PDA

View Full Version : Aikido is 99% strikes and only 1% preparation.


Please visit our sponsor:
 

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


dps
10-19-2007, 08:28 PM
From a blog by Gene Croman.

http://www.aikidojournal.com/index?id=1239

"Let me say it again: Aikido is 99% strikes and only 1% preparation. We give 99% of our time to 1% of the art so that there is no inhibition, no hesitation when the essence of time approaches. We are fully prepared. Thus, we are the masters of our own fate."

John Bernhard
10-19-2007, 09:03 PM
Wow, is all I can say. That was an awesome article, reminds me some about what my Sensei said to me when I was first starting out some 10 years ago. I didn't understand it then but its becoming more real now. Thanks for posting that

eyrie
10-19-2007, 10:16 PM
The flowing, graceful movements are deceivingly effective ways by which to overcome attacking forces or to move into a striking position.... “The master understands that the most difficult part of effective self-defense is to find that opening, whether because of a mistake on the part of the attacker, or by creating an opening through techinique or strategy. Punching an opponent is a very easy thing to do, not as difficult as many perceive. The difficult part is finding or creating the opening, not the strike itself. Not even a powerful blow is necessary if the proper point is made vulnerable. In Aikido the goal is always the strike; however, the key is to find the proper opening. IMO, this whole paragraph is the most important bit.... in any MA ;)

Aiki x
10-20-2007, 06:37 AM
From a blog by Gene Croman.

http://www.aikidojournal.com/index?id=1239

"Let me say it again: Aikido is 99% strikes and only 1% preparation. We give 99% of our time to 1% of the art so that there is no inhibition, no hesitation when the essence of time approaches. We are fully prepared. Thus, we are the masters of our own fate."

I think the statement is 99% wrong and only 1% right.

If the statement is correct then practising the 1% (e.g. Ikkyo, Nikkyo) prepares the Aikidoka to use 99% strikes with no inhibition or hesitation. Pro boxers fight for serious $. They will do anything they can to gain an advantage. They don't all train Aikido and this tells me all I need to know about Aikido's ability to develop good atemi waza..

Even if practising Ikkyo and Nikkyo etc did improve striking and the mental focus required it won't improve striking as much as doing Thai Boxing or Boxing. However, I do think that it is a good thing for Aikidoka to do some specialised Atemi waza training to develop power and accuracy in their atemi waza. Bag work and focus mits will help alonfg with teaching how to put hips and body weight behind strikes.

dps
10-20-2007, 07:45 AM
If the statement is correct then practising the 1% (e.g. Ikkyo, Nikkyo) prepares the Aikidoka to use 99% strikes with no inhibition or hesitation. Pro boxers fight for serious $. They will do anything they can to gain an advantage. They don't all train Aikido and this tells me all I need to know about Aikido's ability to develop good atemi waza..

Even if practising Ikkyo and Nikkyo etc did improve striking and the mental focus required it won't improve striking as much as doing Thai Boxing or Boxing. However, I do think that it is a good thing for Aikidoka to do some specialised Atemi waza training to develop power and accuracy in their atemi waza. Bag work and focus mits will help alonfg with teaching how to put hips and body weight behind strikes.

Click on the link and read the entire article. The author is not talking about developing atemi waza or improving striking.

Paul Sanderson-Cimino
10-20-2007, 03:39 PM
I'm getting sort of tired of hearing about how aikido's really all about strikes, without any practical clarification of what that means ... much less a demonstration showing it to be a legitimate and effective style of striking. Fantasizing about the awesome moral responsibility of eyegouging or throat-hitting in the midst of compliant kata work does not count.

aikidoc
10-20-2007, 04:49 PM
Enjoyed the article.

Aikibu
10-20-2007, 06:10 PM
I'm getting sort of tired of hearing about how aikido's really all about strikes, without any practical clarification of what that means ... much less a demonstration showing it to be a legitimate and effective style of striking. Fantasizing about the awesome moral responsibility of eyegouging or throat-hitting in the midst of compliant kata work does not count.

Take a nap then. You'll feel much better.:)

William Hazen

You Tube Shoji Nishio Shihan when you wake up. :)

Mattias Bengtsson
10-20-2007, 06:34 PM
Having read the article I feel compelled to say that it echoes all insights I've made into the art known as Aikido.

And I've only studied it for a year.

Cant say enough how much I concur with the article.

Aiki x
10-20-2007, 07:33 PM
Click on the link and read the entire article. The author is not talking about developing atemi waza or improving striking.

Even if the author's main point is something spiritual or thoughtful, it is clear he believes that Aikido is 99% strikes and the 1% is about finding openings.

In Aikido the goal is always the strike; however, the key is to find the proper opening.

In the training I have done the strike / atemi has been used to set up the technique. The technique has not been done to set up the strike.

The strikes are 99% of the art - just the opposite of what is conceived by most students.

I've never seen an aikido instructor teach how to get hips and body weight behind a punch or how to throw a basic jab / cross combination.

Let me say it again: Aikido is 99% strikes and only 1% preparation. We give 99% of our time to 1% of the art so that there is no inhibition, no hesitation when the essence of time approaches.

If striking is 99% of the art then Aikido is more about striking than Thai Boxing which has basic grappling and weapons work.

The 1% is practiced so much because it represents the hardest part of the art - finding the opening and preparing attack! The easy part is punching in the opening, but survival is the reality. The strike, though easy in itself, equals 99% of the art.

Shiho Nage, Irimi Nage, Nikkyo etc are not about finding openings for strikes. They all seem to be designed to finish the opponent by breaking a joint or knocking them out with a hard fall.

mathewjgano
10-21-2007, 05:51 PM
Even if the author's main point is something spiritual or thoughtful, it is clear he believes that Aikido is 99% strikes and the 1% is about finding openings.
I'm not sure I understand the exact meaning behind the idea that Aikido is 99% strikes, but after reading the article I think it's clear he thinks the most important aspect of Aikido or any martial art lies in finding openings; not in striking. In this sense, it seems to me Aikido would seem to be 100% about finding the openings.
I've never seen an aikido instructor teach how to get hips and body weight behind a punch...
I have, but I don't think this is much the point. I know guys who've never been trained but can throw a fine punch. I think the point of this article is more about knowing when to punch than on using "best" mechanics.
Shiho Nage, Irimi Nage, Nikkyo etc are not about finding openings for strikes. They all seem to be designed to finish the opponent by breaking a joint or knocking them out with a hard fall.
Before you can do these techniques there has to be an opening...suki. In my training, suki and strike, while not synonymous, go hand in hand.

DonMagee
10-21-2007, 09:10 PM
I skimmed the article.

Two things I've noticed from my training.

1) Until I was taught how to strike from boxers and mauy thai fighters. My punches were basically ineffective. This means my aikido would be ineffective, because my atemi would be little more then childs taps on my opponent. It took a long time for me to develop even a semi-decent striking ablity. If this is important, then it seems aikido would spend at least time in the kyu ranks teaching people how to strike hard with good posture and balance.

2) Seeing and being positioned for an opening, and using it are two different things. When I started judo, I knew when to go for throws, but I would see them and it would be too late. And this was when I was actually practicing to use these openings. Now they say this is veiled in aikido. So not only are you going to have the same problems I had in judo, but they are compounded by you never actually practicing to use these openings with the strikes you will use. Seems like faith to me, not science.

eyrie
10-21-2007, 10:36 PM
In the training I have done the strike / atemi has been used to set up the technique. The technique has not been done to set up the strike. In this case, atemi is used to create the opening, rather than as a finishing blow. I think the author was generally referring to atemi as a finishing blow, rather than as an adjunct to create an opening.

Shiho Nage, Irimi Nage, Nikkyo etc are not about finding openings for strikes. They all seem to be designed to finish the opponent by breaking a joint or knocking them out with a hard fall. I think the distinction needs to be made between textbook waza - i.e. waza that has been modified for training safety and/or learning purposes, and a broader perspective of what a "technique" might conceivably constitute and for what purpose.

Within any technique, there are a myriad opportunities for atemi (amongst other things). Some may argue that atemi disrupts the flow of the technique, but I think it really depends on any number of variables. If textbook waza is the learning and training goal, then by all means stick to the textbook. But I think there is a danger in adopting a narrow view of standard textbook waza as the definitive way a technique "should be and oughta be" done - bearing in mind that "techniques" may have been simplified/modified for various reasons - e.g. to hide the original intent, for training safety reasons, or to illustrate specific learning principles.

For example, if you view the irimi nage exit as a forearm strike rather than a throw, it changes the intent and meaning of the "throw" entirely. Likewise, shiho-nage may not necessarily be a "throw" - it could be done as a series of arm destructions prior to takedown. In a similar vein, the wrist lock of nikkyo itself might simply create an opening for a finishing knee strike or kick....

BTW, atemi isn't necessarily a "strike" - I would include cavity seizing, poking, rubbing, and pressing in the full repertoire of "atemi".

dps
10-21-2007, 11:18 PM
Step back and see the Aiki arts ( which Aikido is a descendant of) in relationship to the other fighting arts that a Samurai would need to have in order to survive on the battlefield.

He would need a means of creating or seeing an opening to finish his opponent with a final strike very quickly before another opponent finishes him. The finishing strike could be from another fighting art.

In Aikido we are practicing a small part of a larger repertoire the Samurai would have had.

David

Gerry Magee
10-22-2007, 10:08 AM
hey guys,
check out the "martial arts of aikido" thread at www.martialartsplanet.com lot's of great insight into atemi and aikido
Gerry

Michael Douglas
10-29-2007, 12:04 PM
From a blog by Gene Croman.

http://www.aikidojournal.com/index?id=1239

"Let me say it again: Aikido is 99% strikes and only 1% preparation. We give 99% of our time to 1% of the art so that there is no inhibition, no hesitation when the essence of time approaches. We are fully prepared. Thus, we are the masters of our own fate."

I thought the article was junk. I don't mean the accepted 'Aikido is life' stuff, I mean the specifics here ;
In Aikido the goal is always the strike; however, the key is to find the proper opening. Let me explain.
This point reveals an interesting paradox. The strikes are 99% of the art - just the opposite of what is conceived by most students. Remember, Aikido is the practice of life. Life has no rules; it is survival. In Aikido, one punch, metsubishi, a death-dealing blow, is the reality! The art in the martial sense is a no-nonsense lethal weapon; a killing strike is the awesome reality that confronts an attacker of an Aikido master. If attacked, the master reserves the right to strike at that level which is necessitated by the situation. The flowing movements are actually 1% of the art. What you see then is that Aikido students spend 99% of their time studying 1% of the the art. The 1% is practiced so much because it represents the hardest part of the art - finding the opening and preparing attack! The easy part is punching in the opening, but survival is the reality. The strike, though easy in itself, equals 99% of the art.

The teacher is famous: Shannon Kawika Phelps, 10th Dan Shorinjin Ryu Saito Ninjitsu, master of multiple Chinese internal arts, as well as a form of particularly powerful Karatedo, and an ordained Episcopal Minister. His book is called “Demon Chaser” and it’s only available through his school’s website. His school is called the Temple of the Full Autumn Moon. It’s in San Diego. He teaches what he has named the Wu Shan Fa, or the Five Mountain Path (Aiki principles are taught as a step along the way).
His qualifications would make me LESS likely to give credibility to a word he says, especially since he's a NINJA!:yuck:

Rupert Atkinson
10-30-2007, 03:34 AM
Well, he might be a Ninja, but he must be a good one because what he says is 100% spot on, in my opinion.

Aran Bright
10-30-2007, 04:30 AM
What I got from the article is not that he literally uses atemi, not actually smashing people. Just making the opponent damn well aware that they are an inch away from serious injury. But that injury never comes.

Now that's leading the mind. ;)

eyrie
10-30-2007, 05:45 AM
Rumor has it that Ueshiba was a master of ninpo and had mystical ninja-like powers too... :D

Basia Halliop
10-30-2007, 09:05 AM
In Aikido, one punch, metsubishi, a death-dealing blow, is the reality! The art in the martial sense is a no-nonsense lethal weapon; a killing strike is the awesome reality that confronts an attacker of an Aikido master.

So he has (presumably) never actually practiced this strike in its correct form, because then there would be a body (and we assume he's not in prison for murder), yet he 'knows' it's lethal. Despite spending 99% of his time training other stuff anyway, but in the tiny amount of time actually spend learning and practicing how to strike, he's discovered and mastered a punch so lethal, so awesome, that it will kill whoever he uses it on, and he now has to build his whole training and practice around that assumption.

He sounds very reasonable and wise, yes indeed.

Dyryke
10-30-2007, 10:48 AM
After reading this, and searching many of the old threads on atemi, I've come to the conclusion that there are 2 schools of thought on atemi:

1) Atemi is an important part of all martial arts, aikido included, and helps to create openings, opportunities, and diminish resistance to a technique.

2) Atemi goes against the idea of aikido, and is the resource of those whose techniques are not as perfect as they should be.

My own belief is it boils down to how "martial" your aikido is.

David Orange
10-30-2007, 02:59 PM
So he has (presumably) never actually practiced this strike in its correct form, because then there would be a body (and we assume he's not in prison for murder), yet he 'knows' it's lethal. . .

Actually, I'm surprised that there is so much resistance to this idea.

Please read:

http://www.aikidojournal.com/article?articleID=425

""Imperial Demonstration
Stan Pranin:
Ueshiba Sensei gave a special demonstration at the Saineikan Dojo in the Imperial palace grounds about 1941. Did this occur as a result of his connection with Admiral Isamu Takeshita?

Gozo Shioda:
Yes. When Takeshita Sensei was a Grand Chamberlain he was told by the Emperor to arrange for aikido to be shown to him, so he went to the Ueshiba dojo. Ueshiba Sensei answered, “I can’t show false techniques to the Emperor. Basically in aikido, the opponent is killed with a single blow. It’s false if the attacker is thrown, leisurely stands up, and attacks again. [On the other hand], I can’t go around killing my students.” He refused the invitation in this way, but when Takeshita Sensei told this to the Emperor, he said, “I don’t care if it’s a lie. Show me the lie!” ""

So....seems to me the article is exactly right.

Moreover, that explains Sokaku Takeda's saying: "The art of aiki is to overcome the opponent mentally, at a glance, and win without fighting."

How could that be? Because once the aiki practitioner sets his mind that he will have to use real, final technique, the would-be attacker gets the message on a subconscious level and it destroys his inner ability to organize himself to attack. He "just knows better" than to attack and since he doesn't attack, the aiki practioner "wins without fighting."

But that will only work if the aiki practitioner really is set on "final" technique if attacked.

Best to all.

David

Dewey
10-30-2007, 08:40 PM
Increase my killing power, eh?

http://www.geocities.com/bp_dewey/dan-homer.jpg

David Orange
10-30-2007, 08:43 PM
Increase my killing power, eh?



Killing power.....aaaahhhhggggghhhhh......

Stephen Webb
10-30-2007, 11:32 PM
The article wasn't written to be completely literally interpreted. I think the key point he makes out is we spend so much time studying the timing of an opponent's attack, and acting instinctively to create and exploit an opening, that the final act (the throw, the strike to the throat, whatever) is almost an afterthought. Think about how much of shiho nage is breaking uke's extended attack, and then how much of it is in the actual throw. When I think about it, I spend most of the time doing shiho nage thinking about preventing counters, dealing with a resistant uke, etc., but once I get that arm around it's work the wrist a little and drop them down. The art is in the preparation for the technique, not the technique itself.

ChrisHein
10-31-2007, 11:06 AM
It sounds like the kind of article you should write if you want 99% of the Aikido community to say "oh, that's a good answer".

I'm in the 1% still.

I do like the part about "one killing blow" though. Boxers hit harder then any of us; how often do they land a "killing blow"? Sounds like something someone who doesn't know much about striking would say (empty handed striking I mean).

dps
10-31-2007, 12:35 PM
Boxers hit harder then any of us; how often do they land a "killing blow"? .
My dad was a professional boxer. They train to win by fighting better or by knockout. Boxers don't train or fight to kill.
David

DonMagee
10-31-2007, 12:50 PM
Can you give me scientific proof of a single punch that has a greater then 50% chance to kill on a single hit. I've been hit with a few 'death' blows, I'm still here.

David Orange
10-31-2007, 01:41 PM
Can you give me scientific proof of a single punch that has a greater then 50% chance to kill on a single hit. I've been hit with a few 'death' blows, I'm still here.

Sure, but I'm not going to: not on a public forum, anyway. Mochizuki Sensei explained this to me personally and then I understood many photographs I'd seen of him, O-Sensei, Gozo Shioda, Morihiro Saito and others.

"Oh," I said. "So that's what they're doing...."

I'd just have to say Morihei Ueshiba never gave you his deadly strike. Nor Sokaku Takeda.

Ueshiba clearly said, aikido kills the attacker with a single blow. You don't think he was joking, do you?

Best to you.

David

DonMagee
10-31-2007, 03:09 PM
Sure, but I'm not going to: not on a public forum, anyway. Mochizuki Sensei explained this to me personally and then I understood many photographs I'd seen of him, O-Sensei, Gozo Shioda, Morihiro Saito and others.

"Oh," I said. "So that's what they're doing...."

I'd just have to say Morihei Ueshiba never gave you his deadly strike. Nor Sokaku Takeda.

Ueshiba clearly said, aikido kills the attacker with a single blow. You don't think he was joking, do you?

Best to you.

David

A blow is not a punch. I can kill with a single blow to the back of the head with my 1911. I can kill with a single blow from a hunting knife. Even these are not greater then 50%. I can't kill anyone with a single punch to anywhere but maybe the base of the skull. I know this because I have hit people as hard as I know how almost everywhere else. Even the base of the skull is not a 100% death shot. I'm sorry, I feel this one punch one kill is pure bullcrap.I've seen no evidence to the contrary. If it was possible, you would at least see unintentional deaths in MMA from it.

People get shot, stabbed, and beaten with weapons in vital areas all the time and survive. I have seen no evidence that a hand is more deadly then my 45.

George S. Ledyard
10-31-2007, 06:26 PM
A blow is not a punch. I can kill with a single blow to the back of the head with my 1911. I can kill with a single blow from a hunting knife. Even these are not greater then 50%. I can't kill anyone with a single punch to anywhere but maybe the base of the skull. I know this because I have hit people as hard as I know how almost everywhere else. Even the base of the skull is not a 100% death shot. I'm sorry, I feel this one punch one kill is pure bullcrap.I've seen no evidence to the contrary. If it was possible, you would at least see unintentional deaths in MMA from it.

People get shot, stabbed, and beaten with weapons in vital areas all the time and survive. I have seen no evidence that a hand is more deadly then my 45.

You are not correct on this... you simply haven't trained with anyone who has studied striking at this level. Mike Sigman blew my 300 pounds several feet and took the air out of me. That was done from a relaxed position with his arm resting on my upper arm, with no draw back whatever. I have absolutely no doubt that he could kill me with one shot if he put the shot on certain targets.

I have seen the Systema folks do amazing things with their striking. Once again, I have no doubt at all that one of the senior folks could kill you with one blow if they decided to direct the energy at a particular organ. One of Vlad's senior instructors did fight some locally prominent mixed martial arts fighter up in Toronto and it ended in one strike.

Now I am not saying that many Aikido folks have developed their striking to that extent. Post war Aikido has largely left striking undeveloped. But I know people who could put you out with one shot, no problem. It just isn't as simple as pumping up and taking some Muy Thai or Boxing lessons. That's pure physical power and it just isn't the same.

gdandscompserv
10-31-2007, 10:16 PM
This guy seems pretty good at randori and striking:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmn8ORCbgZc

dps
11-01-2007, 02:23 AM
http://www.aikidoonline.com/

Interview with Chiba Sensei

By Peter Bernath & David Halprin, Editors-in-Chief, Aikido Online

Interview with Chiba Sensei

[Editor's note: This interview with T.K. Chiba, 8th Dan, Shihan, was conducted at the US Aikido Federation Eastern Region Summer Camp held at Hampshire Collage in Amherst, Massachusetts in August, 2000. Parts of it are featured in New England Aikikai's new video documenting the visit of the Third Doshu to camp. (That video can be purchased in Aikido Online's marketplace.) We would like to thank Kanai Sensei for allowing us to present this transcript on Aikido Online.

Peter Bernath, 6th Dan is Chief Instructor of Florida Aikikai and David Halprin, 6th Dan is Chief Instructor of Framingham Aikikai and Instructor at New England Aikikai. Photos courtesy Celebration '84 videotape, New York Aikikai.]

Part 3........

"Technically, what I teach to my students is the three W's: when, where, with what. This is O-Sensei's teaching also. "Where" is distancing, space, dealing with space. "When" is timing. "What" is individual technique. You have to learn, you have to get polish, educate, discipline your full body with these three principles through the learning of forms, and assimilate through this what we call awareness, martial awareness. If I say the exact words of O-Sensei, "where, when, with what to kill opponent".

The Founder said this. He also said, however, that Aikido chooses not to kill, but to lead. There is everything there, as far as I'm concerned. There is profound technical martial principle. There is a profound spiritual principle in his words, in that teaching of the three elements, the three W's. In English three W's, not necessarily in Japanese! (laughs).

In O-Sensei's diary, which I possess, written around 1942, he clearly states "I have to get him before he gets me." You know what he meant? Get him meant kill him! Everyone understands the view of Aikido in which O-Sensei was a lovely old man, that he talked always about love, peace, unity and everything; but you must understand that he came through that earlier stage" (end of quote)

David

Gerry Magee
11-01-2007, 07:46 AM
David,
Excellent post mate, sincere training over many many years is the only way to progress onto the 'spiritual' principles of Aikido. Couldn't agree withy you more.:)

check out
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ij5dlGmkndE

Aikibu
11-01-2007, 10:08 AM
You are not correct on this... you simply haven't trained with anyone who has studied striking at this level. Mike Sigman blew my 300 pounds several feet and took the air out of me. That was done from a relaxed position with his arm resting on my upper arm, with no draw back whatever. I have absolutely no doubt that he could kill me with one shot if he put the shot on certain targets.

I have seen the Systema folks do amazing things with their striking. Once again, I have no doubt at all that one of the senior folks could kill you with one blow if they decided to direct the energy at a particular organ. One of Vlad's senior instructors did fight some locally prominent mixed martial arts fighter up in Toronto and it ended in one strike.

Now I am not saying that many Aikido folks have developed their striking to that extent. Post war Aikido has largely left striking undeveloped. But I know people who could put you out with one shot, no problem. It just isn't as simple as pumping up and taking some Muy Thai or Boxing lessons. That's pure physical power and it just isn't the same.

We have a Senior Yudansha in Japan Tanaka Sensei who is one of Shoji Nishio Sensei's Senior Students and is featured in on Nishio's Videos. He used to spend a few hours a day developing "disabling" Atemi. You should see the calluses on his knuckles...

Having taken Ukemi from him in one of his rare visits to the US He hit harder than anyone I have ever experianced and it was in the same relaxed style you mentioned George.

I have been around along time and though I remain wary of who claim that kind of power. It's out there not so much in Aikido (though we are serious in our philosophy about Atemi) but I have seen it and experianced that kind of power first hand.

William Hazen

George S. Ledyard
11-01-2007, 07:00 PM
We have a Senior Yudansha in Japan Tanaka Sensei who is one of Shoji Nishio Sensei's Senior Students and is featured in on Nishio's Videos. He used to spend a few hours a day developing "disabling" Atemi. You should see the calluses on his knuckles...

Having taken Ukemi from him in one of his rare visits to the US He hit harder than anyone I have ever experianced and it was in the same relaxed style you mentioned George.

I have been around along time and though I remain wary of who claim that kind of power. It's out there not so much in Aikido (though we are serious in our philosophy about Atemi) but I have seen it and experianced that kind of power first hand.

William Hazen

At the Aiki Expo we talked Gleason Sensei into attending Vlad's Systema class. At the end of class he took some hits from Vlad. He told me later that Vlad had hit him with a strike that looked like nothing and it hit harder than the hardest karate punch he'd ever been hit with... That was the polite, we're all friends here, strike. I hate to think what the real thing would do.

Basia Halliop
11-01-2007, 07:46 PM
I hate to think what the real thing would do.

I can understand how and why one would speculate, but it's always going to be speculation, isn't it? As far as I know none of the people who practice 'lethal' blows have ever used them (even accidentally) to kill someone, so they can only guess (or hypothesize, at most) what the effect would be, couldn't they?

Which leaves aside the other question of how many people even train such punches enough to be able to speculate. Even if they exist, it seems very strange to imply (as the author does) that they are the fundamental core of Aikido that gives everything else it's reason for being, when just about no-one, even at the top ranks, has ever trained in them or taught them (even less so considering how little even ordinary, non-lethal strikes are often trained).

Basia Halliop
11-01-2007, 07:49 PM
Ueshiba clearly said, aikido kills the attacker with a single blow. You don't think he was joking, do you?

I think that brilliant though he may have been in some ways, modesty was not his strong point :).

And if he really believed it himself then I guess he just decided to pass on an empty shell of the art to his followers??

George S. Ledyard
11-01-2007, 07:55 PM
Even if they exist, it seems very strange to imply (as the author does) that they are the fundamental core of Aikido that gives everything else it's reason for being, when just about no-one, even at the top ranks, has ever trained in them or taught them (even less so considering how little even ordinary, non-lethal strikes are often trained).

The whole rationale behind the partner interaction is based on certain assumptions involving atemi.Most people are not doing Aikido as a combat art and the atemi are implicit rather than explicit. Even when they are manifested they are use for a different purpose than to create physical dysfunction.

People do not need to be striking each other to be doing good Aikido... but there has to be an awareness of that possibility or the whole thing falls apart. As my teacher, Saotome Sensei, said,"All techniques are stoppable if you know the other guy will not strike you." You may see two people doing Aikido with no strikes at all but the possibility of a strike at any time is inherent in each moment of the interaction.

George S. Ledyard
11-01-2007, 07:58 PM
And if he really believed it himself then I guess he just decided to pass on an empty shell of the art to his followers??

No, many of his followers created an empty art out of their mistaken impression of what he taught.

MM
11-01-2007, 08:01 PM
That was the polite, we're all friends here, strike. I hate to think what the real thing would do.

Yeah, that's what I thought when I felt "strikes" by Dan, Mike, and Rob. Definitely an experience in power generation. On the other side, that is. :)

Mark

dps
11-01-2007, 09:23 PM
Which leaves aside the other question of how many people even train such punches enough to be able to speculate. Even if they exist, it seems very strange to imply (as the author does) that they are the fundamental core of Aikido that gives everything else it's reason for being, when just about no-one, even at the top ranks, has ever trained in them or taught them (even less so considering how little even ordinary, non-lethal strikes are often trained).

I think one of the points the author was making was of intent. The intention is to set up your opponent for the final killing blow, but as O'Sensei is quoted by Chiba Sensei "Aikido chooses not to kill", the opportunity to show compassion.

David

Aiki1
11-02-2007, 01:47 AM
People do not need to be striking each other to be doing good Aikido... but there has to be an awareness of that possibility or the whole thing falls apart. As my teacher, Saotome Sensei, said,"All techniques are stoppable if you know the other guy will not strike you." You may see two people doing Aikido with no strikes at all but the possibility of a strike at any time is inherent in each moment of the interaction.

Ah - the beautiful thing to me about AIkido is that it is so many different things to different people.... for me, Aikido is 99% process/preparation/set-up and only 1% atemi.... really the opposite of what Saotome teaches - in my experience, the success of my Aikido has virtually nothing to do with the possibility of a strike. Not to say that that level doesn't exist, I'm very familiar with it - but for me, if I -have- to rely on that possibility, I'm not doing (ACE) Aikido properly. Now, in a practice situation where Uke knows what's going to be done, sure, they can stop much of what goes on - although not necessarily all - the beauty of Kuzushi to me is that it answers many questions, and not always in terms of what one does, but many times, in terms of what one also does Not do....

For me, there are many arts that are called Aikido, but they are not really the same arts, nor should they be. I think people should practice the "version" that suits them - as long as it's realistic, however that is achieved, and in my experience it can be achieved many different ways, from a very harsh approach all the way to the softest.... Invisible.... path.

George S. Ledyard
11-02-2007, 02:24 AM
Ah - the beautiful thing to me about AIkido is that it is so many different things to different people.... for me, Aikido is 99% process/preparation/set-up and only 1% atemi.... really the opposite of what Saotome teaches - in my experience, the success of my Aikido has virtually nothing to do with the possibility of a strike. Not to say that that level doesn't exist, I'm very familiar with it - but for me, if I -have- to rely on that possibility, I'm not doing (ACE) Aikido properly. Now, in a practice situation where Uke knows what's going to be done, sure, they can stop much of what goes on - although not necessarily all - the beauty of Kuzushi to me is that it answers many questions, and not always in terms of what one does, but many times, in terms of what one also does Not do....

For me, there are many arts that are called Aikido, but they are not really the same arts, nor should they be. I think people should practice the "version" that suits them - as long as it's realistic, however that is achieved, and in my experience it can be achieved many different ways, from a very harsh approach all the way to the softest.... Invisible.... path.

Larry,
We have had this particular discussion before. If that's the level you are functioning at, my hats off to you as you're better than anyone I've trained with. I look forward to seeing what you are doing sometime.
- George

Aiki1
11-02-2007, 02:43 AM
Larry,
We have had this particular discussion before. If that's the level you are functioning at, my hats off to you as you're better than anyone I've trained with. I look forward to seeing what you are doing sometime.
- George

Well I wouldn't characterize it that way at all, and I doubt that's the case, maybe different than how some people train - there are many, many approaches....

DonMagee
11-02-2007, 07:15 AM
At the Aiki Expo we talked Gleason Sensei into attending Vlad's Systema class. At the end of class he took some hits from Vlad. He told me later that Vlad had hit him with a strike that looked like nothing and it hit harder than the hardest karate punch he'd ever been hit with... That was the polite, we're all friends here, strike. I hate to think what the real thing would do.

It's all well in good to learn how to develop power. I'm sure some people can hit in odd ways that hurt a lot. But I have to point at two things.

1) As others have said, has he killed anyone with it? If not, then it is only speculation that he has developed a 1 shot 1 kill blow.

2) Was it a static strike? All demos seem to be like this. I can punch, kick, throw, slam, etc much much harder when you just stand there then when you are moving. Can he demonstrate this strike against a defending partner? Even a you try to block I'll try to punch type situation. I've found that most 'internal' artists I've met (which is admittedly very few) have been unable to do any of this while trying to move and defend. I'm reminded of a story I heard from one of my aikido instructors. He was at a seminar with multiple arts. They were all from in town. He was teaching, my bjj instructor was there teaching, and the juko kai was there, and a few other arts (judo, karate, etc). If you don't know about the juko kai, they claim to be able to use ki to keep from being injured from strikes.

So when it is the juko kai guys turn, He demonstrates this power by Allowing anyone to side kick him in the ribs, punch him in the body, throat, etc. Everyone who wants to hits him with no effect. This was not a big guy, he was maybe 180 pounds or so. I was told it was very impressive. Then bjj goes, the instructor does his thing and at the end offers anyone who wants to spar with him or his student to do so to feel bjj. Now his student was a 150 pound blue belt (very high blue belt and one of the best in our club). A few people take up the chance to try it out and eventually the juko kai guy asks to spar with the blue belt. The blue belt grabs him, puts him in side control, transitions to knee on belly and the guy taps out from the pain of knee on belly. So what was demonstrated was that in a situation where movement is taking place, you are having trouble getting into your element, and you can't take time to set it up, he was unable to use his skill. But give him a chance to prepare, control the conditions, etc, he can do some very impressive things.

Timothy WK
11-02-2007, 08:24 AM
I'm sure Vlad and his senior crew can hit a defending target. I'm also sure they can take a few blows without folding. They specifically train that sort of thing.

I wanted to say that I agree with the general idea behind the article, that Aikido training should be about finding openings. I think that's what "advanced" fighting is really about. Learning to position yourself to minimize your own risk, and maximize your ability to take advantage of the mistakes of your opponent.

On the "killing blow" front, I do honestly believe the potential is out there, but I think there are very, very few individuals who could pull it off reliably and consistently. So it's questionable whether most should train under that assumption.

I think there are lessor "finishing" techniques, like knockouts and limb breaks, that are "easier" and "more reliable". But still, it's questionable how many people could pull these off as well.

DonMagee
11-02-2007, 09:22 AM
I think that's what "advanced" fighting is really about. Learning to position yourself to minimize your own risk, and maximize your ability to take advantage of the mistakes of your opponent.


I think that is the very basics of fighting. Position first, everything else second.


On the "killing blow" front, I do honestly believe the potential is out there, but I think there are very, very few individuals who could pull it off reliably and consistently. So it's questionable whether most should train under that assumption.

I think there are lessor "finishing" techniques, like knockouts and limb breaks, that are "easier" and "more reliable". But still, it's questionable how many people could pull these off as well.

The difference is we can find lots of examples of knockouts and limb breaks, but no examples of one punch one kill.

gdandscompserv
11-02-2007, 09:39 AM
Regarding "one punch kills," I found this post by Kit Leblanc interesting: http://www.e-budo.com/forum/showpost.php?p=453354&postcount=17

Timothy WK
11-02-2007, 10:02 AM
Again, I don't advocate training under the assumption of a "one-hit" finishing blow. But for every account of someone living & fighting after receiving a "lethal" blow, there are also accounts of people being knocked out or killed from seemingly "benign" blows. Weird stuff happens.

If someone is really interested, I'm sure they could spend 15 minutes on google and find some examples.

MM
11-02-2007, 10:06 AM
It's all well in good to learn how to develop power. I'm sure some people can hit in odd ways that hurt a lot. But I have to point at two things.

1) As others have said, has he killed anyone with it? If not, then it is only speculation that he has developed a 1 shot 1 kill blow.


IMO, #1 is kind of a silly argument. There have been instances in real life of people killed by one punch. And, yes, in most of those instances, the major damage was done by the fall. However, in a few, it was the punch that killed.

Quick search:http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=triangle&id=5273162


2) Was it a static strike? All demos seem to be like this. I can punch, kick, throw, slam, etc much much harder when you just stand there then when you are moving. Can he demonstrate this strike against a defending partner? Even a you try to block I'll try to punch type situation. I've found that most 'internal' artists I've met (which is admittedly very few) have been unable to do any of this while trying to move and defend.


I have met a few people who not only had the power as George Ledyard stated, but they also have the ability to do this in a dynamic environment. Or as you note, demonstrate against a defending partner.

Mark

Timothy WK
11-02-2007, 10:14 AM
Also, I think some people are looking at this too narrowly. Daito-ryu always assumes that combatants are wearing knives/swords. Whether I throw you and break your neck, or whether I lock you up while I draw my blade, I've effectively "ended" the fight in one move. I don't think the idea of "atemi" excludes such measures.

Look up that video of Kondo from the Aiki Expo where he's performing Ippon-Dori (sorta like Ikkyo against a sword). There's an "atemi" to the ribs where he pulls his shoto and stabs the guy.

Aikibu
11-02-2007, 10:20 AM
The difference is we can find lots of examples of knockouts and limb breaks, but no examples of one punch one kill.

About ten years ago A senior student of a certain teacher I know was going to dinner with his wife in Venice Calif. When they pulled into the parking lot there were two men on a bike in front of them and they got into a disagreement over a parking spot. The Aikidoka tried to de-escalate the confrontation. He did not identify himself as a Aikidoka. He was with his wife, calm and peaceful, and tried his very best to smooth things over. One of the men sucker punched him right in the throat hard enough to collapse his larnyx (sorry spelling) and he died.The Police report noted that the assailent did have a Martial Art background in various desciplines.

One Punch One Kill.

This murder was commited in public over a parking spot.

I have a ton of examples of one punch one kill. Heres another...

A MMA guy I know and a close friend fought a regional match a few years ago and hit someone so hard in the temple they suffered a seizure on the mat and died in the hospital the next day. he still teaches MMA but will never fight in the ring again

One Punch One Kill.

Dude...You need to get out more.

Do not underestimate the power of one punch.

Bowing down to you Don. :)

William Hazen

David Orange
11-02-2007, 10:31 AM
I think that brilliant though he may have been in some ways, modesty was not his strong point :).

Basia,

Ueshiba Sensei was talking not about himself but about his art, which he had learned from Sokaku Takeda. Saying that the empty-hand techniques are "based on the sword" is often misunderstood because of the fact that sword arts "strike" while most people believe that aikido is 99% arm-twisting and throws. The fact is that the first way that aikido is based on the sword is that it contains one-strike killing techniques, just like sword techniques. That's what the tegatana (sword-hand) is really about and that kind of strike is at the root of aikido's emergence from sword technique. Everything else is flowering off the root. And nothing can be understood from the flowers if we don't understand the root.

And if he really believed it himself then I guess he just decided to pass on an empty shell of the art to his followers??

Not at all. There are many photographs of O-Sensei showing this technique. He did pass it to many of his followers--to Mochizuki Sensei, certainly. It's not such a big secret, but it's not really the kind of thing that should be taught from the beginning...

Best to you.

David

David Orange
11-02-2007, 11:01 AM
IMO, #1 is kind of a silly argument. There have been instances in real life of people killed by one punch.

Quick search:http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=triangle&id=5273162

Truyly pertinent to this discussion. Not to mention "Boom-Boom" Mancini's killing of a Korean boxer in the ring--not with one punch, but with those big puffy gloves on his hands...

And pointing back to the Jena 6 thread, it's pretty ridiculous to minimize the danger to the kid who was first knocked unconscious, then kicked repeatedly in the head. There's a real reason that was called "attempted murder".

Also, I've heard of kids being killed in TKD tournaments--one from a spinning back kick to the chest, that stopped his heart. Another kid was killed when he was hit in the chest by a softball and his heart was stopped.

I have met a few people who not only had the power as George Ledyard stated, but they also have the ability to do this in a dynamic environment. Or as you note, demonstrate against a defending partner.

And if applied correctly, aikido delivers the strike in a "closing" situation, as the attacker moves forcefully toward you and you move quickly toward him, so the force of the strike can be multiplied.

Best to you.

David

David Orange
11-02-2007, 11:04 AM
One of the men sucker punched him right in the throat hard enough to collapse his larnyx (sorry spelling) and he died.

That's why I always cringe when I see aikidoka stand in place and let someone grab their lapel. If the attacker can grab your lapel, he can strike you in the throat or the heart or solar plexus, or he can grab you by the throat!

That's where leading begins, but I see people stand there and let the attacker grab their lapel before they start to move...

David

aikidoc
11-02-2007, 11:15 AM
That's why I always cringe when I see aikidoka stand in place and let someone grab their lapel. If the attacker can grab your lapel, he can strike you in the throat or the heart or solar plexus, or he can grab you by the throat!

That's where leading begins, but I see people stand there and let the attacker grab their lapel before they start to move...

David

One of my guys ran into an agutsuki with his chin up and his throat swelled up and he couldn't swallow for several days. It could have been more serious.

David Orange
11-02-2007, 11:40 AM
One of my guys ran into an agutsuki with his chin up and his throat swelled up and he couldn't swallow for several days. It could have been more serious.

Mr. Alex Marshall, of Birmingham (creator of Akayama Ryu--See Mark Barlow) innoculated me against leaving the throat open many years ago. He would get you by the throat in a very casual movement. People might think they would have some response to this technique, but it's amazing the pacifying effect he could have on you when his gnarly little old fingers got a grip on your windpipe!

Everyone I saw it happen to behaved right away!

David

DonMagee
11-02-2007, 12:23 PM
So we are using freakish accidents as proof of the ability to develop skill that will reliably kill with a single punch?

David Orange
11-02-2007, 12:28 PM
So we are using freakish accidents as proof of the ability to develop skill that will reliably kill with a single punch?

No...we are using freakish accidents as examples of people who were killed by single strikes, sometimes apparently inconsequential strikes. Someone else gave some examples of people who continued to fight after being mortally wounded. It can go either way.

But how do you explain Morihei Ueshiba's statement that aikido kills the attacker with a single blow? Why would he have said that if there were nothing to it?

Best to you.

David

Aikibu
11-02-2007, 01:07 PM
So we are using freakish accidents as proof of the ability to develop skill that will reliably kill with a single punch?

What a weak argument. Folks bring up facts and because they do not fit inside your very small box you pass them off as being "freakish'? :rolleyes:

Weak...Like I said dude you need to get out more.

The dude who killed my friend might not have had the intent to kill him (as least thats what his lawyer argued) but as it it was demonstrated in court Tsuki to the throat can be a killing blow and is meant to seriously injure someone.

Go ahead and open your mind up there a bit. It won't "kill" you. LOL

Bowing down to you Don. :)

William Hazen

DonMagee
11-03-2007, 07:43 PM
I have never argued that you can be killed by a single blow. What I have argued is you can develop the ability and skill to kill someone who wants to harm you in a single blow in greater than 50% of your attempts. This is unreasonable, I don't buy it, and I will gladly call it a bunch of bull.

What is the chance that when you are fighting someone that wants to hurt you that you can pull off that death strike? 1 in 5? 1 in 100? It is not a significant risk. It is silly to train for it. You are better of training for something more likely to happen.

I watched 5 black youths beat another black man today in the middle of the mall. At least 50 people were watching, nobody helped (myself included). In the time it took the police to arrive the young kid was picked up and slamed on his skull no less then 4 times, then was pummeled, kicked, jumped on, and all other sorts of nasty things. These kids (young 20's) actually wanted to kill him, you could see it in their eyes. There was no doubt, he was basically helpless. Yet after they ran, he got up and was basically fine (Besides the bad bleeding)

Sounds a lot more realistic.

eyrie
11-03-2007, 08:12 PM
At least 50 people were watching, nobody helped (myself included). That's saying something...

dps
11-03-2007, 10:41 PM
2) Was it a static strike? All demos seem to be like this. I can punch, kick, throw, slam, etc much much harder when you just stand there then when you are moving. Can he demonstrate this strike against a defending partner? Even a you try to block I'll try to punch type situation. I've found that most 'internal' artists I've met (which is admittedly very few) have been unable to do any of this while trying to move and defend. .

Aikido techniques are used to immobilize your opponent, he then becomes a stationary target for a static strike.

David

Aikibu
11-03-2007, 11:45 PM
I have never argued that you can be killed by a single blow. What I have argued is you can develop the ability and skill to kill someone who wants to harm you in a single blow in greater than 50% of your attempts. This is unreasonable, I don't buy it, and I will gladly call it a bunch of bull.

You may not have argued it... You most certainly implied it... Same thing in my book... As for the "50% of your attempts" factoid Who knows where that came from. The 3 different styles of Karate I trained in all emphasized the Killing Blow/ Disabling Blow. Every strike or kick was focused on delivering that kind of power. All my Karate instructors emphasized developing that kind of power... So again not knowing your background but having read many of your posts... I wonder why your stated experiance would lead you to make such claims.

What is the chance that when you are fighting someone that wants to hurt you that you can pull off that death strike? 1 in 5? 1 in 100? It is not a significant risk. It is silly to train for it. You are better of training for something more likely to happen.

Weak...More of the same very small box...See my reply above

I watched 5 black youths beat another black man today in the middle of the mall. At least 50 people were watching, nobody helped (myself included). In the time it took the police to arrive the young kid was picked up and slamed on his skull no less then 4 times, then was pummeled, kicked, jumped on, and all other sorts of nasty things. These kids (young 20's) actually wanted to kill him, you could see it in their eyes. There was no doubt, he was basically helpless. Yet after they ran, he got up and was basically fine (Besides the bad bleeding)

Sounds a lot more realistic.

Wow...I did not realize you had EMT training and that you were able to make a visual assesment of the kids likely internal injuries. Good on you...As for watching someone almost get beaten to death along with 50 other people...Well... This is a sick world we're living in Huh Don...

Bowing down to you Don,

William Hazen

DonMagee
11-04-2007, 09:44 AM
That's saying something...

If the youth of america want to kill themselves, I'm all for a thinning of the gene pool. I'm not going to put myself or my wife at risk for some stupid gang bangers.


Wow...I did not realize you had EMT training and that you were able to make a visual assesment of the kids likely internal injuries. Good on you...As for watching someone almost get beaten to death along with 50 other people...Well... This is a sick world we're living in Huh Don...

Bowing down to you Don,

William Hazen

I have watched and judged many mma fights. I can tell very quickly if someone is hurt or not. I am sure the kid involved was fine, with maybe a few stitches.

But yes, I'm going to stay inside my box on this one. I've talked to medical doctors, done research on my own, spoken to people who claim they can do it, spoken to high ranking karataka, aikidoka, and even a 'ninja'. Nobody has proven me that throwing a single strike is the best way to disable or kill someone. The point of martial arts training is not to show them what can be done, but to train them to do something with a high degree of reliability. If you can not do that, then it is not a serious threat and not a martial technique. Just blind luck. It' my exp that the first punch rarely knocks anyone out, that is why you throw combos. If you could pull this off and train reliably to knock out with one punch, you better believe sport athletes would be focusing their energies into doing just that.

Until I can meet someone who can prove it, then it is faith. I do not trust in faith.

mathewjgano
11-04-2007, 09:49 AM
If the youth of america want to kill themselves, I'm all for a thinning of the gene pool. I'm not going to put myself or my wife at risk for some stupid gang bangers.

I'm not trying to criticize here because I often share very similar sentiments; I think they're natural. Still, i think it's a tragedy that we can become so jaded as to not care that ignorant children are killing each other before they get the chance to realize something much more useful, both to themselves and to the society around them. Besides, a thin gene pool is bad.

mathewjgano
11-04-2007, 09:56 AM
I watched 5 black youths beat another black man today in the middle of the mall. At least 50 people were watching, nobody helped (myself included). In the time it took the police to arrive the young kid was picked up and slamed on his skull no less then 4 times, then was pummeled, kicked, jumped on, and all other sorts of nasty things. These kids (young 20's) actually wanted to kill him, you could see it in their eyes. There was no doubt, he was basically helpless. Yet after they ran, he got up and was basically fine (Besides the bad bleeding)

Sounds a lot more realistic.

I recall being told in a CPR class that pumping the heart while it's beating can cause a heart attack...I imagine that whole "one-strike kill" would be along those lines, assuming it's possible.

DonMagee
11-04-2007, 10:03 AM
I'm not trying to criticize here because I often share very similar sentiments; I think they're natural. Still, i think it's a tragedy that we can become so jaded as to not care that ignorant children are killing each other before they get the chance to realize something much more useful, both to themselves and to the society around them. Besides, a thin gene pool is bad.

The only reason we kept back and watched, rather then walked away was because this was a chance for me to see real close and personal how the 'average' punk fights in a group. I did actually learn a lot about how things like this go down. First, the kids attempted to emulate what they have seen on tv. They had their hands 'up' in very silly guard like positions and they were going "hu hu" every time they threw a very poor strike. The majority of the group stayed back until the 'target' was on the defensive, then they attacked by running in and kicking him down. Once he was down they started stomping and then stopped to throw a garbage can at him. He was able to get to his feet and they engaged again. One of them picked him up and threw him on his head and they kicked him again. This kind of pattern repeated until the police arrived. The throw actually looked 'good' and I would suspect that kid was indeed a wrestler just by the technique. But nobody was striking with any power and they only dangerous things were the stomping and that throw. I've had tougher 1 on 1 sparing matches. It wasn't that the kids were not trying to hurt each other, they simply just did not know how.

They were also a lot more off balance then I had previously thought an untrained person would be. Their desire to harm actually had them throwing strikes that I would laugh at as silly and unrealistic if I saw them inside a dojo. And finally, nobody was attempting to restrain their target to lay down a good beating. They were all just pushing, punching, and kicking him at the same time in a very tight circle.

The other thing I discovered is that even in emergency's the cops in the mall refuse to get off their little 2 wheeled scooters and run. Which mean the kids outran them.

What I mean by thinning the gene pool is that here, we do not live in a bad area. 'Thugs' are made only by bad parenting, nothing more. If these kids live to reproduce, they will produce even more bad children that are a strain on this society. I'm sick of paying for the mistakes of others. Yes, it is harsh and cynical, but I don't think it is possible to reach kids who behave like that in an area with good schools and a very low crime rate. Unless of course these kids came from out of town from some ghetto. But they were dressed too expensively for that imho.

mathewjgano
11-04-2007, 11:12 AM
It wasn't that the kids were not trying to hurt each other, they simply just did not know how.
This is how I would have guessed it likely went. I've not seen a huge number of fights, but of the ones I've seen there were often plenty of ridiculous behaviors (thumbs sticking straight out and other exagerated postures, wildly swinging arms). If those kids really knew what they were doing, don't you think the victim would have been seriously injured? Possibly even killed?

They were also a lot more off balance then I had previously thought an untrained person would be.
I think this depends on the amount of fights that untrained person has been in, but it's interesting to hear about the whole "real world vs. training hall" argument and then see somehting like this, isn't it?

The other thing I discovered is that even in emergency's the cops in the mall refuse to get off their little 2 wheeled scooters and run. Which mean the kids outran them.
It wouldn't surprise me if the cops didn't really try to catch them.

What I mean by thinning the gene pool is that here, we do not live in a bad area. 'Thugs' are made only by bad parenting, nothing more. If these kids live to reproduce, they will produce even more bad children that are a strain on this society. I'm sick of paying for the mistakes of others. Yes, it is harsh and cynical, but I don't think it is possible to reach kids who behave like that in an area with good schools and a very low crime rate. Unless of course these kids came from out of town from some ghetto. But they were dressed too expensively for that imho.
I agree it's frustrating...hugely so. It's hard not to feel an incredible amount of contempt and disdain for the kids and their parents. Both are ignorant and are lacking proper perspective. On one hand, I've often felt similar: "let 'em die, for all i care." Over time I've come to view this attitude as subtley destructive though...not that I can offer any concrete solution, but it is this kind of apathy which permits a society to go on unchecked into the kind of "ghetto fabulous" culture which has slowly formed and which took firm root in the early 90's. Still, I'm willing to bet those parents didn't actively raise their kids to be thuggish. Apathy of some degree allowed it to happen. For that reason, i don't think these folks are lost causes.
If I had been there, particularly with my wife or other family members, i probably wouldn't have done much. I'd like to think though, that if I saw an opening to disrupt it, i would have taken advantage of it. The sad fact is that with so many people around, it would have been ridiculously easy to prevent the attack from progressing. Mob mentality works both ways I think: on one hand, it causes people to act out in ways they normally wouldn't, but on the other, it also causes them to not act.....that's my hunch anyway.
I agree with you though...it's interesting to see stuff like this go down; provides some food for thought.

Demetrio Cereijo
11-04-2007, 03:46 PM
...pumping the heart while it's beating can cause a heart attack...

Commotio Cordis (http://www.emedicine.com/ped/topic3019.htm)

CC typically involves young, predominantly male athletes in whom a sudden, blunt, nonpenetrating and innocuous-appearing trauma to the anterior chest results in immediate cardiac arrest and sudden death from ventricular fibrillation. Resuscitation is rare. Although CC usually involves impact from a baseball, it has also been reported during hockey, softball, lacrosse, karate, and other sports activities in which a relatively hard projectile or bodily contact caused impact to the person's precordium. More than 180 cases of CC have been reported to the US Commotio Cordis Registry (Minneapolis, Minn)

Aikibu
11-04-2007, 03:54 PM
If the youth of america want to kill themselves, I'm all for a thinning of the gene pool. I'm not going to put myself or my wife at risk for some stupid gang bangers.

Yeah I guess one can hide thier hate behind anything

I have watched and judged many mma fights. I can tell very quickly if someone is hurt or not. I am sure the kid involved was fine, with maybe a few stitches.

Having been in many dangerous situations and seen more than a few people get hurt There is a standard assesment protocol to determine the extent of someones injuries. I don't like to make assumptions based on visual evidence. If you do that's ok by me

But yes, I'm going to stay inside my box on this one. I've talked to medical doctors, done research on my own, spoken to people who claim they can do it, spoken to high ranking karataka, aikidoka, and even a 'ninja'. Nobody has proven me that throwing a single strike is the best way to disable or kill someone. The point of martial arts training is not to show them what can be done, but to train them to do something with a high degree of reliability. If you can not do that, then it is not a serious threat and not a martial technique. Just blind luck. It' my exp that the first punch rarely knocks anyone out, that is why you throw combos. If you could pull this off and train reliably to knock out with one punch, you better believe sport athletes would be focusing their energies into doing just that.

Until I can meet someone who can prove it, then it is faith. I do not trust in faith.

You do this time and again with your rhetoric....Someone refutes your assertations with a few facts or experiances and you turn the argument around into an all or nothing straw man. As for your predjudices... Since I work with Gang Kids trying to turn them around thats cool that the best you can hope for them is that they die out...I may only help one in a hundred But I sure as shit don't waste my time with folks like you.

You are either part of the problem or part of the solution....

Like I said Don This can be a sick world to live in...I would rather be part of the cure and not the disease..
William Hazen

DonMagee
11-04-2007, 11:58 PM
Yeah I guess one can hide thier hate behind anything

Having been in many dangerous situations and seen more than a few people get hurt There is a standard assesment protocol to determine the extent of someones injuries. I don't like to make assumptions based on visual evidence. If you do that's ok by me

You do this time and again with your rhetoric....Someone refutes your assertations with a few facts or experiances and you turn the argument around into an all or nothing straw man. As for your predjudices... Since I work with Gang Kids trying to turn them around thats cool that the best you can hope for them is that they die out...I may only help one in a hundred But I sure as shit don't waste my time with folks like you.

You are either part of the problem or part of the solution....

Like I said Don This can be a sick world to live in...I would rather be part of the cure and not the disease..
William Hazen

Nothing to do with prejudice. Unless you mean I am prejudice against stupid. I don't care if you are white, black, mexican, or any other nationality. I have zero sympathy for stupid. There is no excuse to be a gang banger where I live. Feel free to come visit. There is no urban sprawl, no major crime, just a nice quiet suburban farm town. These are not down on their luck inner city kids. These are wannabes and rich kids with parents that do not keep them in check. What should I do, ask them why they are angry? I'm sorry your mommy bought you all that nice mall clothes and pimp cell phones and brand new cars with 23 inch spinners...It's a sad life, I know. But keep it real hommy!

Of course I guess I could of just walked in and took down all 5 of them with my uber combat training.........

Besides, I don't even know the story, maybe the 'target' deserved it. Maybe he started the fight. Maybe one of them had a gun, or a knife.

Sorry I'm jaded, but I worked my ass off to get where I am. I went from nothing without anyones help. These kids today have only one excuse, they are taught to look for hand outs. I saw it in my generation. Out of all of my friends, I'm the only one to own a home, not be on welfare, and possibly succeed in life. You want to know why? Because my dad beat sense into me and didn't let me have handouts. But if these rich kids want to act tough and not take any responsibility for their actions, then yes, I say they are worthless. Of course to say what you think makes you a racist, or a bigot, or whatever. But this isn't the ghetto's of Compton, this is a place where if you don't succeed you only have one person to blame, yourself. I'm not a racist, but I don't care if I am labeled one. No matter what your race, if you are talking in ghetto slang, refusing to educate yourself, living off the system, and trying to act tough and putting others in danger, then yes, I am prejudiced against you. If I see you trying to succeed in life, and really giving it a go, I'll be the first to help you up. But what I see here is the largest funded school district in the state, most kids driving brand new cars, and huge houses and tons of good paying jobs. The majority of people here are good people. It's just this small new element of punks trying to be thugs.

I know exactly how these kids are. I used to hang with kids just like them. Hard core, living in their parents 400k houses. Yea, hard core gang bangers.

My rhetoric is always a single freaking question. One that is NEVER answered. I ask for scientific, repeatable proof. All combat sports have this, why do ALL non-sport martial arts completely lack this? It's like a cult or religion. Blind faith overshadows any attempt at discussion.

A kid was hit in the chest with a basketball and died. That is proof of a death touch. No more study needed, we don't need to find out the chance of it happening, how it works, or if you can even do it reliably, we know it is there and that automatically means there are leigions of karateka trained to do it? I think not.

The FACT is that there is a tradition of believing in things without question in the martial arts. Any evidence, no matter how weak is used as 100% concrete proof and the position is unmovable. I've seen it time and time again. Guys who can break crazy things, but only when they supply the material. Guys who can take shots to the throat and groin, but only when their ukes throw the blows, gues who can knock you out across the room, but can't do it to you because you are in the 2% of immune people (as so is ALL of your friends of course).

There is too much bull in the martial arts to ever waver on proof. I'm not in this for faith. If I want to pretend I can find better ways. Life is way to short to waste my time learning and passing down crap. The death touch is crap. Even if it was remotely possible to train a reliable way to kill with a single blow, how would ANYONE know if they are training properly. Did your teacher kill someone with it? Did his teacher? How far back in time do you have to go to find a single person who killed with your technique. Then was it repeatable, reliable, or a fluke? Did he know it was going to kill?

Sports have zero questions in this department. They know exactly why they do which things and in what situations they actually work. They have tested it time and time again from the dawn of invention to just this second.

You want me to admit a punch can kill you? Sure.
You want me to admit a punch has a HIGH likelihood of killing you? Not gonna happen. Ever case pointed to is a freakish accident and never a planed, premeditated attack. For ever case of someone who is punched only once and dies, there is probably hundreds if not thousands or millions of cases where someone was punched and was just fine. Is it worth spending the majority of your training focused on defending an attack with a a 100 to 1 chance? a 1000 to 1 chance? Or even worse, focusing on your training on preforming attacks that at best have a 1 in 50 chance of working and at worst a 1 in 1000 chance in working?

But I'm out of things to add to this conversation, there is really nothing more to say on any front. I am not some blind follower. You shown me irrefutable proof of the ability to develop reliable death touch, and I'll train it today. Otherwise it simply is not worth my time. It is safe to say that virtually everyone does not have it, and it is next to impossible to get it, so why bother when you have good proven basics that work just fine.

Aikibu
11-05-2007, 12:19 AM
Don,

Death Touch...hmmmm I see you escalated your rhetoric to expose one of your many predjudices

You have shown your true colors about a variety of subjects. All I can say is that I had it far tougher than you in terms of life experiance, and yet I am the exact polar opposite in both temperment and philosophy. I will keep that in mind. Compassion or hate...Knowledge or Ignorance are choices... Regardless of circumstances.

"To hate is to condem you to be born in the house of your enemy."

Bowing down to you Don,

William Hazen

DonMagee
11-05-2007, 12:20 AM
Don,

You have shown your true colors about a variety of subjects. I will keep that in mind.

Bowing down to you Don,

William Hazen

I've never hidden anything from anyone. I always tell people exactly how I feel.

Aikibu
11-05-2007, 01:04 AM
I've never hidden anything from anyone. I always tell people exactly how I feel.

Since you brought it up....

A simple Google on Death Touch turned up a few things like....

http://www.amazon.com/Death-Touch-Science-Behind-Dim-Mak/dp/1581602812

The customer reviews are very interesting. :)

It does seem to refute your view that there is no science behind Dim Mak.

I met George Dillman back in the late 80's when he gave a lecture on Tsuki...

You might also wish to bring up your skepticism of Dim Mak and other forms here

http://www.kyusho.com/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi

Most of the folks here would be more than happy to share their experiance with you on the subject.

Bowing Down to you Don,

William Hazen

dps
11-05-2007, 05:33 AM
My thread, my thread, what have you done to my beautiful thread. Its melting, melting, meltiiiiiing.

David

DonMagee
11-05-2007, 07:26 AM
Since you brought it up....

A simple Google on Death Touch turned up a few things like....

http://www.amazon.com/Death-Touch-Science-Behind-Dim-Mak/dp/1581602812

The customer reviews are very interesting. :)


I only had to read the first review:

As a martial artist and neuroscientist, I was looking forward to reading this book and learning what, if anything, is known about the science behind pressure points in general and dim mak in particular. While I admire the effort put forth by the author, and I look forward to a time when science has made substantial strides in understanding pressure points, we are just not there yet.

The author presents unrestrained speculation and passes it off as solidly established scientific fact. For example, he suggests that because the nerve fibers from certain pressure points enter the spinal column at the same segment as nerves that innervate the heart, then hitting those pressure points will obviously have an effect on the heart. But there is no evidence presented (or in existance presumably) that these nerves actually make contact with one another! Simply because they are in the same room does not mean they shake hands.

That example is indicative of the general style of the book. In the instances where the author actually does make reference to some published study, the evidence cited typically relates to basic physiology and medicine and has no direct connection to pressure points per se.

The subject matter of this book is quite interesting -- that's why I bought it after all -- but to say that the author presents what is *known* about the physiology of dim mak is misleading and incorrect. At best the author has presented a theoretical framework for future scientific investigation. At worst, he has presented a completely incredible, wildly speculative, totally unproven view of the science behind dim mak.

Besides that, the diagrams included in the book are under-labeled, unattractive, and marginally useful (simply including a labeled point chart for each meridian or vessel would be a vast improvement). The reader shouldn't be forced to refer to another text with better figures just to have an idea where on the body a certain point is.


It does seem to refute your view that there is no science behind Dim Mak.


Or, it proves my point. A bunch of bad pseudoscience passed off as proof.


I met George Dillman back in the late 80's when he gave a lecture on Tsuki...


This guy? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ar1yXYOsxQk

It seems everyone but his own students and admirers are in the 2% of the population immune to the death touch. It also seems the death touch is negated by simply putting your tonge in a spot in your mouth, or lifting a toe. James Randi would have a field day with him. Start watching around 3:26 if you want to see him fail at getting even a single non-student to pass out. What he does is nothing more the build a cult of followers that are brainwashed to do exactly what he wants them to do. Then he tries to sell it to suckers.


You might also wish to bring up your skepticism of Dim Mak and other forms here

http://www.kyusho.com/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi

Most of the folks here would be more than happy to share their experiance with you on the subject.

Bowing Down to you Don,

William Hazen

Normally, I wouldn't bother. However, I'll happily post for proof there. I doubt I will find any more then what I find here. Most likely it will go like this (paraphrased)

Me: What scientific proof do we have of a death touch?
Them: You must study with a master in order to understand, you are not worth talking to.
Me: If you can provide me with proof, I will go study.
Them: Some guy was once killed in a bar fight from a punch!
Me: Was the attacker trained in death touch?
Them: No
Me: So it was random bad luck?
Them: No
Me: So do we have scientific proof you can teach this skill with any reliability?
Them: You are close minded, if you want proof please fly across the country to so and so's dojo. He will show you (snicker).
Me: Sigh......

But if you seriously think I will find real answers there and you really mean that, then I will try posting there.

xuzen
11-05-2007, 07:37 AM
Death touch? Me knows, me knows a way... it involves 240V 2A live current.... and no insulation.

Boon.

Timothy WK
11-05-2007, 08:08 AM
Whoa, whoa! Who's talking about a "death touch" here? Don't exaggerate or distort what people are saying.

DonMagee
11-05-2007, 08:18 AM
We are saying there are people out there, who have developed and can teach a way to reliably (which means more often then not) kill a person with a single strike.
In essence, if you take one of these guys, and sick 10 people on him one at a time, more then 6 of them will be dead by a single strike.

Sounds like a death touch.

Timothy WK
11-05-2007, 08:31 AM
Gawd, that's a total distortion of what previous posters (myself included) have said.

There's a distinction between crushing someone's throat or throwing someone on their head, and some esoteric dim mak "touch" of death.

MM
11-05-2007, 08:42 AM
I doubt I will find any more then what I find here. Most likely it will go like this (paraphrased)

Me: What scientific proof do we have of a death touch?
Them: You must study with a master in order to understand, you are not worth talking to.
Me: If you can provide me with proof, I will go study.
Them: Some guy was once killed in a bar fight from a punch!
Me: Was the attacker trained in death touch?
Them: No
Me: So it was random bad luck?
Them: No
Me: So do we have scientific proof you can teach this skill with any reliability?
Them: You are close minded, if you want proof please fly across the country to so and so's dojo. He will show you (snicker).
Me: Sigh......

But if you seriously think I will find real answers there and you really mean that, then I will try posting there.

The answers were given to you here and they were not given as your above example. You chose to ignore them, however.

Mark

DonMagee
11-05-2007, 09:17 AM
The answers were given to you here and they were not given as your above example. You chose to ignore them, however.

Mark

Let's see. We did make it very far down my above given example.

Lets start

Me: What scientific proof do we have of a death touch? http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showpost.php?p=192867&postcount=28

Them: You must study with a master in order to understand, you are not worth talking to. http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showpost.php?p=192873&postcount=29
http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showpost.php?p=192895&postcount=31

Me: If you can provide me with proof, I will go study. - ok, so I guess I skipped this step until later.

Them: Some guy was once killed in a bar fight from a punch! - http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showpost.php?p=193051&postcount=53

Me: Was the attacker trained in death touch? - http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showpost.php?p=193064&postcount=59

Them: No - http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showpost.php?p=193065&postcount=60
http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showpost.php?p=193067&postcount=61

Me: So it was random bad luck? - same as above.
Them: No

Me: So do we have scientific proof you can teach this skill with any reliability? - http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showpost.php?p=193130&postcount=62

Them: You are close minded, if you want proof please fly across the country to so and so's dojo. He will show you (snicker). - I've been called closed minded, and apparently simply asking for proof is not a 'straw man tactic', however, nobody has called me out yet. But i'm waiting for it.

Me: Sigh...... - already doing it.

Look, I won't argue (as i've said 10000000000 times) that you can kill a person with a punch. Like you said, a punch to the throat or the back of the skull *may* kill a person. This is not the same and teaching and developing the ability to kill a person in a single blow. How often does a punch to the throat kill a person? I'd guess it rare just based on the fact I've been punched in the throat a few times and I am still alive. Not to mention the people in my town who punch each other in the throat as a form of martial art.

The question is not "can someone be killed by this?" In every case the answer is always yes. Can a person be killed by a toothpick? yes. Can a person be killed by drinking water? Yes. Can a person be killed with a rubber band? Yes.

The question is this.

Can you teach someone to reliably kill with a toothpick?

Lets look at this post http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showpost.php?p=193138&postcount=65

The poster claims his karate instructor has taught students to kill with every strike. That is how I read it. Now honestly, what chance do you give each strike thrown by that instructor to kill in a fight?

I would state that killing a person with punches and kicks is going to normally be a battle of attrition until knock out is achieved.

A lot of people feel other people and think "wow, that was hard, I'm sure it would kill me if he goes all out." They have no appreciation for how much physical trauma a body can take. Especially a body in motion. On top of that, unlike throws, weapons, and joint locks, there is little supporting evidence that it is even possible to have a good chance of killing a person with a unarmed strike. Even the most common side effect (a knock out) from say a turning strike to the chin (like a hook) is very rare. And this is the goal of a hook, to knock your opponent out. Yet anyone trained in sport striking will know to keep punching because the likelihood of that happening is not as high as we wish it was. To say "I have a one punch knock out" is a pipe dream.

We can say every strike has the potential to do harm. That is true. We can say that every strike has the potential to knock you out. That is also true. But at this point it is not nearly as true as the first statement.
Moving on to every strike has the potential to kill is even less likely and even less true.

I could get behind this when people say "well, we are talking about a hidden weapon.". But I just can't get behind people bringing up wackos like dillman and talking about how they can develop the ability to kill a person reliably while unarmed and using a single strike. Can you beat a man to death unarmed? Sure. Can you teach and develop the skill to kill a man with a single strike? I'm just not buying it.

Hell I wish it was true. It would be very cool. To know you are walking around as this huge human weapon, able to kill with just one punch. To know all you have to do is get inside and throw that one perfect strike. Very reassuring. But still very unproven and in my opinion, very impossible.

So this must be what we are talking about, the death touch. Because if we were not, why would people argue against me. I'm not saying a punch can't kill. They only way you could argue against me is to argue that it is possible to develop death touch. Seriously, think about it. We are talking about a death touch. The ability to kill in a single blow when you choose to and not by random chance in a fury of strikes.

Budd
11-05-2007, 09:41 AM
Quick weigh-in on a couple of things. I think it's possible that while a lot may talk about atemi in aikido, it may not be that those talking about it are training to effectively deliver them, so maybe just saying one trains to strike isn't the same as doing it.

I can't really fault the "show me" stance, but I try not to make any kind of blanket statements definitively either way, because I'm always finding out that the world's a lot bigger, with a lot more cool stuff in it, than I'd previously suspected, so . . . I just try to get out and see more of it whenever I can.

Aikibu
11-05-2007, 10:34 AM
Let's see. We did make it very far down my above given example.

Lets start

Me: What scientific proof do we have of a death touch? http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showpost.php?p=192867&postcount=28

Them: You must study with a master in order to understand, you are not worth talking to. http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showpost.php?p=192873&postcount=29
http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showpost.php?p=192895&postcount=31

Me: If you can provide me with proof, I will go study. - ok, so I guess I skipped this step until later.

Them: Some guy was once killed in a bar fight from a punch! - http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showpost.php?p=193051&postcount=53

Me: Was the attacker trained in death touch? - http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showpost.php?p=193064&postcount=59

Them: No - http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showpost.php?p=193065&postcount=60
http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showpost.php?p=193067&postcount=61

Me: So it was random bad luck? - same as above.
Them: No

Me: So do we have scientific proof you can teach this skill with any reliability? - http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showpost.php?p=193130&postcount=62

Them: You are close minded, if you want proof please fly across the country to so and so's dojo. He will show you (snicker). - I've been called closed minded, and apparently simply asking for proof is not a 'straw man tactic', however, nobody has called me out yet. But i'm waiting for it.

Me: Sigh...... - already doing it.

Look, I won't argue (as i've said 10000000000 times) that you can kill a person with a punch. Like you said, a punch to the throat or the back of the skull *may* kill a person. This is not the same and teaching and developing the ability to kill a person in a single blow. How often does a punch to the throat kill a person? I'd guess it rare just based on the fact I've been punched in the throat a few times and I am still alive. Not to mention the people in my town who punch each other in the throat as a form of martial art.

The question is not "can someone be killed by this?" In every case the answer is always yes. Can a person be killed by a toothpick? yes. Can a person be killed by drinking water? Yes. Can a person be killed with a rubber band? Yes.

The question is this.

Can you teach someone to reliably kill with a toothpick?

Lets look at this post http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showpost.php?p=193138&postcount=65

The poster claims his karate instructor has taught students to kill with every strike. That is how I read it. Now honestly, what chance do you give each strike thrown by that instructor to kill in a fight?

I would state that killing a person with punches and kicks is going to normally be a battle of attrition until knock out is achieved.

A lot of people feel other people and think "wow, that was hard, I'm sure it would kill me if he goes all out." They have no appreciation for how much physical trauma a body can take. Especially a body in motion. On top of that, unlike throws, weapons, and joint locks, there is little supporting evidence that it is even possible to have a good chance of killing a person with a unarmed strike. Even the most common side effect (a knock out) from say a turning strike to the chin (like a hook) is very rare. And this is the goal of a hook, to knock your opponent out. Yet anyone trained in sport striking will know to keep punching because the likelihood of that happening is not as high as we wish it was. To say "I have a one punch knock out" is a pipe dream.

We can say every strike has the potential to do harm. That is true. We can say that every strike has the potential to knock you out. That is also true. But at this point it is not nearly as true as the first statement.
Moving on to every strike has the potential to kill is even less likely and even less true.

I could get behind this when people say "well, we are talking about a hidden weapon.". But I just can't get behind people bringing up wackos like dillman and talking about how they can develop the ability to kill a person reliably while unarmed and using a single strike. Can you beat a man to death unarmed? Sure. Can you teach and develop the skill to kill a man with a single strike? I'm just not buying it.

Hell I wish it was true. It would be very cool. To know you are walking around as this huge human weapon, able to kill with just one punch. To know all you have to do is get inside and throw that one perfect strike. Very reassuring. But still very unproven and in my opinion, very impossible.

So this must be what we are talking about, the death touch. Because if we were not, why would people argue against me. I'm not saying a punch can't kill. They only way you could argue against me is to argue that it is possible to develop death touch. Seriously, think about it. We are talking about a death touch. The ability to kill in a single blow when you choose to and not by random chance in a fury of strikes.

Really disappointed in you Don.

First The conversation was about effective Atemi and Striking

You escalated it to Death Touch when presented with anecdotal evidence

Second: There were a dozen reviews of the book I provided a link for a few of them medical professionals You took the first review out of context and ignored the rest. hardly "Scientific" on your part.

Third Rather than have the balls to quote me directly you refer to some of my post and say my Karate Teachers were teaching me how to kill. what I said was the focus of the training was to strike with power including disabling/killing the opponent.

Last. Your reasoning is sound though extreme. Why train for a Death Touch if we train to make every Tsuki have the potential to disable of kill? I saw Dillman before he was infamous and asked him this very question....He did not have a real answer...You're the one who brought this to an extreme...Like it or not every Asian striking art I have ever experianced has this kind of focus (even some forms of Aikido) Whay get all hot a bothered about it stud???

You sir have no intent to have an intelligent discussion and will do anything including obfuscate quotes in order to protect your views...



Since you are wondering Why call you out??? If we just happen to bump into each other I know I will extend my hand and introduce myself. I will know within 5 seconds if it's Internet Bravado on your part. If you wish to take issue with me Well...All I know is that having been "called out" a few times No one has carried it through when I meet them in person and some of those have apologized for thier actions and I have apologized for my part too.

As for me I will look at my part in this and see how I can better communicate in the future.

William Hazen

David Orange
11-05-2007, 10:54 AM
What is the chance that when you are fighting someone that wants to hurt you that you can pull off that death strike? 1 in 5? 1 in 100? It is not a significant risk. It is silly to train for it. You are better of training for something more likely to happen.

Training for it makes it more likely that you can do it.

Best to you.

David

David Orange
11-05-2007, 11:06 AM
I've talked to medical doctors, done research on my own, spoken to people who claim they can do it, spoken to high ranking karataka, aikidoka, and even a 'ninja'. Nobody has proven me that throwing a single strike is the best way to disable or kill someone.

Since aikido comes from the sword, if we train that way and think that way, the chances of success become better and better. But no one has said it's guaranteed to work 100% of the time. What does? Naturally, if your technique doesn't work, you need to be ready with a follow-up, but why did Ueshiba say what he did?

It' my exp that the first punch rarely knocks anyone out, that is why you throw combos. If you could pull this off and train reliably to knock out with one punch, you better believe sport athletes would be focusing their energies into doing just that.

But budo is not sport. It's preparation for emergency. It's not to prepare you to fight insurgents but to escape a sudden, deadly attack by one or more people. No one (in his right mind) wants to face death or to show it to anyone else. But to fail to address death seriously is to fail to understand budo.

Best to you.

David

gdandscompserv
11-05-2007, 11:14 AM
Hmm...I smell testosterone.

David Orange
11-05-2007, 11:28 AM
We are saying there are people out there, who have developed and can teach a way to reliably (which means more often then not) kill a person with a single strike.

So, Don: what did Morihei Ueshiba mean by his comment that aikido kills the attacker with a single blow?

Please explain that one.

Thanks.

David

Will Prusner
11-05-2007, 11:30 AM
Jeez... I don't want to accuse anyone of missing the point or anything, but, as I understand it, Aikido is about NOT killing people:dead: , in fact, I'm pretty sure it's also about NOT even injuring people:uch: . It seems to be more about unity and harmony:) .

DEATH TOUCH!!??!!:dead: On an Aikido forum??!!?? :hypno: Are you guys freakin' serious:eek: ?!!?? DEATH TOUCH??!!??:dead:

Ok, i'll humor this: maybe with acupuncture needles ala "Kiss of the Dragon" if I was eleven, but seriously... no.:straightf

Mattias Bengtsson
11-05-2007, 11:36 AM
So this must be what we are talking about, the death touch. Because if we were not, why would people argue against me. I'm not saying a punch can't kill.

I seem to recall that it was you who brought up the "50% chance of killing in a blow for it to be scientifically reliable" -not anyone else.
So part of the argument that's going on is because a punch to the -say larynx, that has the possibility to kill, but can't be counted on doing so in at least half of the cases, then it's not a "lethal attack", that is the source of the objection.

Imagine the consequences of this:
You can't convict anyone any more for murder if they're beaten to death by someone unarmed, since it would not be statistically reliable for a punch or a kick to kill anyone.

Or what of firearms? since over 50% of people shot by 9mm bullets survive, then maybe 9mm should be re-classified as non-lethal?

Yes, I'm exaggerating to the point of silliness.
-I'm charming that way.

Back when I trained Karate I had a teacher who used the description of "The intent of Karate is to defeat in a single blow"

Not to "kill" but to "defeat" or "incapacitate".

He never tried to sell us a mythic punch or kick, but used it as a description of the mindset we should have when doing a technique. To deliver next strike as it was the last.

And that's how I've chosen to interpret the "one punch" part of the article as well as the quote by Ueshiba.
I.e. not literally but in a realistic context.
I've also chosen not to interpret "strike" as specifically a punch, but
can imagine it being used as a throw as well.

My current Aikido teacher stresses the importance of safety when we train by mentioning that while in the Dojo a Shi ho nage don't look so bad, but out on the street it means dislocating someones arm and slamming them head first down in the pavement.

Basically defeating someone with one attack.

So, by choosing to substitute "kill" by "defeat", a less violent expression, I am able to digest the article more easily when it comes to beliefs I might not share.

Just like when it comes to the bible, some people have read the article literally, and chosen to believe it.
Some people have read it literally, and chosen to disbelieve it.
--and then some people have chosen to form their own opinion, and stay out of the argument.

David Orange
11-05-2007, 11:37 AM
Jeez... I don't want to accuse anyone of missing the point or anything, but, as I understand it, Aikido is about NOT killing people:dead: , in fact, I'm pretty sure it's also about NOT even injuring people:uch: . It seems to be more about unity and harmony:) .

Well, how would you explain Ueshiba's comment, then?

"I can't show false techniques to the Emperor. Basically in aikido, the opponent is killed with a single blow. It's false if the attacker is thrown, leisurely stands up, and attacks again. [On the other hand], I can't go around killing my students."

I believe that it's only from facing the reality of martial arts--that, if necessary, you could kill the attacker or he could kill you--that you can develop the real attitudes of unity and harmony.

Best to you.

David

Will Prusner
11-05-2007, 11:44 AM
what did Morihei Ueshiba mean by his comment that aikido kills the attacker with a single blow?

from The Man, Himself...



"Progress comes to those who train and train. Reliance on secret techniques will get you nowhere."

"Ultimately you must forget about technique."

"To injure an opponent is to injure yourself. To control aggression without inflicting injury is The Art of Peace"

"An attack is proof that one is out of control."

"It consists in defeating your adversaries spiritually by making them realize the folly of their actions."

...and many more.

David Orange
11-05-2007, 11:53 AM
from The Man, Himself...

...and many more.

Ueshiba did say those things. And most of the time, he did show his opponents jumping up to attack again.

But when it came time to show the emperor--his God at at that time--he said, ""I can't show false techniques to the Emperor. Basically in aikido, the opponent is killed with a single blow. It's false if the attacker is thrown, leisurely stands up, and attacks again. [On the other hand], I can't go around killing my students.""

So what we have in modern aikido is either an art that is a "front" for something more real and deadly or, as Ledyard Sensei said earlier, it is an art that has been made into a hollow shell.

The quotes you gave illustrate the "tatemae" or "surface truth" of aikido, while "the opponent is killed with one blow" illustrates the "honne" or "real truth" of the art.

If you have that real truth, then you can "choose" not to injure the attacker. If not, you don't "choose" not to injure him but just do whatever you happen to be able to do. Then it's chance. And training is for the purpose of reducing the element of chance in an encounter. And having a deadly technique as the "foundation" or "first possibility" is what allows the aikido man to "choose" a less-deadly option.

Otherwise, "why" did Ueshiba say """I can't show false techniques to the Emperor. Basically in aikido, the opponent is killed with a single blow. It's false if the attacker is thrown, leisurely stands up, and attacks again."???

Best to all.

David

DonMagee
11-05-2007, 12:29 PM
So, Don: what did Morihei Ueshiba mean by his comment that aikido kills the attacker with a single blow?

Please explain that one.

Thanks.

David

I would need much more context then a single quote in order to even speculate.

But, it if was to do some without it, I would state he was possibly referring to weapons, or maybe was just repeating a misconception. The man was not god, and it is possible he was not right on every thing. He could of even possibly been delusional. Was this an early quote or a later quote? Perhaps he was referring to disabling your opponent though combat, then killing with a single blow from your weapon. AKA finishing completely. Maybe it was just a mindset, it wasn't about if it was real or possible, it was to have that mindset to control your movements. If you really think every single blow will kill you, then you are going to practice a lot harder. Of course on the flip side, if you believe every single blow you throw can kill, then you are going to be at a disadvantage when you find out you are wrong.

I really don't care what the man said.

"The intent of Karate is to defeat in a single blow" - this is a little more reasonable, but still unrealistic. This kind of statement, used improperly leads to expectation.

David Orange, you said training increases ability to perform. You are correct, but there are still limits. This is why a focus on the basics is important. Basics are what works, fancy technique is opportunistic. A single targeted 'death' strike would be a fancy technique, it would require expert setup, timing, execution with no mistakes in order to work. If you were truly training as if life and death were on the line, why would you use this as a model of life and death? I would want much better tools, and be much more afraid of high percentage disabling attacks then that single death strike.

Yes, i brought up the 50% change of a death touch. What I actually said was that I did not believe in the one strike one kill. Not that I did not believe a strike could kill you. In fact in a flurry of strikes that kill you, obviously one of them is the death dealing blow. So my point was, there is no such thing as one strike one kill unless you can prove someone can be taught to use this reliably. Meaning there is a guy out there that can fight 10 fights, and finish greater then half of them in a single strike. Otherwise, you are not talking about technique, you are not talking about training for one strike one kill, you are talking about training for lucky happenstance. Poor martial arts indeed.

I see the budo is not sport argument used here. It really makes no sense. The claim here is that if there was a one punch knock out skill that could be taught (instead of the punchers chance), that sport athletes would of learned it by now and use it, and they would know high percentage ways to defend it. However, they do not, so the chances of it existing is very low. This statement is not at odds with budo not being about fighting. In fact, what is implied here is that sports will not bother to learn these things because they want to prolong a fight. This is not true, they are training to win. If it was as simple as a punch to meridian 17 or something, then they would all be training it. But instead they throw bunches of punches and wait for the one that sends them down.

But some people are up in arms with these statements. It challenges their core beliefs in the super natural. One post says it doesn't have to work 100% to be real. So I ask, what percentage does it take to go from luck to technique? Lets say I 10 thousand people in the face. If one of them dies, can I now claim the death touch? Can I now teach it? Is it a real technique and real science? Using that study as proof, would you bother to learn this if you wanted to learn how to kill with a single blow? Now lets say I did the same thing, only 6 thousand of them died. How would that change the answers?

And finally, I am not challenging anyone to a fight on the internet, there is no bravado as it seems I'm being read into. Rather I was stating that eventually, someone is going to tell me to go pick a fight with 'so and so' who has the real death touch if I have any doubts. It happens all the time, and in fact that person will always be thousands of miles away and not even aware of this conversation. Then my refusal to spend the cash to go bully and old man will be taken as proof I am wrong. Otherwise known as the Ashida Kim defense. I think fighting matches from the internet is silly and childish. If I meet one of you in person, I will be just like I am here. This is how I talk, this is how I act. But I am not going to challenge anyone to a fight. I might challenge them for proof, and if that proof requires sparing, then I am down for it. But that is as far as I go.

Finally, William Hazen,

The bulk of the reviews on that book had a few things in common. Either they really want to believe and thus say it is great, but then say things like:
"All that said, it's true that there's a lot of speculation about things that would be hard to test, and haven't been tested. I personally still doubt if acupuncture and so on work reliably for healing, but this does provide a possible explanation for how they could work. "

Or they reference dillman, which throws their opinion out in my book. As anyone who believes in that man in my opinion needs help.

Or they say it has no scientific basis. In fact such a book really means nothing in a scientific sense, and therefor can be dismissed as proof. Rather the book is an example of poor pseudoscience targeted at believers. It reminds me a lot of when I talk to old time martial arts instructors and they talk about the nose into the brain killing technique. This book appears to be along the same lines, show some pictures and general anatomy. Then make broad claims on things with no studies to back you up. If my library had the book, I would give it a full review. But I am not paying money for something I already suspect from reading ALL the reviews, to be garbage.

Will Prusner
11-05-2007, 12:44 PM
So what we have in modern aikido is either an art that is a "front" for something more real and deadly

Why does something have to be deadly to be real?

Killing someone is admitting defeat. It is saying "I lose, I wasn't good enough technically or creatively to resolve this conflict by any other means, so I'm taking the easy way out".

I don't understand this apparent widespread delusion that the "real" techniques of Aikido are being hidden. It's as silly as the president's search for WMDs in Iraq.

And anyway, If one can't figure out how to kill for themselves, then maybe it's better that they don't know.

Are people who shoot for practice at a target demonstrating "false technique"? I think everyone from the emperor on down understands what the little holes in the paper mean. Unless, Morihei thought the Emperor was a complete idiot who wouldn't be able to understand the true nature of the thing being demonstrated without blood being spilled. Seems unlikely. Who knows what was going through his mind when he made that comment? Maybe some Shinto thing about the Emperor we'll never fully understand. But for me, I'd bet all the tea in china, it wasn't the death touch.

Basia Halliop
11-05-2007, 01:16 PM
I don't understand this apparent widespread delusion that the "real" techniques of Aikido are being hidden.

Exactly! But that's what I'm reading in the article quoted -- that the basic assumption you make in Aikido is that one punch by an 'Aikido master' will kill, therefore everything else that exists in Aikido is all about working around that. Since I no of no one in Aikido (or elsewhere, for that matter) who has ever actually done this (has a one-punch kill) and have only even distantly heard of people who have even claimed or tried to develop this, the article would suggest, as you say, that the 'real' techniques of Aikido are being hidden.

Which I think is silly.

Aiki x
11-05-2007, 01:41 PM
I have seen the Systema folks do amazing things with their striking. Once again, I have no doubt at all that one of the senior folks could kill you with one blow if they decided to direct the energy at a particular organ. One of Vlad's senior instructors did fight some locally prominent mixed martial arts fighter up in Toronto and it ended in one strike.

Sorry but with all respect for you Aikido knowledge that is Bullshido. One shot might knock you out or hurt you but unless your very very very unlucky you're not going to die. All the stuff about directing energy against organs is mumbo jumbo.

It just isn't as simple as pumping up and taking some Muy Thai or Boxing lessons. That's pure physical power and it just isn't the same.

That is unfair comment on the boxing arts. Muai Thai and boxing are not pure physical power. Their devastating punching power comes from getting their hips and body weight behind their blows and absorbing recoil via a good stance. This is technical not physical. The physical aspect of Muai Thai and Boxing is conditioning the body to last several rounds and absorb punishment.

So, Don: what did Morihei Ueshiba mean by his comment that aikido kills the attacker with a single blow?

Either Ueshiba is being misquoted or he was making fanciful claims to promote his art. Or by that stage he was delusional.

Or what of firearms? since over 50% of people shot by 9mm bullets survive, then maybe 9mm should be re-classified as non-lethal?

Well as you correctly point out over 50% of people shot with a 9mm bullet survive. This shows what a sheer fantasy the one punch kill is. Aikidoka should not delude themselfs into believing in one punch Aikido kills. Learn boxing style punches and clock your opponent on the jaw. If your lucky you'll knock them out and not break your hand. This other stuff should be reserved for Segal movies only.

David Orange
11-05-2007, 01:51 PM
Why does something have to be deadly to be real?

It doesn't have to be, but in this case, Ueshiba said that if the opponent can jump up and attack again, then it is false. So if that's false, then the "deadly" is "real."

Killing someone is admitting defeat. It is saying "I lose, I wasn't good enough technically or creatively to resolve this conflict by any other means, so I'm taking the easy way out".

According to Don, it's the harder, almost impossible way out. But it really does come to that: what if you're not good enough technically to overcome someone (or lots of someones) with shiho nage? What if your blending circles just take you into more opponents? Aikido comes from the sword. "The sword that spares life" has to be chosen, but if the sword is incapable of "taking life," then it is not capable of "sparing life". Whatever happens depends on chance and luck. The truth is, when the chips are all the way down and the opponent does intend to kill you, you won't put all your life and hopes and dreams and your children's future on a platitude and accept that he can just take your life because your shiho nage was a little off. One guy on these boards espoused peacefulness, but admitted that if an opponent managed to get him on the ground and was sitting on his chest, getting ready to smash his face in, then he would do whatever he could to kill the guy.

Unfortunately, it would then be too late.

I don't understand this apparent widespread delusion that the "real" techniques of Aikido are being hidden.

Not at all. Ueshiba said outright that real aikido kills the attacker with a single blow. And there are many photographs of him demonstrating this technique. So I don't think this one is hidden.

And anyway, If one can't figure out how to kill for themselves, then maybe it's better that they don't know.

Maybe...but I'd rather a "good" person, who's doing good things in general, have access to those highly refined methods than leave them at the mercy of muggers.

Are people who shoot for practice at a target demonstrating "false technique"?

Not in my experience. In fact, just between you and the instructor, you may bet a few "extra" lessons about how to make a shot deadlier. The common saying on shooting ranges is "I'd rather be tried by twelve than carried by six." Lip service is paid to "shooting to stop," but confidentially, they shoot to kill.

I think everyone from the emperor on down understands what the little holes in the paper mean. Unless, Morihei thought the Emperor was a complete idiot who wouldn't be able to understand the true nature of the thing being demonstrated without blood being spilled. Seems unlikely.

No blood need be spilled for that technique to work. But how many people have seen aikido and said, "Oh, that's fake!"?? Almost everyone who sees it for the first time thinks it's a show. Morihei knew that and knew that the Emperor would think he and his students were putting him on. As it was, showing "the lie," he broke the arm of one of the two ukes and Gozo Shioda had to take ukemi for the rest of the entire demo.

Who knows what was going through his mind when he made that comment? Maybe some Shinto thing about the Emperor we'll never fully understand. But for me, I'd bet all the tea in china, it wasn't the death touch.

No, it wasn't "the death touch," but a killing blow derived from a sword strking method and koppo, the art of breaking bones and dislocating joints. Uehsiba learned from Sokaku Takeda of whom it would not be unfair to say that he killed "many" people in his time. Can you think of any examples of anyone ever giving Sokaku Takeda a hard time, technically? His reputation was of having the opponent under total control from the first moment. And he taught that the art of aiki is to overcome the opponent mentally, at a glance. How could he do that?

People today tend to think that people like Ueshiba and Takeda were pretty much the same as us, when we can have no concept of how they lived day to day. They were rooted in the samurai ethic, where losing meant dying and the only way not to lose, most often meant killing. Without this understanding, "budo" practice itself becomes delusional.

Best wishes.

David

David Orange
11-05-2007, 02:44 PM
I would need much more context then a single quote in order to even speculate.

Well, you have much more than a single quote. You have the whole article:

http://www.aikidojournal.com/article?articleID=425

The context of that is that Ueshiba was a student of Sokaku Takeda, a man who had killed with the sword and whom no one could seriously challenge. These were not sport people. They didn't train for glory or money or trophies or titles, but for the samurai ethic of life and death. The way they trained has no comparison in modern millionaire sportsmen's lives. And they didn't train to be in a ring, with rules, under controlled circumstances. Frankly, that kind of thinking is why budo is absolutely not understood in this modern world and why, in some cases, it would be better not to train.

My teacher said "Truth can only be built on truth." Ueshiba said it's "false" if the opponent can get up and reattack. Of course, we can't and do not want to kill our training partners, but lacking even the awareness of the true purpose of training must surely do more harm than good.

he was possibly referring to weapons, or maybe was just repeating a misconception. The man was not god, and it is possible he was not right on every thing.

No, he was talking specifically about demonstrating his art--aikido--for the Emperor of Japan. He was not "repeating" a misconception: he was one of the most respected students of Sokaku Takeda--he knew the truth about the full art and he felt that he could not show the Emperor the kinds of "surface" truths he showed most people.

He could of even possibly been delusional. Was this an early quote or a later quote?

1941, when he could rightly be said to have been at the height of his power--anyway, a long, long way from being feeble and well before the disillusionment and change of philosophy brought about by Japan's defeat in WWII.

Perhaps he was referring to disabling your opponent though combat, then killing with a single blow from your weapon. AKA finishing completely.

That would not have been part of an "aikido" demonstration at that time. He said that "aikido" kills the opponent with a single blow.

...if you believe every single blow you throw can kill, then you are going to be at a disadvantage when you find out you are wrong.

No, those men trained to attain that level of ability, but they never counted on a single tactic. They were prepared for any eventuality, including missing the strike, the opponent being very strong, etc.

I really don't care what the man said.

Doesn't really matter, then, does it? Why discuss aikido at all if the words of the creator of aikido have no bearing on the discussion?

David Orange, you said training increases ability to perform. You are correct, but there are still limits. This is why a focus on the basics is important.

That's the whole point of this discussion: the killing at one stroke is the basic fact of aikido. Moving from that basic fact, trying to pretend that it's really about the flow of the hakama over the mat, etc., is what leads people into the "dive-monkey" state of mind and to aikido's not only "looking" fake but actually "being" something the very students, themselves, don't understand.

Basics are what works, fancy technique is opportunistic. A single targeted 'death' strike would be a fancy technique, it would require expert setup, timing, execution with no mistakes in order to work. If you were truly training as if life and death were on the line, why would you use this as a model of life and death? I would want much better tools, and be much more afraid of high percentage disabling attacks then that single death strike.

Why do you think a single strike is "fancier"or requires better set-up, timing and execution than something like shiho nage, which requires much more movement and affords the opponent many, many more opportunities to escape and counter? If aikido comes from the sword, the strike is "how" it comes from the sword. The strike is "where" it comes from the sword. How could anything be more basic than that?

what is implied here is that sports will not bother to learn these things because they want to prolong a fight. This is not true, they are training to win. If it was as simple as a punch to meridian 17 or something, then they would all be training it. But instead they throw bunches of punches and wait for the one that sends them down.

Both opponents are put into a closed space with the same limited number of techniques available to them. Both are looking directly at one another when the fight starts, both have puffy gloves on their hands and both are highly conditioned. Fight as hard as they may, they are normally not trying to kill one another, but sometimes people do die.

In real life, the attacker comes unexpectedly, but very likely with no knowledge of whom he is attacking. The budo man is not limited to any particular technique or to any particular space. The training is to respond in an instant, from "unexpected" to ending the fight in a split second.

But some people are up in arms with these statements. It challenges their core beliefs in the super natural. One post says it doesn't have to work 100% to be real. So I ask, what percentage does it take to go from luck to technique?

There's nothing "supernatural" about koppo. It's an old art derived from combat experience as well as from medicine. It concentrates on breaking the bones and dislocating the joints. It requires no magic or any belief and is scientifically testable, if you can find people who will let you test it on them. It's the essence of ancient jujutsu.

As for working 100% of the time, that's not what's required for it to "be" a "technique." It's a "technique" if you train for it to be your technique. Whether it's a good technique can only be judged by actual application. And even a good technique can work only as well as 1) the user understands it; and 2) the user trains to get it right. That means learning to apply it in many kinds of situations against many kinds of attacks. And the way Ueshiba and Takeda trained, they were able to use it correctly.

Best to you.

David

Will Prusner
11-05-2007, 02:45 PM
It doesn't have to be, but in this case, Ueshiba said that if the opponent can jump up and attack again, then it is false. So if that's false, then the "deadly" is "real."

I know that when Sensei has pinned me to the mat, I can't "jump up" and do anything, much less attack.

The truth is, when the chips are all the way down and the opponent does intend to kill you, you won't put all your life and hopes and dreams and your children's future on a platitude and accept that he can just take your life because your shiho nage was a little off.

This is one of the reasons I got my concealed weapons or firearms license. And carry a weapon I know I can use quickly and effectively. I cultivate a mindset that would allow me to act without hesitation. I'm not against a justifiable homicide in self defense, I just wouldn't use aikido to effect that end. I could fry an egg on the hood of my car (i live in miami, FL - haha) but I don't, I use a frying pan. Proper tool for the proper job. People who would aim to seriously endanger the lives or well-being of me or mine get steel or lead, my pick. Misguided, but basically harmless, people who are angry, upset, intoxicated get off luckier, they get some less than lethal measures, maybe some aikido. I've only been in one armed street fight, the attacker had a knife and had already stabbed somebody who I cared about with it. I had a pair of Nunchaku. I won. I saved another's life and my own. He lost badly, but definitely lived.

I'd rather a "good" person, who's doing good things in general, have access to those highly refined methods than leave them at the mercy of muggers.

Yes, but a mugger typically just wants your money and jewelery. Give it to them, and wave politely as they leave.

The common saying on shooting ranges is "I'd rather be tried by twelve than carried by six." Lip service is paid to "shooting to stop," but confidentially, they shoot to kill.

I'd rather leave them alive so that they can be tried by twelve. Assuming of course that i'm around to see the outcome as well, safe and sound. The reason I agree with the "post-war" mindset of Morihei, is because I feel that 100% of the time violence begets more violence. If I break your arm, you're not going to like me, you might want to do even meaner things to me. The eventual outcome being a nuke get's dropped on your country and lots of people die. That sucks. So the Ideal is that we unify with each other for peace, rather than attack and face the eventual consequences. From this reference point, killing somebody just makes your situation and the world more screwed up.

he taught that the art of aiki is to overcome the opponent mentally, at a glance.

I choose to believe that this is a possibility of what is meant by killing with one blow.

People today tend to think that people like Ueshiba and Takeda were pretty much the same as us, when we can have no concept of how they lived day to day. They were rooted in the samurai ethic, where losing meant dying and the only way not to lose, most often meant killing.

Kinda sounds similar to what is going down in the slums of major cities throughout the world. People are killing each other all over the globe. Most of them don't know any martial arts and are doing a great job at butchery. Aikido is an opportunity for martial arts to redeem themselves and make the world better. Why try to use it for murder, whether it's origins stem from there or not?

David Orange
11-05-2007, 02:53 PM
Either Ueshiba is being misquoted or he was making fanciful claims to promote his art. Or by that stage he was delusional.

He was quoted by Gozo Shioda, whom no one has ever accused of misquoting Morihei Ueshiba. Shioda was uchi deshi to Ueshiba from about 1931 to 1938 or 1939 and this demonstration (and the comment) took place in 1941. This tells us two things: Ueshiba had no need to impress Shioda, who already knew Ueshiba and his art on a very deep level; and Ueshiba was not "yet" delusional, "if"he ever did become delusional. This was a highly respected martial arts teacher who had taught at the Imperial Naval Academy and included Admirals in his circle of friends, speaking frankly to one of his closest students about a demonstration before someone considered to be the "God" of Japan.

I don't see where the controversy is unless people just don't have any perspective on the nature of the samurai arts.

Best to you.

David

David Orange
11-05-2007, 03:17 PM
...I got my concealed weapons or firearms license. And carry a weapon I know I can use quickly and effectively. I cultivate a mindset that would allow me to act without hesitation. I'm not against a justifiable homicide in self defense, I just wouldn't use aikido to effect that end. I could fry an egg on the hood of my car (i live in miami, FL - haha) but I don't, I use a frying pan. Proper tool for the proper job.

Hmmm....what if you didn't have your gun with you, it was out of reach or you couldn't get it out in time to use it? You always have your bare hands available. But anyway, saying "proper tool for the proper job" indicates that aikido does not come from the sword, that, technically, it is not based on sword strikes, etc. But the truth is, it does come from kenjutsu and the basic technique is to end the fight decisively--in the worst case, by killing the attacker with a single strike. But if you're willing to kill anyone at all, then the rest of your argument just doesn't make any sense to me. When your life is on the line, you will use your frying pan or your car to take out the attacker.

Saying that aikido should not be used in that ultimate fashion to save your life or that of your family (though you would use a gun) is like using a rubber frying pan so that the frying pan can't kill anyone because that's not the "proper" use of a frying pan.

But aikido was based on killing with the sword. In aikido, the hand is the sword. Why neuter the art and make it incapable of serious application?

...the Ideal is that we unify with each other for peace, rather than attack and face the eventual consequences. From this reference point, killing somebody just makes your situation and the world more screwed up.

Yeah....but you have already said you will kill with a gun or nunchakus if necessary. So what if you don't have your gun or nunchucks? Would you use a coke bottle? Those are not intended for killing....would you use a picture frame or a coffee cup? People will.

The fact is, aikido comes from that root. The only way to eliminate that from its nature is to neuter it either by modifying the techniques or by sheer ignorance of their actual intent.

...I choose to believe that this is a possibility of what is meant by killing with one blow.

It's not the "meaning"of "killing with one blow": it's a result of being able to kill with one blow. The opponent senses that intention subconsciously and also knows subconsciously that he will definitely lose in the encounter, so his will and ability to attack are destroyed before he can start. That is the meaning of "overcome the opponent mentally, at a glance and win without fighting".

...Kinda sounds similar to what is going down in the slums of major cities throughout the world. People are killing each other all over the globe. Most of them don't know any martial arts and are doing a great job at butchery.

Not at all. The essence of the samurai millieu was not the butchery but the training and the self-development--precisely the elements that are missing in the slums.

...Aikido is an opportunity for martial arts to redeem themselves and make the world better. Why try to use it for murder, whether it's origins stem from there or not?

It's not murder if you apply it in self-defense. But why use a toothless pit-bull to "defend" yourself. In that case, the techniques of aikido are not "hidden" at all, but simply "removed" by choice. That's fine if that's what you want to do. You just shouldn't try to rationalize that it's Ueshiba's art and that Ueshib didn't mean what he plainly and openly said and showed.

Best to you.

David

Will Prusner
11-05-2007, 03:35 PM
Well, ok, I can see and accept your viewpoint.

I just think killing things feels bad. So I try not to do it. This is totally my opinion. If someone had told me "go try Aikido, they'll teach you how to kill with one blow" I probably would have said "no thanks".Just not my style, you know?

It's definitely something to ponder, though.

Thanks.

David Orange
11-05-2007, 04:04 PM
Well, ok, I can see and accept your viewpoint. I just think killing things feels bad. So I try not to do it.

Yeah, me, too. But somehow...I always do.....

What?

No. I mean, no...I never do.

Anyway...I don't carry a gun even though I've had professional instruction (as part of a job) on how to use one to most lethal effect. I grew up around guns, my father and grandfather were both LEOs and my grandfather killed at least one man with a gun. I just don't have any interest in owning or carrying a gun.

And I've never had to "use" my aikido or any weapon beyond being willing to do so if necessary. The few times I've thought I would have to do something, the attackers changed their minds and left me alone.

Best to you.

David

Aikibu
11-05-2007, 04:55 PM
Thanks David and William P for articulating my feelings exactly to Don MaGee and bringing this discussion full circle...

"In Aikido the fight is over at the moment of contact." Shoji Nishio Shihan

Which David expresses as "In real life, the attacker comes unexpectedly, but very likely with no knowledge of whom he is attacking. The budo man is not limited to any particular technique or to any particular space. The training is to respond in an instant, from "unexpected" to ending the fight in a split second."

I have spent almost 20 years in our Aikido Practice to match this ideal.

William Hazen

DonMagee
11-06-2007, 09:01 AM
Well, you have much more than a single quote. You have the whole article:

http://www.aikidojournal.com/article?articleID=425

The context of that is that Ueshiba was a student of Sokaku Takeda, a man who had killed with the sword and whom no one could seriously challenge. These were not sport people. They didn't train for glory or money or trophies or titles, but for the samurai ethic of life and death. The way they trained has no comparison in modern millionaire sportsmen's lives. And they didn't train to be in a ring, with rules, under controlled circumstances. Frankly, that kind of thinking is why budo is absolutely not understood in this modern world and why, in some cases, it would be better not to train.

My teacher said "Truth can only be built on truth." Ueshiba said it's "false" if the opponent can get up and reattack. Of course, we can't and do not want to kill our training partners, but lacking even the awareness of the true purpose of training must surely do more harm than good.

No, he was talking specifically about demonstrating his art--aikido--for the Emperor of Japan. He was not "repeating" a misconception: he was one of the most respected students of Sokaku Takeda--he knew the truth about the full art and he felt that he could not show the Emperor the kinds of "surface" truths he showed most people.

1941, when he could rightly be said to have been at the height of his power--anyway, a long, long way from being feeble and well before the disillusionment and change of philosophy brought about by Japan's defeat in WWII.

That would not have been part of an "aikido" demonstration at that time. He said that "aikido" kills the opponent with a single blow.

No, those men trained to attain that level of ability, but they never counted on a single tactic. They were prepared for any eventuality, including missing the strike, the opponent being very strong, etc.

Doesn't really matter, then, does it? Why discuss aikido at all if the words of the creator of aikido have no bearing on the discussion?

That's the whole point of this discussion: the killing at one stroke is the basic fact of aikido. Moving from that basic fact, trying to pretend that it's really about the flow of the hakama over the mat, etc., is what leads people into the "dive-monkey" state of mind and to aikido's not only "looking" fake but actually "being" something the very students, themselves, don't understand.

Why do you think a single strike is "fancier"or requires better set-up, timing and execution than something like shiho nage, which requires much more movement and affords the opponent many, many more opportunities to escape and counter? If aikido comes from the sword, the strike is "how" it comes from the sword. The strike is "where" it comes from the sword. How could anything be more basic than that?

Both opponents are put into a closed space with the same limited number of techniques available to them. Both are looking directly at one another when the fight starts, both have puffy gloves on their hands and both are highly conditioned. Fight as hard as they may, they are normally not trying to kill one another, but sometimes people do die.

In real life, the attacker comes unexpectedly, but very likely with no knowledge of whom he is attacking. The budo man is not limited to any particular technique or to any particular space. The training is to respond in an instant, from "unexpected" to ending the fight in a split second.

There's nothing "supernatural" about koppo. It's an old art derived from combat experience as well as from medicine. It concentrates on breaking the bones and dislocating the joints. It requires no magic or any belief and is scientifically testable, if you can find people who will let you test it on them. It's the essence of ancient jujutsu.

As for working 100% of the time, that's not what's required for it to "be" a "technique." It's a "technique" if you train for it to be your technique. Whether it's a good technique can only be judged by actual application. And even a good technique can work only as well as 1) the user understands it; and 2) the user trains to get it right. That means learning to apply it in many kinds of situations against many kinds of attacks. And the way Ueshiba and Takeda trained, they were able to use it correctly.

Best to you.

David

Well, I don't know what to say. You failed to address the majority of my points in any way that even relates to what I was saying. I can't even come up with a new way to explain my points to you. I suggest, if you want to further this conversation, you reread my previous post and try again. There is one part where you actually addressed my comments the first quote. So I will comment on that.

The article you linked still only provides a single sentence with no insight on what ueshiba was trying to say. it sheds no clue on if he was referring to open hand or weapons. Assuming weapons (as aikido is a weapon art I'm told constantly) then it makes sense. To kill with a single blow after a throw using a dagger or sword is very possible, and very consistent with the views of old school jiujitsu.

Finally, you commented on me saying that I do not care what ueshiba said. That why bother talking about aikido if I did not care. Well, I am not talking about aikido. I'm talking about the single punch killing technique. I don't care if it's karate, aikido, or some other art. It is not a discussion on what some aikido master thinks can be done. It is what is possible to teach the majority of the practitioners in a reasonable time with reasonable success rate. Something you failed to grasp in my later comments. You are still stuck on seeing what you want to see in my comments, and not what I am saying. And you fail to address my questions and points.

But, because I'm bored. I will ask them directly.

In order for a technique to be feasible, what percentage chance would you expect in its success rate when performed by a skilled practitioner?

Do you think a one punch kill against a fully resisting attacker has this high of a success rate?

How many people in the world have the skill required to perform this technique with a success rate that makes it dangerous?

You talk about basics, and state that an aikido basic is killing in one blow. I guess I was never taught the basics. In bjj I was taught the basics, and we drill them every single day. I have NEVER ONCE drilled killing in one blow in any aikido class. Not very basic to me.

Finally, your rebuttal to my sport/budo argument is flawed. Being 'unrestricted' is not going to make low percentage techniques suddenly work more often. You arguement would work if we were talking about eye gouges, but not when we are talking about a technique that could indeed be used in a sport like mma. A one punch knock out could be trained and used if it was posssible. There are no rules against it.

So I guess I was wrong, I did have a few things to say. But I still think you are picking apart my comments to look for things that fit your view of me, rather then debating what I am saying.

In any case, this conversation holds no more value for me. My view was not changed, I gained no new information that helped me with my insights, opinions, viewpoints, deeper understand of myself, why I train, or what I want for my training. So my time can be better spent doing something else. Unless you have something that directly addresses my points, or has some value to me, I will not bother craping on this threads parade anymore.

DonMagee
11-06-2007, 09:04 AM
Thanks David and William P for articulating my feelings exactly to Don MaGee and bringing this discussion full circle...

"In Aikido the fight is over at the moment of contact." Shoji Nishio Shihan

Which David expresses as "In real life, the attacker comes unexpectedly, but very likely with no knowledge of whom he is attacking. The budo man is not limited to any particular technique or to any particular space. The training is to respond in an instant, from "unexpected" to ending the fight in a split second."

I have spent almost 20 years in our Aikido Practice to match this ideal.

William Hazen

One more thing.

Ueshiba and others may have said this. But this does not mean a single technique. In fact, the quote by ueshiba seems to imply a lot more before the killing blow. Perhaps to disable, severely injure, etc. The quote in question no longer seems to me to imply one punch one kill, but rather that the attacker has lost for being the attacker, and will be defeated by the end of it.

Of course this is another spiritual belief.

gdandscompserv
11-06-2007, 10:36 AM
Seems to me O-sensei said and did many things us mere mortals probably aren't capable of, killing with one blow included.

David Orange
11-06-2007, 11:12 AM
Finally, you commented on me saying that I do not care what ueshiba said. That why bother talking about aikido if I did not care. Well, I am not talking about aikido. I'm talking about the single punch killing technique.

Well, this is a thread about "aikido is 99% strikes..." and my comment is strictly about Ueshiba's statement that aikido kills the attacker with a single blow. I have trained in karate and jujutsu as well, but I'm not commenting on those art or on "the death touch," but on aikido's method of killing with one blow, which is achieved by aikido methods--in particular, irimi.

It is what is possible to teach the majority of the practitioners in a reasonable time with reasonable success rate.

I don't agree with that. I'm not sure that any art can be taught at all to "the majority of practitioners." Which explains why aikido is generally at such a low level in most places that claim to teach it. It tries to be something that really can be taught to everyone when it really is not, for various reasons.

In order for a technique to be feasible, what percentage chance would you expect in its success rate when performed by a skilled practitioner?

Since we're talking about 'art' and not about science, you shouldn't expect terribly precise quantifications, but I will say 'almost always' when performed by a skilled practitioner.

Do you think a one punch kill against a fully resisting attacker has this high of a success rate?

Yes, when delivered by a highly skilled practitioner: one who understands what the technique is, how it works and who has dedicated himself to applying it reliably against many different kinds of attacks from many different kinds of attackers. That's very serious work that most people won't do, so the number of people who could be considered "highly skilled pratitioners" would be a very low number. But only the highly skilled practitioners are the real "artists" of an art. The rest could take up Bob Ross painting and be satisfied that they are artists, too.

How many people in the world have the skill required to perform this technique with a success rate that makes it dangerous?

The same number who do "real aikido."

You talk about basics, and state that an aikido basic is killing in one blow. I guess I was never taught the basics. ...I have NEVER ONCE drilled killing in one blow in any aikido class. Not very basic to me.

If aikido comes from the sword and the art of the sword is to kill with one stroke, then the place where aikido emerges from the sword is at that killing stroke. And that is the true basic of the art, though you won't find it in any kihon waza that I'm familiar with. Nonetheless, it's the foundation of the art.

Don't you see that aikido is taught backwards? It takes a long time to understand it because they teach it from ura to omote.

Another way to look at it would be to say that modern aikido teaches you all the blossoms on the cherry tree--but the truth is at the root and when you have the root, the blossoms come naturally. But modern teaching covers all the flowers, then all the twigs, then the branches, then the trunk and very few people follow that all the way to the root.

Maybe it's better that it is taught that way.

Finally, your rebuttal to my sport/budo argument is flawed. Being 'unrestricted' is not going to make low percentage techniques suddenly work more often. You arguement would work if we were talking about eye gouges, but not when we are talking about a technique that could indeed be used in a sport like mma. A one punch knock out could be trained and used if it was posssible. There are no rules against it.

Who said anything about knock outs? We're talking about a technique that causes irreparable damage and kills. There is no way to apply it "halfway" and "just knock out the opponent." It's all or nothing. That's why we spend almost all the time focusing on safe techniques. The method Ueshiba described is therefore not suitable for sport application. Sport is to fight. Aikido is to stop the fight at the very first instant. There is no way it can be reconciled with sport.

I still think you are picking apart my comments to look for things that fit your view of me, rather then debating what I am saying.

I don't have any view of you. And I'm only debating what I know.

In any case, this conversation holds no more value for me. My view was not changed, I gained no new information that helped me with my insights, opinions, viewpoints, deeper understand of myself, why I train, or what I want for my training. So my time can be better spent doing something else.

Sounds like a good idea.

Unless you have something that directly addresses my points, or has some value to me...

I probably don't.

Best to you.

David

David Orange
11-06-2007, 11:18 AM
Ueshiba and others may have said this. But this does not mean a single technique. In fact, the quote by ueshiba seems to imply a lot more before the killing blow. Perhaps to disable, severely injure, etc. The quote in question no longer seems to me to imply one punch one kill...

I don't know how you get those ideas from this:

" in aikido, the opponent is killed with a single blow. It's false if the attacker is thrown, leisurely stands up, and attacks again."

In fact, the strike occurs in the first instant of the attack, just as if both sides are using swords. There is no jockeying around, no twisting into position. It occurs as the opponent makes his first and only attack and it's all over.

Best to you.

David

Aikibu
11-06-2007, 11:49 AM
In any case, this conversation holds no more value for me. My view was not changed, I gained no new information that helped me with my insights, opinions, viewpoints, deeper understand of myself, why I train, or what I want for my training. So my time can be better spent doing something else. Unless you have something that directly addresses my points, or has some value to me, I will not bother craping on this threads parade anymore.

"There is a principle which is a bar against all information,which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance-That principle is contempt prior to investigation." Herbert Spencer

I am able to move freely around, train, and enjoy all Martial Arts have to offer, MMA, Japanese, Chinese, Korean and the like. Here's to hoping you can do the same some day. :)

William Hazen

Will Prusner
11-06-2007, 12:59 PM
I am able to move freely around, train, and enjoy all Martial Arts have to offer, MMA, Japanese, Chinese, Korean and the like.

Man, that's refreshing! See, this is what I like to hear.

Reminds me of that saying:

"The human mind is like a parachute, It works best when fully open."

DonMagee
11-06-2007, 02:59 PM
I don't know how you get those ideas from this:

" in aikido, the opponent is killed with a single blow. It's false if the attacker is thrown, leisurely stands up, and attacks again."

In fact, the strike occurs in the first instant of the attack, just as if both sides are using swords. There is no jockeying around, no twisting into position. It occurs as the opponent makes his first and only attack and it's all over.

Best to you.

David

A lofty goal indeed. I notice we are again talking about a mystical death touch. For a man to have this would make him god. I'm sorry, that is a pipe dream. Not even jedi have that kind of power.

William Hazen, I too move around a train in many arts with no issues, as long as they are not spouting crap.

What is being presented here is no different then the arguments made by people trying to convert me to a religion. Pure faith, nothing more. Perhaps the goals are bigger then the reality of it. Anyways, I'm out.

David Orange
11-06-2007, 03:15 PM
A lofty goal indeed. I notice we are again talking about a mystical death touch. For a man to have this would make him god. I'm sorry, that is a pipe dream. Not even jedi have that kind of power.

Don, you should have quit when you were ahead. Maybe you should try once more and avoid tossing insults as you leave.

As I said, it has nothing to do with a "death touch". Your concept of what would make a "god" is pretty low. Why would a god have to touch you or strike you? A god could make you hit yourself or choke yourself to death. But they say, "Whom the gods would destroy, they first make proud."

Anyway, Ueshiba said that's the essence of the art. Why would you be involved with an art when you think the founder of that art was delusional?

But it's not just Ueshiba. Here's what Takuma Hisa said about the creator of aikijujutsu:

http://www.aikidojournal.com/article?articleID=497

"Shinra Saburo Yoshimitsu...studied and researched the techniques handed down in his family in more detail. He dissected corpses brought back from wars in order to explore human anatomy and mastered a decisive counter-technique as well as discovering lethal atemi. Yoshimitsu then mastered a technique for killing with a single blow. Through such great efforts, he mastered the essence of aiki and discovered the secret techniques of Aiki Budo."

It's at the heart of aiki, Don. It takes severe and austere training, but that's why we call aikido a "budo" and not a sport. You have to appreciate what the samurai and those who learned directly from them were like and how they lived. They weren't gods, but they didn't sit around watching TV and consuming mass quantities. It's hard for anyone from this modern culture to begin to grasp their way of living.

And without that, you can never understand their strategy or the power they cultivated.

David

Demetrio Cereijo
11-06-2007, 03:36 PM
A lofty goal indeed. I notice we are again talking about a mystical death touch. For a man to have this would make him god. I'm sorry, that is a pipe dream. Not even jedi have that kind of power.

Was Mas Oyama a jedi?

Taunting Oyama, the troublemaker made continuous slashing movements through the air in front of Oyama's face with the knife then lunged towards Oyama. Oyama blocked the attack and delivered a forceful punch to the head of the assailant, killing him instantly. Because of eyewitness accounts of the incident, Oyama was ruled by the courts as justified in using self-defense.
http://www.shuriway.co.uk/masoyama.html

Aikibu
11-06-2007, 03:40 PM
A lofty goal indeed. I notice we are again talking about a mystical death touch. For a man to have this would make him god. I'm sorry, that is a pipe dream. Not even jedi have that kind of power.

William Hazen, I too move around a train in many arts with no issues, as long as they are not spouting crap.

What is being presented here is no different then the arguments made by people trying to convert me to a religion. Pure faith, nothing more. Perhaps the goals are bigger then the reality of it. Anyways, I'm out.

I refer you once again to Herbert Spencers quote in my previous post...No one here has tried to convert you... We were just kind enough to put up with the chatter of your Monkey Mind.LOL :)

If you have not linked yourself to true emptiness you will never understand The Art of Peace. O'Sensei

Bowing down to you Don. I bid you safe travel up the mountain.

William Hazen

David Orange
11-06-2007, 04:10 PM
Was Mas Oyama a jedi?

Don't think so, ne?

Also, I wouldn't call his method a "death touch," exactly.

And I don't think he would have had any trouble reproducing that effect time after time.

Best to you.

David

Demetrio Cereijo
11-06-2007, 04:42 PM
Don, "Death touch" is not the same as "killing blow". If i can notice the difference, whith my poor english skills, why you can't?

Aikibu
11-06-2007, 07:07 PM
Mas Oyama Shihan is a close to a God in Karate. Thanks for linking to the article. All the years I spent in Karate were to develop this kind of power. I have old tapes of him demonstrating his powerful strikes somewhere in the garage.

William Hazen

P.S For you You Tubers he's all over it.

David Orange
11-06-2007, 08:00 PM
Mas Oyama Shihan is a close to a God in Karate.

So much so that he was sometimes called Godhand.

Funny thing, though: he trained in daito ryu under Kotaro Yoshida, who, I believe, introduced Morihei Ueshiba to Sokaku Takeda. So maybe he actually used an aiki technique to dispatch the yakuza, and not karate????

Also, Yoshida (I think it was he) was said to have killed a bear, but, of course, he used an iron fan....

David

gdandscompserv
11-06-2007, 08:43 PM
Also, Yoshida (I think it was he) was said to have killed a bear, but, of course, he used an iron fan....
And I'll bet it wasn't a grizzly.

David Orange
11-06-2007, 09:18 PM
And I'll bet it wasn't a grizzly.

OK, you force me to tell it.

According to Richard Kim, this aiki master got drunk one night and had to walk home over the mountain. The next morning, when he woke up, he suddenly remembered being attacked by a very big guy who grabbed him from behind, wearing a fur coat and stinking like he couldn't believe. The master slipped out of the rear grab as he whipped his iron fan out of his belt and struck the attacker with it. And that was it. He went on home.

But when he woke up and remembered this, he suddenly felt very bad and wondered if he had hurt the guy. So he went back over the mountain and in the appropriate place, he found not a man, but a bear. I guess it was a brown bear. Whatever they have in Japan. Just as friendly as ours, I'm sure...

Anyway, that's the story and I think it was Kotaro Yoshida he mentioned as the man.

By the way, you are familiar with the story about Oyama and the yakuza, aren't you?

Best to you.

David

gdandscompserv
11-06-2007, 09:42 PM
OK, you force me to tell it.

According to Richard Kim, this aiki master got drunk one night and had to walk home over the mountain. The next morning, when he woke up, he suddenly remembered being attacked by a very big guy who grabbed him from behind, wearing a fur coat and stinking like he couldn't believe. The master slipped out of the rear grab as he whipped his iron fan out of his belt and struck the attacker with it. And that was it. He went on home.

But when he woke up and remembered this, he suddenly felt very bad and wondered if he had hurt the guy. So he went back over the mountain and in the appropriate place, he found not a man, but a bear. I guess it was a brown bear. Whatever they have in Japan. Just as friendly as ours, I'm sure...

Anyway, that's the story and I think it was Kotaro Yoshida he mentioned as the man.

By the way, you are familiar with the story about Oyama and the yakuza, aren't you?

Best to you.

David
Sounds like some of the tall tales the American mountain men used to tell.

David Orange
11-06-2007, 09:51 PM
Sounds like some of the tall tales the American mountain men used to tell.

I'll give you the bear story...but the Oyama story had witnesses, police investigation, etc.

dps
11-06-2007, 10:22 PM
I think you guys need to reread the article.

http://www.aikidojournal.com/index?id=1239

"The master understands that the most difficult part of effective self-defense is to find that opening, whether because of a mistake on the part of the attacker, or by creating an opening through techinique or strategy."

"The difficult part is finding or creating the opening, not the strike itself."

David

Aikibu
11-07-2007, 12:27 AM
So much so that he was sometimes called Godhand.

Funny thing, though: he trained in daito ryu under Kotaro Yoshida, who, I believe, introduced Morihei Ueshiba to Sokaku Takeda. So maybe he actually used an aiki technique to dispatch the yakuza, and not karate????

Also, Yoshida (I think it was he) was said to have killed a bear, but, of course, he used an iron fan....

David

You have snatched the pebble from my hand...LOL

A++ on the pop quiz :) Oyama Shihan was called Godhand and for good reasons...

William Hazen

eyrie
11-07-2007, 03:50 AM
I think you guys need to reread the article.

http://www.aikidojournal.com/index?id=1239

"The master understands that the most difficult part of effective self-defense is to find that opening, whether because of a mistake on the part of the attacker, or by creating an opening through techinique or strategy."

"The difficult part is finding or creating the opening, not the strike itself."

David That's what I said too, waaaaay back in post #3. :D

David Orange
11-07-2007, 09:58 AM
You have snatched the pebble from my hand...LOL

A++ on the pop quiz :) Oyama Shihan was called Godhand and for good reasons...


Masutatsu Oyama used to come to Birmingham, Alabama, where he had a good group. Parts of his "Strongest Karate" movies were made in Birmingham. He had two major students here, Paul Couch and Ron Epstein, who used to train with him in Atlanta. Oyama started coming here because of them.

Along with some others, including a guy who used to teach them, Couch and Epstein hosted Bruce Lee in his Green Hornet days, Chuck Norris, and, I think, Joe Lewis when they were champions. Because of Couch and Epstein's dedication, Oyama Shihan sent one of his top students, Yasuhiku Oyama (not directly related to Mas Oyama), to run a dojo here, which has stood on the same spot in Homewood since about 1973. I believe Y. Oyama (brother of Shigeru Oyama) won third place in one of the World knock-down, knock-out kumite competitions in Tokyo before he came here. He's very well-known internationally. He and Shigeru (sama) broke away from Kyokushin a long, long time ago and founded World Oyama Karate.

My early karate training was with Paul Couch, who was a former Marine and, at that time, a Jefferson County Sheriff's deputy. He was a training sergeant in the Marine reserves and once was listed as the oldest gunnery sergeant in the Marine Corps.

Epstein employed me for a few years in a warehouse he had and took a few opportunities to show me some karate. He showed me just the surface form of how he liked to fight in kumite, using his hips to drive uppercuts. He barely touched me but I felt incredible force going through my body and coming out my back. It was pretty scary. I can only imagine what Mas Oyama was capable of.

Best to you.

David

David Orange
11-07-2007, 10:03 AM
"The difficult part is finding or creating the opening, not the strike itself."


I agree, basically, except that whatever technique the attacker uses creates its own openings. The nature of aiki is to adhere to and follow the ura of the attacker's kiai technique. Following that leads to the opportunity to strike in time with the attack as the two people move toward one another at high speed (irimi), multiplying the power of nage's strike, which the attacker "runs into."

The reason few people understand that is that we move right past the opportunity to strike and instead do some kind of throw. But the
"single blow" would be delivered in that first split second of the attacker's movement, rather than leading him into a throw.

Knowing that, and entering that way, the throws and joint locks become relatively easy, compared to not knowing it and thinking that the leading, traps, locks and throws are the essence of the art.

Best wishes.

David

Aikibu
11-07-2007, 11:56 AM
I agree, basically, except that whatever technique the attacker uses creates its own openings. The nature of aiki is to adhere to and follow the ura of the attacker's kiai technique. Following that leads to the opportunity to strike in time with the attack as the two people move toward one another at high speed (irimi), multiplying the power of nage's strike, which the attacker "runs into."

Hikitsuchi Sensei Demostrates a perfect example of this principle in another thread. Nishio Shihan often emulated Hikisuchi Sensei's Aikido Philosophy

http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13518

The reason few people understand that is that we move right past the opportunity to strike and instead do some kind of throw. But the
"single blow" would be delivered in that first split second of the attacker's movement, rather than leading him into a throw.

Knowing that, and entering that way, the throws and joint locks become relatively easy, compared to not knowing it and thinking that the leading, traps, locks and throws are the essence of the art.

I could not have said this any better. Sadly some Aikido practicioners ( and as a few outside observers have noted rather enthusiastically) have degraded thier practice into nothing more than "wrist grabbing" In our view any practice that removes Budo/Striking aspect from a 'technique" is nothing more than a dance...A technique only unfolds AFTER Irimi/Atemi and if your mind is focused on any technique a good uke will see this and counter/strike first. I spent last night in class helping folks open thier practice up and not narrow thier focus to avoiding/grabbing my fist/wrist or looking me in the eye... but to try and practice "whole being Irimi" much like Hikisuchi Shihan discusses in the video clips.

We all have a loooong way to go but I am still very stoked to be on this path. LOL

Good to see this thread coming back around. :)

William Hazen

Mattias Bengtsson
11-07-2007, 05:34 PM
Just recently watched a documentary on martial arts. This was on Krav Maga.
Don't recall the instructors name, only that he is/was one of the senior instructors (looked about 60-70) for the israeli special forces and he did use terms like "kill in one hit" with a straight face, and when he was demonstrating the techniques I certainly didn't feel that it was empty boasts.

Was kinda funny to see the hosts of the show get totally owned by someone attacking them with a rubber knife. For all their experience in the ring, on the street they would've died. (they did get bettar in the end of the show after getting some instructions in how to better defend themselves though)

And I think that it is important to understand that, like Krav Maga, Aikido is not for the ring, but is Budo, it is for the battlefield.
Maybe thats why we are more open to the possibility that there are techniques that are downright lethal, whereas someone with a background in a Sports Martial arts, are less believing.

I guess theres the reason why Ueshiba decided that Aikido shouldnt be used for sports, as it would "dumb down" the art and remove the "true techniques?"

dps
11-09-2007, 03:56 AM
"One of my teachers has taught me that you enter the do through the vehicle of the jutsu. In other (my) words, one uses the perfecting of killing techniques to progress along the way of perfecting one's life. There's danger, in my opinion, in striving too directly for spiritual enlightenment, without the tempering of striking to kill and being struck at to be killed (even when the blows are stopped just short of the target). It is often far too easy in these situations for the movements to lose their inherent "truth" as valid fighting techniques and to degenerate into little more than a choreographed dance sequence. Learning to give and receive the combative intention is vital. Yet, there's equal danger in concentrating merely on learning to disable and kill without transforming the techniques into a confrontation with the soul."

The Meaning of the Martial Arts: Some Reflections Along the Way
by Diane Skoss

http://www.koryu.com/library/dskoss6.html

David

philippe willaume
11-09-2007, 07:17 AM
Hello

Not to be a party pooper, but really, is that not the essence of all fighting.
That is why all the fencing manuscript are as much about time and distance, true place, Vor&Narch and so on that they are about actual techniques.
You will find that is hoplistic literature across Europe from the 14th to modern days.

Is it not like saying that the essence of fencing is staying alive while cutting our opponent down?

You can describe anything from tai chi to mma that will remain true. And so it should be. It is just stating the strategy and a very generic tactics of fighting.

The way you gain the “true place” (I the place where you can deliver a technique and where the choice of technique does not mater) is only achieved by a set of specific techniques, which will be different according to a given art set of tactical tenants.

In my opinion the real difficulty is in how to get to that true place safely.

I do not really agree with MMA tactical tenants (which are very valid given the context in which MMA happens) but MMA is a fantastic way to train and to experiment how to get to that “true place”.

Phil.

Joseph Tutton
11-12-2007, 10:43 PM
The article was excellent, but I think it misses the point.

Humans are easy to kill, if one strikes the right places, though it is difficult to bring one's self to kill. It is easier to kill in a suicide attack, while it is more difficult to kill without one's self being killed.

What if one's Lord orders one to bring a prisoner back alive? I believe this is the origin of the art.

The capability of killing the opponent definitely gives the confidence necessary to execute technique, but the goal is not the mere opening of a line of attack, but rather the subduing of the opponent without having to kill him. If one must commit seppuku because one has killed the prisoner ...

gregg block
11-17-2007, 09:05 AM
99% Hog-Wash 1% ARE YOU KIDDING ME

David Orange
11-17-2007, 09:12 AM
99% Hog-Wash 1% ARE YOU KIDDING ME

Earlier in this thread, I got involved in a discussion that might be more appropriately labeled "aikido is 99% strikes and 1% locks, throws and holds". My point was that the reality of aikido technique is atemi, while throws, holds and locks are the surface appearance, that those techniques are made possible by the positioning and timing used to get into position for atemi.

The truth is, you can't deliver a deadly blow without being in perfect position with perfect timing, so I guess the title of this thread is really not very accurate: "Aikido is 99% strikes and only 1% preparation".

In fact, as budo, aikido is almost 100% preparation and maybe a tenth of a hundredth of a percent of anything else.

Best to you.

David

Aikibu
11-17-2007, 10:15 AM
99% Hog-Wash 1% ARE YOU KIDDING ME

Yawn...Maybe you'll back up your opinion with a rational discourse on the subject...

William Hazen

mathewjgano
11-17-2007, 10:25 AM
99% Hog-Wash 1% ARE YOU KIDDING ME

How so?

dps
11-17-2007, 10:28 AM
From the article:

http://www.aikidojournal.com/index?id=1239

"Similarly, 99% of your time has been spent practicing or preparing yourself to create a response to that one fraction of a second where all truth lies - the strike. Yet you did not spend much time on the strike itself; it came when it was needed with little effort. The effort was was expended on the preparation, the ‘readying.' The more evolved one becomes, the more evident it becomes that the strike may not be needed. Yet for the master of Aikido, this is a freely chosen decision. Aikido students who speak so proudly of their art as ‘nonviolent' and ‘peaceful' are actually referring to the mind of a very highly evolved master who has the internal confidence to nonviolently maintain control of the external influences despite the level of danger. The irony often lost on those students is that this confidence is a result of having the capability of ending the threat at any moment with one strike. It is the capability to destroy the threat that grants the Aikido master the luxury of saving the enemy's life. He may simply ‘show' the enemy his opening without necessarily exploiting it. This is a highly evolved level of any martial art which takes years of practice and practical experience. The beginners who claim they are practicing this are, frankly, talking over their heads. A proper sensei teaches the spiritual factors but also the physical realities. He or she gives you not merely an art of striking, but an art of living freely.

"Let me say it again: Aikido is 99% strikes and only 1% preparation. We give 99% of our time to 1% of the art so that there is no inhibition, no hesitation when the essence of time approaches. We are fully prepared. Thus, we are the masters of our own fate."

David

gregg block
11-17-2007, 12:03 PM
Yawn...Maybe you'll back up your opinion with a rational discourse on the subject...

William Hazen

Only since you asked so nicely. The article as I understand it says that the practice of AIkido spends (or should spend) 99% of its time practicing the 1% of Budo which is essentially finding the opening. While I recognize the importance of finding openings this philosophy is like telling a boxer to spend 99% of his time practicing foot work and fainting while only 1% of the time learning punching. Uppercuts, hooks, leads, jabs..ect.

The footwork, fainting , entering or whatever else you want to call it goes together with the strike. The strike frequently creates the opening, this holy grail the author so desperately seeks.

There are dozens of different kinds of strikes each with its own concerns. hand position(or foot position for that matter), area that makes contact ect. Punches where mentioned and even a punch needs to be delivered correctly if you don't want broken knuckles.
I also love the talk of hitting vital areas as if every such strike is a killing blow and its so easy to do. Aside from a hard strike to the throat do you really think you are going to kill a strong athletic person with one strike. Not saying it couldn't happen but you would need to practice striking far more than 1% of the time to develop such acuracy and power. An upward strike to the solar plexus is much more dangerous than a straight on strike to the same area. Do you think this kind of strike is learned without practice. At a high speed of combat just hitting the solar plexus can be hard enough.
Creating openings is very important but the importance of learning to stike properly is equally important. I spent 20 years in "hard style" striking arts before I came to Aikido. A lot of individuals who join Aikido come from another style initially where they learned there striking skills. Maybe this article takes this as a given and if so I can see the focus on creating openings(though still not 99% of the time) . But if you start in Aikido with no striking background some time needs to be spent learning at least some basic striking philosopy/techniques to make sure your strike doesnt cause more damage to yourself than your attacker!
Hope I didn't bore you futher. YAWN!

Aikibu
11-17-2007, 12:53 PM
Only since you asked so nicely. The article as I understand it says that the practice of AIkido spends (or should spend) 99% of its time practicing the 1% of Budo which is essentially finding the opening. While I recognize the importance of finding openings this philosophy is like telling a boxer to spend 99% of his time practicing foot work and fainting while only 1% of the time learning punching. Uppercuts, hooks, leads, jabs..ect.

The footwork, fainting , entering or whatever else you want to call it goes together with the strike. The strike frequently creates the opening, this holy grail the author so desperately seeks.

There are dozens of different kinds of strikes each with its own concerns. hand position(or foot position for that matter), area that makes contact ect. Punches where mentioned and even a punch needs to be delivered correctly if you don't want broken knuckles.
I also love the talk of hitting vital areas as if every such strike is a killing blow and its so easy to do. Aside from a hard strike to the throat do you really think you are going to kill a strong athletic person with one strike. Not saying it couldn't happen but you would need to practice striking far more than 1% of the time to develop such acuracy and power. An upward strike to the solar plexus is much more dangerous than a straight on strike to the same area. Do you think this kind of strike is learned without practice. At a high speed of combat just hitting the solar plexus can be hard enough.
Creating openings is very important but the importance of learning to stike properly is equally important. I spent 20 years in "hard style" striking arts before I came to Aikido. A lot of individuals who join Aikido come from another style initially where they learned there striking skills. Maybe this article takes this as a given and if so I can see the focus on creating openings(though still not 99% of the time) . But if you start in Aikido with no striking background some time needs to be spent learning at least some basic striking philosopy/techniques to make sure your strike doesnt cause more damage to yourself than your attacker!
Hope I didn't bore you futher. YAWN!

This does not bore me at all and pretty much goes along with what I believe....I think the article does take it as a givin you know how to strike....

I just wanted you to explain your reasons I enjoy the diversity of experiance here. :)

William Hazen

gregg block
11-17-2007, 01:12 PM
This does not bore me at all and pretty much goes along with what I believe....I think the article does take it as a givin you know how to strike....

I just wanted you to explain your reasons I enjoy the diversity of experiance here. :)

William Hazen

I too enjoy the diversity of experience here.
I don't take it as a given that individuals know how to strike, because I have seen far too many who don't. I don't know if you have had similar observations. Thank you for your time

dps
11-17-2007, 01:13 PM
"In Aikido the goal is always the strike; however, the key is to find the proper opening.

In Aikido, one punch, metsubishi, a death-dealing blow, is the reality!"

What the author is saying is that the goal is to immobilize your attacker with Aikido, only after the attacker is immobilized so that he can no longer attack or defend himself, then you deliver the final stike. Atemi is used during the application of the Aikido technique to help immobilize him. Only after he can not move do you deliver metsubishi. No sparring, no boxing, no moving about.

David

gregg block
11-17-2007, 01:41 PM
"In Aikido the goal is always the strike; however, the key is to find the proper opening.

Only after he can not move do you deliver metsubishi. David

I thought after he can not move you were supose to deliver mercy.
Your way gets you jail time, my way could make a friend. It's a choice

dps
11-17-2007, 03:13 PM
I thought after he can not move you were supose to deliver mercy.

Again from the article:

"The more evolved one becomes, the more evident it becomes that the strike may not be needed. Yet for the master of Aikido, this is a freely chosen decision. Aikido students who speak so proudly of their art as ‘nonviolent' and ‘peaceful' are actually referring to the mind of a very highly evolved master who has the internal confidence to nonviolently maintain control of the external influences despite the level of danger. The irony often lost on those students is that this confidence is a result of having the capability of ending the threat at any moment with one strike. It is the capability to destroy the threat that grants the Aikido master the luxury of saving the enemy's life. He may simply ‘show' the enemy his opening without necessarily exploiting it. This is a highly evolved level of any martial art which takes years of practice and practical experience. The beginners who claim they are practicing this are, frankly, talking over their heads. A proper sensei teaches the spiritual factors but also the physical realities. He or she gives you not merely an art of striking, but an art of living freely."

David

dps
11-17-2007, 03:22 PM
I thought after he can not move you were supose to deliver mercy.


http://www.koryu.com/library/eamdur3.html

Setsuninto--Katsujinken
by Ellis Amdur

"Setsuninto (the sword that takes life) and katsujinken (the sword that gives life) are concepts which attempt to differentiate between the use of the sword for murderous ends as opposed to its use to protect people or to preserve the order of society.

These two phrases give rise to a variety of interpretations. At its most naive is the idea that, having power, one can choose to use it either to hurt others or lead them from evil paths. This is sometimes a fantasy of aikido devotees: that when attacked, the skillful practitioner, who could easily annihilate his or her attacker, moves in such a way that not only is the attack neutralized, but the attacker realizes the error of his ways and turns from violence. I call this naive because, even though it is sometimes possible, it presupposes that one's attacker will always be far inferior in skill, and even more unlikely, that being humbled and even shamed by one far superior, an attacker is likely to undergo a profound change of personality."



David

gregg block
11-17-2007, 05:49 PM
"
What the author is saying is that the goal is to immobilize your attacker with Aikido, only after the attacker is immobilized so that he can no longer attack or defend himself, then you deliver the final stike. . Only after he can not move do you deliver metsubishi. David

Should one ever get to the point of mastery that your attacker is immobilized so that he can no longer attack or defend himself show some mercy. The reality of life is once an attack is nuetralized it is best to " Get out of Doge" rather than deliving the metsubishi. Lets try to keep it real.

mathewjgano
11-17-2007, 06:25 PM
The article as I understand it says that the practice of AIkido spends (or should spend) 99% of its time practicing the 1% of Budo which is essentially finding the opening. While I recognize the importance of finding openings this philosophy is like telling a boxer to spend 99% of his time practicing foot work and fainting while only 1% of the time learning punching.
To me it seemed more like it would be akin to telling a boxer to practice learning when he or she can and can't use their available tools of self-defense 99% of the time and learning those various tools 1% of the time. It seemed to me like the matter of how one exploits some given opening was left as being of minimal importance, like it would sort out all by itself. On one hand, I can't disagree with the idea that this is possible. I've known more fighters who have never trained in "striking arts," but who can thow a punch good enough to knock most folks out (or close enough ot be called ok). They don't know "proper" form; but none of them that I know of have broken bones in their hands...and a few of them have scrapped it up a bit. You might say they followed the model of this article (assuming I'm remembering it well enough) and, learning as they went, looked for an opening to strike and the strike itself came mostly without any thought...it sort of presented itself.
On the other hand, I've also seen terrible strikes which were lucky to land on their targets or glanced off frivolously. I agree that people should train in how to strike, with their fists or otherwise. I remember one friend spraining his wrist slightly on my heavy bag because he had no real sense of what that feels like (he hit the very dense bottom of the bag too:uch: ). I don't know, maybe the speaker takes striking abilities for granted or maybe he equates all techniques through the simple word "strike." When I take "strike" to mean any technique, it makes more sense to me. I only have a hard time with the very specific percentages, but I assume they aren't meant to be taken too literally and are meant to point out the importance of having an opening through which to deliver some action: no opening; not even a perfectly thrown strike can land; no chance. An opening with a poorly thrown strike can still be enough to offer some chance of over-powering an attacker...heh...or really tick the person off.

dps
11-17-2007, 06:27 PM
Should one ever get to the point of mastery that your attacker is immobilized so that he can no longer attack or defend himself show some mercy. Exactly , part of the point of the article, you have that choice.

The reality of life is once an attack is nuetralized it is best to " Get out of Doge" rather than deliving the metsubishi. Lets try to keep it real.

Time to "Get out of Dodge" is before you get attacked ( maybe you should not be in Dodge).

David

gregg block
11-18-2007, 09:06 AM
Exactly , part of the point of the article, you have that choice.

Time to "Get out of Dodge" is before you get attacked ( maybe you should not be in Dodge).

David

Agreed

David Orange
11-19-2007, 12:36 PM
"In Aikido, one punch, metsubishi, a death-dealing blow, is the reality!"

First, metsubishi is not "a death-dealing blow" as I understand it, but a blinding technique (not necessarily permanent) like flicking your fingertips across his eyes to momentarily mess up his vision. I don't know where the association with a "death-dealing blow" came from.

Second, and more important is this statement:

[QUOTE=David Skaggs;194210]"What the author is saying is that the goal is to immobilize your attacker with Aikido, only after the attacker is immobilized so that he can no longer attack or defend himself, then you deliver the final stike...Only after he can not move do you deliver metsubishi.

Taken in that way, you're describing nothing less than murder. A fatal atemi (if one is capable of delivering it at all) could only justifiably be delivered at the instant the attacker attacks. Getting him off balance, tangled up, thrown down and held immobile, then delivering a deadly strike would hardly meet Ueshiba's description of killing the attacker with a single blow. It's neither true aikido nor true budo to continue injuring an attacker when he can no longer hurt you. If you must injure him, it must be as he attacks, but past a basic level of skill, it's no longer necessary to injure him but better all around to take him under control and spare his life and limbs. What goes around comes around.

Best wishes.

David

aikidoc
11-19-2007, 04:13 PM
Here is a sad but very recent example of one punch one kill. Two 17 year olds at a local high school got into an altercation last week. The one starting the fight threw a punch and the guy being attacked threw one back landing on the side of the head of the attacker. The attacker passed out and subsequently died apparently never regaining consciousness. One punch one kill by a 17 year old with apparently no martial arts back ground.

aikidoc
11-19-2007, 04:40 PM
By the way, I would think that if you strike someone after they have been immobilized it would constitute excessive force and you could be prosecuted.

eyrie
11-19-2007, 05:41 PM
Here is a sad but very recent example of one punch one kill. Two 17 year olds at a local high school got into an altercation last week. The one starting the fight threw a punch and the guy being attacked threw one back landing on the side of the head of the attacker. The attacker passed out and subsequently died apparently never regaining consciousness. One punch one kill by a 17 year old with apparently no martial arts back ground. John,

Do you have a link to the news item?

gregg block
11-19-2007, 06:12 PM
Here is a sad but very recent example of one punch one kill. Two 17 year olds at a local high school got into an altercation last week. The one starting the fight threw a punch and the guy being attacked threw one back landing on the side of the head of the attacker. The attacker passed out and subsequently died apparently never regaining consciousness. One punch one kill by a 17 year old with apparently no martial arts back ground.

It can and does happen. How sad for both kids and their families. How much more should we be aware of this possibility. With great skill comes greater responsibility! And yes sometimes this means walking away with your tail between your legs to avoid violence, which can be much more difficult .

dps
11-19-2007, 08:48 PM
[QUOTE=David Skaggs;194210]"In Aikido, one punch, metsubishi, a death-dealing blow, is the reality!"

I want it to be absolutely clear that I was quoting the person being quoted in the article( Shannon Kawika Phelps, 10th Dan Shorinjin Ryu Sait) and the above are not my words.

.David description of killing the attacker with a single blow. It's neither true aikido nor true budo to continue

Again, not my words but the person quoted in the article.

David

Ketsan
11-19-2007, 08:52 PM
[QUOTE=David Skaggs;194210]"In Aikido, one punch, metsubishi, a death-dealing blow, is the reality!"

First, metsubishi is not "a death-dealing blow" as I understand it, but a blinding technique (not necessarily permanent) like flicking your fingertips across his eyes to momentarily mess up his vision. I don't know where the association with a "death-dealing blow" came from.

Second, and more important is this statement:

Taken in that way, you're describing nothing less than murder. A fatal atemi (if one is capable of delivering it at all) could only justifiably be delivered at the instant the attacker attacks. Getting him off balance, tangled up, thrown down and held immobile, then delivering a deadly strike would hardly meet Ueshiba's description of killing the attacker with a single blow. It's neither true aikido nor true budo to continue injuring an attacker when he can no longer hurt you. If you must injure him, it must be as he attacks, but past a basic level of skill, it's no longer necessary to injure him but better all around to take him under control and spare his life and limbs. What goes around comes around.

Best wishes.

David

It's no longer immediately necessary but bringing someone under control isn't by any means the end of the situation. If he's as capable of killing you do you risk letting him go? If he has a friend do you finish him off and move on to his friend or do you allow the situation to return to a two on one confrontation?

Now yes you can call the police and sort it that way, but a martial art that is dependent on someone else saving you is a bit daft. A complete art is technically based around killing and educating the practitioner about when and when not to kill.

dps
11-19-2007, 09:12 PM
The choice to show mercy or no mercy, injury or no injury, life or death should not be made before the attack but after you have immobilized your attacker. For your Aikido to be 100% your commitment to your defense needs to be 100%. If you decide beforehand to always show mercy your commitment to your defense will not be 100%. It may be adequate 99% of the time but that 1% will get you hurt or killed.

I do not want parity with my attacker, I do not want to spar with my attacker. I want to scare the hell out of him with overwhelming force. That takes 100% commitment.

David

David Orange
11-20-2007, 09:57 AM
[QUOTE=Alex Lawrence;194323It's no longer immediately necessary but bringing someone under control isn't by any means the end of the situation. If he's as capable of killing you do you risk letting him go? If he has a friend do you finish him off and move on to his friend or do you allow the situation to return to a two on one confrontation?[/quote]

If that's the nature of the confrontation, that's the time to end it in the first instant--NOT take him under control. But having him "under control" means that he is subdued and you can let him go. Otherwise, he wasn't really under control. And multiple attackers is why aikido is "really" about ending the confrontation with one blow.

David

Will Prusner
11-20-2007, 10:43 AM
...bringing someone under control isn't by any means the end of the situation. If he's as capable of killing you do you risk letting him go? If he has a friend do you finish him off and move on to his friend or do you allow the situation to return to a two on one confrontation?

First off, outside control is an illusion we believe in so that we feel safe. The only worthwhile form of control is that of your own mind. Secondly, it is the aggression that needs to be controlled, not the person. Lastly, If you do not possess the ability to control the aggression and need to resort to controlling the person for a relatively long period of time (longer than you are willing to hang around) instead: Hojojutsu.

I want to scare the hell out of him with overwhelming force.

Scare him? What if he knows no fear? Then what?

aikidoc
11-20-2007, 11:00 AM
Ignatius, here is one of the links:

http://www.mywesttexas.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=19038797&BRD=2288&PAG=461&dept_id=475626&rfi=6

gdandscompserv
11-20-2007, 01:01 PM
Secondly, it is the aggression that needs to be controlled, not the person.
Guns don't kill people; people kill people.

Will Prusner
11-20-2007, 01:16 PM
Guns don't kill people; people kill people.

Right, and sometimes people use guns to kill people, but I must be missing the point. As far as I know, unless it's an accident, it generally stems from uncontrolled aggression.

gdandscompserv
11-20-2007, 01:51 PM
Right, and sometimes people use guns to kill people, but I must be missing the point. As far as I know, unless it's an accident, it generally stems from uncontrolled aggression.
Controlling another's emotion's is much more difficult than controlling their hands/feet/body.

Will Prusner
11-20-2007, 03:52 PM
Controlling another's emotion's is much more difficult than controlling their hands/feet/body.

I agree completely. I think we are misunderstanding each other slightly, and I think it is my fault for not expressing my thought thoroughly. I consider "controlling the person" akin to slavery or imprisonment. I believe people should have free choice, this is what I mean when I say that the "person" should not be controlled. I wasn't referring to the person's physical body, that of course, sometimes needs to be controlled as the body can be a tool for the physical manifestation of the person's aggression. But I don't believe aggression is purely an emotional condition either, it requires a balance of physical and emotional methods to control. Plus, aggresion is natural, so you wouldn't want to eradicate it even if you could (this would be, by my definition "controlling the person"), but sometimes it is neccesary to control it so that lasting damage is not caused by a temporary state of mind.

To injure an opponent is to injure yourself. To control aggression without inflicting injury is the Art of Peace.

eyrie
11-20-2007, 05:21 PM
Ignatius, here is one of the links:

http://www.mywesttexas.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=19038797&BRD=2288&PAG=461&dept_id=475626&rfi=6

Thanks John, from what I gathered from various news sources, the vic was knocked unconscious, fell back and hit his head on something. Various news reports seem to indicate that he had sustained a serious head injury. There is some suggestion that drugs were involved and suspicion that the vic was on drugs. Details are still sketchy.

As you know, any serious head injury can result in complications and fatality. Never mind if drugs were involved. Similar cases have occurred in the past - one incident which comes to mind in Australia - where a bouncer hit an unruly patron and knocked him to the pavement, which resulted in a head injury and instant fatality.

However, I think the discussion was centered on hitting the person and killing them where they stand - i.e. as it pertains to "one blow one kill". For example, a fatal strike to a vital point. To me, a subsequent head injury is a contributing factor to the "kill" and secondary to the hit.

Obviously, one hit KOs are possible in certain circumstances, and many arts, karate for example, have built-in redundancies, where a KO or a fatal strike to a vital point can be the result of 2 or more subsequent strikes.

aikidoc
11-20-2007, 05:58 PM
So far, it is not clear if he hit his head at least according to the local news. They are reporting it as one blow . The autopsy has not been completed. The father alluded to the possibility of the fight being over drugs but nothing has been shown yet as to if drugs were in his system. Always a lot of speculation in the media here on everything. As indicated, details are still sketchy. Obviously, if he hit his head and that was the killing blow then it would be two blows.

eyrie
11-20-2007, 07:09 PM
Sure... but the 2nd blow to the head would be accidental, as a result of the fall rather than intentionally inflicted, although it could have been reasonably anticipated. Guess we'll have to wait for the ME's findings either way.

When you used the example, I was under quite a different impression. My initial thought was a blow to somewhere other than the head, which caused a KO and subsequent death. That would have certainly lent credence to the "one hit one kill" theory. Damn... :p

aikidoc
11-20-2007, 08:15 PM
True. Depends on which blow killed him. However, I have always read that shots to the temple can kill you.

David Orange
11-20-2007, 09:39 PM
True. Depends on which blow killed him. However, I have always read that shots to the temple can kill you.

The death spots are those places your mother teaches you not to hit other children....

David

aikidoc
11-20-2007, 10:41 PM
Ignatius. Tonights paper said it was a single blow to the left side of the head. No reference was cited to any secondary head trauma but the autopsy will take a while and 6 weeks on a drug tox test.

eyrie
11-21-2007, 03:56 AM
IIRC, temples are listed as vital points. A shot at the right angle and depth can result in a fatality - probably due to the proximity of the temporal artery.

Dyryke
11-26-2007, 05:29 PM
Taken in that way, you're describing nothing less than murder. A fatal atemi (if one is capable of delivering it at all) could only justifiably be delivered at the instant the attacker attacks.

Probably true for a single attacker.

However, if you are up against multiple opponents, all intent upon doing you great bodily harm, and there is no reasonable chance of keeping that attacker pinned for the remainder of the encounter, it is likely to be justifiable to remove one combatant from causing you threat, by up to and including deadly force.

Laws in your states may vary, if by "justifiable" you mean "by law". If you mean "by morals", that's a whole new can o'worms. =)

Derek

David Orange
11-26-2007, 06:29 PM
Probably true for a single attacker.

I'd say for a single attacker, if it doesn't have to get deadly in the first instant, you're better not to get deadly at all.

However, if you are up against multiple opponents, all intent upon doing you great bodily harm, and there is no reasonable chance of keeping that attacker pinned for the remainder of the encounter, it is likely to be justifiable to remove one combatant from causing you threat, by up to and including deadly force.

If that's the case, I think it would be a bad idea ever to get into a pinning situation. With multiple attackers, you wouldn't want to waste any time or any effort. The deadliness of each attacker is multiplied by the number of attackers, so you would have to start out at an extremely dangerous level.

Laws in your states may vary, if by "justifiable" you mean "by law". If you mean "by morals", that's a whole new can o'worms. =)


Yes, it is.

Yes...it is.

David

Joseph Tutton
11-27-2007, 06:42 AM
"In Aikido the goal is always the strike; however, the key is to find the proper opening.

In Aikido, one punch, metsubishi, a death-dealing blow, is the reality!"

Well, that sounds alot more like Karate. Karate assumes that one does not have a sword. O-Sensei Ueshiba knew the sword. He could take it away from you children. I do not know what you are studying, but Ueshiba O-Sensei studied the Live Sword.

Budd
11-27-2007, 07:07 AM
I do not know what you are studying, but Ueshiba O-Sensei studied the Live Sword.

Is that a manga or something (the Live Sword) . . . like Naruto?

Joseph Tutton
11-27-2007, 07:11 AM
Shinken

Joseph Tutton
11-27-2007, 07:14 AM
A sharpened katana.

Demetrio Cereijo
11-27-2007, 07:17 AM
Shinken
Nope,
O sensei was more into Katsujinken.
;)

Joseph Tutton
11-27-2007, 07:19 AM
A bokken coming from the Void.

Budd
11-27-2007, 07:20 AM
So when Ueshiba said aikido is x% atemi, he meant cuts with a live sword shinken? That seems rather harsh to me . . . striking is rough enough, but sheesh . . .

Joseph Tutton
11-27-2007, 07:31 AM
Demetrio -- The Life giving Sword only exists when the Life taking Sword is extant. O-Sensei said that we must be strong to bring justice. If one cannot back up restraining techniques with force, they are worthless.

Budd
11-27-2007, 07:48 AM
Hmm . . . sounds like there may be room for striking (and other stuff as needed) after all . . . agree that you can't choose to be merciful unless you are strong enough to be forceful. It think that's part of what people are saying all along.

Of course, how exactly to train that . . . well . . . ;)

Joseph Tutton
11-27-2007, 07:53 AM
Budd -- "That seems rather harsh to me" -- O-Sensei grew up in a rather harsh environment. Tough love, baby. Toy swords make toy swordsmen.

SeiserL
11-27-2007, 07:53 AM
It was once pointed out to me that if I made my movements "as if" cutting (not striking) through I would generate more power. Seems to work.

Joseph Tutton
11-27-2007, 08:13 AM
Lynn Seiser -- That sounds in complete concert with Musashi.

Budd
11-27-2007, 08:17 AM
I think now we're back on "how" to train, rather than "what" to train.

Joseph, so you're saying "live sword training" is . . . ? How to train? What aikido is? Maybe you could speak to your experiences here . . . From my point of view, aikido is technically derived from Daito Ryu, which involves core body skills derived from weapon arts (and other "stuff" no doubt) and is expressed through literally thousands of techniques - though on it's own my understanding is that it is *not* a weapons system (some DR practitioner feel free to correct me).

Ueshiba pared back the technical syllabus greatly and there are ongoing discussions as to the degree the core body skills were transmitted. So, to that extent, yes, aikido is derived from the sword . . . but your criticism of others' arguments of comparing aikido to karate, etc. could equally be spun back onto you in aikido to kenjutsu -- they ain't the same animal anymore. Sure, they can inform each other and there are core similarities in that the body can only move so many ways correctly - but hardly interchangeable.

Lynn - I'd love to hear your perspective on some of the irimi-tenkan principles in entering, atemi, etc. as compared to your experiences in the Filipino martial arts. My experiences dabbling with FMA are that they are excellent at duelling, changeup exchanges (as expressed with weapons and empty hands - wonderful consistency there), but not really along the lines of the one-shot one-kill ideas being discussed in this thread (of course that may be differences in the weapon derivations - knife versus sword - though when the knife is a machete . . . ;) ).

Joseph Tutton
11-27-2007, 08:48 AM
Budd -- The point, I would think is obvious, is to disarm the sword-wielding opponent without killing him and without one's self being mortally injured. To take a prisoner to one's Lord, alive.

Budd
11-27-2007, 08:59 AM
Joseph - are you saying this is the point of why you train, or the point of why you think everyone trains or the point of what Ueshiba was all about, period, the end? I can buy the former, but the latter two seem quite arrogant and a bit narrow to me, unless I'm just not understanding you.

Ron Tisdale
11-27-2007, 09:00 AM
Sorry, but I really can't buy disarm the sword-wielding opponent without killing him and without one's self being mortally injured.

If the opponent is at all competent with a sword. Perhaps Kunii Zenya, Sogaku Takeda, and maybe Ueshiba M. were capable of that...but not too many others. And certainly not too many trained only in aikido. Just a bit hard to swallow.

It's one thing with a compliant uke trained in aikido attacks...introduce just a little varience and...watch out!

Best,
Ron

Budd
11-27-2007, 09:02 AM
Naruto can do it, too, I bet . . . he's pretty tough I hear . . . ;)

Demetrio Cereijo
11-27-2007, 09:02 AM
Demetrio -- The Life giving Sword only exists when the Life taking Sword is extant. O-Sensei said that we must be strong to bring justice. If one cannot back up restraining techniques with force, they are worthless.

We agree on that.

Lynn - I'd love to hear your perspective on some of the irimi-tenkan principles in entering, atemi, etc. as compared to your experiences in the Filipino martial arts. My experiences dabbling with FMA are that they are excellent at duelling, changeup exchanges (as expressed with weapons and empty hands - wonderful consistency there), but not really along the lines of the one-shot one-kill ideas being discussed in this thread (of course that may be differences in the weapon derivations - knife versus sword - though when the knife is a machete . . . ;) ).

And i'd like to read his BBM article about angles of attack, but i'm too timid to ask him to scan it and send via e-mail to the other side of the world.

Joseph Tutton
11-27-2007, 09:35 AM
Ron Tisdale -- Yeah, this is an issue that has come up on more than one occasion, as with Hapkido guys who would ask if I thought their master could take my sword away, and I would politely answer that I had not met their master, but statistically, it was very unlikely. Nonetheless, I believe the ultimate origins of Aikido is the taking of prisoners alive. Otherwise, what is the point? Strike and kill. Much easier.

Ron Tisdale
11-27-2007, 09:42 AM
Hmm, well...the point?

I wasn't there, so I hesitate to guess what the point was. I do recommend reading Stan Pranin's work on Sogaku Takeda, Ueshiba, and their early students, as well as Karl Friday's Legacies of the Sword for some context, though. Context is often everything. While remembering that our context is quite different from theirs.

I can say for me, the point is becoming...exactly what I don't know. :D But it has little to do with taking swords away, killing with one blow, or taking prisoners. Simply not called for in my daily life.

Best,
Ron

MM
11-27-2007, 10:14 AM
Hmmm ... the point.

Right now (and my viewpoints have changed with time), the point I see is one of two: Break/kill and pass-through.

Takeda emphasized break/kill in his training. It was called Daito ryu at the end. Ueshiba learned this and based his later training upon it.

Ueshiba took break/kill and added one more choice: pass-through. In other words, he allowed an option that did not necessarily end (although it still could) in someone being dropped at one's feet in a manner that provided breaking and/or killing him/her. The attack/attacker was rebounded, redirected, negated, etc to some other point. Passed through to somewhere else. (But Ueshiba couldn't arrive at that without the skills he learned from Takeda.)

Taking that to the here and now, the point is still about break/kill and pass-through. An attack comes and as students of Ueshiba, we train to allow uke to turn/roll/breakfall out of the attack. We offer the option of uke choosing to turn/roll/breakfall. If not, the other option is break/kill. But we can't let uke choose those options of pass-through until we get to the very point of break/kill.

Transferred to other venues: You have a fight with an SO. You are calm and centered and see two options in the very midst of the argument. The first option is to bring up some past mistake of the SO which not only takes the fight out of him/her, but also makes it feel like a knife struck them in the center of his/her soul. Fight over. with break/kill. The second option is to admit your part of the mistake, make an amend, turn his/her anger aside, and let it all pass-through.

Someone with a knife attacks. You adjust and control the knife hand. Break/kill means you drop them at your feet and wrist/elbow/shoulder are broken/dislocated or you deliver a finishing blow. Pass-through means that once you have the control, you allow them the option of "disarming" themselves. That means if they let go the knife and back off, you let them. If they attack anew and tweak/break their wrist, you let them. If their attack sends them to your feet, you let them, for you are at the point where you could break/kill, but you choose to redirect the energy elsewhere.

And yes, to stay on topic, it is at this point where one strike could kill. The real question in Aikido is does that one strike necessarily mean the physical one? :)

IMO,
Mark

Will Prusner
11-27-2007, 10:43 AM
But it has little to do with taking swords away, killing with one blow, or taking prisoners. Simply not called for in my daily life.

yeah, me neither, ever since the ninja's went back home it's been so quiet.

SeiserL
11-27-2007, 03:45 PM
I think now we're back on "how" to train, rather than "what" to train.

Lynn - I'd love to hear your perspective on some of the irimi-tenkan principles in entering, atemi, etc. as compared to your experiences in the Filipino martial arts. My experiences dabbling with FMA are that they are excellent at duelling, changeup exchanges (as expressed with weapons and empty hands - wonderful consistency there), but not really along the lines of the one-shot one-kill ideas being discussed in this thread (of course that may be differences in the weapon derivations - knife versus sword - though when the knife is a machete . . . ;) ).
I am much more into the conceptualization (how) behind the content (what), but the two are not really separate either. Its not an either/or thing.

While I did learn a lot of flowing multiple strikes (slice and dice), there was a lot of getting off the line, entering, getting that one slice or stab in, and out again too.

I'll see of I have the capacity to scan the old Black Belt article. Last I tried, it just didn't work.

Erick Mead
11-27-2007, 04:13 PM
A bokken coming from the Void.
You must have seen Seraphim Falls ...

Great movie. Best western made in the last ten years in my book.

Barring Firefly, of course.

Joseph Tutton
12-07-2007, 02:13 AM
Erick Mead -- No, I haven't seen "Seraphim Falls"., or "Firefly". I will watch them as soon as possible. I will hope that readers here will forgive me for pontificating about things that I can not honestly speak upon in the Aikido tradition. My opinions come only from my long study of Musashi, and how from my recent studies of Ueshiba O-Sensei where he seems to have understood what Musashi said. I believe, from my very limited studies, O-Sensei understood the Void, as did Musashi.and that he wished to help Musashi find peace, by continuing the path he was upon. Musashi began with Shinken, yet after his only defeat by the Jo, he found enlightenment with the stick that was found to hand. Ueshiba O-Sensei brought a spiritual way to us. But it was based on a radically martial way -- a way where the martial ways can bring peace. But I admit that I can only speak from a spiritual interpretation of physical laws. I speak only from what I have learned from Musashi directly, but my statements about what Ueshiba O-Sensei is about are only about Maitreya, which Joseph only acheives at death at the end of this life. Again, I hope no one here takes personal offense. "In time of peace, a gentlemen prepares for war." I believe we are in a time of war. May we find peace soon.

Kevin Leavitt
12-07-2007, 05:38 PM
figuratively and philosophically speaking we are at a time of war from the time we are conceived or born until the time that we die, or depending upon your belief system, until you return to whatever state of unconsciousness or "unbeing" that you believe in. (how's that for political correctness??? :))

Anyway, for many, the struggle to live and to reconcile yourself as a separate and distinct personality and being is what we are working with.

Aikido, Buddhism, any twelve step program...and all major religions have develop methodlogies, faiths, belief systems, bibles, practices, rituals, holidays to assist us with that struggle!

Mushashi and Ueshiba were two notable individuals that codified some aspects of it. I think they probably were on to something, and for many of us...we can identify and connect with them.

What they offer helps us not prepare for a war...but fight our own private war to understand...that is to live!

Joseph Tutton
12-08-2007, 10:43 PM
Kevin Leavitt -- Sir, thank you for your kind reply. Sometimes I say things without completely listening to (or reading) what has preceded in the conversation. And while I rarely say things that I do not mean, I too often say things that were best left unsaid, or had already been said better. As to "one strike, one kill", David Orange wrote here, "The death spots are those places your mother teaches you not to hit other children....". Mark Murray wrote of Takeda Sensei's emphasis on break/kill in his training, and how Ueshiba O-Sensei developed his teachings beyond there. And others said things I should have absorbed before being snide about the lack of sword understanding among those who have spent many years of their lives in the study of Aikido. Just today, I read George S. Ledyard's comment on the thread "Weapons forms vary" and learned that there is no systematic weapons curriculum at Aikikai Hombu Dojo. While this amazes me, it does make it clearer to me why my assumptions about Aikido sword disarms seem so strange to some posters. Beyond that, I would just say that my world view is not as dark as it might have sounded. The Void is not unconsciousness or unbeing -- it is very conscious, but there are no others there. It is true, as you say, that to reconcile ones self with being a distinct and separate individual in this world is what we have to deal with. Maitreya is the Buddha of the end of time. Ueshiba O-Sensei found this union. I, personally, am in no hurry to do so. Thank you, again, sir.

Jonshez
12-09-2007, 04:10 PM
Just to bring the thread somewhat back on track (some hope!).

My understanding of the article was that the percentages were not meant to be taken literally. Nor that striking was to be taken as the literal physical action.

My understanding was that the thing that defined Aikido (in his opinion) was the ability to choose what to do with your attacker. That ability to choose being the 99% The freedom to decide yourself rather than to be a victim of their choices.

I don't think he was suggesting that new aikidoka should be taught how to punch.

I'm very tired after watching Hatton v Mayweather so I'm probably not making myself clear!

Kevin Leavitt
12-09-2007, 05:45 PM
Jon,

I think you are on to the essence. It is all about Choice. aikido, IMO, is alot about choice. That is, expanding the gap between choice and non-choice.

Through practices such as aikido, we can begin to recognize that by becoming more skillful we have options that may not previously been apparent or available to us.

Many have pointed out in other threads that a pacifist is not one that does not use violence, but rather has the choice and the ability to use it, and chooses not to use it.

To me aikido boils down to stimulus and response. The gap in between stimulus and response is choice! that choice is what aikido is all about.

So, when we talk about 99% strikes and 1% preparation, I think, at least philosophically we are talking about just that. Being in the moment and having the ability to strike...always....but choosing other options because we have the skill to do so.