Aikijitsu

I did say it was a very bad breakfall (was more the angle I went down at and the speed)! Certainly knocks your confidence. No gentleness isn't the same. Watered down to me implies that you're not 'taught' as much in greater depth, whereas I have had the same sensei for nearly 10 yrs and he has always ensured my aikido knowledge and skills are equally as good as my jujitsu techniques.

 

Why is it 'great' to talk about having a head injury? Do men not admit they've actually been injured?

 

I'm afraid if I contradict what you say with another question, I'll be flagged with a 'trolling' tag. Not even sure what that means. But why not ask anyway...

If I grab you gently, isn't that the same as a watered down grab? And there is a GREAT possibility that your Aikido instructor teaches watered down techniques...

 

No how I meant that was; without sounding to religious... Thank God you're here talking about. Meaning that you're not in a hospital bed paralyzed.

 

No, gentleness is not the same as watered down. It depends on the intent of the technique.

IF the intent of the technique is to end a fight by applying the technique, for instance the INTENT behind some of the projections, then a variation of that technique that lands someone most of the time on their back stunning them instead of breaking their spine would be a watered down version of that same technique. A version used mainly for training.

IF the INTENT of a projection is to knock someone to the ground in some way to possibly stun them and then apply a submission or pinning (immobilization) technique, then the technique is not watered down because it is practiced as it is intended.

Watered down does not equate to if it is gentle or not. Watered down means it is diluted... diluted means that it lacks sufficient skill or details of the original.

Some projections taught in Judo are watered down (for safety and training) because they are missing the details that land the person twisting their spine in weird ways.

Some of the punching in boxing is watered down (for sport and because padded gloves are worn making it harder to configure the hand as a breaking weapon) because it is missing the details of hand configurations and striking of vital areas.

Some of the techniques in Aikido are watered down because of the same reasons (safety and training, not striking vital areas, etc.)

SOME is not the same as saying ALL. Aikido is not watered down because it is gentle (although it isn't all that gentle). Aikido only teaches some techniques that are watered-down versions of the originals. However, in many cases, Aikido has different intentions for techniques.

A technique used to immobilize and arrest a criminal is NOT watered down if it does what it is supposed to do. If sufficient details exist to make the technique effective, then it is a full out non-watered down technique.

Only the lack of details makes things watered down.

I've talked to intermediate students in striking arts and ask them what they are aiming for with a hook punch. I get all sorts of answers from the jaw, the side of the head, etc. All are okay targets, but these students really don't give the impression they really care that much or know the difference between hitting in one place over another. These people are using watered down striking because they don't know what they are doing, they just have that general idea of what to do.

Occassionally someone will answer the chin, and will be definite about it, to the details of the hand configuration used to strike there. Then I know they aren't practicing watered down striking.

Watered down is just missing the good stuff, the subtle details of what really makes it work.

I am far from calling any advanced training watered down, as rarely, except in some sport settings, are details, important details not taught and learned to make techniques the "good stuff".

 

yep I'm very very lucky and very cautious now! There's always a chance your being taught a watered down version, as techniques and skills are passed down etc As long as your happy with your instructor tho, I don't see a problem. Its not as if we have these skills to deliberately go and seek violent situations, most of us will hopefully never have to use them in real life!

 

Again, not necessarily, or no!

Watered down means it is lacking the application and knowledge of the details to make it work.

A gentle grab can come from a very experienced and skilled martial artist that knows the details of how to get that to work given the intentions. It is not watered down.

Lack of details is diluted technique, that is watered down. Stop confusing gentle with watered down.

 

The problem with learning watered down techniques, even though you're happy, is if/when the day comes, you may be un-pleasantly surprised. I know you're not out looking for violence, but what about the person on the other side of the street? Point being, if you spend all your time learning watered down techniques while people are taking these awesome ukemi's, when the day comes, you'll be wishing things were different.

 

Rebel,

I have to dis-agree with you. Watered down is both 'lacking the application and knowledge of the details to make it work' and many other things, including 'being gentle'.

 

but then you can be trained for years and years and still be completely stunned and shocked when someone does attack you! How often do you hear, 'if only I'd done this'? The best advice to to try and avoid putting yourself in vulnerable situations (thats what I tell the girlies anyway). I still maintain that whether something is 'watered' down or not is dependent on the instructor's teachings and methods and the dojo. Having the set kata is a nice way to maintain certain standards and set the disciplin, however things change when you go to freestyle. Right have to go, but whats a troll?????

 

I'm not entirely sure what a Troll is? But I've been accused of doing it. Watered down techniques can be pushed down from teacher to student. But IMHO, Aikido is a watered down art.

 

So this helps me see where you are coming from. If gentle means watered down, then Aikido and Tai Chi and such arts are all watered down by that definition.

I don't agree, however, that gentle means watered down.

When I view watered down, I view it purely on whether valuable details have been taken away or lost from the original. For example, take a martial artist that has fought in the streets, over time, some variations of techniques will be found to work better than others. A martial artist can test these techniques out against resisting opponents. Sooner or later, certain details of how the technique works will become apparent and it is in those details that a technique can be good or bad for the situation. This martial artist, through learning and trial and error and knowledge and experience can find a way to do the technique that will work well against resisting opponents, even those much bigger and stronger than the martial artist.

Now take a student of that martial artist. This student may learn the same technique, but miss out on some of the important details. This student may be able to perform the technique and get it to work in class. However, when the student tests out the technique against a real resisting opponent, that is much bigger and stronger, the technique fails. This student is missing the subtle details that make the technique really good. This student is lacking those details and thus is using watered down technique.

Taking Aikido training, it only partially tests out techniques against resisting opponents. Therefore, students of Aikido train in watered down technique because the subtle details are not learned.

This does NOT make Aikido watered down, all the student needs to do is actually train against resisting opponents. It only takes time, under the right instruction, for this training to develop NON-watered down technique.

Aikido is not watered down, it is just, in many cases missing that aspect of training against resisting opponents.

Notice that being gentle, IMO, has nothing to do with whether it is watered down or not, I base it purely on the details of technique that make it work.

 

Yes...

Ok... Agreed.

Dis-agree. Why can't you test the technique in class with a fully resisting person? The technique itself is watered down, not because of a non-resisting person.

I agree that Aikido is missing MANY subtleties...

Aikido would still be watered down even with resisting opponents. Although I do see your point. From my perspective, regardless of training, the art itself is lacking many things.

 

You can, or at least get really close to it given safety issues. The problem is that many old timers trained very hard core and many of them had real world experience to help confirm and guide the lessons learned in class. Many would train outside of regular class and learn in many ways. They also had great control over techniques so that they could train more safely but also with more intensity.

Now over time, the training has mellowed out some. Old timers can teach the old ways, but because of age, old injuries, lawyers (liability) they choose to teach in an environment that does not have the same intensity against resisting opponents as in the old days.

We just don't generally train the same as the original methods, so the way we train allows the loss of subtle details to happen. In the older days, that lack of details would not have gone unnoticed for long, but with more mellow training, it can go on for years until a trained eye sees it or the techniques are really tested against resistance.

It isn't, IME. So I disagree that Aikido is missing anything in such a way. I only will agree that I've only seen students of very good instructors and of many years experience show those subtleties well, MANY other Aikidoka (and martial artists in general) are missing the subtleties.

At some point, it really pays to seek out training from a very good technical instructor/coach that has lots of experience. It can make a huge difference.

Yeah, I don't agree with you. The techniques and principles in Aikido are sound, the training methods, or lack of some training methods in Aikido is an issue IMHO.

 

Oh for the love of...

Listen, AIKIDO is exactly what O-sensei intended it to be no more no less. Whilst you consider your opinion to be "constructive" what you continually fail to grasp is that everyone one who knows ANYTHING about Aikido and Daito Ryu ACCEPT the two systems are different.

You also make sweeping generalisms about 'Aikido' I bet a pound to a penny you've spent almost no time at all (if any) studying with quality Aikido instructors with a proven lineage, this is plainly obvious from your statements. If you had you'd have a better appreciation of what we do, and why.

What exactly IS your point regarding aikido being "watered down" ? do you consider it to be inferior as a system, and comparing it to what ?

Dave

 

LOL!!!

He intended it to be non-violent and peaceful (gentle). Aikido and DRAJ are VERY different. You have Aikido, which came from DRAJ, for some un-Godly reason, O'Sensei made it watered down. I still think one of the main reasons is because he was a nut case in his later years. But that's for another debate.

My Aikido training is minimal. Reason being, I saw how watered down it was. Maybe I didn't train with a credible instructor, he may have been a horrible instructor with very bad lineage? And I appreciate ALL martial arts, but that doesn't stop me from criticizing one from another.

I consider it inferior to a lot of styles. Boxing is a great example. I think a trained boxer would DESTROY an Aikido player. Another comparison is to Aiki-Jujitsu, AJJ techniques compared to similar Aikido techniques are like night and day.

 

Not sure what that means? Let me know about the private message I sent you....