I was wondering if my fellow aikidoists would share their thoughts on this.. (I comment generally) In our training we may work with big circular movements that 'fit' the circumstances of a 'traditional' training method within the dojo, this environment being with us throughout our training from kyu to dan. Therefore, I think it would be fair to say training in this fashion is a 'norm' for quite a large portion of the Aikido community (I also base that on first hand observations over 16 odd years of practice) One might describe this as a "flowing" and or "open" form of movement. What I'd like to know is how people see their aikido in relation to a more 'martial' form. Is the open big circular movement what they consider to be their martial aspect of the discipline or, does one look to scale down the dynamics of their movement thus, be far more direct (one might say "martial") in application ? And if so... Is there a distinction between 'training' and actually 'doing' ? I come from a mainstream Aikikai background where, I feel very fortunate to have been exposed to both methods of training.. 'hard and soft' might be a good analogy to use however; I have experienced aikido from other sources that don't close the circular movements they use at any time. Whilst utilising those traditional training methods in the dojo, for example; shomen, yokomen, ai-hanmi etc etc movement in this way, very much fits the founder's latter part of his life's ideology for aikido where, it is less martial in intent however; do we feel through our training we have clear distinction between the martial aspect of Aiki (perhaps more akin to the earlier jutsu side) or, are we more focused on the less martial idealistic 'practice' which O-Sensei advocated post WWII ? I hold slightly conflicting opinion on Aikido which isn't particularly martial. (Tomiki Ryu a side) In one hand I consider Aikido to be, first and foremost a martial art, furthermore, I do not classify it as "Self defence". I feel the practice of Aikido needs to be focused on tradition without loosing practical application. On the other hand.. I appreciate that aikidoists may not specifically study aikido for its martial application thus, may not focus their training as such. Some times this bakes my noodle Look forward to reading your comments and thoughts.
Well there is a whole encyclopaedia's worth here I am sure. I will add a comment about the chaotic practice of Shodokan randori:- because of the lightning fast attacks and resistance to applications - small circle movements tend to leave uke crumpled in a heap, whereas large circle forms (as such) tend to finish with flowing breakfalls or stretched out pins. Obviously small circles are more common in such conditions because the attacker is trying to fill in any spaces where you could blend. On the 'positive' side (I put that in quotes because I don't really see it as a negative,) this allows superior (imo) development of timing and rhythm because these are what the uke is not giving you - so you must learn them through failure. And of course it comes to the stage where every movement is an opporchancity to blend...so controlling ma-ai suddenly becomes important. All this and everything else is involved in large/small circular (cough spiral) movements...imo. Situations not styles.
Cheers for that Dex.. I do agree that large circular (as you say spiral) movements are entirely applicable in certain circumstances in Aikido, I'm not completely convinced however, that we are given a clear distinction between what we do on the mat, when we train and, an understanding of a "martial" application where one could not expect to get the (even limited) amount of co-operation from our opponent. I would go so far as to say that, I've often got an impression from *some, that what their doing (big turns, large circles and spirals etc) is the be all and end all of their application. In my experiences of restraining prisoners, I'd be very surprised to see this form of movement ever work on some one other than a co-operative partner.
Looking at it from a standpoint of 2 years Shodokan/Tomiki experience, i.e. not much - a simple answer presents itself to my wee pea brain. O'Sensei as a young man was more martial (small circles) - due to experiences in his life and his religious proclivities as he got older molded his art to his personality as time moved on, i.e. more qi based, flowing and bigger circles - or to look at it another way, more artistic. It's like anything really, the better you get at something the more your body memory kicks in, which in turn frees you up to add in extra flair and be more body aware i.e. what your breath and mind is doing etc. I'll not continue down the path of the practicalities of which form of Aikido is best in practice with a fully resistant opponent as that particular can of worms has probably been opened before. But then again.... So Dave, would you say the restraints you've used in the past have been more Shodokan (tomiki)/Yoshinkan based i.e. small circle?
Dave absolutely. (btw you've done 10 years more than me) But isn't it just (partly) the difference between mat and real life? By that I mean 2 things:- Real life people don't attack with shomen-uchi, so 'adapting' to real attacks (or resistance) means the creation of waza is comes in smaller movement because realistically most aikido training attacks are BIG allowing BIG things; Real life people don't have any decent balance etc anyway, so applications in such circumstances are going to be smaller (circle) because ukemi as such is not an option...merely gravity. By these I do not mean to imply that it is easy to apply waza in these situations..I am sure you would agree the opposite is probably true up to a point. Merely that once you are passed the 'opening' and are in a position to apply. Having said that...ask 100 people and get 100 answers on this one
Big circle, little circle I was told once that you train with big movements so that you develop you hip/body movement because that's where your power is generated. As time goes by you should learn to develop that same power with small or even very small circles. Hope that helps.
timmeh "So Dave, would you say the restraints you've used in the past have been more Shodokan (tomiki)/Yoshinkan based i.e. small circle?" I dunno mate purely because I've never studied either of those forms of aikido. What I will say however, my application was 1000 fold more martial in application than i'd ever consider appropriate for the mat on an uke. Dexter "Real life people don't attack with shomen-uchi, so 'adapting' to real attacks (or resistance) means the creation of waza is comes in smaller movement because realistically most aikido training attacks are BIG allowing BIG things;" Dex.. thats my point mate.. how many students really acknowledge this through their training and understand the vast difference between co-operative practice and martial application ? philipsmith "I was told once that you train with big movements so that you develop you hip/body movement because that's where your power is generated. As time goes by you should learn to develop that same power with small or even very small circles." I think I've heard you say that on the mat Phil, I can't disagree with the principle however, I have a *problem with with the latter, where students don't "do" their aikido in a martial sense. *see my first post for my thoughts Quoting your father for a moment "Martial mind" I think this sums up what I see as missing in some areas of aikido, Aikido is practiced as an ideolistic subject based upon the founder's concepts post WWII and perhaps not, as a 'discipline' which ultimately involves direct physical contact where intent is martial in orientation.
Big movements are a learning tool. Easier to see what your teacher is doing when he makes a big circle. For the same reason my teachers often lift up the legs of their hakama so I can see their feet. Aside from that, I don’t think there is a universal answer to the question, “Big or small?” You might as well ask me if a punch is better than a kick. I think it depends on the situation. My thinking is that sometimes, for tactical reasons, a big movement would best diffuse my attacker’s energy, but sometimes a small movement would be better. What do I care either way? Just do what is appropriate for the energy given to you and the circumstances that you are in.
Naturally I agree 100% however what *if* an aikidoist doesn't know any different only ever uses "big" aikido and, never scales down the dimensions of the circular/spiral movements that would be far more appropriate when the speed or intent of an 'attack' is greater than appropriate for larger movement. My specific point is this... Have some schools lost the "martial art" plot a little ? I look at aikido this way, when the founder was a young man his aiki was very martial, as his life progressed his aiki became less martial and more a "way" (do) of training in aiki. Unfortunately we as contemporary students don't have the benefit of having experienced the circumstances and times that shaped aikido as we know it today. Thus, I genuinely feel there is a community of aikidoists who aren’t being taught a martial art, yes they are learning aikido but is it martial in application ? Aikido is somewhat of a paradox. It is born from Koryu tradition but in our lifetime(s) it is taught with peace, love and harmony as a back bone to its foundation. Now, please don't get me wrong, I'm certainly not questioning the ethics behind the integration of these concepts in to what is a physical budo however, I am concerned when, what should be a martial discipline, is applied with those concepts at the *forefront* Frankly I've seen some absolute crap taught in the name of aikido, one supposed instructor from West Yorkshire instructing his students to physically say "thank you" (during) each and every time one executed a technique, when I enquired as to the reason for this, I was told "Aikido is a polite art" FFS ! Polite my ****, I'm going to give absolutely no quarter to whom ever creates a situation where I deem it appropriate to apply aiki technique. <shakes head in disbelief> Getting back to my point, Aikido is a martial discipline, as such that involves (by definition of "martial") a degree of physical sometimes aggressive interaction (controlled of course) which should be trained for in a realistic (there I've gone and said that word lol) fashion. I recall the very first time I took a class of Chiba Sensei.. Prior to that I thought I'd got a grasp upon the handle known as aikido. How wrong could I have been ! Chiba Sensei was all over his uke, his aikido was both graceful to watch (and sometimes not) yet it was probably the most martial I've seen ever, it left me with a lasting impression as you can probably tell. Whilst I'm not suggesting we should all be clones of Chiba sensei, if there was a greater emphasis on being martial, I think we'd have a far better 'martial' art. Thanks for your replies BTW
Funny because I was only talking about this very subject yesterday with a student who stated he thought (in general) most 3rd/4th generation instructors today, are only teaching the aikido of the founder akin to his later part of his life and not, specifically a martial form of aiki. Quite astute really The issue becomes more evident if you have the opportunity to train with instructors who, were students of the founder when he was more martial in orientation, their teachings reflect that approach. Unfortunately, those valuable people are becoming less and less. I'll be kandid and say, in the not too distant future we'll have a situation where we are learning aikido from sources which have never had any direct contact with the Ueshiba family (regardless of style) Although this is possible now, at least somewhere down the chain there is a link that connects to a respective hombu and eventually back to the source however, I do shudder at the thought of loosing all traces of the martial aspects of aikido... Then IMHO it just becomes a form of dance. Personaly I feel as time marches on, we need to ensure we are retaining the martial part of our martial art otherwise time to hang up the hakama and do somthing else. - But that's just me of course.
Yep, that's just you. Well, maybe not just you. But it's not something that bothers me. I say, if you want to fight other people then take up boxing or JJ or escrima or wing chun or whatever, but don't take up aikido. That's not what aikido is for. Aikido is for fighting yourself, not for fighting other people. And, may I add, that is it's greatest strength, and what makes it more useful than other martial arts.
THe one thing i would add here about circles is that yes certain traning will decide on the size of the circle or the level of trainig, but true Aikido in its highest form or Takemusu Aiki is no longer a circle but sharp line that pierces stright through your opponent ie 'morotadori kokyu nage kino nagare' is such a small movement because it appears to be a straight attack.
I have only one guide - check out the lineage of your sensei and see when he/his sensei was training with O Sensei, Shioda, Chiba etc. It seems that some of our UK clubs use the 'ki' argument to claim some kind of superiority for softer and slower styles that may bear no resemblance to O Sensei in old age. Good news for the rest of us, there's ki employed in the harder styles too! It's just the case that small circles used at high speed need a uke to respond at high speed or suffer injury. It all requires a decent level of fitness. Perhaps this is why some (unfit?) instructors prefer large circles, no atemi and no weapons training (certainly no freestyle live tanto etc). When they do this they cheat their students out of much of what Aikido is all about, including aspects of their beloved 'ki development'. As a form of spiritual development, all styles of Aikido are equally capable of this if taught by an instructor well versed in O Sensei's teachings. As a martial art, some are woefully inadequate. I admit I've seen a 'full on' tanto attack dealt with very well by a softer 'ki aikido' sensei, but only once, in response to a single attack. I've seen it at Shudokan (Yoshinkan) classes every week, against repeated and sustained attacks with a live tanto (sorry to those of you who prefer a rubber sausage).
It's nothing to do with sausages. It's to do with having legal insurance so your club can operate in a building and be recognised by an authority and not have to pay 3 thousand pounds a month in extras and be open to millions of pounds in lawsuits. Sausages are in the mind of the complacent. You think you could avoid a sausage? I know some 5th kyus that would rapidly educate you
So what your intimating then... above all else.. Aikido irrespective of many factors isn't a martial art ? ...."if you want to fight other people then take up boxing or JJ or escrima or wing chun or whatever, but don't take up aikido" This thread isn't and never has been about picking fights, or any other connotation of premeditated intent, it's a discussion concentrating on *If* we are loosing the martial aspect of our discipline, nothing more. I've today returned from two days at the UKA annual summer school, Sugiwara Sensei being the guest instructor from Hombu Dojo. I didn't see any aspect of his aikido (or any of the Shidoin's for that matter) that indicated that "AIKIDO" was an internal struggle, actually most of what was being taught was 'applied aikido' Martial first and foremost. As I stated in one of my earlier posts, I really don't have a problem with students (and that includes me to some degree) who wish to study a tradition and are less interested in the practicalities of their actions, if these people are honest with themselves and don’t purport this study as being a fighting art.. Fine however, and getting back to the thrust of my first post, I am seeing aikido being practiced that, push comes to shove, isn't worth the effort of the student.
Agreed.. Anyone (aikidoists) using live edged weapons dull or sharp are operating outside of their insurance policy. Assuming it's BAB insurance issued through Perkin Slade. However, even insurances issued through other agencies don't cover the use of 'edged' weapons without some hefty additional premium. As a student of Iaido I cannot practice with a sword of *any* description within the realms of an insurance policy without first joining the BKA and... If I'm seen to be using a sword within an aikido class neither of my insurance policies are valid.
Oh dear, another can of worms. I have also practised Iaido, with an edged weapon, under Musashi UK, Muso Jidiken Eishen Ryu, some years ago. I believe they still do, as cutting straw bales (tamo shagiri?) is part of the learning process and curriculum. The BKA teach Kendo, so naturally their focus is different from pure Iai - presumably this is why their insurance precludes live blades. As for Aikido, Shudokan uses UKMAF for insurance. (The founder of Shudokan was afounder member of BAB, but there was the usual political splintering.) Edged weapons are introduced gradually - wooden tanto first, then steel, then 'live' steel tanto for Dan gradings. No need for personal insults about the rubber sausage - Shudokan dan grades evade a live tanto wielded by other Dan grades in fully committed and random attacks, so please don't insult them by assuming a 5th Kyu could strike them. Although I agree that the weapon's construction is irrelevant to the technique, live blades do focus the mind wonderfully. No need for ink pens to test strikes - blood would soon expose poor training and technique. Please don't atack me personally with this rubbish - join a Shudokan class and learn. Then criticise. There are clubs in the UK, Malaysia, Poland, Germany, Australia etc.. If that's no good, look for Yoshinkan - a similar style.
Cant' believe what I just picked up from reading the posting again!!- Using a sword within an Aikido class is surely THE way to show the roots of all aikido - O Sensei used one all the time to show technique, I'm told. Ok, a bokken may do, but ......AAARGH!! If anyone disagrees with the need to employ a katana then that's their privilege, but I can't see how anyone can claim to train in Aikido without exposure to the traditional weapons against which some of the techniques were designed to operate. If any instructor feels vulnerable to prosecution then get students to sign an agreement that when live blades are used they recognise that they are uninsured and at risk and agree to those risks. This should surely take care of accidental injury. I'm sure some solicitor somewhere can advise the BAB on the wording for this. Cant' believe what I've read, but then I suppose in an age when a teacher can't take kids on a country walk without risk assessments etc etc I can't say I'm totally surprised. As for the dojo, again I would imagine a waiver should take care of it. Can't be sure as we had our own dojo. Don't the BAB offer ANY legal templates to their members?! Of course, I am not legally trained and offer the above as opinion, not advice, and claim no special expertise in such matters, so don't sue me, pretty please, if you use a live tanto and cut someone!!! That would be your decision......hum!
