I'm an aikidoka and I try explain aikido the best way I can. The problem is people adk me why not hurt the attacker in a real attack? I have truble explaining this one, also people as why not just knock him out so when he gets up he can't pull a gun out or get up and fight again? Please Aikidoka or not give me your opinion. I'm interested in finding out what you think! Jordan
Aikido, the art in which you don't hurt your aggressor. Unless they don't know ukemi and then you shatter their arm. I always thought this was funny Col
MA teaches that we should always take the least violent solution wherever possible. If we can possibly avoid conflict, we should, and if it comes to conflict than use as little force as possible. This can mean showing somebody that you could do them serious damage if you chose to, or it can mean hurting somebody enough to discourage them from attacking you. Apart from anything else, there are the legal implications of self defence.
As I understand it the reprecutions of SD over here in the US is a bit more liberal than what you folks have over there on the other side of the pond. With that said, in a one on one conflict and I dont consider my self to be in mortal danger I will use as little force as possible. On the other hand, if there is more than one person coming after me and they all mean buisness I will disable them with the utmost ferocity. I am not going to take my chances by being as gentle as possible and put a guy down while 3 of his buds are comming after me, just so he can get up and beat on me again. If I feel that I am imenant mortal danger, I will maul or kill you with out hesitation.
Hey Virtuous-- I did a bit of research on the legal ramifications of SD for a criminal justice class I took a couple of years ago. You might be right, depending on where you are, but you might not. In OH, the law basically says that you must retreat to your 'castle' before you can legally defend yourself, but there are a number of dramatic exceptions. Other states have a more liberal view of self defense. I think my favorite is the statute that indicates that you can only defend yourself if a reasonable man in your position would feel a need to do so, and then only using what a reasonable man would consider reasonable force. Aikido does not seek to harm the uke, from what I understand. The injuries that occur to your attacker are purely the result of their own aggressive behavior. I always loved that idea-- "I didn't break his skull, the concrete curb did when he ran full-tilt at it with his face!"
Just use as much for as you think you need to deal with them. Sometimes even words will end it. I've hit people once then talked them out of pursuing anything further.
Kneel before you kill... Actually, I didn't mean to (the word kill). But aikido is a self defense martial art and if your life is threatened, then by all means, use it! Going around the legal implications of self defense, I always liked the idea of defending your action before the judge with something along this line: "Well, your honor, I was kneeling (seiza) in prayer when this bloke suddenly attacked me..." hehehehe. "No, your honor. I did not possess the mindset to kill. On the contrary, I was even praying!" :Angel: That should save you from landing in the slammer.
From a JJ prospective..................................... HURT HIM! HURT HIM LOTS! Just kidding...........well ...........sort of (but try to stay within the confines of the law.) Obvisouly the level your response depends on how dangerous u thin the attacker(s) could be. BUt as free from sort of said. Anything slightly resembling any sort of takedown throw or manove will cause damage neway on concrete. May even knock them out then you don't have anything to worry about.
As far as the law goes, my philosophy is better to be tried by 12 than be carried by 6. In a some places, you're allowed to use as much force as your assailant intends to use on you. Which pretty much screws them, because in aiki they more force they use, the more force ends up used against them.
I like the fact that you can vary the amount of damage you do to an attacker in Aikido. For instance in yokomenuchimakiotoshi, you can carry uke to the ground or you can let go of them halfway through depending on your situation. In any case, if the attacker does not know ukemi, it will hurt.
Like a lot of other threads the discussion hangs on definitions. If you are attacked and you are lucky enough to apply an Aikido wrist lock. I would say that your attacker will experience pain and that you will have 'hurt' your attacker. I do not think that a wrist lock can be applied without pain being caused. So when we are taught not to 'hurt' people I think this should be clarified. Where do we draw the line, 1. Apply a lock which gives pain and allows control of the attacker. 2. Apply lock and dislocate/break the wrist. The attacker is still alive. 3. Use the lock to throw the attacker risking their death through a possible bad breakfall. I think we should aim to stop at 1 but I seriously doubt that many people have the skill to make the decision and impliment it in a real attack. I don't think I have that level of skill. I also think that from a self defense view point it is bad practice to hold back and use control when training. However if you do not hold back and use control then you will find no-one to train with. I do not practice Aikido thinking that it with help me if I am attacked. It might help or it might not - I practice for other reasons.
This is how I define hurt. When I say Im not going to hurt you, I really mean Im not going to mame you. You bet your butt there is going to be pain and plenty of it but there will be no permanent damage.
I haven't found a physical technique anywhere that doesn't hurt. I assume people are really asking you, "Why not punch his lights out? Why not go for a break right from the start?" To this I respond, "Why do you assume it's necessary? And why do you assume it's legally, morally, or ethically the correct response?" I do not assume that an injurious defense is necessary or appropriate. I actually assume the opposite. A person who trains for immediate injurious defenses has few options. The person who trains for soft responses has many options. Hmm. Think on that. Take sheonage for instance. It can gently plop an aggressor on his back, or it can snap an aggressor's elbow and/or shoulder. If you can do it gently then you can do it harshly (because the harsh way is a sloppy, failed, screwed-up gentle sheonage) but I don't believe the opposite is true. Ahhh. Options. For this reason I believe aikido has an advantage over other training methods. Irimi-nage is another example. I can do it gently, so that my attacker just gets a bruise when he hits the concrete, or I can put some muscle behind my technique and crack his skull open on the concrete. Options. I can also do it the "right" way by not striking his throat with my arm, or I can be mean and whack his throat. Options. And again, the injurious way of doing irimi-nage is a sloppy, failed, screwed-up gentle irimi-nage. If you can do it gently then you can do it harshly. But, if you focus your training on the injurious way of doing irimi-nage, then I honestly do not believe that you will be able to do it the gentle way. I hope that makes sense to you and your friends.
You couldnt be further off base. A hard technique it is simply done faster. Say I wanted to throw you with a Shiho Nage and just before I execute the throw but all of a sudden I see a reasonable need to disable you. So to dislocate your shoulder I am going to pull the Shiho Nage away from your body and then execute putting a tremendous amout of leverage on your shoulder. Is this a sloppy shiho? No, its not even a Shiho Nage at all any more (The real aiki / jujitsu name escapes me at the moment). So is jujitsu sloppy aikido? Heh, I dont think so. If it causes any kind of permanent/long term damage it is 'failed and screwed up'? Failed and screwed up techniques are the ones that get you into trouble, or simply do not work. I personally know the nice and not so nice ways to do things and I use my best judgement to determine when to use which. But to call perfectly valid techiques failed or sloppy based on the ammount of injury caused is bunk.
Interesting that you would say that. To me that is a sheonage. It's the first way I learned sheonage, actually, and I learned it in a goshen jujitsu class. Maybe different lineages have different names, but yes, it is sheonage, and yes, it is a screwed-up "aikido sheonage." Agreed, and that's not what I said ... or at least, not what I meant. It's failed or sloppy as measured against the "pure" technique, and in this context (this is the aikido forum, right?) purity is measured against the recognized way to do aikido. And as to THAT measuring rod, jujitsu often is sloppy. But jujitsu isn't aikido, is it?
