Could not find it - could you post the link Aikido is essentially defensive because the vast majority of the moves are reactive. It is VERY uncommon to see Aikido initiate a physical response. This does not invalidate the art, it just means that it is the flavour it has. The fact that occasionally you may see it executed aggressively is the exception that proves the rule
I think one of the main problems is that there are so many post war dojos from when, in my opinion, Ueshiba got old and lost all balls and aggression and the real fighting which went with it. When I trained Yoshinkan for years there was a big emphasis on preemptive attack where you either a) attack straight away or b) wait for the split second where you see them go to initiate the attack and you attck first forcing them to switch from offense to defense. The postwar dojos mostly have the whole flowery, ki centering, overly flowing, pacifistic nonsense.
I can believe that that accounts for a lot of it. I remeber reading a book by Obata that was subtely different form the usual faire -now there was a man who believed in hardcore Aiki!!
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lo5Na1x6sAc"]Chiba Sensei WAKE UP!!! - YouTube[/ame] Aikido tends to be more about understanding combat principles than about particular moves. Attack and defense are one is a combat principle so in no way is Aikido flavored towards the reactive any more than any other unarmed martial art, IMHO. Remember that Aikido is also a weapon art and in such you should evaluate Aikido on weapons use before seeing the bigger picture. It is not uncommon for any unarmed system to be defensive when facing the possibility or reality of a weapon involved that is quicker and has longer range than unarmed. Also, mind, body, spirit are all related and the "offensive" movements used in Aikido to take initiative could be at any level... even in some situations a smile diffuses the intentions of attack in an enemy. This is not reactive, is it? No, it is an attack against the intentions of the enemy. Anyway, maybe this video can help explain the more offense/defense is one principle in Aikido: [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0exZ_V1k9k"]Morihiro Saito Sensei Initiating Shomen Uchi - YouTube[/ame] Realize that there is a premise that you can use unilateral force (e.g. superior fire power) to subjugate the enemy, but if the enemy is too strong, then the principle of Aiki (e.g. drawing in and flanking the enemy) can be used to blend and subjugate the enemy. Both are used in fighting.
Thanks for the link That was entirely reactive though Attack and defense may blur, but unless you are INITIATING then you are reactive. This is not necessarily a negative, but if you wait for an attack before taking action (which is central to every single Aikido demo I have seen and class I have partaken) then in no way are you an attacking art. Boxing is an example of such an aggressive art - you hit them first I would strongly disagree with this. The wepon work I see in Aikido certainly is not a testament to it being a weapon art. By that extension would you count "not going to the Dog & Handgun for a pint" as attacking because you defeat the intent before it is even present? Pre-combat ritual and steps taken to avoid the physical are related yet separate IMO. Agreed, but rarely do you see the former in Aikido. Again NOT A CRITICISM or even a shortcoming - more a statement of what is seen and experienced
Dear Hannibal, The vid is on this Forum under Aikido vid clips.Or You Tube .Key in Chiba Sensei.This will get you the vid.Cheers, Joe
Better send you to a thread about these things maybe: http://www.martialartsplanet.com/forums/showthread.php?t=64721 Koyo wrote: Thanks Bear I hope you find some value in it. Often you shall here that aikido is based upon sword work. It would be more correct to say aikido is based upon sword PRINCIPLES. Aikido has changed so much from the traditional aikido brought from japan in the late fifties early sixties. A major change has been in the mind set of many of todays aikidoka stressing peace and harmony over the martial efficacy of the art. A major principle when taking up a sword is that we should be filled with the intention to cut. This is the mind set of the swordsman. The intention is not so much to engage the opponent rather it is to simply and directly cut him down.This mind set is not against the principles of aikido as we must never engage an enemy unless we have no other option then when we do we must do it in a dynamic manner that cuts directly through his intention to strike. Attack at all times, display a superior attitude and dominate the attacker's spirit. Cut directly through his intention to strike. These are basic principles of swordsmanship and of aikido. Many aikido clubs begin their training with a received philosophy first and then adapt the techniques to suit diluting their effectiveness. The techniques of aikido are such that they may be applied powerfully without overt damage to the receiver (all locks and throws are applied in a manner to unbalance throw or pin rather than to break the joints) therefore the more dynamic principles of swordsmanship such as attack while the opponent is thinking about attack, instantly seize any openings may be applied with relative safety to the partner. It need only a slight adjustment to turn them into ara waza (severe techniques) This thread is opened so that you may ask or post opnions on the weapons principles of aikido. triangular kamae Koyo also wrote: In a crowded area it is the principle of non abiding meaning to strike continuosly without "stopping" on the target and of course the correct mindset and mobility. Within two feet of the attacker you use debana waza this is to strike while the attacker is thinking about striking. It should be understood that it is more the principles of timing, decisiveness from swordsmanship that is used rather than the technical aspects. The photo of young David below shows an entry with the sword using ki ken tai ichi this easily translates to an empty hand strike.And is the entry used empty handed (still cutting with the tegatana) for kote gaeshe. regards koyo Debana (striking while the attacker is preparing to attack. Tegatana (handblade used to strike and cut off balance)
Aikido isn't any more defensive or reactive than any other art. It's just badly taught the vast majority of the time. I mean how many martial arts teachers are encouraging their students to go out and start a fight?
The short and realistic answer is it depends entirely on the school. Some use a lot of atemi some are very compliant in their training. You'll probably find the more a school moves towards the Ki Aikido side of things, the more compliant they become. Which is not to say all Ki Aikido clubs are like that. You have to judge each school on it's own merits.
Practically or conceptually? Boxing, Muay Thai, kyukoshin, sanda, MMA et al all have a "hit first" component. I reach pre-emotive strikes as a first response as do many RBSD systems. This is not the same as starting the confrontation, but it does mean there is a focus on popping one on the ol' beak. Similarly if you DID have that type of mentality that you would start something then one of the above would furnish you with said tools. Aikido does not do this in the whole, but it does not need to. Judo has no strikes, but it is still effective. Again I repeat being defensive in focus is an idiosyncrasy, not a criticism
I think you are not trying to separate philosophy from strategy with regards to Aikido. The philosophy of Aikido isn't a simple one philosophy but it is one that is developed through hard and sincere training. Through this training and life experiences a person can develop compassion for others after experiencing near death and what it is like to be hurt and to hurt others. A person, after this, might not want to really hurt others anymore... so the person might seek better alternatives using their martial expertise and experience. So you have a philosophy that leads to a strategy where you want to be able to control the amount of damage you do but still be able to be effective in a realistic setting. The idea of preemptive striking is a FUNDAMENTAL in Aikido. However, rather than a preemptive knockout blow or killing blow as could be with a weapon or power strike, all striking in Aikido is done on the move. The atemi are not focused on permanent damage but to unbalance and/or get a reaction out of the enemy. The primary use of atemi is going to be to exploit openings. The problem is that many have adopted the philosophy as their strategy but have not put in the sincere and hard training. Therefore they try to rationalize their art as a defensive art rather than a martial art developed for a person that has built a true compassion for others after many years of hardships/violence.
Except that if you could apply most of the moves full force you could cripple or kill someone. Irimitsuki on pavement would probably kill someone as their head would hit first with all their bodyweight behind it. Hijiate kokyu nage would destroy an elbow. The same goes for a lot of the other throws and locks.
The ara waza (severe techniques) are often done 2-3 times faster than normal speed and the results would be like you say. Ara waza is normal old school martial arts and you don't need to study Aikido for it. I learned ara waza in karate and Kajukenbo. The fact that moves in Aikido can be transitioned to ara waza easily is part of the strength of the system. The same for Judo. You can train with more intensity because you are using techniques that can be practiced more safely. However, you can change adjust the technique to ara waza if you are trained to do so. Remember that uke does not choose to do ukemi or not, it is tori that allows for uke to do ukemi. If tori does not allow uke to do ukemi, this would be severe technique. There is nothing in Aikido that does not also exist in another martial art system. All the ara waza is in other systems too. What makes Aikido different is that O'Sensei founded it and passed it to others, etc. There are certain intentions behind why someone might utilize the principles of Aiki as superior to principles of unilateral force, etc. Some of these intentions was to have the ability to subjugate an enemy but control the amount of damage done to them. If necessary, ara waza could be used. In many systems, only ara waza is taught and so you don't have much choice but to try to hurt an enemy even if it is someone you don't want to hurt. If you don't want to hurt someone, then you can have an internal conflict... causing you to hesitate in combat and it weakens your fighting spirit... However, if you had the option to control the situation without permanent damage to someone you did not want to hurt, that could allow you to act freely under fire. Avoidance of internal conflict should be something addressed in Aikido. How can mind, body, spirit act as one in combat in all situations whether life or death, or friendly match.
My point was that if someone's coming at you with intent of causing bodily harm: A. Sometimes the environment will dictate the amount of damage caused no matter your intent You don't have to lean and slam them like Gozo Shioda to cause damage if you're pavement B. If they are coming at you with real intent to do damage you don't really have the option of playing nice and doing the whole "gentle" thing. There's control and choice of technique but if you throw them or use certain locks they're going to be damaged because you're going to have to apply them full force. This isn't ara waza but many of the basic techniques in aikido.
Both. There is nothing within Aikido etiquette that forbids me from acting first if I feel it is warranted. That I personally feel is the whole point of cutting through an attackers intention.
What you say I agree with, but it is not addressing internal conflict. In Aikido, you are gentle whether you maim someone or if you just control them without damage. There is no difference. That is why there is no internal conflict. If you actually have to change gears between hurting (power) and gentle (softness) then this is where internal conflicts can come about. In Kajukenbo, for example, it is much like caveman martial arts. We first train to hit as hard as we can and learn where to hit to really hurt the enemy. When we throw, we have the idea that we throw someone into things, not to the ground. So throw a person into a cement column or the edge of a table, etc. So we are learning primitive combat in a matter of ways. This progresses into more sophisticated and practical martial arts such as arrest techniques for law enforcements or sport techniques for MMA. The point is that the foundation is in hard contact and hitting hard. Aikido is a progression from caveman martial arts. That is one that rather than full contact training anything goes, we limit the techniques to specific sets of techniques that we can train with intensity and in a more safe manner. But all martial arts have roots in the primitive. So with something like Aikido, you should develop these options between primitive and intellectual. So take a palm strike through the face of the enemy in Aikido. The strike through full force is the primitive. If, however, at the point of contact I slow it down and plant my hand like a wet fish in the face of the enemy, with small spirals, I can take the balance of the enemy without slamming them into the ground. I now have options, rake the eyes and strike them in the brain stem from behind for a knock out... or take their balance into iriminage or take them back into a rear naked choke. I have created options without exposing myself any more to counter attack due to stunning and unbalancing on contact. If instead the enemy attempts to parry or block, now this may give to me another technique such as an armlock or simply a sweep and disengage... etc.
I really feel the actual techniques of aikido are secondary to the point the art is trying to make. Some aikido people groan when I say this: but I feel aikido is all about control. Some feel the term 'control' is anathema to the point of aikido being the art of love, but I don't feel that way. The ability to control yourself and your opponent, to me, is the whole point. You learn to control your opponent, but to do that you better know how to control yourself. My teacher would call it 'benevolent control.' The way I understand it, as it pertains to Ueshiba's constant profession of being 'one with the universe,' is that one must really be in tune with what's going on around them, and within them, to have execute this control. So, to me, my favorite aikido to watch is when the sh'te is always adjusting distances and keeping uke off guard and out of rhythm; vice a one...two...three rhythm where uke attacks, nage evades, counters, and throws or pins. I like watching solid aikido like that, but my favorite is when sh'te does not allow uke to ever get to that point. So to get to the point, I feel like atemi isn't really all that distinguishable from the core waza. The core waza are critical in training students how the human body reacts to different positions...and how you can put them in those positions...but I feel that is equivalent to kata in karate, as you train it as a learning tool...not the end-all point. Hell, Gozo Shioda said grabbing in aikido is a completely worthless form of attack and he never meant it to be considered as a primary attack. This is one of the reasons Yoshinkan grabs are static...its simply teaching techniques to beginners by prepositioning uke to already be attached to nage/sh'te...then they move on to dynamic strikes. So I guess, to me, atemi is more about the point of its application. Atemi, when done to produce a certain reaction, seems to me to be a type of control...similar to ikkyo or sokumen iriminage, or whatever waza. There are some paired sets we practice that sometimes start with an evasion and atemi...without any pinning (pining?) or throwing followup. From my point of view, atemi is just another way to execute aikido...same as all the other kensetsu waza and nage waza.
From the point of view Aikido is all about dominating the situation rather than just a singular opponent. It's not enough to have one guy in an arm lock. Everybody else also has to get the message. But yes Aikido is all about control. This "art of peace" stuff is nonsense in my mind and I'm not entirely sure where it came from. Even in Ki Aikido Koichi Tohei encourage vigorous practice in young men. In all my time of looking I have yet to find a quote from Koichi Tohei that says "your Aikido must be limp and ineffectual and train should consist of pontifications on the nature of ki". I suspect the "art of peace" stuff comes from poor translation which has since become dogma. As such we should all ignore such received wisdom and focus on training. Atemi is part of core technique.
I believe that concept came from several things. First, pre-WWII students often recognize a vast difference in the execution, and mindset, of what Ueshiba was doing. He very pointedly wanted to stay away from violent conceptualization and mindsets of aikido. This is something we've always grown up hearing but I get the feeling, from rereading some translations of earlier students, that this difference in time is maybe much more significant than I originally believed. Translation of aikido is always an interesting thing; ai (fit together), ki (energy), do (life path). Putting that all together suggests harmony (wa), but I feel there is a reason why the term 'wa' was not used. I like the term 'art of harmony' being used in that it identifies aikido as a study that harmonizes a chaotic situation...whether thats within yourself or between yourself and others. In my training this goes beyond technical achievement as my teachers have a high focus on personal growth...not just lip service to it, but actual execution...particularly for those attending advanced classes. To me, peace and harmony are pretty similar terms...almost interchangeable. To address the art of 'love' that Ueshiba often talked about maybe requires a little more insightfulness...insight that I was never privy too. Regardless of that, I'll throw out a thought on it. Love often comes from understanding...some say that love comes when you truly understand someone. The only way I can equate that to a martial concept is the idea that, to defeat an opponent, you must truly understand him. There is a science fiction book, that is required reading in the US Marine Corps, called Ender's Game....this idea is the focus of that book. A simpler explanation I've been told is simple intention combined with training. The intent is not to belligerently go around wailing on people, but to apply their art for a benevolent purpose. Developing harmony within oneself leads to self-understanding (being a whole person capable of love and understanding others) and self-control (as in being able transition through smooth stances, good zanshin...good control) which is, in my opinion, a requirement before attempting to control others (whether physically, mentally, emotionally). And, hopefully, when you've achieved such a level your aikido teaching will have influenced you to do such things for good purposes (I think Ueshiba's idea was that if you are truly in harmony with yourself and others you loose all desire to create chaos and pain in the world...something I feel he learned during WWII). But, to me, if a quick one-knuckle punch to the ribcage or face helps create this peace in the universe...I am all about it! (bam! full circle!)
