In Yoseikan something is considered practical if you can do it to a resisting opponent. If you can pull it of when they resist, or in the resulting clinch, then bingo, you can use it on the street, since a resisting uke is more annoying then an unbalanced attacker. Regards,
HONESTY BEFORE MODESTY One time I had to refuse entry to a club to a young man whose stated intention was to stab someone inside. He told me to move or I would get this. he opened his jacket to display the knife in his belt. I simply pulled the knife out of his belt and held it up (no intention to use it. He did not know) and told him to leave. He cursed me out but he left. Now THAT was good aikido. regards koyo
It's been my experience that if you kick a resisting opponent in the balls or on the side of the knees they no longer resist to the point of preventing controling waza. There are no rules in a fight, you do what needs to be done to remain safe. Never let compassion, philosophy or ideological thinking cloud necessity.
Hi Guys This is a typical first lesson at my club. If the student is inexperienced we show the triangular posture explaining that it presents the smallest target area to the opponent. We then say mobility defends better than blocking. So we shall make a solid acurate attack upon them slow enough for them to move out of the line of attack. They must maintain defence of the centreline so when our strike meets their arm we keep powerfull pressure on so that they begin to understand the danger in receiving a strike. their intitial training shall always be kamae and taisabaki. They are not encouraged to attempt throws until we have grounded them in these two basic principles. The next practices shall emphasise kuzushi (unbalancing) again they are not encouraged to execute techniques until they have a basic understanding of kuzushi.Allowing students to perform throws with a compliant partner teaches unrealistic expectations. Soon they begin executing techniques slowly against slow but powerful and accurate attacks. As they progress the attacks become more fast. At a reasonable level all mistakes in techniques are countered. WE do not correct mistakes "during" a technique. If it is wrong we stop, point it out then concentrate on the principle. Now I think of it I have not taught techniques for years (the sempai do this) I teach only principles.This is my way of teaching. Your thoughts would be appreciated. respectfully koyo
hey koyo, maybe you got the wrong impression of my earlier questions. that very well could have been my fault and not yours. hopefull the importance of not choosing to fight has begun to dawn on people by now. aside from the moral/ethics issues and dealing with the legal system there is always the potential someone could get really hurt or even killed. not just hurt in a busted nose way. in a somebody pulls a knife manner. would never make any suggestion that people get into fights. and i was not suggesting you would choose to either. let me re-phrase the earlier question about compliance techniques. do you favor pain-compliance techniques over non-pain/pin compliance techniques when you are training?
hey kensei1984, back in the military our drill sargents (yes i spelled that wrong too) kept insisting the way a person trains is exactly how they will fight if/when they are enguaged in a hostile action. this is not just a military use point of view and has applications for life that exists outside of that. when a person does get into a bad spot they will fall back on thier training. not switch gears and do something they have not been specifically training for. no time exists for making such decisions. do i believe the kind of hand-to-hand combat training we recieved back then should be practiced much less used in a fight outside of a combat zone? of course not! those kind of techniques far go beyond reasonable force. besides we recieved too little exposure for the material to be that familiar. anyway i have to keep insiting that anyone will fall back on thier training when in a fight. if a person did constantly practice lethal material (very bad idea if use is for self-defense not warfare) that is exactly how they would respond. if a person becomes used to applying technique which has little or no intent of doing more harm than neccesary they will use that kind of material. the concept of mushin in the martial arts is something i have never really subscribed to. remaining calm or centered is not something i have ever seen anyone do in a fight. yet it would take something along those lines (being calm and focused) for a person to consider thier options and change thier strategy. this is NOT my advocating military h2h or the mindset used in combat for any situations outside the combat zone (in a war). from my point of view none of these civilian martial arts schools have any buisness teaching as much. and we should never NEVER be training with that mentality. what i think you missed here is that training should be realistic as possible WITHOUT somebody getting seriously injured. simulating (not actually making contact) or removing atemi strikes for example is a bad idea. if you do as much in training you will do the same in a situation outside from that. back in karate classes (years ago) we kept practicing the punches with the intent to not to actually hit the opponent. which i disagreed with then and now. training methods should remain practical. not possible to train one way and do something completly different when in a fight. as i have seen before under stress a person will use what they know (fall back on training). if you fail to really train as you would fight you will also fail during a confrontation. train well as you can in a realistic manner WITHOUT harming your training partner.
CUNNING PLOY O ften I shall tell the class we are training in henka waza (flowing from one technique to another) Example unbalance him powerfully with ikkyo and as he attempts to rise cut him down again with irrimi nage. T then take one of the students aside and say "Look how powerfull the IKKYO is, this is because they are not thinking about it simply using it to create the opening for IRRIMI NAGE." Simply because they are more "concerned" about the final application the initial one is applied more " naturally". Hi Jester Even when training with a beginner I shall "note" every opening he offers that could be used for an effective technique. I shall only use those that are relevant to his training at the time. So I am training in the most important of martial principles OBSERVATION. As for locks during training (we call them immobilisations for they MUST do just that) We tend to use them more to unbalance the opponent through the use of kuzushi and pain. Our intent in training is to aid in the development of powerful flexible arms and shoulders so we tend not to tap out until we have to just as we refuse to give our balance unless it is taken. After many years of training and thousands of swordcuts I have quite (very) strong arms so I do not react to pain locks too easily (but they still unbalance me) . As they are immobilisations an effective one should have me on my knees at least and on my face at best. regards koyo
But the phrase "fight as you train" does imply that. Training involves two main components, mental and physical. The mentality to survive and fight can always be present as it doesn't harm anyone while on the mat. The physical can. If you imply that the phrase is true, that is also why I think you are still advocating my techniques should be severe to be effective. I fully support that notion as well, but there is no way that we can do that in a training session with our partners. Hence is why I stress the importance of control and ability to respond to a range of attacks with a different ranges of responses and severities. I believe this makes me a better martial artist and takes me in the right direction, cause I can choose to whatever I want, I have more tools at my disposal than just knowing how to break bones. I also never said that there were non-pain compliance techniques in aikido. Remember I was only trying to answer this question: I don't think you understand it in the context that I am talking about, which is the initial stage in learning a new technique. Because I think you believe that more force (i.e. effort) is needed to look like it would cause injury. I'm still making this assumption, and you have not yet clarified why you think that aikido locks look less intent on causing injury. This is very apparent when looking at a person's technique. The spectrum of forces which starts with zero level of force is what i was describing as was supposed to give you an idea of why an aikidoka does not look like he is putting in much effort to cause pain, but is. Locks must be learned, like everything below: "Bit by bit." This is how all techniques that are new to the student are taught. Then the gestalt of the whole of the training is the final lock. Once it is understood, it is done in ONE movement. Is not correct configuration to apply a lock pretty important first hand? This is why at this stage of training a new lock you should not have to apply force at all (i.e. zero effort) to get the partner in the correct position. It's the unbalancing first (through kuzushi or atemi) then the configuration second that helps achieve this. When the lock is set up correctly, and the student understands, THEN they add force to apply pain. And even with that, a lock, done properly, does not need much force to induce excruciating pain. You should always have plenty of strength left to spare so you can break it if the situation need arise. If you need all the strength you got, well you are doing it wrong and simply bending a joint the wrong way. (In fact, if you need all the strength you got just to get the bugger of a lock on in the first place, how are you going to cause excruciating pain or even break the joint?) Truth to tell, pain should start with a level of 2 on the effort scale when a lock is on. And a break doesn't or rather, shouldn't, even need a 10 in effort. Should have come much before that. When a student has learned to apply a lock properly, then he will train it as he would use it on the street, straight off the bat and causing immediate pain with the ability to go further if he needs to. but sans causing permanent injury to his partner. As his techniques get better and better, and becomes very good at it, he will go even harder (also if his partner is ok with it as well), to the point that is safely short of destroying his partner. Locks are a special category cause you bear some responsibility for your partner, you can execute throws and takedowns with full intensity as it is up to your partner to make the fall safely. There are some nasty tricks that you can use to make them fall improperly, but let's not go into that. So if you acknowledge that you must not harm your partner, then how can I train to hurt an assailant in a real situation? in our school we always have atemi and they always make contact, and they come fast hard and accurate. But they are controlled as to not cause injury. This can be changed so easily in a self defense situation. But you stress in your previous posts cause "it is trained this way it is useless", cause they don't cause severe long lasting injury that stops the attacker in his tracks. But if I hit him with full effect, I cause undue harm to my partner, but it's great cause whaddya know? In a fight, it's effective cause I have hurt my assailant! So which is it? This is as far as we can go so as to train as realistically as possible, to have people come at us with real attacks that are intent on harming us, and to gain a superior position using unbalancing not compliance, and to apply as much pain as possible so that we understand that our technique is effective but so as not to cause long lasting injury to our partners. This is my definition of "looking after" your training partner.
Hi Guys Afew points from MY approach. I NEVER force a lock when it is resisted . Resistance to a lock in most cases make it more painfull. However if the resistance is so strong as to demand quite a bit of strength to enforce it I sinply flow onto another technique or use atemi. Example being ikkyo it is most easy to flow into irrimi nage from the point where he is resisting. In fact we train in henka waza meaning (moving on) to address this problem. At an advanced level there are THREE main kuzushi in EVERY technique when contact is made when the technique is applied and when the technique is executed. Since we train in executing the technique in ONE movement this principle is often ignored. Many teachers are not even aware of it thinking if he is unbalanced once that is enough. regards koyo
I would have hoped all Aikido schools took this approach. But then again this might be assuming to much. In yoseikan we always look at what can be done if a technique fails, of it there is resistance. These are called Renzoku Waza, or combination techniques. For example, Kote Gaeshi: If uke resist the outward turning motion with an open hand, then rotating in the opposite direction will lead to Yuki Chigai (sankyo). If the fist is clenched, then it is Hiji Kudaki (rokkyo). The idea here is that a Soto Neji Ho (outward turning technique) simply flows in to an Uchi Neji Ho (inward turning technique), and vice versa. Regards,
Hi Ogmios What you call renzoku (continuous) we call Henka (flowing on) Same principle. Below kote gaeshe resisted flowing on to irrimi nage. You can also see the possibility of ikkyo etc on his defending arm. The danger in some clubs is they train "inside the comfort zone" Training becomes a "habit" rather than a constant challenge. regards koyo
hey kensei1984, maybe you and i have very different ideas about how aikido looks and is supposed to work. to begin with i have practiced different styles in the past and did not study aikido for very long. (there where several reasons for not remaining in that particular school). the ju-jutsu that i have seen (from state police officers mostly) does not appear to have non-pain compliance techniques. before any ju-jitsu students get upset maybe the police officers in reference just do not emphasise them. and there is a lot of striking done. not just the distraction to set up for a kind of throw or lock. that is very different than what i saw in aikido when a student and still today when practicing with friends who are still aikidoka. thier version uses a lot of the non-pain compliance technique. (more often than not). the strikes are either simulated or nowhere to be found. the purpose of strikes in thier classes is largely to stun or distract opponent to lead into joint locks or throws. the constant practice of non-pain joint locks began my questioning the effectiveness of thier style. in my experience holding someone in a joint lock that does not hurt only encourages the opponent to make an effort to free themselves and makes them more angry. where a painfull joint lock seems to get the message across they could get hurt if continuing to attack. that is why i perfer the pain inducing locks. and would rather spend more time practicing those. some of the efforts to escape from holds there (most in fact) did not seem practical. the specific techniques were not easy to learn and took a lot of practice to make work. (when they actually did). there was little or no kind of striking used to assist escaping holds. now about striking. there were rare instances when somebody ever got hit usually resulting in accidental contact. never did i see much time invested on practicing strikes. was curious if any of the students became farmiliar with getting hit. from my point of view (you may completly disagree) joint locks should hurt a little. and should be practiced in that way. when striking the effort to hit someone really should be there. (not the same as intentionly breaking someones nose). and some realism should exist in terms of being thrown in terms of being thrown not just taking falls. the aikido that i learned did not encourange striking to get free of holds or actually striking for that matter. joint locks were either released soon as they were executed or when a student began to experience the slightest ammount of pain. throws i covered before. maybe that led to my impression that aikido does not train in a realstic manner that would actually work in a fight. last word on striking. both in aikido and karate classes i constantly heard that both arts could kill with a strike. which justified the need for pulling the strikes and punches. maybe there are punches and strikes that could do more damge than others. maybe aikido and karate have the potential for killing with a single blow. (most arts do for that matter). yet i have taken hits in karate class numerous times. (not just a light tap either). despite the strikes and punches hurting (getting hit usually does that) here i am typing this reply today. there seems to be a misconception on this matter. kind of like the strikes and punches of aikido and/or karate are too dangerous to actually practice by hitting somebody. by the way the manner of practice described above did not just apply to beginners. the black belts did the same.
Had an excellent Judo session this morning. Walked off the mat feeling I had a deeper understanding than when I walked on. Every session is like that in a small way, I feel today was one of the leaps though. Now to take the understanding and diligently take it into practice so it becomes unconscious action. I feel that these moments are truly lost when training becomes, perhaps not severe, but honest. Never ever had these moments kicking and punching my way up a karate dojo, or through compliant practice.
Hi PIrate I would second that, nothing like a good Judo randori. ALL of the early aikido shihan were also judoka. All of the early aikidoka in the first British clubs were judoka. Coming from judo we were not about to give up our balance easily and every ineffective attempt at a technique was countered.This is another area where "aikido was taken in the wrong direction". JUdo is really underestimated by many of todays martial artists. Below the o uchi gari against resistance to ikkyo we looked at when you visited the makotokai.Most of the guys you met that night have judo experience. They send their regards. regards koyo
Maybe. I don't blame you for what you did, a lot of schools are like that. I'd love to see these "non-pain compliance techniques" you speak of. We don't do them to my knowledge. Ueshiba said that Aikido is 90% atemi, and I'd like to think that Mochizuki retained that notion well or even better. To me they sound like holds rather than locks. Locks always produce pain. Holds don't, and require you to be stronger than your opponent cause they can fight back. While they can "begin" to fight back to some extent in a lock, they are usually silenced and get no further cause they get a good dose of the ultimate compliance technique: pain. Uke is encouraged to try to escape the hold and resist all the time. They try to hit the defender while they are in a lock. If they do, well the defender is doing something wrong. I don't see this as being "overly compliant" or "compliant' at all. We do striking in our system, Yoseikan has karate influence, and the school itself has derivatives from Pencak Silat, Jujutsu and Shotokan karate. Strikes are performed alone during kata and also do some bag work, and of course, applied to our techniques as unbalancing. Atemi is also kuzushi. That's the thing, I do agree with you. I don't think you agree with me on how they are "learned". There are three different aspects, how they are learned, practised, and how they are used in a practical situation. Oh when you are the defender? Sometimes you don't really need a strike to get free of a hold...but there are no boundaries on striking to get free of them. I emphasize again, striking is just an option. That's great, cause we do it too in allocated free fighting to test our technique and also in a grading. And that's full contact. I've had the skin teared off my lip from an elbow strike and I managed to make my partner's face swell up on one side like a chipmunk. I now call him Alvin. Free fighting where all manner of things are allowed, kicking, punching and elbowing, kneeing headbutting etc.....I don't think that many schools do that, much less aikido schools. Like you, I would be shocked if they did as part of their curriculum. Maybe. Black belts you shouldn't see doing that. You see, white belts are usually beginners with no experience, and beginners are doing that cause they are.... well.... beginners. Until they actually know it and become good at it, I don't think that they would trust themselves or their partner to execute strikes at someonejust before full impact. That comes later when it is learned! NOTE: I also think that some of the strikes in aikido are done badly, not to mention attacks in general. Some of the aikikai styles here do "frankstein strangles" and start coming with shomen uchi 7 feet away from their opponents, hands raised. I wouldn't even question their effectiveness, I would just laugh.
FRom my point of view EVERY atemi is powerfull enough to at least unbalance him (always directed to a kuzushi) and EVERY lock is painfull enough to continue that unbalancing until he is immobilised. below powerfull atemi his defending arm is vulnerable to sankyo which shall be painfull and unbalancing.This is musubi the instant of contact which uses enten jizai attack and defence in the same instant to ASSERT control. regards koyo
