PDA

View Full Version : Lethality implied


Please visit our sponsor:
 

AikiWeb Sponsored Links - Place your Aikido link here for only $10!


billybob
05-11-2006, 01:16 PM
During recent discussion on a particular attack I misdirected discussion. Thus, new topic:

Please tell me what you think about the following assertion:

Lethality is implied in all or almost all techniques of jujitsu, hence almost all techniques of aikido and judo.

Examples:
I was trained to turn my head to the side when throwing in judo - 'to make uke go over' i was told as a teenager; 'to keep from killing uke by impacting his face into the mat and using his bodyweight to break his neck' I was told by an old jujitsu man as a young adult.

Kote gaeshi may seem like a gentle way to handle lots of force from a committed strike, or like sankyu, may Seem To imply only control and not lethality, but in each of these examples - if i dissipate the force, step in, load uke on my hips - I am in position to kill as noted above. I can generate much more force dropping an attacker on his head with both our combined weight than I can generate in a strike. I don't understand why people think strikes are deadlier than what many term 'falling wrong'.

Thought: Choosing not to kill, cripple, wound an attacker is part and parcel of training in aikido. But I firmly believe it takes more control to NOT hurt and kill then it does to simply be violent, savage, or otherwise lose control of oneself and not take responsibility for the result.

david

Aristeia
05-11-2006, 02:07 PM
Hi David - good topic, and I enjoyed our discussion on the other thread.
I agree somewhat with some of what you've said here. I certainly beleive that a throw generally has much more damaging potential than a strike. And I agree that many throws can be adjusted to cause much more damage. But I'm sceptical of claims of "if you make this adjustment this is a lethal technique".

If you throw someone on their head, could they die? Yes, no doubt. but I think it would be less likely than you think. I think becuase we've spend so much time learning to take ukemi, we assume those not trained would do nothing. Don't underestimate though the body's natrual defences to falling - tucking the chin in etc. I think it would actually be quite difficult to throw someone in such a way as to not give the opponent a time to instinctively twist to "safety". dislocated shoulder, strained necks etc etc no doubt. But death is much more unlikey than you'd think, and certainly not something you could reliably target from a throw.

I think what's happened here is that in times gone by is that an original admonition of "don't do it like that because you may seriously injure (or if you're very unlucky) maybe kill your partner" has morphed into "this is a lethal technique if you do it that way". At the end of the day if you don't know anyone that has done it, or even anyone who knows anyone that has done it, I start to get sceptical.

If lethality is implied it is in the following way - the person who loses the fight is rendered un able to fight back effectively. Leaving the victor the freedom to do any number of things to them to cause death (simply stomping the head repeadetly for example).

billybob
05-11-2006, 02:16 PM
Excellent answer Michael!

But death is much more unlikey than you'd think, and certainly not something you could reliably target from a throw.

This is interesting. Since we (I'm assuming most of us) don't usually train for lethality this might be a tough question to answer.

dave

Kevin Leavitt
05-11-2006, 02:22 PM
Yup I concur with your comments and insights Michael. It is pretty darn hard to kill someone with empty hand techniques other than blood chokes. Anything else really depends on things being at the right place and the right time with the right force or impact. In a fight there is too much going on to rely on those things to work..so I would put them in the low percentage category.

You can damage the body pretty good, or render a man unconscious with empty hand, but it usually requires follow up with a piercing or cutting object or blunt trauma from something that can generate a significant amount of force to a vital area.. (I really hate thinking about that!)

If you are looking classically at jiujitsu, empty hand can buy you time for your buddy to come on to the scene or for you to position yourself in a better position to deal with the situation.

I can relate what we are training soldiers to do today. We really over train them on classical jiujitsu techniques, but then when we get to scenario based training I tell them "think about the situation at hand". It may not call for a arm bar, kotegaeshi, or hip throw, or triangle choke.....it may simply require you to hold him in position long enough for you to catch your breath and escape, or yell to your buddy that you need help so he can but stroke him. It may only require a boot in the chest to off balance him so you can drive through him and butt stroke him.

What this demonstrates to me, is that I would imagine that classical jiujitsu in practice in ancient asia worked much the same way. You over trained it, it was a secondary means of fighting, and when you actually employed it, it was done with economy...just enough to do what you have to do to gain dominance in the situation.

Sorry to be so graphic, but when you start talking about "practical applications" and real life from a classical warrior standpoint...well this is what it becomes.

Aristeia
05-11-2006, 02:31 PM
Excellent answer Michael!



This is interesting. Since we (I'm assuming most of us) don't usually train for lethality this might be a tough question to answer.

dave

Look at it this way, sometimes when training techniques you get it perfect by accident. In other words because, particularly as a beginner the technique is a bit all over the place, every now and again the law of averages means you get a good one. In fact this is some people learn, do lots and lots of reptitions until you stumble across a variation that works and then try and recreate it.

That being the case I would expect there to be many more accidental deaths on the mat if it were really that easy to change something to being lethal. That their aren't those deaths tells me that they aren't particularly lethal or if they are the margin of error is so small as to make it not worth considering.

Kevin, I note your comment on blood chokes. Do you really think it is easy to kill someone with one of these (beyond just doing evil things to them once their unconscious)?

Ketsan
05-11-2006, 02:41 PM
From what I've read classical ju-jitsu often involved controling or breaking your opponents arms so that they couldn't effectively take ukemi, like we do in say juji nage.

"In sharp contrast to techniques used in modern Judo competitions, for example, classical jujutsu techniques were not designed to score points, but to be effective for increasing one's chances of survival and allowing an opponent minimal oppertunity to counter attack. Throws were applied in such a way that the combatant could break one or more limbs of an opponent before throwing him, and usually after the opponent had been struck with atemi. When the opponent was then dangling in midair he was jerked down in such a way that under optimal circumstances he would break his neck, or at least seriously injure his spine, possibly in a crippling injury."

Serge Mol, Classical fighting arts of Japan, page 19 ISBN 4-7700-2619-6

Mind you that only speaks to the theory and not to the practice.

Kevin Leavitt
05-11-2006, 02:42 PM
David wrote:

This is interesting. Since we (I'm assuming most of us) don't usually train for lethality this might be a tough question to answer.

Most of us studying don't, however I do I suppose come as close as you can to training for lethality as I am a combatives instructor for the Army at our major training site in Europe.

Ironically, we don't focus or care about secret lethal techniques in empty handed martial arts. We use them simply as a means to gain the upper hand or to gain dominance in a situation.

If you are in the position under the rules of engagement to kill someone, you do it as quickly and efficiently as possible assuming as little risk, exposure, and economizes necessary resources to accomplish the mission. i.e. you don't shoot 20 bullets to kill one guy, or you don't use artillery when a rifle will suffice.

You also apply common sense as well. You wouldn't go to empty hand if you had another weapon.

Typically you proceed down the chain as follows. Projectile weapon, long blunt object striking weapon and/or bayonet/knife, and then empty hand if necssary. Keeping distance is paramount and key to the equation.

We have a saying. "the winner of the fight is the guy whose buddy shows up first with a gun". It helps keep things in perspective.

Really nothing has changed in the last several 100 years. Assuming that Jiujitsu was evented to allow warriors the ability to be effective, then they follow the same model we do today. albeit if you don't have projectile weapons such as guns, you fight closer and thus, they would have used jiujitsu on a much more frequent basis.

What we are finding with the current situation in Iraq and Afganistan is that we are fighting much closer and under very restrictive rules of engagement, so we are employing jiujitsu type things today.

We typically focus on gaining control and time and space...much like we do in aikido.

So, I think much of jiujitsu and empty hand fighting in a "lethal" scenario is really about that: control, time, and space.

mmmm, ma'ai!

So that is the catch! It comes back to the way we practice BJJ, aikido, or other forms of jiujitsu are relevant and correct as they were 300 years ago!

Don't get too caught up in the secret bunkai, hidden meanings, or super lethality of technique, because I don't really believe they are all that important in the great scheme of things!

Focus on the principles of the art and dynamic movement that is where the real secrets to success are.

billybob
05-11-2006, 03:24 PM
Kevin,

I'm impressed with your martial credentials sir.

Now I understand what you mean about 'practicality' and 'teaching to regular people'. I really respect our soldiers and the rough job you people have - I did not serve within a theater of war. Most people do not spend hours and hours perfecting koshi nage. It's easy once you know it -- like not freaking during the recoil and noise of firing a weapon. (actually, still working on that one)

My ire in the other thread was coming from childhood abuse I'm finally dealing with. I was alway unarmed and always outclassed. Now you know why my focus is wound and get away.

As a civilian I have the luxury of being able to stay out of harm's way, usually. If I can't then I can be as savage as any primate on earth to survive. Aikido helps me train in 'not' killing my partner, and is my current focus.

dave

Kevin Leavitt
05-11-2006, 03:34 PM
Michael, No I don't really think it is necessarily easy, only possible. Frankly I can't think of any situations in which you'd remain in that postion long enough to kill him since unconsciousness is usually enough to accomplish your goal.

Kevin Leavitt
05-11-2006, 03:37 PM
David,

Aikido is a wonderful way to heal wounds and to show us options other than death and destruction as a DO art.

Don't be impressed with my martial credentials. I've only had the time and the ability to focus and think about what works for our soldiers. I am average at best when it comes to actual martial skill in the dojo. I still have alot to learn.

Mark Freeman
05-11-2006, 06:48 PM
The paradox with leathality, is that the art we practice 'could' be leathal, but we can't practice at this level, not without a few murmers of discontent in the ranks. Also aikido should stop short of inflicting death, as just prior to death the assailant would probably be subdued enough. if you go further than you need to go to subdue - bad aikido -
So most speculation about leathality is just that. Which I'm quite happy about, I want to keep practicing and I think death might curtail my practice somewhat. ;)

I appreciate Kevin's practical military perspective, as modern soldiers are the most likely to be in 'life and death' situations.
Us Dojo whalahs, like to think we are practicing a potentially leathal art, and we get some feeling of importance from this. But everyone who gets behind the wheel of a car is potentially closer to death than any of us on a good nights practice :eek:

Good discussion guys, I hope my few random post practice thoughts add rather than subtract to the quality of discourse.

regards
Mark

Aristeia
05-11-2006, 07:05 PM
. But everyone who gets behind the wheel of a car is potentially closer to death than any of us on a good nights practice :eek:

I know a few dojos that should have this posted on the wall to remind people....

kaishaku
05-11-2006, 07:39 PM
I think it's very hard to throw even an untrained person onto their head. Or at all for that matter. But then again very little resistance training is done in Aikido so sometimes we forget and think everyone likes flowing and rolling.

Kevin Leavitt
05-11-2006, 10:37 PM
Even when they are not flowing and rolling it is difficult to set this up as an endstate. A great deal of effort and energy usually has to go into such a situation to get it to line up.

What you learn in fully resistive training is that, yes in theory there are many techniques that will work, however some are more risky than others and require a great deal of set up to reach your desired endstate.

By risk I mean they take too much time, you have an increased risk of failure which would lead to reversal, potentially exposing you to harm etc.

So, you train like hell to develop skills in both breadth and depth, but in developing your life or death game, you keep it short, quick, to the point, and use just enough force employing economy to get the job done.

IMO, that typically does not include such things as shionage or supplexes. I do see elements of kaitenage, kotegaeshi, and irimi nage if you are talking aikido. In BJJ terms you see clinch, single leg takedown, mount, rear mount, rear naked choke.

Included in this are various strikes and kicks from empty hand and blunt object weapons that equate to escrima stick/sticks and knifes.

Again, that does not mean that it is impossible to kill someone by shionage by dumping them on their neck...just that the principles of economy of force, degree of complexity/risk t ypically dictates that there is no real use for this technique when your ass is on the line.

Hence, that is why we have yet to see this occur in UFC or any other NHB venue. NOt that it is not possible...just not probable or worth the effort.

Kevin Leavitt
05-11-2006, 10:40 PM
Did you guys realize we are taking away from our post count in "aikido does not work in a real fight"! This conversation could go there you know! :)

Aristeia
05-12-2006, 01:23 AM
that's what I like about you kevin - always got your eyes on the ball!

Mark Freeman
05-12-2006, 03:58 AM
that's what I like about you kevin - always got your eyes on the ball!

or the prize ;)

SeiserL
05-12-2006, 09:09 AM
Outside of the military, I find little need to talk about the ability to kill. In the military, I was taught, the choice to kill is really to choice to stay alive and keep your squad alive. The situation dictated someone would die, choose the other side. Train for that and then live with it.

While most techniques can be applied in a way to be lethal, it is best to practice control and protection.

Remember, training is not sparring, sparring is not fighting, fighting is not combat. The intent and intensity is very different.

jonreading
05-12-2006, 11:57 AM
I think its safe to say that most combat systems promote the laudable goal of efficient destruction (is that laudable?) It is not unreasonable to assert that if done properly, most good combat techniques raise the probably of mortally injuring your opponent(s). The reality is that it's tough to kill someone with your bare hands.

What does that mean? I think it means most common martial artists probably lack the knowledge and the practice to actually perform the techniques in a lethal manner. Thta's not to say that you can't severely injure some one in the course of training though. And its certainly not to say that our military and other combat forces probably don't have a superior knowledge of those combat systems that can be performed lethally.

Kevin Leavitt
05-12-2006, 01:20 PM
It is a fallacy that the military teaches people to kill with their barehands. Weapons and your buddies weapons are far more efficient and effective.

Empty hand simply not a means to an end. Lynn's comments are correct. It is about teaching control and protection, even in the military empty hands arts. It is about developing the ability to be agressive, and drive through...not about using they techniques to kill.

So, really you find the military will spend time on empty hand for the same reasons you do in Budo!

So no they do not have superior knowledge in combat systems (empty hand). What we hopefully do have is a realistic paradigm on what killing is all about and how to do their jobs.

mathewjgano
05-13-2006, 05:47 AM
Thought: Choosing not to kill, cripple, wound an attacker is part and parcel of training in aikido. But I firmly believe it takes more control to NOT hurt and kill then it does to simply be violent, savage, or otherwise lose control of oneself and not take responsibility for the result.

david
I agree! Self control in the physical sense so often seems easier than in the emotional sense, for example, when people try to harm one another simply because they're angry. Aside from that even, it seems easier to take someone's balance and throw them willy nilly, which could be just as potetially deadly as safe, than to place a person in a spot that is precisely safe...or even relatively more safe than any other alternatives which may be present. A person could simply be very precise and very deadly, but that's not exactly what most people consider to be moral.
Take care!
Matt

SeiserL
05-13-2006, 10:09 AM
Aside from that even, it seems easier to take someone's balance and throw them willy nilly, which could be just as potetially deadly as safe, than to place a person in a spot that is precisely safe...or even relatively more safe than any other alternatives which may be present. A person could simply be very precise and very deadly, but that's not exactly what most people consider to be moral.
I would agree.

It is far more likely that someone will get hurt, damaged, or accidentally killed by sloppy work.

The ability to make it safe is also the ability to make it unsafe. The sword that can take a life is the sword that can save a life. Most people don't train with the intent and intensity to make that a choice.

What is implied in most training the the lack of focus, intent, and intensity, not lethality.

Kevin Leavitt
05-14-2006, 05:38 AM
I was at a seminar yesterday with a catch as catch can wrestler. Catch as Catch can for those of you that are not familiar with it is a old U.S. system around the early 1900s. They have some brutal techniques that I have never seen anywhere before. It kinda fell by the wayside over the years because of danger in favor of safer wrestling.

Anyway, some of the neck cranks and holds are very nasty and very dangerous!

I found it interesting to see how easy it was to actually place someone in this position. While I still submit that it is difficult in a real battle to do this, I also say that it is very possible. Ironically, when they are in that position for these techniques to work, you have dominance and other options as well, which brings us to the point that Lynn and Matthew bring up...ethics.

Also, most of these techniques in order for them to work require you to focus almost 100 percent of your concentration (KI) on the uke. This causes you to lose focus on the surrounding environment, which again, is why I think they are not necesarily tactically sound either, regardless of the ethics involved.

So it becomes a catch 22 so to speak!

billybob
05-15-2006, 01:44 PM
I'm noticing some good debate.

Few people (who choose to talk about it) have had to fight for their lives. I think us (un)lucky few see things differently, whether tactically wise or not. I see lethality in a fine point pen, in a telephone cord, the electrical current running my pc - all things before me on my desk. I've seen men draw blood through judo gis with their teeth and laugh! (rough dojo)

I think Lynn is right though, training is training, killing is killing. Maybe my head is too full of lethal thoughts, which might explain why I perceive every technique I've ever learned to have lethal implications.

I know where to work this out though! - at the dojo, with my friends whom I love dearly.

dave

Aristeia
05-15-2006, 02:03 PM
Like I say, the winner gets to be as lethal as they want. I've seen variations of shiho nage which i beleive would just wreck the shoulder and make the arm useless. At that point you can probably inflict as much damage as you decide to - making shiho nage a potentially lethal technique in some sense. Add improvised weapons into that and you've some pretty nasty options. But the beauty of what we do - be it Aikido or BJJ is that it gives us options - we can choose our level of force.

Kevin Leavitt
05-15-2006, 03:02 PM
Hopefully we can choose our level of force. I think this worries me more than anything else. I am not so sure in a actually battle that I could have a choice to have the degree of control to de-escalate to not kill in many cases.

Also, I agree David. You bring up some good points.

I remember having a conversation in my old dojo with a "technique hound" that was always looking at the lethality of aikido. knowing my background, he kept pushing me to get sucked into a conversation about a robbery scenario and what technique I would use to resolve it.

I asked him where was I? He said 7-11. I said, "what aisle?"

He look quizically and said..."what difference does that make?"

I said again, "big difference...what aisle?....can I be on the can goods aisle?"

He said, sure okay....(like whatever dude!)

I said then I'd start picking up the cans and chucking them at the guy then rip the shelf off and proceed to beat the crap out of him until he was down on the floor...then after I felt safe i'd maybe ikkyo or nikkyo pen him if he was still moving around!

Then he said, "well what does that have to do with aikido?"

"exactly! I replied!"

billybob
05-15-2006, 03:34 PM
Kevin,

give up the money.

dave

Aristeia
05-15-2006, 04:08 PM
hmm...at what point should we resist and at what point should we capitulate. Sounds like a whole other thread (which Kevin will want to run as variation in the "Aikido will never work...." thread no doubt :-))

billybob
05-15-2006, 04:38 PM
I felt my rage transform into something beautiful in judo.

I rediscovered my mortality with some help from a parent who did not share my views on restraint.

To make my point - I didn't get good in judo until I released the rage and felt joy in the movement - I was able to move freely and defeat even one of the Senseis when I felt belongingness, and not the desire to kill. (To clarify - I was able to throw this larger more experienced man, in randori or free play - most of the time.)

I was just speaking to a friend here who grew up close to how I did. He said that "if you are raging you can do anything; breaking a neck is nothing, easy".

Again, this is heavy stuff, and you can choose not to believe me, but I welcome discussion. Am I missing something obvious?

dave

Kevin Leavitt
05-16-2006, 03:04 PM
Rage can also work against you as well.

In Submission fighting sometimes I will attack my opponent fast and agressively, pushing and slamming into him. My only intent is to upset him emotionally to force him into a a state of frenzy and return the force. I will then move on and try and use that emotional state against him.

anger and rage can motivate you, it can also serve to cloud your judgement just as you point out Dave!

billybob
05-16-2006, 03:42 PM
Well Kevin,

I think I am going to have to conclude that lethality is in the mind of the beholder. One of OSenseis visions (ref. Steven's The Art of Peace) was that he was perceived all the techniques he had ever learned become techniques for bringing peace.

That may be as enlightened as he ever got, but I think that's pretty good.

Thank you all for your thoughts. I appreciate your insights as I continue
my own journey

david

Kevin Leavitt
05-16-2006, 04:30 PM
you know, I am a pretty philosophical, peace loving dude myself. I am a vegetarian, try and follow the tenets of buddhism. I think killing is wrong in all cases. (hence why I am a vegetarian). Although it is sometimes not possible to avoid killing. I try to make myself a conduit for peace and harmony and within the confines of my abilities and situation try not to cause unecessary harm of suffering.

So, all that said..... :)

Saying lethality is in the eye of the beholder...not sure I agree, unless I misunderstand you meaning. lethality is lethality. You can percieve whatever you want, but if the other guy is going to kill you...well it doesn't really matter what you believe or percieve...you are going to die.

I have no problem with aikido principles and methodology being tools for peace and harmony. Frankly that is why I am here!

It is critical however, that we do not confuse philosophy, perception with reality and lethality.

I equate this to "walk softly and carry a big stick". We should try to live our lives as peaceful and as an example for peace and harmony, but sometimes we must bow to reality and deal with the immediate.

billybob
05-16-2006, 05:08 PM
Kevin,

Lethality is lethality. Peace is peace.

Aikido is based on brutal, violent, sudden death dealing techniques. Choosing to turn That study into a study of ourselves is genius - beating swords into plowshares. Maybe it is inherent in the human mind.

I feel like I'm reading canon, not speaking from my own point of view, but I know you will kick me if I've left an opening! bring it on!

dave

Mark Freeman
05-17-2006, 09:37 AM
I think killing is wrong in all cases. (hence why I am a vegetarian). .

Kevin, by this logic you would be happy to eat animals that have died of natural causes, is this so? ;)

I equate this to "walk softly and carry a big stick". We should try to live our lives as peaceful and as an example for peace and harmony, but sometimes we must bow to reality and deal with the immediate.

Walk softly and carry a big stick... one of the first bit's of fatherly advice given to me wheni was just a kid.... I wonder just how old it is?

If we all lived as an example of peace and harmony, there would be no need for 'self defence'.

Aikido is a means of moving towards this goal.

regards,

Mark

Kevin Leavitt
05-17-2006, 01:43 PM
Yea good one Mark! I suppose philosophically that would be true concerning animals dieing of natural causes. But, alas, that is not how the system of processing animals works in our modern world. (come on, you vegan, tofu eating, aikidoka out there gotta help me out!)

Yea that is the ironic thing about peace and harmony.

I also like the zen koan..."stop harm". two simple words demonstrate the paradox. of it all.

It is easy for vegetarians to get all a holier than thou attitude...but in the end it is impossible to completely prevent killing or harm in some form or another. However, we can all make choices to reduce or minimize conflict, harm, and/or killing. Which to me is what it is all about....that and a daily practice that reminds me that I do have the ability to make choices and affect change in some small way.

David, not exactly sure what your thoughts are. It is hard to post here sometimes and convey meaning on things to others. So, not sure if the following relates to your above post.

I read alot of the dali lama's stuff. Lethality is lethality...peace is peace. If you read about the "lessons learned in Tibet"... you will find that the are connected. The Tibetans did not defend themselves against the Chinese out of their beliefs in peace. I am not so sure that the Dali Lama is not conclusive that the course of action they chose was necessarily the only one and that some degree of miliary action on the part of the tibetans might have been necessary. He is not conclusive on this (he is almost never conclusive on anything!)...but recognizes that pacifism is not always the best course of action.

Lethality is connected to peace. You can look at it as Yin/Yang. I think philosophically...enlightment is the abolishment of peace...but if you don't know conflict (lethality), how can you recognize peace?

Kinda back to Mark's comments on self defense.

It all makes my head hurt sometimes!

billybob
05-17-2006, 03:05 PM
Kevin,

I was trying to connect back to the supposed theme of the thread. We study gentler forms of terribly violent techniques - their lethality is implied if you appreciate how fragile the human body is.

I think it's important to note that peace is implied at the same time, though it's not as obvious. I guess I was remiss in not mentioning this in the theme of the thread, but I am not interested in mush. I eat that for breakfast because i'm middle aged. I'm interested in meat, not a lame hybrid meaty grain, or grainy flesh, but the real thing.

I think it's important to seek peace. I think it's important to not delude oneself into thinking that aikido is a 'tame' art. Far from it. I think about it as I think about the Hindu Fakir (I hope I'm getting these words right) who sits upon the skin of a tiger as he meditates - to remind him that the beast is within and needs to be conquered. My own beast is not a pussycat.

more arcane, or does that help? or am i talking just to hear myself? :)

dave

Kevin Leavitt
05-17-2006, 03:24 PM
I better understand what you are saying now. We are on the same sheet of music. Lethality may be implied, however, I don't think it is literal...somewhere we got off on that discussion during this thread.

I would not necessarily say lethality is implied, but maybe violent action, or conflict is implied more like explicit vice implicit though.

billybob
05-17-2006, 04:34 PM
Kevin,

I get it. I have a grounded (pedestrian?) mind, but a flair for the poetic when I write. Speech, is right out!

Let's try: Aikido is Jujitsu reborn in a Saint's body. pretty darn poetic.

The violence inherent in martial arts is expressed as moving meditation in Aikido. hmm spiritual.

Aikido teaches one to live close to the blade (of aggression) but not get cut by it. sloganny.

you try?

dave

Mark Freeman
05-18-2006, 07:51 AM
(come on, you vegan, tofu eating, aikidoka out there gotta help me out!)

They would but they haven't got the strength Kevin! :D

It is easy for vegetarians to get all a holier than thou attitude...

Yeah, why don't you guys when you open a Veggie restauant offer an 'omnivore' alternative, I feel persecuted :crazy:

I am a born again omnivore, so am prone to looking back on my past with a sideways glance.

If animals learned self defence perhaps we wouldn't be able to eat so many of them!

That's given me an idea,...cowkido classes,...

Sorry for the lack of seriousness in the Lethalithy thread...but 'sometimes' I just can't get too serious about rhetorical questions.

Cheers
Mark
p.s. The bacon sandwich I'm eating at the momont is mmmmmm ;)

Kevin Leavitt
05-18-2006, 08:47 AM
You know it doesn't really bother me that people eat meat. You make your own choices in life, some choose to have negative karma..others don't! :)

I always love submitting my 18 year old soldiers and then ask them "so how does it feel to be dominated by a 40 year old, liberal, vegetarian.

Not that there is any ego or gratification involved in the process.

Broccoli can make you very lethal by the way.

Mark Freeman
05-18-2006, 09:38 AM
You know it doesn't really bother me that people eat meat. You make your own choices in life, some choose to have negative karma..others don't! :)


In my next life I will return as a vegetable, is that what you are saying? :D

Broccoli can make you very lethal by the way.

yes, true, I usually give the broccoli eaters '5 minutes' before following :yuck:

regards
Mark
p.s. It doesn't bother me that some people chose not to eat meat. ;)

dps
05-18-2006, 09:40 AM
Walk softly and carry a big stick... one of the first bit's of fatherly advice given to me when i was just a kid.... I wonder just how old it is?

"Speak softly and carry a big stick, you will go far."- President Theodore Roosevelt, January 26, 1900.

"Don't hit at all if you can help it; don't hit a man if you can possibly avoid it; but if you do hit him, put him to sleep." - President Theodore Roosevelt

Interesting facts,
In 1904 Isamu Takeshita introduced ju-jutsu to President Theodore Roosevelt.
In 1935 he demonstrated aiki budo to judoka and reporters in the United States.

http://www.raabcollection.com/detail.aspx?cat=0&subcat=32&man=255

http://www.aikidojournal.com/article.php?articleID=65&highlight=Ueshiba

David Orange
05-18-2006, 10:49 AM
I am a combatives instructor for the Army at our major training site in Europe.

Ironically, we don't focus or care about secret lethal techniques in empty handed martial arts.

Kevin, I had a student who was a retired Army Colonel. We worked a lot on aiki and sword and the relation between them. One night, we worked at length on a deadly aikido striking technique. The next week, he e-mailed me an old Army combatives manual. Then I noticed that, typically, you guys wear HELMETS....makes that deadly striking technique just a little less likely to work, doesn't it?

But as far as throwing someone to death, if the attacker has a good bit of rough-and-tumble sports experience in American football or rugby or the like, he might be a LOT harder to hurt than old Hakama sensei might lead us to believe.

I meet so many aikido people who believe they can just twist their hips and Mr. Monster will fall down and go BOOM! And then he won't bother them any more.

Baloney, as you know. MANY people will not only get right back on their feet, but, if you haven't already RUN a long way, they will come back at you with less wildness and MUCH MORE sneakiness, trying to back you into a corner. And if they can close off your routes of movement, you can suddenly find yourself wondering if you, yourself will survive. As you must know very clearly.

Another angle to this is people who think that just doing an aikido technique more forcefully and "rougher" will transform their aikido into "aikijujutsu". But as I'm sure you know, the difference is not mere level of meanness, but actual nuance of technique.

My main avenue of inquiry these days is the idea that aikido and aikijujutsu were developed by watching young children at play:

http://www.aikidojournal.com/?id=1985

And if you want to talk about "hard to kill," just watch babies get to their first year of age. It is horrifying!

One night, well before my son could walk, he was sitting on the bed when he suddenly leaned back and fell backwards off the bed!

I almost had a heart attack! He cried terribly, but he was okay. You can watch them all you want, but just as in a fight, you WILL at some point, be distracted by something and THEN he'll do something unbelievably dangerous.

My boy fell off the bed many times, pulled table cloths and almost brought large, sharp-angled heavy objects down on his head. Many times, I've barely caught him before he dove head-first off something. Then they start CLIMBING anything they can reach.

Ooooohhhhhhh!!!!! My liver is quivering!!!!

Recently, he tried to dive head-first off the bed. My wife barely caught him and he wound up hanging upside down for a few seconds, looking at the floor, before she could get a solid grip to pick him back up.

When he got back up, he was really frightened and cried very seriously until we could get him calmed down. Then he started doing dangerous stuff again.

Human beings have both an innate drive for survival and apparently, a structure that is pretty dang durable, when you get right down to it.

Still, I recently watched a karate tournament in which one fighter died. It wasn't particularly tough karate and both guys were wearing full protective gear. But one guy got tapped on the side of the neck and within a few seconds, he was dead. One moment, he was standing up, bouncing around, no one thinking death was already in the room. Next minute, he's dead.

So, yes, technique is sometimes deadly when we don't want it to be. But in a life or death struggle, I guess we shouldn't count on that. Especially if the attacker has a lot of fighting/hard sport/brutality experience. If he gets the idea that you're really trying to kill him by making a rougher technique, you might only enrage him and find out what a real fight for your life is.

All that aside, I'm glad I'm not doing aikido against any mujahideen in Iraq.

Best wishes to you and thank you for your service.

dps
05-18-2006, 11:13 AM
No wonder I felt like a child when I first started Aikido!


Quote from David Orange's article,
http://www.aikidojournal.com/?id=1985

"These toddler actions are the real roots of aikido and all other martial arts:

gripping

pulling

reaching

sitting up

falling over

catching oneself by putting an arm down

pulling up

falling down

standing upright

lifting and dropping the weight

walking

The root of kiai is standing upright."

Kevin Leavitt
05-18-2006, 01:35 PM
David Skaggs, thanks for pointing that out about Roosevelt. I already knew that, and that is sort of were I got the quote from. There was a lot that Theo Roosevelt understood about things in general. A great human being!

I recently produced a video on the history of Martial arts in the Military, and we have a small segment on Roosevelt and his influence on military combatives. I am sorry I can't share the video with anyone as it belongs to the army right now.

dps
05-18-2006, 01:53 PM
Kevin,
During the quick research on the web I found some more interesting articles about Teddy that I did not know. I intend to do some more reading about him, is there any resources you could recommend that you used in making your video?

Thanks
David Skaggs

Kevin Leavitt
05-18-2006, 03:12 PM
Actually, a couple of our guys did it...I only provided the format and framework....not sure where they pulled the info from, it was very limited info in our video...probably no more than you already found on the web.

DudSan
06-01-2006, 03:43 PM
Kevin:

I am interested in catch as catch can. Perhaps you, as a member of the military, can clear a doubt I have: was this style present in the techniques that Wesley Brown taught to the Navy in WWII? If you can give me an example, I will be very pleased and thankful to you.

Sorry for the question, but is a doubt I wanted to ask to someone like you. And congratulations, yes, for your very big curriculum in Martial Arts! Modesty, one of your main atributes, speaks for itself.

About lethality, I agree that body can take a lot, and that it is not easy to kill average persons barehand... But who is the guy anyway? Is he strong enough? Maybe he has a cardiac disease? I say this because one person can be killed with a punch, and another person can bear this same punch with little harm. It hangs on the person, the hitter and the receiver. The environment, the day, everything is influential, and thatīs why everything is so uncertain when dealing with violence. Nothing written on stone.

So, letīs better avoid fighting at all. A single pressure of your thumb in charotid artery can put Johnny to rest, or can kill Peter...

Regards
DudSan