Aikido is not technique; not fighting

Discussion in 'Aikido' started by izumizu, Dec 1, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. izumizu

    izumizu Banned Banned

    Even in the first say 4 years of practice, the skills one gains compared to practicing say karate, are hardly applicable in a real fight. These first four years is just the tip of the iceberg in ones training of aikido, and to feel comfortable using these skills as a martial art would require, in my opinion, a far greater understanding/learning of the art.

    No matter how many times one does ikkyo (lets say thousands of times), aikido is not about technique, nor is it about perfecting techniqe.

    The same holds true for many of the techniques, such as shihonage. Furthermore, many(if not all) of the techniqes in aikido are derived from other martial arts, but O senseis emphasis was not on technique. It was on his understanding of Bu...

    Can aikido work at a higher level of understanding as a martial art? Well, the answer to that is yes...the same way that any shihonage can work when applied with a jujitsu background.

    So what is it about shihonage in aikido (or any technique), that makes it different from other applications that also have this same technique?

    If we practice aikido from the standpoint of technique, then all we get out of it after years and years of practice is technique. What are some of the other aspects of aikido that served to separate it as its own distinct art form, what has been lost as aikido spreads across the globe, and why?

    If we just come into aikido to learn how to fight, or learn how to train to fight, I think that we are missing some of the more crucial aspects of aikido as a whole art, not solely focused on fighting and self defense and the multitude of what if scenarios that generally follow those preconcieved notions of what we have developed in our minds as to what fighting is, and what fighters should look like when engaged in melee.

    Does trianing in technique lead some how to aiki? Does it make us a better fighter? Is that the goal in training aikido, is that all we have to understand is technique?

    I will say that in the beginning, the practice and learning of technique is paramount, and how we train to understand aikido, but it is the means and not the end.
     
    Last edited: Dec 1, 2010
  2. Sore Knees

    Sore Knees Valued Member

    yer some man izu.
     
  3. Power_plant

    Power_plant Valued Member

    Technique first, application later. Without technique what is the point of training at all?
     
  4. Chris Banks

    Chris Banks Valued Member

    Aikido is about trianing in principles, body movement, timing, distance & kuzushi. These are all things that can be learned relatively speedily. It won't take a beginner long to move out of the way if you aim a punch directly at his face. Teach them to strike as they do this and they are already on their way. They can learn the precise angles etc in time. This method of training makes the art easier to grasp than trying to teach techniques...which just confuse beginners. Everyone knows what a punch is....not many know what shihonage is.
     
  5. Giovanni

    Giovanni Well-Known Member Supporter

    i disagree with the application part. what's the point if you can't apply it? then it's just a dance. us aikidoka need to make this practical from the very beginning. work the basics!!! the basics are the most important thing!!! get off the line, move your body, make yourself safe. then later, you can look work on the higher-level understanding.

    i've done aikido for a year. the first lesson i received at both dojo's i've trained at is the worst place to be is where the attack is going to get you. move!
     
  6. aikiwolfie

    aikiwolfie ... Supporter

    I completely agree with what Chris has said here. And as per usual I'm somewhat at a loss as to what Izumizu's point is.

    First and foremost Aikido is a martial art. It should be taught as a martial art. Focusing blindly on techniques or kata only teaches a limited set of movements which are common to many martial systems. In my experience very few students who train that way glean the necessary understanding they need to make good use of those lessons.

    Similarly focusing or even exploring the esoteric elements which have been attached to Aikido too early waters down the teaching of essential martial skills as students and teachers get distracted by delusions of the "true meaning of Aikido" or their own self importance.
     
  7. Giovanni

    Giovanni Well-Known Member Supporter

    love this! thanks!
     
  8. Rebel Wado

    Rebel Wado Valued Member

    The term technique can be defined in different ways. For example, iriminage can be called a technique. I believe it is the 20 year technique because it takes 20 years to perfect it. However, to a beginner's mind, technique is something like iriminage, ikkyo, nikyo, etc. This is good for rank requirements and lesson plans. However, these "techniques" can be taught in a day and with lots of practice in relatively short time a student can get really good at them.

    On the other hand, technique can be a term used in a more broad sense to describe all body mechanics including mind, body, spirit working together. So in this definition, technique is in all you do. This is the definition, IMHO, of technique that takes 20 years to perfect. So iriminage is not just entering for a takedown, it is entering in all situations such as in battle, in the streets, in class, in sparring, in competition, in multiple attacker situations, against larger, smaller, faster, stronger enemies, under the effects of adrenaline and in hostile environments. Technique is this sense I refer to as "structure".

    It can take many, many years to develop the structure so that you maintain good structure (technique) under pressure. This structure includes, but is not limited to fighting spirit, body alignment and mechanics, remaining rooted and mobile, etc.

    So in order to say technique takes years to learn, you have start at day one and not confuse technique to mean just the movements of a technique such as Ikkyo but to include it as all body, mind, spirit when applying application.

    For lesson plan, technique = single technique. For long term, technique = proper structure/body mechanics in all situations with fighting spirit. This can take a life time to perfect; therefore, good technique training must be started from day one!!!
     
  9. izumizu

    izumizu Banned Banned

    Hmm, Rebel, I agree with most of what you said, and as usual your understanding of these concepts is above par. I would disagree that these things can be taught in a day though. Maybe taught to the point where if someone is applying technique (let's say tenchinage), it will perhaps be recognized as some assimilation of tenchinage at that point, and then yes, perfecting it is the next stage, where technique is concerned.

    I like to use ikkyo as an example here. One may find ikkyo to be a fairly easy technique to apply from a wrist grab, but then doing that same ikkyo on someone that is 5'5" tall, with short firehidrant arms becomes quite difficult to execute. The same for iriminage...doing iriminage on a short person is quite different from iriminage on one that is 6'3".

    Funny you mention iriminage being 20 year technique. I was always taught that it was kokyunage that were the 20 year techniques. I'm sure perhaps in another dojo they might view shihonage (which always gave me a good bit of trouble) as the 20 year technique?

    I think you're spot on here, but does technique alone alow for this to happen? According to O sensei it does, however our uke plays a big role in this as well. If this is the case, then how does this type of approach to training serve to aid us in understanding aiki and do?

    And then what about other forms of training such as misogi, suburi, sitting seiza for extended periods of time? Were those also not emphasized in order to train aikido as well?
     
  10. izumizu

    izumizu Banned Banned

    A punch is a punch. How is a punch different in aikido than in say karate? It probably isn't all that different, but to say that one could be taught to punch effectively in a short matter of time is just like saying one could be taught to perform (fill in the blank technique) in a short matter of time.

    It takes years to develop, even in karate, an effective and powerful punch. It takes years to develop a very smooth and effective single leg takedown in wrestling.

    If it was all done in a short matter of time, after about 15 weeks we would all be blackbelts.

    I'm going step back for a moment to when I was starting out in aikido. I still keep this approach to this day, but from a beginners standpoint I think it might help keep an open mind to training.

    As I paired off with my partner, regardless of their rank (which at that time just about everyone was higher than me, some were of the same rank), I never thought in my mind or viewed the situation as one in which it was now me versus this brown belt. Or if I did iriminage on a blackbelt, I never thought that my iriminage was now good enough to do to this blackbelt. Or even with a white belt who had been training a month or two longer than I, I never approached the situation as it is me vs. them, and now I'm going to see what this guy has learned in his two months here.

    No expectations, no preconcieved notions, no misconceptions about what it was we were training. Very much a beginners mind, very much no mind. As soon as something pops up (gee, this brown belt was a little rough the last time we practiced, I'm going to be rough back to them this time), I've removed myself from the techniqe.

    Yes, aikido has martial technique. So beyond technique (which when we are practicing it, we are applying it), I would fathom that there is more to train, more to understand.

    Again it is a means, and not an end.
     
  11. izumizu

    izumizu Banned Banned

    An effective strike can end a fight. There would never be a need to train anything else. There would never be a need to do any aikido technique, judo technique, or anything else. All you would have to do is teach them to strike, strike effectively, and there would be no need for aikido. The fight would be over. We have already seen youtube videos of this on this forum and in the aikido threads.

    Why do we then need to practice, or choose to practice aikido? So now we can do technique? I think there is more to aikido than just technique. It is not so limmited, and in fact as one progresses in aikido I think it becomes more apparent that the nature of aikido is quite expansive.

    Just my thoughts guys!
     
  12. Rebel Wado

    Rebel Wado Valued Member

    Aikido techniques are a mix of application and learning principles. This is probably true with all martial arts but I believe Aikido emphasizes the principles more at the beginning.

    So from how I understand it, the training in technique is a way of learning the principles through practice. Even the naming of the techniques show a progressive complexity. Ikkyo is one joint lock, Nikyo is two, etc. So with applying the principles of do not get hit, and triangle, circle, square... each time with more complexity until you have all the joints of the uke involved (e.g. they are striking you back with all weapons... kicks, punches, knife).

    You have to start somewhere and by understanding one principle, ten thousand other principles can be learned (figuratively speaking).


    Some practices are done but they are no longer understood why. These become tradition. Some of these practices were influenced by the customs of the time and place. Some because of environmental reasons. Seiza was custom because it was a way of sitting in a respectful manner in that time and place. Training to fight from Seiza was self defense because you might be sitting and attacked, also many houses did not have high ceilings so in order to use weapons you had to stay low to the ground to give room to deploy the weapons. In most modern times and places, seiza is probably not a common sitting practice, so what was once custom and self-defense, now in many places has turned to learning to fight on the ground and against grapplers.

    One should understand the reasons for traditional methods of training so that the knowledge is not lost AND so that training methods can adapt to the needs of the times. Only training traditional ways can lead to stagnation if the reasons for doing things are forgotten, and only training in new ways can lose the value of why things were done the way the used to be done. It is still quite possible to end up in a room with a low ceiling, or to be attacked while sitting... such knowledge should not be lost.

    The other point is that martial arts is 24/7 (all the time). It is not just in class. All methods of living involve martial arts. At home at the dinner table, going to and from work, at work... all day you are training in martial arts. All environments and experiences are to be considered as training. But this is only possible if you are in the mental state and aware (mindful of thy training).

    Many things learned in class actually are for the continued practice of martial arts outside of class, IME.
     
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2010
  13. Rebel Wado

    Rebel Wado Valued Member

    Ummm... just thinking that the budo perspective is that of a warrior's mind. It isn't why do we practice Aikido, it is about why would a warrior practice Aikido.

    I thought the reasoning was that learning to kill and harm others was the training given to a warrior... however, in the practice of killing, you lose part of yourself. There comes a point where you lose yourself and you must come to deal with your life and all that you have done. This comes in times of peace. The duality of a warrior... killer and protector.

    A story I relate to is the one with an aged warrior comes to face a young man. The young man seeks to make a name for himself by challenging and defeating the aged warrior. The aged warrior has killed hundreds like this young man. He does not want to kill another innocent, but he knows if he refuses to fight, the young man will just insist more and force the fight.

    Instead the aged warrior accepts the challenge and when the young man brings his weapon up to strike. The aged warrior does not draw his own weapon, but unarmed evades the young challenger's cut and downs him easily. The young man sees how easily he was defeated by the aged warrior and reality of how easily he would have been dispatched/killed sinks in.

    The young man appologizes and is allowed to leave. He gives up making a name for himself by the sword and lives a long happy peaceful life.

    The aged warrior just goes on with his life. There will be more challengers, there always are.

    This is the aspect of budo for which I believe much of Aikido is suppose to lead to. But many look at the end of the aged warriors life, and forget how he got there... hard training and a hard life.
     
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2010
  14. jorvik

    jorvik Valued Member

    I just stumbled upon this aiki clip and interview with Henry Kono .......I think that it is very good because it shows that it wasn't what O'Sensei did that made him good , it was what he thought or rather the way that he thought

    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXNm-2qxRfg"]YouTube - Aikido Henry Kono Sensei[/ame]

    http://www.guillaumeerard.com/Aikido/Interviews/interview-with-henry-kono.html
     
  15. izumizu

    izumizu Banned Banned

    Ye, Rebel, I often look at techniques done from seiza (hamnihandachi/swuariwaza) as being what aikido has in the way of ground/mat work. You never know when you could be pushed down or tripped, or wind up on the ground.

    Yes, and I feel that this definately would therefor extend beyond mere technique. We can't just go around using ikkyo everytime some situation comes up outside of class, or think after the situation, that was a "verbal iriminage." I've heard of the verbal aikido approach, and I don't think that these concepts are what it is we are supposed to carry off the mat with us. Probably more along the lines of that which is not purely related to techniqe, and applies more to budo is what I think is more apt to cary with us.

    Bujitsu would also cary with it the perspective of a warriors mind as well, and although the words are interchanged, I think that there are distinct differences in my opinion.

    I would have to say that this is a byproduct of the training. Anyone can be taught to kill, or injur or maim an aggressor from a self defense standpoint, or from the standpoint in preparing soldiers to quickly go into battle. In fact in many cases some folks that kill (such as murderers) have no training whatsoever.

    So then I think we would have to come to our own definition of warrior (and I tend to like what you offer with the duality, and recognizing a process that might take place as well during times of peace), and then come to realize how we train and what that training imparts to us.

    In the story you offer, what is it about the old man that leads him to these conclusions, and why does the young man seem so misguided? Is it a result of their individual training methods, or the path they have chosen as warriors? Was the old warrior at one time like the young one, and it is just a natural progression? Probably not due to the fact that the young one chooses not to live by the sword any longer, yet the old man has not made that choice. He still has his sword.

    So then I think we have to take into account our own training and see how and where it is leading us, take responsibility for it, change or modify it if needed. If the goal is just to get really good at doing x techniques through repitition, then I think we are missing the overall picture of a complete martial art. I can easily force a technique based on angles, timing, distance, position...mechanics involved, but did I do so practicing aikido? And I did it because now I am standing and one person is on the ground, and that is the litmus test?

    I'm not saying it is wrong to just single out technique and teach/practice based on that approach, but I do feel that is not all the martial arts have to offer, nor should we base our training on just this small facet. Do I feel we all need to study shinto now because that is what osensei did? Well there is a shinto shrine here in the US that I have wanted to visit, just to check it out and see what it is like, but that is a far cry from practicing shinto.

    Anyways, as usual, I enjoy the perspective that it is you offer in your approach to training and understanding aikido.
     
  16. izumizu

    izumizu Banned Banned

    Nice post, jorvik. I read the interview as well provided from the link you gave. Pretty interesting stuff. Funny how he mentions "dance," and the plethora of aikido dojo that claim they do not do dance. Also interesting how he mentions O sensei "mystical mumbo jumbo," as that being chalked up to what others do not understand. I guess if we understood what he was saying, it wouldn't be "mystical mumbo jumbo." Obviously what he was saying perhaps made sense to him, and probably made sense to his aikido.

    I hope that when I'm 80 years old I'm still teaching/practicing!
     
  17. izumizu

    izumizu Banned Banned

    Since as I have postulated that aikido is not fighting and not relegated to mere application of technique nor is there a need to make it practical or make it work (it works, and it was already practical as synthisized by o sensei and his many students) I would like to share an aspect of it that I feel is even more important than kuzushi. In fact, aikido done in this manner may or may not have aspects of kuzushi as a by product, but it is definately not the aim or goal in order to set up and execute a technique, which should also not be the aim or goal.

    Concepts like no mind/ mushin are not just for training in the dojo, but carry on in the manifestation of aikido. These concepts include yin yang (as discussed in the kono video above) and maai. It is not however the maai that most associate with aikido. In fact the maai in terms of distance spacing (range) is exactly how I understood maai in the context of aikido for the first 18 or so years of my training. Instead one of the other definitions of maai is interval, and I take this to mean an interval in time and space along a continuum. Therfore this interval would be where yin yang and the interval or maai all intersect.

    At this point, if one is aware of where it is (which means you must be just a fraction ahead of what is happening else you must "wait" for the next interval) then technique nor its application are insignificant. In fact this is the fulcrum under the lever, and where the 4 ozs we hear about is able to move 1000 lbs.
     
    Last edited: Jan 11, 2011
  18. Rebel Wado

    Rebel Wado Valued Member

    Interesting post izumizu.

    I believe you are on to something but perhaps you are expressing it at a very conceptual level like how it might be said by someone with many years of training. I believe if you could express it more in terms of a "beginner's mind" then it would open up further discussion.

    For instance, I do not agree with the premise that there is no need to make Aikido practical. Just because O'Sensei and others that have come before were able to make Aikido very practical, this does not mean it is practical for you or me or that Aikidoka down the street (generally speaking). Everyone should access the practicality of how, why, when, and what they train for themselves, IMHO.

    I think you are on to something here. Could you give an example of how this would work in daily practice?

    I like to think of it as taking complex movements and timing and making it all flow as if it was one movement. For example, a sword master could say something like, "a sword is faster than a gun." Then the student would be like "what is this guy talking about?" Then the master might say, "because against three enemies, a gun must cycle through each firing of a bulletin in a mechanical way. However, a sword in the hands of a master can down three enemies as if it was one continuous motion."

    This is kind of like the statements I see you post, izumizu.

    We should all remember that it isn't being able to do more complex things that make us a master, it is the ability to make complex things simple that is the mark of a master, IMHO.
     
  19. makotokai

    makotokai Valued Member

    Aikido On and off the mat

    This way of thinking tends to be what causes so many problems in Aikido and also gives the art a bad reputation with other martial artists.
    The philosophy of Aikido should be learned through serious training and not through academic thought, concentrate on developing a powerful body, fighting spirit and a handful of pragmatic principles. A wise man has often said...... "we must not change the art but allow the art to change us"
    Gerry
     
  20. Chris Banks

    Chris Banks Valued Member

    I couldn't agree more Gerry, the best way to learn the philosophy is through the pores. Trying to conceptualise rather than train will teach you nothing of value.

    Aikido is a martial art and the principles taught should be effective in a fighting situation, if what you are learning has no fighting application then what is the point? :bang:
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page