What is he doing?

Hello all, just a quick question for all of you Aikido specialists out there, something that has been bothering me for quite some time.

I know that I can't speak for every Aikido dojo out there, but pretty much every technique I have seen performed has been in the defense against completely ineffective attacks and/or from a position where that attack would be almost completely inapplicable. Usually, what I see in an Aikido dojo consists of a few strikes that all look the same, and don't accurately reflect the abilities of even a marginally experienced fighter. (not martial artist, simply a fighter, anybody who has been in a fight before etc.)

Also realize that the attacks I am describing are simply as I see them. The names are unnofficial.

1: Overhead swinging chop.

Usually when I watch how this attack is implimented it is telegraphed up to four seconds before the attack actually lands . Not only that, but it seems that only a hideously unskilled attacker would ever perform a huge, overhand arcing strike. Obviously though, this provides plenty of time for the Aikido artist to prepare and perform his technique.

2: Back hand stepping through punch.

This strike involves the Aikido attack (for the use of partnered technique) to blindy rush in with a low, non-snapping punch (a punch with full extension of the arm.). Again, any marginally experienced fighter would never...ever...perform an attack of this caliber unless completely wasted/stoned.

3: Rushing forward wrist grab.

Again, no. If somebody was attacking you, they are going to strike you. I'm sure somebody might grab your arm or sleeve. But they would not run toward you trying to grab your wrist. (keep in mind, this is all from my own personal experience...and I've been decked quite a bit )

Those are the three really kind of annoying attacking tendancies I've seen in various Aikido dojos. And don't say that these are all just bad dojos with bad teachers. Pretty much every simulated attack that terminated with an aikido technique that I have seen or experienced follow this strange triumvirate of inapplicable and ineffective strikes that would possibly never be used in any sort of serious confrontation.

Now, I'm not trying to slam Aikido, I'm actually quite fond of it, but I do have some serious problems mentally visualizing how these techniques would be used in application. I also realize that a skilled practitioner could adapt the techniques to different attacks, but even if that is the case, it seems to be an ineffective form of training in the dojo.

Sincerely,
BAS

 

Well written, and I guess it's about time someone brought this to the attention of MAists, so they can bring it to the attention of Aikido senseis.

I'm assuming that Aikido practitioners have an okay time reactingto the quicker, less typecast/ telegraphed / committed techniques that might be thrown their way by real fighters, because I haven't heard of hordes of Aikidoka being beaten up.

I recognise that when techniques are shown, they may be shown against a 'how not to strike' parade of strikes.

But I am assuming (I've never taken a class) that when sparring is done, opponents act a little more like dangerous opponents.

One flaw of many martial arts is when a technique is not used because it creates vulnerabilities or decreases offensive capability, as a high kick or committed kick might do, it is therefore not taught. But then you don't have the benefit of training against
someone who can do a high kick, one that would threaten an experienced martial artist. Same with the committed kick.

It is my understanding that, like anything I would use, in Aikido you would wait until the opponent attacks, and counterattack in a way that might involve atemi.

Therefore the idea of attacking seems 'stupid' to an aikidoka, it makes sense thusly that they would attack stupidly, since they are comitting an 'error' intentionally.

I can see factors that would mitigate the problem, but I still agree with you pointing it out and would hope Aikido senseis are open to improvement where it can be seen in the attacks which are presented in training.

 

also, well written, and I'm glad I'm not the only one.

Obviously, I'm am not an Aikidoka, but I have attended many an aikido class to see if cross training would be a viable option for somebody who has taken quite the "hard" style for the past 5 years (Chinese Kenpo Karate...about as viscious as they come ), but I also have a problem with Aikidonos' teaching defense against something that they have no real understanding of. I'm not saying that Aikido students can defend themselves, because, like you said, you don't hear about an "Aikido emergency Room" or anything where droves of Aikidoka are sprouting up, but if a person really does not understand the mechanics and application of a strike, it makes it unrealistic to assume that they could completely defend against it.

Now, this might be mitigated by the fact that Atemi are involved. Correct me if I'm wrong, but an Atemi is a strike that is used to "loosen up" the target to follow through with a technique. But I still find it hard to understand (in a mechanical viewpoint) how somebody could defend against a kick if they don't understand how a kick actually works.

Or am I just insane?

 

I'm still fairly new to Aikido, and I'm sure someone with more experience will answer, but this sounds like Shomenuchi. We may practice it this way in the dojo, but we are also told that any other attack in this manner, such as swinging down with a beer bottle for example, can be considered shomenuchi. Anyway, my point being, techniques and/or basic techniques as practiced in the dojo are usually done in a controlled manner. To go fast, you need to learn how to go slow first. It takes a long time to master Aikido. Have you ever watched a highly skilled high ranking Aikidoka during randori? But like I said, I'm still quite the newbie when it comes to Aikido and I think their are some more experienced people on here that will also answer.

Kevin

 

See, the idea that your sensei would teach you that there are multiple different situations for a strike is pretty cool and rather effective. I'm glad that you have a good Aikidono.

But a problem still persists in my mind. I realize that many of the later techniques are highly stylized and complex, and I also realize that basics such as kotegaeshi and ikkio are very effective, but the problem I have with any kind of technique that lasts so long is the worry that the poor shmuck I'd be trying to Aikido at would figure out that he does not have to run with the technique and wallop me upside the head.

 

Hi Guys...

I don't call myself an Aikido specialist or an expert but, I have trained continuously for 18 years and run a successful dojo; I suppose that gives me a degree of qualification to answer your points regarding attacks in Aiki training and the technical applications etc.

Point 1. Aikido has its roots firmly within an era when classical weapons such as the sword (long and short) spear and knife were studied for combative use hence, within an orthodox or mainstream school of Aikido the 'methods of attack' are influence by those found in the use of the weapons.

Typical examples of those being : Shomen uchi coming from Shin choku giri (Straight cut through head) Yokomen uchi coming from Kessa giri and naname giri (diagonal cuts)

Point 2. Contrary to popular belief Aikido is not solely a form of (and I hate this label) "self defence"; anyone who relies upon reactive actions essentially waits to be assaulted - This is NOT a strategically sound principle to adhere to. Although we often train in an environment which is reactive to an attack, I would draw you attention to one or two schools of Aikido where Tori initiates by making an attack, uke attempts a counter which leads to an opening that is exploited by a technique... Iwama operates this way if I'm not mistaken and Yoshinkan possibly also (please correct me if I'm wrong)

Point 3. Aikido is not a form of all encompassing fighting, it has very old influences with quite modern philosophical attributes and this does cause a bit of confusion... How often do we see debates about Daito-Ryu and its effectiveness?? Not many compared with those of its modern derivative Aikido; I find that quite interesting considering the technique is all but the same in many aspects.

Point 4. WRIST GRABS .... Let me draw your attention to Point 1. Aikido is very heavily influenced by the carrying and use of Japanese weapons, a large portion of that being the sword so, where and why the hand grabs ? The answer is fairly simple if you face off in front of a sword user whose blade is still in the saya (scabbard) - What’s the most effective way not to get cut ? Answer... Keep the sword un-drawn ! The application of a wrist grab was a pre-cursor for a much more offensive movement. Grabbing a wrist and then standing still... It wouldn't be long before bits of you were leaving your torso.

We practice the "katate dori" wrist holds for three reasons.

1, It forms the basis of a 'connection' between two people, where a technique can be studied under controlled circumstances & where Ukemi can likewise be studied

2, EVERY technique at some point regardless of where the attack originated, finds its self in a position which mirrors one of the basic hand grabs - ai-hanmi katate-dori... this is just the nature of aiki taiso.

3, We continue to study and transmit a TRADITION of an art which has its roots in an era long past.

So to conclude: are the methods of traditional aikido attacks particularly realistic ? Yes and No. Yes from a traditional perspective of Buki waza, and NO from a much more modern concept but, why do we study Aikido ? Is to be the next UFC nutter ? I doubt it.

Kind regards

Dave

 

One common strike I have seen a defense against in Judo, Ju Jutsu, Aikido, and even Karate is a closed fist in the natural position puching upwards in a circular arc. Usually when that strike occurs it is a knife strike with the knife in the natural position.

At all times duting an Aikido technique you should have control of the opponents body and usually you force him to be facing away. You should also be maintaining at least one opening for a quick strike, so even if your opponent sacrificed his wrist to turn and punch you, your punch should arrive first because it is closer, straighter, aimed in front of you, and his motion should telegraph his strike since you are in contact. He will also be off balance most of the time, from where strikes are weaker. I he is still grabbing your wrist and you have no hold on him, you should be anticipting his release at all times. You'll know what it feels like. But you will have been using his grip to manipulate him into positions in which you are even less vulnerable than the moment he grabbed your wrist in the first place.

When being rushed by an opponent, some of the same techniques will work even if he doesn't grab your hand, such as sidestepping. He might grab your hand after a strike which has failed to land, all the while having forward momentum.

 

The issue should never be "how am I being attacked" but... "How do I CONTROL the person"

In Kihon waza at a very basic level of learning student's do focus a lot on how they apply technique depending on how they are attacked (which is quite natural), what more senior or more experienced students do, is judge the distance between them and their attacker and look for means of controling the person and not the appendage being used to try and strike with. Knife, sword spear, fist, foot, elbow, knee it all doesn't really matter because it's the BODY of the person you need to be in control of for you to have any hope of dealing effectively with the conflict.

Regards

Dave

 

cool

haha, we can only hope.

Good for it.

er...yeah. Don't know the techniques (or japanese for that matter), so this is not at all informative, seeing as straight cuts and diagonal cuts can be pretty much anything.

why? (do you hate the label)

again, true. Good for it as well.

I would if I knew half of what you are saying. My information pertaining to Aikido only comes from a close friend and personal (and not very in depth) research. Don't pull any punches.

never said it was or even alluded to that fact.

I dunno, how often? (What in god's name is Daito-Ryu? Early Aikido?)

see, now you are helping out. I never really knew that Aikido was so weapon-centric against a potential attacker. This does explain quite a bit. However, it does not explain why they still teach you to keep somebody from drawing a sword on you. I can think that maybe a knife might be held in that way, but hey, whatever.

so you practise to understand how it works. Neato, move on.

whateeever you say.

Cool. I hope you enjoy it.

damn, I was waiting for O-Sensei to come back and beat the hell out of liddel.

Thanks...kinda.

 

How to control a person is dependant on how they attack you, or you initiate contact manipulation. I'm sure you could defend against a kick the same way as a punch, but the control from there would be subject to personal experience.

Let us just say that, in the reactive sense, you are trying to control an attacker. Like I said before, it is almost entirely dependant on how you are attacked as what is attacking you. Do they rotate the hips/shoulders, do they turn the arm overhand, do they do blah blah blah. The list goes on.

 

UFC nutter?

Is that the opposite of Aikido Pansy?

You get my point?

 

Yes, but if you strip any physical attack down, they all do the same thing. They all put an attacker off balance (weight is not centralised) as well as presenting an area of threat. Aikido theory is to move out of that area of threat and then use the opponants lack of balance to manipulate joints or throw*. The main variable in an attack is the angle of attack, which is trained via diagnol/downwards/thrusting "chops".

As Dave said...don't focus to much on the weapon (a kick, a punch, a knife) and its details (hip rotation, grip), concentrate on where it's coming from, where you must move to evade it, where your attackers posture is weak, and what technique/s you must apply to nullify/neutralise/destroy the threat.


* I found reading "Aikido and the dynamic sphere" very helpful in understanding these theories if you are interested.

 

Just a quick point to note. Since we are attempting to explain why Aikido is practiced the way it is to non-Aikido people it would be better to leave out all the Japanese termanology as it appears it isn't too helpful.

 

LMAO ... sorry mate. (But you could be right in a large majority)

 

BAS it is not really what is taught but what is learned that is most important. Many times a student needs some kind of scripted out movements in order to learn at first. At some point, that scripted movement is then expanded on in ad lib application. So what you see is just basics, scripted type movements.

If a student is beyond the need for scripted movements, they are ready for learning and testing out the applications in randori or sparring. It is at this point that the techniques are actually perfected to be used against resistance and real situations.

A style of martial arts is just a starting point. One goal of a style is to teach a student to move in a manner like the style. So a goal of Aikido is for a student to learn to move in a manner like Aikido. But I emphasize that this is just a starting point, a foundation. Once the student progresses towards mastering technique, they must move beyond the predictable movements and into where it is all ad lib based on a strong foundation and seated instinct.

The danger of a style is that a student can get too used to fighting only those that fight like they do. So it is very important that the student build a good foundation and build upon it by training against those that don't fight or think like they do.

I can take the same observations used and apply it to any style or method. I say that boxers are predictable in that they all move in a similar manner, I say karateka are because they all move in a similar manner, Muay Thai, Brazilian Jiu-jitsu, Tae Kwon Do, Aikido, Kenpo, etc.

However, take any "master" or "champion" from the respective arts, and what I say would not be as true because they have moved beyond foundation and do not move exactly like the others, but move in more unpredictable, relaxed, efficient, and instinctive ways.

At first a style enforces that everyone moves to the beat of the same drum. A good school/teacher will identify when a student is ready to be introduced to non-scripted free movement without losing the teachings of the art for building foundation. After a while, the style becomes only a starting point and it becomes more like different strokes for different folks...

 

I tried to stab (in a friendly way) an aikido instructor, standing at arm's length, with no pre-arangement as to what kind of attack it would be (hi, low, slash, stab...)

It went like this:

me: ready?
him: sure, are you?
me: <stab>
him: <???> (I'm not sure what he did)
me: OW! oh! OW! why am I on the floor? where is my knife?

I did not start from 10 feet away and it was not a big telegraphed attack. it all depends on the aikidoka

 

Mawashi hiji ate will deal with almost all thrusts/punches/grabs to the face, chest and shoulders, suri uke will deal with diagonal 'type' attacks like haymaker crap. both of these applications will put the aikidoist is a postion of advantage with minimal footwork.

Dave

 

Dave, did you just say that a roundhouse elbow strike will deal with almost all thrusts/punches/grabs to the face, chest and shoulders?

 

Be kind to the Aikido Pansies.