Aikido is many things to many people. And that's another debate. I've never studied any other martial art (except Iaijutsu) so the aikido I’ve studied has been all I've had, and it’s served me well. Aikido as a system, like ANY martial art doesn't equip the student with the will to fight. You either have that or you don't. Yes, the will to stand your ground can be cultivated through martial arts training but, if a person is naturally inclined otherwise, this is always going to feature as part of their persona, no matter how much training they do (and let’s keep this in the context of a part-time evening study) When we talk about buki waza inc. use of the tanto (and why we do it) I see this discussion on two different levels. One.. We practice Bokken, Jo and Tanto waza because it falls within the tradition of the art we study. On this level, 'practicality' in a modern sense isn't a consideration because the methods of attack are stylised reflecting a past age. What we are doing is to ensure we maintain a 'tradition' of the art so we can pass them on to future generations. If that is all a student of mine ever desires, I have absolutely no problem with that. As long as they are being honest with themselves. Two.. We take aspects of the traditional training and apply them in a 'modern' context. Through our training in Kihon we realise, what we do can be applicable in our society, god forbid we ever need it but, this is where I’ve seen confusion and conflict occur between 'traditional' and modern' concepts. I've seen for my self students wrestle with themselves over the practicality of their technique when really all they needed to do is get their heads down and spend time on the mat - cultivating their 'spirit' and polishing technique. Bringing this post directly back to the tanto. Live blade or not, we've already drawn the conclusion that it is "each to their own." Kudos to anyone who wishes to work regularly with a sharp blade. I for one feel it is a risk I'd rather not take, either for myself or within my dojo. In exactly the same way I will never let any of my students work Tachi-dori with Katana; and we have a few shinken in my dojo. Isn't that why we use a bokken ? I also think 'we' ("we" extends very broadly) very often loose sight of the context in our training. Aiki isn't some uber-badass style. Yes, those who study Aikido can be very effective at what they do however, none of us live in an age where we need to learn bujutsu, we do so because we have decided too. I fully accept that working with a live blade will add an element to one's training, as I said in an earlier post, I've done this myself many times in the past. However, like any "shock" one becomes desensitised to it after a period of time, this is where injuries have and do happen. Someone already said that one's uke really needs to know what their doing when they make their attack, its enough of a risk having a sharp instrument thrust or slashed in your direction (hoping your in the right place at the right time) but; to have an uke fail to deliver for whatever reason is a risk too great IMHO. In Shodokan, if the use of a foam or rubber tanto serves the purpose it is intended that’s fine, in any other style either wood or blade made Tanto; you pays your money and takes your chances... And rightly so. Dave
Reading through the last few post I would agree that Boken and Jo could cause serious injury if contact was made to your training partner. I can only comment on my own budo training that a free for all attacks with these weapons does not usually happen. A good test of your tachi dori skills is face a good quality Iaidoka with boken of shinai or for Jo/Yari dori a good Jodoka. I can assure you that most Aikidoka do not match the speed and power of the above. Sadly a lot of Aikido & MA teachers in the west only touch on these weapons, many just make it up as they go along I have seen some very poor boken work within MA over the years. I think the problem in the west is that we view a Shodan as a teacher of Budo. Many students settle at this level and teach without undergoing regular training themselves, the odd course or summer camp is not enough. I know that a lot of Associations have an honory grade system above sandan, although I have graded to Godan technically I am not against the honory system but I do believe that the person receiving the grade should have the same technical ability as a person who has mat graded. I appolgise to any junior dan grades. but the above was me untill I decided to travel to study with a senior sensei.
This is absolutely true, I study Iai and even when I work with very good quality Aikidoists I can see vast differences in ability with the bokken unless their taught by a Sensei who has direct (and good understanding) experience in Aiki-ken which is sadly lacking in some schools. (Which is why I like working with Iwama doods) And have the pleasure of being the cousin of a BKA Kendo Rokkudan Almost every time I've watched Aiki Tachi-dori I notice Uke 'leaning' into their cut. this is either because their pre-empting ukemi or, because they haven't been taught how to cut correctly. (and sometimes a bit of both) In a sword cut, the kisaki (tip) travels very high and well past the intended point of contact, the 'cut' occurs from the blade travelling back to hara, otherwise all you'll do is chop at the target. If you lean forward whilst doing this you will be off balance and biased on your front leg; taking a sword from someone doing this is quite simple, one just has to off set from the line of the weapon and 'encourage' them to fall forward however; try taking the sword/bokken from someone who knows how to use it and that is an entirely different technique requiring some commitment to stay on the line of attack until the blade has travelled past its apex (thus its direction cannot be effectively altered by its user). Dave
No I'm not hinting at reality based self defence at all. The point I was trying to make is that martial arts training, (in this case Aikido), deals with a number of reflexes and emotional responses that we reguarly face in othe rareas of our lives. The introduction of a live blade is one more element of that training and if done properly is no more dangerouse than any other weapon and it is not as uncommon as some people have a tendancey to think it is. I wasn't acutally even thinking about free for all attacks with regards to the Jo and Bokken. I was thinking more along the lines of the variouse common techniques and exorcises done as part of the normal practice. Even when both parties know what's about to happen the potential for injuary is extreamely high should one of them get their timeing wrong. And I totaly agree. A Jodoka or Iaidoka would put an Aikidoka to shame with regards to their respective weapons. I would expect nothing less. In fact I'd probably be dissapointed if I did manage to beat a Jodoka or Iaidoka.
Aikiwolfie, I can understand training with live blades if the students were doing pre-scripted attacks without serious intent to harm or kill. That's not too dangerous, but it's also compliant. What I can't understand is that you insist that at your dojo you use live blades and go live. If it is "live" training, then the guy with the knife would be trying his hardest to kill his partner. It doesn't matter if he is doing it "properly". Yes hitting someone full force with a bokken is dangerous. It's basically the same as a baseball bat. That may be fine if you are doing pre-scripted attacks and they are doing a specific defense. That's not live, though. That is compliant as well. When people try to go "live" using katana techniques, what do they do? Most put on kendo armor and use shinais. Why? It's safer so they don't have to be compliant or hold back. How many dojos do you know of that give the students jo's and tell them to knock eachother out? Most I've seen practice forms and on some occasions two person pre-set drills...
Pankration, would you define for me what 'problem' you have with how aikidoists train (in this case with a tanto) I seem to have lost the purpose of the point you want to make and would appreciate clarification. Dave
I think after loads of posts on this topic I agree with Dave - we can all train how we like as long as we accept the risks - of injury and, for some, litigation or lack of insurance cover. Yes, Pakration90, we could all end up cut or dead - try a breakfall through a window, for instance! There are a lot of requests for info on this which deserve answers, but in the end if you want to find out how a dojo trains - don't keep repeating 'I don't understand how you can...' Just go there and find out!! In the case of Shudokan contact Nottingham dojo: www.shudokan.info . I know there are Canadian dojos and there may by now be some in the USA. You'll see plenty of live weapons training if you ask. We don't aim to kill the people we train with, just to bring them as close to it as we can do safely. For someone who is training with a live blade for the first time of course you don't go 'all out'. But with a 5th Dan with 20 years of live tanto jiyuwaza....barring carelessness, the uke defines the limit and if he can take the techniques and ukemi he may attack with as much force as he wishes. Can't say much more on this one..
Pankration90 I too fail to see the point you are trying to make here. By "live training" I assume you mean tanto randori. I don't remember saying I have ever used a live tanto in tanto randori. All I have said and maintained is that I have used a live tanto in practice and that in my opinion, it adds a valuable element to training when properly incorporated into the class. If you don't like Aikido practice that's just fine I have no problem with that. Feel free to go and practice any other martial art you wish.
Aikiworfie, I'm not sure but I believe that Pankrantion90 was really addressing kiaiki. As far as I know, Pankration90 does not have anything against Aikido, but he is well aware that people train in different ways and most of the Aikido that he is aware of consists of only what he calls compliant training. He has not experienced multi-attacker randori with high ranking black belts and such, but has seen high ranking Aikidoka fail to execute basic techniques on a beginner simply because the beginner did not comply and resisted the technique. Now this is only my opinion as I live near the other side of the world from him. To be objective, here are the issues: 1) The definition of "compliant" training is not the same across the board. A better way to put it should be that people use a sliding scale of compliance. Uke and tori agree on the amount of force, intensity and speed they are comfortable with before and during the exercise for safety. I would also call this levels of resistance and not compliance. This is where I think Pank was confused, as I was too in the wording of "live blade" training. I have always done live blade training at slower speeds. I don't see the benefits of going faster, even with more skilled fighters because of the risk of injury from a real knife (live blade). But it is clearer now that this is a choice and those involved choose to go the speed and intensity they feel comfortable with. Pank is absolutely correct that this is compliant training, but he is confused that it isn't black and white, that there is a large gray area of "semi-compliant" training where you are not totally compliant, just providing less resistance for safety reasons and for purposes of comfort levels and learning. I hope this makes it more clear as Pank is used to something like boxing or wrestling where you don't hold back in competition, and it honestly sounded like that was what kiaiki did in training, and if it was, how could you do that with lethal force and never get someone killed. 2) The next issue is that there is an agreement on how much you agree to let the other conduct a technique. On some techniques, for example, I might comply for safety because if I don't I might get a broken arm. On the other hand, I could counter the technique if I act fast enough. So there is an agreement that you will not counter techniques. This is a form of compliance also, as we used to put it, don't be too nasty when resisting techniques or the student will not learn it. This is great, but at some point to really test out things, you got to apply your counters so Uke can become Tori if Tori fails to apply a good technique. It appears with much training, including randori that the Uke are not using their best counters and instead are only attacking in a pre-determine manner. This is great training, but if it is the only level you take training to, you run the risk of creating false momentum. What I mean by false momentum is that of an uncertainty factor, the fact that you cannot be part of a technique without altering that technique yourself. For example, if I atemi (palm strike) to the face and the Uke falls backwards or does a karate like rising block every time, then I feed off of this for my technique to work. As long as the Uke acts in these trained ways, my technique works well. However, when the Uke does something different like a boxing deflection block, my technique does not follow correctly. By always having the Uke react in a certain way because they are trained to do it that way, I have created false momentum for my techniques. In fact the whole martial art could be invalidated simply because this is not how things work in the real world yet years of training ingrain it this way. I guess the only point is -- be aware of the "Uke attacked wrong" syndrome where you blame the Uke for attacking wrong. Yes the Uke needs to attack in certain ways for training purposes, but high ranking randori should not depend on the Uke attacking or acting in any particular way. You should be able to take a kickboxer and Aikidoka together in randori, given certain controls for safety and the randori should work just fine. IMHO.
I don't have a problem with how aikidoka train. Aikiwolfie, In that quote you say the training with live blades is different than randori. In that quote you say the training is non-compliant (so you're saying it's like randori). If the training is not going all out (as in randori), then it is compliant... at least one person is holding back or complying in some way (that includes just giving certain attacks without actually trying to kill the other person). I'm not saying that's bad when training with live knives, I'm saying it's necessary. You kept claiming that your training was non-compliant, which implied that no one was holding back (so the guy with the knife was trying his hardest to kill the other guy). I just think if you are going to do completely non-compliant training then using a fake knife is a better option. I know it isn't "black or white". However, as you can see in the previous quote from aikiwolfie, he or she claims that the training is non-compliant. Not that it "isn't very compliant", but just non-compliant.
I'm most likely wrong here, but a lot of the MMA crowd refer to 'live' training as more like sparring, whilst constantly moving as a real fight would be, not like randori with a live tanto. Straightblast gym have a clip on it, i think Ikken hisatsu posted it a while back. It's raises a few good points in MA, and builds on the JKD guru Bruce Lee's idea of 'aliveness'. http://www.jkd-kbh.dk/sbg2.wmv Damn, I miss aikido.
No that's not what I said. As some others have pointed out I think you are confusing a number of different phrases as meaning the same thing. "Live Training": This would be something along the lines of randori which is free practice. Uke is pretty much free to attack any way uke pleases with the severity uke chooses. This may or may not include weapons. "Live Tanto" or "Live Tanto Training": These terms refer only to the use of a sharp edge knife. Neither of these terms implies randori style training as the training could easily take the form of katas, forms or drills. "Tanto Randori": This would refer to free practice with a tanto (knife). The tanto can be foam, rubber, wood or steel. However the term does not implie in anyway which material the tanto will be constructed from. No I'm not saying it is like randori. As already stated randori is free practice. Restricting ukes actions with rules is not the same as compliance. If it were, then a pro-boxing match would be compliant as would virtually all martial arts training and competitions. Even the "no holds bared" competitions would be compliant as they do have at least a few rules. I think your definition of compliance is far too broad to be of use to anybody. As I have stated before I view compliance as falling down for the sake of falling down. Uke falls down purely because uke thinks that is the appropriate time to fall down. This isn't a type of training I would participate in or encourage others to participate in. If I am wrong about your definition of compliance please provide some clarification. If on the other hand I am correct, what then is the point in constructing an argument on the subject with such a broad definition as it serves no useful purpose?
No I'm not. Go back and read the quote. You said: You specifically said you had never done randori with a live blade. Here you say the training is not compliant in any way. True "non-compliant" training is the same as randori. Each person is free to attack however they want. What you are describing is still compliant: the person with the knife is only giving a certain attack or a series of certain attacks. As Rebel Wado said, it isn't black and white. When I say a car is "fast", I'm not saying how fast it is. I'm just saying it's simply fast. Does it means it is the fastest car? No. Likewise, "compliant" doesn't mean it's the most compliant form of training. What I've been saying all along is that doing completely non-compliant training with a live blade is dangerous. I don't see any point in most likely getting killed in training for the smaller chance that someone pulls a knife on me on the street and isn't just after my wallet. Competing with rules isn't the same as training with a lot of restrictions (ie drills where the "attacker" may only use certain attacks etc). In competitions, you do whatever you can that is legal within that form of competition to win. In your knife training, is the person providing the knife attack seriously trying to kill the other person or just help the other person train? Is the guy with the knife trying to "win"?
So now the definition of what is compliant changes because of the situation To be honest I'm starting to think you're just being bone headed for the sake of it. I still don't see the point you're pushing here with regards to what is and isn't compliance since we both clearly have different definitions of the term. And yours changes in relation to training and competition. Compliance is the same regardless of the situation. If compliance is simply obaying the rules then all forms of training and competition are compliant since both parties should back off and hold back when required to by the rules. In which case, any talk or discussion of compliant and non-compliant training is totaly pointless. Totaly correct. I can't tell you how happy I am that you finaly get that part. Congratulations. :bang: And I said it because so far as I could make out you seemed to think I was claiming to have used a live tanto in randori. Where in fact I said in an earlier post and I quote (competition equates to randori);
Look you're obviously having trouble understanding, so let's consult dictionary.com to help you out. Compliant means: When you are training with live blades, is the "attacker" simply providing a quick "attack" for his partner to defend, or his he actually trying to slit his/her partner's throat? In competitions everyone is trying to win. The goal of person A and person B is the same- to win. In the training you are describing, person A's goal is to defend the "attack" while person B's goal is simply to provide an "attack". If person A does the defence wrong, if person B going to continue stabbing until person A is lying on the floor in a puddle of blood? No, person B will just stop. This discussion isn't going anywhere so we might as well just stop it. When you said your training was non-compliant, I assumed you actually meant non-compliant, hence my replies.
It is non-compliant. Thankfully for me Dictionary.com isn't the world authority on martial arts. As I have already said, with a definition as wide as yours, confirmed by Dictionary.com, all training and competition is compliant. Both parties submit to the rules of the competition or training scenario. When discussing something such as martial arts as we have proven, it is a definition that is next to usless.
This is pointless. You can't understand the difference between being competitive and actually trying to win, and being compliant and just attacking once and then stopping for the benefit of your partner. "Compliance" is a word, not a martial art.
Rebel Wado's definition of non-compliance in martial arts: Non-compliance is that act of resisting the opponent independent of the rules of engagement. Rebel Wado's definition of resistance: Resistance is measured by intention (how far you are willing to go) and intensity (effort and execution). Resistance consists of both compliance AND non-compliance. You can be compliant to a point and then be non-compliant (resist), you can also be non-compliant and then at a point become compliant (e.g. tap out). Please stop debating about the definition of compliance. All training consists of both compliant and non-compliant. Please refer to direct questions of resistance. Simple questions: 1) Does randori typically consist of uke that resist tori enough as to have a high probability of countering or foiling tori's attempts at executing techniques? 2) On a scale from 1 to 10 with 10 being as nasty as possible given the rules of engagement, what rating are uke trying to resist the efforts of tori? I would rate my live blade training at around a 2-3 on the scale. I would rate randori usually around 6 or 7. I would rate most competition around 8-9 on the scale. Not a 10 because most are not willing to just do anything to win. Self-defense is not always a 10 because you could be intimidated or fearful and choose to resist less, so self-defense really cannot be rated like this. On the other hand, a death match would probably be a 9-10 on the scale. At 10, the rules of engagement mean nothing, anything goes, more or less. Maybe I am over simplifying this, but to be truthful, Pank is right that the level of resistance in randori is often less than the level of resistance in competition, and the level of resistance with a real knife in training is less than both. None of it is non-compliant, yet none of it is totally compliant either. Training consists of both non-compliant and compliant aspects -- the amount of compliance is not a good measure of the resistance, because someone can be compliant at first and then totally resist -- yet the amount of resistance can be measured based on the total effort.
Speaking for myself... I think this debate has got stupid (with respect to all) I'm the first to admit I don't advocate working with a live bladed knife however; from the perspective of a 'seasoned' aikidoist, If I were to train using a tanto, I'd want my uke to be committed IE He'd provide a quality attack but, be skilled enough to pull that attack if he/she realised I had screwed the pooch and got things wrong. I'd also want my uke to be resistant enough to make me work for the technique yet, compliant enough that we don't be come locked in a petty battle which may ultimately result in an injury (considering the knife at play somewhere) thus no one learns anything other than we can all resist and prevent a technique when we know what's coming next. The plain and simple fact is that when a knife is invloved someone is going to get cut. The severity of that injury however; depends entirely on skill and a little good fortune so, I don't see the need for weapons training to be uber-realistic, what I need form any training is consistancy and quality of attack, and those attacks to be varied from people who are willing to let others learn from the experience.
I don't even pretend to understand what the debate is One person calls a way of training non-compliant and another person calls it compliant. It is very difficult to see two truths at the same time, if even possible. It is like looking at a sphere, from the inside it looks concave, but from the outside it looks convex. There are two concepts that have independent truths. It becomes a matter of putting yourself in the other person's shoes, to see things from their perspective. From the inside of Aikido, the path is exceedingly vast, only limited by what is inside of you. On the inside you start in a hidden world (spiritual and mental) and work your way to a manifest world, at which time you will dwell in both worlds. The focus is on purifying what is inside to remove internal conflicts. The understanding of principles unlocks the vastness of the path. From the outside of Aikido, the path is not as vast as you are limited by your physical abilities. The focus is on testing your physical and mental limits, always pushing for more. You dwell in the manifest world and through determination and testing of yourself, move towards the hidden world of the mind and spirit. Both the truths of the manifest world and of the hidden world are valid, but both cannot be understood to be true at the same time. I don't know all the answers, but it seems that to debate which truths (manifest or hidden worlds) are ultimately true is not something to dwell on. It seems more important to learn to live in both worlds.
