Let me clarify something for you.. 1) Aikido as far as INSURANCE is concerned isn't a live edged martial art. If you want to use live blades you need ADDITIONAL insurance 2) The BKA ISN'T just a Kendo association (despite what the name suggest) within the BKA (which is the governing body within the UK for both Kendo and Iai...) They incorporate Kendo, Iaido, Kydo. The BKA does NOT preclude the use of live edged weapons within their insurance policies.. In fact it's quite the opposite. 3) Regardless of what O-Sensei may or may not have done during his life to propergate Aikido, we on the other hand are governed by a set of insurance laws and by-laws that protect us against litigation. 4) Getting any student to sign a "waiver" is as useless as the paper it's written on. if that student dies or is seriously injured, their relatives can seek litigation on thier behalf and, attempt to persue a claim of negligent behaviour on the part of the instructor.. Waviers within UK law are useless. Thats why we have insurance. 5) You wrote "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." This is nothing but plain ignorance. Aikido is a Sword INFLUANCED discipline. It does not cover the actual use of a Japanese sword. Yes you will see many Aikidoists including myself operate quite effectively with a katana, but that's either because we've trained specifically in seperate sword discipline or, their grasp of AIKIKEN is such that their transition to the actual sword is minimal. I've said this before several times.. Aikido is NOT as sword art. It is an heavily sword (amongst other weapons) Influanced system.
I agree with some of the above, Dave, (except your insult about my own ignorance!) but please let's not get into who is the 'governing body' for what. The BKA has Japanese masters and has a strong UK following. However, it's not the recognised governing body for all other organisations teaching Iai. The Eikoku Roshukai, even though they may use BKA insurance, were quite independent and took authority from Iwata in Japan. The focus is quite different. (Am I out of date, as I don't currently practice Iai?) For your information, O Sensei trained extensively in Daito Ryu Aikijujutsu, which uses the katana with great frequency in illustrating the ORIGIN of unarmed techniques. Try to catch a UK demo of Daito Ryu by Okabayashi Sensei and see what I mean - both he and his Uke use live katana. Yoshinkan and Shudokan styles have forms, almost like katas ,which are done empty handed AND with a sword. Too complex to explain in a short posting, but just take it from me that a katana has an active role in styles which you may not have encountered. Incidentally, at no point did I state that Aikido was a sword art, but that we still use the katana in demonstrating the roots of techniques and, in Shudokan, occasionally as a weapon in Uke's hand against which Tori defends.
You entirely misunderstand my point. See Sport England http://www.sportengland.org/recognition_of_activities#governing See the list for Kendo The BKA is the officially recognised body for the governing of Kendo within the UK, incorporating Iaido and Kyudo. As such they are the primary source of insurance for the practice of thise disciplines. I'm not suggesting they are the sole organisation for the teaching of Iaido or Kendo because they can be sourced elsewhere.
This website seems to put edits back further up the list of posings, so i've put this one in again. I agree with some of the above, Dave, (except your insult about my own ignorance!) but please let's not get into who is the 'governing body' for what. The BKA has Japanese masters and has a strong UK following. However, it's not the recognised governing body for all other organisations teaching Iai. The Eikoku Roshukai, even though they may use BKA insurance, were quite independent and took authority from Iwata in Japan. The focus is quite different. (Am I out of date, as I don't currently practice Iai?) For your information, O Sensei trained extensively in Daito Ryu Aikijujutsu, which uses the katana with great frequency in illustrating the ORIGIN of unarmed techniques. Try to catch a UK demo of Daito Ryu by Okabayashi Sensei and see what I mean - both he and his Uke use live katana. Yoshinkan and Shudokan styles have forms, almost like katas ,which are done empty handed AND with a sword. Too complex to explain in a short posting, but just take it from me that a katana has an active role in styles which you may not have encountered. Incidentally, at no point did I state that Aikido was a sword art, but that we still use the katana in demonstrating the roots of techniques and, in Shudokan, occasionally as a weapon in Uke's hand against which Tori defends. Of course, I would recommend any Aikido instructor to get some training in Iaido or some basic tanto, wakazashi and katana techniques or they would make a very poor trainer of uke's.
This thread got slightly derailed. As for the big circle/small circle. I use both. If the attacker is offering alot of energy Ill start cultivating it by using a large circle and once I have it under control the technique spirals into a smaller circle. The only other time we use large circles is with lower kyus.
Umm.. ok Aikido outsider joining the party: Aiki. I have a real issue with calling an Aikido a martial art if the above is true. Martial arts are meant for self defense and fighting. If the specific goal of Aikido has become personal development, then it's transformed to something else. And that something else is not a martial art. And the diea of teaching self defense as part of a cirrculumn should be removed as well. Otherwise students are being given a dangerous set of beliefs in their own ability that might fail them at a time when they can't aford it. It's better to not know anything than think you know something. Exculding the idea that Aikido isn't geared for self defense or fighting, is it possible to change training methodology (or introduce methods) to allow for small, practical circle practice against street techniques? For example could more realistic attacks and defenses be used if both the uki and the defender are moving at slower speed, but remaining in time. Example, the attacker throws street cross and retracts it unless the defender does something to suspend the technique. Thoughts? - Matt
Man, why is it every one assumes the only target you have is the attacking appendage? I mean is it not that obvious? As for aikido being martial or not... I've practiced Aikijujutsu, Aikijutsu, and, Aikido. To be honest there really isnt much that seperates the three. Mostly it is philosophy and modifications to techniques to accomodate them. It would be hard to argue that daito-ryu isnt martial, and we all know aikido has strong roots in daito-ryu. I mean honestly, it isnt that difficult to go from one mind set to another depending on the application. The nuances the differintiate do from jutsu/jujutsu are not that difficult to adapt to. I honestly believe they should be both. Can you still call it Aikido? I guess it depends on your definition but if any school claims 'self defense' then they most certainly should spend a sufficient amount of time teaching both martial and non martial applications. Ah I get so confused talking about this grey area of aiki. My personal philosophy is, after you've been training long enough you will have a great understand of the body, its physical limitations, balance manipulation, and other useful things. When you get to this point you can throw the confines of 'this technique' versus 'that technique' out of the window since you can dynamically apply the principals. With that knowledge you can also control the severity of what ever it is you are applying.
Ok... Thanks to the continued replies fellas So I pose my question again with another aspect attached Do we feel that some schools have lost the "martial" plot a little ? One answer was "Yes" and I have to agree with it, reading some of the additional replies indicates a similar feeling so, how could we counter act that ? My thoughts on the matter are quite varied, come controversial. I'll keep off the controversial ones purely because I think it's fair to say I've expressed most of them here before. From an instructor's point of view I'm enthusiastic about maintaining the traditional facets of Aikido, I am at heart a traditionalist who believes in dojo discipline, etiquette and 'old school' methods of training (most of which can be described as forms) That said, IMHO students should also be fully taught how to punch effectively, strike with their hands (in various ways) employ their elbows and be conditioned to being punched/struck at with some degree of actual intent. Problem 1: Most if not all (purely) contemporary aikido Sensei have no comprehension of effective atemi waza unless their Sensei was either 1st generation IE Abbe/Chiba/Shibarta Sensei for example (to name just three) Unless of course they undertake some form of additional training which includes those skills. Problem 2: As a member of an organisation teaching Aikikai I never once received formal instruction in atemi waza other than that of learning how to make the traditional attacks of Shomen uchi, Yokomen uchi etc. And this was never applied on a punch bag to learn what it would feel like, and how to develop those skills effectively. I'm sure that may be the case for many other students regardless of style. Problem 3: To my knowledge, physical atemi waza isn't tested in grading syllabus thus another reason why it probably gets neglected. Opinion based on experience: As a former prison officer I can say with some conviction (pardon the pun) that it is highly unlikely in a one on one situation; one could get away without having to actually hit one's opponent in some form or another, before an immobilisation could be effectively applied. No I'm not suggesting Aikido techniques must reply upon atemi first however, I have a considerable amount of experience in restraining resisting individuals, and unless I was very lucky to be exactly in the right place at the right time, I was forced to make a controlled strike which would provide me with the opportunity to effect a restraint. Obviously everything is relative to a given set of unique circumstances however, although I do consider Aikido to be effective, it does lack in practical atemi skills.
Fair point. I was wrinitng as a neophyte and outside observer. I do realize that you don't have to simply work against the attacking appendage. However, in my exposure to Aikido that is typically what the demonstrator did. Forgive my ignorance, does the large vs. small circle issue come heavily into play when not working with a specific appendage? And is it possible to slow down the randori, while keeping the intent and response realistic in order to practice small circle defenses? Again it seems that things come back to the issue of controlling strikes. Any practical manipulation that I've been taught has always been set up by controlled stiking. I have a hard time believing that step can be skipped in most cases (though there are exceptions like casting). - Matt
Absulutely right. Didn't O Sensei say at some point that Aikido was 80% atemi? many wrist locks etc were designed to be applied AFTER a damned good atemi strike (whether a feint or actual contact) and I have to laugh when I see some aikidoka tacking a beginner who doesn't 'know' that he is supposed to be compliant. Yes, we are all compliant as uke's but let's not forget that originally this stuff was meant to work against a strong and committed attack. Pain and/or surprise is required before many of our techniques may be applied to the rigid wrist of an angry man holding a weapon, for example. Big circular hand gestures may be good form, but I have seen many 'traditional aikido' classes where this is the closest they get to atemi and yet tell students that it is practical as self defence (?). I thought we had some pretty good atemi skills in (hard style) Shudokan, and compared to most aikidoka I think we probably had, but apart from those with other MA (karate etc) experience, when it came to joint training a few years ago with other arts such as shorinji kenpo, karate, etc, we were pretty crap in making a good solid punch or kick with the correct timing, distance and balance.
I find this very funny as well, even when I do it. You do have to remember that I can make the technique work, but 1 of at least 2 things has to happen; a. I pound the stew out of you and you dont have the presence of mind to squirm out of the technique OR b. I take enough of your balance to make the technique work as intended which usually yields a howling uke. You could also do the technique faster but the other 2 option would yield a greater benifit for the tori. Either of these arent very desirable in the dojo As for small circle/ big circle for a non attacking appendage, or static appendage. I find small circle works better for static throws, they are quicker and easier to control. This is of course after taking kazushi or applying some pain. Without either of these you might as well not do anything.
Complience is a necessary evil of aikido, the problem is, knowing when NOT to be complient. Going back again to my first post... I was refering to the size of circular/sprial movement purely because, large circles and big circular movements are only *part* of aikido. remembering from my earlier post, I mentioned that I was seeing student who knew nothing but this kind of movement and expected it to fit in a situation of practicality which, through my personal experiences isn't the case. A basic premiss of Aikido is, the faster the attack the less one has to move to take effect of the kinetic energy being delivered, the slower the attack the more one has to move to make the most of the energy.
Of course it's a martial art. I'm only intimating what you also said: "... 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." I agree with your statement. I sincerely believe that non-fighting-art aikido can be made to work in a fist-fight. But very truly, the moment that I start to believe that I will be getting into fist-fights, I will stop going to the aikido dojo and return to the JJ or muay thai gym, or some such place. That's because aikido is not the "best tool for the job." I consider aikido a martial art, but not a fighting art, and I like it that way. I very much like that aikido is not a fighting art.
I think when the technique is almost fully on is the time to be compliant or a squeek pops out of your uke due to a tense limb. Just as an aside - with the utmost respect Dave it's compliAnt, COMPLIANT !!!!!!!!!!!! - being the age I am it was the last week of corporal punishment and Hitlers evil Uncle was the English teacher - your spelling of compliAnt was the word that caused the pain.... (don't even mention 'separate'). Is there deep seated resentment/anxiety there - possibly, have I let it go, created closure? - aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrghhhhhhhhhhhh..... (If you think I'm bad go and spell 'akido' at Freeform - not pretty) What kind of response is that! I only get a half hour lunch break, I agree, yet disagree, yet can't decide?!.... I could have just let it go as your opinion, but I've sat here trying to come up with an answer/reply... my keyboard is awash and sticky with blood and brains. The only thing left is the 'traditional' - 'non traditional' argument to rear it's ugly head and I may just go pop. ...the spirit of Basil Faulty is hovering over me today - apologies
Another non-Akido (sorry timmeh, I couldn't resist) martial artist here. I studied Karate for about 10 years or so before coming across Aikido (out of frustration with the local Karate teachers abilities (or lack thereof). What I found was startling. I thought that it was totally silly the way I was being taught to comply, I also thought that the techniques were useless. Then I had an "Aha!” it occurred to me that Aikido was being taught to me from the perspective of principals. This is very different form the approach that I was exposed to. The principals of blending and circular motion were not new to me but in my training thus far I was NEVER able to successfully use them. In a very short time of training in Aikido I was able to see how to use these principals. However, I was still of the opinion that these guys simply could not fight, and for the most part I was right. It took a while to realize that being able to fight was not their intent, embodying these principals was. I did however notice that the guys that were there who studied another art as well were very, very good fighters, much better than people who did one or the other. I then moved on to Tai Chi. The similarities between Tai Chi and Aikido are many, including being taught from principles. I have now come full circle and again study Karate, with what I gained from Aikido is that I can now see much deeper into my karate. In fact, the circles are there too; they are just quite a bit smaller. Taking the circles from big to small is essential to being able to apply them in full speed, full contact sparring. In the end I would have to say that trying to fight with Aikido training alone will take a long, long time, maybe 20 years or so. Figuring out how to fight with karate (and understand the principals on which it was created) will take a long, long time, maybe 20 years or so. I think that studying Aikido as a martial art is probably not the best idea. If you are a lifelong martial artist, NOT studying Aikido as a martial art is probably not the best idea!
You must be old mate, CSEs went out years ago ...apologies again, the pedantic, pontificating, hypocritical 'Moley' character who sits opposite me almost got small circled today... psychologists call it 'transference' - I'm blending with it as we speak (pass me big stick) MartialArtsSnob, your walking a veeeery thiiiiin line- beware, coo on the edge... <<shouts>>FREEFORM!
