Thanks for that, I wasn't sure if you were agreeing or disagreeing with what i was saying. Yes, different martial arts do have different ways of teaching structure. When one works to perfect body mechanics in one way with the idea of development of practical application, it is very easy to see how other body mechanics can work. It is also easy to see how something is not going to work, not because it is different, but because it it plan sucks (IMHO). The key to development of a good structure is that you don't have to think about it... it is natural for you. What this means is that your mind is free for more important decision rather than being clouded with the details of what to do. Here's an example. In sparring we did some six on six training matches to simulate the chaos of a street fight. One of my friends was on the opposing team and he and about two others decided they would just gang up on me first My friend was open and I just did a normal front kick into his small intestine (groin). The second one came at my side and I threw him into a column (accidentally). The last one coming at me was jumped by two of my team mates. Now this was a training exercise and so we were suppose to "respect the technique" as the strikes were controlled. The two were very slow to get up and after they recovered they came and told me that they were really downed. The controlled kick to the groin, even with his cup on, knocked the wind out of my friend for a good ten seconds and he just stayed down. The guy I am sorry that I threw into a column, was not permanently injured, thankfully, but he did land badly and was down for a bit. Another friend of mine who is the head of the Tum Pai branch of Kajukenbo told me he had observed me and that I didn't do too bad, I maintained about 75% of my structure (or in other words I reverted to about 25% sloppy stuff, but this was 3 or 4 years ago so hopefully I've improved since then), which wasn't that bad considering some only maintained 25% or less structure. By structure he specifically pointed out how people tended to "rise up" under pressure and what this means is that they are very tense, rigid, and not rooted, meaning just the opposite of what you learn to do in martial art training. Isn't one of the first things you learn in Aikido is to relax in movement? He also was pointing out how some had "shadow" on their punches (meaning they would probably break their hand or wrist if they really ever hit anything) and how people were using pivot points that were inefficient (meaning their were losing power and could easily be jammed). The point is that my mind was not thinking about what to do, I had to trust my instincts to do the right thing. My mind was there to make important decisions like how badly was I going to hurt the enemy and where I needed to be to protect myself and my team mates.
Hey koyo, Today in training I worked with two students on some unbalancing with clinching. Clinching, like Aikido, is to me 90% atemi but unfortunately we often end up with more grabbing and less unbalancing (plus when I let them try clinching against someone with a training knife, it ain't pretty how badly the outcome is). I kind of got sick of how most of our clinching drills seem to fail horribly if the opponent has a knife, so I went back to Kajukenbo and Aikido and said they could atemi when clinching but they were not allowed to "lock up" or put themselves in any position where they would trade blows. Well maybe I didn't explain this to them, but I was thinking this. We ended up using a lot of unbalancing by positioning where the opponent was forced to put the majority of their weight on the nearest leg. When they were brought forward and to the side, it resembled a teeter-totter with their head at one end of it. Takedown was easy and quick. When we brought the opponent down to the back and side, it resembled a teeter-totter with their nearest shoulder at one end. The ara waza would be to sweep or kick out the supporting knee giving them nothing to stand on. Take down to the back and side was very easy, but I had to reteach the students how to strike the jawline while locking their opponents elbow and then turn the strike to the jawline into a hammerfist/forearm/elbow strike into the shoulder. Anyway, things worked pretty well and I was happy that I avoided my internal conflict of teaching something that basically sucks against a weapon. More like Aikido, the unbalance was due to alignment and striking through to unbalance on contact... although I know the forward and to the side unbalance point is not preferred in what you have told me before, it was still a good option for us.
The few serious times I had to face the knife I ALWAYS struck him as I continued until his use of the knife was over. Never attempted to grasp the knife alone..never.
Is it fair to say that the weapon principles guided your actions in these intsances (subconsciously or consciously) i.e. the sen-sen empty hand 'fencing' that you talked about earlier in the thread? - or maybe only in part. I can 'see' (if thats the right way to express something as unpleasant as a a one-sided knife fight) that the right angling could get you into a position to really blast through the street scumbag(s), but his blade arm could have unpredictable consequences - but I guess youd have to take that as a necessary risk worthwhile in order to neutralise his capability and intent. Probably the biggest asset in an encounter like that that would be overcoming one's own fears and applying oneself instinctively to what has to be done. Just my take.
I would of thought clinching would be a disaster vs knife - unless you can choke him out instantly upon contact - even then his blade arm is very near you (max arms length).
below I have moved aside of the thrust and struck the knife hand aside or intowars him AND smashed him in the face. THEN and only then can I concentrate on getting the knife. Even then if he is badly effectide I may decide to knock him out and pick up the knife,
It is without atemi. Many view clinching for some reason to be like stand up grappling, but in fact it is more like Aikido when applied in close quarters (point blank range). I would say clinching is 90% atemi just as Aikido is. The initial unbalance from a clinch is a 90 degree strike to the side of the opponent's head followed by a hook of the back of the head into an unbalance point. For the front unbalance point, we moved at the hips to a point where our body was aligned where the majority of the opponent's weight was on the front outside edge of their foot. From here the other hand cut through the back of the opponent's head. The result ended up like a teeter-totter with the opponent's head smashing towards the ground and their far foot lifting up towards the ceiling. The last cut was to "sprawl out" vacating the spot and driving the face into the ground or into a knee to the face. It was difficult (but not impossible) for the opponent to strike with the knife at any point if the knife was in the far hand. For the unbalance point to the rear and side, we struck the side of the head the same as above and hooked the back of the head; however, this was combined with cutting the opponent's arm to the side or into them (same as what koyo said in his post above). We then took the opponent's backside and threw them into a rear unbalance point. Kicking out the opponent's knee first was a option for a more severe fall. The opponent was grounded but still retained the use of the knife, so we could combine with a kick or knee to the back of their head for a knock out as they fell, but otherwise it is run away time. For the unbalance point to the rear and side, we also had one more variation when on the inside of the opponent's arm which happens if the knife or punch comes more in a hooking motion. We would strike the jawline or near eye with a hammer fist/forearm... the other hand would hyper extend the opponent's elbow as we trapped their forearm against our body. This was followed by an elbow strike to the pressure point on the front of the shoulder. The take down from here was easy as we positioned in a point where the majority of the opponent's weight was on their near foot on the outside and rear edge. Since the opponent was already unbalanced and spinning into the take down, a more severe fall would be to sweep out the leg and hip of the opponent. We retained control of the weapon arm, a hyper extension break of the elbow was good here as well as a shin drop to their head and a one knuckle punch to their exposed ribs or a hammer fist to their solar plexus. The key position for getting the rear and side unbalance point I observed was to get the opponent's shoulder to pass under my armpit. At that point I could either take their backside or elbow strike through their shoulder to stun and cause opponent to spin around me into the take down.
When boxers clinch they will still punch given the chance and they will punch to try and break the clinch. If you get yourself into a situation where you're going to trade blows it will always be bad.
The boxer's clinch was a situation we were trying to avoid. Although head butts and such are possible, the overall premise is that you are locking up with your opponent. This is more in lines of stand-up grappling. Stand-up grappling works when you can "lift" your opponent and throw them to the ground, a wall, the ropes, or the corner. Basically, once the opponent is pinned against the ground/wall/ropes/corner, etc. then at that point you only need to apply pressure at one point such as the shoulder or hip because what they are pinned against is restricting their movements. At this point your hands and legs are free not to lock up and you retain mobility. The difference between the boxing clinch (as in stand up grappling) and the Muay Thai clinch (as in unbalancing on contact with atemi) is fundamentally locking up vs. not locking up with an opponent. With locking up you have the distinct advantage that you can immobilize certain parts of the opponent's body... however, this does not "scale" well against bigger, stronger, and more skilled opponents. Basically, if I lock up with someone who can single arm curl more than my body weight, they can easily power their way out of my hold. This is awful if they have a knife or other weapon. On the other hand, unbalancing from atemi while checking the weapon arm does scale much better. A smaller person could still do this with proper alignment to someone much bigger than them who has a weapon. Things do, I should stress, change if the opponent is pinned against a wall or on the ground, etc. and at that point the mobility offered through applying pressure to a single point on opponent's body does change the playing field more in favor of skills attributed to grappling. Note at this point, the grappler is not locking up. Also, striking/atemi when someone is pinned against a wall or on the ground utilizes different technique than standup to be most effective. The only commonality in the above besides the principle of do not get hit, is the principle, avoid locking up with your opponent(s).
Okay I think I know where you're coming from. Reminds of when I was a kid in Judo going up against a much bigger kid. You've probably tried it already. But you could drop your center of gravity lower.
I think that folks sometimes miss the point.if you clinch in a knife attack to stop the guy knifing you that is a bit different from clinching to stop a few blows that you may or may not be able to take. Boxing or full contact is about as real as most of us get.but there are other realities which are far worse, knives etc.and the most you can do is practice the best "fake" stuff" that you can to replacate those attacks
Aikido also teaches striking in order to enhance a technique...not so much that it could make your technique better, but by introducing and teaching striking it also teaches the principles of awareness of when, where, and how to strike so that if one chooses to do so they may. Several factors may govern whether one chooses to strike or not. For instance if an attacker has a weapon, the situation is already escalated, dangerous, and could in all probablility warrant a strike. Another situation in which a technique could be enhanced through striking is in a multiple attacker scenario where you would want to give an attacker a little something more to deal with on their way down. This serves at least three purposes if the strike is not one that knocks them unconscious, or breaks their leg: to add a little more in the form of a warning or pain compliance while you deal with the next attacker, two, to hopefully add some time it takes for that individual to get up and get back into the fight, and three to perhaps change their mind about fighting altogether. Remember that not everyone is a trained fighter or samurai (certainly the majority of people you meet outside the dojo would fall into this category), sometimes even untrained fighters will have natural reflexes that one does not anticipate, and perhaps, most importantly, the average human body and its design can take quite a bit of damage.
That's just plain wrong. The atemi is what sets up the technique. The strike is not there especially to teach awareness. It's there to create an opening to allow the aikidoka to apply technique. Without the strike it's extremely difficult to unbalance uke and apply technique.
Hmmm... I was trying to come up with something to say and then I read your post aikiwolfie. As tori I agree 100% with your statement. However, I was thinking that striking does teach awareness from the point of view of uke. As uke, when I get hit by tori, I'm evaluating how effective it was. If a hit drops me, later on I'm more aware to protect the area I was hit at. And as uke, if I am aware of openings or holes in tori's application, I might just slap them in the side of the head to remind them that they are open. Uke is also stealing technique from tori, so if an atemi works well, I'm stealing that knowledge to use against others. Just some thoughts.
-- I never introduced a technique, or a when, where or how to strike. Enhancing the technique through striking could easily come before, during or after a technique is applied, or during all three...I merely introduced the principle of awareness in striking. I would also agree with you that openings can be created, however through awareness we can see openings that already exist at any stage of a confrontation or practice, the possibilities are endless. Awareness comes with understanding of the principle and how it is applied, in my opinion. I hate to admit it, but in the last year and a half I found out that youtube had some aikido videos on it (heard of youtube before, just never bothered with it), and I started watching some of O senseis videos, and I don't think he used striking to set up any techniques, not that he couldn't do it if he chose to do so.
I'm not sure what type of atemi you are looking for, pretty much every iriminage is entering with atemi. This is demonstrated fairly clearly to me in the following video in the Juken part starting at 6:27 minute mark: [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98yRuBkUBGQ"]YouTube - Aikido Founder Morihei Ueshiba 1935[/ame] Now here is something I found in a Fighting Arts magazine article: (http://www.fightingarts.com/reading/article.php?id=438) (1) Suenaka states that “O-sensei did tell me that the effectiveness of aikido lies in the use of atemi within its techniques.” O-sensei is sometimes quoted as saying that “Atemi is 90 percent of aikido.” In his later life, however, in his teaching and in films of his technique, this important element was often omitted. In commenting on this quote Suenaka Sensei states that “The quote about aikido consisting of 90 percent atemi was made during the early or formulative years of aikido at the Kobukan dojo when the student base was a mixture of rough martial artists of various styles.” The above statement speaks for itself in my opinion, although it is understood that this is in a statement from Suenaka Sensei and so it is opinion.
i've seen many, many pictures with o sensei doing technique with atemi. not only iwama pictures, but later-life pictures, the supposedly soft, gentle, cuddly o sensei. even on kokyu dosa techniques. koyo has posted many, many pictures with o sensei striking. you need to do more research. for my part, i'm always looking for openings to strike when i do technique, even if i don't do it to my partner. like kaitenage, pretty clearly a knee strike in there.
