Is Aikido designed for defence against an untrainned attacker?

[Slindsay]

Or possibly "Most effective against an untrainned attacker"?

First Point

As I see it the techniques we are taught in Aikido work best against a strong commited attack where the attacker moves towards you and gives you enough force to use it against him.

A (well) trained fighter is likely to throw very controlled attacks, he wont want to overcommit because he knows he can KO you without much effort and he doesnt want to unbaalance himself by overcommiting because he will know the consequences from sparring.

Second Point

You need to be able to block an attack and grab the attacking arms wrist, if you watch videos of a bar brawl you see the sort of attacks you can easily evade, lead and neutralise whereas if you watch a couple of middleweight boxers, Karateka or whatever you see their punches are not telegraphed so are very difficult to even block let alone grab/lead and perform a technique on.

Third point

Aikido stresses the point of being a more gentle passive art and whereas other arts teachers may boast as to how much better they are than other notes an Aikido teacher will nearly always ascribe many good points to other styles techniques, even going so far as to say they are a lot more practical in the short to medium run, all this makes Aikdoka less likely to take on trained opponents anyway due to the fact that we have more good sense that that (in theory at least).

Fourth point

Whereas in other styles they will focus at higher levels more on sparring with opponents of a similar skill level in Aikido randoori(freestyle) the skill of your attacker in Aikido is only important for their own safety and making the practice realistic, by this I mean if I could do Randoori (Which I cant as I have not yet graded once in Akido) then being attacked by a 5th dan and being attacked by someone with just a years experience in Aikido, it woukld in fact be easier to defend against the 5th dan genrally(Barring exceptional circumstances like him deciding to really push you to your limit by giving you new attacks to deal with).

So instead of tak8ing on mkore skilled opponents in Randoori we focus on taking on more opponents full stop with 3 or 4 on 1 randdori at higher levels of Aikido practice.

Fifth point

If we examine the tecniques in Aikido we have to take 2 or 3 steps to neutralise an attacker before they take one, quite possible against someone that doesnt have a clue but very difficult to achieve against someone who has any idea how to escape grappling techniques(Twisting quickly and/or releasing your hold on the thrower will rendere a large percentage of Aikido techniques innefective I have found).


Anyway these are just my experiences in Aikido, I am interested to see what other people believe and have experienced.

[alex_000]

I've done some AIKIDO for about 8 months. I saw a lot of good stuff and some crap (but that goes in every MA). I would like to know how would an AIKIDOKA defend low roundhouse kicks , or sucker punches (meaning for example show you will do a left jab , and do a right hook instead, we do that a lot). If the guy tries to catch the left hand but fails , he'll take the right into the jaw (they dont usually keep their hands up).

But one think i liked was that some AIKIDOKA stepped back when i got in and didn't let me advance and hit him (he threw some awfull punches i saw a mile away trying to catch me off guard) but I thought that the art's approach to fighting was exelent .

But it was too technical for me and with a really slow learning curve so I stopped.

[Virtuous]

Or possibly "Most effective against an untrainned attacker"?

First Point

As I see it the techniques we are taught in Aikido work best against a strong commited attack where the attacker moves towards you and gives you enough force to use it against him.

A (well) trained fighter is likely to throw very controlled attacks, he wont want to overcommit because he knows he can KO you without much effort and he doesnt want to unbaalance himself by overcommiting because he will know the consequences from sparring.


Well yeah, its going to work best against commited and uncontrolled attacks, it makes the aikidoka's job that much easier. You can also do techniques staticly, meaning you have to make the power. This doesnt mean hurl the guy but rather manipulate the attackers kazushi and then build power from that.

How does an aikidoka versus a trained fighter very from any other art? Any art vs an untrained attacker is more likely to clean house than a trained attacker vs trained attacker. This makes the argument pretty moot so why preclude aikidoka?


Second Point

You need to be able to block an attack and grab the attacking arms wrist, if you watch videos of a bar brawl you see the sort of attacks you can easily evade, lead and neutralise whereas if you watch a couple of middleweight boxers, Karateka or whatever you see their punches are not telegraphed so are very difficult to even block let alone grab/lead and perform a technique on.


Blocking isnt always necissary. The aikidoka has many options, they can simply evade or blend. The initiation of the aikidoka's attack isnt limited to attacking limb. The attacker has 2 arms, 2 legs, 2 shoulder, a neck and a few other targets to choose from.
A philosiphy I follow is, the moment you touch an attacker he should be one of two things, off balance, or in pain. Ideally you want both and your proficiency will determine this. An aikidoka's ability to do this greatly improves the effectiveness of his technique.



Third point

Aikido stresses the point of being a more gentle passive art and whereas other arts teachers may boast as to how much better they are than other notes an Aikido teacher will nearly always ascribe many good points to other styles techniques, even going so far as to say they are a lot more practical in the short to medium run, all this makes Aikdoka less likely to take on trained opponents anyway due to the fact that we have more good sense that that (in theory at least).


Well the best way to win a fight is not to get in one, but that is about as passive as I get. Alot of schools vary on their level of passivness, so it is hard to make a general statement like this. Basically it is common sense, if the situation doesnt require alot of force then dont use it. If some one is really trying to hurt you, clean their clock... Dont take chances, subdue the attacker quickly and ferociously and leave asap. But first and formost, avoid the confrontation by any means possible. I am sure many aikidoka may disagree with me, but this is my school's idealogy.

I am having a hard time understanding the rest of your point. From what I gather its about aikidoka training with other arts. I've gone to the mat with judoka, karateka, boxers, thai boxer, and tkdist. Sometimes I win, sometimes they win. I will say this though, The aikidoka has an extreme disadvantage when sparring non aikidoka because the opponent lacks the proper ukemi waza and this puts a siezable limit on the number, speed, and strength in which we can apply a technique.


Fourth point

Whereas in other styles they will focus at higher levels more on sparring with opponents of a similar skill level in Aikido randoori(freestyle) the skill of your attacker in Aikido is only important for their own safety and making the practice realistic, by this I mean if I could do Randoori (Which I cant as I have not yet graded once in Akido) then being attacked by a 5th dan and being attacked by someone with just a years experience in Aikido, it woukld in fact be easier to defend against the 5th dan genrally(Barring exceptional circumstances like him deciding to really push you to your limit by giving you new attacks to deal with).

So instead of tak8ing on mkore skilled opponents in Randoori we focus on taking on more opponents full stop with 3 or 4 on 1 randdori at higher levels of Aikido practice.

Which I cant as I have not yet graded once in Akido This speaks volumes.... There is a HUGE learning curve in aikido! I dont see why being attacked by a 5th dan would be easier than a 5th/6th kyu and you dont have any support for your reasoning. but seeing how you are a 6th kyu your job is to learn the footwork and basic principals and not have to worry about a powerful attack, without the basics you wouldnt be able to handle the power properly. A 5th dan knows this and wont be taking your head off, because he knows it doesnt benifit you now.


Fifth point

If we examine the tecniques in Aikido we have to take 2 or 3 steps to neutralise an attacker before they take one, quite possible against someone that doesnt have a clue but very difficult to achieve against someone who has any idea how to escape grappling techniques(Twisting quickly and/or releasing your hold on the thrower will rendere a large percentage of Aikido techniques innefective I have found).



As you advance you'll realize alot of those first steps are stepping stones. You'll find methods and ways to elimate most of them later or do them much more efficiently. There is a myriad of nuances in taking kazushi, the more you train the more you will find and add to your arsenal. After a while taking someones balance will not be so difficult because you have a broad understanding and can easily adapt to a dynamic situation. But it requires years of practice and dedication. Aiki is certainly not every one's cup of tea, but it does have some great long term rewards.

[OBCT]

i admire that answer, just a small point to add. In its origins aikido came from eushiba's learning from several years of JJ, i'm pretty sure its designed to work agaist JJ, Judo probably even karate practitioners considering its a newish art. Just to use aikido against an untrained attacker can be learnt in months, whereas against the MA expert it will take years, even decades.
I miss aikido so much.

[Yoksha]

It has to be remembered that Aikido is not a fighting art therefore its effectiveness against either trained or untrained fighters is specious.

Aikido, being a 'do' or 'way', seeks to improve a practitioners spiritual aspects rather than fighting prowess. Whilst this is done in a martial context there is little emphasis on actual fighting forms.

Conversely the art that Aikido was developed from, Daito Ryu Aiki Ju Jutsu, is a fighting art and has forms that deal with both trained and untrained attackers.

However there are elements within the various styles of Aikido that recognize that ones opponent may be as adept at martial arts as yourself. If this was not the case why would there be tachi-tai-tachi forms (sword against sword)? Does this not pre-suppose a knowledge of sword use in ones attacker?

The style of Aikido I practice is Tomiki. In competition we perform Tanto Randori (freeplay) against each other. The aim being to score points either by striking correctly with a Tanto or by performing a technique against such a strike. If Aikido was designed purely for use against those untrained in martial arts such randori competitions would be quite short and, for the most part, very dull. Since both competitors are adept martial artists, both understanding the concepts of kuzushi, blending etc they can be considered trained and very much aware of how their opponents are going to behave. However they still manage to perform some blisteringly effective techniques on each other.

In short - no aikido is not designed for use against untrained attackers!!!


To ask is but a moments shame but to not ask and remain ignorant is a lifetimes shame.

[Trent Tiemeyer]

Every art works best vs. an untrained attacker.

[OBCT]

Yoshka,

Although i agree with you that Aikido is not in the spirit of fighting, i would have to say it is very good against an untrained attacker, if not then why are the techniques used to train Police and Military personnel worldwide, who often have to deal with untrained attackers ? If it was not useful, it wouldn't be taught.

You could also try to argue that tomki aikido isn't in the spirit of aikido, because aikido is non competitive.

It may not have been and still is not specifically engineered to defend against an untrained attacker, but, it works well for this purpose.

[Yoksha]

OBCT,

Perhaps you've misread my post. I did not say aikido was ineffective against an untrained attacker. I said it was effective against either but tends to pre-suppose training on the part of an attacker.

I agree that aikido is effective especially when used in a law enforcement context (did I say it wasn't?).

Perhaps you might want to look more closely at Sensei Tomiki's reasons for introducing competition into Aikido. In its early years (and to some extent still to this day) traditional Aikido never appealed to the younger generations. Judo on the other hand, because of its competitive nature, DOES appeal to youngsters. Tomiki sought to introduce the younger martial artists to Aikido by adapting Judo style competition to Aikido with the intention of guiding them towards Aikido's spiritual side later. I would say this is very much within the true spirit of Aikido not opposed to it.


There are many paths to the top of the mountain but there is still only one summit.

[OBCT]

don't get me wrong, i'm not saying i personally believe tomki to be in opposition to aikido core ideology, just that it could be argued.

I really don't think it's seen, or pre supposed that the attacker would be trained.
In the dojo they are, it keeps injuries to a minimum, however in a real life self defence situation Aikido will hold up equally well aginst trained/untrained attacks. It's a person moving toward you with an extension, be it an arm or a leg, trained or untrained its movement powered by energy, it's going to hit the floor.

[Yoksha]

Ok I concede that maybe you didn't mean what I thought you meant about Tomiki style being in opposition to traditional Aikido values. Those of us who practice Tomiki style tend to find that the respect we have for traditional Aikido is frequently not reciprocated. I tend to go on the offensive when the "not true Aikido" argument rears its head.

However, just to re-direct this debate down a slightly different track, I don't believe that Aikido is effective in the majority of self defence situations. Don't get me wrong, I expect we aikidoka would be able to hold our own in a fight but not by using pure Aikido technique. You try doing a Tenkan or Irimi on a boozed up idiot throwing a Saturday Night Special (swinging punch) at you & you'll end up getting a right royal kicking. If, on the other hand, you use the Aikido principles of avoidance and blending, followed by strikes or short-order arm/neck locks (such as those used in Aiki Ju Jutsu etc) you're more likely to prevail.

I would suggest that, assuming you practice Aikido, one night during training you try an experiment. Get an uke to attack with 'ugly' strikes (swinging punches, headbutts, hair grabs, pushes etc) and see how effective your Aikido is as compared to Aiki Ju Jutsu or just plain streetfighting. Try using Aikido avoidance techniques followed by a good old fashioned elbow-to-the ribs or similar!! Its best if your Uke is as aggressive & non-compliant as possible. For example if the back of your head is exposed they should slap you on it to show your vulnerability (their slap would be an attackers punch or elbow), that sort of thing.

We've tried this experiment a few times at our club and its a real eye opener. But be warned ego's can get a bit bruised along with the body so try to remain friends with your uke.

Bear in mind that Aikido was designed for attacks that are intrinsically Eastern in nature and frequently don't translate well into Western fighting styles.




How can you tell the difference between Aikido and Aiki Jutsu. Well, if your opponent smiles its Aikido, if they scream its Aiki Jutsu. Anon.

[aikiMac]

However, just to re-direct this debate down a slightly different track, I don't believe that Aikido is effective in the majority of self defence situations. Don't get me wrong, I expect we aikidoka would be able to hold our own in a fight but not by using pure Aikido technique.
...
I would suggest that, assuming you practice Aikido, one night during training you try an experiment. Get an uke to attack with 'ugly' strikes (swinging punches, headbutts, hair grabs, pushes etc) and see how effective your Aikido is as compared to Aiki Ju Jutsu or just plain streetfighting.
...
We've tried this experiment a few times at our club and its a real eye opener. But be warned ego's can get a bit bruised along with the body so try to remain friends with your uke.
Been there, done that. I depends on the partner. Some of the guys I've had the pleasure of training with just throw you faster if your attacks are "ugly." But some of them, well, yes, they get their own clocks cleaned. They can't make aikido work.

My conclusion is that aikido can work. It all depends on the person. Some people can do it, and some people have to spice it up with JJ or whatever, and some people just can't do it.

[aikiMac]

First Point
As I see it the techniques we are taught in Aikido work best against a strong commited attack where the attacker moves towards you and gives you enough force to use it against him.

A (well) trained fighter is likely to throw very controlled attacks, he wont want to overcommit because he knows he can KO you without much effort and he doesnt want to unbaalance himself by overcommiting because he will know the consequences from sparring.

Well, sure, of course it works best against a strong committed attack. But it also works against every other attack too. The question is, can you make it work?

Second Point
You need to be able to block an attack and grab the attacking arms wrist
This is true for certain particular techniques, but it is certainly not true for all techniques. Two techniques immediately come to mind: the "clothesline" version of irimi-nage favored by Steven Seagal in his movies (he didn't grab or block anything!), and one of those kokyu-nage head-twist throws. The common denominator in these two examples is that I don't have to block anything, and I don't have to grab your arm, if I have control of your head.

Third point
... all this makes Aikdoka less likely to take on trained opponents anyway due to the fact that we have more good sense that that (in theory at least).

I like to think that's the reason there aren't many aikido people going around bragging about how well their martial arts stands up in street brawls.


Fourth point
... then being attacked by a 5th dan and being attacked by someone with just a years experience in Aikido, it woukld in fact be easier to defend against the 5th dan genrally
Oh, I don't know about that. I think that depends on the people you're training with.

Fifth point
If we examine the tecniques in Aikido we have to take 2 or 3 steps to neutralise an attacker ...
That's only because you haven't even passed your first rank test yet. But keep at it! Don't quit! Over the long term you'll learn to neutralize the attack from first contact. I assure you that the black belts at my school don't have to take 2 or 3 steps to neutralize an attacker. They can do it in one step: first contact.

[OBCT]

some of the more complex moves would be very hard to impliment against an 'ugly attack' i agree. My self, against a 'saturday night special' (assuming it's right handed), simple right hand to collar bone, left arm follows direction of arm, absorbs, I step in turning to my left, right hand slides across chest arounbd neck, goes up to around back of head, left hand slides down arm to their wrist, as my knees drop a little. Down with a strike of my imaginary sword, and hey presto! I'm where they were, and they're in their rightful place, writhing in agony before my feet.(well, more disorientation than agony, but you know) I wouldn't go for i pin, i'd run away. Ha Ha.

[kiaiki]

Try Shudokan Aikido as the most 'street effective'. It is a style which originated with Yoshinkan. Its founder trained with O Sensei and mainly with Shioda in Japan. No one martial art or style is perfect but at least this one insists on the eventual ability (for 1st dan) to defend against multiple and random attacks with a live tanto - not a rubber sausage. This is freestyle - as done in martial arts, not randori - as done in sports like Judo and Tomiki.

[kiaiki]

Oh - and don't forget that O Sensei also learned much from the ancient battlefield techniques of Daito Ryu Aikijujutsu, still taught today. It's awesome stuff. As for 'real fighting' on the street - expect to be frightened, get hit or cut unless you are very, very skilled and have previous street experience - it ain't a dojo.

[Ikken Hisatsu]

Try Shudokan Aikido as the most 'street effective'. It is a style which originated with Yoshinkan. Its founder trained with O Sensei and mainly with Shioda in Japan. No one martial art or style is perfect but at least this one insists on the eventual ability (for 1st dan) to defend against multiple and random attacks with a live tanto - not a rubber sausage. This is freestyle - as done in martial arts, not randori - as done in sports like Judo and Tomiki.

so you guys fight NHB? anything goes? got any vids, would be cool to see aikido in action.

[Matt_Bernius]

How does an aikidoka versus a trained fighter very from any other art? Any art vs an untrained attacker is more likely to clean house than a trained attacker vs trained attacker. This makes the argument pretty moot so why preclude aikidoka?Every art works best vs. an untrained attacker.I disagree. Every CORRECTLY trained art works best against an untrained attacker. Arts which have stagnated in their training methodologies work best against someone who has trained in their system. The fact is most of us spend most of our time training against people who punch and kick like we do. The more stylized the atemi of a system, the more difficult it will be to execute it against an untrained attacker who doesn't follow the mental/physical model that has been trained for.

As pointed out, bring someone with no experience into the Dojo, pad up and let them go at you. Your ego may be in for a HUGE shock.

- Matt

[kiaiki]

so you guys fight NHB? anything goes? got any vids, would be cool to see aikido in action.
No vids, sorry, but main dojo now based in Nottingham under Ken Robson.
www.shudokan.inf :)

[Trent Tiemeyer]

I disagree. Every CORRECTLY trained art works best against an untrained attacker. Arts which have stagnated in their training methodologies work best against someone who has trained in their system. The fact is most of us spend most of our time training against people who punch and kick like we do. The most stylized the atemi of a system, the more difficult it will be to execute it against an untrained attacker who doesn't follow the mental/physical model that has been trained for.

As pointed out, bring someone with no experience into the Dojo, pad up and let them go at you. Your ego may be in for a HUGE shock.

- Matt

How DARE you correct me, and prove me wrong! I am a TOPIC MODERATOR! My foolish statements are NOT to be questioned!:D

[Matt_Bernius]

How DARE you correct me, and prove me wrong! I am a TOPIC MODERATOR! My foolish statements are NOT to be questioned!:DI quake. I quake! I forgot rule one:

Do not meddle in the affairs of mods for they are subtle (or sometimes not so) and quick to anger.

[Tomiki Ryu]

My bad, heh.

[Virtuous]

I disagree. Every CORRECTLY trained art works best against an untrained attacker. Arts which have stagnated in their training methodologies work best against someone who has trained in their system. The fact is most of us spend most of our time training against people who punch and kick like we do. The more stylized the atemi of a system, the more difficult it will be to execute it against an untrained attacker who doesn't follow the mental/physical model that has been trained for.

As pointed out, bring someone with no experience into the Dojo, pad up and let them go at you. Your ego may be in for a HUGE shock.

- Matt

I thought the 'correctness' was already implied...

[Matt_Bernius]

I thought the 'correctness' was already implied...I never impy correctness. And far too many training programs assume it. In either case, it doesn't necessarily mean its in there.

- Matt

[kiaiki]

The original question was whether Aikido was DESIGNED for defence against an untrained attacker. Was it DESIGNED at all? O Sensei's own style EVOLVED from several older 'do' and 'jutsu' martial arts. The schools founded by his first generation students evolved in many different directions etc etc.

As to effectiveness, that depends on which school you examine. Yoshinkan founder Gozo Shioda quotes O Sensei as saying that 'in a REAL battle, Aikido is 70% atemi and 30% technique'. How many schools now teach effective atemi? How many aikidoka practice with other martial arts groups and share skills, including defence against each other's arts or the untrained attacker? How many aikido sensei allow training with live blades (tanto etc) or against modern weapons like baseball bats, chains etc. Many schools teach only the DO and not JUTSU. Nothing wrong with that, but only schools which have retained and developed jutsu are likely to have a defined part of their practice which is DESIGNED for street defence.

[EarthElement]

I thought it was designed for round people.:-D

[Slindsay]

Let me put it this way, in a fight I would bet on a TKD guy with 5 years trainning over an Aikido guy with 5 and thats after practiscing both arts. Buit if you took them both and had thm fight 2 untrainned attackers I would bet the Aikido guy would do the best.

[EarthElement]

Maybe your aikido guy was being lazy. But for the most part aikido people seem to do very well for themselves.(from what i've seen) because there are many different styles in aikido and saying an aikido GUY and a TKD GUY is an over generalization.

[notquitedead]

I don't enough about aikido to answer this question, but isn't it safe to assume that learning a 'harder' (I hate that term, but it fits for what I'm trying to say) style of JJ first and then learning aikido would be a better approach? After all, Ueshiba travelled around training in lots of different JJ styles before creating aikido after he was already a good fighter. Maybe that's why he was so good at it (I don't believe all the stories, but that doesn't mean he wasn't a good fighter). Even some of his top students were former JJ practitioners, sumo wrestlers, etc (at least from what I've read...) before they started learning from Ueshiba. Just a thought...

[EarthElement]

Thats probably a good way to make it more effective, your right pankration. However, can't you do that with many other styles? But then again maybe aikido would be the prime choice for such a person, but then again i don't know.

[Dave Humm]

First Point

As I see it the techniques we are taught in Aikido work best against a strong commited attack where the attacker moves towards you and gives you enough force to use it against him.

A (well) trained fighter is likely to throw very controlled attacks, he wont want to overcommit because he knows he can KO you without much effort and he doesnt want to unbaalance himself by overcommiting because he will know the consequences from sparring.True and untrue. An aikidoist who's studied their art, understands the difference between dojo aikido and a fist fight knows that you do not have to wait for someone to "attack" before you can effectively employ an aiki technique. I speek from direct experience.


Second Point

You need to be able to block an attack and grab the attacking arms wrist, if you watch videos of a bar brawl you see the sort of attacks you can easily evade, lead and neutralise whereas if you watch a couple of middleweight boxers, Karateka or whatever you see their punches are not telegraphed so are very difficult to even block let alone grab/lead and perform a technique on.I'll deal with the person NOT what they are trying to hit me with, add alcohol into this situation and I'm prepared to pick up a barstool (non-aiki enough for anyone?)


Third point

Aikido stresses the point of being a more gentle passive art and whereas other arts teachers may boast as to how much better they are than other notes an Aikido teacher will nearly always ascribe many good points to other styles techniques, even going so far as to say they are a lot more practical in the short to medium run, all this makes Aikdoka less likely to take on trained opponents anyway due to the fact that we have more good sense that that (in theory at least).As an Aikikai dan grade I say... If this is what you've been taught from your dojo, I strongly suggest you LEAVE and find another Sensei because, frankly thats rubbish. If you want evidence of this go train with Kazuo Chiba Sensei or in the UK Mr.William Smith, Mr. Gordon Jones, Mr. Ken Cottier, Mr. Shane Reilly (the list goes on)

Aikido IS NOT a PASSIVE martial discipline.. People make it passive and quite honestly a waste of time IMO


Fourth point

Whereas in other styles they will focus at higher levels more on sparring with opponents of a similar skill level in Aikido randoori(freestyle) the skill of your attacker in Aikido is only important for their own safety and making the practice realistic, by this I mean if I could do Randoori (Which I cant as I have not yet graded once in Akido) then being attacked by a 5th dan and being attacked by someone with just a years experience in Aikido, it woukld in fact be easier to defend against the 5th dan genrally(Barring exceptional circumstances like him deciding to really push you to your limit by giving you new attacks to deal with).

So instead of tak8ing on mkore skilled opponents in Randoori we focus on taking on more opponents full stop with 3 or 4 on 1 randdori at higher levels of Aikido practice.Maybe I'm in need of a coffee but I don't understand your point ?


Fifth point

If we examine the tecniques in Aikido we have to take 2 or 3 steps to neutralise an attacker before they take one, quite possible against someone that doesnt have a clue but very difficult to achieve against someone who has any idea how to escape grappling techniques(Twisting quickly and/or releasing your hold on the thrower will rendere a large percentage of Aikido techniques innefective I have found).1st point.. Numbers of steps to take.. UNTRUE; Front foot or back foot irimi will put you "in the face" of your attacker with a single step and, place you in a position of advantage.

2nd point.. If you as an aikidoist find you opponent has evaded you initial responce or action, you CONTINUE into something else. Never limit your options by concentrating on one application, learn the ability to combine or blend your techniques so they could form a continuous series.

3rd point.. Aikido techniques ineffective.. UNTRUE; unless of course you cannot do what I describe in my sencond point or, you haven't studied aikido long enough.


It has to be remembered that Aikido is not a fighting art therefore its effectiveness against either trained or untrained fighters is specious.I cannot understand why people quote aikido in this context. Yes I understand that the founder radically changed "his" ideology following the second world war however, to describe aikido in the context of it NOT being a fighting art is rediculous. The difference between Aikijutsu and Aikido is finite and is really down to the attitude of the person applying the techniques, Irimi nage in Daito Ryu is EXACTLY the same in principle as it is in Aikido. To then state that aikido "..against either trained or untrained fighters is specious" just bemuses me ???? It's not the techniques that can be ineffective.. It's the PERSON and their ability.


Aikido, being a 'do' or 'way', seeks to improve a practitioners spiritual aspects rather than fighting prowess. Whilst this is done in a martial context there is little emphasis on actual fighting forms.I'm glad I dont study in the dojo which advocates this as a 'primary' reason to study the art. One might as well go to a church to improve on one's "spiritual aspects" Aikido is NOT and never has been a religion. People perceive it as such due to the founder's own personal beliefs.


Anyway these are just my experiences in Aikido, I am interested to see what other people believe and have experienced.Fair comment.. :)


I don't believe that Aikido is effective in the majority of self defence situations
I'd suggest you try harder then. And again I speek directly from first hand experience.


Let me put it this way, in a fight I would bet on a TKD guy with 5 years trainning over an Aikido guy with 5 and thats after practiscing both arts.
>shakes head<

[Slindsay]

<shakes head> is not a helpfull comment, I shake my head for loadsa different reasons. Why do you shake yours?

[kiaiki]

In the scenario you describe the TKD exponent would certainly need to start the fight - the Aikido exponent would then almost certainly instantly finish it, given that each had reached the same skill level. My club regularly trained in the same sports hall as a very high ranking TKD teacher and his students. His classes padded up and sparred brilliantly. He often pointed out that our classes taught things that would be 'illegal'. (They would be in most combat sports.) We trained in defences against punches and kicks of all types - does TKD train against aikido techniques? My head shakes also - not because I think aikido is better than TKD and would kick arse - it's just that the question that has no real point. It's a bit like asking who would win if the clouds fought the sky - interesting, but impossible to answer.

[Dave Humm]

<shakes head> is not a helpfull comment, I shake my head for loadsa different reasons. Why do you shake yours?Trying to compare martial arts is a futile exercise. it's not (generally) the martial art that should be compared, but the individuals and their abilities.

Unfortunately dan grades in differing martial arts don't directly compare, so to use your example, five years in aikido vs. 5 years in TKD does not equally compare so far as standards are concerned.

I've trained with 4th dan karateka who can punch and kick literally through walls (ok a bit of an exageration) but who couldn't initially work out how or why I was able to move around them, The point I'm making is that each system has it's plus and minus points. What matters ABOVE anything else is the ability and dedication of the INDIVIDUAL.

debates over which martial system is better than others is a total waste of people's time

[Yoksha]

Dave Humm.....Hmmm. Perhaps you should re-read my post. I did not say Aikido is a religion. The development of spiritual aspects within 'do' arts refers to the 'whole person' not any religious views they may hold.

I personally am an athiest (and Aikidoka). I do not believe in any religion, god or even the existence of a soul however I do recognise a persons spiritual aspects. Those being harmony of existence with their fellow beings, consideration, co-operation etc. 'Do' arts are intended to develope those aspects of human nature not a persons fighting prowess, which is what Justu are for. If you disagree I suggest you look more closely into the development of Japanese martial arts especially after the 2nd World War and specifically Americas insistence that Japan abandon its martial heritage (the development of 'do's was a way of circumventing this proviso).

Also I still disagree with anyone that thinks aikido alone is effective in self defence situations. As for doing it wrong I beg to differ. A beautifully executed kaiten nage is great in the dojo but utterly useless against, say, a mugger with a knife. Perhaps you should re-read THAT post again too. I did say that the concepts of avoidance and blending do provide an advantage in a self-defence situation but thats all.
Aikido technique can be used as self defence but only if it is translated into its Aiki Jutsu form.

Yes I agree the difference between Aikido and Aikijutsu is finite but that difference is one of application not technique. Aikijutsu aims to injure, maim or even kill. Aikido proscribes exactly the opposite ideal i.e to repel an opponent by causing no harm or as little harm as possible to them.
In essence the difference between Aikido and Aikijutsu is one of philosophy not personal application. This translates into a considerable difference in application in the dojo.

[Dave Humm]

Lifted directly from your post:

It has to be remembered that Aikido is not a fighting art therefore its effectiveness against either trained or untrained fighters is specious.
I suggest you train with 1st generation aikidoka and put your opinion to them.

Aikido, being a 'do' or 'way', seeks to improve a practitioners spiritual aspects rather than fighting prowess. Whilst this is done in a martial context there is little emphasis on actual fighting forms.
You are telling people who perhaps know nothing about aikido that it is a way to "improve a practitioners spiritual aspects rather than fighting prowess"

Spirituality of what, The Moons of Jupitor ??

Aiki regardless of being a "do" or "jutsu" is a form or martial art, it isn't anything to do with spirituality.. PERIOD. People add aspects of spirituality which has absolutely nothing to do with Aikido as a discipline. People who spout this rubbish and link it with aikido worry me.

Conversely the art that Aikido was developed from, Daito Ryu Aiki Ju Jutsu, is a fighting art and has forms that deal with both trained and untrained attackers.
As this is the case why therefore is Aikido not a fighting art, please share with us why irimi nage for instance in aikido, is any less a martial technique that if it were applied in a daito ryu dojo ?

However there are elements within the various styles of Aikido that recognize that ones opponent may be as adept at martial arts as yourself. If this was not the case why would there be tachi-tai-tachi forms (sword against sword)? Does this not pre-suppose a knowledge of sword use in ones attacker?
Yes but one needs a training partner who knows what he's/she's doing to help the development, the same can be said for ukemi.

The style of Aikido I practice is Tomiki. In competition we perform Tanto Randori (freeplay) against each other. The aim being to score points either by striking correctly with a Tanto or by performing a technique against such a strike. If Aikido was designed purely for use against those untrained in martial arts such randori competitions would be quite short and, for the most part, very dull. Since both competitors are adept martial artists, both understanding the concepts of kuzushi, blending etc they can be considered trained and very much aware of how their opponents are going to behave. However they still manage to perform some blisteringly effective techniques on each other.
I have no experience of Tomiki Ryu so I cannot comment

In short - no aikido is not designed for use against untrained attackers!!!
Aikido is Aikido, it's only as good as the person using it and the situation requiring it, your statement is universally stupid. it's like saying Kenjutsu is only effective against another swordsman.

The reality is, many people who study aikido have absolutely ZERO experience of real fights, they never get the opportunity to test their "practical" skills against resisting opponents (and most don't want to) thus we have a generation of aikido and students who would get their arses handed to them in a fight.

Sprituality as got bugger all to do with the physical study and application of aikido techniques, if a student wants to develop this way so be it but it won't have any effect upon the reality of a technique, what will have a huge impact is the ABILITY of the student vs. the ability of the opponent.

[Dave Humm]

Also I still disagree with anyone that thinks aikido alone is effective in self defence situations. As for doing it wrong I beg to differ. A beautifully executed kaiten nage is great in the dojo but utterly useless against, say, a mugger with a knife. Perhaps you should re-read THAT post again too. I did say that the concepts of avoidance and blending do provide an advantage in a self-defence situation but thats all.
Aikido technique can be used as self defence but only if it is translated into its Aiki Jutsu form.
I missed this from my other post.

Firstly one must remember that Aikido is a tradition as well as being an art. there are applications such as the technique you mention that have direct relationships to weapons such as the sword. I agree that one would be hard pressed to apply that in a fight. But then isn't that knowledge part of the skills a quality aikidoist would know having spent time learning his/her art ? I suggest so.

Secondly, I am a very experienced (former) Prison Officer I am living proof that aikido works effectively in anything from a stand up fist fight, brawl or defence and restraint against an armed individudal. As I said earlier I suggest anyone who thinks aiki techiniques won't support them should train harder and adopt a different mental approach to their training.

[Slindsay]

In the scenario you describe the TKD exponent would certainly need to start the fight - the Aikido exponent would then almost certainly instantly finish it, given that each had reached the same skill level. My club regularly trained in the same sports hall as a very high ranking TKD teacher and his students. His classes padded up and sparred brilliantly. He often pointed out that our classes taught things that would be 'illegal'. (They would be in most combat sports.) We trained in defences against punches and kicks of all types - does TKD train against aikido techniques? My head shakes also - not because I think aikido is better than TKD and would kick arse - it's just that the question that has no real point. It's a bit like asking who would win if the clouds fought the sky - interesting, but impossible to answer.

TKD schools train in a very simple defence for aikido.

1. Feint then attack so even your sparrin partner cant block techniques as they are that fast and he cant now what is a real strike and what isn't.

2. If someone catches your wrist: Hit Them. That simple, hit them with everything you can and yank on the wrist to free of the grip.

In the year I have spent doing Aikido I have never once felt that I was unable to counter any of the techniques applied to me, they where just to slow, on top of that I have never seen a clip online of an AIkido technique that I feel was performed fast enough that I couldnt counter it.

Incidentally you state that TKD would have its arse kicked by an aikidoka, (Thats how I read the bit about TKD'er starting the fight and Aikidoka finishing it) but then say a style vs style thread is pointless, this strikes me as hypocritical but maybe I'm readinf it wrong :confused:

Impossible to answer question? Not really, difficult to prove question but not impossible, get a 100 pairs of identical twins, train one in each art, then afterv a set amount of time have them fight it out. Allright thats never gonna happen but it could happen so it's not impossible to answer the question. :D

Finally the reason I brough up the style vs style thing was more to do with the original point of the post, is Aikido designed for or better when used against unskilled attackers? My point weas that whilst I feel a TKD'er could beat an Aikidoka onbe on one I ALSO think that against three or four attackers who have no MA experience Aikido would perform better.

[Yoksha]

David Humm...perhaps you and I are talking at cross purposes, and its probably my fault because I'm trying to soundbite rather than give lengthy explanations.

Firstly, regarding the spiritual aspects of Aikido. Aikido, like it or not, is a deeply spiritual art. O'sensei was obsessed with exploring 'oneness with the universe' through martial arts practice. For crying out loud Aikido means 'way of spiritual harmony'. Its a dead giveaway. Don't blame me for that interpretation blame O'sensei.

I suggest you read some of O'sensei's books (Dynamic sphere, The essence of Aikido et al). You can't turn a single page without a reference to an aikidoka's pursuit of enlightenment etc.

The spiritual aspects of Aikido have been watered down through translation into western practice styles, primarily because we tend not to be Buddhists, Shinto or Omotan (as O'sensie was). I believe the phrase is "The further from the source the muddier the river becomes".

Secondly, whilst I appreciate you may have experience of application of Aikido in defence situations, I bet a pound to a penny you don't use big sweeping irimi or tenkan when dealing with an irate inmate. I expect its more likely to be a swift atemi followed by a lock such as nikkyo, ikkyo or sankyo (I might even go so far as to concede you might use the odd shihi nage if circumstances dictate). But under those circumstances it is more akin to Aikijutsu than Aikido. Unless of course the style of aikido YOU practice is markedly different from any of the traditional or sport styles I've ever participated in. The Yoshinkan style of Aikido, I must confess, is more of a fighting style but that is primarily because it is returning to its Daito Ryu roots and becoming more of a Jutsu than a Do.

Incidentally, I object to my opinions being referred to as stupid. If you don't like a friendly debate and can't participate in one without resorting to insult I suggest you don't bother. This isn't a macho 'my arguments bigger than yours' arena its supposed to be an exchange of ideas.....or maybe thats just my spiritual aspects manifesting themselves 8-).

[Dave Humm]

....regarding the spiritual aspects of Aikido. Aikido, like it or not, is a deeply spiritual art. O'sensei was obsessed with exploring 'oneness with the universe' through martial arts practice. For crying out loud Aikido means 'way of spiritual harmony'. Its a dead giveaway. Don't blame me for that interpretation blame O'sensei. You've just made my point to me.. YOU and I are NOT O-Sensei so therefore why would we (you or anyone) want to adopt his personal beliefs, you've already said you do not believe in God so, how then can your Aikido be a development of your spiritual "oneness" When was the last time your Sensei gave a physical lecture or lesson in spiritual development ?

Regardless of what the literal translations of Ai Ki Do mean (which I don't dispute BTW) the various 1st generation students of the founder that I have studied from have never once attempted to teach his 'personal' religious or 'spiritual' beliefs, to do so would be entirely wrong and almost immoral.

Of course I understand the founder had very strong beliefs, being a member of the Omote Kyu religion however, he never once insisted that his deshi follow him in those footsteps, and why would he ? They were HIS personal beliefs. The physical act of Aikido is entirely separate from one's personal beliefs; spiritual, religious or otherwise. As I have been at pains to state before, PEOPLE infuse their personal beliefs into the practice of aikido, if that is what you wish to do I have absolutely no problems with it but, please don't presume to tell a global audience (through this forum) that Aikido is a means of spiritual development. Because it is not. Have you ever taken a grading that included this aspect ?


Consider the implications of your statement through the various religious beliefs of people throughout the world who now study Aikido. O-Sensei's beliefs were of both of a moral and religious nature that changed quite radically between the period of pre and post WWII, are you saying therefore that to study aikido (because it is a way of "spiritual development and not a fighting art" ... Your words) That people of differing personal beliefs should adopt those of the founder ? I also assume that your aikido is not based in any part on the aiki of the founder before WWII ? Of course, you study Tomiki Ryu now, I'm in no way berating this form of Aikido because I have absolutely no experience of it however, it is competition based correct ?


My point being is that YOUR aikido may be vastly different to many others’s aikido so, it would be wise not to tell others what "aikido" is unless you are taking into account... For instance that Yoshinkan is taught to the Tokyo Riot Police (not for it's spiritual aspects) because it's a bloody effective martial art; That, Iwama aikido is an intensely martial by nature.


Spiritualism is a personal and somewhat internal belief; Aikido on the other hand is a physical budo and can be studied effectively without any additional personal, moral or spiritual beliefs.


I am neither Japanese nor to I hold Japanese ethical, moral or spiritual beliefs (old or new) I am European, not particularly religious as is my prerogative, and have never found Aikikai Aikido to be anything other than a physical budo, my experiences as a Prison Officer confirm that aiki principles are effective and, from first hand experiences over nearly 17 years practice with students and Sensei of various styles of aikido have never found it to be "spiritual" People are spiritual and hold those beliefs Aikido is a physical practice, the two are entirely different.

Here's a compromise...


You continue to believe that Aikido is some form of spiritual development, and I'll continue to train in an effective martial art and, if you ever want to visit my dojo please feel free to give me an email before hand, you'll be made very welcome and we'll show you aikido as a martial discipline.

[Dave Humm]

TKD schools train in a very simple defence for aikido.Do they ? a specific defence against a specific martial art ?

1. Feint then attack so even your sparrin partner cant block techniques as they are that fast and he cant now what is a real strike and what isn't.Aikidoists don't block anything, to do so goes against a primary foundation of Aiki principles. You also assume an aikidoist is going to stand still and let someone throw a strike at them.

2. If someone catches your wrist: Hit Them. That simple, hit them with everything you can and yank on the wrist to free of the grip.Aikidoists don't "catch" anything, if an opportunity to use something presents it's self then fine but, Aikidoists work the center of their opponents by various means. Focusing on a limb seriously limits options.In the year I have spent doing Aikido I have never once felt that I was unable to counter any of the techniques applied to me, they where just to slow, on top of that I have never seen a clip online of an AIkido technique that I feel was performed fast enough that I couldnt counter it.Respectfully, you haven't spent anywhere near enought mat time to be able to express with some degree of experience this particular aspect of the discipline. Openings exist in practice, thats why we practice, to close those openings and polish our technique. Yes counter technique exists but if we were continually countering our partner's technique we'd get no where.

Additionally speed of technique is directly relative to the speed and intent of the attack and, the ability of uke to receive the technique and perform ukemi without injury, I reqularly train with fellow students who can cope with almost full on technique and get up afterwards.

Incidentally you state that TKD would have its arse kicked by an aikidoka, (Thats how I read the bit about TKD'er starting the fight and Aikidoka finishing it) but then say a style vs style thread is pointless, this strikes me as hypocritical but maybe I'm readinf it wrong :confused: I've stated before my thoughts of debates on style vs. style.

Impossible to answer question? Not really, difficult to prove question but not impossible, get a 100 pairs of identical twins, train one in each art, then afterv a set amount of time have them fight it out. Allright thats never gonna happen but it could happen so it's not impossible to answer the question.No comment

Finally the reason I brough up the style vs style thing was more to do with the original point of the post, is Aikido designed for or better when used against unskilled attackers? My point weas that whilst I feel a TKD'er could beat an Aikidoka onbe on one I ALSO think that against three or four attackers who have no MA experience Aikido would perform better.Aikido technique works fine on trained or untrained opponents, people fail.

[kiaiki]

Can't add to the above except to say that if Slindsay has never seen a fast aikido technique and is looking for an aikidoka to grab his wrist then he must have missed out on most of what aikido's all about. Sadly, I say: Shomen-ate that, sucker!

[Dave Humm]

Originally Posted by Yoksha
....regarding the spiritual aspects of Aikido. Aikido, like it or not, is a deeply spiritual art



Definitions of Spiritualism on the Web:A religious movement that is popular throughout the world. Its members believe strongly in life after death, and attend séances in order to contact the spirit world. Founded by the Fox sisters in New York in 1848. www.tcpstudios.com/zurichmansion/glossary.htm (http://www.tcpstudios.com/zurichmansion/glossary.htm)

refers to a religious belief which is also linked with psychic phenomena. Sometimes spiritualism allows for Christian beliefs and practise.
www.victorzammit.com/book/chapter29.html (http://www.victorzammit.com/book/chapter29.html)

The belief that there do exist spiritual entities in the world, or that there exists a spiritual world or realm above or beyond the physical world.
www.getnet.net/~jcosta/glossary.html (http://www.getnet.net/~jcosta/glossary.html)

A quasi-religious popular movement which developed in the 18th and 19th centuries, and which held that the soul survives bodily death, and that the living can communicate with the spirits of the deceased; see also Medium. 6
library.thinkquest.org/C0120993/glossaryfull.html (http://library.thinkquest.org/C0120993/glossaryfull.html)

is a Science.Philosophy and Religion based on the fact that life is continuous and that the phenomena of Nature is the expression of Infinite Intelligence. These facts are demonstrated through communication by means of mediumship with those who live in the spirit world.
www.reverendredduke.com/Glossary.html (http://www.reverendredduke.com/Glossary.html)

(theology) any doctrine that asserts the separate existence of God
www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn (http://www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn?stage=1&word=spiritualism)

the belief that the spirits of dead people can communicate with people who are still alive (especially via a medium)
www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn (http://www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn?stage=1&word=spiritualism)

concern with things of the spirit
www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn (http://www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn)

Has anyone had instuction in any of this during their study of Aikido ?

Definitions of Aikido on the Web:

A Japanese martial art.
www.spaindex.com/GLOSSARY%20OF%20COMMON%20SPA%20TERMS.htm (http://www.spaindex.com/GLOSSARY%20OF%20COMMON%20SPA%20TERMS.htm)


way of aiki; a modern martial art derived from jujutsu


www.usmaf.org/resources/japan.htm (http://www.usmaf.org/resources/japan.htm)

A martial art developed by Uyeshiba Morihei in the 1930's. Based on aikijutsu, aikido is considered a non-aggressive art, using the opponents' energy against them.
www.usadojo.com/dictionarya.htm (http://www.usadojo.com/dictionarya.htm)

A Japanese martial art, Aikido is both a method of self-defense, Its goal is to harmonize one's chi with that of the opponent, so that the thrust of the opponent's strength is turned back toward him or her.
www.hr.state.or.us/pain/glossarydefinition.html (http://www.hr.state.or.us/pain/glossarydefinition.html)

"Way of Harmonious Energy." A Japanese internal martial art founded by Morihei Ueshiba that emphasizes the use of internal strength in controlling the opponent's momentum through techniques of locking and throwing. Strikes are not emphasized and Aikido movements do not meet force with force.
www.kungfuonline.com/info/glossary.html (http://www.kungfuonline.com/info/glossary.html)

A Japanese martial art. More about this subject
spas.about.com/library/blank8.htm (http://spas.about.com/library/blank8.htm)

A martial art developed by Uyeshiba Morihei in the 1930's. Based on aikijutsu, aikido is considered a non-agressive art, using the opponents' energy against them.
www.4martialartssupplies.com/a.htm (http://www.4martialartssupplies.com/a.htm)

A hybrid, modern and traditional martial art founded by Morihei Ueshiba in the 1920s. Transliteration varies; ai roughly means 'harmony', ki means 'power' or 'energy' and do means 'way.'
www.aikikaitsj.com/glossary.html (http://www.aikikaitsj.com/glossary.html)

(Japanese): Martial art of Japanese origin, developed in the 20th century.
www.iespana.es/boabom/dictionary.htm (http://www.iespana.es/boabom/dictionary.htm)

Ai- -Ki- -Do- Harmony, union with, oneness. The essential Life Force, the fundamental Creative energy. The Way or Path.
home.att.net/~kcaikido/Glossary.htm (http://home.att.net/~kcaikido/Glossary.htm)

The way of harmony with the forces and energy of nature
www.shinseikan.org/glossary.html (http://www.shinseikan.org/glossary.html)

As with other Japanese Martial Arts, Aikido is a method of self-defence. Its literal translation means, 'road' (do) to 'union' (an), with the 'life force' (ki).
www.psytechacademy.com/Glossary.html (http://www.psytechacademy.com/Glossary.html)

compound from "ai" (harmony), "ki" (spirit), and "do" (Way): the Way of harmonious spirit.
www.aikido-west.org/handbook/glossary.html (http://www.aikido-west.org/handbook/glossary.html)

The word aikido is made up of three Japanese characters: ai = combine or harmony, ki = spirit, mind or universal energy and do = the way or path. Thus aikido is "the Way of Harmony/Combination with Energy". However, aiki may also be interpreted as "accommodation to circumstances" which, although somewhat non-standard, avoids metaphysical commitments while accurately describing both the physical and psychological facets of aikido.
www.ncf.carleton.ca/Aikido/GlossaryAtoE.html (http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/Aikido/GlossaryAtoE.html)

(eye-kee-doe) Al - Harmony KI - Spirit DO - The Way or Path
www.aikidomonterey.com/glossary/1.html (http://www.aikidomonterey.com/glossary/1.html)

The word "aikido" is made up of three Japanese characters: AI - harmony, KI - spirit, mind, or universal energy, DO - the Way. Thus aikido is "the Way of Harmony with Universal Energy." However, AIKI may also be interpreted as "accommodation to circumstances." This latter interpretation is somewhat non- standard, but it avoids certain undesirable metaphysical commitments and also epitomizes quite well both the physical and psychological facets of aikido.
www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Pagoda/7850/recnik1_e.htm (http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Pagoda/7850/recnik1_e.htm)

Martial Art style formed by Morihei Ueshiba taking techniques from many styles, including Daito-Ryu Aiki-Jutsu. Literally translated as 'The way of Spiritual Harmony'.
www.cam.ac.uk/societies/cujjc/martial_glossary.htm (http://www.cam.ac.uk/societies/cujjc/martial_glossary.htm)

[Slindsay]

Do they ? a specific defence against a specific martial art ?

The defense is against anyone trying to maintain contact with part of your body, it'll work just fine against any aikido I've seen.


Aikidoists don't block anything, to do so goes against a primary foundation of Aiki principles. You also assume an aikidoist is going to stand still and let someone throw a strike at them.

No I dont, remarkable as it may seem people who practice TKD have been known to move around a bit when fighting. Also blocking was actually me being generous, as know it th terminology is "Leading" an attack, this is even harder to do than blocking. This I know because I have grounds for comparisson, yes? can we agree on this point?
Leading is harder than blocking and it is difficult to block a commited strike with the attacker stepping forward and punching at your face when you know he is going to do this on your command(One step sparring from TKD) so leading an unpredictable strike is going to be difficult and leading a non telegraphed strike next to impossible.


Aikidoists don't "catch" anything, if an opportunity to use something presents it's self then fine but, Aikidoists work the center of their opponents by various means. Focusing on a limb seriously limits options.Respectfully, you haven't spent anywhere near enought mat time to be able to express with some degree of experience this particular aspect of the discipline. Openings exist in practice, thats why we practice, to close those openings and polish our technique. Yes counter technique exists but if we were continually countering our partner's technique we'd get no where.

Fair point but this means that after a year of Aikido I am going to get creamed by someone who knows TKD because they will know how to punch well with non telegraphed strikes and they will have the instinctr to start punching you the moment you try to aplly a technique.

Additionally speed of technique is directly relative to the speed and intent of the attack and, the ability of uke to receive the technique and perform ukemi without injury, I reqularly train with fellow students who can cope with almost full on technique and get up afterwards.

I've stated before my thoughts of debates on style vs. style.

No comment

No comment is a lot like <shakes head>, it stops me from arguing with you by not letting me now what your point is?

Aikido technique works fine on trained or untrained opponents, people fail.
How many trained and untrained attackers have you fought against in your time with aikido to make such a broad sweeping statement? I've had a drunk try and grab me by the balls once and what I used came close to being a bastardised form of Kaiten nage, it worked well then. My point is I'm not trying to attack aikido, I think it works well against untrainned attackers but I cant see apllying the techniques against a trainned attacker.

I dont want this to be a style vs style thread, the only reason I bring TKD into it is because it is the art I have trainned in, I dont think TKD is better than Aikido or vice versa!

[Dave Humm]

How many trained and untrained attackers have you fought against in your time with aikido to make such a broad sweeping statement? 6 years as a Prison Officer mainly in Cat A facilities (Lifers etc) A team leader in crisis intervention and trained negotiator.

I've been involved in more 'incident's than I care to remember. If we are defining "trained attackers" to mean those with martial arts skills, I've faced off twice in those six years against prisoners with supposed Karate grades, both were rapidly "introduced" to the floor.

If I were to define "trained" in the context of the experiences I've had, the nature of high security facilities & the nature of those housed within them, I'd say that most of the individuals concerned (especially those that would be described in the public media as "hardened criminals") were very adapt at brawling and handling themselves.

I will concede two points

1) I was employed to act in the manor required (and duly trained to do so)
2) I was rarely by myself in most situations

However, regardless of the situations and circumstances, I have a level of experience that most aikidoist don't, I have experience of real physical conflict. And have the scars to prove it.

I study Aikido however, whether one perceives actual application in a practical sense as aikijutsu is irrelevant. It is irrelevant because it's a state of mind, an attitude of ideology which can shift at will depending upon situations and circumstances.

In other words.. Aiki"do" and Aiki"jutsu" are the same, it is the philosophical content and the ideology of the student that makes a difference

No I dont, remarkable as it may seem people who practice TKD have been known to move around a bit when fighting. Also blocking was actually me being generous, as know it th terminology is "Leading" an attack, this is even harder to do than blocking. This I know because I have grounds for comparisson, yes? can we agree on this point?
Generous ? with what, your definition of how an aikidoist reacts to an attack ?

Each situation is unique and must be assessed accordingly however, if you wish to use a reverse punch (as a feint) as an example, here's my stock responce...

Leave the arm entirely alone, deal with the person. A Men gaeshi or Sokumen Irimi application might work well against someone with karate style training, I know because I've done both on karateka I know and train with.

Oh.. and a punch or two to the ribs goes well with the above application

Leading is harder than blocking and it is difficult to block a commited strike with the attacker stepping forward and punching at your face when you know he is going to do this on your command(One step sparring from TKD) so leading an unpredictable strike is going to be difficult and leading a non telegraphed strike next to impossible.
See my opening statement for the last paragraph... Leading can only be effectively acheived if the "attack" has momentum and, in general terms unbalencing can be acheived at the same time, some one with karate style training is going to punch and retract, but that can be dealt with providing distance and timing is managed correctly, remember;

Irimi
Tenkan
Omote
Ura

Do you understand fully each of those terms ? (genuine question) If you don't then it will be hard to comprehend the dynamics of aikido movement (positions relative to an opponent) and their application relative to energy produced by an attacker.

[Yoksha]

Shinku to ku no musubi no nakarisebo aiki no michi wa shiru yoshi mo nashi.
"If you do not link yourself to true emptiness you will never understand the path of Aiki" Morihei Ueshiba.

Definition of spirit (not spirituality that's something else entirely) as per the Universal Dictionary;

"The essential and activating principle of a person: The will."

Nothing religious there then.

"you may not believe in Ki, but you sure as hell cultivate it" Aikido makes extensive use of the concept of ki. Aikido is one of the more spiritual martial arts and has been referred to as 'moving zen'. The name Aikido can be translated as 'the way of harmony of ki'. Exactly what ki 'is' is a somewhat controversial issue. - http://www.yourencyclopedia.net/Aikido.html

The fact of the matter is that there is a large portion of aikidoka who are still, and no doubt will continue to be, on their 'quest for ki'. - http://www.yourencyclopedia.net/Aikido.html

"Common term in Japanese language used in hundreds of expressions referring to one's mind or mental state." - http://www.aikidojournal.com/encyclopedia.php?entryID=381

"You should not forget that Aikido is a budo of harmony." Gozo Shioda founder of Yoshinkan Aikido - Gozo Shioda Autobiography.

Shall we trade definitions until the cows go blue in the face (nothing like a mixed metaphor to confound an opponent) or shall we agree to differ. BTW yes I have trained with a sensei who espoused Aikido's spiritual aspects as much as its martial. I don't ever recall him referring to dead relatives, religion or the soul. He did say some interesting things about smiting the unbeliever with fist and stout plank though.... ;)

[Slindsay]

Irimi
Tenkan
Omote
Ura

Do you understand fully each of those terms ? (genuine question)

No I dont. What do they mean? Irimi I take as entering or going in front of an attacker whereas Tenkan means going around or behind an opponent but omote and ura have never been brought up in my lessons.

[Dave Humm]

Shall we trade definitions until the cows go blue in the face (nothing like a mixed metaphor to confound an opponent) or shall we agree to differ.In one of your posts you said... and I quote:

O'sensei was obsessed with exploring 'oneness with the universe' through martial arts practice.
And I agree he was but, this does not mean that AIKIDO as a martial practice is entirely either a method of exploring "oneness with the universe" or that it is "Spiritual" in nature. What you fail to acknowledge is that Aikido can and is studied for many reasons not least of all or beacuse it is a martial art.

You will see from a recent post of mine that I accept, if students wish to infuse their personal spritual beliefs into their study of aikido and they find it enhances them, that's fine with me however, you should not be telling people that just because you see aikido in this way, THAT is what aikido is about. This is YOUR personal perception, it is not a definitive description of the martial art.

[Dave Humm]

No I dont. What do they mean? Irimi I take as entering or going in front of an attacker whereas Tenkan means going around or behind an opponent but omote and ura have never been brought up in my lessons.Ok to make life easy here I will use simplistic terms which should be easier to understand in written forms.

Irimi - To be positive - a direct entry - to move in

Tenkan - To be negative - to turn - to move around

Omote - In front of - moving across the line - closely associated to irimi but not the same

Ura - Behind - closely linked with tenkan but not the same

Irimi & Tenkan are movements chosen by the aikidoka relative to situation or circumstance

Omote and Ura are positions relative to another person that often occur as a result of irimi and tenkan.

If you were being asked to perform a series of techniques that were "Omote waza" this would indicate that you would apply techniques that didn't involve moving behind uke.

If you were being asked to perform "Ura waza" this would indicate the need to move (to a degree) behind uke to perfom a technique however, Ura is not the same as Ushiro which implies an application from directly behind.

Not all aiki technique can be classified as omote or ura, (just to confuse) irimi nage for instance cannot be clearly defined as either (oddly enough) it does however have applications from Chudan (middle) and (Jodan) upper. or just to totally confuse "Sokumen" which can literally mean "from the side"

Irimi, Tenkan, Omote and Ura can be very easy to confuse purely because their interaction with each other is very subtle, quite often (lets use Shiho nage as an example) a student will learn the basic form from Ai hanmi moving accross uke's front (this is better known as Ai-hanmi katate dori Omote Shiho nage) No mention if irimi although one could describe one's movement as "forward" in nature.

Now, to learn what many know as Tenkan Shiho nage is actually (using Ai-hanmi again) Ai-hanmi katate dori Ura Shiho nage. How do we get to be in Ura position ? By making tenkan. Do you see the principle at work here ?

Irimi & Tenkan are movements, Omote & Ura are positions relative to another person.

Ok.. now the hard bit...

Relating all this to your example.

An aikidoist should never be static even before the moment of attack, the safest postion for an technique is either from the side (or any degree of angle thereof) or, from behind. It is not safe to be stood in front of unless the attack has already been neutralised, even so I would not advocate this.

So, speaking purely as an aikidoist, if I percieve a skilled opponent before me, someone whom I belive has the ability to deliver skilled strikes that won't linger in an extended position or, their posture will be strong throughout deliver and recovery of the strike I will avoid (to the best of my ability) the attack and counter with my own responce directly on the body.

Generalising, because without practical demonstration we could argue 'til the cows come home on who'd do what and why however, Atemi would be high on my list of "to do's" together with an application that quickly took my opponent's stability away, techniques involving wrist locks would be a low priority until such time they naturally presented themselves to me. I would be far more interested in removing my opponent's ballence and, to coin a well used phrase, "dump him on his head" :)

[Dave Humm]

I hope this simple diagram makes sense, remember the reverse is true if stood in either left or right posture.

Notice how Omote predominately moves in front of and Ura is partly behind.

[Yoksha]

David Humm....ah well, chalk up another misconception due to soundbite.

I have not, nor will I argue that practitioners of Aikido must follow a spiritual path. I don't think I have even implied that in any of my posts (unless there is implication by omission for which I can only apologise).

I was merely expressing an interpretation of Aikido practice (and any other Budo for that matter) as being spiritual arts as compared to Jutsu. Or if you prefer arts that develop the whole person rather than just their fighting prowess (back to my original post now).
I once saw a documentary about eastern martial arts, on it a TKD master (who's name I don't recall) said "Martial Arts without philosophy is just street fighting.".

If your club does not teach the philosophy of Budo or O'sensei's interpretation of it (even just a brief mention in passing) I believe there is something lacking.

Without being offensive (I hope that nothing I have written in any of my posts has caused offense) I will use the words of Gozo Shioda to demonstrate my meaning;

"Today's aikido is so dimensionless. It's hollow, empty on the inside. People try to reach the highest levels without even paying their dues. That's why it seems so much like a dance these days. You have to master the very basics solidly, with your body, and then proceed to develop to the higher levels.... Now we see nothing but copying or imitation without any grasp of the real thing...."

By higher levels (I believe) he is not referring to higher grades but higher levels of personal development. A quest for personal enlightenment you might say (and I don't mean religious enlightenment).

One of O'Sensei's mottos was "True victory is personal victory."

Do you practice Aikido to become a better fighter or a better person?

If its the former I pity you, if its the latter I applaud you (even if we do have contrasting opinions on the subject). I practice for the latter. Through the practice of Aikido I am not just a better fighter (hell I couldn't be any worse than I was) but a better person. Through Aikido I have developed greater patience and understanding for my fellow human beings, even the idiotic plonker that shoved me out of the way in my local shop not half an hour ago. Before practicing Aikido I would have called him all the names under the sun, probably ended up in some kind of fracas and got into serious trouble. Now I merely smile, sumi otoshi him into the magazine rack and run like hell. See, I'm a better person! :D

Whether you like it or not if Aikido is developing your personality it is developing your spirit

"The essential and activating principle of a person: The will." remember?

As I quoted in an earlier post "There are many paths to the top of the mountain but still only one summit." Which, I suppose, is a backhanded way of agreeing with you on the personal perspective front!!

[Dave Humm]

David Humm....ah well, chalk up another misconception due to soundbite.

I have not, nor will I argue that practitioners of Aikido must follow a spiritual path. I don't think I have even implied that in any of my posts (unless there is implication by omission for which I can only apologise). I'm sorry to disagree but, you said...
"Aikido, being a 'do' or 'way', seeks to improve a practitioners spiritual aspectsHow can you therefore say you haven't "implied" that students of the very art that seeks to improve "spritual aspects" arn't going to be following a path of spritual development, after all that's what you said Aikido was.

Aikido is absolutely no different than any other Japanese martial art in so far as "personal development" is concerned. However, personal development is vastly different from "spritual development"

I was merely expressing an interpretation of Aikido practice (and any other Budo for that matter) as being spiritual arts as compared to Jutsu. Or if you prefer arts that develop the whole person rather than just their fighting prowess (back to my original post now). I once saw a documentary about eastern martial arts, on it a TKD master (who's name I don't recall) said "Martial Arts without philosophy is just street fighting.".Now your talking about "philosphy" which again has nothing directly to do with "spiritual development" Indeed I hold a deep philosophy about aikido but, it isn't in any way connected with spritiualism.

If your club does not teach the philosophy of Budo or O'sensei's interpretation of it (even just a brief mention in passing) I believe there is something lacking.Firstly I don't have a club, we run a dojo where Aikikai Aikido is studied, there is a difference.
Secondly, I am neither suitably qualified (IE to have mastered Aikido) to be able to "teach the philosophy of Budo" or that of O-Sensei's beliefs.
Thirdly, as I've mentioned now three times, each student forms their own indivudual opinion and infuses that into their aikido, that's what makes aikido somewhat individual and does not produce clones of one another.

If a student wished to use the study of aikido to be a catalyst for spiritual development so be it but, Aikido technique and the discipline as a whole does not require a student to do so to be able to effectively study it.

Without being offensive (I hope that nothing I have written in any of my posts has caused offense) I will use the words of Gozo Shioda to demonstrate my meaning;

"Today's aikido is so dimensionless. It's hollow, empty on the inside. People try to reach the highest levels without even paying their dues. That's why it seems so much like a dance these days. You have to master the very basics solidly, with your body, and then proceed to develop to the higher levels.... Now we see nothing but copying or imitation without any grasp of the real thing...."If you wish to visit me (as invited before) we will demonstate aikido in an effective yet traditional form that is far from "dimentionless"

But again you are quoting a Japanese national who proberbly held deep beliefs that I would never care to understand, that doesn't mean I am 'missing' anything in the study of aikido over the last 16 and a bit years.

By higher levels (I believe) he is not referring to higher grades but higher levels of personal development. A quest for personal enlightenment you might say (and I don't mean religious enlightenment).Define "personal enlightenment" Because neither am I or students around me looking for a life changing experience or, need "enlightenment" we are who we are.

One of O'Sensei's mottos was "True victory is personal victory."And I agree but this does not have to mean "spritual development"

Do you practice Aikido to become a better fighter or a better person?

My reasons are personal and I won't be drawn into a debate over which reason is better than the other (as you seem to attempt below)

If its the former I pity you, if its the latter I applaud you (even if we do have contrasting opinions on the subject). I practice for the latter. Through the practice of Aikido I am not just a better fighter (hell I couldn't be any worse than I was) but a better person. Through Aikido I have developed greater patience and understanding for my fellow human beings, even the idiotic plonker that shoved me out of the way in my local shop not half an hour ago. Before practicing Aikido I would have called him all the names under the sun, probably ended up in some kind of fracas and got into serious trouble. Now I merely smile, sumi otoshi him into the magazine rack and run like hell. See, I'm a better person! :D I neither need your pitty (or wish it) thank you very much !

If you are in fact actually talking about the development of a person's charactor then, yes I am a far better person for the study of martial arts however, I don't attribute that entirely to Aikido. I also study Musho Shinden Ryu Iaijutsu. If I compare the two directly for a comparrison of concentration required, I would say MSR wins hands down, but that's just me. I would also attribute much of my personal charactor (now) to my wife and family, my career and responsibility thereof, non of which are connected with aikido.

Whether you like it or not if Aikido is developing your personality it is developing your spiritThere you go again pontificating about aikido and how it affects me personaly, you've never met me so you are neither qualified or able to tell ME what aikido has done for me as an individual.

The fact that you either pitty or applaud someone based entirely on the reason why they choose to study aikido means, that you are judging them based upon a set of ideals that you expect everyone else to hold, this is wrong, is a very simplistic attitude to hold and actually contradicts your so called "I'm a better person" mentality.

I think you should climb down from your pedistal.

[Dave Humm]

On reading your entire posts again I am convinced that you are confusing the word "spiritual" with that which might be used to describe one's "spirit"

IE "he has a strong spirit"
or "he is strong willed"
or "a strong charactor"

Now, if this is the case, you need (respectfully) to define for yourself the difference between "...spiritual aspects" as lifted from your first post, and that of development of charactor through the practice of aikido.

If the latter is what you mean then I would fully agree with you, aikido will develop charactor and improve a person's personality providing (and only) *if that person wants to be 'improved'

However; Aikido as a physical practice does not require a student to be willing to accept it as a form of "personal development" for them to succeed in it. If you are unwilling to acept this, you sit in a level of arrogance of your perception of what you expect EVERYONE else should be doing through the study of aikido and, that is unworthy of further discussion. I don't wish to be rude but this is how I see this aspect.

The founder may well have held very deep moral, spiritual and religious beliefs, indeed he held religious practices during *some of his classes (so I'm reliably told) however, those were HIS practices and beliefs based on his own personal views of aiki and opinions of the world.

Speeking personally, O-sensei's beliefs are not mine nor would I want them to be because I am nothing like O-Sensei. In exactly the same way, I would not expect students taught by me, to automatically adopt opinions, attitudes, philosophy or ideology that I might hold.

As an edit to this post...

My Aikido commenced whilst the second Doshu was head of the Aikikai and has continued through to the present Doshu. Although one might directly connect the practice of Aikido rightly with it's founder, I have never experienced the founder's aikido. I have on the other hand experienced the aikido of several of his uchi deshi together with my own Principal Instructors - Mr. William Smith (UKA) and Mr. Henry Ellis (ESTA)

I find it somewhat of an insult to be told by someone who hasn't earned my respect, trained with me, taken a class of mine or, even studies the same style of aikido, that the aikido I've been taught under the unbrella of the Aikikai in Japan, and continue to study through two of this countries foremost Sensei, isn't actually a martial art. Frankly leaves me speechless.

[Virtuous]

Do you practice Aikido to become a better fighter or a better person?

If its the former I pity you, if its the latter I applaud you (even if we do have contrasting opinions on the subject). I practice for the latter. Through the practice of Aikido I am not just a better fighter (hell I couldn't be any worse than I was) but a better person. Through Aikido I have developed greater patience and understanding for my fellow human beings...

These kinds of statements really confuse me. I myself am an aiki jutsu/jujutsu practicioner and I can honestly and unabashedly say I perscribe to the former description. Through my training I have also developed greater patience and understanding and over all have become a much better person with out an ounce of O'sensei's philosiphy incorporated in my daily training. It isnt just me either, all my mates that I train with are very kind, stand up people. I will also add that none of my mates are pugnacious by any means. I attribute the development of these personalities to the basic structure of the dojo, humility and respect.

When I need a dose of spirituality I goto church not the dojo :).

Sorry for horning in, but these broad generalizations really grab my goat.

And as for what the un named TKD instructor's quote. Well that is one man's oppinion, not to mention the meaning of the quote itself can be quite subjective.

[Yoksha]

As it goes I agree with some of your points but probably not for the reasons you would like.

I agree that each individual Aikidoka practices for their own motives. I do not seek to criticise ANYONE for those motives.

However in saying "Aikido seeks to develop a persons spiritual aspects" I should have said "O'sensei intended Aikido to develop a persons spiritual aspects...". I can see now how that misconception or misinterpretation may have occured. I believe the topic of this thread is to ascertain what Aikido was 'designed' for. Since its original 'designer' was Ueshiba I use his interpretations as the basis for my argument and (obviously incorrectly) assumed that link would be implicit.

I agree that the practice of Aikido does not necessarily require spiritual development as a definite goal. However I do believe that spiritual development is a by-product of Aikido practice. You, however, are fully entitled to feel no spiritual enhancement whatsoever.

Fair enough.

I do still think that, like it or not, Aikido is lacking without a spiritual context (I will define the term spirit, in full, shortly). The best analogy I can come up with is a game of football where the goalposts have been removed. You kick a ball about, tackle your opponents and play to the best of your ability but the original point of the game (the 'design' of the game) has been removed, therefore it is lacking. Not a good analogy I know but its the best I could come up with on the fly.

I do not seek to criticise your application of technique or your ability as an Aikidoka, I am merely debating a point of view regarding what defines Aikido as a whole.

As a practitioner of Tomiki Aikido there is little, if any, emphasis on spiritual development by our instructors. Hell, some Tomiki clubs don't even observe simple 'rules' of etiquette. However Tomiki did intend that students should embrace spiritual development, as personal goals, not as predetermined requirements of the art. So, in essence, you are correct in your opinion that spiritual development is a personal option, certainly in Tomiki style. But again it comes down to a question of design.

Tomiki designed his style as a springboard to spiritual development. By not following that design we Tomiki Aikidoka are losing out on a huge aspect of our art. I am the only one in our club to actively seek spiritual development as one of my goals. Perhaps it is arrogance to say I believe I am treading a truer path than my fellows but, as you say, it is only a choice I have made and I am neither qualified nor justified in criticising anyone for following a different path.

As to what defines spirit well here goes.

Firstly spirit and spirituality are two completely separate entities. Spirituality is the realm of god botherers and mediums and has nothing, in this context, to do with spirit. So cast that idea from your mind before continuing any further.

If we take the term spirit in its oriental form Ki it might be easier to explain. Ki is believed to be an al encompassing 'energy' that infuses all living things. It affects a persons health, mental wellbeing, personality and social ability (as well as a thousand and one other things apparently). Those of a less rational point of view consider it a mystical, almost magical force. Others of a more empirical view consider it to be the electro/chemical/biomechanical aspect of living things. In the specific case of human beings its what makes us tick essentially. I shall leave it to you which definition you prefer.

You may or may not be aware of the term Gestalt. It can be defined as "greater than the sum of its parts" though this definition barely touches on the nuances of the true meaning, it will suffice for now.

I believe that human beings are a gestalt. When broken down into our contituents all we are is a bag of water with some chemicals added. The thing that differentiates us from the aforementioned bag of dirty water is spirit.

Now you have pointed out that I have used different words to describe spirit i.e personality, character, will etc. Within the context of gestalt they amount to the same thing. In essence 'spirit is what makes me "me". It is the sum of my experiences, my emotions, my intellect (what little there is of it) my personality in effect. It manifests in a way that is not purely physical but is paradoxically rooted in my physical being. It has bugger all to do with soul, god or religion.

It is also my belief that a persons spirit (personality, gestalt whatever you want to call it) can be improved. Now what constititutes improvement is probably a very personal thing but, taking a perspective from social interaction, it is how you treat your fellow beings. If I am ignorant, rude, selfish, arrogant (oh dear, never mind, nobody is perfect), dishonest, aggressive, violent etc, etc, etc my spirit is poor, it is lacking. If I am polite, kind, helpfull, honest (us Yorkshire folk speak as we find), generous etc, etc my spirit is enhanced.

Whilst I like to think that I was most of the latter to begin with the practice of Aikido has served to enhance them. This, I feel compelled to point out, was not my original intention, and it is only within the last couple of years that I have recognised those developments in myself.

By opening myself up further to those prospects I hope to achieve much more than just martial prowess. This is why I feel a certain sorrow (sorry pity was too strong a word wasn't it) for those who have not experienced this side of Aikido.

I cannot say what particular aspects of Aikido have caused these 'improvements' and that is part of what attracts me to the art. That my experience in Aikido has created a whole greater than the sum of its parts.

I shall pry no further into what you get out of your practice, its obviously a private issue and thats fair enough. But stop for a moment (or several) and think if Aikido (or any of the arts you practice or have practiced) has enhanced your spirit (either by my definition or yours). If the answer, on honest reflection, is still no then I bow to your judgement and will say no more.

[Dave Humm]

Thank you for the clarification.

You have however offered an entirely different stand point from your first post in this thread that made two definitive statements;

1) "Aikido" seeks to improve spiritual aspects
You stated "spiritual" not a person's charactor, personality or any ther descriptive later mentioned in your last post.

2) That aikido wasn't a fighting art

In your last post you have clarified what Tomiki Aikido is to you as a person. Let me say, I don't have any problem what so ever with what YOU get from the practice of Aikido, you cannot however impose your personal opinions and beliefs on others purely because of how you perceive aikido to be, or should be. You can offer you opinion to others on what it is to you (see your last post) Anything else is seen as pretencious.

I wish you well in your quest what ever that may be.

[kiaiki]

I agree. Aikido was 'designed' to incorporate the spirituality of O Sensei, with aspects of Zen, Shinto etc. Like all of us, his spirtuality developed and was not static. (Check out the Oomoto organisation and O Sensei's adoration of Onasiburo Deguchi and his ideas for a kind of ideal society / kibbutz. ) Modern aikido in the west must find its own way with each generation. Anything in Aikido which was effective in Japan will survive here only if it is seen as useful - and we're completely free to choose. If we 'choose' to ignore the spirituality then that's fine - but for me it ceases to be Aikido at that point and we should find another name to legitimise it - Justsojutsu? Didn't we all learn as beginners that Aikido means 'the way of harmony with the spirit' so how can anyone pretend they are studying Aikido without the Ki?

[Dave Humm]

...how can anyone pretend they are studying Aikido without the Ki?No one, least of all me is pretending to do anything. I've spilt blood, sweat and some tears over the years, I have absolutely no desire to debate "ki" or the meaning Ai Ki Do in relation to each and everyone else's personal interpretation.

Each to their own.

The proof of one's study can be judged on the mat.

I cannot argue that Aikido like all martial arts inherently improves the charactor of the student (including me) but, the study or understanding of ki or whatever else you guys want to call it isn't essential for the practice of the discipline.

additionally I do not believe in the description of ki as previously posted.
...Ki is believed to be an all encompassing 'energy' that infuses all living things. It affects a persons health, mental wellbeing, personality and social abilityOne could easily accredit what was written above to Star Wars and the way of the Jedi and the so called "force"

I would rather concern myself with the physical attributes and benefits of a martial art taught to me through credible sources.

As a conclusion from me, I'd like to thank all the contributors to this thread for a most interesting and lively discussion.

Regards

[Yoksha]

ok so further clarification is required.

I have not contradicted anything from my previous posts merely expanded on them. Any apparent contradictions are probably a question of semantics rather than intent.

Did my last post not explain the definition of spirit (and spiritual) adequately enough that the link between Eastern concepts of personality and spirit (they are supposed to be one in the same) could be seen?? If not I apologise.

Eastern concepts of Ki (whether they be the more scientific versions or not) revolve around the belief that anything that is not purely physical is Ki or spirit.....i.e personality, character, will etc. This is a highly simplified interpretation, I could write a book on the subject and not give it justice, so please try to read between the lines a little. The paradox is that aspects of the physical are also considered elements of Ki. The problem is that we in the west simply don't have the vocabulary to adequately explain Ki or spirit and as such one has to resort to using inadequate simplifications, as in the case of my previous post (it was quite long for a simplification wasn't it?).

Going back to my original post regarding Aikido not being a fighting art that is again a misinterpretation of what I said (sorry I make too many assumptions regarding the audiences standpoint). Aikido is a budo art therefore it is not specifically designed as a fighting art but has more connotations above and beyond the mere physical interraction between combatants.

My argument is that Aiki Jutsu adressess the "fighting" aspect more effectively than Aikido does. If it didn't both arts would be identical, there would be no differentiation of technique or application (and I am not talking about individual similarities I am talking about the whole). As virtuous points out as a practitioner of Aikijutsu, there is NO emphasis on spiritual (that word again) development

The original interpretation, therefore, as to whether Aikido is designed for use against untrained attackers is based on false assumptions. The japanese (specifically practitioners of Zen) use the word "Mu" on occasions such as this. It means "Your question cannot be adequately answered as it is based on incorrect beliefs" (helluva translation innit??). The belief that Aikido is purely a fighting art is one of those false assumptions, as we have discussed (and apparently reached an impasse on).

Perhaps one final clarification (which might, at first hand, seem to be a contradiction.....but its not). Spirit (ki etc) aside, the fighting aspect of Aikido pre-supposes a level of competence in ones opponent. Therefore, if taken purely as a fighting art it is effective against trained attackers and, by default, those who are not trained.

However, when one applies the principles espoused by Ueshiba (which you are at liberty to disregard) Aikido technique is "softer" than its Jutsu counterpart so as not to needlessly harm ones fellow human beings should the need arise to apply said technique. That is not to say that an accomplished aikidoka is not capable of adjusting technique making it either extremely damaging or even lethal. In doing so, though, they return it to its Jutsu origins.

Of course this is subjective opinion on my part, and that of many Akidoka, though not all, that I have had the opportunity to discuss it with.

[Yoksha]

oops sorry missed you closing the argument....never mind.

I'm sure we will debate other things at other times.

Be well, be strong and may the force be with you :)

[OBCT]

well said.

Aikido isn't about winning a fight, it's about taking your attackers reason for fighting away from them. Excellent for police and military training, in apprehending a suspect without harming them, which is why it's used as such...against untrained attackers.

[koyo]

Hi David I am one of the first generation aikidoka having trained for over forty years and still training. A major lesson I was taught was that aikido philosophy was our way of life. If I got into a fight then my philosophy had failed. But if I was defeated in the fight then I had not been training in proper aikido technique.Off the mat it is life on the mat it is life or death. A bit extreme but then I was uke to Chiba shihan for tenyears.True aikido both the philosophy and practical pragmatic technique work depending on the circumstances.
Bill (koyo) Coyle

[Dave Humm]

Sensei,

It is a pleasure to chat with you, you and I have shared the same mat space once or twice for sure :)

Regards

[paradoks]

Hmm, this is fascinating,

Dave, I doubt you would be calling someone Sensei without good reason, also from Koyo's post and profile it would seem he must be in his late 60's. With the exception of you being sarcastic in this case (which i doubt) It seems this man is worthy of a considerable level of respect.
Though i obviously have never trained with you, from the manner in which you speak, and the knowledge you impart, i would say you are one of few MAP users that i hold in very high regard. I'm not exactly how the term is to be used in a sentence, but the term 'Reishiki' (courtesy? respect, etc ?) comes to mind.
If all is as it appears, i would like to extend the most sincere greeting, and respect to Koyo. I look forward to you're future posts. It is the older generation that i believe has by far the most to offer on a mental and phylisophical (spelled wrong i suspect) level. For this reason i hope Koyo is so kind as to, and able to find time to post and share experiences, knowledge, and any other thoughts he would care to.

I did'nt see a intro post from you Koyo, so i'd like to exptend my greetings now. Welcome, and i hope you enjoy MAP :)

paradoks

[paradoks]

Oh, by the way Dave,

I't only clicked now that you're a diver! I guess thats another interest we have in common. I'm only an oepn water diver, but i do hope to go onto some specialty courses in the near future. I predominantly want to do the first deep diving course so as to be able to visit some 'real' wrecks, subs, etc. I'm a little clostraphobic, so i dont know about cave diving, but there's a whole lot more options besides caves and deep obviously! I probably should have posted this in Off topic, or personal message, but it just felt like this thread would do for the one post.
Perhaps we could start a 'diving' thread on the off topic section (if there is'nt one of course)

Anyway, take care :D

('Dave" somehow does'nt feel right, thats why i did'nt use it originally! :p Mr feels to formal, sensei....still sorta off) Dunno, You mentioned 'dave' being your preference, so dave it is i guess.

be well

[Dave Humm]

Hmm, this is fascinating,

Dave, I doubt you would be calling someone Sensei without good reason, also from Koyo's post and profile it would seem he must be in his late 60's. With the exception of you being sarcastic in this case (which i doubt) It seems this man is worthy of a considerable level of respect.Indeed, and although I am prone to levels of sarcasm, especially with some of the muppets in the weapons forum, with regards to Coyle Sensei, I have a fair amount of respect for anyone who trained with and took regular ukemi from Chiba Sensei.Though i obviously have never trained with you, from the manner in which you speak, and the knowledge you impart, i would say you are one of few MAP users that i hold in very high regard. Thank you for your kind words.

Regards

[Dave Humm]

Oh, by the way Dave,

I't only clicked now that you're a diver! I guess thats another interest we have in common. I'm only an oepn water diver, but i do hope to go onto some specialty courses in the near future. I predominantly want to do the first deep diving course so as to be able to visit some 'real' wrecks, subs, etc. I'm a little clostraphobic, so i dont know about cave diving, but there's a whole lot more options besides caves and deep obviously! I probably should have posted this in Off topic, or personal message, but it just felt like this thread would do for the one post.
Perhaps we could start a 'diving' thread on the off topic section (if there is'nt one of course)

Anyway, take care :D

('Dave" somehow does'nt feel right, thats why i did'nt use it originally! :p Mr feels to formal, sensei....still sorta off) Dunno, You mentioned 'dave' being your preference, so dave it is i guess.

be well"Dave" is correct I reserve formal terms for far more experienced people than me.

Diving.. well where do I begin lol

I'm presently experienced to 49 meters using mixed breathing gases however, due to now running my own dojo, this is consuming all of my spare time thus, I haven't had the time to devote to my diving activities.

Heres a couple of pics of my twin set attached to this post

Regards

[My ki]

If you want evidence of this go train with Kazuo Chiba Sensei

The idea of sending some one to see Chiba for proof that Aikido is martial is very funny. (only because i'm a safe distance away, if i was close enough to be called for ukemi it wouldn't be funny at all) :)

[paradoks]

"Dave" is correct I reserve formal terms for far more experienced people than me.

Diving.. well where do I begin lol

I'm presently experienced to 49 meters using mixed breathing gases however, due to now running my own dojo, this is consuming all of my spare time thus, I haven't had the time to devote to my diving activities.

Heres a couple of pics of my twin set attached to this post

Regards

That dive unit is pretty different to the standard basic unit. Whats the red part between the tanks and BCD? is it part of the BC?
Regarding Kazuo Chiba Sensei, after reading interviews etc. with him, i see why he is held in such high regard. All other factors aside...I respect and envy anyone who's trained with O-Sensei Morihei Ueshiba :p

Also, I tried reading up on 'Nitrox'...and now i'm seriously confused. I always thought we try to avoid Nitrogen...... adding additional Nitrogen to air....i know i'm missing something here. I read a site about nitrox, and i still dont get it... oxygen poisoning...nitrogen narcosis....which is it we need to worry about? Because my training only extends to reducing Nitrogen. With that in mind i would think adding nitrogen is like dropping gasoline/petrol on a forrest fire. I know i'm missing something...perhaps you could explain Dave?

P.S Dave, you being in the UK, i'm wondering if you knew of my masters master, Soke Robert Lawrence? Founder of Fudoshin Bujutsu in the U.K. My masters name is Anthony Ball (currently highest ranked Fudoshin in the world)?

Be well,

Paradoks :)

[aikiwolfie]

Might I suggest taking the nitrox whats thingy conversation to the off topic area or PM where it would be more suitable. :)

[koyo]

Hmm, this is fascinating,

Dave, I doubt you would be calling someone Sensei without good reason, also from Koyo's post and profile it would seem he must be in his late 60's. With the exception of you being sarcastic in this case (which i doubt) It seems this man is worthy of a considerable level of respect.
Though i obviously have never trained with you, from the manner in which you speak, and the knowledge you impart, i would say you are one of few MAP users that i hold in very high regard. I'm not exactly how the term is to be used in a sentence, but the term 'Reishiki' (courtesy? respect, etc ?) comes to mind.
If all is as it appears, i would like to extend the most sincere greeting, and respect to Koyo. I look forward to you're future posts. It is the older generation that i believe has by far the most to offer on a mental and phylisophical (spelled wrong i suspect) level. For this reason i hope Koyo is so kind as to, and able to find time to post and share experiences, knowledge, and any other thoughts he would care to.

I did'nt see a intro post from you Koyo, so i'd like to exptend my greetings now. Welcome, and i hope you enjoy MAP :)

paradoks
Dear Paradocs

Check out makotokai.co.uk I have placed quite a bit about my thoughts on aikido there.Her is one concept you may wish to consider and comment on.
Aiki wo hazu is a term which states if you wish to prevail in martial arts you must avoid aiki. Aiki is the state in which the combatants are using the same rythm or/and timing. An experienced martial artist will immediately sense this and easily defeat the other. On the mat we must destroy the other's balance break his timing and deny him control of distance. This would seam to fly in the face of those who demand harmony from the partner during training. Another thought for you Chiba shihan told me that aikido was the confrontation of two spirits!!
Let's hear from you and thanks for the welcome.
Koyo

[koyo]

Sensei
Be careful admiting that you spent time on the mat with me ages you! I have replied to paradocs and would be most interested in your comments. Thanks for the welcome
Bill makotokai.co.uk

[Dave Humm]

Hello again Sensei,

I'm a member of the UKA and Chiba Sensei was the first exposure to a Japanese instructor I'd had. Although we haven’t met (in the formal sense) having been to your website and seen images of your good self, this confirms I have had the pleasure of taking ukemi from you.

I know Joe Curran and a small number of the BA on a personal level having made their acquaintance in the UKA before the BA was formed.

I trust you are well :)

Regards as always

[koyo]

Hi david (i dropped the sensei so please call me Bill) do not want to intimidate the aiki muppets.
I would like to hear your comments on the reply to paradoks maybe we can get some interesting sessions going rather than the politacal rubbish that some seam to prefare

Bill

[Dave Humm]

Aiki wo hazu is a term which states if you wish to prevail in martial arts you must avoid aiki. Aiki is the state in which the combatants are using the same rhythm or/and timing."Harmony" now there's a word for debate. :)

In the dojo or indeed anywhere where two or more people interact there has to be an element of compromise, without compromise we would be in confrontation with each other all of the time.

To be "in harmony" with other human beings (lets keep this simple and talk in terms of aiki taiso).. is an ideology because it cannot truly exist equally between two people if the training is going to be (at some point at least) realistic. One person has to be attacking with the commitment of controlled aggressiveness and the other has to be dealing with that confrontation using aiki gensoku of awase and kuzushi. To achieve harmony requires intent to do so but, an attack by definition isn't a harmonious event. Awase is in my opinion the means to harmony but only for one person (tori obviously) harmony doesn't describe a mutual or possibly collaborative state as this would result in aiuchi.If uke's attack is filled with an intention of "harmony" then it really isn't an attack, it simply becomes an opportunity to practice a given set of movements. This is certainly fine and quite acceptable in the early stages of learning complex sets of movements but somewhere along the journey, attacks should be committed. Indeed Mr. Philip Smith told me recently during seminar he gave within my dojo, what Chiba had commented about having "respect for him" [Respect for Chiba Sensei] to want to kill him [Chiba Sensei] when attacked.

I am of the opinion that "we" as aikidoists get far too wrapped up in the ideology/philosophy of our art and forget that its origins are far less forgiving, and whilst I accept and agree that AIKIDO has, at its heart; a means of conflict resolution without violence, the definition of "violence" can and very often does alter for every person on this planet. This means we have a potentially indefinable ideology.

I am of the opinion that we must first grasp the martial - "I'm able to dump you on your head and beat you to death with your severed limb" techniques; before we can effectively apply compassion toward our adversary and exercise the ideology of resolution of conflict without violence.

Harmony... (lol) Gotta love the Japanese ;) I like to think that in terms of aikido, harmony exists only for tori - he/she is harmonised with the conflict whereas, uke; should be at the opposite end of that scale and in complete disharmony with his attack, his posture/balance and importantly his ability to use his mind for the short period of time that it take to effect aiki waza.

Martial harmony is not; in my humble opinion when,

A. two people continuously co-operate to achieve technique and think that will work in an oyo waza environment; or,

B. a state where both uke and tori are equally harmonised together (one might appear to be the same as the other)

In terms of A: this type of harmony (for want of a better expression) is simply a pre-set group of movements where a predetermined end will always results - Pretty much Kihon waza studied in "co-operative mode" provided of course this training isn't considered "realistic"

In terms of B: This could easily be equated to ball room dancing where two people are closely connected and move seamlessly together.

Co-operation is a wonderful thing; it allows us to learn in a safe and controlled environment however, there must come a point where co-operation begins to diminish and students learn to make their waza work against resistance - without I might add, adding animosity, anger or force in to that equation.

I've often heard "Harmony", "Philosophy", "Ideology" used as excuses for not engaging in solid martial study. People forget or maybe ignorant to the fact that M.Ueshiba didn't invent the term "Aiki" or indeed the principles which make the physical acts function. Aiki (as you already know from your experiences with Chiba Sensei) can and very often is a brutal, functional martial method.

Regards

[Rebel Wado]

"Harmony" now there's a word for debate. :)

In the dojo or indeed anywhere where two or more people interact there has to be an element of compromise, without compromise we would be in confrontation with each other all of the time.

I would agree, but I would also like to say that this compromise isn't always between the two people. This compromise can be forced or greatly influenced by the culture, politics, and others around. The confrontation between two people isn't always about the two people, especially outside the dojo.

To be "in harmony" with another human being (lets keep this simple and talk in terms of aiki taiso) is an ideology because it cannot truly exist if the training is going to be (at some point at least) realistic. One person has to be attacking with the commitment of controlled aggressiveness and the other has to be dealing with that confrontation using aiki gensoku of awase and kuzushi.

I don't know about this, I don't think that is an ideology. In my humble opinion, it isn't that you try to be in harmony, it is more in accepting that harmony is natural or in other words, that it is natural for balance to come. If tripping to the ground, a person will naturally try to regain their balance unless trained otherwise... but even if they fail to gain their balance, when they hit the ground they will stop (rather abruptly) and balance will be restored (e.g. they won't be falling anymore).

I believe that as part of accepting that things naturally come back to balance either gracefully or abruptly, that in Aikido one can grasp technique/application so as to stack the odds more in our balance coming back gracefully and uke's balance coming back more abruptly.


I am of the opinion that "we" as aikidoists get far too wrapped up in the ideology/philosophy of our art and forget that its origins are far less forgiving, and whilst I accept that AIKIDO has, at its heart; a means of conflict resolution without violence, the definition of "violence" can and very often does alter for every person on this planet. This means we have an indefinable ideology.

This to me is a good point that emphasizes the importance of experience. Ueshiba Sensei walked the walk, putting what he found to work to the test. Those before him that walked similiar paths were the ones that in one way or another had survived conflict, most likely life or death conflict more than once.

If they sought a means to not kill the opponent, then this could very well lead down the path of what we today call Aikido. The difference is that these forerunners to modern martial arts were "bad asses" who had walked the walk and they had plenty of experience and skill to back up what they did with something more destructive if needed. IMHO.


When two combatants use the same principles of Aiki we have a very false state of confrontation; unfortunately this situation exists for a greater amount in many dojo and for no other reason other than we've lost a part of the martial aspect and replaced that void with the next thing in line - philosophy. And whilst this may well sound like a politically orientated comment; I've often heard "Harmony", "Philosophy", "Ideology" used as excuses for not engaging in solid martial study. People forget or are ignorant to the fact that M.Ueshiba didn't invent the term "Aiki" or indeed the principles which make the physical acts function. Aiki (as you already know from your experiences with Chiba Sensei) can and very often is a brutal, functional martial method.

I think when there is a "false state of confrontation" this is more to a lack of experience in real situation than to be ignorant of the teachings of Ueshiba Sensei. The simpliest form of attack is what I describe as a unilateral approach... e.g. attack down the middle and overwhelm the defender with strength, power, and speed. Aikido and many of the martial arts stemming from Japan have a distinct bilateral approach (e.g. collapse the middle and flank the enemy on the weaker sides).

Experience against and in using a strong unilateral attack is a good eye opener to learning why the bilaterial approach can work against a stronger and larger opponent. It also puts into perspective when is a good time to use atemi as a form of unilateral attack instead of always trying to be bilateral.

Lack of experience against a strong unilateral attack leads to misconceptions and untested technique.

I am of the opinion that we must first grasp the martial - "I'm able to dump you on your head and beat you to death with your severed limb" techniques; before we can effectively apply compassion toward our adversary and exercise the ideology of resolution of conflict without violence.

This is true, but not always possible with all. There are many paths, some take longer than others, but in reality not all are ready for the down and dirty way.

If anything, one needs to address their own limitations and internal conflicts. Teach someone a means to hurt another for self-defense, that does not mean when it comes time to actually use those teaching that they will not hesitate because of internal conflicts.

You have to believe what you are doing is the right thing to do, accept it. There is no time to debate these things internally when your life is on the line.

The philosophy in Aikido I have personally found helps me to acknowledge what I am willing to do and not do to an enemy in different situations. I accept this and work my application along those paths. Hopefully this works, nothing is for certain, but I have found that having "no mind" is much better than having "internal conflict" and over-thinking things... hesitating.

Co-operation is a wonderful thing; it allows us to learn in a safe and controlled environment however, there must come a point where co-operation begins to diminish and students learn to make their waza work against resistance - without I might add, adding animosity, anger or force in to that equation.

Experience? Is this a question of experience, maybe? How can a student gain experience in application so that they can develop practical application? Certainly I would agree that there has to be some resistance and adversities for one to test things out and learn from it.

Harmony... (lol) Gotta love the Japanese ;) I like to think that in terms of aikido, harmony exists only for tori - he/she is harmonised with the conflict whereas, uke; should be at the opposite end of that scale and in complete disharmony with his attack, his posture/balance and importantly his ability to use his mind for the short period of time that it take to effect aiki waza.

Well, yes, but isn't Aiki principle to blend with the actions of uke so that you can unbalance them? For some moment in time there is balance before there is unbalance.

e.g. I'm not going to be in disharmony to a knife thrusting at me, I must clear the path for the knife and parry before I can fully get off the line of attack and apply aiki waza, or else I might be stuck like a pin cushion. (Note that this example applies to blending or turning, it may be instead I enter with irimi and intercept or the combination of entering and turning.)

Harmony is not; in my humble opinion, two people continuously co-operating to achieve technique; or, a state where both uke and tori are equally harmonised together (one might appear to be the same as the other)

Regards

Well good, but what about pushing hands in Tai Chi? Certainly there must be some value in both sides working together in an exercise? What of sensitivity drills?

Now I'm not saying that sensitivity drills teach you how to fight in the streets, but they do teach some things of value... don't they?

[koyo]

Hi guys

Aikido is a dynamic art which cuts straight through the enemy's INTENTION to attack.(O Sensei Ueshiba)
In swordsmanship and aikido the term debana waza means to strike immediatly and
directly while the enemy is thinking about mounting an attack or when a suki (opening or loss of spirit or concentration) appears.If we have to blend with an attack it means that the attacker has managed to mount a powerful attack. At I higher level of aikido it is most dificult to find an opening to attack. But that is a different thread all together. I have found your comments most interesting. My thanks.
Koyo makotokai.co.uk

[Dave Humm]

Hi guys

Aikido is a dynamic art which cuts straight through the enemy's INTENTION to attack.(O Sensei Ueshiba)

In swordsmanship and aikido the term debana waza means to strike immediatly and directly while the enemy is thinking about mounting an attack or when a suki (opening or loss of spirit or concentration) appears.If we have to blend with an attack it means that the attacker has managed to mount a powerful attack.Unfortunately, it is my experience that many schools of aikido only teach and study "reactive" aikido where, blending means waiting for an attack. Indeed reactive training is pretty much where most if not all students learn their craft but, the problem for me is that this reactionary mindset is easily infused with the philosophical nature of the art IE "Non violent" thus; aikido shifts further and further away from a martial system with an associated ideology to an ideology with an associated martial origin.

In my humble opinion a person using aikido should be able to switch their mental state from 'passive' (no intent to harm) to 'active' (an intent to harm) and back again when ever the situation requires, indeed I would go so far as to say that aikido really should be more jutsu from a training point of view so that students understand the difference between passive and active waza.

Many of the founder's uchi deshi came form established martial arts and or lived in an age where Martial Arts/Budo was still considered a means of fighting; for those people who already understood how to seriously harm their adversaries the ideology/philosophy of aikido made perfect sense. Today many people have never engaged in anything other than a playground scrap thus have no concept of actual bodily assault and the vast differences in the strategies behind reactive and pro-active methods.

Regards

[Rebel Wado]

of all the lessons from on the mat that I took from Aikido, I think irimi has interested me the most.

Aikido class was also the first place to teach me not to help uke off the ground, not to hand uke a weapon back after disarming, how to leave uke on the ground in a position where they are not an immediate threat, and not to stare uke straight into both eyes... just to name a few practices. I believe I was already a black belt in karate at the time and Aikido was my first introduction into such things.

[Rebel Wado]

Unfortunately, it is my experience that many schools of aikido teach and study "reactive" aikido where, blending means waiting for an attack. Indeed reactive training is pretty much where most if not all students learn their craft but, the problem for me is that this reactionary mindset is easily infused with the philosophical nature of the art IE "Non violent" thus; aikido shifts further and further away from a martial system with an associated ideology to an ideology with an associated martial origin.

In my humble opinion a person using aikido should be able to switch their mental state from 'passive' (no intent to harm) to 'active' (an intent to harm) and back again when ever the situation requires, indeed I would go so far as to say that aikido really should be more jutsu from a training point of view so that students understand the difference between passive and active waza.

Very good observations Dave.

I wonder if part of this issue has to do with the fact that most techniques are trained with "one step." I recall reading that the reason why a uke takes a step is to give time for tori to learn to read the signs and intentions of uke.

I agree that one step is a good starting point, but the transition for self-defense today is often "no step". The enemy is within striking range before the target realizes they are truly in jeopardy.

I have worked with some Aikido trained people in helping them to learn how to apply what they know from close quarters (within punching and grabbing range). They absolutely must have the idea of how to pre-empt the enemy as there is no time to wait for the attack. Footwork also has to be adjusted accordingly.

I also have met and trained with some folks that can from one or two steps away strike very quickly without an easily detectable intention. If there were more people of this calibre in classes, then I feel that "one step" would quickly be the same as "no step" for most people as they realize that they don't have time to completely react (wait for the attack).

Many of the founder's uchi deshi came form established martial arts and or lived in an age where Martial Arts/Budo was still considered a means of fighting; for those people who already understood how to seriously harm their adversaries the ideology/philosophy of aikido made perfect sense. Today many people have never engaged in anything other than a playground scrap thus have no concept of actual bodily assault and the vast differences in the strategies behind reactive and pro-active methods.

Regards

Gosh, can this even be taught to most people? I know of a few with true "killer instincts" and they are rare amongst the general population. To them it is an automatic switch to kill/exploit weakness and they have to consciously hold back from going too far and killing or maiming someone.

Or maybe I'm just mis-reading your words.

[Dave Humm]

Yeh, only a slight misunderstanding of what I wrote, perhaps I wasn't really clear re-reading my own words.

What I meant to say is that without first actually appreciating what "jutsu" means toward your opponent, you cannot really understand what compassion means in terms of aiki-"do" because if that's all you assume you know [compassionate waza], then the crunch comes, many years of training may well be worthless. Remembering that "Harmony" is IMHO an ideology which we strive to achieve, many however will never reach the top of that mountain.

Look at it from a karate perspective.

You can choose to kick the living crap out of your opponent [“jutsu” mentality] or, just knock him of his feet [“do” mentality]. You can make that choice because you've trained for both options.

Regards

[Saturnine138]

Try Shudokan Aikido as the most 'street effective'. It is a style which originated with Yoshinkan. Its founder trained with O Sensei and mainly with Shioda in Japan. No one martial art or style is perfect but at least this one insists on the eventual ability (for 1st dan) to defend against multiple and random attacks with a live tanto - not a rubber sausage. This is freestyle - as done in martial arts, not randori - as done in sports like Judo and Tomiki.


You train with a live tanto? As in a pointy, edged, metal one? Do you do this with a partner? Could you elaborate please?

If it's what I got the impression you're doing, it seems like a terrible idea. The bennefits of training with a live blade are relatively few compared to the dangers.

[koyo]

You train with a live tanto? As in a pointy, edged, metal one? Do you do this with a partner? Could you elaborate please?

If it's what I got the impression you're doing, it seems like a terrible idea. The bennefits of training with a live blade are relatively few compared to the dangers.
I have taught aikido and tanto waza to S A S troopers and they kept the knifes in the sheath. By accident a sheatrh fell off and the attacker received a crushing blow to the temple before being thrown. If the knife and the attack is real then the techniques must be real this would include atemi and breaking techniques. I cannot see how this can be practiced realistically.

Koyo

[Saturnine138]

I have taught aikido and tanto waza to S A S troopers and they kept the knifes in the sheath. By accident a sheatrh fell off and the attacker received a crushing blow to the temple before being thrown. If the knife and the attack is real then the techniques must be real this would include atemi and breaking techniques. I cannot see how this can be practiced realistically.

Koyo

That's why I was questioning how he trained. It doesnt seem possible to use a live blade for training and make it realistic enough without risking injuring/killing your partner.

By the way, where is glasgow? I'd be interested in training with someone of your expierience, but I fear it's far away.

[Cesar]

I was thinking about adding my own comments but I tend to annoy Aikidoka. I'll leave that for the denizens of Aikiweb.

[Dave Humm]

I was thinking about adding my own comments but I tend to annoy Aikidoka. I'll leave that for the denizens of Aikiweb.So why bother pressing the "Post Reply" button and adding entirely pointless content to this thread then ?

By all means contribute to the thread but don't add content which has absolutely no value to the discussion - as with your current post.

Regards

[Dave Humm]

I have taught aikido and tanto waza to S A S troopers and they kept the knifes in the sheath. By accident a sheatrh fell off and the attacker received a crushing blow to the temple before being thrown. If the knife and the attack is real then the techniques must be real this would include atemi and breaking techniques. I cannot see how this can be practiced realistically.

KoyoAs a student I trained with a live blade however the attacks were not full speed and was always predetermined. Some years later and with a bit more experience and understanding I've realised I'd rather be attacked with a wooden tanto and the effort behind that attack be committed and strong than using a blade just for the sake of it.

I accept that there is a degree of psychology involved when facing a sharp blade of some description however; the dojo isn't the place where the body gets the adrenalin dump akin to an actual fight and I just don't see the merits of working with a live blade and trying to make that environment 'realistic' I see the risks vastly outweighing the advantages.

I remember someone saying "assume your attacker is always armed" (or words to that effect) thus; I personally try to teach waza which is intended for weapon's use (on the part of the attacker) even when empty hands are what are being employed. I don't consider having kihon waza for weapon's disarming and kihon waza for empty handed situations as being a sound strategy; one should be the same as the other. If that is the case then what counts is the technique, not whether the person has a live or wooden knife at hand.

I'm of the opinion that if an instructor is training a student's mind and body and not just focusing on the mechanical workings of waza, the difference between working with a blade and working with a wooden tanto is nothing more than psychological. This barrier can be easily overcome by conditioning the student to have less interest in the knife and far more about controlling (it) through control of the person. Indeed *if* working with tanto is so very important to establishing credibility of one's waza and confidence thereof; surely it should feature in training at a much greater level. I don't share that opinion frankly, yes waza should be effective but not at the risk of being unsafe or, taking such risks that statistically, the odds are that someone is going to be killed or very seriously injured. Sometimes I think we forget or lack perspective. Whilst we may live in a society of violent crime, we are not as civilians training for war nor do we need to adopt a "samurai" mentality simply because we study a martial art.

Indeed when I was learning to parachute in the RAF Regiment, we were taught to remedy 'line-overs' and other minor malfunctions and, instructed in the method of jettisoning the main canopy and deploying the reserve, how many times was I required to actually do that in training just to make the learning process realistic? None. And yep I've had several situations where I've had to take remedial action in actual drops (none involving the reserve thankfully) so my point is, if you train someone correctly in both the physical and the psycological aspects of the art, you don't need to take vast risks in attempting "realism", the upshot of "realism" is often potential injury or death.

Regards

[kiaiki]

saturnine138:
I'm experiencing 'deja-vu' here as I answered this point ages ago - or maybe that was in my last incarnation?

It is not the fact that a live tanto is used, but how we deploy it which makes the Shudokan style (derived from Yoshinkan) perhaps a little different. here's the process:
Shudokan builds up 'jiyuwaza' freestyle over the years, from a beginner receiving punches at a suitable pace, later building in wooden tanto attacks which are predetermined (e.g. Yokomen ). After several years of practice, the 1st dan grading includes random attacks with a live tanto. Yes,there are some restrictions, e.g we don't throw the thing at each other or kill uke, and if tori stuffs up totally uke tries not to kill him. It was generally accepted that Tori would execute at least 15-20 good techniques. Should anyone be less than perfect or repeat a technique they may have to carry on until they have satisfied the Sensei.

The idea is that a skilled disarming takes place and the knife is placed on the floor ready for uke to pick up and attack again. Other than that, attacks are intended to make tori believe they are coming 'close to death'. Yes, there have been injuries: one panicked and put his hand in from of his belly and got it skewered, others grabbed the blade in error (perhaps too much wooden tanto practice and not enough steel) , one was hit on the head (a nick).

Dave's point is very valid: sometimes, if they have not had this progressive training, uke may be more frightened of committing a 'full on' attack with a live tanto, but be quite happy to 'go for it' with a wooden one. IMHO a wooden tanto is still a highly dangerous weapon, particularly when striking the head or neck, so it shouldn't be treated any less seriously.

Tori, at this high level, must be both well trained and psychologically prepared to deal with fast and hard live tanto - so must uke, and I've seen them stuff up more often than the person being graded.

I also endorse Dave's point about focussing on the technique and not the weapon. However, it is surprising how many get 'phased' when a steel blade is presented. When demonstrating a particular technique we gradually introduce the steel tanto (not sharp at this level) to students so that they gently learn this familiarity and then genuinely focus on the attack rather than the weapon. Judging timing and distance is critical, not what the weapon is made of. However, at Dan grade it was expected that you would face the live tanto precisely because of this - it should make little difference to your performance of good techniques.

All in all, if you are well trained in tanto jiyuwaza, it has a profound psychological effect, some becoming over-confident, and our Sensei would always make it clear that, however good we were on the mat, we are still likely to get cut in a street confrontation. However, we may also be less likely to get killed and would be in a better position to defend ourselves than someone who may panic at the sight of a blade. On the few occasions when faced with street violence I can say that it helped both psychologically and in terms of applicable techniques, even though I have not trained at a high level with a live tanto for several years. I believe Shudokan in the UK still uses them. www.shudokan.info :)

[Saturnine138]

I dont believe the risk of injury is worth using a live blade. Everyone messes up sometimes, I'd rather get the wind knocked out of me by a wooden tanto than be skewered by a live blade. Even if you gradually build up to it, there's still mistakes. You can get fairly close to a live blade with the trainers they have available now, and not have to risk injuring your partner. I still fail to see how it coulld be realistic unless they are actually trying to stab you, in which case, if you mess up you get stabbed.

I apologize if I brought the thread off topic.

[Dave Humm]

I think what Kiaiki is describing (relating to the Shudokan training methodology) is fairly rare in terms of the emphasis of "street wise" applications and the number of actual aikido clubs/schools teaching it). Whilst I admire [to a degree] people/schools who focus on this aspect of their training I also firmly feel that this is not, in the truest sense "aikido"; it is more akin to aiki-jujutsu. That said, I did say in one of my earlier posts that I feel our training should have more of a jutsu emphasis but, I was referring to origin rather than modern-day application.

I make no apology to students who may walk through my dojo door expecting to be taught 'uber self defence' because that's not what we teach, indeed search these forums and you'll see me say several times that I'm more interested in the origin of the art than where it fits with modern self defence.

Naturally I have to be sure that I'm still moving with the times and the continual development of the system but, as with my interest in Iaido, I'm not looking to make every single waza "street" effective because this may change the emphasis on why the technique is performed in a particular way. There are enough people doing this already and, if you will all excuse my tone; many of these people haven't got a friggin' clue about orthodox aikido never mind create something which they arrogantly 'think' is better in some way.

Regards

[koyo]

Saturine!!
Where is Glasgow indeed? It is in Braveheart country Scotland and you would be most welcome to train with us.By the way where is A Dorm can't find it on the map.

Koyo

[koyo]

In the early days of training it was stressed that Every Time we applied a technique it would be effective whether a knife was involved or not. Often we would perform a technique against an empty hand attack then uke would attack with a knife. If adjustments other than maai were needed then our initial technique against the empty hand was deamed to be incorrect.This resulted in a pragmatic approach that disallowed all the spinning aroung often seen. A major principle. THE ATTACKER IS CAUSED TO SPIN, TURN AND SPIRAL AROUND THE AIKIDOKA. NOT THE OPPOSITE.

kOYO

[Saturnine138]

Saturine!!
Where is Glasgow indeed? It is in Braveheart country Scotland and you would be most welcome to train with us.By the way where is A Dorm can't find it on the map.

Koyo

I'm currently in school in new york, which is, as I feared, quite far from Scotland. Is there anyone here in new york you've trained with and would recommend?

[aikiMac]

Is there anyone here in new york you've trained with and would recommend?
http://www.usaikifed.com/directory.html
The regional HQ for the "official" version of aikido (that coming through the family line of OSensei) is in NYC. You can't go wrong with that one.

Do a yp.yahoo.com search. I'm sure there are many aikido dojos in New York.

[koyo]

Hi Saturnine

I think that one of the shihan that I trainind under ,Yamada Shihan, is based in New York. He is excellent and very approachable. If you can find his dojo I would highly recommend attending.He has a very pragmatic no nonsense approach. Best wishes from Scotland!!

Bill Coyle
Check out makotokai.co.uk

[Rebel Wado]

In the early days of training it was stressed that Every Time we applied a technique it would be effective whether a knife was involved or not. Often we would perform a technique against an empty hand attack then uke would attack with a knife. If adjustments other than maai were needed then our initial technique against the empty hand was deamed to be incorrect.This resulted in a pragmatic approach that disallowed all the spinning aroung often seen. A major principle. THE ATTACKER IS CAUSED TO SPIN, TURN AND SPIRAL AROUND THE AIKIDOKA. NOT THE OPPOSITE.

kOYO

I posted this last year: http://martialartsplanet.com/forums/showthread.php?p=545229&#post545229

...1. Movement (footwork): Skilled footwork does not mean fancy or ellaborate, it usually refers to the effectiveness of simple and necessary movement. I have found that simple straightline movement at angles to get off the line of attack can yield the quickest and most effective footwork. Only turning the body as necessary to protect from the attack, otherwise, no extra rotation. Although the feet never really leave the ground, the movements are so fast and decisive that it often has the feel that I am "jumping" into the air and gliding across the floor -- that is the feeling, but the actual footwork is developed through technique, understanding of principles, and practice...

...The biggest problem I've found with teaching others is that they don't know how to do the techniques properly; probably the most common issue is that they move their feet too much after gaining position and as a result end up "walking" the opponent around instead of quickly taking them down under control. Once position is gained, techniques are rooted, quick and effective, they don't involve much if any footwork....

That's my spin on things, but I can see how it relates to "A major principle. THE ATTACKER IS CAUSED TO SPIN, TURN AND SPIRAL AROUND THE AIKIDOKA. NOT THE OPPOSITE." Although I have not come to master such things, I have much difficulty in particular getting this concept to work well when I am on one knee or on the ground. I have much work still to do.

There is some movement to gain good position and spacing for a technique, but the application of technique, IMHO, is very direct and it should not at that point require great amounts of movement by tori to be effective.

Thank you for the insightful and concise posts koyo, and Dave and I always have a bit of a long dialogue between us.

My question which popped in my head thinking about this thread is in the use of tripping and leg sweeps. In the karate I haved studied and in Judo, there is a common use of sweeps and trips to down an opponent quickly. For example, ikkyo would be done in karate with a breaking motion to the arm while sweeping out the leg of uke, causing them to fall face first to the ground.

These are not common in Aikido to my knowledge. Any insights on the reasons?

Note: I don't find the sweeps necessary myself but they can be very effective. The only big issue for me when practicing them is with safety. Uke can take a very bad fall, and even tori is vulnerable if the sweep is not done right and uke falls an tori's extended leg.

On a related note: I have found that positioning to the side of uke and dropping straight down while applying ikkyo works very well, even against uke that are more than 150 pounds heavier than me. This has almost no foot movement except to set up the technique.

[Saturnine138]

http://www.usaikifed.com/directory.html
The regional HQ for the "official" version of aikido (that coming through the family line of OSensei) is in NYC. You can't go wrong with that one.

Do a yp.yahoo.com search. I'm sure there are many aikido dojos in New York.

I wasnt really looking for a dojo, as I already have one. I just liked the way Koyo said he trained and was wondering if there was anyone that trained like that over here. You both recomended Yomada Shihan, I attended his Christmas Seminar this year, and had a good time. It was only a seminar, so I didnt get to see how they usually train, but he looked impressive. My sensei also recomended him, and her son sometimes teaches at his dojo. I would love to Uchi Deshi there, but I've discovered Aikido a bit too late and am already in debt from college loans and cant afford to take the time to do it. I do plan to eventually train there, maybe for a summer or two.

[Dave Humm]

I stayed in New York a few years ago and trained at Yamada Sensei's dojo. I was made very welcome as a visitor, excellent aikido as well !!

Regards

[kiaiki]

I agree with Dave's analysis of some of the clubs springing up as 'Aikido' that have no trace of the art we all know, and also that 'reactive' Aikido should not be the only method taught. I've found worse, though - one explained Aikido to me as 'It's weapons like nunchucks' when handing out leaflets on the street. As I've never chucked a nun I don't think this is quite right! :)

As to the tanto and 'real' fighting issue, I agree that a strong foundation in Aikido comes first - the application to modern weapons is then possible, as is its application to unarmed 'street' attacks. In this context, proactive or even pre-emptive methods are very relevant, allowed in English law if you feared that you were in danger, but be sure to get it right and have witnesses as UK police are just as likely to book you for assault ar the person you faced.

Some Aikido dojos restrict weapons to jo, bokken and tanto and that is fine - in fact none of our Shudokan syllabus for gradings went outside of this. I've also trained with groups that do no jo or bokken work at all!

However, I make no excuse for the fact that we explored baseball bat, chain, bottle etc etc on occasion and found Aikido to provide a mental and physical platform for all sorts of defence. This does not mean the Aikido was any less traditional or formal (direct Sensei lineage back to Shioda) but that we chose to also explore the 'jutsu' aspect in a modern context as well. I put this in the past tense as Shudokan has moved on since I last trained and I am not their spokesperson. :)

[Dave Humm]

My question which popped in my head thinking about this thread is in the use of tripping and leg sweeps. In the karate I haved studied and in Judo, there is a common use of sweeps and trips to down an opponent quickly. For example, ikkyo would be done in karate with a breaking motion to the arm while sweeping out the leg of uke, causing them to fall face first to the ground.If you look at Daito Ryu and their waza (which we call ikkyo ude osae), it involves sweeping the leg(s) of the opponent, I find that particularly useful if one has an awkward partner however; when making a more "aikido" specific ikkyo I tend not to "sweep" the leg but, drive my hips through the posture of my uke, this has exactly the same effect (lifting and dropping uke) without having to specifically ashi-barai.

[edit] If fact, I'll post a few pictures tomorrow evening after class to illustrate.

Regards

[koyo]

I posted this last year: http://martialartsplanet.com/forums/showthread.php?p=545229&#post545229



That's my spin on things, but I can see how it relates to "A major principle. THE ATTACKER IS CAUSED TO SPIN, TURN AND SPIRAL AROUND THE AIKIDOKA. NOT THE OPPOSITE." Although I have not come to master such things, I have much difficulty in particular getting this concept to work well when I am on one knee or on the ground. I have much work still to do.

There is some movement to gain good position and spacing for a technique, but the application of technique, IMHO, is very direct and it should not at that point require great amounts of movement by tori to be effective.

Thank you for the insightful and concise posts koyo, and Dave and I always have a bit of a long dialogue between us.

My question which popped in my head thinking about this thread is in the use of tripping and leg sweeps. In the karate I haved studied and in Judo, there is a common use of sweeps and trips to down an opponent quickly. For example, ikkyo would be done in karate with a breaking motion to the arm while sweeping out the leg of uke, causing them to fall face first to the ground.

These are not common in Aikido to my knowledge. Any insights on the reasons?

Note: I don't find the sweeps necessary myself but they can be very effective. The only big issue for me when practicing them is with safety. Uke can take a very bad fall, and even tori is vulnerable if the sweep is not done right and uke falls an tori's extended leg.

On a related note: I have found that positioning to the side of uke and dropping straight down while applying ikkyo works very well, even against uke that are more than 150 pounds heavier than me. This has almost no foot movement except to set up the technique.

Hi Guys
AS far as your description of foot (body) movement you are saying exactly what Saito shihan (the elder) said. THE SECRET OF AIKIDO IS IN THE TRIANGLES. As for having difficulty executing the techniques in this way. I think it is because we often concentrate on the techniques that bit more than the principles. Timing, distancing and astute use of kuzushi (unbalancing) will make the technique work most powerfully.
As far as foot sweeps other than the aikidoka's natural reticance to take one foot off the ground when the art depends on constant balance and mobility there are ARA WAZA techniques where this is used. Ara waza are "severe " techniques applied about three times faster than normal techniques which allow for ukemi. But that is another thread. However since aikido is based on sword PRINCIPLES (another thread?) There is a sword technique used when the swordsmen may have closed during combat called tai tari this means to strike with the body. Being quite small (a nasty karateka friend once said that I would have to jump into a pool of water twice to get one splash) I was shown by Sekiya shihan 6th dan Kashima and Katori Shinto Ryu and sixth dan aikido how when executing ikkyo just when the final cut to the last kuzushi is to be executed you simply crash your hip against uke,s already unbalanced hip to effect the technique.
More words of wisdom for you . WE MUST NOT CHANGE THE ART WE MUST TRAIN SO THAT THE ART CHANGES US.

kOYO

[Dave Humm]

WE MUST NOT CHANGE THE ART WE MUST TRAIN SO THAT THE ART CHANGES US.That's one of the best things I've read here for a long time, Thank you for that.

Regards

[koyo]

I hope this simple diagram makes sense, remember the reverse is true if stood in either left or right posture.

Notice how Omote predominately moves in front of and Ura is partly behind.
The confusion regarding irrimi omote ura tenkan can be easily explained.When executing irrimi we called the technique irrimi and the same when executing tenkan we called the techniques tenkan techniques.Then the terms were changed to omote and ura. When I asked why. The explanation was irrimi is the body movement as is tenkan. Omote is the direction of the technique across the front ura is the technique applied behind the attack. For history buffs The Omote Yagyu is the history of the swordschool dealing with the posts as teachers to the Tokugawa shoguns. The Ura Yagyu deals with the involvment of ninja and subtefuge on behalf of the shoguns. So if you like Omte=up front Ura =? Anyway keep it simple guys.It was just a mistake in translation that we first generation aikidoka were guilty of.

Koyo

[koyo]

"Harmony" now there's a word for debate. :)

In the dojo or indeed anywhere where two or more people interact there has to be an element of compromise, without compromise we would be in confrontation with each other all of the time.

To be "in harmony" with other human beings (lets keep this simple and talk in terms of aiki taiso).. is an ideology because it cannot truly exist equally between two people if the training is going to be (at some point at least) realistic. One person has to be attacking with the commitment of controlled aggressiveness and the other has to be dealing with that confrontation using aiki gensoku of awase and kuzushi. To achieve harmony requires intent to do so but, an attack by definition isn't a harmonious event. Awase is in my opinion the means to harmony but only for one person (tori obviously) harmony doesn't describe a mutual or possibly collaborative state as this would result in aiuchi.If uke's attack is filled with an intention of "harmony" then it really isn't an attack, it simply becomes an opportunity to practice a given set of movements. This is certainly fine and quite acceptable in the early stages of learning complex sets of movements but somewhere along the journey, attacks should be committed. Indeed Mr. Philip Smith told me recently during seminar he gave within my dojo, what Chiba had commented about having "respect for him" [Respect for Chiba Sensei] to want to kill him [Chiba Sensei] when attacked.

I am of the opinion that "we" as aikidoists get far too wrapped up in the ideology/philosophy of our art and forget that its origins are far less forgiving, and whilst I accept and agree that AIKIDO has, at its heart; a means of conflict resolution without violence, the definition of "violence" can and very often does alter for every person on this planet. This means we have a potentially indefinable ideology.

I am of the opinion that we must first grasp the martial - "I'm able to dump you on your head and beat you to death with your severed limb" techniques; before we can effectively apply compassion toward our adversary and exercise the ideology of resolution of conflict without violence.

Harmony... (lol) Gotta love the Japanese ;) I like to think that in terms of aikido, harmony exists only for tori - he/she is harmonised with the conflict whereas, uke; should be at the opposite end of that scale and in complete disharmony with his attack, his posture/balance and importantly his ability to use his mind for the short period of time that it take to effect aiki waza.

Martial harmony is not; in my humble opinion when,

A. two people continuously co-operate to achieve technique and think that will work in an oyo waza environment; or,

B. a state where both uke and tori are equally harmonised together (one might appear to be the same as the other)

In terms of A: this type of harmony (for want of a better expression) is simply a pre-set group of movements where a predetermined end will always results - Pretty much Kihon waza studied in "co-operative mode" provided of course this training isn't considered "realistic"

In terms of B: This could easily be equated to ball room dancing where two people are closely connected and move seamlessly together.

Co-operation is a wonderful thing; it allows us to learn in a safe and controlled environment however, there must come a point where co-operation begins to diminish and students learn to make their waza work against resistance - without I might add, adding animosity, anger or force in to that equation.

I've often heard "Harmony", "Philosophy", "Ideology" used as excuses for not engaging in solid martial study. People forget or maybe ignorant to the fact that M.Ueshiba didn't invent the term "Aiki" or indeed the principles which make the physical acts function. Aiki (as you already know from your experiences with Chiba Sensei) can and very often is a brutal, functional martial method.

Regards
How about this description of a good aikido instructor? Remorseless(in training), ruthless (in pointing out weeknesses)but utterly without MALICE No brutality there Dave.
Chiba shihan said "I do not have time therefore I MAKE MY STUDENTS LEARN."
Another interesting point I was not so much "taught" I was simply placed in situations where I had to learn for myself. Proving that EXPERIENCE IS MORE VALUABLE THAN RECEIVED KNOWLEDGE,For instance I once "foolishly" told Chaba shihan that I at times found difficulty with the ukemi for his irrimi nage.
Without a word he "taught" me the ukemi by continualy throwing me for about fifteen hours (minutes actually but it felt like hours!!) I did not remember any of the details of the ukemi I simple experienced how to perform it. I suppose he MADE ME LEARN.
By the way no need to thank me for the don't change the art quote. Like any smart ass I was just telling you something that you already know. It makes me sound quite intelligent.

kOYO

[koyo]

Dave Humm.....Hmmm. Perhaps you should re-read my post. I did not say Aikido is a religion. The development of spiritual aspects within 'do' arts refers to the 'whole person' not any religious views they may hold.

I personally am an athiest (and Aikidoka). I do not believe in any religion, god or even the existence of a soul however I do recognise a persons spiritual aspects. Those being harmony of existence with their fellow beings, consideration, co-operation etc. 'Do' arts are intended to develope those aspects of human nature not a persons fighting prowess, which is what Justu are for. If you disagree I suggest you look more closely into the development of Japanese martial arts especially after the 2nd World War and specifically Americas insistence that Japan abandon its martial heritage (the development of 'do's was a way of circumventing this proviso).

Also I still disagree with anyone that thinks aikido alone is effective in self defence situations. As for doing it wrong I beg to differ. A beautifully executed kaiten nage is great in the dojo but utterly useless against, say, a mugger with a knife. Perhaps you should re-read THAT post again too. I did say that the concepts of avoidance and blending do provide an advantage in a self-defence situation but thats all.
Aikido technique can be used as self defence but only if it is translated into its Aiki Jutsu form.

Yes I agree the difference between Aikido and Aikijutsu is finite but that difference is one of application not technique. Aikijutsu aims to injure, maim or even kill. Aikido proscribes exactly the opposite ideal i.e to repel an opponent by causing no harm or as little harm as possible to them.
In essence the difference between Aikido and Aikijutsu is one of philosophy not personal application. This translates into a considerable difference in application in the dojo.
Imagine someone attempts to stick a knife in you stomach and you twist/enter to the side avoiding the thrust while slashing down with the edge of your hand into the nerves at the elbow joint while simultaneously backfisting him on the temple. This would have the effect of bringing his head downward.For an instant he is stunned you press his head down and close the hand on the inside of his elbow and throw his arm over his head. It works, I have done it and it is called kaiten nage.There is no need to pass under the arm to execute kaiten nage.












Koyo

[kiaiki]

Yoksha - clubs and styles call themselves all sorts of things, and none is more confusing than being labelled Aiki'do' or Aiki'jutsu' . I've seen so many come and go that I think the labels are pointless, mostly because of the spurious claims of 'jutsu' clubs to be tough 'Dragons' or some other tosh.

Many techniques which can kill or maim are taught by many clubs of all delineations and they mostly seek to practice in the dojo without killing or maiming each other, whilst being aware that on the street those techniques may cause severe damage as 'jutsu'.

The point about causing your attacker minimum harm is just a diversion - surely no self respecting MA practitioner of any art or lineage would seek to cause excessive harm - there's no need. I think you are claiming that the philosophies differ, but IMHO there is no evidence to support it. Can you show me evidence that a 'jutsu' student will kill or maim when a 'do' student would not? IMHO any martial art of worth teaches minimum force and damage.

I'm think you are trying to explain how 'do' dojo stuff needs to be changed for street 'jutsu' application, but I think you are being a little simplistic. I have used shomen-ate on the street exactly as I would in the dojo, so no change needed there. Other techniques may need changing to a degree, but this depends to a great extent on the attack you face and your ability, etc.

I have no idea what you mean by 'do' arts having a spiritual element while 'jutsu' does not - surely the whole development of the spirit is what enables good jutsu to be executed. (A mind-set empty of fear and full of power in harmony with a strong spirit - in other words'Aiki', whether 'do' or 'jutsu'.)


I've taken part briefly in Daito Ryu and a modern form of Jujutsu and find no difference in their attitude to application outside the dojo to that which I find in Aikido organisations. Surely Aikido practitioners may apply their art in 'jutsu' outside the dojo, so what is the difference you seek to establish?

Please tell us which 'Jutsu' ryu you know of which does not use minimum force and which has no 'spirit' at its core. Ta. :)

[koyo]

Yoksha - clubs and styles call themselves all sorts of things, and none is more confusing than being labelled Aiki'do' or Aiki'jutsu' . I've seen so many come and go that I think the labels are pointless, mostly because of the spurious claims of 'jutsu' clubs to be tough 'Dragons' or some other tosh.

Many techniques which can kill or maim are taught by many clubs of all delineations and they mostly seek to practice in the dojo without killing or maiming each other, whilst being aware that on the street those techniques may cause severe damage as 'jutsu'.

The point about causing your attacker minimum harm is just a diversion - surely no self respecting MA practitioner of any art or lineage would seek to cause excessive harm - there's no need. I think you are claiming that the philosophies differ, but IMHO there is no evidence to support it. Can you show me evidence that a 'jutsu' student will kill or maim when a 'do' student would not? IMHO any martial art of worth teaches minimum force and damage.

I'm think you are trying to explain how 'do' dojo stuff needs to be changed for street 'jutsu' application, but I think you are being a little simplistic. I have used shomen-ate on the street exactly as I would in the dojo, so no change needed there. Other techniques may need changing to a degree, but this depends to a great extent on the attack you face and your ability, etc.

I have no idea what you mean by 'do' arts having a spiritual element while 'jutsu' does not - surely the whole development of the spirit is what enables good jutsu to be executed. (A mind-set empty of fear and full of power in harmony with a strong spirit - in other words'Aiki', whether 'do' or 'jutsu'.)


I've taken part briefly in Daito Ryu and a modern form of Jujutsu and find no difference in their attitude to application outside the dojo to that which I find in Aikido organisations. Surely Aikido practitioners may apply their art in 'jutsu' outside the dojo, so what is the difference you seek to establish?

Please tell us which 'Jutsu' ryu you know of which does not use minimum force and which has no 'spirit' at its core. Ta. :)
I at times lose interest in long drawn out discussions on such topics as the spiritual dimension of aikido wherein in it is obvious that the writers shall agree to disagree. Never has any of the shihan spoke at great lengths on this topic to me. I was once asked to describe my thoughts on the spiritual aspects of aikido to a small group of aikido shihan. Typically I did not think long on my answer I simply just spoke my mind at the time. My answer was GET KNOCKED DOWN EIGHT TIMES GET UP NINE TIMES!! To me that is the spiritual side of aikido. That was one of the very few times I was complemented on my understanding of aikido by a Japanese shihan.Note there was no mention at all about knocking someone else down!!

Koyo

[Dave Humm]

I've said several times on this forum that in many instances, people get far too involved in the 'spiritual' association of aikido rather than the other way around.

Aikido is a fighting art, it may be a subtle fighting art but a fighting art never the less; when we spend more time trying to "find" spiritual development in the philosophy of the art rather than let the training develop us through the struggle of budo, what we're left with is a meaningless and empty journey.

Regards

[koyo]

Dave
I thought you might like to know that the first lessons I ever had in aikido were from Kenshiro Abe on one of his visits to Scotland to promte judo.. My main teacher Chiba shihan was sent to Britain because Kenshiro Abe approached O Sensei. Nakazono and Noro shihans among others were all invited by Abe shihan as was Harada sensei of karate. On my website the photo of Noro shihan is in the Hut dojo. I missed the historical debate.In a nutshell Ellis sensei is true the othere version is BULL!!

Koyo

[Dave Humm]

Dave
...I missed the historical debate.In a nutshell Ellis sensi is true the othere version is BULL!!

KoyoIndeed Bill, both you and I know that, shame on the British Aikido Board and the sycophants therein who didn't/wouldn't see the light and listen to reason.

Will you be attending 'their' attempt at celebrating the UK's 50th year ? :p Most people I've talked too on this matter have very mixed feelings, I'm guessing from those opinions, this year's BAB seminar will be just a flop as was year before last. Taking in to consideration Chiba Sensei's anniversary seminar in October of this year (40 years since he first arrived here) I think this might have a marked effect on the interest in the BAB's plans in what has already been celebrated (last year at Crystal palace).

Regards

[koyo]

Hi Dave
Now you know why I have a distinct dislike for politics! I have a few rare photos from Grange farm I would like to send to Ellis sensei. Sad that we need photographic proof of the early years. Is there an e mail for him? Sensei Ellis mentions teaching Tomio Otani aikido at Grange farm. I became friends with Otani sensei during that summer school. I taught him a few chords on the guitar.(In the ladies loo because the acoustics were better!!!) There are some great stories about Grange Farm. Perhaps some other time.The makotokai shall be giving a demo and taster class at the 2006 IKET in Edinburgh. If anyone from the nine circles is there please say hello.

Koyo

[Dave Humm]

Bill,

I wouldn't call the Ellis/BAB/Jack Poole issue a political problem, not at all. It was one of setting the record straight. People simply didn't like their "status quo" being ruffled against the stark truth of reality. In my opinion these types of sycophantic numpties don't deserve to represent the interests of British Aikido, not to mention the idiots who fabricate a martial arts history to justify themselves being a 7th or 8th dan. Unfortunately I can name you a growing number of people right here in the UK who have questionable lineages and claim the most senior of yudansha grades and the title of Shihan, both without providence of anyone other than their own organisation or, some worthless 3rd party body.

I'm much like you, I detest politics but there comes a time when morals and principles become expensive things; and if people don't stand up and be counted, those idiots who would run rough-shod over others would simple get away with it. I guess my willingness to put myself in the firing-line of political criticism stems from my military days.

I hope you're not left with the wrong impression of me, I am not a political/war mongerer; I'm just someone with strong morals and principles who has been/is quite willing to stand up and be counted when required.

I'll PM you Ellis Sensei's email address.

Regards

[koyo]

Bill,

I wouldn't call the Ellis/BAB/Jack Poole issue a political problem, not at all. It was one of setting the record straight. People simply didn't like their "status quo" being ruffled against the stark truth of reality. In my opinion these types of sycophantic numpties don't deserve to represent the interests of British Aikido, not to mention the idiots who fabricate a martial arts history to justify themselves being a 7th or 8th dan. Unfortunately I can name you a growing number of people right here in the UK who have questionable lineages and claim the most senior of yudansha grades and the title of Shihan, both without providence of anyone other than their own organisation or, some worthless 3rd party body.

I'm much like you, I detest politics but there comes a time when morals and principles become expensive things; and if people don't stand up and be counted, those idiots who would run rough-shod over others would simple get away with it. I guess my willingness to put myself in the firing-line of political criticism stems from my military days.

I hope you're not left with the wrong impression of me, I am not a political/war mongerer; I'm just someone with strong morals and principles who has been/is quite willing to stand up and be counted when required.

I'll PM you Ellis Sensei's email address.

Regards
Hi Dave
I still hold you in high regard sharing your distaste for politics. I was just angry that someone (not you) had attempted to minimise Kenshiro Abe shihans lifetimes work. After O Sensei Abe shihan is possibly the most important figure in the history of United (united?) Kingdom aikido and should be remembered as such. I know because I was there!!

Best regards and keep standing up

Koyo