Aikido.. The reality?

[JowGaWolf]

The concept is to develop specific attributes (specific approaches to movement, control, feel, etc.), and be able to apply them in a fluid fashion

All of this is part of the technique.

Okay. Not trying to be argumentative, but can you explain how your story illustrates this? I mean, you said the kid didn't even try to take you down.

He didn't try to take me down because he didn't have a working solution to do so, all he did was stand and think. Most take downs are initiated by someone getting under you an removing your root. Take away this option and people will freeze and not know what to do.

You can see the same response from a sparring video where the low stance removes all of options that most people know. It doesn't matter who you are the response is the same. They will either freeze, play around on the outside in an attempt to make me raise my stance, or rush in with no plan. The only person that still tried to go under my stance was my Nephew. He's state champion wrestler. His dad warned him to be careful not to hurt his knees as we were on a concrete floor and not mats. I was able to defend his attempts to take me down. His dad already knew the reality, which is why he warned his son. His son had to learn the hard way.

The video below has shows this.

(1:19) - my sparring partner was only working on take downs that day. You can see here he's trying to figure out a way. He even tries to lure me out of my low stance. You'll also see him make attempts to go under my stance. He keeps trying to test for openings. I try to time his step so I can changed how his foot lands, but I screwed up on the timing. I think the plan came to mind too late so I ended up forcing it. He was probably going for another move and my attempt caused him to abandon his original plan. But now he's in a bad position for a lift because he's not low enough.
That day his goal was to work on his take downs. My goal was to not let anyone in that school take me down.

In a real fight I could still aggressively attack from that stance, but this was us just working our techniques and I was testing my theory about the function of the low kung fu stance and the way that it should be used. He had a good day and took down all of my classmates and the 2 instructors. I had a good day because my theory was correct and still holds strong.

I don't understand how intimidating an untrained youth illustrates these concepts.

You and I are on different conversations in terms of Borrowing Power and Blending is for the kid wrestling. The teen that I told told to take me down was a different issue related to the function of stance or something, because that's the only time I talk about it. I didn't intimidate the kids. He was bigger than me. His dad was bigger than me. And I was polite. I didn't even have my kung fu face on. I even talked to him through the process asked him what was thinking and trying and how was he trying to solve the problem. His dad even encourage him to give it a try.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Aikido is a martial conditioning method based on Morihei Ueshiba's cosmology and supposed to make both body and mind stronger,

So when I read this I hear exercise not martial arts for actual use in self defense.

which uses a selection of drills, jujutsu techniques and tactical principles as case studies to express these attributes but is not limited by them.

When I read this I see conflict because no where in you statement mention self-defense or applicable use. beyond "Body an Mind." That's the reality of Aikido then people who says it's worthless as a fighting or self-defense system would be correct.

What you lack is precisely context. I don't mean to be offensive, but you lack the background to understand aikido.

I know I lack context, but I've been asking and I haven't gotten any. The most that I've gotten so far pretty much sums it up as a made up Martial Art that is useless for self-defense.

I believe that it was @drop bear who stated "explanations on top of explanations"

You have not been taught the principles of the art nor its technical details from a qualified instructor.

Again. After seeing the videos and seeing the discussions from Aikido Practitioners "qualified instructor" is going to be almost impossible to find.

You don't know the art's history and the context and purpose of its teachings.

How much history do you need to know about punching?
How much history do you need to know about blocking?
How much history do you need to know about setting in a wrist lock?
How much history do you need to know to throw someone?
How much history do you need to know to evade a punch?

You've seen it with the yokomen strike. Without hearing from a teacher that it's supposed to simulate a lateral sword strike, would you have considered that application? Without knowing that aikido comes from sumo, would you have considered the idea that the yokomen strike may in fact come from sumo's lateral palm strikes?

See this what I'm talking about . No one knows what it is. The qualified instructors are saying that it's not a lateral strike. Some say it's a strike at all. Their words not mine. So it's not me.

My point is that, although your interpretations will probably make sense from a Jow Ga point of view and can be very valid from a martial perspective, they will differ wildly from what aikido was intended to be when it was created.

My point is that, although your interpretations will probably make sense from a Jow Ga point of view and can be very valid from a martial perspective, they will differ wildly from what aikido was intended to be when it was created.

It's not my point of view. I've posted other systems with the same or similar stances I didn't bother doing the same with the "Aikido Chop" because one group say it' s not a chop, another group says it's a chop, another group claims that the movement is upwards and not downwards.

I agree, it's a concept lesson. The reason why uke holds so strongly is to make sure that tori is not muscling through the technique. In practice, if uke lets go or holds floppily, tori has a free hand to strike or grapple. When strikes are involved, for example, wrist control can be an important factor:

If that's the case then none of the Aiko techniques are valid for application as they only work if someone doesn't let go and holds on as if they glued. If that's the case the Aikido should probably get out of sparring and should probably not call itself a Martial arts. I'm only saying this because how you are presenting it, because I know there are others who don't share the same view of Aikido as you.

If Aikido is no good for self-defense or fighting then then that means there is no other application of it beyond exercise.

My personal thought is that this shouldn't be so confusing when all I've looked at was an "Aikido Chop", a response to an "Aikido Chop", and an "Aikodo Stance"

 

[JowGaWolf]

I can guarantee that, without knowing that Ueshiba repeated ad nauseam that aikido is first and foremost about yourself, without knowing about his understanding of "in" and "yo", without knowing what "standing in six directions" or "standing on the floating bridge of heaven" means, you'll miss the meat of the art.

If you know what this is, then feel free to share your knowledge. About this and what it means.
If you go all ZEN on me then I'll tell you to stop. I have no interest in ZEN, when it comes to people telling me how things work.

"You must know yourself first is not an answer an answer" Because the same people who buy into that are often the people who do not know how to use Aikido on the the most basic level.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Can we find any Aikido video that a student throws his teacher around?

In Aikido, we have all seen a teacher who throws his student around. It's very hard to find a video that a student also throws teacher around.

All demo are 1/2 fake and 1/2 real.

- The 1/2 fake part is you will give your opponent that opportunity.
- The 1/2 real part is your opponent has to finish it.

If you give your opponent the opportunity, you also help him to finish, that 100% fake demo.

In the following clip, the teacher throws the student. the student also throws the teacher.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

without knowing what "standing in six directions" or "standing on the floating bridge of heaven" means, you'll miss the meat of the art.

Your statement remind me the 1st day that I started to cross train the Zimen system. The Zimen system has 8 principles.

1. 残 - disabled, cruelty
2. 推 - push
3. 援 - assisted
4. 夺 - seized
5. 牵 - pulled
6. 捺 - pinched
7. 逼 - forced
8. 吸 - sucked

The 1st principle is "残(CAN) - disabled, cruelty". The Zimen teacher said, "Without understanding the meaning of "disabled, cruelty", you will never understand the Zimen system."

Even today, I still don't understand why "disabled, cruelty" is the number 1 important principle in that system.

Which MA style will you take?

Case 1:

A; What's your style?
B: My style teach me how to obtain self-cultivation and inner peace.

Case 2:

A: What's your style?
B: My style teach me how to land my fist on my opponent's face.

I'll take 2 over 1.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

This here to me is what I see as technique as well, which is why brute forcing techniques don't work.

This doesn't make sense to me, because the most physical things, you don't understand the principles and attributes until you apply them.

I can talk concept to you about how to ride a bide and keeping balance and shifting weight, but you really won't understand until you actual try to ride a bike. I don't understand how you can separate it from the technique (actually doing the technique). To me all of this is part of the technique. They are not separate things, because the technique cannot work without understanding (what you are talking about) in the context of applying the technique.

The best example I can give is an experience I had as a mid-level colored belt (blue or green, don't recall which) training with someone else of my own rank. I've seen this happen with other training partners and a few of my own students at times, but this is the one I can describe best. I was training with someone who - like me - was good at taking falls (both in technique and in tolerance) and was quite flexible in the upper body. That meant we could really go at techniques and experiment with movements and move hard and fast, more so than would be the norm at that rank. So we were feeding each other various attacks and just trying stuff out against them. It started with us doing the variations we'd been taught (in NGA, the term is "applications", though many styles would call them techniques or variations). Then we started playing with how far we could stretch those applications - changing the attack angle, the throw/takedown angle, whatever we could think to try. Then we went on to try to NOT use any of the applications we'd been taught. We wanted to see what we could figure out if we took those away. I don't remember who did it first, but we both in turn did exactly the same thing that turned into a throw of sorts. We were really enjoying figuring out how it worked, because it didn't even look like any of the techniques we knew.

2 years later, I learned that was a throw later in the curriculum. It's possible we'd seen it before if a senior group was practicing it at the other end of the dojo (that was how training was organized), but doubtful we'd ever seen it demonstrated. We just played with the concepts and principles and discovered it all on our own.

My view is that the formal curriculum of NGA is not a set of boundaries to describe the art, but a set of drills to learn the movements, concepts, and principles of the art. There are many techniques that fit within the art, but aren't in that formal curriculum. Those are left for discovery, because it's literally impossible to define everything that could be in the art - it changes over time.

So back to the concept of forms that don't have direct application. The entry to the technique often teaches something about resisting control (countering grappling), breaking the opponent's structure, and/or moving for position. The midpoint of the technique often teaches something about controlling, locking, and off-balancing. And the finish of the technique often teaches about locking, releasing, defensive positioning, or static control (things like submission locks). Even if the technique isn't useful in application as a combined technique, the principles in those three sections can be. One of them that makes very little sense if you look for direct application (so many easier, simpler, and more effective things have to be bypassed to get to it) actually contains some great training for fighting for control (or to avoid being controlled) at clinch. When I'm clinch fighting, you won't see anything you could point to as an NGA technique, but most of the pieces I use are directly from those movements.

I hope I'm making some sense with this. These are topics I usually take up with students after a few months, when there's some shared vocabulary (both literal and figurative) for them to start understanding what I'm talking about. And even then, it's a bit vague since there's not so much of this going on in the early curriculum. More advanced students (with a couple of years of training - and who are starting to do some of the forms in question) are much better equipped for this discussion.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Your statement remind me the 1st day that I started to cross train the Zimen system. The Zimen system has 8 principles.

1. 残 - disabled, cruelty
2. 推 - push
3. 援 - assisted
4. 夺 - seized
5. 牵 - pulled
6. 捺 - pinched
7. 逼 - forced
8. 吸 - sucked

The 1st principle is "残(CAN) - disabled, cruelty". The Zimen teacher said, "Without understanding the meaning of "disabled, cruelty", you will never understand the Zimen system."

Even today, I still don't understand why "disabled, cruelty" is the number 1 important principle in that system.

Which MA style will you take?

Case 1:

A; What's your style?
B: My style teach me how to obtain self-cultivation and inner peace.

Case 2:

A: What's your style?
B: My style teach me how to land my fist on my opponent's face.

I'll take 2 over 1.

Case 1: Reminds me of when someone told me that I need to learn Martial Arts so I can be a good person. I told that person. "I thought that's what Church is for." So I'm only here learn a fighting system.

It puzzled me because, if the person is a Good Person before they join the school, then why do they need to do extra to be a "Good Person"

But I'm like you. I'll take Case 2 any day. I'll get my spirituality and religion from somewhere else.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Then we started playing with how far we could stretch those applications - changing the attack angle, the throw/takedown angle, whatever we could think to try. Then we went on to try to NOT use any of the applications we'd been taught. We wanted to see what we could figure out if we took those away. I don't remember who did it first, but we both in turn did exactly the same thing that turned into a throw of sorts. We were really enjoying figuring out how it worked, because it didn't even look like any of the techniques we knew.

2 years later, I learned that was a throw later in the curriculum. It's possible we'd seen it before if a senior group was practicing it at the other end of the dojo (that was how training was organized), but doubtful we'd ever seen it demonstrated. We just played with the concepts and principles and discovered it all on our own.

I understand this. This is normal and it's something that will happen often as when trying to discover application beyond what is taught.

My view is that the formal curriculum of NGA is not a set of boundaries to describe the art, but a set of drills to learn the movements, concepts, and principles of the art. There are many techniques that fit within the art, but aren't in that formal curriculum. Those are left for discovery, because it's literally impossible to define everything that could be in the art - it changes over time.

I understand this too. This is how the learning experience should work. It's been brought up here a few times about the need for a system to evolve. This is where that evolution comes from. But it only happens when a good foundation and a willingness to explore occurs. I think I have about 10 techniques that I learned on my own that aren't formally taught in Jow Ga. some things that the teacher already knew and some are things that he may not know. Either way they weren't taught in Jow ga and I didn't grab them from the other system.

So at this point I understand what you are describing.

One of them that makes very little sense if you look for direct application (so many easier, simpler, and more effective things have to be bypassed to get to it) actually contains some great training for fighting for control (or to avoid being controlled) at clinch. When I'm clinch fighting, you won't see anything you could point to as an NGA technique, but most of the pieces I use are directly from those movements.

I understand this as well as I have used what I learn in Taiji about relaxing an sensing in my Jow Ga.

i just finished reading your whole post. I understand what you are saying. I personally don't think it's an Aikido thing because I can pull out examples of how those things (similar things) have happened to me. I'm more likely to use a Taiji Concept with my Jow Ga, than a Taiji technique. This is why I can tell how weak or how strong a person's stance is based on how their punch lands on me. But I still have to learn how to deal with attacks. I can't use that concept by itself.

 

[JowGaWolf]

The best example I can give is an experience I had as a mid-level colored belt (blue or green, don't recall which) training with someone else of my own rank. I've seen this happen with other training partners and a few of my own students at times, but this is the one I can describe best. I was training with someone who - like me - was good at taking falls (both in technique and in tolerance) and was quite flexible in the upper body. That meant we could really go at techniques and experiment with movements and move hard and fast, more so than would be the norm at that rank. So we were feeding each other various attacks and just trying stuff out against them. It started with us doing the variations we'd been taught (in NGA, the term is "applications", though many styles would call them techniques or variations). Then we started playing with how far we could stretch those applications - changing the attack angle, the throw/takedown angle, whatever we could think to try. Then we went on to try to NOT use any of the applications we'd been taught. We wanted to see what we could figure out if we took those away. I don't remember who did it first, but we both in turn did exactly the same thing that turned into a throw of sorts. We were really enjoying figuring out how it worked, because it didn't even look like any of the techniques we knew.

2 years later, I learned that was a throw later in the curriculum. It's possible we'd seen it before if a senior group was practicing it at the other end of the dojo (that was how training was organized), but doubtful we'd ever seen it demonstrated. We just played with the concepts and principles and discovered it all on our own.

My view is that the formal curriculum of NGA is not a set of boundaries to describe the art, but a set of drills to learn the movements, concepts, and principles of the art. There are many techniques that fit within the art, but aren't in that formal curriculum. Those are left for discovery, because it's literally impossible to define everything that could be in the art - it changes over time.

So back to the concept of forms that don't have direct application. The entry to the technique often teaches something about resisting control (countering grappling), breaking the opponent's structure, and/or moving for position. The midpoint of the technique often teaches something about controlling, locking, and off-balancing. And the finish of the technique often teaches about locking, releasing, defensive positioning, or static control (things like submission locks). Even if the technique isn't useful in application as a combined technique, the principles in those three sections can be. One of them that makes very little sense if you look for direct application (so many easier, simpler, and more effective things have to be bypassed to get to it) actually contains some great training for fighting for control (or to avoid being controlled) at clinch. When I'm clinch fighting, you won't see anything you could point to as an NGA technique, but most of the pieces I use are directly from those movements.

I hope I'm making some sense with this. These are topics I usually take up with students after a few months, when there's some shared vocabulary (both literal and figurative) for them to start understanding what I'm talking about. And even then, it's a bit vague since there's not so much of this going on in the early curriculum. More advanced students (with a couple of years of training - and who are starting to do some of the forms in question) are much better equipped for this discussion.

all of this makes sense to me.

 

[Shatteredzen]

Regarding @O'Malley I'm not sure where you are getting the idea that Ueshiba had no formal training outside of Daito-Ryu or that he wasn't a pacifist after the war and that his son made all the changes to the system. Here's a late interview with him where he very clearly lays out a much more extensive background in Budo, to include the Kendo you said he didn't know and where he very clearly expresses his reformed pacifist philosophy for Aikido. Interview with Morihei Ueshiba and Kisshomaru Ueshiba – Aikido Journal take specific note of the last question, where he specifically references the atomic bomb and a need for an end to war.

Ueshiba was an extreme nationalist and the defeat of Imperial Japan and the surrender created a total paradigm shift within him, as it did in much of Japanese society. As far as Aikido being a finishing school for more advanced Budo practitioners, its what the Japanese Army hired him for and what he was doing in Manchuria throughout the war, studying with Ueshiba required being referred from other teachers for a long time and his son is credited as being the one to truly open the martial art up to the world, although Ueshiba shared the same mindset as part of his post war paradigm shift. The same thing is listed under the IMAF description of Aikido :: Aikido ::

For the hand technique or "Aikido chop" @JowGaWolf - I'm sorry if I have not been clearer in my description, Aikido teaches the idea of tegatana, literally, "hand swords" and emphasizes knife hand techniques. Aikido techniques come from sword fighting and the idea of tegatana comes from this idea of using the knife hand as a kind of "spirit sword".
There's a very rigid posture to the hand and exacting instructions on using it to focus ki and how to block and strike/ etc. Here is a detailed explanation from Kenji Tomiki and its the best one I can easily find. The Three and Six – TOMIKI AIKIDO

I may be getting the entire principle wrong but I have always taught the traditional ideas and then told students to dismiss the rigid knife hands and to adopt a more relaxed flow with the hands, similar to the open hands in Kali. This both promotes easier grabbing/grappling it also allows you to use more striking parts of the hand such as the palm or to turn the strike from a knife hand "chop" into a flowing ridge hand over an opponents guard. I try to stress that the tegatana is primarily to intercept the opponents line, not as the classical ki strike karate chop. This is why I link the aikidoflow videos, because he has adopted what looks like the same method, instead of staying with the classical, rigid chopping that you keep seeing. This may be total Aikido heresy, but it has been what I have found works the best when attempting to apply Aikido techniques against resistance and I stay away from teaching martial arts esotericism albeit some is necessary to understand the principles Aikido is teaching. Maybe the old masters really could karate chop the hell out of everyone, in my experience, it screws up and slows down the practitioner, adds rigidity instead of a flowing harmony to the application of techniques and just doesn't work in the way people are trying to use it.

For the stances, the ready stance and receiving posture are similar to sword fighting stances because you are attempting to maintain distance and then intercept the opponents line of attack, as in Japanese sword fighting. Here's an ok description of the actual footwork/stance as its traditionally taught Katsujinken Dojo: Basic Aikido-Stance and Movements

There are many arguments on posture, positioning, etc, I don't think it matters as much as people put into it, the hanmi is supposed to be evocative of a student holding a sword. This may get into the region I said before of me just being a total heretic regarding the use of the tegatana concept, but I have always taught this as a "receiving" posture and in practice, my actual stance in a fight tends to at least begin simply with the bladed stance towards the opponent and the hands and arms in a loose receiving posture that looks more like the "hey I don't want any trouble" gesture. The deception is on purpose because I can easily transition through this as I would the more rigid Hanmi used in the dojo while presenting a less threatening or aggressive posture.

Notice he stays relaxed and emphasizes a relaxation of the stance and hands to aid the movement and technique. In my opinion, this is someone who understands how to apply the techniques through an opponents resistance, where what you are seeing is the dojo method that stresses perfect posture/rigidity and positioning and is not true "budo" but a more stylized form just like we see in many other Japanese fighting arts where the demonstration of a technique doesn't convey a practical application.

I am dismissive of Ueshiba's post war pacifism as well as the "peace and love" Aikido community because this total reconstruction both hides the true gift of the art form itself as well as promotes all the esoteric and just imaginary nonsense that has gotten us to this discussion in the first place. I almost feel like a part of Ueshiba wanted to leave the world with his creation but to bury the core of his art behind the fluff he was posturing post war. The Japanese Koryu themselves have had an ongoing problem with being watered down, turned into sport and otherwise morphed into something they are not since the end of the warring states period. Aikido suffers from the "cultural icon / art" decay as well as the strong post war re-write which has made it a favorite of hucksters, hippies and snake oil salesman since it hit western shores during the karate boom.

Despite all of the problems with the "art" as a whole, I don't think its any worse or better off than most other schools and traditions. My first Karate instructor growing up tried to say her red belt kata was based on ripping open someone's ribcage and tearing out their heart with your bare hands, even the pre-teen me called bullshido on that particular claim. Its easy to simply point at Aikido and to just laugh because there is a lot of ammo that's accumulated over the years. I simply contend that its no different to all the fake and bad McDojo's we have seen and the art itself is sound for what it is teaching, "an elegant weapon for a more civilized age" to misquote old Ben Kenobi.

I also don't think that Aikido has truly had its day in the sun yet, as many other martial arts have not, simply due to the way the Eastern martial arts entered popular culture in the last century and the way that the UFC and BJJ rode that wave into a temporary monopoly. Thankfully the more blind/dogmatic devotion to BJJ seems to be leaving the conversation in favor of a pragmatic "train what works" approach. This mindset of training against resistance and focusing on what works has the potential to weed out enough clutter within the community to really give us that next level of development and blending of styles/techniques and philosophies that could create some really exciting stuff in the years to come.

 

[isshinryuronin]

If Aikido is no good for self-defense or fighting then then that means there is no other application of it beyond exercise

I agree and disagree, depending on how you define "aikido." System vs specific technique.

Taken as a system, it may not be effective against resisting, thrashing, punching opponents, or those who have disciplined, centered attacks. As an exercise, I'd take it over yoga, as aikido's movements have the potential of aiding body movement as practiced in other MA. Relaxed, smooth and flowing movement is a plus in most all MA.

The basic principles of aikido technique are mostly valid - it's just the system is not designed to execute those techniques in a realistic combat encounter. If one is skilled in another MA, some aikido techniques can be lifted and be made to work within that other combat MA framework. If I have a macadamia nut cookie and the cookie dough is no good, instead of throwing away the whole cookie, I'll pick out the tasty nuts and enjoy those.

So while aikido taken as a whole system may be lacking as a combat MA, within that system are individual concepts and techniques that have value in fighting, given a different delivery system (MA style) that can give relevance and efficacy to those techniques. If one approaches this issue with an open mind, some creativity, and solid experience in a combat oriented MA, some tasty nuts can be found in aikido and put to good, effective, use.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Why do all Aikido training have to start with grabbing? Can Aikido training start from his opponent's kick or punch?

Also why do you always have to wait for your opponent to move in toward you? How about you move in toward your opponent instead?

 

[Shatteredzen]

I agree and disagree, depending on how you define "aikido." System vs specific technique.

Taken as a system, it may not be effective against resisting, thrashing, punching opponents, or those who have disciplined, centered attacks. As an exercise, I'd take it over yoga, as aikido's movements have the potential of aiding body movement as practiced in other MA. Relaxed, smooth and flowing movement is a plus in most all MA.

The basic principles of aikido technique are mostly valid - it's just the system is not designed to execute those techniques in a realistic combat encounter. If one is skilled in another MA, some aikido techniques can be lifted and be made to work within that other combat MA framework. If I have a macadamia nut cookie and the cookie dough is no good, instead of throwing away the whole cookie, I'll pick out the tasty nuts and enjoy those.

So while aikido taken as a whole system may be lacking as a combat MA, within that system are individual concepts and techniques that have value in fighting, given a different delivery system (MA style) that can give relevance and efficacy to those techniques. If one approaches this issue with an open mind, some creativity, and solid experience in a combat oriented MA, some tasty nuts can be found in aikido and put to good, effective, use.

Except this is all coming from the false pretense that Aikido does not in fact work as a practical martial art or that it is not a "combat" martial art. You are mistaking a preponderance of bad schools and training as being the same as a bad system. I can take examples of bad martial artists in any martial art you want to cite, the failures of these individuals says nothing about the system itself. Aikido comes from the techniques used to train the Takeda clan samurai, it was used by the Japanese military during the second world war and its techniques are still used in law enforcement and military unarmed techniques the world over. The Japanese police and military still use Aikido in their respective unarmed systems alongside Judo, Karate and other techniques. There is not a need to cherry pick a handful of techniques from Aikido, you simply need a good school/teacher and you need to train to practically apply the techniques.

 

[Shatteredzen]

Why do all Aikido training have to start with grabbing? Can Aikido training start from his opponent's kick or punch?

Also why do you always have to wait for your opponent to move in toward you? How about you move in toward your opponent instead?

Nice, you grabbed a good video, this guy is excellent with his technique. You do not have to wait until your opponent moves towards you and it does not need to start with grappling. What you are watching is the equivalent of Kata demonstrations in other Japanese martial arts, the object is to show perfect form/delivery not simulate a realistic fight.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Regarding @O'Malley I'm not sure where you are getting the idea that Ueshiba had no formal training outside of Daito-Ryu or that he wasn't a pacifist after the war and that his son made all the changes to the system. Here's a late interview with him where he very clearly lays out a much more extensive background in Budo, to include the Kendo you said he didn't know and where he very clearly expresses his reformed pacifist philosophy for Aikido. Interview with Morihei Ueshiba and Kisshomaru Ueshiba – Aikido Journal take specific note of the last question, where he specifically references the atomic bomb and a need for an end to war.

Ueshiba was an extreme nationalist and the defeat of Imperial Japan and the surrender created a total paradigm shift within him, as it did in much of Japanese society. As far as Aikido being a finishing school for more advanced Budo practitioners, its what the Japanese Army hired him for and what he was doing in Manchuria throughout the war, studying with Ueshiba required being referred from other teachers for a long time and his son is credited as being the one to truly open the martial art up to the world, although Ueshiba shared the same mindset as part of his post war paradigm shift. The same thing is listed under the IMAF description of Aikido :: Aikido ::

For the hand technique or "Aikido chop" @JowGaWolf - I'm sorry if I have not been clearer in my description, Aikido teaches the idea of tegatana, literally, "hand swords" and emphasizes knife hand techniques. Aikido techniques come from sword fighting and the idea of tegatana comes from this idea of using the knife hand as a kind of "spirit sword".
There's a very rigid posture to the hand and exacting instructions on using it to focus ki and how to block and strike/ etc. Here is a detailed explanation from Kenji Tomiki and its the best one I can easily find. The Three and Six – TOMIKI AIKIDO

I may be getting the entire principle wrong but I have always taught the traditional ideas and then told students to dismiss the rigid knife hands and to adopt a more relaxed flow with the hands, similar to the open hands in Kali. This both promotes easier grabbing/grappling it also allows you to use more striking parts of the hand such as the palm or to turn the strike from a knife hand "chop" into a flowing ridge hand over an opponents guard. I try to stress that the tegatana is primarily to intercept the opponents line, not as the classical ki strike karate chop. This is why I link the aikidoflow videos, because he has adopted what looks like the same method, instead of staying with the classical, rigid chopping that you keep seeing. This may be total Aikido heresy, but it has been what I have found works the best when attempting to apply Aikido techniques against resistance and I stay away from teaching martial arts esotericism albeit some is necessary to understand the principles Aikido is teaching. Maybe the old masters really could karate chop the hell out of everyone, in my experience, it screws up and slows down the practitioner, adds rigidity instead of a flowing harmony to the application of techniques and just doesn't work in the way people are trying to use it.

For the stances, the ready stance and receiving posture are similar to sword fighting stances because you are attempting to maintain distance and then intercept the opponents line of attack, as in Japanese sword fighting. Here's an ok description of the actual footwork/stance as its traditionally taught Katsujinken Dojo: Basic Aikido-Stance and Movements

There are many arguments on posture, positioning, etc, I don't think it matters as much as people put into it, the hanmi is supposed to be evocative of a student holding a sword. This may get into the region I said before of me just being a total heretic regarding the use of the tegatana concept, but I have always taught this as a "receiving" posture and in practice, my actual stance in a fight tends to at least begin simply with the bladed stance towards the opponent and the hands and arms in a loose receiving posture that looks more like the "hey I don't want any trouble" gesture. The deception is on purpose because I can easily transition through this as I would the more rigid Hanmi used in the dojo while presenting a less threatening or aggressive posture.

Notice he stays relaxed and emphasizes a relaxation of the stance and hands to aid the movement and technique. In my opinion, this is someone who understands how to apply the techniques through an opponents resistance, where what you are seeing is the dojo method that stresses perfect posture/rigidity and positioning and is not true "budo" but a more stylized form just like we see in many other Japanese fighting arts where the demonstration of a technique doesn't convey a practical application.

I am dismissive of Ueshiba's post war pacifism as well as the "peace and love" Aikido community because this total reconstruction both hides the true gift of the art form itself as well as promotes all the esoteric and just imaginary nonsense that has gotten us to this discussion in the first place. I almost feel like a part of Ueshiba wanted to leave the world with his creation but to bury the core of his art behind the fluff he was posturing post war. The Japanese Koryu themselves have had an ongoing problem with being watered down, turned into sport and otherwise morphed into something they are not since the end of the warring states period. Aikido suffers from the "cultural icon / art" decay as well as the strong post war re-write which has made it a favorite of hucksters, hippies and snake oil salesman since it hit western shores during the karate boom.

Despite all of the problems with the "art" as a whole, I don't think its any worse or better off than most other schools and traditions. My first Karate instructor growing up tried to say her red belt kata was based on ripping open someone's ribcage and tearing out their heart with your bare hands, even the pre-teen me called bullshido on that particular claim. Its easy to simply point at Aikido and to just laugh because there is a lot of ammo that's accumulated over the years. I simply contend that its no different to all the fake and bad McDojo's we have seen and the art itself is sound for what it is teaching, "an elegant weapon for a more civilized age" to misquote old Ben Kenobi.

I also don't think that Aikido has truly had its day in the sun yet, as many other martial arts have not, simply due to the way the Eastern martial arts entered popular culture in the last century and the way that the UFC and BJJ rode that wave into a temporary monopoly. Thankfully the more blind/dogmatic devotion to BJJ seems to be leaving the conversation in favor of a pragmatic "train what works" approach. This mindset of training against resistance and focusing on what works has the potential to weed out enough clutter within the community to really give us that next level of development and blending of styles/techniques and philosophies that could create some really exciting stuff in the years to come.

Thanks for the links. What read from your post makes sense to me as well. From what I saw in the video makes sense from the block to the strike. I'm going to take a look at the links that you posted. Pre-War Japan was much different than Post War Japan. Having a big bomb drop on the citizens and then watch people die from radiation poisoning will change a lot of things. Up until that point the Japanese "Spirit" was that of cruel conquerors. There history was the same. I'm not saying that they were the only ones like that. But nothing about their Pre-War culture was about "love peace and happiness." The have always held onto their past history and were proud of about their Warriors of the past. The Bomb changed all of that. 180 degrees from Samurai to "No Mas".

 

[Shatteredzen]

Thanks for the links. What read from your post makes sense to me as well. From what I saw in the video makes sense from the block to the strike. I'm going to take a look at the links that you posted. Pre-War Japan was much different than Post War Japan. Having a big bomb drop on the citizens and then watch people die from radiation poisoning will change a lot of things. Up until that point the Japanese "Spirit" was that of cruel conquerors. There history was the same. I'm not saying that they were the only ones like that. But nothing about their Pre-War culture was about "love peace and happiness." The have always held onto their past history and were proud of about their Warriors of the past. The Bomb changed all of that. 180 degrees from Samurai to "No Mas".

Yes, a lack of practical training is also to blame however. I see the same issues come up with Kung Fu, I'm sure you can instantly recognize those who train forms to perfection but have no practical fighting ability to use them versus the practitioners who learn to adapt their techniques to combative opponents. All of this is just dancing if you don't learn to use it in an actual fight against someone trying to kick your butt.

 

[JowGaWolf]

As an exercise, I'd take it over yoga, as aikido's movements have the potential of aiding body movement as practiced in other MA. Relaxed, smooth and flowing movement is a plus in most all MA.

There were times where I would have taken Dog Poop over yoga, but that's before I tried it. Yoga is tough. I've heard more people get more out of yoga than what people would expect. I'll be adding it to my rehab within a few weeks.

But I get what you are saying. There are very few Martial Arts systems that I feel are just total duds. If Japan had won the War and retained their captured Territory, there is a very high chance that Aikido wouldn't have the "peace and zen" vibe that a lot of people push on it. I always tell people that the byproduct of hard training, sparring , hitting pads, etc. is reduce stress and calm. Your day may start off crappy but get in the gym put some hard work in, focus on the moment and that "Peace" they are looking for will come naturally. There's no need to artificially add it.

 

[Shatteredzen]

There were times where I would have taken Dog Poop over yoga, but that's before I tried it. Yoga is tough. I've heard more people get more out of yoga than what people would expect. I'll be adding it to my rehab within a few weeks.

But I get what you are saying. There are very few Martial Arts systems that I feel are just total duds. If Japan had won the War and retained their captured Territory, there is a very high chance that Aikido wouldn't have the "peace and zen" vibe that a lot of people push on it. I always tell people that the byproduct of hard training, sparring , hitting pads, etc. is reduce stress and calm. Your day may start off crappy but get in the gym put some hard work in, focus on the moment and that "Peace" they are looking for will come naturally. There's no need to artificially add it.

I will happily second that endorsement of Yoga, it does work as intended.

 

[JowGaWolf]

I see the same issues come up with Kung Fu, I'm sure you can instantly recognize those who train forms to perfection but have no practical fighting ability to use them versus the practitioners who learn to adapt their techniques to combative opponents.

Yep and that's when the sadness hits lol. All of that time training and not once actually trying it through sparring. There is so much beyond just the technique and being able to remember the names of moves, and look good doing it. To me that's a very shallow understanding. They don't have to go out and fight until they are bloody in order to take it to the next level. They could have fun with and enjoy the experience of trying to learn and learning how it actually works outside of the form.

Yeah Kung Fu people do the same thing. Even in Jow Ga. To spend decades and venture beyond the front door of a system.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Yes, a lack of practical training is also to blame however.

I would say the common sense is missing. We all know that if you pick up my left leg, you then hook up my right leg, since I have no leg left, I will have to fall.

As a throwing art, does Aikido have technique such as:

- control one of your opponent's leg,
- control his other leg, and
- take him down?

Why can't we train a throwing art just from the "common sense" instead?