Martial art of aikido

My point was simply that a punch or strike to the jaw can be very effective and not causing excessive injury.

"excessive" of course is all relative to circumstance

Regards

 

The point about the jaw line, chin, and throat areas is that they are vital areas. This means that one does not necessarily have to strike very hard to have an affect on the target if the strike is done in the right way.

Atemi can be a mix of harder and softer strikes done in a single and coordinated flow, not always full power. The chin for instance, can be a hard to hit target, a harder strike can open up the path to the chin for a softer follow-through strike that has a much better chance of getting the target.

 

I have not found sword principles to be directly related to empty hand. I do admit that my experience with sword principles is limited and if I also admit that if the difference in maai is discounted, the principles of swordmanship and empty hand are very similar.

I personally believe that to understand even one principle will help to understand other principles. There are tens of thousands of principles, so I'm not wanting to limit anyone to just a few of them.

In this regard, I feel that if someone really understands some of the sword principles, they will be very much able to use that knowledge and experience and apply it to empty hand and discover principles for empty hand.

It works the other way too. A good understanding of empty hand principles can help to understand sword principles.

Obviously, I have found some cross-over principles that I believe apply to empty hand and swordsmanship. For instance, one should always assume that someone may have a weapon even if they do not present it openly. So even if I am empty handed or if I have a sword, it is the same that I may be attacked with a lethal weapon. I must be in the right frame of mind and awareness to deal with it as well as work the physical skills that I may need to use.

Now where things differ is that a sword or any weapon can be a great equalizer, whereas empty hand can be a lot less of an equal playing field. With a sword, I might cut through the central nervous system downing the foe instantly. Or I might cut a vital area taking four to seven seconds for the foe to pass out. Or I might cut in a lethal way that the foe will need to seek immediate medical attention of they will likely perish. I might cut off a hand or something else equally as useful, ending the fight in a manner.

With empty hand, I may strike someone and not only does it not down or hurt them but I might end up hurting myself instead. I may not have the means to actually hurt the enemy, I may need to wear them down and soften them up before I can do anything of significance to them.

With a weapon, an advantageous position might only be needed for an instant to do your damage and end the fight. This is also true of empty hand, however, in addition, I feel that empty hand can be more about getting an advantageous position and learning how to keep the advantage, and then it is important to know how to finish the opponent from that advantaged position.

I have learned this personally because I am not a big person. To gain an advantageous position and keep it on someone bigger than me was very difficult to learn, I am still learning. However, this is a mindset like a dog on a bone, find the vulnerability of the enemy and exploit it until the enemy is finished, do not let them gain the advantage on you once you take the advantage from them.

I don't know how many times I've seen a smaller person get the back or top position on bigger stronger person, only not be able to finish off the person and end up at the disadvantage and losing the battle. This would not be so with a knife or sword, it would have been over already, but not so empty handed.

In Aikido, in empty hand, one learns through atemi and breaking the balance of the enemy to keep the advantage. If the atemi are ineffective or the enemy gains balance back, that is a hole in the technique and the tables can be turned. With the sword, it could have been much quicker to dispatch the enemy.

 

I'm not altogether sure I agree with what you're saying although, I would agree that someone studying 'aikido' [generalised] would have some advantages in learning a 'sword art' [another generalisation] I'm not convinced however, that principles would be what provides that advantage.

I'm not suggesting that aikido cannot be studied to a reasonably high level without either the bokuto or jo however; I have trained with groups of students (some yudansha) who have hardly ever practiced with either; whilst they can execute waza quite competently it is quite clear their movement lacks the lustre and crispness which comes from a very good understanding of weapons use. From an ideal point of view I'd very much like to take a student with no martial experience, and give them a solid year of nothing but bukiwaza then, introduce them to taiso. I'm suggesting that this person's body movement would be far more proficient than a student of equal experience in just taiso alone. Indeed I see this in my own dojo with students of about the same time scales and experience, those who spend an additional three hours per week undertaking sword drawing exercises through irimi, tenkan, tenshin and kaiten movements have a noticeable quality about them in posture, timing and form.

Regards

 

That's not exactly what I meant Dave. I meant that understanding one principle leads to the understanding of more principles. It does not matter as much if the principles apply to empty hand or sword or firearm or zero-G combat.

For example, until I understood how to grab an elbow to control uke's shoulder, I did not understand the importance of controlling both the elbow and the shoulder. Sure I was told it was important, but until I could actually do it, I did not truly understand it.

Now that I got it to work, I can get it to work whether it is with weapon or no weapon, verse weapon or empty handed. The principle is the same.

However with a knife, I may only need to control long enough to reverse the weapon into the enemy, without a weapon, I may need to take the application further into sankyo or yonkyo or nikyu or ikkyo.

Knowing how to apply the principle in application with a knife helped me to apply a similar application empty handed.

It all came down to getting it in my head that I needed to control the elbow and the shoulder with the technique AND actually doing it successfully, without that "principle" (the proper control of the delivery system) the techniques would fail.

After I learned control of elbow and shoulder, lots of similar principles started to make more sense, such as how to control a wrist by locking the hand... how to control a head by locking the shoulder or the leg, etc. etc.

 

I wouldn't disagree with that at all mate, I think that's a fairly universal truism but; we were(are) discussing specifically sword principles and those which exist in aikido, and nihonto is a particularly difficult weapon to use correctly. Technique is just a set of mechanical actions, the principles however, are by far the hardest to consistently employ.

Aikido is very heavily influenced by the sword; movements, positioning, posture, (some) terminology; strategy, timing, focus, pressure, control.

In waza we have sword retention and disarming, techniques which are specifically sword orientated that also very nicely fit taiso.

Then we have training methods which are likewise weapons orientated/influenced (mostly katatedori, ryotedori, ushiro et al)

"Aikido" specific [stylised] attacks such as shomen uchi, yokomen uchi both being derivatives of sword cuts - choku giri and kessa giri/gyaku kessa giri

All of these facets of the art can be taught without specific knowledge of sword use however; if a student is never actually taught why particular movements, positions, etc are used and where those came from, can the student really claim to know the principles of empty handed waza? Because although the two aren't different, they aren't very aparent.

I suppose in some respects I can actually see your point (lol) I think I may be approaching this from a perspective of theoretical knowledge than applied principle, that and its 0415 and I'm starting to get 'nodding dog syndrome' (Night shift workers will instantly know what that is (lol)

Regards as always

 

Yeah get some sleep Dave... lol.

I guess where I'm coming from is that until you can understand and do something hands on, the principles behind those movements are just theory.

So I would say that someone doesn't truly understand a principle until they get it to work hands on.

I like going back to one of my favorite examples... I went through a few dozen knife counters against a trained FMA knife practicianer that happened to be around twice my size. Now I would say that these were a few dozen "text book" knife counters and they pretty much all failed to meet the objectives.

I only got three of them to work in this training exercise. To use only Aikido techniques... One of them was sort of iriminage (check the weapon, straight in clothesline under the chin and through the neck), one of them was sort of Ikkyo (grab underneath the elbow... drop down, apply Ikkyo mainly using my shoulder), and one was sort of Sankyo (bend the hand back while pulling their elbow into me).

I went back to what made those three work. I did not really know, but I worked on those three until I could get them to work almost all the time in training against a bigger and resisting opponent. A some point things started to make sense, like a light going off in my head.

I started to apply the principles of what made those three work for me to the other dozens of text book knife counters. I found more in common the more I looked. Now I have gotten more of the techniques to work because I built off what I learned from the three that did work to start with.

I think everyone could do something like this and find the one or two techniques they have that work well against someone much bigger than them and figure out what the principles are behind them, what makes them work. Then apply that knowledge to other things and go on from there.

 

Great stuff guys the thread is back where it belongs discussing martial arts principles.I was about to reply to points in your discussion when I decided HELL it does not need my input so I shall simply print off your points and study them. My computer has gone
SAIKI on me so I am using the gas operated one in the local library. Back soon with a report from the IKET 2006

Koyo

 

Thanks to aikiMac the thread is indeed on track. Apologies to Koyo for interrupting with a little point of honour:

I must protest that Aikiwolfie has deleted my posting which berates him for his shouting at us in red ink, then claiming he only ever does so when rules are broken, then claiming that all it needs is for someone to ask for a Mod to give a viewpoint. I don't need views to be screamed at me, thanks.
If postings which disagree with a Mod are then removed by him in a fit of pique, I call that abuse of power - and yes, I have used the red triangle to report it.

(Please read this quickly before it is also expunged by the thought police!)

 

Absolutely right Rebel Wado. Clear and concise and exactly what every person who is interested in any martial arts should do.
I have always held to the opinion that there are no martial arts per se, there are only martial principles. The only difference is how a system applies those principles.
You can take everything back to two first principles. Newtonian physics and Biology of the human body. As a physicist by training I always have newtons three laws not too deep down in my consciousness.

1. Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it.
The founding princple of entering.

2. The relationship between an object's mass m, its acceleration a, and the applied force F is F = ma. Acceleration and force are vectors (as indicated by their symbols being displayed in slant bold font); in this law the direction of the force vector is the same as the direction of the acceleration vector.
OR as I like to call it why BIG guys hit hard.

3. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
The very reason why we attack kuzushis, our strong to their weak.

If yoy think about all of the techniques in Aikido you are just applying these three laws.

I am trying to work on the biology bit and atemi in my personal development at the moment. Although trying to get my body the move naturally in to kuzushi positions is also a work in progress.

The Bear

 

In spite of all the technical explanations, I'm forced to agree with Dave ()that 'intention' is all that is required to make an act or art 'martial'.

Each style and each Sensei will place different emphasis on the martial aspect of Aikido, dpending on their own personal background, their Aikido lineage, who they are teaching and why.

For example, my Sensei would train beginners in a gentle and hopefully safe manner. However, at Dan grade level it was expected (in his words) that the uke would bring tori 'close to death' in something like tanto jiyuwaza - in other words committed attacks which you could work with technically and must deal with psychologically, too. I'd say that was 'quasi-martial' in that we did not have deadly intent per se. If he was training military personnel, incuding some applicable Aikido techniques, it would be for utterly 'martial' application which one day may well be used to defend and possibly maim or kill.

Whether the art is useless or useful, traditional or just cobbled together, the art is not the issue, only what we mean to do when we perform the techniques or make use of the weapons.

This chimes, incidentally, with traditional Buddhist views on 'merit' where it is not our actions but our intentions which make us worthy individuals.

Off the point, but topical, It would be most interesting if our legal system worked in the same way and all crimes regarding 'offensive' weapons, assaults etc were judged principally on our intention. the police here seem to regard every damn thing as 'martial' unless you can prove otherwise!

 

Firstly... THIS.....

....Is friggin awesome Thanks for posting it Bear.

Secondly.....

Quick get the diary out and make a note.. Kiaiki agreed with me on something !!

Regards

 

I believe that actions speak louder than intentions. Although intentions are a qualifier in determining if the actions were willful and reasonable.

We are not mind readers, but sometimes intentions are made clear through someone's confession. If there is no confession to willfully commiting a crime, it could still be a crime because of negligence.

If, for instance, a group of people were to die as a result of another putting poison in their food, if this was accidental (no intention of wrongful doing) it could still be man slaughter because the person could have neglected to take the proper precautions or neglected to take into account the likely consequences of their actions. Just because someone does not intend to harm, it could still be just as bad if they are neglectful and do not take the proper responsibility for the likely outcome of their own actions. Good intentions or not.

On the other hand, willfully poisoning others would be murder, not man slaughter.

Another example, I could have the best intentions and loan my car to someone obviously too drunk to drive just because I want to be friendly. When in reality, my neglect of responsibility has just put a weapon (the car) in the hands of a drunk driver. Am I a good person for doing this? No, I'm a clueless person.

In this world there are people that can be labelled as enablers. Enablers are people that seem very nice and helpful, but what they really do is enable people to get away with their own bad habits. For instance, say my wife wanted to skip work and go to the beach, if her work called and I lied for her saying she was sick in bed, I would be enabling her instead of allowing her to deal with the consequences of her own actions.

Enablers can have the best intentions, but they are the types of people that would lie for someone that has a drug or alchol addiction, allowing that person to get away with it... eventually maybe something like them driving drunk and killing someone before they can't hide the addiction any longer.

As it turns out, enablers are really selfish. They appear to have good intentions but truly what motivates them to do these things is that they only want to be liked by others. They aren't doing these things because they honestly know and believe it is the right thing to do.

Martial arts is much the same way... it is very selfish. One has to accept that to be a martial artist, you truly have to be selfish. You care more about your well being than the well being of others... to practice martial arts and not believe this to be true, is negligence or ignorance, IMHO.

Martial artists are selfish people, but we should not be enablers. What separates a martial artist from an enabler is that we don't do things just so people will like us, we do things because we honestly believe it is the right (necessary) thing to do and we allow ourselves and others to take responsibility for their own actions.

In the end, martial arts is about taking responsibility. How else can we justify the practice of deadly force? Truly, do we pretend it is not possible that death can occur as a result, we can't leave such things to chance, we must perfect technique until we know nearly beyond a doubt what is likely to happen as a result of such actions and take responsibility for that. Therefore when we must use it, we only use it as necessary... not to show off, not so others will like us... but truly because we must.

 

Nice post Polar Bear.

I have to admit that my talk of principles is fairly vague. The reason is that I don't feel qualified to teach principles. I do believe, however, that someone can be lead in a direction in which they can discover principles for themselves.

I feel, except for theoritical conversation, principles are not useful unless one can understand and use them hands on. For dicussion fine, but otherwise they are not to be of great importance in day to day activities.

Now I'm not saying that principles are not important, because they are important, they are the underlying truth behind why something works or doesn't work.

In essence what I confine myself to teach is the development of tools (techniques and hands on application) and strategies. Rather than dwell on a principle, I will give a strategy to use as a guideline.

Hopefully on the road to practical application, the principles behind that application will become more clear and understood. I do not teach principles, but I hope through practice I can guide someone to discover principles for themselves.

I hope I'm making sense.

 

I didn't say that. I was saying that martial arts is about taking responsibility for one's own actions.

I said that martial artists are selfish people. If it comes down to it, it is about ensuring the survival of yourself and your teammates/family over the lives of the enemy.

It isn't about inner peace or enlightenment. It is about survival, one's own survival and the survival of your family and teammates. Notice I did not claim it was about killing the enemy, only about surviving.

Living on the edge of life and death can change a man/woman. Makes one see the value in inner peace and enlightenment. The value of peace and compassion. The value of life and in living. The value of respect and the care of the welfare of others. The value of personal development and the willingness to learn and change.

At first a martial artist develops those things necessary for survival. For instance, a martial artist might train in the rain, under harsh conditions to toughen the mind and body.

However, a wise man gets out of the rain. The martial artist can become the wise man, but a wise man is a selfish person. Why get out of the rain except to protect oneself from discomfort and illness? Edit: A wise man accepts that rain is part of nature and goes with the flow.

A martial artist might stand in horse stance for hours, a wise man would sit down in a chair. The wise man is selfish but smart.

A person that jumps ahead to a wise man will not want to stand in the rain, will not want to stand in horse stance for hours. However, they would be wise in their decisions.

Is not martial arts leading to the conclusions that you want to do things the way of the wise man? In other words, be smart, be selfish.

Maybe I'm stretching things a bit here on the logic, but basically, martial artists must learn to be selfish or they will not develop wisdom. Martial artists need to realize that they must do what they do to protect themselves and those close to them, whatever that may be.

A martial artist must come to accept that in the end, their path is that of a selfish person (the wise man). In accepting this, one can be at peace with it and truly act in a selfless manner by giving to others. Such acts are truly noble.

The world is just a reflection of what is inside a person.

 

Well I guess I will not make sense then... :Alien:

Maybe I can clarify that just because I don't consider myself qualified to teach principles does not mean I don't understand some of them.

There are literally tens of thousands of principles.

I cannot teach any of these principles, but I can show someone the steps I took to understand some of these principles so that they can learn them for themselves.

What I do is I teach techniques (tools) and I teach strategies, the students are responsible for learning the principles. I cannot teach principles as no one ever taught them to me, I had to learn them for myself.

I think the confusion is that by teaching I don't mean explaining and defining a principle, that I can do. What I mean by teaching is that I have a lesson plan and at the end of the course someone is graded on their understanding of that principle. I cannot grade someone on their understanding of a principle because there are tens of thousands of principles. I can only grade someone on how well they apply principles through good technique.

Edit: I cannot grade someone on a single principle but only in how well they perform their application because even single actions are complex and involve many factor and principles.