How much kuzushi REALLY exists in aikido ?

There is no difference in the way atemi is trained in karate or TKD as compared to Aikido because the way atemi is trained in karate or TKD is a prerequisite to how atemi is used in Aikido.

It is just that in Aikido, this area is often neglected because not much time is spent at it. However, it is essential that an Aikidoka be trained to strike powerfully through an enemy... yes, this means breaking the enemy, knocking them out, etc.

Where, there is a difference is that Aiki-Jutsu is supposed to be superior to Ju-Jutsu because Aiki takes into account more than just the practice of technique but coordinates reactions with the strategy of the enemy and the enemy's power. In this manner, atemi can be used with different intentions, such as to subjugate an enemy without having to break them or kill them.

Aikido goes more beyond the Aiki-Jutsu which is more about techniques and practical application, whereas Aikido is more about a way of life.

Point is that training atemi in Aikido is not different than that of karate if you can see that the training done in karate in atemi is a prerequisite for how atemi is often used in Aikido.

 

Never mind MAP, when will there be IzumizuPlanet?

 

I agree and disagree with your statement and here's why. As a Ki Aikido practitioner I'm very well aware Aikido has applications well beyond martial arts. It's abundantly clear O Sensei mixed his religious and philosophical beliefs with his martial arts at seminars and lectures and such. However it seems he never required his students to adopt those beliefs. As a Ki Aikido practitioner I also feel I've had to deal with more than my fair share of people and fruit loops who've read all these books talking about harmony and peace and love. Then walk into the dojo with a received wisdom and philosophy forgetting that at it's core Aikido, and I do include Ki Aikido in this, is a martial art and it will hurt. They then feel they've been lied to when they discover Aikido isn't what they thought it was.

Dave was also talking about a very basic element of Aikido. So again it's important to deal with the subject on that level. And on that level any greater or wider meaning is not relevant.

 

There are 2 Ki threads currently running, but its still wafting in here as well, when none was requested. Do we reallly need a 3rd? How much Ki is worth talking about?

 

there already is izumizu planet. it's called map. i say this with no sarcasm.

 

@rebel
if there were no difference, then there would be no need to kuzushi, or execute technique. If a deadly strike lands, or one that disrupts blood flow to the brain, there is no goal other than landing the blows. To break the arm in karate is not so now that person can execute kotegaeshi. To kick and break an oponnents leg is not done so now one can execute iriminage.

It also has to do with the purpose behind the strikes as well as the amount of time spent in training and practicing those strikes and katas and sparring components. On karate a significant ammount if training, if not all of it is devoted to striking, striking properly, correct angle, correct force for the intended target. The training of strikes (and blocks, which can also be quite debilitating) is primary.

That is the bulk of their training for ten, twnty, fifty years, again and again and again.
Kuzushi is not of prime concern, nor is throwing or pinning, or joint lock. Done properly, that oponent will buckle to the ground and remain there without any further input, force, or hands/feet on by any other person.

Does aikido spend this kind of time training to this degree of effectiveness with their limited striking application and training time?

What you train, how you train and how much time you put into it are what you get out of it. If aikido is 90% atemi, then by comparrison, other arts that are classified as striking or percussive arts must be at least 600% atemi.

 

​

For occasions such as this, when the average face-palm isn't sufficient​

Another thread turning into garbage.​

 

Oh and BTW..

/unsubscribe.

 

Oh dear god, why would you do such as thing? It's like you walked out of a bad 70s Kung Fu movie. I hate to break it to you kid but Ueshiba in his 80s would have been eaten by an average 20 year old. That's reality, it blows but it's the truth. Time destroys everyone no matter how great.

The Bear.

 

it really is amazing how that happens.

izu...you're making dave upset again. why don't you just open up your own school so you can perform your mental masturbation in a dojo? you shouldn't have a problem, what with your 20 years of aikido experience.

 

I said it was a prerequisite that an aikidoka be able to strike powerfully through an enemy. That is why they are the same.

If, in Aikido training, you do not learn to strike powerfully through an enemy before you learn all the other ways to use atemi... it is like building a house without a foundation.

This is where your understanding and my understanding do not agree at all. I spent more than ten years in the study of Goju-ryu karate. What you say is simply not true. Higaonna Sensei, Chinen Sensei, both top when I trained were both previously Judoka. First time Higaonna Sensei put a lock on me when I was on the ground or when Chinen Sensei put an armbar on me, it came as a surprise but that was my limited expectations. Kuzushi is of prime importance in much of the study of karate because it includes locks, breaks, and throws. Using karate as an example of a specialized striking art is simply not true. It is only specialized in SPORT! In application it is not.

I didn't say "atemi is 90% of Aikido"... O-Sensei did. I just was pointing out that the 90% analogy is used often to represent the hidden aspects of a martial art the same as the part of an iceberg that is under the waterline. It is not visible to the naked eye... it is only visible through sincere and hard training... I suggest cross-training if you simply are not getting it in the dojo... it isn't as if the students of Aikido in the older days were not already Judoka, Karateka, Kendoka, etc. So how do you explain all of their previous training in other arts before Aikido?

Chinen Sensei told me the secret to karate was supplemental training... he said supplemental training was 90% of karate. Oh my, does that mean punching and kicking is only 10% of karate? No, it doesn't.

 

Not upset.. just bemused.

Thanks to everyone for their contributions however, I've read enough bullsh!t for me to bow out at this juncture.

I'll leave those of you with time to waste to bother further.

Dave

 

oh yeah....

honestly, i think there's many, many good people here. and i like reading their viewpoints. and leveraging their experience for future personal and martial growth. but it's hard to see any use of reading these threads and contributing when a known blow-hard clogs up every thread he/she's a part of. yes, i'm talking about you izu.

this is where i log out of map. and don't come back for some time. see you. oh i'll be back, but distance is now needed from the aikido thread ridiculousness.

20 years of experience? more b.s.

 

Thanks go to dave for a great thread topic, sadly ruined by barfing nonsense.

 

What was Dave talking about? Was he talking about kuzushi as a basic element of Aikido or was he saying that the way many Aikidoka train neglects the importance of kuzushi in application because many uke just fall down too easily? Or a bit of both?

 

Really, Bear? Would you be so presumptuous as to make that same statement about Koyo? And if so, are your presumptions based on age or skill/technical ability?

 

Look, just because there is disagreement, and different approach and understanding does not mean a thread has gone to crap.

 

Izu, don't go there. I am one that has trained striking bricks and finger strikes into buckets of sand, etc. It is like an old 1970s Kung Fu movie.

Not everyone ages the same, but people do have to adapt. It is a compliment to an old man to say that a young man would tear them apart. This means that the old man can live in peace as there are bigger fish to take the heat. If you like to read of the many true and fictional accounts of old men beating young men, most do not end nicely. In most cases, the old man uses the environment or the overconfidence of the young man to cause the young man to make a fatal mistake. As a result the young man is usually maimed for life. Two true stories I heard, go like this:

1. Old Chinese kung fu master is confronted in a resturant by a young kung fu master who wants to make a name for himself. The old man declines the challenge but eventually is forced into violent. The old man strike the young man so quickly that the young man is unprepared and collapses. The young man is maimed for life and can not practice kung fu anymore.

2. Old Tai Chi master is observing a class and the instructor is pushing students across the room as they try to keep their balance. They fly 15 feet into a wall. The old master is disappointed in what he sees, the instructor challenges the old master to push hands. During push hands, the old master strikes once into the torso of the instructor, the instructor staggers back less than a step and then collapses to the ground. His body completely shutdown. When he had recovered mostly about 10 minutes later. The old master asked if he wanted more... He said no, he had enough. This was true use of Tai Chi push hands technique.

If you don't want to see this thread fall apart as many see it happening, then pick your fights.

Bear is very strong...lol... aiki is needed.

 

I took as both. Which is how I answered his question.

 

Don't post then, you wreck threads.

Endex.