Aikido.. The reality?

[Cynik75]

 

[Martial D]

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

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

That's a good question, but these are not similar.

The answer would be most of the time. The one that initiates has a massive advantage. They not only know when the strike comes, but where, and don't need to react which is way slower than acting. This is why actual fighters don't block or grab or intercept strikes, they instead stay covered and mobile to minimize the target. Because you need to be orders of magnitude faster than your attacker to read the when and where and react to it within the 1/10th of a second it takes. This is why none of those scenarios you posted are realistic.

 

[Flying Crane]

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

View attachment 23753
Person on the right strikes head on and not off center like in the drill. Off center would place him on the left flank of the defender and he would be facing the camera. Here we can see that is not the case.

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

Here we see the teacher doing the chop. A punch is thrown the teacher takes an angle. We can tell because we can see the back of the head. The feet are also not far apart, which is the same with kung fu for a similar strike, in Jow Ga,it's called a nail strike and foot work wise, you end up facing in this direction. The stepping off center and turning into the strike is what helps to generate the power. In this scenario he's safe from the left punch because that punch cannot leave until the other one comes back to at least the 50% mark, starting at the point where the punch began.
View attachment 23754

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

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

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

Is this the application of a chop in Aikido

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

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

To your point of working and making mistakes and ultimately getting it figured out. Yes, I agree. But if you have a greater understanding of the system as a whole, then the solutions tend to fall into place more easily and intuitively. That is what I am getting at. You still need to work it and develop it, but you would have a better understanding of what you are trying to accomplish. That was what I was getting at with the square peg-round hole point. If you are fundamentally approaching it without understanding how the system is meant to work, then your solutions are likely sud-optimal.

Again, I do not claim to understand aikido. So I don’t know the actual answers in this case. I’m just suggesting that it is difficult to judge another system without understanding something about the system. Yes, there are a lot of universals that can be identified from one system to another. But some things that appear to be a universal, really may not be.

As far at that move simply being a chop, the engine in my own system allows for a very powerful delivery with something that at least looks similar to the video. I don’t know if aikido would do it the same. But I know that movement can be powerful.

 

[isshinryuronin]

The one that initiates has a massive advantage.

Usually, yes. The second paragraph of my post that your above quote refers to, is about initiating action, resulting in being in a position to where a grab can be set. I would say "setting up" the opponent qualifies as initiating action.

 

[geezer]

I would say "setting up" the opponent qualifies as initiating action.

I agree. If you set up someone and bait them right into your counter... you are not reacting, you are really initiating the action.

So.... taking that into consideration when we define who is the initiator, the pro-active fighter will be successful even more of the time. Yet so many TMA (especially those that don't have some form of legit pressure testing) espouse a reactive strategy.

 

[JowGaWolf]

To your point of working and making mistakes and ultimately getting it figured out. Yes, I agree. But if you have a greater understanding of the system as a whole, then the solutions tend to fall into place more easily and intuitively.

Sometimes things fit nicely and sometimes we are going to get hit in the face. Not every technique or every aspect regardless of understanding is going to be a smooth transition from what we believe we understand to application. It's just a part of learning.

 

[Flying Crane]

Sometimes things fit nicely and sometimes we are going to get hit in the face. Not every technique or every aspect regardless of understanding is going to be a smooth transition from what we believe we understand to application. It's just a part of learning.

No argument there!

 

[JowGaWolf]

So here is where I am
The "Aikido Robot Chop"
This movement is incorrect in terms of Aiko where the attacker attacks with a Robot Chop. This is most likely a misinterpretation of another technique that many get wrong or it could be something that was added to Aikido while it shows an attack with a chop it should not be one.

My personal thoughts about the chop displayed is that it is a summary of a functional chop. Footwork and stepping offline would suggest that the technique is functional as a chop, but was intentionally "broken" which resulted it in being a weak chop that had no power connection. In terms of a functional Chop it is possible to "chop" someone with a knife hand using the footwork shown and by planting the lead foot and the "chop" at the same time. There are at least 2 known kung fu systems that have a similar motion. The functional motion is "less of" of a chopping motion is smaller

There is question about the technique as in demos. The student will "chop" without stepping off center line, but when the teacher chops he is off center line. This different approach may support the belief that the Chop is function, but not the correct attack that should be used for that particular demo.

For none TMA people. The "Aikido Robot Chop" as shown is not functional. The functional version of it would require you to do small things that aren't shown in such demos. Even if these things were done, the demos in which this chop "Aikido Robot Chop" appears is the incorrect attack for the demo.

I'm saying incorrect attack because I have yet to take a look at the defense. If the chop was done correctly then a different Aikido response would need to be used.

 

[JowGaWolf]

So I'm back at the starting point. Now I have to find an Aikido attack that isn't a "Robot Chop"

 

[Martial D]

Usually, yes. The second paragraph of my post that your above quote refers to, is about initiating action, resulting in being in a position to where a grab can be set. I would say "setting up" the opponent qualifies as initiating action.

Ok, but I was replying to these points.

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

Unrealistic. You just won't have time to target and attack an incoming punch, ever.



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.

Again, unless your name is Barry Allen or you are fighting underwater, it's not realistic to think you can step aside, read the punch, make contact with it and grab it in the tenth of a second you will have to do all this.

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.

Of the three this is the most plausible but still highly unlikely. It would be like a goalie in soccer saving a penalty kick. It could happen but only because of lucky guesswork. You would need to be in motion for the counter before he began the punch.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

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.

Of the three this is the most plausible but still highly unlikely. It would be like a goalie in soccer saving a penalty kick. It could happen but only because of lucky guesswork. You would need to be in motion for the counter before he began the punch.

This is why you will need 2 different strategies/tactics.

- You know your opponent is going to punch you. When he does, you jump in.
- You don't know your opponent is going to punch you, When he does, it may be too late for you to jump in (your legs are not ready to spring forward yet), you lean your upper body back, and your front leg kick out.

 

[Martial D]

This is why you will need 2 different strategies/tactics.

- You know your opponent is going to punch you. When he does, you jump in.
- You don't know your opponent is going to punch you, When he does, it may be too late for you to jump in (your legs are not ready to spring forward yet), you lean your upper body back, and your front leg kick out.

Of everyone on this board, you are the one I think I would enjoy a conversation with over a bottle of saki

 

[JowGaWolf]

If you can parry a punch then you can hard block it or strike the punching arm with your wrist or your forearm. This is reliable.

To grab the punch target the grab at your opponent's half way point. This increases the time and distance that your opponent's punch must travel to be out of danger of your grab. This is still difficult because of the speed. To improve the your chances put pressure against the punching arm. This will slow the punch and will increase your chances to grab the punchin arm. A strong grip will improve the chances as well.

The trick is to not let the punch travel full speed or to start the around the elbow. Don't think grab punch think grab punching arm.

 

[JowGaWolf]

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

I might have video of this.

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.

I don't think I have video of this. I do have a side step deflect and punch. I just don't know if I have any where I was trying to grab the arm. Normally I train to land strikes because they are easier to learn.

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.

I should have tons of this on video

The problem with "grab a punch" is that it's a low possibility because this would require a person to grab the fastest part of the punch.

The correct thought process is to deal with the punch before it becomes a punch or after it has completed and is moving away from you. If you miss dealing with the punch before it gets past the 50% point then you can go to plan b and follow the punch so that it doesn't come back out and strike you. The hard part is catching the punching arm. The hard part is what to do after you have caught it. Sort of like how some people will catch a kicking leg, but then just hold onto after they have caught it.

 

[Martial D]

I might have video of this.


I don't think I have video of this. I do have a side step deflect and punch. I just don't know if I have any where I was trying to grab the arm. Normally I train to land strikes because they are easier to learn.


I should have tons of this on video

The problem with "grab a punch" is that it's a low possibility because this would require a person to grab the fastest part of the punch.

The correct thought process is to deal with the punch before it becomes a punch or after it has completed and is moving away from you. If you miss dealing with the punch before it gets past the 50% point then you can go to plan b and follow the punch so that it doesn't come back out and strike you. The hard part is catching the punching arm. The hard part is what to do after you have caught it. Sort of like how some people will catch a kicking leg, but then just hold onto after they have caught it.

To be fair, and absolutely no disrespect intended, I've seen your sparring videos and they are neither full speed not against opponents I would consider decent punchers.

 

[JowGaWolf]

I think this is a picture of a student grabbing the punching arm. If my memory is correct he grab the punching arm and interfered with the it returning to chamber. I want to say he naturally grabbed the arm because his hands were larger so it was an easier thing to do compared to person with small hands, like me, to be grabbing arms.

 

[JowGaWolf]

To be fair, and absolutely no disrespect intended, I've seen your sparring videos and they are neither full speed not against opponents I would consider decent punchers.

1. They are still sparring videos against a resisting opponent who is clearly not punching softly.
2. They are still concepts and techniques in application against a sparring partner.
3. By your logic the guy @ 1:02 mark doesn't impress you as well. Because he's "not sparring against a decent puncher."
If I'm sub par then he is subpar by your definition of "not full speed, not against opponent's, I would consider decent punchers."

If you cannot see the skill set beyond "not punching hard" or "punching against " decent puncher. Then you will not be able to understand the comments that I've made. The concepts are sound and true.
1. Deal with the punch arm before the punch gets to the 50% mark
2. Deal with the punch arm as it's returning.

If I touch your punching arm before your punch reaches the 50% mark then you will not be able to land that punch on me.
If I touch your punching arm after your punch reaches the 50% mark then you will have a good chance of landing that punch.

It's not magic and you don't have to be a professional fighter to do these things.

 

[Martial D]

1. They are still sparring videos against a resisting opponent who is clearly not punching softly.
2. They are still concepts and techniques in application against a sparring partner.
3. By your logic the guy @ 1:02 mark doesn't impress you as well. Because he's "not sparring against a decent puncher."
If I'm sub par then he is subpar by your definition of "not full speed, not against opponent's, I would consider decent punchers."

If you cannot see the skill set beyond "not punching hard" or "punching against " decent puncher. Then you will not be able to understand the comments that I've made. The concepts are sound and true.
1. Deal with the punch arm before the punch gets to the 50% mark
2. Deal with the punch arm as it's returning.

If I touch your punching arm before your punch reaches the 50% mark then you will not be able to land that punch on me.
If I touch your punching arm after your punch reaches the 50% mark then you will have a good chance of landing that punch.

It's not magic and you don't have to be a professional fighter to do these things.

I didn't say you were 'sub par'. In fact, I really like that you do light sparring at all coming from a cma background because the overwhelming majority do not. With that said I would be quite interested in seeing you spar against a decent boxer or kickboxer while remaining in jow ga mode.

You said it yourself. If you can read the intention to punch, can see where it's coming, and get to it before it's 50% of the way out, sure, you'll stop it. But that happens in a single fraction of a second if it's not completely telegraphed and exaggerated, which means you would have to be both inhumanly fast and a little bit psychic to get there against a full speed strike with real intent behind it.

 

[O'Malley]

This has been my best example of the concept. How close do you think I came?

*video*

Not even close, though I love the video.

I've found this demonstration that shows the most basic aspect of aiki: connected body.

The guy above is from I Liq Chuan but they use a similar concept. The video above helps conceptualise what is happening in the aikido video below:

What does Aikido claim to teach you? And does it reach those claims?

I think the biggest problem is the disconect between those two concepts.

Couldn't agree more. The vast majority of aikido practitioners that claim "effectiveness" have no idea that their lineage of aikido was changed to a less functional form and/or that the training methods are not appropriate to obtain the effective skills that early practitioners had. This also includes my own training.

And this is partly because the measuring stick is so weirdly skewed.

There is no way to measure aikido proficiency other than peer accolades. And more generally, people don't even agree on what aikido is anyway. If the peers have no clue/are not interested in functionality, the system has no way to know how good you are at applying aikido to a situation where the opponent does not conform to the pre-set pattern.

Where as this I think is very bad for your striking. In that it makes you a collapso tap out monkey.

*video*

Then when you are fighting people who are just dying from every hit. You don't have to develop your grappling because they are doing it for you.

The way atemi is trained, if at all, depends heavily on the teacher/lineage. In my first aikido club, I had to fall/dodge the teacher's strikes in the way you criticise, and I didn't buy it. Firstly, the teacher had no way to make me "respect" his strikes that much: they had no structure nor power, and I could have easily shrugged them off. Secondly, I found it silly to expect your opponent to have the split-second reflex to dodge your strike, but to also do so in an extremely counterintuitive way that just happens to make your technique work (and to expect that you'll be able to recognise the opportunity and take advantage of it in a split-second). In my other aikido clubs, atemi was simply taught as opportunities to strike that arise during a technique, and as a recovery (I don't recall it being taught as a way to bridge distance, at least not explicitly). Can't seem to make the wristy-twisty thing work? If the position leaves you an opening, punch him in the face.

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.

Absolutely right.

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

Yup, although there is more to it. For example, sometimes atemi itself is the way you deal with your opponent, like the sumo video you posted. Or like Shioda's back atemi (again with his full body behind it):

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.
*video*

I think that aikido application, including atemi, would look more like sumo or Tomiki aikido.

Here's my logic.

Drop Aikidio and focus on technique. If you were going to do a wrist lock of your choosing as an attack and not a counter, then what are the things you'll need to do to make it successful and to make it easier to get the lock when your opponent is not aware.

If you Answer that question then you will see that other systems follow that same logic. To say Aikido wouldn't need to follow the same logic is what we often see when it fails. If I were to use Chin Na on you, It would be done as I'm punching you in the face or to the body. Your instinct would be to grab my arms to stop me from punching and that's what I want you do to do so I can apply the Chin Na. You wouldn't have any clue that's what I'm thinking because I would be busing nailing you with hard punches. If you let me punch you, then I'll keep doing it. No need to let good punches go to waste.

Anyone who know's how to sweep understand this same thing in the context of sweeping. Hit that person in the face really hard and often, when your opponent is too concerned with his face then take his legs. If these concepts are common across many fighting systems. Then we can assume that Aikido would follow the same logic and concept.

Aikido being 70% striking seems to fit well with that concept.

Yup.

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.

This is one of the definitions for Zen, which is more in line with the above view point of martial arts. I know some of you have played sports when this has kicked off and things just flowed without conscious effort. One of the things we often say about martial arts is to not think so much. Practice repetition so that your actions flow without thought.
Zen - "a state of calm attentiveness in which one's actions are guided by intuition rather than by conscious effort "
Definition of ZEN
Not one mention of peace, and what he says fits more with the definition above then the one below. Just my 2 cents.
*video*

But unfortunately so many people see Zen as "having or showing qualities (such as meditative calmness and an attitude of acceptance) popularly associated with practitioners of Zen Buddhism "
You'll see this projection often with similar system. Yet when we think of Japanese Warrior Monks or Shaolin Monks, this guy doesn't come to mind.

FWIW, the founder of aikido hated zen.

If I take my kung fu approach then I would tell you that I'm going to embarrass you and put you in a wrist lock and make you tap out. Then while you are looking for my wrist lock I will punch you in your face. Then I will tell you that I will still go for the wrist lock. I would feit a punch to your face, go for your hand and then I'll kick you in your gut. Will I eventually go for the wristlock. Only if you aren't looking for it. You will have bragging rights that I couldn't put you in a wrist lock, but I will have bragging rights that I did a lot of kung fu on you. But the moment you forget about your wrist, I will try to take it. But Aikido doesn't do that. right off the back you know they want to grab your wrist, so you defend your wrist and they will fail.

That's the idea behind aikido's first basic technique:

The aikidoka takes the initiative. The first hand moves in to make the opponent react and obstruct his vision, then come the elbow control, unbalancing, and pin.

getting closer. I'm guessing those over hand strikes are chops to the neck?

To the temple. I have several theories as to why they are taught, although nothing conclusive.

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 one of my theories. And I think it makes sense, as aikido is based on principles and body skill, not technical repertoire.

The confusion is you are looking at the application. There is no application after that demonstration.

The end result is to be able to perform this.

*video*

Agreed. If training for functionality, this is not sufficient.

I have found it messes people up. Not from doing ineffective striking but from good uke training. Which then trains them to break structure all the time or assume there eyes will pop out at the slightest pressure.

They get flinchy. Which is a really bad trait for any contested activity.

Fully agreed.

How close is this to the Aikdo Chop. I just found it
*video*

Or is this concept correct? If this is correct then I'll stop trying understand. All I need to be able to do is run away if this is the concept
*video*

*video*

Or is this the correct way
*video*

@6:43. I'm prefer stepping to the outside of punches much safer bu you can see how the strike lands
@:7:40 If you do the same technique on the outside of a jab then you will never get hit. If you do it like he says @7:40 then you will get hit. This is where I have problems. Universally fighting systems says don't enter on the inside of punches like that. But here he says they do it differently. My thoughts is that the reason so many systems don't enter like @7:40 is because it's dangerous to do so, as a universal reality.

Based on what I saw, moving to the inside only works if you can pin the arm against the chest upon the strike. I don't think that's possible as that rear hand is already in a position to defend the strike to the head. I'm more opened to @6:43. and would be scared to try to strike or block someone doing punch combos like is shown @7:40.

First video has similarities with the classical yokomen uchi entry (note that both the attacker's stick strike and the defender's hand strike could be called yokomen uchi).

Second video I would discard. That guy has basically created his own very different system, although he calls it aikido and tries to use it to interpret classical aikido forms. His terminology is all over the place, his historical arguments are often false and he routinely contradicts most aikido authorities. Not hating on him but I'd rather have him state explicitly that this is his own invention. Also, for context, he learnt from the same teacher as the "aikido VS MMA, then gave up aikido" guy.

Third video is about one of my personal heroes, Shoji Nishio. I love seeing him move but I wouldn't call him representative of aikido. He was 6th dan in judo, 5th dan in karate, 7th dan in iaido plus other martial arts. He studied aikido then made his own thing, Nishio aikido. I have no doubt he knew about the inside/outside thing you mention (as mentioned, he was a karate master). I'm not familiar with his approach but from the video I think the idea is to take the initiative with an upward/forward strike to the face. Also, I don't reckon him teaching that this is the way to go against a jab.

I had a chance to skim through this video and I think it is revealing in terms of how aikido approaches training and application. In short, I really do believe it approaches things rather differently than folks with a Western mindset are typically comfortable with.

We in the West tend to be very direct and expect things to have kind of a straight line to the goal. We expect results and we want to see a logical progression that meets that expectation. I feel that aikido gets results, but takes a different path. It is less direct and approaches things in ways that are surprising to a Western mindset.

It seems to me that aikido trains evasions and deflections and redirections, essentially a physical education with a focus on reading the energy and intent and body-positioning of an enemy. Within that physical education, there exist opportunities to apply decisive throws and joint manipulations and pins, with some strikes as well. But it doesn’t concern itself with a more direct action-and-response that is often found within other systems. There aren’t hardline answers to questions like “how does aikido defend against a punch?”, or “I see THIS movement done in aikido, how is it used?” I think perhaps the philosophy of aikido’s approach just isn’t concerned with that, and anticipates reaching an effective end through a highly attuned awareness of motion and positioning. Application is highly dependent on circumstances, so it is difficult to answer those questions in the abstract, without an engagement unfolding.

For most people, this is probably a difficult road. Perhaps Ueshiba was a truly gifted person who found a unique way that worked extremely well for him, but is not easily passed on to most people. I expect to really be useable requires a high level of skill and long training. But that’s ok, if someone is interested and willing to travel that road. People do what they find interesting even if others object to the method.

I think that people who are interested in a direct road, with a focus on results as quickly as possible, will always be frustrated by the approach that aikido takes. It will seem misguided. It may be that aikido is a good path for a smaller group of people.

I don’t see any problem with any of that.

I’m not sure if I’ve managed to express my thoughts clearly or coherently. I guess I see similar elements within the Chinese methods that I’ve studied. We can deal with application, but ultimately what one does is highly dependent on the circumstances, and response is often spontaneous and creative, depending on the circumstances. I tend to view my own training as a body of physical education that opens the door to infinite possibilities, rather than as a fixed body of techniques that represent the total of my options. But that’s just me.

Interesting theory that makes sense. I think mine is simpler, though: for historical reasons, aikido's technical repertoire was made in a haphazard way. Moreover, its founder had crap teaching methods. Therefore, one should not replicate the form that has been passed down, but seek what those who became good sought.

Any Aikido school which traces its lineage back to Japan is practicing post world war 2 Aikido, this is problematic for the "practicality" of the martial art in the west. Morihei Ueshiba was a war hero in the Russo-Japanese war and he won the Japanese equivalent of the medal of honor for single handedly breaking a Russian cavalry charge on his position as a lone rifleman. Once he began establishing Aikido, he was a war hero who was also a leading personality within the nationalist movement of pre world war 2 Japan. Ueshiba developed Aikido based on his experience in Judo, Ju-Jutsu, Ken-Jutsu and other specifically Japanese martial arts as a sort of finishing school for Japanese martial artists and as a proprietary "Japanese only" discipline designed to give the Japanese soldier a supernatural edge and to establish the correct philosophy of what he referred to as "Yamato Damashii" or the true spirit of Japan, but as it was seen and understood under Emperor Hirohito and the Japanese fascists.

Hi, and welcome. Actually, Morihei Ueshiba's only significant formal training was Daito ryu aikijujutsu under Sokaku Takeda. He had like 6 months of judo and some Yagyu shingan ryu training (which is the probable origin for his koshi nage: GUEST BLOG: Reflections on the Origin of Ueshiba Morihei’s Koshinage & The Relationship of Daito-ryu and Aikido Waza by John Driscoll – 古現武道 ). He had no known formal kenjutsu training.

Morihei Ueshiba spent the entire war training the Japanese military, along with most of his core apostles/students, using Aikido as a framework to blend practical Budo with a quasi-religious indoctrination into Japanese fascism/nationalism. Post war, Ueshiba became a pacifist and attempted to re-brand Aikido as a sort of national discipline which could encapsulate the new spirit of peace and the end of Japanese militarism. Once Aikido entered its post war phase/rebranding, the curriculum was edited, the teachings were watered down and much like the rest of the individual Japanese martial arts, Aikido became more about the cultivation of personal discipline and character than as an actual pragmatic fighting system.

Actually, his teachings and technique never changed after the war. The technical and philosophical changes brought to aikido were the work of his son, Kisshomaru Ueshiba. Once, someone asked Kisshomaru "when did your father become a pacifist?" and this made him laugh (a lot!). He answered "my father was not a pacifist".

For a "bridge" discipline that was always supposed to be partnered with another discipline like Judo or Kendo, the basket of highly technical and situational techniques that aikido brings to the table is simply not useful or practical on its own even if you get lucky enough to find a good teacher who actually knows what the hell they are doing. Aikido is never going to be an all encompassing martial art above all others, but it was never intended to be that, even in its pre-war format that emphasized practicality and lethality, it was always intended to be blended into something else.

Although some people like Nishio and Minoru Mochizuki did blend aikido with other arts with great success, it is incorrect to state that aikido was meant to be blended or that it was "a finishing discipline". Morihei Ueshiba kicked *** and his only significant training was Daito ryu, that is aikido. Tadashi Abe only trained aikido and single-handedly established the credibility of the art as a superior jujutsu in France, where people knew judo, savate and whatnot. Other aikidoka who established themselves as fighters (Tohei, Shioda) had only done some highschool judo. Sagawa started Daito ryu at 12 and thrashed people left and right.

Where Aikido shines, where it is practical and useful, is when it is blended into multiple disciplines and like any martial art, when it is used in conjunction with practical training techniques with an active and resistive partner.

Despite what I've said just above, I respect your opinion, which makes sense in some ways (although mine is different).

If we go back to the source material, the writings and understanding of Morihei Ueshiba and his students/associates before the end of World War 2 and once we filter out the right wing Japanese fascism, we see more practical application and theory.

I've read some of Ueshiba's original writings but gee golly, I don't think anyone could understand anything from it without serious study of Oomoto kyo cosmology, the Chinese classics and Daito ryu.

Aikido is Ai - harmony, Ki - spirit, Do - way or "the way of the harmonious spirit" as a literal translation, though a better one might be "the way of the tranquil soul" but "harmonious spirit" does fit.

Ai can roughly be translated as "matching, fitting together". Ki is... hard to translate. The kanji represents a pan with fire under it, a rough equivalent would be "energy". Do is way, as you stated. A more correct translation would be "the way of fitting energy together". In Daito ryu (and thus in Morihei Ueshiba's aikido) this means in and yo (yin and yang). See here (the whole blog should be required reading if one wants to start understanding this stuff. I'm not trying to be pedantic, but aikido is that messy): Aikido without Peace or Harmony - Aikido Sangenkai Blog

Aikido philosophy assumes the student understands the concepts of late Edo period, contemporary views of Bushido and Zen as applied to the martial mind of the Samurai. The ultimate goal and life's work behind Aikido is to produce a truly balanced and harmonious warrior who is not only capable of killing but also of mercy and who has the discipline and expertise to choose the appropriate force to respond to an attack and the expertise to only use exactly that force necessary to achieve the desired result. A true master of Aikido is the same concept as an image of the buddha, a conceptual goal more than an image of a specific person. Through the teachings and principles instilled in the student, the goal is to create a fighter who can do what needs to be done in a war such as efficiently killing an opponent but who has the skill and personal attributes that would also allow them to subdue an armed assailant without hurting them.

Aikido philosophy is extremely complex. I've not tried to understand it in detail because I'm more interested in the technique and it makes my head hurt. However, Morihei Ueshiba hated zen. The spiritual components of aikido mainly come from Shingon buddhism and Oomoto kyo teachings, added to Ueshiba's personal study of spiritual matters (I don't know where his ideas on kotodama come from, William Gleason has a book on the topic and I think he knows his stuff).

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

I would refrain from insulting the non violent aikido bunch. Not everybody has to train for martial effectiveness.

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

Agreed, great way to train.

And on @JowGaWolf 's considerations re aikido chops, as I've mentioned I don't have any definitive opinion but here are some ideas:

- some Daito ryu techniques were demonstrated against swords so the strike might have been used to simulate a sword strike, then have been passed down as is;
- the strike teaches gross power generation from the hips and conservation of structure in movement;
- although unpractical, the strike can still break the collarbone or cause knockout if it lands on the temple.

 

[JowGaWolf]

With that said I would be quite interested in seeing you spar against a decent boxer or kickboxer while remaining in jow ga mode.

Once my back has healed and I've lost this weight that I gained, you may very well see such a thing. "Win or lose" I can't be a good representation of Jow Ga if I bail out of my techniques and foundations that I train by. I figure by the time this pandemic is under control, I'll be back in fighting shape and good to go. I hate to say, because it's cruel, but I want to get a chance to go full on without worrying about knocking some out, where I can "just be" and let Jow Ga do what it does without me holding it back or redirecting punches.

You said it yourself. If you can read the intention to punch, can see where it's coming, and get to it before it's 50% of the way out, sure, you'll stop it. But that happens in a single fraction of a second if it's not completely telegraphed and exaggerated, which means you would have to be both inhumanly fast and a little bit psychic to get there against a full speed strike with real intent behind it.

It's not as difficult as you make it sound. If you get their timing down, then you be a head of them. There are a couple of things that are universally true that will allow you to stop the punch before it leaves the chamber. One is timing and the other is how punching in general requires one arm forward and one arm back. This is the same for everyone with 2 arms and 2 legs. Skill level doesn't affect that reality. People break that rule will have weak strikes that you don't need to fear. Take the hit and land a harder one in return.

I mentioned this in another thread but timing for a jab revers combo can be Jab > Jab >> Reverse. (where > is the amount of time in between strikes). If you know your opponents typing you can actually use it to counter or you can use it to catch that punch before it leaves.

Opponent's Timing: Jab > Jab >> Reverse.
To stop the punch Timing: Block > Block > Stop punch. If you know that it takes your opponent >> to do a punch then you only need to take > to interfere with it. Or you can increase his timing by interfering.

Opponent's Timing Unrestricted: Jab > Jab >> Reverse.
To increase timing: Parry /Push Jab across opponent's body
Opponent's timing Affected by Parry Jab >>> Jab >> Reverse.

Now your opportunity to stop the 2nd jab has increased from >> to >>>.
You don't want to play the guessing game with punches. You'll never be able to deal with a punch like that. You'll get a tummy ache from eating all of those punches. But if you make them throw the punch that you want them to throw then all of that timing stuff becomes easier because you know what's coming.

This is the same thing I've been saying and I think I brought it up in this thread or another.

My very first Jow Ga class when I was in my 20's. I asked my teacher how does he know which technique to do? He simply said, "I make them throw the punch that I want them to throw so I can do the technique that I want to do." Back then it blew my mind because I had always thought they were "predicting" what was coming. But in reality they were programming their opponent.