Based on a discussion started here and especially this post from Dave Humm. I'm afraid I just don't like it! 1) Daito ryu tests all of its stances and postures rigourously. Hitoemi like any other stance shouldn't be drilled in isolation. Daito ryu has many warming up exercises for connectivity between your upper body and lower and relaxation of your hips to ease that power transfer, possibly the most notable one being shiko (which you'll recognise as the c0cking the leg horse stance from the start of each sumo match which relaxes and at the same time strengthens the connections between the muscles in the crease of your thigh). In most aiki schools I've been to, if they've had shiko, they no longer practise it with the same meaning or purpose, just as a different kind of horse stance: ie very static. So, the use of hitoemi in daito ryu and aikido is possibly very different, and without the accompanying exercises it is possibly quite redundant in aikido. 2) Using this stance because it is found in aikido's historical root per se doesn't make sense. If that were the case we would all be doing daito ryu, no?! Plus, according to my kendo sensei (which I appreciate may not apply to aiki - but anyway he is a professional historian and very well up on the history of samurai) the step was used as a means of moving in tsugi-ashi without your feet getting caught up in the hakama. 3) Hitoemi, like any other stance, should not be used in isolation. In my aiki I use it as a transition stance very briefly, as a part of a tsugi-ashi at an angle away from uke. This is for two reasons. a) it is a very weak stance to end up in. It is no more stable than a standard t-stance, the rear foot 45 t, or both the feet at 45 in parallel even. It tends to lock the front knee and hip, unless you have practised the accompanying hip flexibility exercises enough, and is structurally weaker than the straight leg in terms of being vulnerable to stamps, scrape kicks and sweeps, and also in terms of pushing directly backwards along a line towards the back foot. Try it. Get someone to push directly back when you are in hitoemi, and then in rear foot 45 t-stance (my favoured 'finishing' stance). I think you'll find it's weaker. b) Because no aikido step/move should ever finish! As with boxing, wing chun, muay thai, any high level karate etc etc you learn the basics of rooting and the basics of movement, but you shouldn't ever finish a tech in a double-weighted stance. Why? Because you need to run away, you need to watch out for other attackers etc. You should float rootedly, or is that root floatingly? My sensei always said (and you often hear this) that you always take your aikido with you... this goes for physically too IMO, not just some woolly philosophical theories and a sense of warmth of humanity, but the physical structures of aiki are always present. Thus, no tech ever ends, it just flows into the next one. ALWAYS keep moving, ALWAYS flow, ALWAYS remain dynamic... when you've finished practise you start flowing into walking, working, eating etc. Zanshin and mushin! If you practise a lot of henka waza and kaeshi waza this is especially apparent. 4) The anatomical effect explained by Dave may be true. But again, without the accompanying exercises for suppleness and the muscles in the crease of the thigh, this will often just lock your hips as opposed to giving you more wind-up and connectivity from your feet. As well as locking the knee. Plus, there are better/quicker/easier ways of loosening and correctly aligning your hips. 5) It is extremely stressful on your knee joint. Again, shouldn't be a problem if you have a good warm-down exercise routine covering the knees, the crease of the thighs, the butt, your calves etc... but do you!? And again, any stress on the knee will be multiplied if you are overweight. 6) ALL other arts I've practised think it's daft for reasons expressed in 3a! My taichi teacher who was sandan in aiki before he started taichi was especially useful in pointing its weakness out. As usual, any criticism (constructive or insulting!), agreement or feedback is welcome! What do you think?
ahh may be from the perspective you present however, aikido has shifted considerably from Daito Ryu, remember aikido isn't a 'version of' Daito Ryu, it's a new art influenced in part by some of the waza found in the DRAJJ system; hence.. hitoemi used in aikido may have an entirely different emphasis, remember I explained the anatomical reaction in the hips to rotation of the leading foot, in the time I've spent both studying and teaching aikido, the extension as illustrated in my pervious thread is pretty much, nothing more than a means to an end, a method of making one's hanmi more stable and making one's hips/body move in a particular direct more naturally. Obviously I'm not claiming that hitoemi is that simple, as I'm sure those far more experienced than me can offer a greater insight/reason however, from a basic anatomical perspective (and that's basically what I'm interested in) hitoemi has a solid purpose (which is why I use and teach it). No, not at all. Many of aikido's applications are clearly Daito Ryu in origin. Well, I can't comment on the hakama and tripping up, all you have to do is look at the height at which the hakama is worm from the foot in various pictures ranging from Ryu to Ryu, individual to individual, some wear it below the angle and some wear it higher, I myself wear mine generally about angle length, I study both Iai and Aikido and rarely get my foot/feet trapped. The key is effective hakama sabaki. Agreed but, no one is actually saying that hitoemi is actually being done for 'done's' sake, if there's a reason to adopt the extension of one's leading foot in this way then there's a reason otherwise one should keep the foot in line with centre. I disagree but then I've done nothing else for some 18 years, I feel perfectly stable and comfortable in this posture. With respect, I think you're discussing semantics. Unless a student has a deep/wide stance which prohibits freedom of movement, the key to the "appropriate" or "correct" stance should always be judged on the merits and dynamics of each given situation. Disengaging and running away is always a very easy option to perform, being in control however; now that's an entirely different debate. You're assuming of course that these exercises aren't practiced, I'm fortunate to have as one of my students a charted physio-therapist who regularly runs the warm-ups and downs, we've been working a great deal on over all flexibility and, although I would accept that not all schools/clubs have access to the knowledge of a physiotherapist, regular stretching should be an integral part of aikido. See previous statement. I couldn't give a toss what others think, if I'm being totally honest. Enjoy !! Regards
Mr. Punch, I suppose I mostly agree with what you said about Hitoemi. I believe the basic guideline for foot position is to keep them at about 60 degrees relative to each other for most situations. I say most situations as for various reasons the feet may be turned relative to each other differently as needed. The foot position in Hitoemi does leave one vulnerable and thus it is, like much footwork, a transitory position leading into what comes after it. Therefore, I guess when you say "isolation" I suppose that goes along with this meaning you should not stay in Hitoemi for long periods of time. The position of Hitoemi is also used in areas outside of Aikido. It is similar to the same position as the "Chinese Hidden Foot" and the foot position just prior to applying Bruce Lee's 3-inch punch. It is also a cheater step used in karate to deliver a faster rear leg mawashi geri (roundhouse kick). All of these setups leave the turned out knee and groin temporarily vulnerable to attack so as stated before, one would not want to stay in that position.
Oh, I forgot to add that Hitoemi aligns the hips so that one can "fall forward" whereas foot turned in aligns the hips so that one can "fall backwards". Hitoemi allows the use of gravity in technique moving forward with a katana. It also allows the ability to generate power with hip rotation by turning the foot in, e.g. Bruce Lee's 3-inch punch.
I doubt you'll find a school of Kenjutsu or Iai using hitoemi as being discussed in relation to Aikido. As for your rational, please explain; I've studied both Koryu and Gendai Iai so I'd be interested to comprehend what you mean. Regards
hitoemi is for moving in one line (e.g. not changing lead). I may have explained things backwards before, so here is a clarification. 1. Hitoemi can be used to shift the body backwards using gravity to avoid a straightline thrust or attack. 2. After hitoemi to avoid the attack, move the front foot in a new direction (forward at an angle) with some rotation of the foot inwards. This allows gravity to move you forward at an angle to throw the attacker off balance. In relation to a sword strike... 1. From right foot forward hitoemi and katana held above the head, move the front foot in a new direction (forward at an angle) with some rotation of the foot inwards. 2. Execute yokomenuchi aided by gravity (a feeling of falling forward).
In ten years of studying Muso Shinden Ryu and Seite Iai I've never seen any student or instructor perform a diagonal cut - naname giri /kessa /gyaku kessa giri with their leading foot out turned. In addition to MSR I've also attended seminars of MJER and Ona-ha Itto-Ryu and like wise I haven't seen the cut executed as you describe. Perhaps you might be able to elaborate with a Ryu-ha ? Ok here's a direct example - Nuki-uchi. In this kata one needs to move rearwards to avoid an incoming sword cut. No outward turned foot though. I'm perplexed why one would actually need to turn the leading foot out to aid in execution of Yokomen uchi ? In my experiences on the tatami I see all manor of angles used to represent a diagonal cut yet, the reality of "yokomen" is that the angle between shomen and yokomen is essentially no wider than the width from the centre line of your opponents head/neck. Yokomen starts above the head (ala Shomen) and not drifting towards one's corresponding shoulder (as is so often seen in people who lack knowledge of sword skills) If the difference between the two cuts/strikes is a mere few inches (thus the diagonal is in effect quite shallow) there really isn't any great benefit in what you describe, unless of course you are suggesting the "Yokomen" is much deeper in transition between jodan and gedan. Regards
The foot is not turned out during the cut. The foot turned out is part of footwork that aligns the body in preparation for the moving in one line at an angle off the line of attack. During the execution of the technique, the foot is turned more inward. Here is a link to an interview with Okabayashi Sensei that I found to illustrate the footwork: http://www.fightingarts.com/reading/article.php?id=315 Cheers.
No disrespect intended mate but... That's not exactly what you were saying earlier ..The "Gravity" comment being in relation to the outward turned foot correct ? Now, we've shifted considerably from the actual point of this thread, essentially Punch stated that he wasn't an advocator of the foot position quite commonly (but not exclusively) seen in Aikikai Aikido. I myself stated that hitoemi has it's place in the scheme of things, I've never actually said it was a posture to "end technique" with however, I've never used an outward turned foot in any form of Japanese swordsmanship (as stated before) Indeed Philip Smith Sensei who earlier this year conducted a Musho Shinden Ryu seminar at my dojo; reminded me and the class a number of times in relation to "aikido foot". In essence he was correcting our hanmi due to the aiki habits we had. Regards
Well it's what I meant the whole time. I thought I clarified it in subsequential posts. Not exactly. The position and orientation of the feet change how the hip is aligned. With the front foot turned outward the hips are more in position for the body to sit/sink back. This takes weight off of the front foot. When weight is off the front foot, then it is easier to move the front foot in the direction the foot is pointing. The front foot can be moved without rotation of the shoulders (thus no telegraph of technique in the upper body). At the point of the front foot moving to position off the line of attack (outside the front foot of uke), the foot can be rotated inwards shifting the weight and power forward and downward. This is the point that gravity aids in the technique. Yes, understood. The standing with foot pointed outward leaves one vulnerable in many ways. It is to be used only as part of setup of technique (e.g. avoiding a thrust or straight punch followed by the entry off the line of uke's attack). I thought it relevant to point out how turning the front foot out is related to alignment of the hips for various reasons. I've used the outward turned foot in situations where I do not want to give away my intentions because it allows certain movements without the rotation of the shoulders. No rotation of shoulders means less chance of telegraphing my next movement. In such cases, when I do rotate shoulders, it is already with attack on the way, not before I attack. As noted, it is not a position to just stand in without a purpose. It is not proper hanmi, it is hitoemi of course. P.S. Have you ever encountered turning the front foot out (a sort of cross step) while walking to glance over your shoulder to see what is behind you? You can go into right foot forward turned outward to glance over your right shoulder and glance at what is behind you without really rotating your shoulders making it a more discret glance than if you rotated your shoulder.
Hi all. Basically I agree with this summation: But since Dave gave me such a nice long detailed reply I'll attempt to answer his points. Some of this may be quibbling but basically I think I'm coming from the same place as Rebel Wado and Dave with most things here. [/quote] What you say here and what I say are completely in accordance, no? But to me that doesn't alter that although some of the things in aiki come from DR, it doesn't mean that any of Ueshiba's aiki was frozen, static or even complete. He was always refining and altering his opinions and even his movements. To me it's quite possible for hitoemi to be a redundant position. Like I said, it shouldn't be taken in isolation and so without knowing the whole training programme of each particular style/teacher it's impossible to say whether it's useful or not. I'm quite sure that some styles I've seen have not had 'a use' for this particular position, or their use has been flawed, as in a static finishing pose. I've also met people who religiously adhere to hitoemi and cannot maintain or even momentarily attain a stable position with it (here and in the UK), or any fluidity in motion in and out of it... this would suggest that in their lines of aiki it is a meaningless relic of DR. That anatomical purpose again, does not seem to work for some people, because it locks up the crease of the thigh muscles too much. There are perhaps less potentially counterproductive ways to 'wind up/c0ck' the hips within aiki, and hitoemi will only be used by successfully by those who have a good range of flexibility and a good base in tai sabaki IMO. Can't quite catch what your talking about or not agreeing with here...! My point was just that aikido is not infallible and there's a strong possibility that hitoemi in some ways of teaching aikido is redundant as I said: and more specifically that this means it is merely a relic of DR whose meaning has been lost! That's why I don't hold much stock personally in comparing lengths of time training either: if you have been training for 15 years and claiming that something has worked well for your for 15 years, I would hope that you have tested it outside of the usual non-pressured aiki dojo environment, otherwise you're training only in tradition that may or may not be applicable to a modern context (regards esp to street, and anatomy etc). I'm not saying there's anything wrong with training for trad's sake, and I know from your previous posts that that's one of the reasons you do Dave, all I'm saying is that sometimes we need to reassess the use of certain principles in aiki if they are frozen in a historical construct. Sure! My kendo sensei who as I said is a historian also seemed to know a lot about this. I pointed out that I've only tripped over my hakama once, and he said, "Have you tried tsugi ashi in rain geta on a loose uneven, rocky volcanic soil running with rainy season mud?". I said no. Although the DR origins are somewhat lost, most AJJ/JJ origins seem to have been part battlefield and part for defesive positions under surprise at home. It's conceivable then that some of the techs/principles/postures are now outdated and useless? That's precisely what I'm saying based on experience of a great many dojo! Believe me, not many sensei out there could give anything like such a spirited defence of the position as you have Dave. Most of them mumble 'Because it's more stable...' or something, until I throw them over my prostrate body! (And no, I'm not that aggressive in other people's dojo, but there are ways of seeing people's balance! ) The length of time you've been practising is irrelevant in this case; see above. It may mean you've just been promoting a 'tradition for tradition's sake' attitude for 18 years. (Please note, I'm not saying you are, I'm just saying that IF you were doing the wrong thing it doesn't matter if it has been for 6 mths or 50 yrs!). And you did just say that it's not a position to end up in, which is all I was getting at... which brings me on to... I agree completely with this, which was my point. And no, it's not semantics but it is a different way of looking at things than from a purely technical perspective. EVERY situation should be dynamic because every fight is. So any stance is only useful as a transition and should be trained as such. As close to shizentai should be the aim, and that should encompass all other principles from all other stances. The first part of this sentence is nonsense (er, with respect... ? ). Saying that disengaging and running away is easy suggests that you've never had a fight, or more to the point that you've never tried disengaging and running away from a fight! I have, and my point was you need to have the rooted/floating balance right in your posture to be able to have control, and without control (whether it's control over maai or direct physical control or what) you WILL NOT be able to run away, control your opponent or watch out for his mates. I wasn't assuming that you weren't practising these exercises, I was remembering that these exercises are not practised enough in many of the dojo I have been to. And anyway, while just basic stretches may be enough to lessen damage to your body after hard exercise, they don't necessarily justify the use of hitoemi. There are specific stance and posture exercises that accompany, strengthen and compliment hitoemi within DR, which I have seen in much much watered-down forms in the majority of aiki schools and lines. As for the knee comment, my main point was that if you are overweight hitoemi is especially hard on your knees, and especially if you use it as part of your tai sabaki which I've seen many teachers insist on, as it increases the torque and tension on the knees a lot. As I said, hitoemi should be for straight steps, not tenkan. Hehehe, I thought you'd say that. Actually I don't either otherwise I'd have quit aiki a long time ago. But I did have a point here too, which is that a) there are only so many ways the body moves, and in all of the other MA I've been exposed to I've never seen such a static foot-out position advocated. I've seen aiki-ish locks and throws and atemi everywhere, but nowhere have I seen hitoemi advocated as strongly as it is in some aiki. Maybe it's because aiki is so special... I just hope that doesn't mean like short-yellow-bus special! And b) I have been shown in demos of principles of other arts (tai chi, boxing, jujutsu, daito ryu, wing chun, hsing yi... etc) in what ways it is a weak position. As a transition it's fine, as a stance, I'm sticking with it being b....cks. I've also used aiki techs and principles successfully (and not, but we won't dwell on that!) with dozens of sparring sessions against other arts and the hitoemi basically doesn't come up, staple of my aiki though it was, and if it does it comes out naturally as a very very transitional movement... because frankly you soon realize it's dangerous, weak and silly in a full speed fight setting. And Rebel Wado, sure there are countless kick set-ups that use a foot our position, just not one as elongated as that and very very fleetingly. Thanks! You too! BTW, this sounds interesting. Would you care to elaborate a little on a couple of the points from that seminar in relation to aiki if you have time? Cheers. Don't worry if you don't have time!
I've done a couple of aikido lessons, and it really is excellent. However, if I were faced with somebody in that stance, I would simply kick their knee and that would be the end of them. It being a transitional stance makes much more sense to me. (That's me - an expert after two classes.)
Indeed... Did you actually read the entire thread, especially those posts of mine ? I ask because you seem to have missed (as have most people) that no one here is actually saying that an aikidoka stands for long periods with their leading leg turned out (least of all me) the discussion was originally about the MERITS of this position; not that this position is static. It is a transitional stance which greatly influences the natural rotation of one's hips. Regards
If you are able to train with the following Daito Ryu master, who occasionally visits the UK, there is a huge amount which he is able to teach about Hitoemi as a movement. I, for one, am not nearly arrogant enough to claim Aikido has any superiority over this man's art, whether in a traditional or modern context. Okabayashi Shogen Shihan: http://www.izzy.net/~dsharp/Okabayashi.htm He explains that the reason this seems a strange posture is that it is firmly linked in the ancient 'bushi' origin of Hitoemi as a style of walking (e.g left leg, hip and arm move forward together, then the right side). This means at all times the posture is strong and positive, never weak or imbalanced. The reverse movement is the same - no twisting, just same arm and leg withdrawing. I don't need to say that when using the sword this also has a profound effect. In walking, he demonstrated the palms resting in the top of the thighs just below the hips - obviously relaxed but close to weapons. In Aikido we seem to have retained some of this in knee-walking, but not upright walking. certainly,whilst it feels odd, it completely eliminates any twisting and 'locking'. Think of an Aikido technique (shomen-uchi ikkajo?) and you may find that the way in which we move 'same hand, same foot' is entirely consistent with this origin. Okabayashi Shogen (now Shihan I believe) shows this style of walking taken right down to knee-walking and back up in a graceful and powerful flow - few would find any opening for an attack IMHO, having seen and trained with him only briefly. here's a link to an interview in which he explains his background and Histoemi (with photos): http://www.fightingarts.com/reading/article.php?id=315 Enjoy!
Nice detailed post kiaiki with references. I wonder why no one ever posted a link to that article before in this thread
Well - if you read mine again, you'll see that that is exactly what I was saying... (So I don't think that I did miss the point at all!)
You still miss the point of this thread; which ISN'T about Hitoemi being a transitional position (which we all pretty much agree on) but the MERITS of using it. (or not depending upon your opinion)
Well, if that is what the few paragraphs at the start of the thread stipulate for all postings, then I'm happy to admit I have completely "missed the point". It's sentences like "Hitoemi, like any other stance, should not be used in isolation. In my aiki I use it as a transition stance very briefly, as a part of a tsugi-ashi at an angle away from uke." and "The foot position in Hitoemi does leave one vulnerable and thus it is, like much footwork, a transitory position leading into what comes after it." that obviously have led me to "miss the point" and make the observation I did. Anyway, what do I know.
Thanks Kiaiki, interesting link. I think I'll be contacting their Japanese rep (who is interestingly perhaps, not Japanese...!).
