That was a simple attack And a more obvious dojo type training one. What happens in live is often slightly more different when the knife is being put about 8 inches from your face. OTHER POINTS "Carrying your drunk mate doesn't stop you puting him down" In a real fight you would have to drop him I think if you are the next target for the attacker. I will not drop a dunk mate incase I damage him further. "Now if you're awareness lets you down then kicking is still pointless because you're on the floor already with the mental capacity of a log because a bottle has just been smashed over your head." If this has happened then you have little choice as no martial art will help you if you are close to being out from a bottle attack. Bit of a pointless post as no training will help and its down to your body to right itself and then you can use your training. "Why won't you dicuss some of the options open to you for dealing with a knife attack. I'm sorry but when you're willing to shoot down other peoples sudgestions sitting there saying it's too difficult to explain over the net is just a cop out." If you read other posts you will know I cop out from nothing at all! Just if I post a vid file it might be easier to see and I will investigate. If someone can find a vid file from a knife attack then I will discuss that as we are all looking at the same thing. Hence easier to discuss.
The post was not pointless. You said if you were caught unware that's when you would need to kick. And you gave this as an example of a situation where you would have no choice but to kick. My point was if you were caught so off guard, you would not get the opertunity to kick. So far as not droping your mate goes. You might not have a choice. It's like any other real situation. We can speculate on what would happen. Imagine what we would like to happen. But at the end of the day who realy knows?
Its just hard discussing something like knife work over the net thats all. If its a knife you will get cut and Shionage is gonna I feel cost you dearly and I would be willing to test this theory with a perhaps more experienced Aikido instructor as I would like to see it pulled off well without complaince from a realistic punch or knife attack.
If you don't want to dicuss knife work over the net then ok that's your choice. But I don't see how it's harder than discussing any other technique or situation. It's all just speculation and opinion.
Because going into clinch and certain strike options are far less applicable when there is a knife compaired to fists and feet.
Hey again mate I can see what your driving at with what your saying however, there are two points *as an experienced Aikido instructor* I'd like to pick up on. 1) The 'reality' of any 'real' situation is.. a) To effect a GOOD aikido technique, one must first put in a likewise GOOD atemi - This allows you to fix your opponent momentarily then counter his attack with technique. This atemi could ("could") be Hiji (against elbow) orientated which would render that arm pretty much useless. Remembering that almost 75% of Aiki techniques are joint orientated, I think you should, must accept that a well versed Aikidoist is capable of dislocating or even fracture dislocating just about any major joint as part of either atemi or technique it's self.. Anyway; It is also permissible to Atemi a second time elsewhere just to reinforce the first if one felt the situation required. All this is BEFORE Siho Nage is even thought about. 2) Testing Shiho Nage (as you suggested in your last post) in the manor your described should be avoided like the plague. You state (respectfully) that you think Shiho Nage is too dangerous to use against a knife, you and I have agreed to disagree on this point however, Any skilled Aikidoist isn't going to 'do' Shiho Nage under 'real' test conditions because....; .. You as attacker already know what technique he's about to apply and thus already have an advantage any unsuspecting 'attacker' would be missing. .. If you’re Ukemi skills aren’t up to scratch, Shiho Nage done with any degree of effort and spirit WILL cause you an injury .. Ref above, to test this application to your satisfaction, you would need to (obviously) be an unwilling / unco-operative attacker thus, the technique would have to reflect this in its application. It would neither be pretty to watch or nice to receive I'm not saying that you’re unwilling to take atemi; I'm not even suggesting that you'd be unable to look after yourself. What I am SAYING however, is that Shiho Nage was designed to inflict serious injury, PERIOD. If it were to be applied on an unwilling individual it WILL cause injury. I also and willingly concede there is also another option, that is you will hit or cut the Aikidoist attempting to apply shiho nage but, I don't feel that automatically implies the technique is any more or less useful ("Dangerous to use") as you believe. I merely hold the opinion that ALL techniques have risk factors associated with them and, should be used according to the situations that require them.. That decision is of course based upon the skill and judgement of the Aikidoist, not on the effectiveness of the techniques. Dave
Ever feel like you're talking to a wall? It's obvious we arent going to persuade Sonshu or vice versa. I think we simply need to agree to disagree. As long as Sonshu isnt teaching Aikido in any form or fashion outside of an MMA format I dont see a problem, as long as he isnt discrediting any art for particular techniques that is. I myself know shiho nage is a perfectly valid technique and works fine for me, and thats all I need to know. Dont expect to walk into an aikido forma and try telling dedicated aikidoka that a particular technique is bunk and have every one agree with you. You know what they say, opinions are like ..... well, every one has one.
So true Virtuous. I looked at Sonshus' reply to my last post earlier and decided there was no point in continuing the descussion. He wants to criticise the technique but doesn't want to dicuss it when other people wish to provide their own opinion on the matter. The discussion has simply become pointless.
I am very open about my techniques I am also open about discussing things and my focus is on practical reality. There seems to be some difference with my aims and yours which is perfectly fine. I am looking at the original postings about Shionage vs punches and knife attacks and I am suprised that some of you are thinking about using this against these attacks, there are other techniques that will put you at far less risk and heaven forbid one of your students needing to use it. Now I am not trying to pick a whole in the style or anything like that and with you becoming so defensive I am wanting to state that there is no point as I am not trying to tear the style apart. I am happy to discuss whatever points of Aikido you would like but I am looking at it from a Self Defence point of view as this is what I teach. Also for the record a massive portion of Ninjitsu is joint manipulation so I am pretty well versed in it as well. However don't go crying saying he is not listening as I am obviously doing so.
Dave Hi mate a) GOOD atemi - rarely seen in many an Aikido school I guess but yes agree 100% on this as you need an opener to break the persons momentum and strength. b) I agree under test conditions is a tough one but this is how many techniques are developed. I can breakfall with the best of them as in submission fighting you are often breakfalling with your weight and the attackers on you. "I also and willingly concede there is also another option, that is you will hit or cut the Aikidoist attempting to apply shiho nage but, I don't feel that automatically implies the technique is any more or less useful ("Dangerous to use") as you believe." The above is nice to read as it is a realistic view of knife combat and its not as smooth and fluid as many Aikido people think. It is clear that you do have an understanding of the art and its uses. "ALL techniques have risk factors associated with them and, should be used according to the situations that require them.. That decision is of course based upon the skill and judgement of the Aikidoist, not on the effectiveness of the techniques." The above is the same as margin of error that I was going on about so I agree with it.
I will not disagree with you here.. Many instructors will pontificate about Atemi waza yet never actually teach a student how to strike correctly. Not sure what you mean with this ? In all the years I've trained I haven't once seen development on a technique (old or new) done in this way. Maybe that’s because I'm involved in Aikikai and not other forms. Thank you. But, anyone who's spent 'time' involved in aikido under a half reasonable instructor will likewise know the vast differences in 'dojo' aikido and that which might be applied elsewhere. I'm not suggesting there is one technique for the dojo and once for the street. Quite the opposite however, in the dojo Aikido IS flowing and graceful to look at because it is a co-operative practice between Uke and Tori but, with time, practice and understanding for the martial side of the way, Aiki technique is effective. I've never claimed that Aikido is the ultimate art to study, I also agree with both hands held up, it is also lacking in several areas of 'practicality' when we compare it to other more street orientated systems however, I'd suggest that most serious Aikidoists know that and don't study aikido solely for the 'self defence' perspectives. I'm not sure if I've mentioned this in this thread but, I train with the perspective of "My attacker is always armed" all my applications revolve around the knife (as a minimum, and even when uke is unarmed) I work to ensure I have control of not only the offending limb and hand holding the weapon, but more importantly the individual. I cannot claim (or would want to) that I'm an expert, because I'm not; I make mistakes like everyone but, the philosophy I employ in my aikido makes one think about the risks simply because they are visually more apparent when uke is holding a knife. Dave
A very honest post Dave I like you am no expert in what I show but I keep the SD side as a priority and so far it seems to work well but there is always room for improvement. If only all martial artists were as realistic and honest as you are with your training/art. Its pretty clear we both have a good understanding of the strengths and weakness with what we do. Thanks as its nice you do not see my posts as an attack on your art of style, I have taken things from Aikido that I like, use and teach so I know there is merit in it.
Thank you.. I have had many discussions with students of MMA who have both enjoyed Aikido and likewise pulled it apart without fully understanding it. Like all martial arts, Aikido is many things to many people but, unlike a lot of MA's Aikido isn't generally considered to be solely "Self Defence". I don't subscribe to the "Aikido has a higher purpose" BS. Unfortunately there are a number of 'instructors' who talk the talk, but their aikido lack what it's supposed to "say on the tin". I've seen *a few* of these individuals spout off about learning aikido so you won't have to fight and all that crap, frankly it freaks me out when I hear things like that simply because any unsuspecting student who knows no better is going to be influenced by anyone wearing a BB, let alone a person leading a class or club. Yes, of course Aiki technique can be used to defend one's self. I'd be a fool to say otherwise. Yes I must also agree the Founder's philosophy behind Aiki - "do" changed radically post WWII and he wanted the practice of Aikido to be a catalyst for "unification" not just of the Japanese nation but globally.. **BUT** You cannot expect a rank beginner to either comprehend Ueshiba's philosophy or, understand that Aikido is far more than it looks on the surface. It is only natural therefore for people to approach Aikido from the perspectives more readily apparent - Martial Art = Self Defence. I have absolutely no problem with that at all. I joined the Armed Forces in 1981, I learned to effectively defend this Nation through skills that would ultimately result in the deaths and serious injuries of others. Included in the years of ongoing training was H/H combat. This isn't "self defence" it is offensive tactical based hand and bayonet fighting skills designed to KILL. The principle of MA's is exactly the same. Strip away any religious or philosophical levels and what you have is a range of movements *techniques* designed to injure or at worse.. Kill. Aikido is no different, is merely wrapped up in a 'blanket' of philosophy that even some Yudansha don't understand. Don't get me wrong.. I'm not suggesting that to understand and practice good Aikido, you have to grasp and understand all the additional baggage that comes with it, I am saying that *some* will cloud their study with misunderstanding and therefore not instruct their aikido with the right attitude towards the practicalities which exist. If a student wants to study nothing more that a range of movements and continue the 'tradition' of the discipline without concern for practicalities, that's fine. If another student wants to study Aikido and find the practicalities in technique that is also fine however, the dificulty comes when the two train together, they have entirely different perspectives on the reasons why they train - One doesn't need realism, and one does. Both are right. Regards
Well said Dave. Not everything in Aikido appears to be orientated towards self defence. But on closer examination it is. Everything that is done in Aikido involves movements taken from the techniques. So even when you might think a particular exorcise isn't practical. It is. It renforces the ideas behind the more practical techniques. Like any system of teaching this does have it's flaws. Many people miss the point of the less practical exorcises. But the same could be said for any martial art or system of teaching.
True "If a student wants to study nothing more that a range of movements and continue the 'tradition' of the discipline without concern for practicalities, that's fine. " One problem is with this thought is if a new student does 2 years of an art and the instructor tells him it will work, he has his Green belt in an art (about max danger level cos he helps noobs with techniques) this is when he comes to use his training and sadly gets mauled. It is not cos what he knows is exactly bad just he thinks as he is being told that his version of training is for SD but he has been sold a set of moves that is little or no use. bordering on McDojo styleeeeeeee If the above is right and I feel there is perhaps a need for both sides of the coin should there not be a clear definition to distinguish the people who train for the love of the art and thoes who train for its self defence aspect. This perhaps would stop the tarring with the same brush senario? Like with Karate and Sports Karate?
If we move away from self defence and practice purely for the perfection of technique alone then a martial art is noless a martial art. It is martial because of it's conections to the warrior way of life and it's potential applications. It is an art because the student is dedicated to the perfection of the techniques and movements and understanding of what is being taught. If we teach students how to kick for example, in a dojo situation, it doesn't take a geniuse to figure out how to apply this in real life. Students who find themselves being mauled in the dojo by beginers are not let down by their approch to learning. They are let down by teachers who fail to pick up on mistakes and allow standards to slip. You don't have to relate everything back to self defence to maintain high standards of teaching and learning.
Hmm, I think I get what you mean. If you’re referring to a scenario where one student (the realist) is being shown technique by another student (The non realist) then Yes I can see there is a conflict of interest however, and this is the key factor is all of this debate.... " There is no such thing as a bad student... Only bad instructors" Either the dojo is going to be practicality based (in one form or another) or it's not, basically. I know that is a rather sweeping statement and, there are several other issues/factors that could be argued but essentially it boils down to the type of Aikido being taught in the Dojo. If the Sensei is supposedly teaching "practical based Aikido" and he isn't then yes that is quite likely to be one of many McDojo seen on the Bullshido fora however, there is a very thin line drawn between quality "Traditional aikido" which may take a life time to learn and become effective and, a BS factor Dojo purporting to teach "traditional aikido". The other aspect of this section of this debate is the understanding of a student. You obviously want to study the practicality of a technique and make it work in a modern context, and I support you for that. A beginner to an aikido class however may not know exactly what he wants from his study or, has some Idea but hasn't discussed it with the instructor. The Sensei must be making some fundamental statements to beginners in their early stages of training; they need to know where Aikido has come from, why it is now called Aiki "do" and not "jutsu" they need to be aware of that dojo's particular attitude to their study, is it practically based or is it a more mainstream dojo encompassing all aspects of the discipline of which, some will be very un-practical in nature. I'm sorry if I keep repeating myself at times but, these aspects are relevant to this discussion. As some of you will be aware, I'm also a student of the British Kendo Association through whom I practice Musho Shinden Iaijutsu. I think it's fair to say this isn't self defense at all, I don't carry my shinken apart from in the dojo so what use might it be in the street ? Actually quite a bit. I am acutely aware of my surroundings, I am able to move fluidly and confidently whilst in the close proximity of others, I am able to pick up a stick, broom handle or any other implement of that ilk and be in a formidable advantage against someone else. But I don't study a self defense art. Similar situations exist in Aikido, what may appear to be less than practical can be quite the opposite; one must see with open eyes past the superficial layer (quite often an attack that isn't meant to be realistic - Gyaku Hanmi for instance). Sonshu, I have to say that I don't mind your critique of Aikido, I would however like to see you devote more time to more aspects of it so that you might feel better informed about it, and please don't think I'm being patronizing. As I've said before, it's the student that makes a technique work not the other way round. Dave
