Atemi is basically defined as striking (e.g. punching, kicking, etc.). We are all familar with the use of striking in a primary role to knockout and subjugate an enemy. I was surprised to see, however, that there was some difference of experience on the use of striking in a subordinate role, such as how it is used in Aikido. What I refer to by subordinate role is to use striking to stun or unbalance in order to create and take advantage of openings in the enemy, as in, for example, to add striking into a technique that throws the enemy to the ground. Rather than dwell on definitions, I will just list explicit examples: (sub = subordinate role, pri = primary role) Example 1: (sub) Atemi (rake or spear) to the eyes (blind, stun, distract, get reaction to expose the throat) (pri) Atemi to the throat (kill shot) Example 2: (sub) Atemi (elbow) to ribs (stun, distract, weaken the arms) (pri) Judo throw over shoulder Example 3: (pri) Grab arm (control weapon arm) (sub) Atemi (head butt) to face (stun, distract, prevent counter) Examples 4 and 5: (pri) Atemi (powerful palm smash) to face (knock out or knock down) (sub) Atemi (check) to ribs (either weaken the arms or instead of ribs, check/pin elbow) OR if enemy reacts to atemi to face (atemi occupies the space that uke needs to enter) (sub) Atemi (as above) to face (stun, knock off balance) (pri) Iriminage Example 6: (sub) Atemi (with shoulder) to the open chest (enter into kuzushi and knock enemy out of balance, prevent counter) (pri) Atemi (powerful kick) to the ribs or solar plexus (knock down) Example 7: (sub) Atemi (slaps) to side of the head (strike into kuzushi/off balance, stun, prevent counter) (pri) Clinch and atemi (pull face into knee strike to knock out, smash) Example 8: (sub) Grab and push (off balance) (pri) Atemi (slam enemy's head into brick wall) using the concepts of atemi (instead of wall hitting enemy, enemy hits wall) Example 9: (sub) Atemi/Check/Parry (cut enemy's arm to side or into them) arm (neutralize weapon arm) (sub) Atemi (hammer fist) to eye (stun, distract) (pri) Whatever technique comes (whatever technique is given by the enemy as a result of the atemi) These examples are just the tip of the iceberg. This doesn't even address hidden aspects of atemi.
Atemi in aikido Dear rebel wado, If we were to use your defined atemi above [especially the primary ones] you would soon have a class of students with black eyes , serious injuries. In a dojo mutual training exists between two or more people . People loan you their body to polish your art.I think your training partner would soon get fed up being used and abused, or he would more than likely return your friendly atemi back to you with interest. In a street situation of course there are no rules but the law of the land does not say you can act in a manner that causes death or really serious injury.Only in extreme circumstance would you be allowed to take extreme measures.Even thugs have rights[in a legal sense ]. Cheers, Joe.
In all honesty I don't understand your distinction. My understanding of atemi is you use it when it's needed. It has neither a primary nor secondary function. It's simply there when you need it. I think your over thinking this one.
Thanks for your comments. You may read as you wish of my posts... but I made no claims to endorse any particular method of using atemi. The fact is, as I see it, it is because we train with heavy contact and in ways that potentially put us close to death and serious injury that as a result we both build better control of ourselves and our techniques so as to decide how much damage we will inflict on someone. It is also because of severe techniques in training that we build a compassion for life and others so that we may seek other ways to resolve conflict rather than all out violence. Take the example of a strike to the throat, we know it can be lethal and because we practice and know of the lethality of the strikes to the vital areas, we take on the responsibility to teach it in a responsible manner and to seek alternatives to a kill shot such as ones that only stun or invoke the gag reflect. This level of detail I have found very lacking in many that don't train sincerely with atemi... I've seen many make claims that they would take someone's head off if they had to and then lecture others on the merits of living a peaceful life... when in fact, they have not trained in atemi to any degree to allow them to have any options to choose how much damage they actually do... this to me is irresponsible by proxy of neglect. I'm not referring to you with this statement, but some others I have come across in this life.
With respect to the lethality of atemi used in Aikido. I think there are precious few practitioners capable of delivering a leathal blow outside the realm of a life or death situation. In general I doubt lethality is an issue in the dojo. Unless someone lands on their head. It's not good to do that. As I've learned from experience.
I'm stating that art of atemi is vast and people have limited preconceptions of what it is. People are shaded by ideas formed from the specialization of arts which leads to watered down martial arts which leads to ineffective martial arts. Like yin and yang there are hard and soft atemi. Atemi is not just using it when needed, atemi is an integrated part of technique at all levels. Even in FMA I was taught to NOT grab the weapon arm (there were exceptions of course) but to "check" the weapon arm. A check is a form of a soft atemi. These things are so subtle at times that all it takes is one teacher to NOT pass it on and then you have a whole generation of his/her students having lost it. This really is what I'm saying is that stuff is lost because of neglect and sometimes someone has to step up and point that out instead of just having a selected memory of how things used to be. I don't believe I'm over thinking it... but I probably am over zealous about it.
It was particularly some people from Aikido that told me that they didn't need to worry about atemi training because they would take someone's head off with a palm strike in the chin. They also rarely used atemi in training and when they did it was a palm strike to the face. I don't need to go any further but even the method that they used their palm strike was not good technique. Let's say they were amazed how hard it was to actually hit something that didn't walk right into their strike.
Yes, I'm glad you said it that way. Thanks. (FYI, when you don't consider a particular atemi to be separate from a given technique, then that is when I say it plays a subordinate role.)
But the manner in which it is used and its purpose may differ between waza and of course systems. That's sort of how I took Rebel's post and if that's what he means then I agree.
You can strike to do damage, to affect balance, break skeletal structure, control structure, interrupt timing or intention, negate or move a limb out of the way for entry. Each one of those is a little different from the next and there's probably more but it's late
Yes, that is what I mean Dean. And even within a system, like karate, there was the primarily use of atemi for knocking out but softer atemi were used to stun. A lot more complex than just striking full power to hurt someone as fast as you can. I took Aikiwolfie's post to mean atemi as it applies in Aikido. To me, atemi in Aikido is of a subordinate role in that it is part of say a throw or joint lock technique... the extent of which is decided by the situation and the intensity of the attack. When learning Ikkyo, I recall being told in some situations to "hit uke's face with his own elbow" as part of the technique. The first time I did that, uke was hit in the face and fell over backwards and I lost Ikkyo completely. The "hit them in the face" statement had many meanings and as an atemi, it was short, just enough to unbalance and get a reaction, but was not suppose to extend through uke as I had done. Again, subtle and complex use of atemi. I had to learn to strike forward but at the same time create a space/void for uke to fall into by changing my position and cutting down.
The distinction Rebel is trying to make, I think, is between atemi as a means to an end and atemi as an end unto itself. In aikido, striking is a means of facilitating technique, where in an art like karate, striking is the technique.
Yes, that is most of what I'm saying. But I'm also saying that people get too caught up in the specialization in martial arts. In my karate training, there were strikes done as parries and blocks as well as interceptions. There were strikes done to stun and strikes done to knock out or break. There were also strikes done to aid in a take down or lock. Aikido is also is not limited to strikes done for a takedown or lock. The training of atemi should be done responsibly. sakumeikan mentioned that there would be no training partners left if atemi was used in the manner in many of my examples. This would be true except that those that train atemi find a way or they end up getting hurt. For eye strikes, we either train them very slowly to get the feel of the technique or we train with face protection and padded armor. When in Aikido, a strike to the eye is changed to a palm to the forehead... which can also be an effective strike, but with less risk of an accidental injury to the eyes of uke. Uke is also trained to evade the attack, a very useful skill, especially if it is a knife instead of just a hand coming at the face. All training done at the level appropriate for those involved. More experienced can take more hits and more intensity without permanent injury. People have limits but at the same time, they aren't made of glass. My Kajukenbo instructor trained full contact bare knuckle in CHA 3 Kenpo Karate, the black belts beat up on the white belts. They went around and challenged other schools to fight in the streets. Most would not last 17 seconds in that kind of training... especially these days. We train with heavy contact but it isn't anything like that now a days. There are all levels of training atemi. Some more brutal than others. Aikido can be intense and brutal too, but at the end of the day, everything is relative. Brutal for the sake of violence is not Aikido, but brutal training for the sake of healing and out of love can be Aikido, IMHO. This means brutal training but not with ill intentions. People have a hard time seeing all the atemi and possibility of atemi used in Aikido that I feel it has been trained out of them. They don't see it because they are no longer experiencing it in training. They only see hard atemi (and avoid it) and don't see the power of soft atemi, the cutting down "softly". The learning of hard atemi is vital in the understanding of soft atemi. Hard atemi is hitting with a hard weapon. Soft atemi is hitting with a soft weapon.
Indeed. But that in it's self doesn't give the atemi a primary or secondary function. It simply has it's place and purpose as part of a given technique. My feeling is that if we start to consider elements of a technique as having greater or lesser importance or having a primary or secondary function. That is when the technique begins to be watered down. Because the teacher puts out a clear message to the student, part A is important while part B is optional. Which I think is a bad example to set.
I don't think we are talking about it being optional. We are discussing its role within a system, understanding this role and how it functions within the system you are studying can only enhance the student's appreciation of their art and allow them to observe where and why things are done. Such a thing should stop them going here there and everywhere with what they are learning, losing focus and filling in gaps in their knowledge with "stuff" pulled out of thin air. We've all seen examples of that sort of thinking. You might like this: http://www.koryu.com/library/mskoss8.html Whilst not being about atemi per se it does cover atemi existing within a system as a secondary function. That is to help facilitate the application of the primary goal of the system.
Although within our Koryu No kata we perform atemi waza in much the same way as any other system of Aikido as a stun or opening. When taking part in competitive aikido atemi waza is changed from a strike into a throw. Kenji Tomiki developed the Randori No Kata for this purpose. The RNK was originally developed for toshu randori the first five technique are classed as the atemi waza section. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUi8FHR0hZQ"]YouTube - Tomiki Aikido in Essex with Shaun Hoddy 6th Dan[/ame] This following clip shows atemi waza practiced as strikes and pushes. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fuo1RLbZA74"]YouTube - Tomiki Aikido Koryu No Kata (Koryu Dai San Kata) Essex Aikido Dojo (Shoshinkan)[/ame]
Yeah I think I see your point. And I don't entirely disagree. The atemiwaza is not the objective. But by suggesting it's of secondary importance, students will in my experience make a half hearted atemi in a bid to race to the end of the technique. I don't know how else to explain what I'm thinking at the moment and don't want to labour on this point. So I'll bow out for a bit.
Osu, osu, Yes there are Dean Winchester: you can feint, use a strikes combination to open up a defense to a finishing blow, strike lightly to trick your adversary (you aikido guys use uke...) into thinking you are weaker than you are, etc, etc... You can and have to use strikes to take away your opponent's (uke ) strength, will, spirit & ability to fight... very scarcely will you ever have a clean finishing shot at a well conditioned, well trained, non compliant enemy (uke); you have to be ready and prepared to hit multiple times to open up an opportunity for a KD/KO/throw/joint lock, or whatever is appropriate. Rebel Wado, I don't pretend to understand Aikido (I've never practiced aikido and I do not have a direct experience with it); I practice kyokushin; nevertheless, I think you are on to something here with the distinction you are making between primary & subordinate strikes... At the very least, your post talked to me. (BTW, I remember reading, I think in "Angry White Pajamas" that in Aikido, atemi is 70%... ) Osu!
Thanks aikiwolfie. I don't expect a reply, but I will address your concerns. The concern of half-hearted atemi is always there and that is why it is important to have some measure of quality. Atemi must at least stun or unbalance uke. So Atemi in a subordinate role in a technique has to at least stun or unbalance uke. Stun or unbalance could include distracting or getting a reaction from uke that leaves them open to a different technique... but to keep it simple, I just say stun or unbalance on contact. If one doesn't say that atemi has to stun or unbalance, then that is when there is little quality control, IME, and you get no atemi or atemi that is ineffective. Since stunning and unbalancing only momentarily neutralizes the enemy, that is why it is in a subordinate role in this scenario. Something else must be done to subjugate the enemy such as throw them to the ground, pin them, etc. Kind of like looking at the performance of a car. The engine is of primary importance for long term performance... however, atemi would be like the tires. When you actually get on the road, the performance of the tires is important although still subordinate to the engine. No atemi in training is like Aikido car going on the road with flat tires. An atemi through a kuzushi can unbalance uke. If that strike is rolled into a soft strike (soft weapon such as the palm instead of hard weapon such as the edge of the hand) then the strike can be "sticky" and used more to control uke. If at the end of the strike, the strike is slowed down, then this both allows for more control by allowing tori to change the direction of the strike and can afford uke a chance for better ukemi (safer training). What I'm saying is thanks for sharing and great videos. All atemi when used to unbalance can lead to or turn into throws and locks. This is a matter of angle, intention, maai and technique.
