I believe that is...... I've never seen THAT ki technique being taught at my school..... EDIT: Bah....he changed it again....
questions about the original subject which began this thread. has aikido gone in the wrong direction. 1. was the history about right? from ju-jutsu came aiki-jutsu. from aiki-jutsu came both aikido and hapkido. 2. was the primary intent of ju-jutsu (developed during a time of conflict) to use techniques designed to hurt or kill opponents? 3. when aiki-jutsu was developed was the emphasis placed more on using the art for self-defense? 4. how much did techniques change from ju-jutsu to aiki-jutsu in reference to intent to harm even kill opponent? 5. was aiki-jutsu modified from ju-jutsu because it was developed after the feudal era had ended? 6. would it be fair to say that hapkido is more or less a Korean version of aiki-jutsu with same basic technique and intent? 7. regurdless of being ju-jutsu,aiki-jutsu or hapkido there is empasis placed on causing pain or injury to opponent? 8. that aikido was devolped with the intent of the founder to protect without harming opponent? 9. the techniques of aikido are designed primarily to restrain an opponent (joint locks) or keep them away (throws)? 10. despite change in philosopy and techniques of aikido it still has the elements neccesary to provide realistic self-defense?
Just keeping you on your toes. I keep the ki grenades for bears pirates and Ausies. But were are all buddies on this thread. regards koyo
while asking several questions is the 'problem' with aikido not based on how the techniques were modified and would be the various standards from one school to another practicing aikido? short version. nothing wrong with aikido. something wrong with some of the schools that claim to practice style.
It is the INTENT that is the main difference since we rarely face a life or death situation these days. As I posted earlier there are ARA WAZA techniques that are lethal if that is the intent. I will adress your other questions later if someone else does not beat me to it.I am speaking of traditional aikido (before faint hearts took it in the wrong direction) Very briefly the techniques can be traced to the Minamoto samurai who called their art Kumi Uchi (grappling in armour) the art was handed down to the Takeda a branch family of the Minamoto. Takeda aikijujutsu was brought to the modern world by Sokaku Takeda and the art was name Daito Ryu,O Sensei Ueshiba was a student of Sokaku Takeda and taught Daito Ryu and Aiki jujutsu (the name changed a few times) before creating Aikido.The shihan that brought aikido to the west ALL promoted it as a very effective combat art only the intention (as I have said) differing from bujutsu to budo. It is many modern day teachers who chose to change the art rather than let the art change them.(make it user friendly) I am NOT one of them. regards koyo
I would say it is. But it is hard to appreciate or understand unless you train in a good style of aikido that has kept true to its martial aspects, and then land yourself in a couple of bad schools.
In all honesty what is wrong with Aikido as with many arts are the personalities and politicians. The personalities and the politicians are the root of fractures and splits and isolated cliques which lead to the production of poor quality training practices.
I'll give this a shot, but bear in mind I'm no historian. Aiki-jutsu has its roots from ju-jutsu. Aikido and Hapkido have their roots from aiki-jutsu. And at the time each was considered to be superior than what came before but for different reasons. What I mean by "superior" is in the sense of how an art can evolve to meet the needs of the times. They are all branches of the same tree, however, and no one is really superior, they are just different. As branches, they share the same ROOTS. When the roots are neglected, the tree becomes ill and the branches die. Dangerous assumption. We are not mind readers. What can be said is that ju-jutsu was developed for times of war. As such do not confuse techniques with war. A dirty trick can work just as effectively as a martial technique. It was and is a combination of "dirty tricks" and techniques. I don't know. I wasn't there. Certainly self-defense was a concern, but I think it had more to do with what strategies and principles were emphasized. The basic unilateral strategy is to attack with a superior force and go right through the center of the enemy. This works when you have a much superior force, but what happens when you are the inferior force? "Ju" used the bilateral strategy. Attack in one way, but because the enemy has superior force, you must be supple and adjust to unbalance them. With JU, you could yield the center and attack them from the flanks. Ju was the method a smaller force could defeat a larger force. When pushed, pull... and when pulled, push. "Aiki" used the bilateral strategy, but emphasizing the principle of AI. Not only was the suppleness of JU used, but with AI, it was not just physical force that was blended with but AI addressed the spirit also. With AI it was to attack at all times. When pushed, turn... and when pulled, enter. No one really knows, there are few if any historical records detailing techniques even a few hundred years ago, let alone several hundreds of years or more. All that has passed down are principles. I don't believe so, but that is not to say that it has not changed. Aiki-jutsu is a specific branch of Ju-jutsu. It can be described as "one family's" version of ju-jutsu. Intent, I don't know... I'm not a mind reader. Techniques? Techniques are close but different. Principles? Principles are the same. I don't understand the question. It is a question of priorities. The first priority is self-development, character building through training. I don't think there was a lot of thought if any to the welfare of the enemy. It was understood, however, that hurting others is not good for the spirit, you lose something of self when hurting others. Therefore compassion was a virtue. Immobilization techniques were popular for law enforcement. I don't know the context of where else they would be used often... Projections (throws) were intended to be fight enders (by twisting the spine) but could also be used to stun the enemy. If used to stun, then they could be followed up immediately with a finishing blow. I have no idea. Can you say that what is realistic self defense for a person walking through a dark parking lot is the same as a sentry in a war zone? What is wanted is what is practical application for you. This means that if you have to go out in the streets, you need something that will work for you today, not in a few years. On the other hand, in a few years you might be able to develop something that works better than what you have today.
what i am looking for is this. the joint locks and throws of ju-jutsu,aiki-jutsu and hapkido look more intent on causing injury than in aikido. the joint locks seem to begin with pain complaince and work into serious injury. granted the practioner makes the ultimate decision (hopefull based on what level of force is neccesary) about the severity of what technique will be used to deal with opponent. the question brought up by the aikidoka who promted this thread was are other related styles (ju-jutsu,aiki-jutsu and hapkido) more well martial in nature than aikido? do these other styles have more effective technique as opposed to aikido is what my friend was suggesting. and by effective he means the potential to cause more harm. from what i have read most aikidoka feel this line of thinking is misguided and reflects on the poor nature of some instruction at aikido schools. there is a possibility that is the answer to question. think he is tired of simulated or eliminated atemi strikes. watching students tap out before any real pressure is applied. (by the way how can you really understand the potential of a joint lock without ever having techniqe applied with a little pain?) and throws are done in a way that minimal effort gets the maxinum results. they just take a fall. that does not sound realistic to me which promted my departure from that aikido class and his begining to really question aikido. thank all of your for not getting offended by that kind of questioning. it could potentialy have upset some readers that anyone would suggest or ask if the art of aikido had lost its edge. and for being patient.
Just a note though, why do the other martial arts do locks that look more more intent on causing injury? Locks are all about control. You have two extreme ends. One is the point of only locking out the joint just before pain comes on so that the attacker can't move, then moving towards pain and then the other is to completely break it. The locks are all applied in a similar matter throughout the aforementioned arts. it is up to the practitioner to do what he wants in the end though. I am annoyed at people tapping out before the lock is applied but that is not how it is done at my school. Pain must be felt and then tapping will occur, then the lock is released. End of story. You can't put it to the point of it breaking, you'll run out of training partners pretty quick that way. But you must feel like you can go the extra distance if you can. If a lock doesn't work at all, the student must re-evaluate what they have done and fix errors in technique etc. I am concerned that the only reason why you think that the arts other than aikido look more effective is because they are "muscled" on. Just letting you know...a lock does not need a lot of strength to be applied to cause pain if it is done correctly. If it requires all my muscle strength to do then it is a waste of my time, cause there is always someone bigger, stronger and uglier (e.g. piratebrido) than me. I want an advantage in the only other department that is available to me, and that is skill. Also regarding the throws, in my view, the throws in aikido are exactly the same as in jujutsu, just done with less effort and with maximum efficiency. This is sans the flying aikidoka circus that goes on, have a real opponent do a real attack coming at you and perform the technique with good unbalancing and minimal effort. I do not see anything wrong with that. It's just conserving energy. Regarding the strikes, I do not believe that it is necessary to make contact when finishing off an opponent. To unbalance yes, but to finish a person off with an almighty head smacker is just not on in training. Maybe out in the street if it is justified, but certainly not in the dojo, again, you will run out of training partners pretty quick. I'm all for controlled hits to unbalance within reason for training, so as not to soften it down too much like other aikido schools do. And yes, the dog pawing that you see going on is just disgraceful to aikido's atemi skills. Strikes should be done directly, with intent and with correct form and control as if you are going to do damage. Having said that, jujutsu throws are based on good biomechanics as well, but I tend to feel in my experience that they are generally sometimes muscled on. It's ok that you are asking these questions, you are doing it in a polite and non-judgmental manner. Keep 'em coming.
I don't exactly agree with the above analogy. My first concern is that what you talk about locks in terms of range of motion. Talking about range of motion is alright to me in terms of teaching (e.g. move a joint this far and it bends back, move it THIS far and it breaks). However, for application, it isn't about range of motion but what effect it has on the enemy. Principle: ALWAYS stun or unbalance BEFORE locking. In Kajukenbo, the locks are simple, we try to break the joint, but it is done quickly and with control as if a strike that momentary stuns. It can cause permanent damage, but rarely does. Once stunned, then the lock is applied. For example, Ikkyo (rolling armbar), given the technique, the first thing is to use my shoulder or forearm/elbow, and chest to "break" the arm like a strike. This stuns the enemy momentary as it feels like their arm is breaking. In that instance, the lock or throw is applied... when the opponent is helpless to resist. In Aikido, the same stunning principle is there but more often the Aikidoka learns how to better unbalance upon first contact and then apply the lock. So in the case of Ikkyo, given the technique, the Aikidoka will attack a weak point in the opponent's balance through atemi or other means. When the opponent is unbalanced, in that instance, the lock or throw is applied... when the opponent is helpless to resist. When the principles are not followed, that's when you end up with all sorts of problems.
No, we practice locks as they are literally described, locked out, where the joint does not have any range of motion left. I didn't think I described it in ranges of motion, I can't see that sorry. The more pressure you apply the more pain is felt. Go beyond that and it breaks. Breaking an arm is an option, but the other is using it as a form of pain compliance. this is why aikido is taught to the police in Japan, it's a form of subduing an enemy.
does it sound like the school he learns at teaches a poor imitation of aikido and not the real thing? would that give him or anyone that studies there a wrong impression about the style? enough to question the effectiveness of what they are doing and aikido in general? because it sounds like what he does is heavy on the art and light on the martial. where many of you have descibed practicing in a very different manner. kind of heavier on the martial and lighter on the art. the aikido as presented by those who have posted here sounds very different than what they are learning. having briefly been a student there i can say from a firsthand experience his classes are exactly as described. far as i know nobody there has ever really been hit with an atemi strike or much else for that matter except by complete accident. does this sound like what not to look for in a good aikido school?
I might have misunderstood where you were coming from... sorry. I was pointing out that before you lock, you have to stun or unbalance as a matter of principle. I understood your post to mean that you can apply a lock gently and then increase the pressure. You can only do this is training, in real world, if you try this, they usually end up getting out of it or using their other hand to hit you. So if you ALWAYS stun or unbalance before locking or throwing then that is good in my book. If not, then that is what I had issue with. Note that a lock or throw can always be forced. This is strength verse strength but it works too, it is just not considered to be as good.
No need to apologise, you didn't offend me at all, I just needed to just state properly where I am coming from. You are correct in unbalancing or stunning before you apply a lock. Training or otherwise. This is ALWAYS true. There is no way that you can get a lock with a resisting opponent or training partner otherwise. EDIT: Sorry except with strength Sorry I am not stating clearly at what is done during training and what is done on the street. My apologies. The thing is though, if someone where to approach me on the street and attacked me, I would apply a lock with a force of about 6/10. I certainly aim to cause pain and trauma and stop him dead. If he does not comply, or has buddies that are intent on making me the next poster boy for plastic surgery, I'd give it a ten/ten, break him and start on the next guy. If they had intended to kill me from the outstart and I know it, then it's hell for leather and people are going to get hurt....preferably them. So I go 10/10 on the outset. In training though, I meant that there is no need to make hits with full force when practicing a particular technique. When striking is involved for an opportunity to open up for a lock or throw or takedown, you hit with restrained force but proper technique and then perform the technique, and repeat. If you knock your training partner senseless, who's gonna help you train then? The only time that full contact happens in the school is in allocated full contact sparring during training and gradings.
It is hard for me to label any school without having first hand experience there. I will say though that it isn't always the instructors that determine if a school is right for someone. Mostly it can be the other students that determine that. If the other students don't intend to challenge you, you will not learn as much or as well. The problem in a lot of places is that the students don't challenge themselves to progressively move outside their own comfort zones... then even worse, they don't challenge others to move outside their comfort zones, even a little.
This is an important point to me. You are training for how you intend to use it. Aikido, for example, allows for a choice to use techniques you have no internal conflict in using. I trained and still do train in some techniques that snap the neck and kill the opponent. I do not train these techniques as much as others because in real world, I might end up with an internal conflict if I tried to use one. This might cause me to hesitate and could cost me my life. Instead I train mostly the techniques that I would use in real world or variations of them for training purposes.
Well if you don't believe in controlled application of force, then I'm afraid I no longer have any more contribution of value. What worries me is the ethics involved in martial arts these days. I believe in controlled training environments and ethical applications of force depending on the level of perceived threat. I think we all have to step back and take a good long think at what we are doing if we respond to both high and low level threats with extreme force in order to just "win" out.
