I'm forced to aggree with Kiaiki above. I study Yoshinakn style Aikido (thought to be a 'harder' style of Aikido)... and the method in which we use Atemi is not light, soft, circular; is straight in and if it connects it hurts. I learned the hard way very quickly that blocks are not optional. It resembles the backfist strikes I was taught in Karate and Juijitsu... only striaght into a vital point, not coming in from the side. We train for them to connect in force. I've missed a couple blocks and been struck not so nicely. We use it to distract yes but should it connect we make sure it counts. Same goes for most of our strikes really. Shomenuchi strikes, Yokiminuchi strikes are taught to be forceful attacks. Yes we use them to initiate many of our techniques but agian should they slip through and connect we make sure they count. As to all the bull about catching a jab *lol*. I mean seriously come on were not that stupid... were not going to try... those who do; well yeah chances are its not going to end the way they want. But don't think were defensless aginast such an attack. To be honest I don't think there are many styles that can train to adequately defend against a good jab. Thats what makes them effective. All you can hope to do is get out of the way... or in the words of my Juijitsu Sensei take the hit. But guarenteed if he has plans to take a hit he's planning to limit the damage it does and and get in some good plows in return. Take one land two or three. As much as I realize there is the potential for them to be... jabs are not designed to be power punches. They are not desinged to end a fight. Their purpose in boxing is to test distance and distract. As much as their is potential for some exremly power openents to do so, its not likely that a jab is gonna knock you out. Its the blow following the jab you have to be wary of. Just my opinion.
I'm going to need to see the technique. I am having trouble visualizing the technique as being the same kind of strike as any of the three I listed. Sounds more like a pushing strike to me. All strikes are circular, the human body moves in circles, but some circles are more elongated than others. So when I say circular technique such as an hook, I mean rotation of the body. A hook has basically more shoulder rotation than a jab, so I refer to the hook as circular and the jab as straight line. However, in reality both are circular across some plane, just one is less circular than the other. Now I only listed three striking techniques, there are many more. The one described now I picture as a pushing strike. With all three of the techniques I mentioned above, the weapon moved first and hit first -- e.g. the hand moved first and hit first. With a pushing strike, the body moves first and then the strike. Pushing techniques can generate lots of force as it is a natural way the body moves to push something heavy. However, do not confuse pushing techniques as the same as striking techniques. Both are useful given the right context, but pushing strikes are more for knocking someone around or uprooting them, they are not the same as striking techniques intended to knock someone out. And they are not the same as dealing with jabs. To a striker, and bear in mind this is in my striking experience, if you are trying to strike and your punch ends up being thrown as a push, that is bad striking technique. The reason is as soon as the body moves, you are giving away your intentions of attack, this is inefficient and during this transition, you are vulnerable to counter. The punch comes first and the body follows. Now a push executed as a strike is completely different as what you are doing is taking a situation you could push (or tackle or take down) your opponent and then just executing it faster with more commitment. The body is intended to move first to get into a better rooted position, and then the strike/push follows. Given the appropriate context both strikes and pushes can be used effectively. My concern is purely in that people are experiencing push strikes and they believe that is the same as other striking techniques intended to knock out and break bones. Perhaps that is why Aikidoka may have trouble with jabs, because jabs are not push strikes, they are regular strikes. Maybe most Aikidoka only really train verse push strikes.
I wrote such a long reply. Sorry. My point was that perhaps Aikidoka are used to defending against Uke that telegraph their strikes (move some part of their body before the strike). Good strikers might fake but they don't telegraph their intentions. Even not so good strikers can jab and minimize the telegraphing they do with that fast strike.
Shomen ate is a 'front strike' by definition, not a push of any sort in my experience. If timed correctly it will contact uke just when the arm is extended enough to give the blow the force to counter uke's energy and take him off his feet. The faster uke is travelling the more he gets hurt. If you begin with a relaxed arm at you side and raise it to head height it is not circular - just describing an arc. Depending on the starting point of your arm and of course on the angle of uke's attack you will position yourself to meet it. The method is actually very variable according to the speed and direction of uke. Let's take two extremes to illustrate: Imagine the hands of a clock. If uke is travelling from 12 to 6 I will move offline to 7 (maybe using my left arm to deflect a punch etc) and my right arm will describe an arc up to meet his chin. If uke is travelling very fast I may only need to quickly move the heel palm in the path of his face with hardly any need to withdraw the arm first before striking - immovable object in strong posture etc. In this case it is perhaps more like a block rather than a push. That's when there is a danger of telegraphing your move (Dalek like) by showing your extended arm to uke - a common beginner's mistake. However, more usually, if his attack is slower I will move slightly towards him and use the extension of my arm as a 'strike'. I may or may not need to pull my arm back slightly before striking - depends on our relative positions and the force needed - but this strike is more like a punch than a block. In no case are we circular, however. A push would only be possible at much slower speeds than Yoshinkan style strikes employ.(More like shomen-tsuki than yokomen, if that helps.) Boy, wish there was a site with some video!
kiaiki, what you describe does sound like a palm strike. Look, I'm sort of doing a poor job trying to over define strikes. They are all strikes (atemi). Sorry for my anal retentiveness. All strikes have elements of striking (generating acceleration and applying the force to penetrate and break/destroy what it hits) and elements of pushing (generating force and momentum to move/uproot an object). Both the striking and the pushing elements are valuable given the appropriate context so neither is superior in all situations. All I am saying is that pushing elements are telegraphed more than striking elements. A jab has a lot more striking element than a palm strike, so a jab is not telegraphed as much. If is very simple, it isn't the jab but the real question is how does an Aikidoka deal with attacks that aren't telegraphed? How does Aikido deal with speed, how does it deal with say a fencer? Seek the answers to these questions and the same answer (principles) will reveal how to deal with a jab. BTW, as a side note: By saying all strikes are circular, some just more elongated than others, I mean the entire path of the strike from start, to the striking the target, to follow through, and retraction back to a neutral position. The entire path is composed of smaller circles -- portions of the path may seem linear, but this is dependent on other parts of the body using rotational movements to generate the power and acceleration of the strike. If a strike was truly all linear, then the technique of striking Uke's shoulder with force would not take the power away from Uke's punch, but it does work to do that. What this means is that as Uke, if your strike is overextended, your follow through can follow this natural circle to avoid being uprooted and thrown. For example, punching towards the ground and moving in a circle. If you move your feet and punch to the ground that is a counter. If you cannot move your feet to get them under you, when you punch to the ground, that becomes a breakfall if you don't want to land badly. The more balanced Uke is, the more Uke can bring their feet under them and counter projections.
IMHO shomen ate is wholly a strike and need be no slower than a jab in reaching its target. It's just that some clubs teach it in a very stylised way which places the hand on the opponent and then pushes. IMHO that's not shomen ate, its almost the 'heaven' bit of the 'heaven and earth throw'. Because the hand may linger momentarily once in contact it may be slower to withdraw than a jab, but on its way to uke I see no reason why it would not create the need for the very rapid response you describe from the recipient. My own definition of the push/strike difference would be something like this: If my hand is in contact with you and I then move it forwards, that is a push. If I move my arm forwards and bring my hand into contact with you afterwards, that is a strike. Of course, one can follow the other very rapidly in an almost seamless technique. Strike but definitely not push in our style: the strike is as fast as with shomen tsuki - the hand is opened at the last minute so it does not slow down the strike. Definitely a lot of 'push telegraph' in other styles I've seen. See what you mean about circularity now - thanks for explanation.
........................................................boxers cant fight on the street, ROFLMAO!!!LAMEST THING IVE EVER HEARD
EH? Thats the craziest thing ive ever heard, They are certainly no better of in the street than most street wize people, but they are certainly up there with the hardest people for MA's to over come, you want to come and meet some boxers i know mate,
Good Points all around This thread has been active while I was away, I won't post a long message rehashing my position or summarizing others. Suffice to say that my interpretation of the shomen-ate vs. jab question is more in keeping with Rebel Wado's (who is doing a better job explaining the differences than I have BTW). However, it does sound like the Yoshinkan and Shudokan schools are training against good attacks as well (just not what I'd characterize as a jab), certainly no Daleks at those two schools. I don't have much more to add at this point so I'm gonna go lurk. --Bear
People are crazy if they think they can simply 'slip' a jab. If the person has any boxing experience, they've thrown that jab maybe 10,000 times... Odds are you're going to get hit. Just like if you're up against a crazed person with a knife. YOU'RE going to get cut. Pray the jab doesn't knock you out, and move in on the person. Don't back up!!!! What if there is a wall behind you... You're going to get clocked again. Take the shot, but you have to close the distance. Once you're in his space, he can't throw another jab. God help you if he's a thai fighter though. Look out for the elbow!!! Close the distance and do something, anything other than dance around him.
Thats why its good to train with other arts. Boxers to learn tight angles and pressure from multiple attacks. Karateka to learn good effective powerful strikes from all angles and judoka to help with proper balance taking and correct extension, Of course you cant dream yourself out of trouble but if a boxer can learn kote then an aikidoka can learn things like sliping from them, but they have to practice and understand. Although as i said that dont mean an Aikidoka can go toe to toe with a boxer, but is prepared to move stright in and take a punch or two to take the guy out. If they try to defend against a boxer i doubt they would be in with that good a chance, depends on the aikidokas experiance compaired to the boxers. ie what chance does some one who has been doing Aikido for 2-4 hrs a week for 3-5 years against a boxer who is maybe 2 hrs aday 5-7 days a weeks who has ben trining 10-15 years its common sense.
You're not suggesting that a boxer slips every jab are you? All I was saying is that it is unrealistic to simply think you can slip a jab. You're going to get to hit. The object is not to get hit too many times....
Since when did saying its possible to practice slipping with a boxer mean you could just stand there and slip all the time? It aint no good for aikido to stand and just try to defend that aint Aikido, but its good to know that you can move a certain way if required and still move using Aiki princ, DONT MEAN IT WILL WORK THOUGH, just like spending a life time training with the hardest guy in the universe, it dont make you any good, You make you good. Totally agree with the last part though you have to get used to been hit and floored, but inturn you have to get out of the so called "aikido is self defence" thats is a very weak attitude, thats why the attacks in Aikido should also be used properly so they work.
That reply was not directed towards you (aikiscotsman). For the most part, I agree with you're saying. But you have to way other outside influences in determing how much you can move. For example, you're in a hallway...
Wow Okay, here is an attempt to summarize some of this discussion with my added comments: 1. Statement: Aikidoka don't have much experience practicing against a Jab to get good at defending against it. Rebuttal: shomen-ate is the same as a jab at my school. My comment: Okay, how much practice do the Aikidoka in your school have against a left-handed shomen-ate done without a step? 2. Statement: Jabs are too fast to slip and evade reliably. Rebuttal: But boxers do it. So can Aikidoka. My comment: Okay, how much practice do the Aikidoka in your school have with slipping a left-handed attack done without a step? 3. Statement: Jabs are going to hit you because they are fast and there are many of them coming at you, make sure you don't get knocked out. Agreement: Yes, you have to be able to take a punch. My comment: Okay, how much practice do the Aikidoka in your school have in accepting multiple punches? What is my point, my point is practice. How can anyone expect to be good at something they don't put the practice into to get better at it? I had a discussion a while ago with a beginner Aikidoka that had come to open sparring to learn more. She asked me all about why her Aikido training did not work in sparring, but I could get it to work. First I said something about me having more experience and that made the most difference. I told her to keep practicing and keep asking questions. I then explained that her training in Aikido was focused on developing understanding of principles as well as the reading of the intentions of Uke. This is evidenced in the starting at "sword" ranges with each exercise. What I clarified was that each attack in Aikido is preceeded by one step. The Uke takes one step and attacks or grabs. This is to help in the learning to read the intentions of Uke and to react accordingly. As a result, Aikido practice consisting of one step attacks allows Tori to take two steps to execute any technique or rather a "cheater step" plus a full step to enter or turn. In sparring, you only have time for one step, so every technique must be executed as if you already had made that "cheater step". This may have been a little too much information for her at the time, but I think she got the jest of it. I had her do an exercise that had her make her "cheater step" before I committed to an attack. In other words I showed her some footwork exercises to demonstrate pivot points and the body mechanics of how weight shifts and turning work with moving the feet in a way that hopefully does not give away your intention and does not leave a hole in your defenses or ability to move forward and at angles quickly. Here I will explain to you more exactly the outcome and this does apply to slipping the jab or any boxer's attack. 1) When I had left foot forward and shuffled in to hit her, I had her already in a right foot forward stance, before she knew exactly my intentions, only that I was moving towards her. 2) At a moment she read my attack/intentions be whatever method "alerted" her whether that was a telegraphed move or a feeling insider her to act instinctively, she entered to the OUTSIDE of my lead left foot with her lead right foot. At the same time she executed a right hand shomen-ate to the side of my head. A simple basic move, but a necessary lesson in understanding technique and principles. When she understood why it worked so well, then she had a valuable piece in understanding this puzzle she called sparring and relating the principles from Aikido to the situation.
Nice post Rebel. I don't understand the "left hand" comments though. Isn't it normal to practice techniques on both the left and right? It certainly is where I train.
I believe that training both sides is a good thing. I also happen to believe that one side or the other is often neglected in training, especially when testing the technique against more aggressive Ukes. In training, for example, I have rarely seen the left side of techniques used in randori.
