Reach across the body and put your left palm on the back of your right hand, at the knuckles. Don't let your elbow go anywhere so you can feel the compression start to get uncomfortable as you press firmly downwards... mawashi.

All three fundamental locking positions can be achieved in a myriad of ways, front, back, this side, that side, inside to out, vice-versa, but the basic "locked" positions of the wrist are anatomically defined. And of course, you can vary them to get a combination of effect as well.

I'm sure you guys do this stuff, it's just names. We could call it Smooth Orange Peel Lock if we wanted. it's just that nobody else would know what we were talking about. For instance, you used the word "void" above where I generally say "hole." Judo background, talking about holes. So, when students are having a hard time with a wrist lock/submission, I usually start out the conversation with something like, "Well... which lock is the end of that, what you are going for?" The proper response from my people is one of the three words above, gaeshi, hineri or mawashi.

Okay, so in order:

Kotegaeshi (the only term in these I already knew) = Front Wrist Throw (or Peel-off, if applied beyond the shoulder)

Hineri sounds like Handshake, and maybe could encompass Reverse Wrist (which name sounds like it belongs with kotegaeshi, but doesn't)

Mawashi sounds like our 3rd Set Wrist Lock, which by definition is nearly the same lock as our First Wrist Lock and Jacket Grab lock.

You know, our English names aren't really any clearer.

 

[Hanzou]

age is the issue, that is the point being made, size was a side issue and strength was not part of it

Like I implied, put a younger fighter (even 10 years younger) against Muhammad Ali at 64 and judge him based on that and you could say he was a bad fighter too

That's an apple vs oranges comparison. You're comparing a younger boxer vs an older boxer. I'm comparing two martial artists who use two completely different disciplines, and one discipline supposedly increases its effectiveness as the practitioner ages.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

That's an apple vs oranges comparison. You're comparing a younger boxer vs an older boxer. I'm comparing two martial artists who use two completely different disciplines, and one discipline supposedly increases its effectiveness as the practitioner ages.

It increases its effectiveness as the practitioner becomes better over time. As with any physical endeavor, there is loss with age, too. Aikido (all of the arts under that umbrella term) has two sides. Pure Aikido techniques (those techniques that depend upon the "aiki" principle) aren't always available, and less so against trained fighters who have experience in the right areas. In those moments, a skilled practitioner should be able to fall back on the jujutsu base of Aikido (leverage, mechanics, without full "aiki"). And size, strength, and age matter there as much as they do in any similar art.

 

[Xue Sheng]

That's an apple vs oranges comparison. You're comparing a younger boxer vs an older boxer. I'm comparing two martial artists who use two completely different disciplines, and one discipline supposedly increases its effectiveness as the practitioner ages.

It is an age issue, that is all, try and justify you argument anyway you wish, but it still is an age issue. It is only a valid comparison if they are all in their fighting prime, otherwise it is age that is all. and to suggest it is, IMHO, silly. I could have just as easily used any other older fighter against any other younger fighters of any style. The issue is still age..... if it makes you feel better a 64 year old Muhammad Ali against the 2 you suggest at their current ages and you would prove what, that a 64 year old Ali was a bad fighter...no, you would prove a 64 year old man should not get in the ring with other trained fighters who are 10 years or more younger than he is. Make them all the same age and then you can find out who is the better fighter. Other than that this type of silly comparison is based purely on speculation, personal opinion and bias

 

[Hanzou]

It is an age issue, that is all, try and justify you argument anyway you wish, but it still is an age issue. It is only a valid comparison if they are all in their fighting prime, otherwise it is age that is all. and to suggest it is, IMHO, silly. I could have just as easily used any other older fighter against any other younger fighters of any style. The issue is still age..... if it makes you feel better a 64 year old Muhammad Ali against the 2 you suggest at their current ages and you would prove what, that a 64 year old Ali was a bad fighter...no, you would prove a 64 year old man should not get in the ring with other trained fighters who are 10 years or more younger than he is. Make them all the same age and then you can find out who is the better fighter. Other than that this type of silly comparison is based purely on speculation, personal opinion and bias

We should keep in mind that it was Segal himself who said he could take on Couture. So clearly Segal doesn't view his age as an issue.

 

[drop bear]

From the cradle to the grave. Segal would never have taken randy in a fight.

We are comparing a top level fighter to someone who some guy said was formidable back in the day.

Katie segal would have better odds.

 

[Xue Sheng]

We should keep in mind that it was Segal himself who said he could take on Couture. So clearly Segal doesn't view his age as an issue.

Was the quote provided in this thread? If so where? If not, do you have it and can you provide it?

If not then it is hear say

And the reality is still the same, and it does not matter what Seagal said or thinks on the matter, if he said it at all. Age is still the issue and it is still the same, you can try and swing this anyway you wish, attempt to redirect anyway you would like , it is still age. Frankly it does not matter if it is Seagal, at 64, or Ali, or Hagler or Wallace. Proving if they were a fighter is not the issue. What is the issue is that at 64 there is a world of difference from 54.

It still stands, take a fighter at 64, who was talented when he was fighting, and put him against fighters 10 years or more younger and judge the baed on that, and then use it as proof of ability, may give you ammo you desire to make a biased point, but it is far from based in logical reality

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

Now, to make this even more absurd in a life or death situation I probably would take Seagal because he is a firearms enthusiast! lol

 

[Hanzou]

Was the quote provided in this thread? If so where? If not, do you have it and can you provide it?

Steven Seagal: I'd Fight Randy Couture No Rules | UFC NEWS | BJPenn.com

Not that age would matter much. Seagal could be in his 20s and 30s and my money would still be on 50+ Couture rolling him up like a ball of yarn.

 

[Steve]

Was the quote provided in this thread? If so where? If not, do you have it and can you provide it?

If not then it is hear say

Couture to Seagal: Calm down, bro

I think it all started back here. The drama... I hope it sold some tickets.

For the rest, I don't think anyone seriously wants to watch Seagal or Couture fight in a cage anymore... against anyone. It would be like getting Roger Staubach and Terry Bradshaw together, putting them back in their football gear and getting them out on the football field. No one wants to see that.

I remember when Bjorn Borg tried to come back to tennis in 1991, using a wood racket and generally hoping no one would notice that 8 years had elapsed since he retired from pro tennis. That wasn't fun to watch.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Steven Seagal: I'd Fight Randy Couture No Rules | UFC NEWS | BJPenn.com

Not that age would matter much. Seagal could be in his 20s and 30s and my money would still be on 50+ Couture rolling him up like a ball of yarn.

Actually age would matter a whole lot if you are talking, Seagal or any fighter at 64 vs Randy Couture at 53, to think otherwise is illogical. That has been my point all along, although you seem to either miss that or do not wish to admit it.

That or you are so blinded by your bias that you have no idea what point I am trying to make here.

 

[Hanzou]

Actually age would matter a whole lot if you are talking, Seagal or any fighter at 64 vs Randy Couture at 53, to think otherwise is illogical. That has been my point all along, although you seem to either miss that or do not wish to admit it.

You didn't miss my post that you quoted where I said that Seagal could be in his 20s and 30s and it wouldn't mean a hill of beans because Couture would demolish him anyway?

That or you are so blinded by your bias that you have no idea what point I am trying to make here.

I get your point. You seem to be missing my point that Seagal isn't, and has never been a fighter. You also seem to miss that point that Seagal himself didn't seem to think his age would be a factor in fighting against Couture.

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

The reality is that we will never know if Segal would or would not demolish Couture or if it would be the other way around. Hypothetical again and can never happen. It is fantasy and a waste of our time!

 

[drop bear]

Now, to make this even more absurd in a life or death situation I probably would take Seagal because he is a firearms enthusiast! lol

Randy was a real soldier.

 

[Steve]

Okay. I can't take it anymore. Can someone fix the typo in the title of the thread? If i read the word "appliable" I'm going to go nuts.

 

[Hanzou]

The reality is that we will never know if Segal would or would not demolish Couture or if it would be the other way around. Hypothetical again and can never happen. It is fantasy and a waste of our time!

We really don't know if a former professional fighter could demolish an actor who is almost a decade older and grossly out of shape?

 

[Xue Sheng]

You didn't miss my post that you quoted where I said that Seagal could be in his 20s and 30s and it wouldn't mean a hill of beans because Couture would demolish him anyway?



I get your point. You seem to be missing my point that Seagal isn't, and has never been a fighter. You also seem to miss that point that Seagal himself didn't seem to think his age would be a factor in fighting against Couture.

I read and understood you perfectly, I am simply not allowing you to redirect the post and doing muy best to keep you on the topic of this discussion, which is 'age'. And you seem to be missing my point about age, or purposely avoiding it, completely. You seem to want to change it to a "for or against", or MMA vs TMA argument, and would prefer to make the is an argument about who is a better fighter, and I am not. As far as I can tell I never even eluded to 'better fighter' or 'winner' of this scenario in any of my posts.

I am simply making the point that your statement and for that matter Seagal's statement of meeting and fighting a person 11 years younger than him when he is 64 is illogical and just plain silly. However from what I saw in the links "Steve" (not Steven Seagal) provided, Seagal never said he would beat him, he said he would fight him, and one of them would walk out. Of course he did not say he would lose either.

Now if you want my opinion on who I feel would win based on age, and it would be an opinion, whether current age or if they were both at thier top level of physical conditioning, then feel free to ask, I will be more than happy to tell you and discuss that if you like. But to clear things up and keep this post on point, this conversation is is solely about your's and Seagal's statement being silly based on age.

 

[Jenna]

Okay. I can't take it anymore. Can someone fix the typo in the title of the thread? If i read the word "appliable" I'm going to go nuts.

Yes I will change it! Where is the case latching pin for it though? While I am in there fettling can I also please change the title completely to some thing else more appropriate? Hmm.. what new title do I give to it??

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Yes I will change it! Where is the case latching pin for it though? While I am in there fettling can I also please change the title completely to some thing else more appropriate? Hmm.. what new title do I give to it??

No evil machinations, Jenna.

 

[Jenna]

No evil machinations, Jenna.

Haha.. ok lock me down lolsss Hey I read some of your things my friend and it sound like you have qualification in psychology maybe? and so can you tell me in this case what is it called that we read something that is incorrect like @Steve astutely point out and but we do not even notice it?? Well maybe just me! I did not notice it.. I read it as it is supposed to be "applicable".. Is like this here below kind of thing..

People | Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit

we see what is not even there some times, right? Like this do create problems for actual police and giving lawful evidence etc, right? Like people say they saw a thing when they did not see it at all??