In an ideal world I would say the technique should be so soft uke has no idea what's going on and ukemi should be instinctive.
Hi Philip, thanks for the clarification. Do you know Brian Morrison at all? He is my iaido and AJJ sensei who trained under George Oughton until a few years before his death.
Well put. I can see how that fits into Aiki technique. I don't believe it matters if it is Aiki-jujitsu or Aikido, the "feeling" of technique and its subtle nature would be the same even though different variations of techniques may be emphasized. I've re-evaluated what I was trying to demonstrate and instead of technique I think it better falls under strategy. Relaxation and tension aren't really opposites but are necessary components to explosive movements. Good technique utilizes both relaxation and tension together from set up and positioning, to redirection and application, to follow through. Further more, the connection between uke and tori and the environment is always there, it just varies how much emphasis is placed on each component to get the job done. Tori might use uke's energy more in some technique, or in another it might be energy primarily generated by tori, or from the environment such as the use of gravity and leverage from the ground, or all of the above in combination. In all cases, it helps not to telegraph what you are doing until uke has no choice but to comply, this is the "soft" or subtle aspects of technique. Given that it appears the strategies and principles are the same in Aikido and Aiki-Jujitsu, then given the SAME UKE and the SAME ATTACK the same amount of resistance, would the techniques employed by tori eventually start to look the SAME whether tori was Aiki-jujitsu or Aikido trained? I ask this because many of the techniques that I learned in Aikido I don't apply the same way as I first learned them, but I do find that my technique varies by the amount of energy/resistance uke provides. When working with beginners, they don't always give much energy to work with (not very committed attacks) plus they are very afraid to fall down (so they offer good resistance to take down), therefore I find that the basic techniques I trained in Aikido work very well to teach and demonstrate. On the other hand, when an attack comes in unpredictively and very aggressively, more subtle and explosive technique seems to come easier and work more effectively. Does it matter if it is Aikido or Aiki-Jujitsu or is what matters the most determined by the aggressiveness, resistance, and attacks presented by uke? Any thoughts?
Sounds to me like the technique was not done properly. If you're trying to do a hip throw, its all about getting lower than his center. Relaxation is important, but in this example you've given, proper technique is just as important if not more. If the uke is walking around you, you simply didn't get close enough and low enough. If uke is taller than you, its even easier to get below his center. A common mistake with hip throws is footwork and placement of your hips. Forcing this technique will work when done properly. Sounds like you also learned something...
Yeah, I had way too much space between me and uke. I needed to be tighter in for the technique. I believe that aikiwolfie got it right when he talked about how changing the tension can change the attack and allow uke to react to it. The transition in my technique was too abrupt and far from subtle. I over did it for demonstration purposes and the demo failed. Rather than abruptness, I needed more the execution of an explosion. Explosions build up and then release with great force from the center. Abrupt movements seem to lead to jerky movements without good connection to center. As such, how is it taught in Aiki-jujitsu opposed to how it is taught in Aikido to deal with a limp uke? An uke that attacks more like dead weight. Any suggestions from the AIKI point of view?
The problem training with an uke who is simply dead weight is not realistic. You need to tell the uke he needs to be more resistant to the technique. Generally, the uke needs to give you something, even if its full resistance. Or it will be up to you to create the motion you need. As far as being dead weight on a hip throw, he'll just get dropped harder. From an Aiki perspective, you have to get some sort of motion out of him. He needs to be off balanced in some respect. Motion does not mean tenkan. Motion from an Aiki perspective can be 1 inch. That can done a number of ways. Lets say the attack is a hook punch. Enter straight in, direct the hook punch down and to his side, there is the unbalancing. An atemi is always nice here as well, to get him even more off balance. Step in with your back foot and then pivot on it as it is now forward. As you pivot, you have to drop lower than his center. Also watch how your back is aligned. If your posture is poor, than you have no chance of pulling the tech off. More importantly, you can seriously hurt yourself. As you pivot grab something, his gi, arm, hair, belt,something. Don't kid yourself, to do a hip throw without grabbing something is very unlikely. Its possible, but unlikely. As you pivot, sink and enter, scoop him up on your hip. There has to be no gap between you and him. The slightest gap turns into a reversal. Now he is loaded on your hip, you can do many things here. For dead weight, I especially love stepping back and under him as he gets dropped. So visualize it as being dropped instead of thrown. Good stuff...!!! You also have to see how judo people do hip throws. Its a fast swift movement. I often teach it this way; Make the entry and scoop one swift motion, then just keep them on your back. Throwing is easy, getting to that point takes time and practice.
Wouldn't relaxation be part of proper technique? And if the techniques is executed properly why would it need to be forced? I was thinking about my answer again. And I think tension is the wrong word. "Slack" is the word I normally use when explaining this sort of thing. To move uke correctly we must either take the slack in the mind, the slack in the body or in the ideal world both. So far as limp ukes are concerned they are no threat. So why do anthing. The only time I would entertain a limp uke is when working with a lower grade such as a beginner. It's also better to go back to basic technique. More advanced or complicated techniques generally require an attack which is reasonabley co-ordinated and dynamic. If that dynamic energy isn't there then you must introduce it with atemi for example. In a teaching scenario I would point out to uke a limp attack is usless. I would then take a step back to a similar but more basic variation of the technique to give uke some idea of what will happen to them later on. This largely eliminates the fear of the unkown and after a few throws uke should have gained enough confidence so that I can then attempt the more difficult version of the technique.
I like it! I'm not too concerned with the technique not working, just shows I'm human. The uke was a beginner and did not know at all what to expect. I was trying to demonstrate a concept, not a technique. I just decided to do a hip throw out of the blue instead of using a technique that fit the situation better. With the lack of energy and dead weight I got from uke, I probably could have grabbed a few fingers and downed him quickly or forced the throw with a fireman's carry. Or as aiki-jo points out, I could have done the technique better. I see why it is easier to demonstrate a technique because it is more visible to the eye, whereas a concept is harder to see with the eyes. I think concepts can be easier to "see" from hands on experience. As for a limp (passive yet resisting using movement) uke, I do agree that isn't realistic energy for an aggressive attacker. However, it doesn't mean that one should not consider and train against someone that might deal with a situation in that way. Someone could fake being passive until you drop your guard, for instance. Another case would be for law enforcement (who I notice use a lot of verbal commands to lead a passive assailant) because an alleged criminal may refuse to move or be arrested without "challenging" the officer in an obviously threatening manner -- such as becoming limp (passive) yet grabbing on to things or pushing the officer's hands and arms away. Some of the finger and small joint locks might work well against a limp uke, IME. Striking would work, but may not be appropriate for the situation.
Concepts are undoubtedly far harder the demonstraight than specific techniques. Take the idea of "soft technique" for example. Because the word "soft" is there most people automaticaly assume "soft" equals "weak". Which simpley isn't the case. When a uke is allowed to feel soft techniques performed by someone who knows what they are doing, their preconceptions are abruptly changed. The softness that can be acheived with techniques that do work is something I think people have to feel for themselves because it will always look fake from the sidelines. It's also something that is frustraightingly difficult to put into words. You simpley have to feel it to know it.
It could be, but relaxation is not a pre-requisite to proper technique. Properly applied technique can very easily be forced. Look at it from a mma point of view. When a 250lb person is fighting a 250lb person, there isn't much relaxation there. Do you see what I'm saying? Relaxation is important, but sometimes force is even more important. From an aiki perspective, relaxation is paramount to the technique. But performing certain techniques, force can be substituted in its place. Can you elaborate on what you're saying here? Limp or not, in the street you should never take the chance of being a threat or not. Its easy to get away with that in the dojo, but students need to be taught that being limp is only going to hurt themselves. Good point. You have to tell and show the uke what he is doing wrong.
I would dissagree. If you force an Aiki technique then it's no longer an Aiki technique. The whole point of the Aiki approach is not to use force. If you force something you are makeing a collision rather than blending. Well what I mean by this is the word "tension" may give the wrong impression. It may appear that we're talking about using strenth or forcing a technique. "Slack" on the other hand is a term that clearly implies that we need only control uke by restricting ukes freedom of movement through proper application of technique. When ukes movements are restricted in this way both uke and nage move as one. With nage in control. This would be taking the slack in the body. Takeing the slack in the mind is slightly different. It's like a magicians slight of hand movements when performing a card trick. It's a movement that confuses uke just long enough to disturb their posture, allowing a technique to be applied.
This is a topic open to some interpretation. I agree that a properly executed Aiki technique should have the feel of exerting no force (the uke's energy does most of the visible work). However, I don't believe that force is the best term to describe this considering that AI is a principle, but not the only principle involved in the doing of practical application. I do believe there can be great energy involved, which equates to force. This energy is provided mainly by uke and the effects of gravity and other factors, in addition to the contributions and redirections of tori. Therefore, I feel that uke may need to provide more force at times and less at other times to create the desired outcome. The term I would use for this is EFFORT. I believe that any technique (not just techniques thought to be aiki) can use the principle of AI if it can be used with little effort. For instance, a hit throw can be applied by picking up uke and then forcing them to the ground. On the other hand, if the application is performed so that uke it projected over the hip and to the ground mostly using gravity, unbalancing, and technique, then the effort exerted by tori is less. One can argue that the latter is just better technique, but I have felt and seen very large and strong persons lift opponents off the ground with seemingly little effort, using their mass, legs, and leverage to do so... however, they also used their strength so I could not really say they did not use effort, because they did. I would not say they used bad technique because it worked perfectly, even though the use of AI was minimal in the technique. The more of the principle of AI that can be applied to technique, then the less effort is needed by tori to get the desired results. I can even apply AI to punching to theorize a bit, for example, if I unbalance the mind and body of uke to first lean away from me and then lean back into my punch then it takes less effort for my punch to knock out uke. If uke is just leaning away, then I must use more effort just to hit them. Conversely, if they just lean in quickly without first leaning away then my punch can be jammed. AI in this manner is similar in all techniques. First get uke to take their mind off of the technique by getting them to react to being unbalanced and surprised, then get them to "lean into" the technique by applying energy in the direction for the technique to be most effective (or from tori's point of view, choose the technique that is appropriate for the direction and energy provided by uke).
Well my understanding of using force to make a technique work is to use physical strength. If your technique is reduced to who is physically stronger then I don't beleive it is Aiki technique. Applying a technique properly, but with more power isn't the same as resorting to brute strength. For example a 5th dan should be able to apply more powerful techniques than a 3rd dan. However the 5th dans technique should feel just as soft or should blend just as easily. This is an increase in power developed through greater experience and understanding and not through bigger muscles.
I studied Aikido for some years however most of my training has been in Jujitsu and Karate, however with Aikido there was one element that I found very useful. Most martial arts teach you to block a punch kick etc, however first the blow is delivered, and then the block is made. With Aikido I found that people where moving before the blow came near them, this in my view is very effective. I started to incorporate this into my Jujitsu and found that the throws etc where becoming more effective, I was moving with the person and not waiting for a delivery
I have three karate-ka training with me at the moment, two are middle senior dan grades, they have all said that having spent time working on tai sabaki, they feel more relaxed and able to move 'around' their opponents in kumite. Welcome to MAP Anthony !! Regards
Three years ago I had the pleasure of being one of the instructors at a mixed martial arts course in Essex that had Tatsuo Suzuki (Wado-Ryu) heading the teaching staff. I know that Wado Ryu is influenced by Jujutsu one of the major things that our group noticed was the use of tai-sabaki movement and the use of techniques very close to Tomiki Aikido. In our system of Aikido we practice tanto taisabaki for Shia without applying technique our student who practice karate find this benificial to their training for kumite. For those who also practise judo the movements against the weapons in the Kime no kata is a form of taisabaki used in aikido.
what my instructors tell me (I take aiki-jutsu by the way), is that aikido is based on self-harmony and aikijutsu is based on self-preservation. Aikijutsu focuses on ending fights as soon as possible through breaks and locks. Aikido uses the same techniques, but generally they are not used to break limbs/various body parts, they are generally used to simply restrain a person. Thats what ive been told
I think that's a good analogy to put to someone who asks of the 'basic' differences between the two arts. Obviously you can go deeper. I've not visited this thread for a while but after skimming the last page or so, i think i've about caught up. I'm of the mind that all the philosophising regarding the specific technique in question can't always be explained in such a manner. IMHO and in my experience, (be it good or bad, right or wrong, extensive or limited) it steers towards and pertains far more to aikido. Aikidoda may absorb uke from his technique then project him in a desired direction. AJJ'ka would usually drop him at his feet then finish him off so he couldn't get away. The blending and disrupting of ki is where aikido tends to 'refine' AJJ asaic. Tai sabaki, whilst vitally important in most arts, seems to be more subtle in AJJ, with irimi being the preferred method of movement. AJJ is often viewed almost as a barbarian art in the eyes of a lot of 'harmonious arts' practitioners (more akin to aikido). Maybe they just don't know any better, but i've heard aikidoka at various seminars mumble about the 'lack of compassion', or the 'no harmony' etc etc. I know, i know, they tend to forget where aikido came from. I suppose my point is in AJJ regardless of whether your uke comes at you with a committed attack, your response should be committed, and final. And there isn't anywhere near the amount of absorbing of a technique as there is in aikido. A quick and often nasty atemi (be it hand or foot) is always required (in our style anyway) to effect uke before you apply a throw, lock etc. Now, i know this sounds familiar to aikido, but having studied both, i can honestly say, the mindset has to be far different. The emphasis shifted away from absorb, deviate, project, do not harm (aikido-ish) to; step in, block, atemi, and if they still stand drop em like dead weights with some nasty head or arm break, or an over-the-top shiho- or seio-(sp?) nage, then draw a tanto across their throats. Another thing is; we have a shodan and a yondan judoka in our AJJ club, and sensei corrects both on their goshi throws, saying 'thats a nice goshi for judo, but this is AJJ' then shows them the difference, and it can be quite devastating. Luckily they are very good uke's. My feeling is that the main difference, as obvious as it sounds, is the intention of tori. The kime and zanshin before and after the execution of a technique is a lot more agressive than aikido (in my experience). Hope some of this makes sense. It may not be others interpretation, which i appreciate, but the differences can be as vast or as small as the clubs that practice these arts.
