Did I say that? I certainly didn't mean to. I think what I said would include also your pre-emptive strikes, for intention truly begins in the mind. "Train your mind!" my teacher always said, in every class. Over time we should be learning to read a person's commitment before his blow comes. I have read of numerous accounts of O-Sensei doing just this. "Move with the speed of the gods" I think is how O-Sensei phrased it (translated in John Stevens' books). Riiiight. Okay. That is very good aikido. I'm not there yet. I look forward to the day when I can do it consistently. I wholeheartedly agree, but would say the same about verbal attacks.
AikiMac You are correct you didn't say... I did, your statement that prompted my reply was.. Which is incorrect. Anyone who understands the mechanics of a fight should already have begin their defences long before an attacker commits to an attack. In Aikido sense that would be described as Zanshin, our situational awareness. I think it's important to to make a differentiation between a "Threat" and an "Attack" A threat is a presumption of danger or fear based upon a set of circumstances, it can be verbal "I'm gonna FU*K you up!!" or it can be some form of physical means such as body language or manor. - Threatening Behaviour. An attack should be considered a physical interation between two parties where, harm is intentional. Both circumstances may warrant pre emtive action. The definitions of Threat and Attack are based upon my own values of what what I consider appropriate to my safety, naturally I don't presume to suggest they are appropriate to anyone else. Regards
Fair enough. I was thinking in terms of actions, not awareness. I agree that situational awareness should always be there long before the attack. But equally, I have never seen aikido demonstrated or taught as anything but a reaction to a committed attack. 'Tis very hard to blend with energy that's not going anywhere (hence, we want the other guy to commit himself), and to strike first makes you the aggressor, which hardly promotes "ai." I don't have Ratti & Westbrook's "Dynamic Sphere" in front of me, but if I remember correctly, their 4th level of physical confrontation to which aikido aspires was something like, "He provokes unjustly, I do not take the bait, he then attacks without reason, and I defend."
You make a very good point, and I too have the Dynamic Sphere, I consider it very much a modern bible of Aikido. Whilst I understand what you’re driving at in the comment I've quoted, I still don't fully agree. On another forum recently I debated the practicalities of traditional aikido against the need to develop and refine the art from 'old' school ways, more akin to modern ways of attack etc. I have to say at this point I am very much a traditionalist and don't believe in altering the art left by the Founder - which is practiced at Hombu Dojo today. That said, I'm not waiting around on some noble quest or sitting on some higher purpose that many see as inherent to Aikido. The principles of Aiki are at heart very martial, granted the Founder wanted to re united people after the horrors of the second world war through the practice of Aikido but, I am under no illusions that O-Sensei's sentiments then do not directly translate to today’s society of muggers, druggies and scumbags, a sad fact but true never the less. I avoid conflict at all costs because as we all know no one really wins in a fight, but; I'm never going to wait to receive an attack if it's appropriate to seize the initiative and end something quickly and without the risks involved in a prolonged 'scrap' Do you practice in a mainstream aikido organisation (IE Aikikai) or another ryu ? Aikikai don't teach aikido from a physically proactive method, yes we are already mentally prepared, I do accept your point that we wait to receive an attack thus apply technique however, one's own attitude to training has a huge impact upon it's eventual effectiveness. If your training to always receive an attack before you can do something, you are placing yourself in disadvantage. Yes I also accept that a primary principle of Aikido is to use the Kinetic energy of our adversary but, applications such as Irimi, Tenshi, lend themselves very well to static opponents. A well delivered atemi will create movement, movement you can capitalise upon very quickly. DaveH
We're on the same page. If only 1/4 of the O-Sense stories are true, then I suspect that no modern mugger or druggie or scumbag would stand a chance against him. I think whatever differences we have are due to our individual need to resort to fisticuffs. I am not a prison guard or bouncer or soldier or cop. Neither at my job nor in my residential neighborhood am I threatened with bodily harm. Consequently, I would be in the wrong if I initiated a physical atemi or whatever. But I can understand how a prison guard might need to initiate something while he's inside the prison walls. My current school is part of the Aikido Schools of Ueshiba, headed by Mitsugi Saotome, a 15-year uchideshi of the Founder. My prior school was part of the American Aikido Association, headed (until his recent death) by Toyoda Sensei. Both organizations are affiliated with the Aikikai hombu dojo.
Since I started posting here I have noticed most people seem to be very technique orientated in their thinking when it comes to discussing real fights on the street or how Aikido would match up to another art. A beginer or practitioner of another art based purely in technique could be forgiven for thinking this way. However I think that the higher kyu grades and certainly the dan grades contributing to this forum should have realised that the principles behind the techniques are more important than the actual techniques them selves. After all how many basic techniques are there? And how many variations of those techniques exist? Do the basic principles behind those techniques change from basic techniques to more advanced techniques? If they did what would be the point? The reason I brought this up is in quite a number of threads in this forum people are defending Aikidos apparent lack of practical effectivness by saying something along the lines of "It's not designed for fighting" and yet here we are again discussing what would happen in a real situation. It seems to have become almost a requirement not to leave the subject for more than five minutes. My self included. I think if we all put more effort into studying the art of Aikido instead of just the techniques involved or what would happen if ... or is Aikido any good against this or that then we'd all make better Aikido students and be more capable. I'm not putting anyone down. It's just something I've been thinking about for awhile. And considering how repetative the discussion on the Aikido forum seems to be I thought I'd share it.
I have. A Yoshinkan school in Bristol, I only watched one class (never got the chance to train with them). Tori threw a pre-emptive atemi at uke and then capitalised on ukes defensive reaction. One example was to throw a shomen-uchi, uke raises an age uki to block the attack. Tori switches into an ikkyo/Oshi Taoshi. Col
Wolfie, you raise some very important points. Technique is important but as you rightly point out, the principles behind the technique are far more important. Other wise we'd just be practicing 'mechanics' without any real understanding behind the application. The principles also mirror the origins of the technique. In effect "why" we do something a particular way, this is especially true of Aikikai Aikido. Naturally we need to teach technique, but as a student develops a firm understanding, the principles become far more important. I think it's important to make a distinction between the purpose of Aiki 'do' and the prewar forms of 'jutsu' It think it would be fair to say (without quoting verbatim) the founder, that Aiki 'do' wasn’t intended to be a purely martial practice otherwise it would still be called Ueshiba Juku or Aikijutsu, two previous names of what we now know as Aikido. The practice of Aikido (and I can only speak from the experiences of Aikikai) is as much a continuation of the traditions as it is about a study of the martial aspects of the discipline however, as it's been mentioned before in this forum, it is unfortunate that quite a number of instructors have little or no actual martial combat experience therefore their Aikido is taught with this perspective lacking. Now, I'm not saying that to be a good Aikido instructor, you need to fight a lot absolutely not however, if you make the comparison with Tomiki Ryu or even Judo, these students and their instructors are testing their skills in a semi combative arena known as 'Competition' Aikikai for instance does not include this in their syllabus. It is therefore very important for students to be taught technique/principles from the perspective of correct 'Attitude' if you consider it martial and look for the martial aspects of the applications then you'll find them otherwise, Aikido takes on this spiritual "higher purpose" concept that can often be associated with the discipline. Having said that, I don't have any problem with a student wanting to understand the deeper aspects of the art, including the religious connections but, it has to be made clear that Aikido can be effectively studied for either reason(s) and not just for realism, combat or self defense. Regards
I'd like to continue on from my last reply and talk specifically about the above comment. I *think* I know where your coming from although I did read a degree of 'are you not aware of what I'm saying' in your statement, please correct me if that isn't or wasn’t the intent. It's just the way I read it. I understand what you’re driving at with regards to the 'principles' however, in many cases the principles of aikido technique cannot be demonstrated or even taught without some for technique unfolding as a result. I have found that even diligent students appear to be listening and watching what I'm teaching yet, as soon as they stand up, they look lost. I've done it myself many times. ... We look, we listen but didn't absorb. Principles are (as far as I’m concerned) the hardest aspect of Aikido to teach. As humans we are a tuned to learning what we see (especially in practical lessons) so we focus upon the actions and place less importance on the theoretical or historical aspects which in effect, greatly influence why we move or act in a specific way for any given technique. A good instructor will demonstrate several times a technique, make a simple explanation and allow his students to practice but, it is also very important to explain the "whys" and "hows" of a technique otherwise, as I said before, we just produce robotic aikido with no understanding or depth to it. It is a difficult balance of technique vs. principle = quality DaveH
By priciples I wasn't refering to anything deep and complicated. What I meant was that techniquies are tools to teach people how to move someone off balance, where the body does and doesn't bend. Things like that. So far as 'are you not aware of what I'm saying' sort of attitude is concerned. No that's not what I was getting at. Like I said it was something I was thinking about. But now that you've brought it up, I think it's a fair question to ask considering the number of times people in the forum have answered questions like "would aikido techniquies work in a real fight" and faild to clearley make the connection in their answer. If you read my post again you'll notice I did apply that line of questioning to my self as well as the forum in general. No element of condecention intended.
