Solo Exercises for Aikido

Here's Chiba Kazuo Sensei discussing the application of aikido without mysticism, three aspects which are tangible, real and quantifiable.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lh4qLeVOa9c&playnext=1&list=PL886F90509580FF59"]YouTube - Aikido Chiba Sensei talking about the 3 W's (When, Where, and What) of a martial encounter[/ame]

Please tell me you're not going to suggest that he doesn't know how to transmit aikido correctly because he's not mentioning yin and yang.

Here's some more anecdotal memoir;

http://www.aikidojournal.com/article?articleID=364

Really.. O-Sensei said that? Was that before or after his bullet dodging escapades..

and...

http://www.aikidoonline.com/articles/more_shihan/suganuma.html

My point in including this information is to illustrate to you that we're starting to talk in riddles again and no one here will really fully understand what the founder really meant in many of the things he's quoted as saying.

 

Hardly, functional ability is all there really is in a martial art - that's the "dog" right there. The rest is talk and mental masturbation - the tail. That goes for histories, past masters and esoteric theory.

You have it backwards I'm afraid.

Principles have to be there in the martial techniques and methods, otherwise they're no where usefull. They're no good in your head if you can't demonstrate the martial art physically.

It's all very well, and I can certainly accomadate philosophy, academics, theory and all the rest - each to their own after all. And I'm not here to argue these things serve no useful functions at all, but there's something wrong when the theory is on the pedastal rather than the martial ability.

Bottom line, functional martial ability is the one true objective measure in martial arts, the only one that matters. When all the waffle is said and done.

Breathing, yin yang ?

Great, show me what it is while I am attempting punching you in the head, and wrestling you to the floor.

 

Best thing I've read in the long time.

 

Would that punching and wrestling be aikido? I think not.

 

You missed the point.

 

...which is also aikido.

 

I did not miss the point. Simply, I prefer not to discuss apples and oranges. This being an aikido thread, it should be aikido that is discussed of which striking and wrestling are not its bread and butter.

 

As i understand it atemi is a big part of Aikido!

 

Don't know about anyone else but I definintely punch and if you dont get your technique right against a resisting opponent it can soon turn into a wrestling match

 

Guess who said that?

 

Aikido has no formalized kicking of any kind and uses only a basic closed fist punch and knife hand for atemi with virtually no real training in their proper execution and use. As to the wrestling, it has absolutely none.

 

What? Where the hell have you trained to come to that conclusion.

Some styles of Aikido may have a relaxed view of atemi, but in Yoshinkan I have only ever been instructed to strike with power, commitment and proper execution

 

Another generalised statement from someone I suspect has spent little time actually studying aikido.

So, my cross training in BJJ and karate bear no significance to the application of aikido when I do them ?

aiki is a concept of application, you can apply ai or ki to just about anything you do - including other martial systems.

Don't try to widen the discussion to include aspects such as yin and yang then rapidly attempt to narrow it off when people point out your train of thought is flawed.

Obviously.

 

All aikido techniques should start with a strike, to unblance your attacker backwards to the side. The power/intension in the strike will change depending on the situation eg whether in the dojo or in the the street , but they will all be accurate.

 

http://www.yoshinkan.net/02contentsE/h21c.pdf

The word "atemi" does not even exist in the "Test Syllabus 2010 Syokyu, Syodan and Yudan". While the terms tsuki and uchi exist in the syllabus, it is not various tsuki and uchi being tested; rather, they are used to provide an attack which nage can defend. There are no specified hand strikes and thrusts as named techniques (ie. karate) in this syllabus.

Being instructed to "strike with power, commitment and proper execution" is one thing, being formally trained as core material of the art is another.

 

The issue is not whether your training outside of aikido is useful to you in aikido. Aikido itself does not formally teach striking as an art.

Actually, it was a very specific statement I made. And, attacking the messenger rather than the message is a tactic lacking sophistication. I would prefer to discuss aikido and not enter into a ****ing contest with you.

 

I've been studying that syllubus all week since our sensei announced the next grading dates. So much to learn, yikes!

You are right, there is no formalised atemi grading written in the syllubus, but that shouldn't suggest that a) students are not taught how to deliver correct atemi and b) that it won't be part of how you are graded during a test.

Atemi are used to provide nage/tori/sh'te with something from which they can defend/apply a technique. But let's not forget that nage/tori/sh'te also initiate many of the techniques with a strike, and if they are not delivering it correctly it will affect the outcome of their overall technique. Your ability to deliver a decent atemi is definitely under scrutiny during a grading

I wouldn't be surprised if someone was failed in a grading due to crap atemi, just as they can be failed for crap ukemi. It should all matter

And perhaps you do raise a point about atemi not appearing in a formal grading, maybe that would cause more schools to take atemi more seriously

 

How much time have you spent studying aikido and to what standard?

Thank you

 

Why do you focus on the messenger instead of the message? Suffice it to say that it would be incorrect to assume I have no knowledge of aikido, training in aikido, or contribution to aikido by way of instruction.

As a related note, there are some here who do not contibute to discussions in these threads because of, to be frank, the unfriendly manner in which some with a view not aligned with the more spirited group here are treated. While one may not agree with someone else's message, one should not denigrate the messenger. To do so only stifles open discussion of aikido.

 

...because the level of the messenger will validate (or invalidate) the message.