No friend, don't bow out. Your contributions are good. However, I will say that you have character and heart, and a lot of tenacity. :argue:
Just to add a bit on the ketegaeshi... I generally keep the hand level, unless there is a staff or bokken in their hands, and I wish not to whack myself with uke weapon. Edit: sorry, just realized this portion of the discussion is in another thread.
The principle would be broadly speaking the same, but the application or technique different. What I have described comes from my own observations and experimentation of human physiology in evasion based MA; which means a) it isn't based on any obvious codification like Aikido b) it can be a pile of rubbish and c) it isn't easy to describe in words much better. The principle subject of the thread, multiple atemis picked my interest and memory in terms of multiple attacks and defences/counter-attacks. I don't always explore this type of activity, as I try to always respectfully follow the theme of all teacher's classes. When I go to Aikido (last time 10 months ago) there is always a ton of activity to revisit and see what I can absorb/rediscover/correct - about myself and my own many limitations. Sometimes there is a bit of experimentation that takes place, but a lot depends on how I get on with the folk that Im training with. This probably occurs more in TaiChiChuan classes than in any other that I go to. By the way, great Judo.
Dave, there is no need for you to bow out, why should you. Your posts have always been of interest, you have a training history that can be backed up with factual evidence. MAP does need people who have a time served history who contribute with factual answers. In the event of the trolls and BS taking over no long term practicing Aikidoka will not bother to contribute. Off topic, but lets not drive Aikidoka away.
Moriteru was raised as a child in Iwama and Tokyo with his earlier days mostly in Iwama, he grew up with Hitohiro, they where childhood friends. His main teacher was his father (kisshomura) as he learned at Hombu under the his father who was the head of the Hombu and his sempai
The huge problem in this video is nothing has been done to take ukes balance at all, uke just follows as expected, doshu should have cut straight through ukes face to break balance, there was nothing stopping uke attacking again. Uke gave his balance instead of having it taken
Yes, there are some uses of shihonage ura here, none with tori going downward as I described, but, at least, he's doing a semi-back spin.
Looked to me as though he cut down uke's centre a few times. But I agree. Uke's balance was given and not taken. The uke also seemed to get tired quite quickly.
Yes doshu does cut his arm, but the reason why ts worthless IMHO is the failure to do anything to stop ukes free hand being used for the 2nd attack
But aren't there times in aikido when atemi is optional and does have a secondary function? Sometimes performing a shihonage (for example) requires atemi, sometimes it doesn't. Either way, it's a shihonage, right? And if that is the case, then atemi is not an essential part of what makes a shihonage a shihonage. Furthermore, as I understand it, the "primary function" of a shihonage is throwing the opponent in a certain way, which means that atemi is not performing the primary function. Based on all the above, isn't a teacher perfectly justified in saying, part A is essential or you're doing the technique wrong whereas part B is added when neccessary to facilitate part A? EDIT: I know I'm a good 24 hours late on this quote, but I thought it was an important question to ask.
If the technique contains an atemi then it must be there for a reason. Even with most of the kokyu nage I was taught. The throw is executed as a cut or strike in combination with something else. The only time it seems to be unnecessary is when ducking out of the way or when there is no resistance to the technique. I don't know any shihonage techniques that don't contain a cut or strike or parry of some kind.
I think Atemi is more easily understood or apparent in Omote versions as omote can be seen as more Martial or attacking and ura more defensive. Id certainly agree that Atemi is not always needed in certain Ura movements but can always be applied. Although a good example of using atemi in shihonage ura is circular punches or hooks to the side of ukes face or knees/kicks to there knees when first turning and taking ukes balance forward before you turn and raise there arm up. If that makes Sense? So lets say tori is in hidari hanmi and as uke attacks gyaku hanmi katate dori, as tori takes ukes wrist with there right hand and applies the twist they also use there left hand (which was about to be grabbed) to strike side of ukes jaw/face hook style as that matches the turn of the hips or the same feeling but tori attacks ukes knee. Another atemi is just after tori makes the turn behind uke, facing ukes back and as tori cuts uke down they sweep/strike/kick/hack ukes knee. great take down. hope that all makes sense. Same with Omote just as tori steps off line and strikes ukes face, they then snap ukes knee so they dont have to take so much balance when stepping through.
yes. owl, I would agree with what you put forth. Strikes are based on entirely different principles than are the techniques in aikido. There are, as I have stated, arts that deal in these principles in which there is no throw, or jointlock applied as a result of having delivered strikes before, during, or after. There is no need. Also, considering that many strikes are quite deadly in nature, they have, for obvious reasons, been removed from sporting events and martial compititions; kidney punches in boxing, for instance.
This approach would depend upon who you spoke with. There are those who believe aikido should be trained and applied with a martial approach, and there are those who believe it is a co-operative method. Both methodologies (and many in between) exist within the umbrella of the aikikai. I don't get the impression the Doshu's aikido is specifically intended as a self defence method. You can see the remnants of aikido's origins in his movements but, the atemi - or at least the gesture - where atemi would have previously existed is apparent but entirely removed from any degree of effectiveness. This aspect is partly linked to my questions about kuzushi and how it exists within the discipline.
1005 as usual Dave, Its not an Aikikai thing really its down to the instructor. Aikikai is a mish mash of solid martial aikido and ballet dancing and thats just up here in Edinburgh mate. Ever saw the doshu TRY to do buki dori? especially Tachi Waza? worst thing ive ever saw no concept of the sword at all. More proof of the dilution and destruction of Traditional Aikido in the Hombu not the AIKIKAI as not everyone in the AIKIKAI stuck with the HOMBU
Only picked that video because it was the same person as the kote gaeshi video. Been saving this one for the right time in this thread: [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lo5Na1x6sAc"]YouTube - Chiba Sensei WAKE UP!!![/ame] Chiba Sensei -- Ouch!
Izu, when you say, "Strikes are based on entirely different principles than are the techniques in aikido," this is where I disagree and in this disagreement is the main theme of this thread. What is atemi in a subordinate role? I say that atemi in a subordinate role and Aikido techniques all use the same principles. Subordinate doesn't mean optional. Many here are stating atemi as optional, but it isn't. At least that is what I'm saying. The art of atemi is a method of establishing contact (or occupying the empty space). When you are not in contact, the method in which you establish contact is atemi. You can strike, cut, push, and after contact you can grab. Establishing contact using striking or cutting is preferred for atemi. Pushing is not preferred and generally is not considered atemi, but there are exceptions when a push is used. Grabbing comes after contact is established from a strike, cut, or push. Cutting down an arm/elbow to cut down the person in Ikkyo is using atemi. Pushing down the elbow is not atemi. So when practicing Ikkyo, do you "atemi" uke's elbow into their face, then "atemi" to cut down their arm, stepping through only after uke is first unbalanced? Or do you "push" uke's arm down? The difference is not for you to decide... the difference is how it effects uke. Only uke can tell you what they feel. And in a similar note, do not think of learning atemi as used in a subordiante role by being tori... you will learn atemi used in a subordinate role by being uke and feeling how effective technique is applied. IMHO.
Shihonage was probably a bad example, because most of them do require atemi. But my point is that atemi facilitates a technique; it is not the technique. There are times when we need atemi to facilitate an ikkyo, kotegaeshi, or kokyu nage, but atemi is not what defines the technique.
