Personaly I don't look at Aikido as being offensive or defensive. I personaly view my practice as a way of learning to manipulate another persons body and in some cases their minds as well. When it comes down to using Aikido to protect your self, you do what you have to do and take the opertunities presented. Should we control a situation by inviting an attack or by initiating the attack? I think both methods have their merits and place. The key to choosing the correct strategy is our awareness. Our ability to read ukes intentions from verbal and body language. Initiateing an attack in my opinion can be just as risky as inviting and attack. You have no idea what your opponent is capable of. And while your busy with your shomen attack, half a dozen of your oponents mates are busy jumping in to give him a helping hand or boot. If you can't walk away sometimes it is better to stand your ground.
It isn't as important what is taught as what is learned. Why limit yourself? No one just uses Aikido or style "X" in a physical confrontation. You use what you have learned. This extends beyond a single martial art, it is how you live, what you experience, it is internal and external. Styles are just the starting point, so you don't have to re-invent it all every time. To learn you need more than just the Aikido techniques, therefore in class more than the basic Aikido techniques are employed as attacks so Tori can learn and understand techniques and principles better. Those attacks are not Aikido techniques but they exist within Aikido training. It matters not if they are called Aikido or not, if you learn them, you can use them and you can adapt them for the situation. But bear in mind that people get better at what they do most. If you learn attacks but don't practice them and use them, then you won't get very good at them. So in a sense, Aikidoka have few good attacks as they only practice a few of them, much of the strength from Aikido training will come from people grabbing you as most of Aikidoka spend most of the time with practice that revolves around grabs. Thus, IMO, the majority of attacks in Aikido are designed to initiate grappling. If the attack does not initiate grappling, it probably is not Aikido. Of course, "good Aikido" uses technique and AI over brute strength so there are different approaches to how the grappling is done.
Ladystar – 2 quotes of yours: nowhere in Aikido itself is punching, kicking, blocking taught, And, I think it might be good for you to know, I have trained in a variety of Dojos, with a few different Sensais, and I'm just not sure what it is you are studying? Sounds vastly different from my experience and study. Blocks are not Aikido, as I have been taught. And that's ok! However, plz do not dishonor any Dojo in which you have not studied. We are all of us learning, in many different ways. (Not to be too picky BTW, but the spelling of the name of an instructor is usually ‘Sensei’ when translated into English, with an assistant instructor as a ‘Sempai’. In our style the former is only used by 3rd Dan and above.) Sorry if I dissed your clubs, but if you are not taught atemi then I am at a loss as to how you are able to practice aikido – what do you defend against? I know of no style which does not include the need to know how to punch – but I do know many clubs which never teach it – that’s bad teaching IMHO and I hope this is not the kind of experience you’ve had to lead you to conclude the above. I am often saddened by how poor atemi is – or isn’t, as much of it would never make contact let alone be worth defending against. As to your question about my own style and blocking in particular: Blocking (defined by me in earlier posting: ‘we certainly do block, preferably at the point when uke's momentum is weakest’) go back a bit from the technically excellent Dynamic Sphere and look at O Sensei’s students who founded other styles which are not reflected as well in that excellent book: Yoshinkan style founder Gozo Shioda has written an illustrated book called Total Aikido. Shioda was mainly taught by O Sensei when the latter was young and vigorous and Yoshinkan is seen as a relatively 'hard' style. My own Sensei, now also deceased, was taught by Shioda in Japan, so I'm going on what was taught to me as being 'authentic' even though my understanding is sometimes less than perfect. Technically, I believe aikido is about ‘harmonising’ with the ‘ki’ energy of the attack. This does not mean that every technique is a ‘blend’ by any means. If I pull back my arm to hit you, you may best prevent that blow by blocking it at its weakest point. Once a blow has energy and momentum, blocking is painful and much less useful than a blend. Here’s what Shioda says about dealing with a shomen-uchi attack in Total Aikido: ‘ SHOMEN-UCHI NO UKEKATA BLOCKING THE FRONT STRIKE’ Extracts: from page 51: ‘At the moment that you make the block, turn your hand over…… In aikido we block with the ulna, the forearm bone….’ I am sure you remember the 3 basics principles of timing, distance and balance – these dictate when a block is possible and desirable. My style is Shudokan, derived from Yoshinkan. What styles have you been taught that omit teaching of such atemi? I'm not being adversely critical, I just don't know of any.?? Hope I've been clear, but there's obviously quite a gulf in our practice to bridge
From what I saw yesterday at my first aikido class, aikido isn't as "soft" as I though it'll be. The Sensei remind me evil samurai. There was one moment, were the poor uke tried to resist to sensei's move (for real !). The "evil" sensei throwed pure uke 5 metes away. That was amazing, and painful as well .
We do pretty much the same thing, but are taught to turn the arm slightly the other way, so as not to clash ulna's, that hurts...
One of the things that I have been taught as one of the major fundamentals of Aikido is to not have "fighting mind". "Fighting mind" leads to purely physical altercation, which you may or may not be able to win. My experience with Ki Aikido has taught me that by keeping a calm mind, and blending Ki with your attacker, it is possible to neutralize any attack. ( not that I am capable of doing this yet.. ) IMHO leading the mind of your attacker/s is the most important and effective defense. The philosophy of drawing an attacker into a specific attack, IE grabbing a specific wrist, is accomplished by leading the mind and using the attackers natural instincts. If you are moving toward someone with intention to punch them and just before you launch your punch your opponent raises his wrist in front of you, your mind is going to focus on that wrist, even if only for a moment. This is one of the theories of leading your attackers mind. Every human being has certain instincts that they cannot control, without extensive training towards that end. One of the most powerful aspects of Aikido is to learn to use these instincts to help you direct ukes movement. The deeper mental training aspect is what drew me into aikido. I also believe that's what makes it an extremely effective art.
I would have to disagree with the sentiment behind what you've posted. Aikido is a 'martial' discipline regardless of how it is physically applied. To loose the 'martial' aspects of the art makes it nothing more than a series of meaningless movements. Understanding the difference between one's 'martial mind' (that being what we know will result if we were to actually apply a technique outside the dojo) and our 'training mind' (which is what we do when considering the application to a fellow student) is the key. As our skill becomes greater (as does that of our uke) we can apply technique with more of our martial mind at the forefront thus we train more and more realistically. (The level of realism in our training largely depends on the skill of uke to accept dynamic and powerful technique without sustaining injury). One must make a clear definition between the purpose of technique and the philosophy of the art. Whilst the two can seamlessly integrate, if one places way too much emphasis on one or the other the art becomes unbalanced. Regards
You bring up good points, but so does Dave and I would tend to agree more with how he put it since I believe that a "fighting mind" is an empty mind, no expectations just seated combat instincts and what is appropriate for the context of the situation. As for leading your attacker, that is not an attribute that is unique in Aikido. In fact it is a primary strategy in Muay Thai. The Thai boxers fight with hands up like the horns of a bull to make it appear as though they are long range fighters and that their midsection is open, as to draw an attack to that mid section. They, however, toughen their mid sections so when the attack comes to the midsection, it does not hurt them, and they will grab/clinch and close the gap to the close range that they can use powerful knees and elbows. I do agree with you that there is more to it that is not seen. I've heard this described as the "invisible range" where internally one deals with such questions as "when should someone be engaged" and "what is the best way to control them"? Rather than lead an attacker, I describe it as more guiding an attacker. A leader is in front leading the way, however, a guide just shows the path, giving options with educated information on the consequences of taking each option. In other words, find what an attacker wants and blend your strategy with their goals so they "feel" as if they are acting in their best interests, but instead, you are actually putting them in a position from which you can completely control them. My anology comes in that these aspects are not instinctive but invisible, they cannot be seen but they can be felt through awareness, knowledge and experience. This invisible range must be discovered because it cannot be taught with technique, only experience can test the way. Imagine now the combat in a low visibility situation, you cannot see well your opponent and they cannot see you, it is dark and foggy. This is the realm of the invisible range... emptiness. Now when and how do you engage and control the situation. That is what I am talking about.
