So in a way you believe in approaching a situation with the tools that are required of it, ne? That was what I was trying to get through, not you, but most people see this as a point of weakness. Like your case with the killing techniques, you know how to but I choose not to use. I'm sure though, if the situation calls for it (i.e. you were at war) you would use it no problems. Sure you would feel like a ***** cause you just killed a guy, but you had no other choice, it was kill or be killed. But I put this situation to you, your best friend got drunk and rowdy would you use a technique like that to "settle" him down?
Hi Guys Something that is not made clear enough in many aikido groups is that All LOCKS are throws and all THROWS are locks. Example kote gaeshe "turns the wrist that turns the elbow that locks the shoulder" causing him to fall. All throws have this capability to "lock" him into the position to be thrown.Shi ho nage can be applied as a lock at the point where you would throw him. Aikido is far more versatile than many teachers realise. Also the severity of a technique should be dictated by the circumstance so no "conflict" need arise in the aikidoka's mind. I always teach that the unbalancing should be "robust" however the technique applied depends on the circumstance. regards koyo
I believe in experience being the most important, followed by attitude, then technique. Even in war, I probably wouldn't use the majority of finishing techniques I've been taught... the reason is that I have not trained them enough to be intuitive to me -- I don't trust they would work as intended. From experience, I will fight as I train. In a time of war, I would have to train myself into using these killing techniques at an instinctive level. Right now I am more likely to break their bones or choke them out, provided a weapon is not an option. My intent is not to use a killing technique, although chokes/strangulations are very dangerous and can kill. Except in the case of an accident, it would be a conscious decision for me to finish someone off. As for the what if scenario with a drunk best friend? Again, experience and attitude before technique. It is not a what if scenario to me, something similar has already happened to me. I brought him down to the ground and held him there until help came and dumped a pitcher of water on the both of us to break up the fight. This would not have been a wise course of action in a multiple attacker situation, but it worked then and kept all the glass furniture and vases that were around us from breaking. I did not think of techniques, I did what came instinctively.
BLT and sometimes w/ G (garnish) B = Block/evade and Stun/unbalance L = Lock and Stun/unbalance T = Takedown and Stun/unbalance G = Ground attack That's a martial arts sandwich
hey, kensei1984 there always should be a controlled application of force. both our moral and ethical principles dictate that nobody should ever want to cause harm to another human being. those same principles also would apply to a person having the right to defend themselves. yet not at the expense of causing more harm than was neccessary to resolve the situation. this is not about ever advocating using extreme or even lethal force to deal with a problem that doesnt warrant as much. that being said there is a world of difference between using techniques which have the desired results (ending the conflict with reasonable force) and using something that does not. if you put someone in a joint lock that caused no pain they would try getting free. even if you kept them from getting free soon as you let go it would be wise to expect another immediate attack from that person. the risk (non-painfull hold) to reward (the intent on harming you as planned) ratio would justify (in thier minds) to contine thier hostile actions soon as possible. what about a pain-inducing joint lock? unless the person is on drugs or just has no common sense (maybe both) the risk (pain and suffering) to reward (kicking butt) ratio has changed. knowing that someone does not want to harm you (non-painfull lock) as opposed to might hurt you (pain-compliance) makes a big difference. to be fair there will always be the kind of people who despite which form of force is used will chose to respond with another effort to harm you. does it really seem feasable to you that a bully would appreciate your efforts not to cause harm? the reasonable force issue could be either a painfull or not joint lock. as opposed to attempting to immediatly break thier arm. the question is what level of force (when justified) is more likely to give you the desired outcome in a confrontation?
Hi Jester I admire and share your altruistic approach to aikido. However (having been there) I would make the point that in a real fight the choice is NOT yours as to how to control it. Anyone who attacks you has no fear of you and INTENDS harm NOT to pin or control you with minimum force. I have struggled with this problem in training and have come to believe that if the musubi (initial contact) is very powerful. Strike and unbalance you MAY have an instant where you can see if the opponent can be controlled. You need only ask police about the extreme difficulty of applying a lock and MAINTAINING it to bring someone under control.I have seen too many good people harmed and bullied by those who DO NOT SHARE OUR CONCERN FOR OTHERS. By all means let's live our lives caring about each other BUT do not let your compassion leave you vulnerable to injury in extreme circumstances. By the way my main strength when facing conflict is not my ability to put him down. It is the memory of extreme training where I was put under pressure and knocked around. I tend to think I have been beaten up by experts, what can he bring to me. Not much by comparison. TRAIN HARD FIGHT EASY regards koyo Musubi Control at the instant of contact
hey koyo, that was a great post. no kidding very informative and somewhat changes my perspective there. good to here from someone with a real world not a theory point of view. couple of questions. were you capable of determining what kind of joint lock (granted that may not be possible) would you go for pain compliance or just an effort to pin the opponent down? not by any means a negative kind of question just a curiosity. not being a wiseguy here. should our main strength in a conflict be the capability of ending it without punches getting thrown?
That's cause we were talking about the methods by which we trained. The self defense situation is a whole different kettle of fish. Pain is produced on the outset and is a minimum requirement, and from there, can only go up. Breaking any part of a training partner's anatomy is not acceptable and is simply discourteous for someone that is trying to help you from becoming a better martial artist.
hey kensei1984, thought you had non-pain compliance techniques there in aikido. wolud not care for sparring partner breaking my nose either. cant/shouldnt seperate training and fighting techniques. ever heard fight like you train,train like you fight?
I don't know you sound like you are contradicting yourself. The only thing that I get from that last line is that I should break my training partners joints in training (when I have fairly and realistically acquired a superior position through unbalancing or atemi and I am in control) as I would do on the street to an assailant. Is not applying (e.g. a lock) to the point of excruciating pain enough and understanding that more force can break a joint in training? I'll address the other section in the next post.
Pain is always a part of a joint lock in practical applications. In training, if you unbalance correctly and can hold the joint in a position where the person is cannot escape (this is the point of zero application of force), then you understand the lock and are ready to move on to practical applications (i.e. producing pain or a dislocation). If you can do this, then you understand the lock and can understand the applications. If you don't, then you don't understand what a lock is at all. Going from pain to break only takes a millisecond if the situation calls for it. This zero point though has no application in a self defense situation, as I said before, a level of = or > 6-7 out of ten is always used. This is linked back to what I have previously said: And next: How much harm are you aiming for? Yes it is a big bad world out there. But it doesn't mean I go out there and thoroughly destroy everyone that seeks to cause me harm. Like I said, if the situation calls for it, there is an option for me to finish it then are there so that there is no more attempt. Techniques such as locks would be performed to leave a lasting effect that decreases an ememy's ability to fight. This application of force should last long enough but not always warrant a visit to the emergency ward. It is entirely circumstantial and you alone are the judge of what happens and are accountable for your own actions. So...if the outcome I want is one where I don't get hurt, and I have defeated the threat that is posed to me, and I do it by hurting my assailant but not breaking him? Then I have achieved my outcome. There is no "more likely", it is only if the outcome is achieved, or not achieved. Black and white. Simple.
hey kensei1984, you said training and self-defense where "a whole different kettle of fish" what exactly are you training for then if not self-defense? about my remark train like you fight and fight like you train. if you train in a different way than you plan on fighting again what are you training for? if you dont fight like you train there will be nothing to fall back on when the stuff hits the fan. never ever never ever said that you should go all out against your training partners. before long you would not have many left. in aikido that could mean appyling just enough force to get the point across. any more would cause damage and is not neccesary. we dont waylay our friends and sparring partners with a sucker punch either. did i ever suggest breaking a training partners arm to become a better martial artist? what i actually did say was in reference to choosing pain-compliance over non-pain compliance technique for making sure the bad guy understands you can and will hurt them if neccesary. really hurting somebody needs to be a last resort. not for training or just because you choose to deal with someone that way. just think reasonable force might be pain first injury later if neccesary.
Like you said below. The different kettle of fish between training and "real application or fighting" is the end result. My training partners do not have lasting injuries, if at all. My assailants do. Locks, throws and takedowns etc are exactly the same. Locks for example are taken to bad pain or excruciating pain in training. Same on the street, but I can put more pain on. Or break it. That is the difference. You never said that you should break a training partner's arm, but you said that I should train as I would fight. So if in a fight situation I break a guy's arm, then ergo I would have done that in training, hence "fight like you train,train like you fight." Is this correct?
In support of Kensei's position is the fact that when you are in a fight, the adrenaline starts pumping. This is what you should notice in a "good grading". Hence that little extra pizazz you need for your opponent will be a natural consequence of the fight. Regards,
Hi Jester I can only repeat that I would have chosen not to fight. The CHOICE was not mine.In a real fight you are fighting when you do not expect it and when you do not wish it.One fellow was armed and had already injured a girl I was cut he had his arm and jaw broken. I had NO TIME to think.(and no desire to do so) AS far as possible I would attempt to pr-empt any strike on his part and take control as quickly and powerfully as possible. I worked for twenty odd years with gang members and druG adicts.I NEVER went looking for a fight and bore insults ANS THREATS that would have resulted in fights had I not learned self control from my training. regards koyo IT IS EASY TO SEND A YOUNG MAN TO WAR BUT MOST DIFFICULT TO MAKE HIM GO BACK A SECOND TIME
I like what you said. I think there may be some confusion among the posters in agreement with what exactly is meant by practical application, seated instinct, and self defense. I shall attempt to define these in my view: Practical Application: Very simply it is what is practical and works for you. People seem to get confused about what is practical by trying to label things as practical or impractical, as useful or useless... however, what is useful and what is useless is highly subjective and depends on the context. For instance, Koyo might state he feels something is useless TO HIM, but he is NOT saying it is useless to everyone... this is okay, IMHO. However, others might say something is useless and they will try to say it is useless for EVERYONE, and that is not a good way of thinking. Despite the definition, there are some qualities that tend to make something more practical than others... first it is based on strong underlying principles, second is that is comes intuitively, and that it is applied fluidly, and last but not least there is the experience to back it up. Seated Instinct: This is your trained instinct, what comes naturally for you based on your training and experience. Your intuition. I'm seeing some misunderstanding of "you fight how you train" in some previous posts. Let me be clear, what I mean is that you will revert to your strongest seated instincts in a fight. What this means is that if you train in an environment where your adrenaline is dumping, etc., then that training is what is most likely going to be your seated instinct in real world when your adrenaline dumps. If you only train in a comfortable environment, this training will not transfer well into the real world adrenaline dumping environment. So what you do when your adrenaline is rushing in training is what you will do in real world... hence you fight as you train. Self Defense: Self defense is self-protection. However some will talk about self-defense purely from a martial arts training point of view. It can be a hassle to get a good definition because it is highly subjective to the person and the context. Depending on the context, the same person can give two opposing answers. For instance, one day I was teaching application of Ikkyo and I called it Aikido, the next day I was teaching the exact same thing and I called it Kajukenbo. An outside observer would have been very confused, but the difference was the context. The first day students were not very experienced and I was showing them contrast between a more severe version of Ikkyo that broke the arm and a safer way of training the technique as taught in Aikido. The second group was more experienced, simply said, when you do something long enough it is all Kajukenbo (insert whatever martial art you have been training in for years). The same context can be applied to Self-defense... to some it means to defend oneself in a fight, in that case most martial arts are not self-defense because true self-defense is if given a choice, to not fight -- in this context, martial arts is not self-defense but is actually self-OFFENSE used as a last resort. In a different context, having done something for a very long time, for instance a person having practiced Aikido for fifty years, it could be to them Aikido is everything under the sun. Eating lunch is Aikido, walking down the street is Aikido, everything is Aikido to them.
