Aikido is not technique; not fighting

Thanks for your comment. Would you have anything to add to the topic of this thread, or perhaps to some of the things that Osensei may have indicated such as:

"In aikido there are no forms and no patterns. Natural movements are the movements of aikido. Its depth is profound and it is inexhaustible."

I realize that these are advanced concepts, especially when we start out learning aikido, everything has forms and patterns to it, but I opened this thread to shed light on some of these concepts that others may be interested in discussing.

 

With other members perhaps, you on the other hand have proved you're incapable of holding a logical discussion with people who know their subject.

 

The forms and patterns we learn in modern Aikido are the result of the codification by O Sensei's students.

 

Dave and Wolfie are on fire today....

*sits back & grabs the popcorn*

 

Indeed. It's interesting to look at how those students who became quite prominent teachers have placed their own stamp upon what was taught to them, again this has been influenced by a number of [but not exhaustive] reasons:

1, The time frame they began study with Ueshiba
2, What their own particular MA backgrounds were
3, What their own general philosophical outlook might have been

As a result of their own direction in aikido, it's easier to understand how their students in turn developed and so forth.

When we look at the established "styles of aikido" we have:

Ueshiba-ha. More commonly known as Aikikai
Tomiki-ha. More commonly known as Shodokan
Shioda-ha. More commonly known as Yoshinkan
Tohei-ha. More commonly known as Shin Shin Toitsu or Ki Aikido
Saito-ha. More commonly known as Iwama-Ryu

Whilst there have of course been many more notable teachers, three of the above Tomiki/Shioda/Tohei were the uchideshi who took their aikido and developed it themselves. The issue between aikikai and iwama aikido being differing in style isn't a discussion I'd like to get into. That said it's fairly obvious that given Ueshiba Kisshomeru taught at the Aikikai and his father mainly in Iwama, there would be differences in methodology and that's as much as I wish to say on that topic.

It's a fact that there's far more Aikido studied outside of Japan than where it was first invented, unfortunately there's also a lot of that aikido which hasn't had direct affiliation with a Japanese influence such as a recognised Hombu or affiliate, as such, allows situations where quality control is left to the individual rather than to a larger credible authority.

 

i found aikido very, very interesting in that regard. for me, reading about aikido and reading o sensei's sayings, i was always amazed at the possibilities of aikido. but then, you've got this codification of techniques, which based on my limited knowledge, seemed like the last thing that m. ueshiba was going for. i can understand why codification needs to happen, especially when you're k. ueshiba and you're looking to expand the art.

i got to see both sides of this. i studied at what seemed to me a very traditional school, usaf dojo called midwest aikido center. learned a lot there, especially with the bokken and jo and of course the standard canon of empty-hand techniques. i also studied for some time at the chicago aikikai, an asu school, but the instructor there was very much more, i think i would say, experimental. more emphasis on atemi, moving off the line of attack, more soft that the mac, seemingly. my wife and i regularly go to nyc, so i got to study at the ny aikikai a few times. that was also great, but seemed more codified and "traditional".

i only did aikido for a year, after 7 of hapkido. it has stuck with me though. i find the principles still valid in bjj.

 

I agree with most of what you're saying Dave. I just don't have the time of day for all the politics that comes with large organisations. The larger one's organisation becomes the more important it is to be seen to be respected. And this I feel is a poison best avoided.

 

Codification happened because of the method by which Ueshiba generally taught, which wasn't, by the accounts of his students, particularly easy to follow.

 

Yep, let's leave the political crap at the door mate.

 

Izumizu,

IMHO, there are no advanced concepts, there are principles.

I believe, Osensei, Morihei Ueshiba, founder of Aikido, started with one or a maybe few principles to start with. Take a look at the first principle:

Now take a look at the quote from Osensei that you posted:

Do you see that Osensei's quote you last posted is part of the interpretations of the first prinicple? This is not an advanced concept, it is there for all to see from day one of training. In fact, it isn't even exclusive to Aikido, it is something that applies to all martial arts.

I believe the point of this is that there is a duality in life and martial arts. This duality is demonstrated in Yin and Yang. As for technique and Aikido... there is a duality between freedom of expression (e.g. unlimited response) and building structure.

On the one hand we have natural movement (freedom of movement) and on the other hand we have movements that are very structured and exact (e.g. specific grips, technique, and exact angles), why is this? I would say it is because what starts are opposites must ACT as one (like how Yin and Yang act together).

The strict structure built through years of sincere and hard training become natural movement. At the same time, our natural movements allow us unlimited response.

So I would say that this thread would better have been titled, "Aikido is MORE than technique"

 

I also posted a quote previously in which o sensei says you must forget about techniqe. So yes aikido is more than technique, but it is not technique, in the same sense that kata is not the martial art.

 

Do you believe that aikido gives you the ability to effectively do violence should the need arise?

How many times in your 20 some years have you been required to fight and utilised aikido for that means?

What pressure testing do you undertake to check the principles you espouse too are actually working?

 

Maybe once, maybe more than once. Why? What is your definition of pressure, and pressure testing anyways?

 

Given how you entitled this thread, I'm interested to know what actual experience you have of real conflictive situations.

Between military service, I was a Prison Officer in Cat A (Max Security) facility, one of my responsibilities was as part of the Crisis Intervention Team so, I have a considerable amount of first hand experience of dealing with violence, sometimes on a daily basis (It's actually how I got involved in aikido)

My slight problem with associating a "martial" art with the practice of 'not fighting' is that it's an idealistic philosophy and, whilst there's nothing wrong in wanting to aspire to it, if you neglect to actually learn how to apply one's aikido in a "martial" way first, all you're ever really doing is aspiring to an ideology and nothing more.

Under that premiss it's very easy for an individual to become falsely secure in their abilities.

Pressure testing is a simple concept - it's been around for a lot of years, in terms of aikido however, because people wish to be "harmonised" and take the concept of conflict resolution without violence too literally, aikido very often is nothing more than a scripted routine between uke and tori.

Now, don't get me wrong, if that's what floats your hakama then far be it from me to question it however; that practice is devoid of any martial concepts and ability. If on the other hand, an instructor allows his students, indeed teaches the notion of pressure testing, what you develop is an understanding where technique will fall over in the presence of someone who will actively resist the application, when this is discovered, what was lacking can be worked on.

Never ever forget that although the conclusion of WWII (and the devastation of Japan) had a profound effect upon Ueshiba and his philosophies, he was, in his earlier years a scrapper, a man who took part in the invasion of another country (which nearly cost him his life) Someone who taught members of Japan's Imperial Armed Forces how to kill. This was a man who knew how to fight before any of his later ideologies and concepts took hold of what we see today in Aikido.

 

IMO pressure testing is crucial, without this you can never truly find out if what you are practicing is effective. Philosophy is part of Aikido, but should be learned through hard practice on the mat (through the pores) and then applied in your attitude off the mat. There is no place for philosophy in a fighting situation.
A big part of the problem Aikido has today is that many people want to start with some idealised philosophy and have no wish to put themselves through the hard training part which should shape this.
Ueshiba was a philosophical man but had many years of hard training to shape his outlook and philosophy. This is also true of many of the original Shihan.

Chris.

 

I don't think you can separate philosophy and fighting so simply.

It cannot be forgotten O Sensei began his spiritual training as a boy before he began training in martial arts.

It seems that he always saw Aikido as both a martial way and a way of expressing his religious beliefs.
In fact the authorities at one point considering him to be training an "army" for Deguchi (the so-called Omoto incident) and arrested him for it!

As for his pacifism - in a famous radio interview he is asked about it and appears not to understand the phrase.

 

Indeed, if you look at Ueshiba Morihei and his students from the pre-war years, you see very fluid, very nasty techniques being performed.

Even Ueshiba Morihei's techniques still have a residual flavour of Daito-ryu in them.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98yRuBkUBGQ&tracker=False"]Ueshiba Morihei 1935 Asahi News film reel[/ame]

Note that in tachi-waza Ikkyo osae, he almost uses the Daito-ryu pin, rather than what is used today. Also note the usage of shuto, which is also one of the finishing moves in Daito-ryu as well.

As a side note, one of my koryu teachers studied under Ueshiba Morihei and then subsequently under Ueshiba Kisshomaru. Under Ueshiba Morihei, apparently the training was harder. After his death, my teacher moved on to study koryu since aikikai aikido was starting to lose it's edge as a shinken bujutsu.

 

I agree, but there does seem to be a great number of people I've met in the time I've been training, whom are very skilled in aikido but have little experience of applying it in a hostile environment (and I pleased that's the case) but, equally we shouldn't attempt to separate the ability to fight with the philosophy of the discipline which, appears to me, to have a larger foot-hold in the equation.

By the way, I hope you and the UKA are well.

Dave

 

Fighting is fighting there is no place for philosophy.
Philosophy is how you live your life and training in Aikido will give you many positive principles that you can apply to daily life, but when a fight starts these must be put to one side and surviving should be the goal.
For example, Aikido has taught me, amongst other things to look for my weaknesses and confront them in an honest way, this philosophy has been learned on the mat but also applies in daily life.
Aikido at the end of the day is a martial art and if there is no practical application then something missing.

Chris.

 

I compiled some possible contributing factors from articles I found on the Internet that could help explain perceived changes.

Failing health: "Remember that Morihei traveled constantly all around Tokyo and then to the Kansai area each month. His eating and sleeping habits were irregular and this surely had a negative effect on his health. In fact, careful scrutiny of photos from this period will reveal that Morihei aged rapidly between the years of around 1935 to 1940. Just before the Second Omoto Incident, we see him in his physical prime sporting an elegant Kaiser mustache. Photos of him dating from 1938 and beyond reveal that he has grown completely white and aged noticebly. No doubt it was a combination of all of the factors alluded to above that contributed to his poor health condition." -- from http://www.aikidojournal.com/article.php?articleID=207

Politics: "Second Omoto Incident
By 1935, Japanese government authorities had become increasingly irritated with the widespread activities of the Omoto religion that had arisen like a phoenix from the ashes of the brutal suppression of 1921 known as the First Omoto Incident. The sect now had something approaching two million adherents and was rapidly gaining in influence. In addition to the sect’s many domestic activities that irked the government, Onisaburo was heavily involved in the affairs of Manchuria and was advocating an independent nation under Pu’yi, the “Last Emperor” of movie fame. Furthermore, Onisaburo was suspected of funneling large amounts of money to various right-wing causes including the activities of Mitsuru Toyama and Ryohei Uchida." -- from http://www.aikidojournal.com/article.php?articleID=193

O-Sensei concealed technique: "However clumsily, I succeeded in verbalizing to Sensei the dichotomy I perceived between his and O-Sensei’s aikido. I pointed out that O-Sensei’s techniques preserved on film looked very different from the way Saito Sensei taught his techniques. Sensei was really amused by my conclusion and probably at my cheekiness for directly expressing my thoughts, something I’m sure a Japanese student would never have done...Sensei told me that the reason for the difference was that O-Sensei was conscious of being filmed in public and would purposely not demonstrate techniques in the same way he would teach in Iwama. He added that O-Sensei was like the old-fashioned martial artist who would conceal his techniques from the general public." -- from http://www.aikidojournal.com/article?articleID=187

"O-Sensei also taught evening class occasionally or would come to watch the class. He sat in front of the kamiza with the eyes of an eagle, wordless and motionless, while Saito Sensei led the class. O-Sensei often emphasized the importance of katai-keiko, which can mean in Japanese, “stiff,” but it really means to be rigid, vigorous, with full force, without sparing any power, without play." -- from http://www.aikidojournal.com/article?articleID=187


I recommend reading the referenced articles. There is a lot of good information in them, IMHO.