You haven't said anything fundamentally different to what I had earlier. Again with regards to kicking a man (in the head) when he's down. Like I said before; if kicking a person's head is the only 'technique' I have to prevent that person from remaining a threat, then I haven't spent my time learning aikido particularly well. Indeed I can't ever recall any shihan either from Japan or more locally teaching a kick to the head (for any reason) least of all for the reasons given earlier in this thread which were; IMO daft. ..Kicking someone in the head when they're down is nothing short of thugish behaviour and given that we're supposed to be martial artists training ourselves to be able to control others under arduous circumstances, letting fly with a kick to the head when that person is prone doesn't sound much like 'control' to me.
Koyo, Dave & all - at last some video of Shudokan Aikido (in this case joined back into the Yoshinkan fold). At least it shows some atemi and kiai, albeit a demo so slower than usual (even then the ukes looked knackered!). http://www.aikidoshudokan.com/japan_embu_award2005.htm Komuso - Joe thambu (in the video) has his dojo in Melbourne. Aside form this the beloved Youtube has some nice clips of Shioda making his students suffer for their art.
You are a true hero dave. Willing to sacrifice safety and expediency for the right thing to do. Your moral stand is commendable however, I am not a hero therefore I take the technique that best suits my outcome. I want the danger removed and if an opening presents itself which will give me that outcome I will take it. Probably why I am not suited to public service, too much moral flexibility. As for your control point it is rubbish, a kick to the head can be as controlled as any technique. You cannot apply morality to technique only to the intention of person applying the technique. the Bear.
Hi Kiaiki Seen these videos before. They could have served as a reason for starting this thread.Good EFFECTIVE aikido. Koyo
Thanks - I like em, but here's someone who has pinched our Shudokan name and bullshido'd it to death: http://www.youtube.com/results?search=Shudokan&search_type=search_videos 'headless chicken' waza, I assume.
Don't patronise me Bear, that makes you look very childish. That's rich coming from a bloke who not a month or so ago got his knickers in a twist because a martial arts supplier didn't have a sustainable forest policy. You take the "moral" high ground over the fact that a company hadn't considered a particular point of view regarding the source of wood used for their weapons yet; you're telling me that you'd be quite happy to kick someone in the head when their down. I think you have your morality ****-about-face. Lets just recap on a few things you said. I'm sure he'd love to read your comments about kicking someone in the head when they're down. Spiritually or philosophically. Apparently trees seem to feature more in your morality than other people. You seem quite happy to potentially do something that might contribute to the destruction of another human being though Ok.. If you say so. LMAO absolute peach ! and you have the audacity to label me with "hero" ...Come on mate get a grip of your self.
Hi kiaki Now there is someone who does deserve a kick in the head!!! Anyway fear not kiaki the gloves are definitely coming off on my next new thread. I think you will like it!! Koyo
You don't take compliments very well do you dave. The Enviroment isn't a moral issue it is a survival issue. You see the hippy tree huggers and think all environmetalist are like that. How do you figure that one? Because I would kick a guy who launched an unprovoked attack on me in the head. Again you misunderstand motivation vs. technique. A kick in the head isn't an agressive act per se. If it was then all atemi would be. I am a humanist not a pacifist, it isn't the same thing, If you care to find out. In fact Dave, you have a habit of bullying people who disagree with your point of view. You inferred I was a thug and I didn't respond but I call you a hero and respond with a tirade. The Bear.
In regards to kicking or striking a downed person in the head without the intent to kill (opposed to a killing strike or kick to the head), I believe that Bear fully understands where I am coming from. These techniques that end in a non-killing blow to the head were designed at least sixty years ago and most likely came from before that. I mean the history of martial arts is full of not so nice things. When people in the past threw someone to the ground, well it wasn't intended to be to allow them a nice breakfall. Some would purposely throw someone into a hard object like a wall or a tree or a rock. Yet we have no problem training to throw people... but I am sure people would question the tactics of training to throw with the intention of throwing someone into a nightstand or through a window... calling that thuggish behavior as Dave used that term. I say, one has to just have a thick skin and show respect and have compassion for each other. Sometimes the understanding just doesn't come, it takes time to understand and even with understanding there isn't always agreement. On the other hand, and this message is for Bear... what Dave said about it being thuggish is actually a very valid point. I did not learn such tacktics in Aikido but from my main system of Kajukenbo. Kaju has a long reputation of being called a brutish art filed with apes that just like to pound on each other. It has also been often accused of being overkill. Of course we know that not every school and person is alike, that there are some very refined and complex parts to Kajukenbo but at the same time it is thought of as fairly simple and direct. In other words Bear, please don't take what Dave says personally, for many years I have had to deal with perceptions of overkill and only through my understanding of what is actually going on am I okay morally with the way that I train... I try to explain when questioned but in the end, I have learned to let it go... if someone wants to understand, they need to come train with me and get first hand experience of why we do things the way we do... anything else is just words. Cheers. BTW: Stillness in motion in regards to having a free mind while the body moves IMHO has one element that is VERY important. To have the ability to stop with control to protect yourself and others as a conscious decision. What I mean is that I have seen those with a true killer instinct. In training and in combat they are capable of hurting someone very badly without a thought to it. They make a conscious decision not to kill. They do not have to decide to hurt, they have to decide not to. I have seen this in their eyes. They bring a person to where they can finish the person off, but they consciously stop themselves from killing... but in their eyes I can see that they still finished the "kill" in their mind. They are able to stop their body from killing but their mind follows through like a predator hunting for food, like the tiger that breaks the neck of the prey and keeps teeth buried in the neck until the prey struggles no more, the life drained out of them. If we develop or have any kind of killer instinct, we must allow our mind to be free enough to stop us from maiming or killing when possible... we must not be sloppy or careless... we must have compassion and control as much as possible when it comes to "finishing off." Life is precious.
Moushiwake arimasen deshita Sensei. You are quite right, I apologise to Dave Humm if he took my comments as a slur they were not intented as such. The Bear.
I may have strong opinions but I do not bully anyone. If you re-read my comments you will see I said kicking someone in the head was "thugish" That was and is my opinion, I never indicated I thought you were a thug, indeed it was Rebel who first brought this topic up so, I would have expected him to have felt I was intimating who was "thugish", so chill out. Tirade ? Nope only things you yourself have said in this forum, which I happen to find somewhat contrived. You yourself have said that you study aikido because in your opinion it isn't "aggressive" yet you're quite ok with the concept of putting the boot in to someone's head whilst their down. That is a contradiction.
Responding to Koyo wishes I will not detract the discussion further in this thread. If you wish to continue this discussion Dave please PM me. The Bear.
I have no issues with the lethality or potential thereof of techniques, I have stated before on this forum that although aikido carries an often deeply held philosophy by it students, it is after all, first and foremost a martial discipline however; for those who remember, a while back there was a fairly lengthy debate here about the use of 'finishing' techniques, specifically those found within Daito Ryu where the opponent is killed using a knife, after they had been felled to the ground. I myself stated numerous times that we must train for all eventualities even if that ultimately results in taking the life of another person; I still stand by that statement however; despite operating in an environment where I first teach the principles, mechanics and then opportunities for atemi (empty handed or with a weapon - normally a tanto)... that doesn't mean I would automatically opt for this course of action each and every time I came in to physical conflict with someone. I would seek alternatives which offered positive control. This has always been the point of my posts with regards to kicking someone in the head when their down because if I've got to that point and had nothing left, I really have wasted almost twenty years worth of aikido training. agreed but.. nage waza would be as a direct result of musubi, an almost instant response, kicking someone in the head when their down is a secondary act which, if the nage waza (to use your example) has been successful, the boot shouldn't be required. I disagree, we don't train people to look for objects to throw opponents onto/into, if they are there so be it, that's effective use of your environment if the case required it however, as I said before; I'm the one who'd be seriously questioning my own ability if I put the boot in. My bold text of your comments are important here. I've stated before that I'd have little compassion for someone attacking me but, I've come to realise this is shallow and not at all fitting.
I thought this story kind of related to the direction this discussion was heading, so I decided to post it. Hope someone finds it helpful. There was once a very famous Aikido player in Japan who spent his whole life studying Usheba's legendary art. Although he had dedicated his whole existence to this beautiful art he had never actually had occasion to test it in a real life situation against a determined attacker, someone intent on hurting him. Being a moralistic kind of person he realised that it would be very bad karma to actually go out and pick a fight just to test his art so he was forced to wait until a suitable occasion presented itself. Naively, he longed for the day when he was attacked so that he could prove to himself that Aikido was powerful outside of the controlled walls of the dojo. The more he trained, the more his obsession for validation grew until one day, travelling home from work on a local commuter train, a potential situation did present itself -an overtly drunk and aggressive man boarded his train and almost immediately started verbally abusing the other passengers. 'This is it,' the Aikido man thought to himself, 'this is my chance to test my art.' He sat waiting for the abusive passenger to reach him. It was inevitable that he would: he was making his way down the carriage abusing everyone in his path. The drunk got closer and closer to the Aikido man, and the closer he got the louder and more aggressive he became. Most of the other passengers recoiled in fear of being attacked by the drunk. However, the Aikido man couldn't wait for his turn, so that he could prove to himself and everyone else, the effectiveness of his art. The drunk got closer and louder. The Aikido man made ready for the seemingly inevitable assault -he readied himself for a bloody encounter. As the drunk was almost upon him he prepared to demonstrate his art in the ultimate arena, but before he could rise from his seat the passenger in front of him stood up and engaged the drunk jovially. 'Hey man, what's up with you? I bet you've been drinking in the bar all day, haven't you? You look like a man with problems. Here, come and sit down with me, there's no need to be abusive. No one on this train wants to fight with you.' The Aikido man watched in awe as the passenger skillfully talked the drunken man down from his rage. Within minutes the drunk was pouring his heart out to the passenger about how his life had taken a downward turn and how he had fallen on hard times. It wasn't long before the drunk had tears streaming down his face. The Aikido man, somewhat ashamed thought to himself 'That's Aikido!'. He realised in that instant that the passenger with a comforting arm around the sobbing drunk was demonstrating Aikido, and all martial art, in it highest form.
The person you refer too was Terry Dobson a US marine featured in the documentary Rendezvous with adventure
... and then he kicked him in the head? :Angel: To the contrary, there are some that DO train people to look for things to throw people into. :bang: But only if NECESSARY would they actually use that knowledge. It is as you say an effective use of environment. Among these people are several law enforcement officers I have the honor of knowing who have never worked together so they have learned this stuff independently of each other's influences. Just to clarify, I am not speaking of termination techniques used to finish off a "helpless" enemy, I am specifically speaking of using strikes/kicks to the head of a downed opponent as part of as you put it, "an almost instant response." It is for use against an opponent that is still somewhat mobile and has not given up (is still actively fighting). They are not full power football style kicks designed to do permanent damage but lighter kicks that could stun an enemy allowing for disengagement or better positioning. I think of them as "ending pre-emptive strikes." Ending because they come at the end of a technique, pre-emptive because they help to prevent the enemy from immediately counter attacking by keeping the pressure (attack on them) until the situation can be better assessed. For example, say I down someone and roll them face first on the ground with a nice kotegaeshi, but the enemy does not end up the same as expected (my technique is not perfect or they are very skilled), as they free themselves (remember they are on the ground still), I stomp them in the spine and then stomp them on the side/back of the head (more of a stomp like jabbing with the foot with a bit of push to it from like stepping on them with 20-30 percent of my weight), this "atemi" unbalances/distracts them for an instant, maybe stunning them, I don't stop there but continue to pin them or I move on to something else. Dave I respect your views and I don't see anything wrong with them, but I do realize that as much as we agree, we also don't agree :love:
Fighting with other people isn't a nice thing to do periode. Why does kicking someone in the head make it any worse? If you find yourself in that sort of situation you'll do what you have to do to protect yourself and deal with the consequences later. I liked this discussion better when I was learning about Aikido.
