When teaching I like to emphasise the following points to achieving good technique, particuarly for striking attacks. What are your thoughts? 1. Committed Attack - something real to defend against 2. Body Movement - to get off line of attack 3. Soft Blocks - keep the attacker moving 4. Appropriate Unbalancing - the right unbalancing for the technique 5. Mechanically Correct - correct leverage and direction for locks, throws and takedowns. 6. Economical Use of Strength - too much strength equals poor execution of technique 7. Economical Use of Movement - use the minimum of movement necessary for the technique. NB Takedowns we classify as techniques where the attacker's feet are not lifted off the ground. Locks can be takedowns if the lock is not continued and is released at the point of driving the attacker to the ground. Throws are never takedowns for us.
Spot on keikai and at an advanced level all of what you said in a single fluid movement. Whenever I teach I concentrate on principles (just as you have written) caring little about which technique is applied. Principles over technique every time. regards koyo Your thoughts on enten jizai please. the principle that says attack and defence are one. Example as you align the body to escape (defend) this alignment carries a strike (attack)
Thank you koyo. Advanced level is what I would call the technique done correctly - well working towards it.
Yep, that's pretty spot-on. That's the same curricula that we have. on top of these, I would add; 8. Awareness of the enemy's location and distance in relation to your own. Also maintaining an air of distrust. Zanshin and ma-ai 9. Maintenance of constant eye contact. Using peripheral vision to see the enemy's entire body - which foot he steps off with, or if he reaches for a concealed weapon. Metsuke 10. Mental flexibility. If one technique isn't applied properly, don't try it again, use a different one, while applying atemi. Nyunanshin 11. Mental steadfastedness. The attitude that you will not lose or be severely injured. Fudoshin Granted, not physical techniques in themselves, but very important mental ones.
For your consideration The first aikido shihan to teach outside of Japan (early sixties) taught these principles. (1) Attack at all times (2) Develop a superior fighting spirit (3) Dominate the spirit of your attacker (4) Assert control in general and over the centreline, timing and distance in particular. All principles which I believe are in harmony with your posts. IF WE UNDERSTAND HARMONY (AIKI) TO BE THE ABILITY TO CAUSE AN ATTACKER TO MOVE WHERE AND WHEN TO YOUR DICTATES. I wish more aikidoka would approach the art in this manner. Excellents posts my thanks. Respectfully koyo
Good points all. Points 8 and 9 I would put in the category of STRATEGY of dealing with attack. The main points we use for multiple attackers is a) keep one attacker between yourself and the others and b) avoid turning your back the others where ever possible. The use of a number of different body movements and the ability to do techniques on the outside of the attacker's arms and from between them and to be able to do the defences both left and right enables the two points. Without a good mental attitude with regard to being out there to win the rest is not going to much good to you. On the point of changing technique where it does not work I always emphasize the need to unbalance rather than atemi. There are many ways of unbalancing and atemi is just one of them. Why limit yourself? Koyo the first point you mention is attack. Is this the mental attitude of being strong and detirmined to win or initialising the action? I must confess the attitude is the one I prefer.
I seriously disagree with this ... No way in the world I would be looking a potential aggressor in the eye. I would be looking at their chest region to try and keep their legs and their arms in view so I can be aware of punches or kicks coming in. You can also get distracted by peoples looks etc quite easilly.
I once read that one should look at your opponent as though looking at a mountain in the distance. See everything. Direct eye contact for males is usually a sign of aggression, in terms of body language. I usually look towards the throat or uppper chest area but taking in the whole person and surrounds.
ATTACK AT ALL TIMES When you face anopponent you must "fill yourself with the intent to strike through him" Since attack and defence are one we need give no "thought " to defence. Ultimately, if we are "asserting control" we shall "strike through the enemy's INTENTION to attack. Some may see the danger in an enemy's approach those with superior fighting spirit shall see the openings his approach offers. Example the attacker strikes at your face . of course you shall step off line but your EMPHASIS is on striking to a weak point at that instant.(ATTACK AT ALL TIMES)If he is hesitant (ATTACK AT ALL TIMES) An advanced principle of martial arts is to correctly asses the spirit of your attacker if he is hesitant then a "peircing gaze" for an instant directly into his eyes can also make him afraid, confused or uncertain.However as you say seeing the enemy "like a far mountain" is my way of observing. Looking at something I may become "focussed" upon a single area.Even "concerned". OBSERVING something as though I was not involved (calm mind) is a better way to train. regards koyo
Agreed that maintaining eye contact isn't the best idea - it could be too distracting and you need to watch other areas of the body (like the shoulders dipping or chest contracting) to determine what strikes might be incoming. Plus eye contact isn't so bad if there are only 2 of you there but as we all know that is seldom the case. Whilst you are busy staring out your foe his mates could be getting ready to jump all over you.
re-read what was written - "9. Maintenance of constant eye contact. Using peripheral vision to see the enemy's entire body - which foot he steps off with, or if he reaches for a concealed weapon. Metsuke " I wasn't saying looking into his eyes, otherwise peripheral vision would not be coming into play.
Aye, it's called Enzan No Metsuke in Japanese. That's what no. 9 was supposed to be. Sorry I didn't portray it with the right words. Yes, but how many modern, generic jujutsu dojo have you seen teach this properly these days? Only one example (utilizing atemi) does not show the full potential of what you can do. It was a mere example.
In martial arts Ichi tan means first the eyes.It speaks of eye contact with "things as a whole" Example if the attacker moves his arm out to the side we see this instantly but if our eyes "follow it" we have lost eye contact with things as a whole. An exercise we use is to have someone stand before us with a bokken . We concentrate our vision on the kisaki (tip) realising that other areas fade slightly out of focus. Then we allow our eyes to "widen the focus". The partner then moves the bokken from side to side. We maintain the wider focus while still registering the movement of the bokken.I think this is the enzan no metsuke that kogusoku speaks of. I am fortunate to have friends who are sixth dan kendo with whom I have cross trained for many years and have learned a great deal about aikido in particular and martial arts in general from them. WE agree that "observation" is more effective than "looking with the eyes" I hope this has made sense regards koyo
Your list plus what others have said looks very good. The stuff about how to see things is a good read too. However, I did not see anything on choosing the correct technique to use, or another way to look at this is the ability to find weakness/openings in the enemy and acting upon it. For example, I believe there are three ways to get a technique to work: 1. Force it to work 2. Do something that gets a reaction out of the opponent and use that reaction to get your technique to work 3. Trick the opponent into giving you the technique All of the above could be effective technique. Picking someone up and dumping them on their head such as a simple lift and dump from Greco-Roman wrestling might be forcing a technique, but it can work all the same. But would it be practical for a 98 lbs person to try to lift and dump a 400 lbs giant? No! Good technique starts with the intuition to make the right choice of the right thing to do -- To find where there is true opportunity (weakness) and attack. ------------------------------- I believe that developing good technique is part of learning martial arts. As for combat and real world, however, good technique can be acedemic, what we really strive for is development of practical application. There is a point where technique is secondary to just doing what works. Probably the most use for developing good technique is that it helps to understand principles better so that we can apply the principles to create practical application. ------------------------------- I don't think it is necessary for there to be a committed attack. The purpose of a committed attack is that you MUST be in the right mind set to deal with it or else you will be hit / injuried. Because this puts you "near death", many techniques, therefore, are best learned with a committed attack from uke and conviction from tori. Basically, for a technique to work, the opponent must be open to it (weak/vulnerable). They do not need to be committed to an attack, they might be open for other reasons such as they are distracted/confused/unbalanced or their spirit has failed them (they are reaching the point of giving up), etc. -------------------------------- Hey Koyo: I was rolling with the person I've been learning BJJ from throughout the years, he was very good at putting me into painful triangle locks using his legs, such as to squeeze my kidneys. He would do this and I would drop my hands to separate his legs while in incredible pain. It was soon after this he would choke me out with his arms. I noticed some of the more experienced folks keep a hand up at the side of their head to protect from the choke, even when they are getting the life squeezed out of them. Their advice was to do what I could to not get in that situation/position in the first place. Don't give the other the opportunity to apply the technique, don't give them an opening... counter... sound familar?
Hi guys I agree with rebel. Do not give the attacker the opportunity to apply a decisive technique. Waza okurosu means to destroy or (kill) the technique of the attacker by cutting it aside or impacting it back in on him. Effectively negating it's effectiveness. Tai okurosu means to kill the body by use of atemi (striking) or/and kuzushi (unbalancing )again making his body movement ineffective and finally ki okurosu means to kill the spirit of the attacker by showing a superior fighting spirit and intimidating him. Of course if you are capable of all three the attacker is in deep trouble. The second principle of destroying the attacker's technique (waza okurosu) is the one rebek is speaking of where you deny the attacker the opportunity to execute an effective technique. All of the principles that make YOU strong as a martial artist must be denied or taken from HIM. regards koyo
With regard to choosing the technique you are going to use, I was always taught the principle of 'Mind of No Mind'. The type of attack determines the type of defence. We very rarely take the first action in a situation and wait for the attack. On those occasions where I chose a technique to do the attack I received left me with being on the wrong end of of no man's land. My sensei refered to this as 'mind friction'. If you are of a mind to take pre-emptive action then the choice of attack is important because for every attack there is a defence and you could well be on the receiving end of a counter. My point on committed atack is more for training technique. I have seen people try to defend against strangles where the attacker had placed their hands on the defender's shoulders. Punches that would never hit the person and knife and stick attacks that had no chance of hitting the defender. It is very hard to defend efectively against an attack that is not going to get anywhere near you. A committed attack is one that is on target and will at least touch the defender to some degree. Knife and stick attacks become difficult and dangerous to train if you have to second guess where the attacker is likely to aim if not at you. We grade against free fighting knife and stick. For this we use tightly roll paper because the attack has to score hits in order to pass their part of the grading. You soon find that the feints and dodges make it impossible to do the classic knife defences. If the attacker feints and then commits it becomes a little easier because the attacker has their mind on one thing - trying to bury the knife in you. For me practical application is what you get when you train and perfect technique to the point that it is an automatic response to attack. I agree that for a technique to work the opponent must be open to the defence. I believe that is what my points 1 to 7 were about. Getting both yourself and the attacker to the point where the applied technique will end the attack. In a perfect world it would be one attack one defence all over. For the rest of us there are changing techniques.
This may sound a bit ruthless for an aikidoka. In the street if someone is thinking about attacking you ATTACK FIRST If someone is using jabs or ineffective attacks CUT STRAIGHT THROUGH HIM Against a powerfull attack Atemi or cut him off balance. Having STRUCK him PIN or THROW him so that you may continue on to FINISH the confrontation. This is why if at all possible we must avoid real fighting. It is degrading and not to be desired at all. regards koyo edit this post saddly is from experience off of the mat.My philosophy failed but thankfully I do not confuse philosophy with reality. edit(2) my last post on aikido and light sparring thread relates to this also.
I think I agree with you mostly on all you have said. I only wanted to point out that the application of good technique must be off of seated instinct (intuitive). This should take into account all the principles mentioned in this thread and stack the odds in your favor. It must be appropriate for the context (environment/situation) and the person. Ultimately it isn't technique verse technique, it is person verse person. I posted this in the "Martial Art of Aikido" thread. Here it is again because I think it is appropriate. It isn't so much what makes good technique, but it is how one trains and gains experience towards the development of practical application, IMHO: The above statement also alludes to the use of progressive resistance. Starting at one level of resistance and as one gains skill and experience, increasing the resistance in steps until the technique can be applied against "full" resistance in a controlled environment. ----------- Yes, when training particular techniques, it is important that uke attacks in a specific manner so that technique can be perfected. For demonstration of technique, it is also important to limit the number of variables so that the demonstration can be done. Maybe of interest to you, I've worked many techniques against skilled FMA knife fighters. Of dozens of "textbook" techniques, I only got three techniques to work consistently. One was iriminage with atemi (pinning uke's elbow to their side), another was Ikkyo or variations (trapping uke's elbow against my body/shoulder/forearms), and the other was to "cut" through uke's elbow to unbalance (this also included limb destructions and destroying the attacker's delivery system) and attack. All of the ones that worked required that I get off the line of attack (do not get hit), attack and unbalance. Once I got the few to work, I could build off of that knowledge and get other techniques to work, but it seemed that it almost always started as one of the above. It did not matter if uke faked/feinted, so long as I had a good sense of timing, distance, and position (angles). To the list including what Kogusoku and Koyo posted, I would then add: - Pressure: Good technique must apply constant pressure. The transitions between applying pressure in one area to another must be smooth to not give the opponent an opportunity to counter. - The application of pressure needs to be correct in that it doesn't leave yourself vulnerable and is applied with the right timing, distance, location, and position to be practical.
A good point about the pressure on the attacker. I always refer to it as an extension force that is away from the attacker's centre of gravity. This can be in any direction. Once unbalancing is achieved ( the attacker's centre of gravity is outside the area bounded by the outside of both feet and the area between) then it is easily maintained by that pressure or extension. This is covered in the point on unbalancing but perhaps needs to be added to make it clear that the unbalancing is a continuous process from the first contact until surrender and beyond.
