How does Aikido work?

[Please visit our sponsor:]

[AndyE]

I'm not sure that my title is really appropriate but I wanted to write this because it seems to me that there is a general misunderstanding of Aikido and how it is supposed to work as a martial art.

Firstly, we train in a very passive way - uke does something and tori reacts, executing a technique.

This is good because Aikido is not meant to start fights but respond to situations. Sure it needs to have energy but it doesn't need to start with tori being aggressive.

However, it does leave those of us who haven't learnt any ju jitsu in a position of not understanding how a grappling art works.

For instance, much is made of the fact that it's not actually easy to catch a good right cross, still less a good jab. However, no martial art has a devastating response to a jab or right cross (unless you're holding a sword of course) so why does anyone look for that in Aikido?

And at the same time ju jitsu and bjj have answers to a striking opponent - close distance, clinch, throw and submit.

Now in Aikido we don't go to ground so where does that leave us?

Well to me we can enter whether or not the opponent has thrown a punch simply by virtue of the fact that they have hands up in a guard. Cut outside the guard, take the arm and execute a technique. I know it's not a really easy thing to do and it obviously involves avoiding any jabs but surely this is what we are actually practicing. Once we're close, cut and execute a technique.

What is this madness? Well I was confronted by a drunk amateur boxer once (who was boasting about a ring fight to a friend which is how I know). He put in a surprise right cross which I managed to roll my head with (lost my glasses though), cut to his left as he followed up with that arm, took his arm, threw him into the road and ran for it. Situation resolved. Also very happy with my reflex that day frankly!!

It's a grappling art and if someone has their hands up ready to punch they are giving you their arm so close for it.

And no it's not that easy for them to get off a devastating punch if you enter well. Bjj has shown how easy it is to close on a puncher/kicker and if the technique is executed well why wouldn't it work?

Anyway, I know it's a rather cheeky 1st post but that's my rant for the day on what I think Aikido is teaching and that we often forget it's a grappling art based on ju jitsu :-)

[DonMagee]

I'm not sure that my title is really appropriate but I wanted to write this because it seems to me that there is a general misunderstanding of Aikido and how it is supposed to work as a martial art.

Firstly, we train in a very passive way - uke does something and tori reacts, executing a technique.

This is good because Aikido is not meant to start fights but respond to situations. Sure it needs to have energy but it doesn't need to start with tori being aggressive.

However, it does leave those of us who haven't learnt any ju jitsu in a position of not understanding how a grappling art works.

For instance, much is made of the fact that it's not actually easy to catch a good right cross, still less a good jab. However, no martial art has a devastating response to a jab or right cross (unless you're holding a sword of course) so why does anyone look for that in Aikido?

And at the same time ju jitsu and bjj have answers to a striking opponent - close distance, clinch, throw and submit.

Now in Aikido we don't go to ground so where does that leave us?

Well to me we can enter whether or not the opponent has thrown a punch simply by virtue of the fact that they have hands up in a guard. Cut outside the guard, take the arm and execute a technique. I know it's not a really easy thing to do and it obviously involves avoiding any jabs but surely this is what we are actually practicing. Once we're close, cut and execute a technique.

What is this madness? Well I was confronted by a drunk amateur boxer once (who was boasting about a ring fight to a friend which is how I know). He put in a surprise right cross which I managed to roll my head with (lost my glasses though), cut to his left as he followed up with that arm, took his arm, threw him into the road and ran for it. Situation resolved. Also very happy with my reflex that day frankly!!

It's a grappling art and if someone has their hands up ready to punch they are giving you their arm so close for it.

And no it's not that easy for them to get off a devastating punch if you enter well. Bjj has shown how easy it is to close on a puncher/kicker and if the technique is executed well why wouldn't it work?

Anyway, I know it's a rather cheeky 1st post but that's my rant for the day on what I think Aikido is teaching and that we often forget it's a grappling art based on ju jitsu :-)

Boxing has a devastating counter to the jab. It's called slip and left hook. :D Put's me right on my ass.

[Kevin Leavitt]

Hi Andrew,

Well once I started figuring out that aikido was more or less a methodology for training principles of martial movement specifically a way to train aiki skills, and not really designed to train tactics of fighting...well I had less of the issues of looking at it as a "SU" system designed to provide answers to our contemporary environment for self defense etc.

When you start dealing with "reality" that is a whole nother matter for training that requires you to adopt a training strategy that is about reducing and mitigating and accepting risk...that is "managing" risk. You develop "fight" strategies that allow you to deal with these things.

It involves timing, predictable responses, conditioning, startle/flinch and all that good stuff.

Aikido I believe specifically deals with a very concentrated study and is concerned with a particular focus, so yeah, it is no wonder that when we attempt to translate that into a system to provide answers to hooks, cross and jabs, takedowns, and grappling that we have problems.

So, when you say "How does Aikido work" it is like maybe making the assumption that Mini Cooper would do well in F1!

[Adam Huss]

Firstly, we train in a very passive way - uke does something and tori reacts, executing a technique.

Not necessarily true for all aikido training. If by 'we' you mean your school, than that is rather common. Almost all Shomenuchi XXXX dai ichi (more or less omote) techniques has the tori/nage/shite attacking first. The idea being that a threat is perceived and nage wants to control the attack before it begins. Think benevolent dictatorship. Maybe try playing around with this idea. If anything, it'd be something new to try. We also like to do technique on the arm uke uses to block atemi. Just some ideas to play with, if you so wish.

Also, Shioda Soke emphasizes the importance of atemi in almost every technique.

For instance, much is made of the fact that it's not actually easy to catch a good right cross, still less a good jab. However, no martial art has a devastating response to a jab or right cross (unless you're holding a sword of course) so why does anyone look for that in Aikido?

-absolutely true. Think to try and control the elbow before getting a hold of/catching the hand. The elbow moves much slower, and one can stop the attack before it gains dangerous momentum. We actually practiced jabs and one-two combos a week or so ago. It was a really fun class. If you teacher 'takes requests' for techniques, ask if you can play around with some of these ideas. I'd say 80% of the people in my school cross train (we teach several martial arts at our school), so its fun to see how each martial art relates to each other and how we can make goshinjitsu out of them.
cheers
~Adam

[AndyE]

Firstly, we train in a very passive way - uke does something and tori reacts, executing a technique.

Not necessarily true for all aikido training. If by 'we' you mean your school, than that is rather common. Almost all Shomenuchi XXXX dai ichi (more or less omote) techniques has the tori/nage/shite attacking first. The idea being that a threat is perceived and nage wants to control the attack before it begins. Think benevolent dictatorship. Maybe try playing around with this idea. If anything, it'd be something new to try. We also like to do technique on the arm uke uses to block atemi. Just some ideas to play with, if you so wish.

Also, Shioda Soke emphasizes the importance of atemi in almost every technique.


Thanks for the replies.

Yes, this makes sense. It is the idea of opening up the opponent, creating opportunities for technique. The jab is equivalent in boxing - jab to keep the other at distance, fill the space and open up opportunities. And if it lands then hey, double benefit, but no expectation of taking someone down with it directly.

But what about other techniques? If these are all principles with infinite possibility it must be possible to enter with atemi or a grab at any time to provoke a response and opportunity, and that must lead to any technique, not just those given as examples of such a lead.

I will ask my teacher about this and see what he says.

[Adam Huss]

No, you're absolutely right. I was juts giving one example. Here's another...assuming your techniques are Aikikai-based you do shomenuchi iriminage by blading with your outside arm against uke outside arm, then pivot tenkan while controlling the head. Instead of letting your opposite arm go to uke's neck, let it come in front of uke's body (so its almost parallel to your arm that took care of uke's attacking arm) as you tenkan. Then, with your 'second' arm 'on top' do a backhand shuto to uke's face. Do this in a manner in which uke will notice and block. We want him or her to block. When this block to your atemi occurs, you now have both of uke's hands in your control. You've basically doubled the techniques you can do in that everything you can do from the 'blading the arm' tenkan evasion, you can now do to uke's other arm.

If uke does not block atemi, just "pat" them in the face (with as much love as possible!) until they get so annoyed they block.

Really this works the majority of the time..not just with the 'iriminage' evasion. Think one wrist grab, tenkan...as you tenkan, do a backfist (or whatever) to prompt uke to blok...now you have their other hand. Repeat, enjoy.

[Aikibu]

Hi Andrew,

Well once I started figuring out that aikido was more or less a methodology for training principles of martial movement specifically a way to train aiki skills, and not really designed to train tactics of fighting...well I had less of the issues of looking at it as a "SU" system designed to provide answers to our contemporary environment for self defense etc.

When you start dealing with "reality" that is a whole nother matter for training that requires you to adopt a training strategy that is about reducing and mitigating and accepting risk...that is "managing" risk. You develop "fight" strategies that allow you to deal with these things.

It involves timing, predictable responses, conditioning, startle/flinch and all that good stuff.

Aikido I believe specifically deals with a very concentrated study and is concerned with a particular focus, so yeah, it is no wonder that when we attempt to translate that into a system to provide answers to hooks, cross and jabs, takedowns, and grappling that we have problems.

So, when you say "How does Aikido work" it is like maybe making the assumption that Mini Cooper would do well in F1!

With all due respect to my friend Kevin... My experience with Aikido is much different...

It says allot about the meme regarding most Modern Styles of Aikido is that it is no longer considered a Martial Art but some kind of poor man's Japanese Tai Chi or Yoga with a partner who rolls allot.

This is something Shoji Nishio Shihan (and some other important Shihan) warned about over 30 years ago. If Aikido is no longer an effective Martial Art then it can no longer claim it's (a) Budo. By effective I mean you can employ/use it with success against other forms of the Martial Arts...

The Goals of Aikido are different than other Martial Arts in some respects and therein lies a common bond with other styles of Aikido in that we all share a majority of them.

The application or expression of those goals in the form of an Aikido "syllabus" is where the rub is...

Our Style is much more Martial but it in my opinion it still needs to fully connect with what some call Aiki in order to be truly a Budo the way O'Sensei expressed it and Nishio Shihan felt it.

So how does Aikido "work"? I guess it depends on what kind of "work" you want it to do.

Me...I wish to express the principles of Aikido in my daily life... and.... have the ability to knock the crap out of someone if my expression of Aikido calls for it. :)

William Hazen

[ChrisHein]

So how does Aikido "work"? I guess it depends on what kind of "work" you want it to do.


That is basically it.

Most people have this very general and vague idea of what a martial art is: It's some kind of empty handed fighting system of asian decent right...

Wrong.

Why is it that when I visit the archery range, no one there is ever asking how to deal with jabs, or double leg take downs. No one at the archery range thinks they can take the skills they are developing into an MMA fight, and no one asks how effective archery is on the "streets".

Archery is a martial art. Yet no one is asking the questions that Aikido seem to not stop asking. Thats because people who practice Archery know what archery is good at, and what kind of "work" they might ask it to do.

Worlds best MMA fighter, vs. Joe average Archer at 30 feet: Archery wins every time. Does that mean archery is superior to MMA in a fight, no just different.

[L. Camejo]

Worlds best MMA fighter, vs. Joe average Archer at 30 feet: Archery wins every time. Does that mean archery is superior to MMA in a fight.Hell yes it does Chris. :) The superior one is the one left standing. :)

Joking aside though, you raise an important point regarding knowledge of the nature of the weapon being used and its ideal tactical applications. I think this is something that is often misunderstood in the Aikido world, i.e. what is the nature of Aiki as a weapon (if there is one) and what are the ideal range and tactical conditions for applying that weapon?

Imho good Aiki is applied in a similar way to the archer - at a distance and in conditions where the tactics of the attacker are compromised well in advance of any direct physical contact.

Just a thought.

LC

[Kevin Leavitt]

Good stuff Larry and Chris.

Aikido as a weapon...interesting concept and quesiton posed.

I think what when we look at it this way we are combining two things: The physical and the conceptual.

Weapons to me are tangible and physical, not conceptual. Semantics? maybe some...

So...aikido as a weapon does not work for me as aikido is conceptual application.

A weapon is tangible, hand, knife, stick, gun....

those weapons as Chris points out have properties and characteristics that give them various tactical advantages/disadvantages.

Where does Aikido come into play as conceptual?

Well it is the strategy or tactics of employing that weapon system (or could be).

I think though that this is also not correct because typically, I say TYPICALLY, aikido is NOT generally taught with such a narrow focus such as tactical employment of a weapon system, but as an overall DO or WAY that is more concerned with over-arching principles rather than tactical employment of a weapon system.

Sure, there are linkages, but what a VERY ineffcient way to learn how to use a weapon system!

I really have found it useful and important to distingush between the two methods of approach...that is...tactics vice "WAY" "DO" or "ART".

Sure, we can take an intergrated approach to study and it is helpful to understand etiology. Heck Ellis just wrote a very wonderful book on this process!

However, I think a big part of the problem is alot of folks confuse the processes, methodolgies and it becomes convoluted for them and then they experience dissonance when their buddy at work says "show me how this works"...and then we are trying to apply a limited, conceptual solution to a tactical/situaitonal problem..which is really quite illogical when you look at it for what it really is.

This is why in the Army we always stress from day one when teaching Combatives...

"The winner of a hand to hand fight is the guy whose buddy shows up first with a gun."

[DH]

Imho good Aiki is applied in a similar way to the archer - at a distance and in conditions where the tactics of the attacker are compromised well in advance of any direct physical contact.

Just a thought.
LC
Aiki is done at any distance and tactical range. And is equally effective in close-in work or in stand-off striking. There are any number of people here who have either seen or felt me use it in full speed sparring with any number of teachers in various arts from Judo to ICMA, AIiido, DR to Karate and MMA guys as well. Just ask. ;)

Good Aiki...do is not "good" Aikido™.
The shame of it all is seeing the former being judged by the movement of teachers in the latter. They have little to no understanding of aiki so their entire expression of the art is forever compromised.

How does aikido work? WIth aiki.
So far (in my experience) I haven't met anyone in Aikido™ who really knows aiki to any significant degree- so I understand the confusion.
There are groups of people working to change all of that. Aikido™ teachers are currently undertaking the transformative process to change their bodies and thus create aiki. In time, this will turn Aikido™on its head, and these teachers will begin to fix the art so that it becomes the way of aiki once again.
Cheers
Dan

[Aikibu]

Good stuff Larry and Chris.

Aikido as a weapon...interesting concept and quesiton posed.

I think what when we look at it this way we are combining two things: The physical and the conceptual.

Weapons to me are tangible and physical, not conceptual. Semantics? maybe some...

So...Aikido as a weapon does not work for me as Aikido is conceptual application.

A weapon is tangible, hand, knife, stick, gun....

those weapons as Chris points out have properties and characteristics that give them various tactical advantages/disadvantages.

Where does Aikido come into play as conceptual?

Well it is the strategy or tactics of employing that weapon system (or could be).

I think though that this is also not correct because typically, I say TYPICALLY, aikido is NOT generally taught with such a narrow focus such as tactical employment of a weapon system, but as an overall DO or WAY that is more concerned with over-arching principles rather than tactical employment of a weapon system.

Sure, there are linkages, but what a VERY ineffcient way to learn how to use a weapon system!

I really have found it useful and important to distingush between the two methods of approach...that is...tactics vice "WAY" "DO" or "ART".

Sure, we can take an intergrated approach to study and it is helpful to understand etiology. Heck Ellis just wrote a very wonderful book on this process!

However, I think a big part of the problem is alot of folks confuse the processes, methodolgies and it becomes convoluted for them and then they experience dissonance when their buddy at work says "show me how this works"...and then we are trying to apply a limited, conceptual solution to a tactical/situaitonal problem..which is really quite illogical when you look at it for what it really is.

This is why in the Army we always stress from day one when teaching Combatives...

"The winner of a hand to hand fight is the guy whose buddy shows up first with a gun."

I understand your point here....My premise is simple and is echoed by several Aikido Shihan...Practicing Aikido "conceptual solutions" apart from it's employment as a "weapons system" means you can no longer consider it a Martial Art/ Budo and is basically....pointless...

In other (so many) words You cannot have "concepts" without first having a "weapon" to employ.As an aside, Perhaps this is why Shoji Nishio places such a huge emphasis on weapons...All of our Tai-Jitsu is based on the Sword.

In fact my opinion is the more folks continue to try separate Aikido's concepts from it's "weapons" the more Aikido will continue to diminish as a valid "Do" or "Way."

All the Gendai Arts are basically structured along the same "concepts" so I ask the dear reader...what is next? Karate without a punch? Judo without a throw?

Now let me be clear that is not to say that if one chooses to practice Aikido from just a conceptual point of view They will gain nothing from it. It depends on what your goals are with it or 'how you want it to work for you". This may seem like a contradiction to my earlier statement about it being pointless but people like Kevin (and I would like to think me in a certain sense LOL) are warriors who are striving to serve and protect something greater than just themselves...and have a great need to be familiar and well versed in every aspect of the art of "defense".

Which of course should be the topic of another Thread "Who do you serve with your practice?" :)

William Hazen

[Kevin Leavitt]

Good Post William.

I think what is important is understanding the realitive value and place of what you are studying and what it is designed to do and keeping it in perspective that is important.

Then understanding the linkages in the teaching/learning chain.

Being a Ranger you understand training methodology.

If you are going to learn CQB live fire, that is shooting and moving through houses with people and live bullets you have to break this down into various subsets/task.

First you teach basic marksmanship...which starts out with weapons familarization, with dry fires, drills moving as a team...then you build up....I will spare everyone all the details.

Alot of this is conceptual at first as you begin to train it and build a base.

However, the average martial artist learns the equivilant of "Dry Fire" and then his buddies ask him to show him how this works in a "CQB Live fire". Holy cow, what a jump in the training gap!

Remember the "band of excellence" William?

Once I began to understand how that applies to martial arts and training progression/sustainment things it made alot of sense!

Wow! However, what I observe in much of Martial arts is that we get stuck in the conceptual stage, or we simply want to stay there and then begin to "loop" without breaking out of it...practicing for the sake of practicing. So in essence, we become "masters of the Dry firing" yet gain very little experience beyond that, so we experience dissonance when we attempt to transfer that outside our training environment.

[Ketsan]

And at the same time ju jitsu and bjj have answers to a striking opponent - close distance, clinch, throw and submit.


Irimi nage? Tenchi nage? Aiki otoshi? Ganseki otoshi? Koshi nage?
Kubi nage? Kata gatame? All their henka. Then all the techniques that are floating around Aikido but which have no name. Most of the grabbing attacks in Aikido pretty much put an end to a striker.

Although admittedly we may not have the submission skills, but then it was much easier to use a dagger back in the day. :D

[Aikibu]

Good Post William.
Wow! However, what I observe in much of Martial arts is that we get stuck in the conceptual stage, or we simply want to stay there and then begin to "loop" without breaking out of it...practicing for the sake of practicing. So in essence, we become "masters of the Dry firing" yet gain very little experience beyond that, so we experience dissonance when we attempt to transfer that outside our training environment.

Amen Kevin...And for most this sums up the totality of their experience. I don't think if a person spends a lifetime going to the Dojo a few times a week and to seminars that they have wasted their time. Their goal was not to practice to use Aikido in 'real world situations."

In terms of a metaphor Most police officers (even tactical officers aka SWAT officers) never fire their weapons during their law enforcement careers. Yet they spend beaucoup time "dry-firing" while the tactical officers spend allot of time training for different real world scenarios. Further down the scale I don't know of one street level officer who has not been in a physical altercation. LOL Their life often depends upon prevailing in these encounters and so their 'hand to hand" training reflects this.

I often do straw polls with my new students to see what their goals are and one of the questions I ask them if is they expect that what they will learn 'here" will protect them "out there." Not surprisingly most say yes...So I tell them that they get out of Aikido what they put into it (Again How does Aikido work? It depends on You. :) ) and if their goal is to learn how to physically protect themselves well then I better see them giving it their all during practice. But if a person is there to learn something new and seek to understand Aikido well...That's ok too. Just don't screw around on the mat. Be a good student and help the others with their goals.

As we say in another world I am a part of..."It works if you work it." :)

Thus Sword Cutting and Kata everyday for this Jose even though I would never expect to be cutting someone in half anytime soon. :D

William Hazen

[Ketsan]

The other thing about Aikido is that it is Jujutsu; its a modification of Daito Ryu which is pretty much par for the course as far as koryu jujutsu goes.
If you want to know how Aikido works a good starting point is probably with the parent arts of Aikido.

[DH]

The other thing about Aikido is that it is Jujutsu; its a modification of Daito Ryu which is pretty much par for the course as far as koryu jujutsu goes.
If you want to know how Aikido works a good starting point is probably with the parent arts of Aikido.
Daito ryu jujutsu is not "part for the course of Koryu jujutsu." I don't know a single person in Koryu who thinks so.
And the reason for its divergence has been spelled out here.
http://www.ellisamdur.com/buy.html.
It's a very good book on many of the current hot button topics in Aikido.
Cheers
Dan

[Ketsan]

Daito ryu jujutsu is not "part for the course of Koryu jujutsu." I don't know a single person in Koryu who thinks so.
And the reason for its divergence has been spelled out here.
http://www.ellisamdur.com/buy.html.
It's a very good book on many of the current hot button topics in Aikido.
Cheers
Dan

Serge Mol seems to think so but I defer to you and stand corrected. Thank you.

[observer]

Regardless what you have read above let me give you my own point of view in this matter. Aikido is a Martial Art, meaning, it is an art of killing people. Most of aikidokas do not realize it, or they do not want to admit it.

Aikido we indebted to two great men. The first one was Jigoro Kano, a father of judo, and the second one - Morihei Ueshiba, a creator of aikido.

Jigoro Kano proved that it is possible to practice very dangerous techniques in a safe way. You can see what I mean by "dangerous" just by looking at judo techniques such as: seoi-nage, o-soto-gari, kata-guruma etc. All of them are throws directly onto the head. Young Jigoro Kano (22 years old) realized that it is possible to practice these deadly techniques without hurting a partner. By grabbing his arm (to the end) during throwing, his head is always protected and his body lands safely on the back.

Morihei Ueshiba, an already experienced Martial Artist (40 years old) has got an idea based on judo development. He created a new weapon - an empty handed warrior. Like a gun, able to kill in a blink of an eye. He selected from antique fighting arts (like ju-jitsu, daito-ryu, etc.) only deadly techniques, in a sense above - throws directly on the head. He never considered his art as a fighting or self-defense art. For example, some of aikido techniques are finished by sliding the partner on his belly. The reason is obvious - the goal is to kill, but the practice must be safe.

As we know, a perfect throw in a judo match is very rear. It is caused by sport's rules. Both competitors are forced to grab each other. It creates an opportunity to resist and mostly strength decides about the result. In aikido there are no rules, and to avoid the same problem, aikido is based on dodging. There is no difference how many aggressors faces an aikidoka if he is able to dodge every attack. All the techniques let him kill an opponent in a blink of an eye.

[Erick Mead]

...aikido is based on dodging. There is no difference how many aggressors faces an aikidoka if he is able to dodge every attack. Aikido.

IS.

NOT.

DODGING.

:)

[ChrisHein]

Regardless what you have read above let me give you my own point of view in this matter. Aikido is a Martial Art, meaning, it is an art of killing people. Most of aikidokas do not realize it, or they do not want to admit it.

Aikido we indebted to two great men. The first one was Jigoro Kano, a father of judo, and the second one - Morihei Ueshiba, a creator of aikido.

Jigoro Kano proved that it is possible to practice very dangerous techniques in a safe way. You can see what I mean by "dangerous" just by looking at judo techniques such as: seoi-nage, o-soto-gari, kata-guruma etc. All of them are throws directly onto the head. Young Jigoro Kano (22 years old) realized that it is possible to practice these deadly techniques without hurting a partner. By grabbing his arm (to the end) during throwing, his head is always protected and his body lands safely on the back.

Morihei Ueshiba, an already experienced Martial Artist (40 years old) has got an idea based on judo development. He created a new weapon - an empty handed warrior. Like a gun, able to kill in a blink of an eye. He selected from antique fighting arts (like ju-jitsu, daito-ryu, etc.) only deadly techniques, in a sense above - throws directly on the head. He never considered his art as a fighting or self-defense art. For example, some of aikido techniques are finished by sliding the partner on his belly. The reason is obvious - the goal is to kill, but the practice must be safe.

As we know, a perfect throw in a judo match is very rear. It is caused by sport's rules. Both competitors are forced to grab each other. It creates an opportunity to resist and mostly strength decides about the result. In aikido there are no rules, and to avoid the same problem, aikido is based on dodging. There is no difference how many aggressors faces an aikidoka if he is able to dodge every attack. All the techniques let him kill an opponent in a blink of an eye.

Wow, this is wrong on so many levels, I wouldn't even know where to start...

[Buck]

How does Aikido work? Carefully. That is the issue isn't? To not destroy, harm, or maim your attacker for Aikido.

It is easy to hurt someone who is trying to hurt you. That is our natural reaction as humans. It is such a reaction that we can and some do go to the point of destroying the other person for reason from being insulted to self-protection from some one trying to destroy you.

There are fighting methods which are designed to injure and kill your opponet in as little as a few session. But realistically you need a bit more time than that, say a year, to get enough experience under your belt to be effective against most people. Not more then a year if you work hard at it. But if that is too long of a time to learn, you can buy a gun, learn in a few days how to kill or maim someone. But Aikido isn't one of those fighting methods, and for some reason that is missed on some people.

Aikido has a different angle simply not to destroy or injure the person trying to do harm to you. This takes a very long time, years to be generally effective against most people, or it takes several months. Depending on who is attacking you, how they are doing it, and the intensity of the attack. But, generally Aikido takes a long time. It isn't an easy thing to do to control your attacker without harming them.

With that said, there is one issue I do have in these modern times, and that is when O'Sensei was formulating his philosophy he didn't take in consideration ( how could have he) fighting people on power drugs and steroids. In some cases an Aikidoka may have to injure.

So it works like this, you have to spend a long time to do something very difficult, but amazing; to control a person completely, mind and body, without harming them. You have to control your skill, control your mind, and body to counter something that is a natural instinct or reaction to hurt back. You have to have excellent control of your technique that includes, true internal power of mind and body to have great sensitivity and control of the other person and yourself to stop their attack. Something that is developed, and are difficult goals, which is practice over a long period of time.

Unlike other martial arts mentioned, Aikido doesn't exclude women. Because Aikido doesn't require brute strength and force to work, it works in favor of women over a stronger person. But, here again that is something that takes time, and practice to get that skill. It isn’t like say MMA where most women against another male using MMA would not have a chance. Not using strength and force again works against our immediate nature of when being attacked to use muscle strength and force to fight back. In this case, if a person is strong and bigger that you, you are at a disadvantage. Not so with Aikido. But learning that skill also does takes time and practice.

Now Aikido is practiced as an art. That is important also to keep in mind. Where as other fighting methods are not. In many Aikido dojos the focus is on perfection of a skill as in any art, and not on using Aikido in the street. Though there are Aikido dojos that focus and practice Aikido as a martial means for applying Aikido on the street, or in countries that suffer from war and stuff where Aikido is needed against the daily threat of attacks intended to kill.

So, as you can see that is how Aikido works, you have to understand what you are getting into, what your willing to put into it, and what you want out of it.:)

[observer]

Erik, let's say - it is your point of view. As I said above, aikido without dodging doesn't make any sense. It is obvious that O'Sensei built his art based on his own abilities. We know from certain sources that his dodging skill was marvelous. So, it is my explanation. What is yours? And Chris - just think, and let me know "why this is wrong on so many levels". I am ready to discuss it.

[Ketsan]

Regardless what you have read above let me give you my own point of view in this matter. Aikido is a Martial Art, meaning, it is an art of killing people. Most of aikidokas do not realize it, or they do not want to admit it.

Aikido we indebted to two great men. The first one was Jigoro Kano, a father of judo, and the second one - Morihei Ueshiba, a creator of aikido.

Jigoro Kano proved that it is possible to practice very dangerous techniques in a safe way. You can see what I mean by "dangerous" just by looking at judo techniques such as: seoi-nage, o-soto-gari, kata-guruma etc. All of them are throws directly onto the head. Young Jigoro Kano (22 years old) realized that it is possible to practice these deadly techniques without hurting a partner. By grabbing his arm (to the end) during throwing, his head is always protected and his body lands safely on the back.

Morihei Ueshiba, an already experienced Martial Artist (40 years old) has got an idea based on judo development. He created a new weapon - an empty handed warrior. Like a gun, able to kill in a blink of an eye. He selected from antique fighting arts (like ju-jitsu, daito-ryu, etc.) only deadly techniques, in a sense above - throws directly on the head. He never considered his art as a fighting or self-defense art. For example, some of aikido techniques are finished by sliding the partner on his belly. The reason is obvious - the goal is to kill, but the practice must be safe.

As we know, a perfect throw in a judo match is very rear. It is caused by sport's rules. Both competitors are forced to grab each other. It creates an opportunity to resist and mostly strength decides about the result. In aikido there are no rules, and to avoid the same problem, aikido is based on dodging. There is no difference how many aggressors faces an aikidoka if he is able to dodge every attack. All the techniques let him kill an opponent in a blink of an eye.

I don't know that we owe much to Kano and I don't think Ueshiba created an empty hand system, far from it in fact.

Aikido is based on dodging. I've come to see Aikido as, loosely speaking, two groups of teachings (I'm not going to use the word "technique" if I can avoid it). The first group such as shiho nage and kote gaeshi and ikkyo are defences against weapon attacks and grabs, they are defensive in nature. The second group includes irimi nage, tenchi nage, things which can be done by entering in and seizing an opponent.
The second group relies on evasive movement to get into a clinch despite an attack and so yes there is dodging but the point of dodging in Aikido is never a complete response it is always a set up to something else.

As for deadliness; in my experience if you do Aikido full power and full speed on someone that isn't familiar with Aikido you're going to injure them quite badly. Bare miniumum you're going to break or dislocate something, with throws the back of the head is usually the first part of your opponents body to touch the ground.
Since it's reasonably common for people to die after being knocked down simply because they bashed their head off the pavement I can imagine that slamming their head into the pavement will also probably kill them.

And the thing about Judo artifically creating resistance and then patting itself on the back for over coming it I've been saying for maybe a year now. Randori is as much about teaching a student how to resist as it is about teaching how to deal with resistance, so it ends up cancelling itself out and in my experience it only really teaches something of value if your opponent resists in the "correct" fashion. I remember seeing Judo instructor warning an Aikidoka about standing in kamae because his lead leg would get swept "like this" and attempted to demonstrate and the Aikidoka didn't budge one bit. I've also seen Judoka yanking and pulling and getting really quite frustrated as their drag some poor Aikidoka all over the mat, without breaking the Aikidoka's posture.
The best one I've seen is when they do a dropping ippon seoi nage and they expect resistance, but the Aikidoka just goes with it. So the pair end up in this odd situation where the Judoka is kneeling on the floor infront of this very slightly bent over but still standing Aikidoka. Or they go for a normal ippon seoi nage and just before the moment of kuzushi the Aikidoka steps around in front of the Judoka.
I had one judoka literally say to me mid-randori, "Why can't I throw you" and the only answer I had was "Because I'm not resisting you." If you don't give them a stiff, straining, rigid body they really can't do much, Aikidoka are unique in that we can be off posture and on balance. The best form of resistance is to keep your backside underneath you, if the judoka pulls the top bit down, you push the bottom bit under it and if they push the top of your body back then you move the bottom half back with it, so that you're constantly undoing their kuzushi. Judoka are always too busy straining and fighting and struggling to just relax and go with things.

The beauty of Aikido is that by the time you actually physically come into contact with your opponent you've got so much momentum that unless the opponent makes a blending movement of some kind the sheer force of impact is going to take their balance. They have no chance to recover, no chance to resist and by the time they've realised they're off balance they're on the ground. If they're lucky the Aikidoka decides not to put the boot in, if not they end up in the fetal position in a puddle of blood with half their teeth missing.

In my experience.

[Erick Mead]

Erik, let's say - it is your point of view. As I said above, aikido without dodging doesn't make any sense. It is obvious that O'Sensei built his art based on his own abilities. We know from certain sources that his dodging skill was marvelous. I know what you are referring to, and I know why you think that it was dodging -- but I reiterate --

IT.
WAS.
NOT.
DODGING.

:)

It is how you disrupt a push or a pull, or a strike, -- without pushing, pulling, or striking back -- all of which are merely extensions of momentum into or toward your structure -- without countering it or evading it -- the last thing in the world you want to do is evade that gift.

The correct term for engaging this extension of momentum in aikido is "shear." Of course, the hard part is you have to be disposed to feel and follow where it goes, as well as propagating it.

[observer]

Philip, I do not agree with your vision of aikido at all and let me explain why.

How does Aikido work? You can see my point of view in post #19. Aikido is not intended to be used on the streets for the same reason as iaido, katori-shinto-ryu, a naginata skill, or kyudo. These arts were created to destroy and kill. They represent real budo. Therefore, you cannot mix training sessions with real "life and death" situations. You should not even try to use your aikido skills, you learned in your dojo, on the streets. In most cases your opponent will not have an ukemi skill and throwing him to the ground, as you would in dojo (letting the uke roll by himself) could be fatal (by nature of aikido techniques), and there is no excuse for it. On the streets, you must follow the law, and this is why there aikido is useless.

At some point you are also reference natural human reactions and fighting methods. I believe that it is a common mistake. In dojos we do not polish the aikido skills. We are just studying the art. For example, how many times do you repeat yokomen-uchi-shiho-nage with a partner during a month (2 or 3 classes per week)? Is it twenty? Don't you think three thousand would be more appropriate? It does make more sense. Even if you throw your partner successfully - what happens next? There are no fighting elements in your aikido training, such as a strategy and others. You practice certain katas (an attack and a response) and you know how these techniques work, but similarly, studying English, does not make you a writer. To become an Aikidoka (by a capital A) you have to focus on trained reflexes, limited number of techniques, various attacks and as many as possible repetitions. And still, you may only be able to use your skills on a war battle field.

There is a way to adopt your aikido skill to stop violence. It depends on your ability and dedication. Instead of killing your opponent physically, you can kill his soul. It means crushing his desire to use force against you after the first confrontation. If you ever practiced judo and won or lost a match by a throw scoring 'ippon' you would understand my point clearly. I observed many times a psychological effect following such a throw, and in ukes resulting in confusion, consternation, and in most cases posing a question: "What had just happened?" However, you can use this effect to intimidate your opponent as the last resort. Certainly, dodging attacks alone should be used primarily. What you should do is practice certain techniques that result in safe landing on the back, or modify other techniques to bring the same result.

My last note concerns women and children practicing aikido. Aikido will not be effective for them if in your practice you consider attacks that consist of grabbing and even touching by an uke. It will always be 'pretend aikido' based on uke's intensive cooperation. It is also not beneficial for them to use pins to cause pain, instead of using them to take advantage of body's natural reaction to avoid it. By nature, women and children are weaker and fragile.

[observer]

Erick, your response seems to start a semantic discussion, I want to avoid. I am using the term "dodging" in a common sense. It doesn't matter if an uke is charging you like a bull, or jabbing like a perfectly stable boxer. First of all you have to dodge to avoid being a target. Secondly you need to make contact having both hands free to be able to perform an aikido technique. Ultimately, the larger the force uke uses, the more effective your performance will be.

[Erick Mead]

Erick, your response seems to start a semantic discussion, I want to avoid. I am using the term "dodging" in a common sense. Yes -- and the common sense is wrong -- in this sense. So if we are meaning different things we do need to discuss the meaning of the words we are choosing to describe them. Happily, dodging and aikido are quite distinct -- so the issue does not come up...

It doesn't matter if an uke is charging you like a bull, or jabbing like a perfectly stable boxer. First of all you have to dodge to avoid being a target. As long as I remain a target he is not finding another. Take away bad monkey's toy and bad monkey gets unhappy. "Nice monkey! Want toy? Here nice monkey -- here is the shiny toy." ;) Always try to keep the attacking monkey-brain very happy. Then, the much slower (but cleverer) man-brain may not catch up.

Secondly you need to make contact having both hands free to be able to perform an aikido technique. Ultimately, the larger the force uke uses, the more effective your performance will be.Hands? For aikido techniques? Who said anything about hands? Nice, but not necessary -- unless of course one is dodging, perhaps.

:)

[observer]

Wow, it is getting better. I am sorry Erick. I do not understand anything you said.

[Erick Mead]

Wow, it is getting better. I am sorry Erick. I do not understand anything you said.At contact, uke's motion is not stopped (conflict), it is not avoided (dodged) -- it is sheared (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shear_stress). Different rotations interacting in tangential connection. Other things come into play, including some oscillation mechanics and resonance -- but shear is the essential nature of the interactions in question

[Buck]

Philip, I do not agree with your vision of aikido at all and let me explain why.

How does Aikido work? You can see my point of view in post #19. Aikido is not intended to be used on the streets for the same reason as iaido, katori-shinto-ryu, a naginata skill, or kyudo. These arts were created to destroy and kill. They represent real budo. Therefore, you cannot mix training sessions with real "life and death" situations. You should not even try to use your aikido skills, you learned in your dojo, on the streets. In most cases your opponent will not have an ukemi skill and throwing him to the ground, as you would in dojo (letting the uke roll by himself) could be fatal (by nature of aikido techniques), and there is no excuse for it. On the streets, you must follow the law, and this is why there aikido is useless.

At some point you are also reference natural human reactions and fighting methods. I believe that it is a common mistake. In dojos we do not polish the aikido skills. We are just studying the art. For example, how many times do you repeat yokomen-uchi-shiho-nage with a partner during a month (2 or 3 classes per week)? Is it twenty? Don't you think three thousand would be more appropriate? It does make more sense. Even if you throw your partner successfully - what happens next? There are no fighting elements in your aikido training, such as a strategy and others. You practice certain katas (an attack and a response) and you know how these techniques work, but similarly, studying English, does not make you a writer. To become an Aikidoka (by a capital A) you have to focus on trained reflexes, limited number of techniques, various attacks and as many as possible repetitions. And still, you may only be able to use your skills on a war battle field.

There is a way to adopt your aikido skill to stop violence. It depends on your ability and dedication. Instead of killing your opponent physically, you can kill his soul. It means crushing his desire to use force against you after the first confrontation. If you ever practiced judo and won or lost a match by a throw scoring 'ippon' you would understand my point clearly. I observed many times a psychological effect following such a throw, and in ukes resulting in confusion, consternation, and in most cases posing a question: "What had just happened?" However, you can use this effect to intimidate your opponent as the last resort. Certainly, dodging attacks alone should be used primarily. What you should do is practice certain techniques that result in safe landing on the back, or modify other techniques to bring the same result.

My last note concerns women and children practicing aikido. Aikido will not be effective for them if in your practice you consider attacks that consist of grabbing and even touching by an uke. It will always be 'pretend aikido' based on uke's intensive cooperation. It is also not beneficial for them to use pins to cause pain, instead of using them to take advantage of body's natural reaction to avoid it. By nature, women and children are weaker and fragile.

Ok, I think you misread my post so I will restate it right to the point. Aikido works like this, if you are being attacked it is easy to attack back to out muscle or out force someone. Example, if someone strikes at you, you strike back harder. If someone grabs you, you pull away harder than grabbed to escape. That is a natural human reaction. It is difficult not to do that, to react without trying out muscle or force your attacker because it is a natural reaction to attempt to out muscle or out force. Another human "raw" human reaction is to hurt back with equal or greater force for the intent to injure or kill. Aikido goal is not to do this, to control your reaction when attacked in a way that controls the attacker without harming them or killing them. That is difficult to do.

Because most of us don't live in war torn countries where we might be attacked, and where weapons are accessible to most, and law prevails, we practice Aikido as an art. Where as those living in violent places practice Aikido stressing martial practice. They practice differently in their dojos still within line O'Sensei's edict of not hurting someone. Though in a situation where your attacker may be on powerful drugs or steroids, harming (not killing) them is the only choice- we have to be realistic. In terms of practice some practice Aikido as a art, just as any art, getting the same benefits. For example, an Aikido workout. In some places that luxury is not afforded to them. They must practice with a single minded focus, and intensity.

Women I did mention. But I didn't mention kids. I pity those who think women are the weaker sex. Especially, when I have come across women who would take both of us out, before we knew it. Did I mention Laila Ali? I wouldn't call her fragile or weaker, she'd drop a K.O. so hard and fast, it would be a 911 emergancy. MMA, Boxing and other male contact sports have weight divisions for a reason, there are smaller, weaker, and fragile men. Oh, and Wing Chung Kung fu was developed and successfully used by a smaller, weaker and fragile woman; it is a very effective martial art.

Look at these random clips I found, it might reset your perspective on women:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InIn5YQ4ZFI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRvgO9_qOYA&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rOgP9BeDt4&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LyfN0KSFqqY&feature=related

[Buck]

Oh and I forgot to mention Aneta Florczyk, the world's strongest woman. Here is what she can lift.
http://www.anetaflorczyk.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6&Itemid=75

I think you might get a hernia just looking at how strong this women is, I did. :D She is stronger than both of us, and the average guy.

[Buck]

Here is her Youtube Channel.
http://www.youtube.com/Anetaflorczykcom

[observer]

Ok, I think you misread my post ....
I do not think so. You are saying: "... Aikido goal is not to do that, ..." and that is the problem. Our understanding of aikido goal is different. We also do not practice an art, I think. We practice aikido. Well, to be more precise, we study budo. As I explained (post #26), there is no excuse to use aikido on the street. I also noticed, that it is possible to use an aikido skill to stop violence with a specific approach.

BTW, you know the phrase 'the exception that proves the rule', I presume. Your argument according women is just like that, because I was talking about aikido practice in dojo.

[Buck]

I do not think so. You are saying: "... Aikido goal is not to do that, ..." and that is the problem. Our understanding of aikido goal is different. We also do not practice an art, I think. We practice aikido. Well, to be more precise, we study budo. As I explained (post #26), there is no excuse to use aikido on the street. I also noticed, that it is possible to use an aikido skill to stop violence with a specific approach.

BTW, you know the phrase 'the exception that proves the rule', I presume. Your argument according women is just like that, because I was talking about aikido practice in dojo.

I can't argue with that, nor would I want to even try. "Uncle!"

[Shadowfax]

Erick, your response seems to start a semantic discussion, I want to avoid. I am using the term "dodging" in a common sense. It doesn't matter if an uke is charging you like a bull, or jabbing like a perfectly stable boxer. First of all you have to dodge to avoid being a target

Dodge \Dodge\, n. The act of evading by some skillful movement; a sudden starting aside; hence, an artful device to evade, deceive, or cheat; a cunning trick; an artifice. [Colloq.]

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary

Now here I thought that in order to execute technique one has to first seek, accept and welcome connection form the attacker (uke). OTOH if one dodges effectively then one no longer needs to use aikido technique. Now one might simply step to the side and allow Uke to continue his journey to the floor unaided... but ,to me, that's just getting out of the way so Uke can complete his own technique.

. Secondly you need to make contact having both hands free to be able to perform an aikido technique.

umm ryotetori? The way I understand it the more hands Uke is grabbing you with the less hands he has to hit you with. :D If Tori has both hands free, most likely, so does Uke... not necessarily a desirable situation.

Ultimately, the larger the force uke uses, the more effective your performance will be.

Absolutely.

[Kevin Leavitt]

There is so much wrong with this conversation IMO I don't even know where to begin. Bottom line, if you didn't hear Erick the first time...I will repeat. Aikido is not about dodging. It is not about moving out of the way.

It gets translated that way alot but it is not correct.

Irimi is about entering, you enter and change direction/angle on your opponent. That coupled with establishing correct connection, ground path, kokyu and a few other things allows you to "do aikido".

the movement sans all the other internal stuff is about a decreasing radius spiral into the center. Judo does this in uchi komi if done correctly, Kano got it, Ueshiba got it, and Helio Gracie got it.

Alot of folks out there today doing Aikido don't get it...there is a bastardization of what is actually going on and the "visualizations" about what folks "think" is going on is wrong and will get you hurt if you engage someone for real and expect to control them with any real physical skills at all.

Even the allegory is incorrect about yielding, dodging, avoidance, and getting out of the way in verbal, mental, emotional "aikido".

Okay, I understand sometimes it is better to yield, get out of the way and regroup and fight another day. sure, however, at the level of skill that we are looking at in aikido, this is a rather low level approach that assumes that this "luxury" is afforded to us by our opponent. Yes, it is a luxury and not really a skill that requires practice. If it was, then "run fu" would be the only art we would ever need study.

I'd recommend spending some time reading what some of the "senior" and "experienced" folks in aikido write and talk about. it ain't about dodging. If it is, please show me where so I can eat my words and re-think my practice.

[Demetrio Cereijo]

There is so much wrong with this conversation IMO I don't even know where to begin. Bottom line, if you didn't hear Erick the first time...I will repeat. Aikido is not about dodging. It is not about moving out of the way.


"Aikido is generally believed to represent circular movements. Contrary to such belief, however, Aikido, in its true KI form, is a fierce art piercing straight through the center of opposition". Saito Morihiro.

This is how aikido works.

[thisisnotreal]

Dodge \Dodge\, n. The act of evading by some skillful movement; a sudden starting aside; hence, an artful device to evade, deceive, or cheat; a cunning trick; an artifice. [Colloq.]

Even in the internal paradigm; isn't the concept of dodge central and useful? Trickery. Dodge the attack ....meaning do something skillfully so you don't feel the full brunt of the force. Or ...doing something...not even allowing Tori to apply the force? (Isn't that characteristic of aiki, hence how Aikido 'works'?)

i don't know that this has not degenerated into semantics.
?
fwiw

[Pauliina Lievonen]

Irimi is about entering, you enter and change direction/angle on your opponent.

What Kevin said, and what Demetrio posted in the Saito quote!

I think the OP was actually on to something in that he was (the way I read the first post) discovering the usefulness of irimi for himself.

Even if you dodge succesfully once there's nothing to stop uke from following you with a second attack. Better to enter straight away.

Cherie, even tenkan or a step aside starts with a slight irimi, it may be so subtle that a beginner doesn't realize it's there but if it's not there the tenkan won't be effective.

kvaak
Pauliina

[Erick Mead]

"Aikido is generally believed to represent circular movements. Contrary to such belief, however, Aikido, in its true KI form, is a fierce art piercing straight through the center of opposition". Saito Morihiro.

This is how aikido works.Can I have an "Amen," brother!

Entering in proper connection CAUSES rotations and spirals (i.e. -- irimi-tenkan....) but without levering or cranking. The way some try to force the appearance of a result by those means is like planting a ten-foot two-by-four in a two-foot post-hole and calling it a tree.... it meets some trivial elements of definition, sure, but not the essential ones... and the way you get to the result IS the thing called aikido -- and those methods of attempted imitation don't even get remotely the same result -- though they may seem superficially related.

[mjhacker]

Firstly, we train in a very passive way - uke does something and tori reacts, executing a technique.

"We?" I certainly don't. I keep my options open. Sometimes, I do choose to attack first. It's all about doing what is appropriate in the moment. The late Saito Morihiro sensei taught something that he called "yamabiko" (which he learned from his teacher). Another thing to look into is mitsu no sen (go no sen, sen no sen, sen sen no sen).

Still, I wouldn't call what you described "passive." To me, passive is more like "uke attacks, tori gets clobbered."

For instance, much is made of the fact that it's not actually easy to catch a good right cross, still less a good jab. However, no martial art has a devastating response to a jab or right cross (unless you're holding a sword of course) so why does anyone look for that in Aikido?

I don't generally try to 'catch' someone's punch. That seems rather like trying to hit a bullet with another bullet.

I'm also not quite sure about the whole "no martial art" thing. Nor am I interested in my response being "devastating."

Now in Aikido we don't go to ground so where does that leave us?

Again with the "we?" :-) In my dojo, we spend about 1/4 of our weekly training specifically working on newaza. We train to move seamlessly from standing to ground work.

It's a grappling art and if someone has their hands up ready to punch they are giving you their arm so close for it.

My aiki(bu)do is not a grappling art, but rather a cutting art.

[observer]

OK, Kevin - Cherie just verified the meaning of the word "dodging". Like I said before, I am not interested in discussion about semantic. Going further - I didn't say that aikido is about dodging. I clearly gave a statement than aikido without dodging doesn't make any sense. For me, aikido is not about fighting, but about killing in the blink of an eye. BTW, do you know "senior" and "experienced" folks in aikido who share my point of view?

[mjhacker]

At contact, uke's motion is not stopped (conflict), it is not avoided (dodged) -- it is sheared (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shear_stress). Different rotations interacting in tangential connection. Other things come into play, including some oscillation mechanics and resonance -- but shear is the essential nature of the interactions in question
Good stuff and pretty much dead on with what I do.

[Shadowfax]

Cherie, even tenkan or a step aside starts with a slight irimi, it may be so subtle that a beginner doesn't realize it's there but if it's not there the tenkan won't be effective.


Yup.. even though I'm a beginner I was aware of that. Was just more interested at the moment to see if the true definition of the word to Dodge would fit. Sometimes it does sometimes not..Depends on the circumstances I'd think. When in doubt look it up right?

My experience with tenkan last night seemed to work best when there was a slight withdrawal at the moment of connection before the irimi and tenkan occurred.

There is so much about Aikido that is very different for each individual. Its a physical kinesthetic thing we are trying to put into words. Sometimes it cannot be transmitted by anything but to have actually felt it oneself physically before it can begin to be understood. It would be good to remember we are all trying to describe our experience in our own terms. We all use slightly different words to describe the same experience.

Give me 20 years or so and I'll see if I can work it out and get back to you. :)

[dps]

At contact, uke's motion is not stopped (conflict), it is not avoided (dodged) -- it is sheared (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shear_stress). Different rotations interacting in tangential connection. Other things come into play, including some oscillation mechanics and resonance -- but shear is the essential nature of the interactions in question

I Googled sheared (http://www.dewavrin.com/uploads//Wool/half-sheared-sheep.jpg) and this is what I got.

[Shadowfax]

I Googled sheared (http://www.dewavrin.com/uploads//Wool/half-sheared-sheep.jpg) and this is what I got.

well....

now that just about explains everything. :D

[dps]

well....

now that just about explains everything. :D

I'm confused. :confused:

David

[Shadowfax]

I'm confused.

Then my work here is done.:cool:

this brings us back to the word dodge I think.....:p

they call it humor my friend. Just go with it. ;)

[eyrie]

Reading thru some of the preceding posts, is like listening to a bunch of blind folk describing what the elephant looks like...

Dan has succinctly summed it up in one sentence. The question should be "how do I make my aikido work... with aiki?"

As for Ueshiba dodging bullets... is that aiki? :)

[Kevin Leavitt]

He didn't actually dodge them...he actually did irimi at the exact right time and tapped the bullet on the side deflecting it's path ever so slightly, establishing a ground path with it he was able to redirect the kinetic energy by loading it onto his frame, upon which O'Sensei promptly used kokyu and directed the bullet at the wall behind him. You can catch this on stop action tape, if not, then it looks like he dodge it cause it happens so fast.

They tried this with Chuck Norris as well, but they could not ascertain exactly what was going on as it appeared that Chuck actually just stared down the bullet and it moved around Chuck.

[Kevin Leavitt]

OK, Kevin - Cherie just verified the meaning of the word "dodging". Like I said before, I am not interested in discussion about semantic. Going further - I didn't say that aikido is about dodging. I clearly gave a statement than aikido without dodging doesn't make any sense. For me, aikido is not about fighting, but about killing in the blink of an eye. BTW, do you know "senior" and "experienced" folks in aikido who share my point of view?

I am not sure exactly what your view is on this I guess. Is it that Aikido does not make sense if you don't first get out of the way of the attack?

Well there is alot going on in the study of the relationship between uke and nage for sure, so no wonder there is room for alot of interpretation.

I am a fan of Boyd's OODA concept, which essentially says that in order to win or control your opponent or the fight you have to get inside your opponents loop and force them to react to you. Fighter pilot tactics, but also applicable to person to person fighting as well.

Evasion or dodging is reactive, which means that your opponent is in control of the situation and until you can turn the corner and get inside his loop, then you are going to remain behind and he is controlling the fight.

One of the wonderful things I think about arts such as Aikido and say Kendo is that we literally study this deeply as a big part of the philosophy is the "one cut, one chance" mentality of what we do.

Dodging or moving off the line does not force any control or turn any table for you and therefore, you opponent still holds all the cards. Attach a sword on the end of it, and it is over for you.

Therefore, ideally, we begin closing the loop and controlling uke before the engagement actually happens, we move in such a way that uke's attack has to start changing as he is attacking to account for the fact that you are moving and entering.

Once he begins to react to you...again, before contact is even made, you are in control of the fight at that very point.

You can't do this with a "dodging" or "move off the line" mentality.

Moving off the line is a part of it in many cases, but moving off the line is secondary to entering IMO.

Do I know of any sensei that shares your point of view?

I don't know, I think if you describe it as I have above most agree with me, and would say, that this is the correct way to view it.

If there are teachers out there that believe something other than that...I don't know.

[Janet Rosen]

I tend to agree w/ Kevin.
It seems to me I was taught as a newbie to "get off the line" in order to instill the idea of not standing rooted and directly clashing. Maybe in early days of training it makes sense to be taught to break down an entering into an "off the line" then an "enter" in order to make sure there is no direct clash
But I think we need to train to get past this stage. This is to me another example of why weapons training cannot start too early!

[Ketsan]

They tried this with Chuck Norris as well, but they could not ascertain exactly what was going on as it appeared that Chuck actually just stared down the bullet and it moved around Chuck.

:D

[eyrie]

They tried this with Chuck Norris as well, but they could not ascertain exactly what was going on as it appeared that Chuck actually just stared down the bullet and it moved around Chuck. You mean like this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uMlNKozweg#t=0m36s :D

He didn't actually dodge them...he actually did irimi at the exact right time and tapped the bullet on the side deflecting it's path ever so slightly, establishing a ground path with it he was able to redirect the kinetic energy by loading it onto his frame, upon which O'Sensei promptly used kokyu and directed the bullet at the wall behind him. You can catch this on stop action tape, if not, then it looks like he dodge it cause it happens so fast Just goes to show, one can read almost anything into anything. :)

All of the elements discussed thus far, are only a small aspect of what essentially constitutes "basic MA". Don't get me wrong, you need those. But it isn't what necessarily makes it Aikido, or even necessarily what makes it work.

My point is... the change of angle of deflection needed to "get off the line" is so small that you can "get off the line" without "dodging". But that isn't "aiki"... it's just basic MA.

What makes it "aiki" is something else altogether....

[observer]

I am not sure exactly what your view is on this I guess.
I am sorry Kevin. Your guess is correct. End of discussion.

[Hebrew Hammer]

Sorry to see this thread end..highly entertaining, a nice mix of anger, confusion, a blatant disregard for logic, and cross cultural miscommunication.

[Janet Rosen]

My experience with tenkan last night seemed to work best when there was a slight withdrawal at the moment of connection before the irimi and tenkan occurred.

Cherie, couple of observations:

1. Re the irimi in tenkan: consider a quick u-turn in the middle of a 2 way street to claim a parking spot (you knew I'm from Brooklyn, right?). It is a classic tenkan but it is pure entry from start to finish.

2. It sounds like you are starting to notice some things I've played with a bit. So you might find something helpful from a column I wrote a few yrs ago. It has to do with weighting and initiating movement with one hip versus the other as a way to move forward (irimi) even as the result might be a step back: "One night, I go home after parking and think about how to translate this into body movement. I stand, eyes closed, and visualize/feel an entering turn. My hip moves forward as I start to pivot. This reveals that, unwittingly, I have often initiated the same turn with the other hip moving backwards....this is probably because I'm already thinking ahead to the "step back" to come. Over and over, first with my eyes closed, then watching myself in a mirror, I compare how it feels to initiate tenkan with the front hip versus the back hip. Then I try it in the dojo with a partner during tai no henko. It makes a difference; even though the eye doesn't see which hip is initiating the movement, your attitude and posture and timing are all altered, and uke feels a difference.
I think this invisible but palpable forward movement may be related to what Chuck Clark refers to when he says, "Think small irimi which enters into the uke's space just enough that they cannot complete their movement without changing something." It's like a little, unexpected disruption in uke's world.

[observer]

... a nice mix of anger, confusion, a blatant disregard for logic, and cross cultural miscommunication.:)

[Aikibu]

Reading thru some of the preceding posts, is like listening to a bunch of blind folk describing what the elephant looks like...

Dan has succinctly summed it up in one sentence. The question should be "how do I make my aikido work... with aiki?"

As for Ueshiba dodging bullets... is that aiki? :)

Well lacking any "Aiki" my Aikido works just fine...

Perhaps the question should be What are the components of "working" Aikido. LOL

William Hazen

[Aikibu]

Sorry to see this thread end..highly entertaining, a nice mix of anger, confusion, a blatant disregard for logic, and cross cultural miscommunication.

making yourself right at the expense of making someone else "wrong" is not Aikido thats for sure. :)

William Hazen

[jonreading]

From my standpoint aikido works because:
1. Distance and timing. From a martial perspective we are talking engaging and distance to contact.
2. Mechanical advantage. Aikido employs mechanical advantage like rotation, cams, levers, and lifts. One force applied to another force to create a vector. Mechanical functions to reduce work. Application of pressure to weaker points. Breaking balance to reduce force.
3. Human condition. The human body reacts to situations, sometimes involuntarily. Aikido uses conditioned response to create vulnerability. The ki part is here too; as we react to others and cause others to react to us.

It isn't like these elements don't appear in every martial art...ever. They do. Points 1 and 3 give us trouble when we move outside the dojo atmosphere. We train in the dojo and sometimes exaggerate these points, which can result in falsified training (or exaggerated at best).

Aikido is capable of training from more worldly application, but you are changing curriculum. I think Ledyard sensei has some great posts on that topic.

In response to whether "dodge" is accurate to describe aikido movement, I believe a key component to the evasion maneuver is to apply an affecting force to the attack. In his book, Dan Linden refers to this engagement as "caming" and I like that term better than dodging. Dodging does not possess an element of affection and is possibly why so many opposes it to describe aikido movement. Semantics it may be, but we need to define a thing in order to discuss it. For example, I have yet to see a shidan move as haphazardly as to "dodge" an attack.

[Pauliina Lievonen]

Dodging does not possess an element of affection and is possibly why so many opposes it to describe aikido movement. Yes, exactly.

kvaak
Pauliina

[observer]

Semantics it may be, but we need to define a thing in order to discuss it.
Sorry, I thought it was obvious. By dodge, I understand the action or movement, so as not to be purposely affected by someone in any way, e.g. by the grab, hit, kick, cutting or thrust.

[Walter Martindale]

Tenkai, Tenkan, Irimi...
I don't like the term "dodge", personally, but entering directly in opposition to the forces being applied in an attack means clash and impact. No matter how slight the deflection / force couple / "shear" (although I think "shear" is also an inappropriate term), it still involves "getting off line," or "dodging," or re-directing. I think what's at fault here is the degree of "off line" being interpreted in the word "dodge".
Irimi yes, but two objects cannot occupy the same space - at least not with current technology - so the irimi must involve some degree of "dodge", no matter how small, and no matter what it is called by people who know how to search wikipedia.

W

[Pauliina Lievonen]

The way I see it at this point in my training is - if my irimi is on time, it's uke who has to dodge...no clash, but it's not because I got out of the way. Instead, I enter to where uke was planning to be, only I get there first, so they have to accommodate that, which takes uke out of balance.
Something like that, not really good at explaining stuff like this.

kvaak
Pauliina

[jonreading]

"...I believe a key component to the evasion maneuver is to apply an affecting force to the attack."

To elaborate on this point, I find that when I attack and my partner has correctly entered (irrimi) I react to her movement and become off-balanced. If a counter accompanies the irrmi movement, I find myself reacting to that attack as well. The feeling is more than just moving out of the way, nage is affecting my balance and structure. So the affection is applied by nage to uke - This is more that a simple evasive move.

[Kevin Leavitt]

The way I see it at this point in my training is - if my irimi is on time, it's uke who has to dodge...no clash, but it's not because I got out of the way. Instead, I enter to where uke was planning to be, only I get there first, so they have to accommodate that, which takes uke out of balance.
Something like that, not really good at explaining stuff like this.

kvaak
Pauliina

I agree with this. you have to primarily affect uke first and foremost regardless.

Sure two objects cannot occupy the same space. That is why you need to affect uke and not the other way around. It does not have to be necessarily physical first either.

On a simplistic level, we think that we have to move our feet in order to NOT occupy the same space, this is not entirely true either. You can stand your ground and uke can also go up and down as well as left and right.

If I enter first and affect nage..this causes him/her to react and move. I occupy the space first then uke responds. No dodging necessary there.

If uke beats me to the place and he has the upper hand, then I have to move elsewhere or move uke elsewhere...either way.

Lets say that I have to move as I simply was not skilled enough or quick enough, or preceptive enough to beat uke to that space. Well sometimes you lose and then you must move on. This might be called dodging, evading, moving away...okay yes...but it is not a PRIMARY action, but a secondary one. Not one that is set on my success. Couple that with a sword and I am dead. So, I see it vital to establish dominance.

Lets say I survive that move....then I have to move again to try and gain back my dominance. I am always PRIMARILY trying to enter and close first, when I can't and I am losing..well yes, I am dodging of course...but this is SECONDARY and will not lead to my "winning" until I re-establish dominance.

The point is, that dodging is not a winning strategy, but a losing one...always. So, I cringe when I hear that Aikido is a defensive art that envolves evasion, dodging or what not as it is not correct. Sure you can do it that way, but it will always invovle the other guy winning, or getting bored with you and moving on to something else.

Okay, you might go "cool, I resolved the situation defensively". Well, that is not true IMO, Uke did, not you. Uke made the choice to stop fighitng for some reason that you played no part in really. You may have the illusion that you caused him to stop, but the reality of it is that it was uke's choice...not yours.

That is the paradox and the problem I see with this mentality and paradigm.

[philippe willaume]

I agree with this. you have to primarily affect uke first and foremost regardless.

Sure two objects cannot occupy the same space. That is why you need to affect uke and not the other way around. It does not have to be necessarily physical first either.

On a simplistic level, we think that we have to move our feet in order to NOT occupy the same space, this is not entirely true either. You can stand your ground and uke can also go up and down as well as left and right.

If I enter first and affect nage..this causes him/her to react and move. I occupy the space first then uke responds. No dodging necessary there.

If uke beats me to the place and he has the upper hand, then I have to move elsewhere or move uke elsewhere...either way.

Lets say that I have to move as I simply was not skilled enough or quick enough, or preceptive enough to beat uke to that space. Well sometimes you lose and then you must move on. This might be called dodging, evading, moving away...okay yes...but it is not a PRIMARY action, but a secondary one. Not one that is set on my success. Couple that with a sword and I am dead. So, I see it vital to establish dominance.

Lets say I survive that move....then I have to move again to try and gain back my dominance. I am always PRIMARILY trying to enter and close first, when I can't and I am losing..well yes, I am dodging of course...but this is SECONDARY and will not lead to my "winning" until I re-establish dominance.

The point is, that dodging is not a winning strategy, but a losing one...always. So, I cringe when I hear that Aikido is a defensive art that envolves evasion, dodging or what not as it is not correct. Sure you can do it that way, but it will always invovle the other guy winning, or getting bored with you and moving on to something else.

Okay, you might go "cool, I resolved the situation defensively". Well, that is not true IMO, Uke did, not you. Uke made the choice to stop fighitng for some reason that you played no part in really. You may have the illusion that you caused him to stop, but the reality of it is that it was uke's choice...not yours.

That is the paradox and the problem I see with this mentality and paradigm.

Hello
I think you are spot on Kev. I quite like Georges Silver concept of true place to describe that.

It is really important to understand that by over extending or over comiting uke is giving us the space, just as if we had taken it away from him.
It martial valid, it is just that especially in aikido, it is seen as being the “norm” where it is just one the possibilities.

This vid is about medieval wrestling but it is really aiki o tohi and irimi nague koshi done from different distances

phil

[Aikibu]

Wow I dig where this thread is now going. :)

Cool Stuff my Brothers and Sisters....

William Hazen

[Erick Mead]

Sure two objects cannot occupy the same space. That is why you need to affect uke and not the other way around. It does not have to be necessarily physical first either. The closest we come to occupying the same physical space is the edge contact of two blades shearing in one plane past one another in kiri-otoshi, or suri-age. That is the secret. It works to dominate in one unopposed cut -- if one shapes from the center and projects it outward.

On a simplistic level, we think that we have to move our feet in order to NOT occupy the same space, this is not entirely true either. You can stand your ground and uke can also go up and down as well as left and right.

If I enter first and affect nage..this causes him/her to react and move. I occupy the space first then uke responds. No dodging necessary there.

The problem is in seeing the nature of the blades' shearing action in massy, wibbly-wobbly objects, instead of nicely sharpened metal edges. There are wobbly fluid "objects," in fact, that shear past one another all the time and actually DO "occupy" the same space - often going in opposite directions. They are called waves. The shear is the top going one way and the bottom going the other way. And actually, the substance of the wave only goes up and down again in a circle. It is the motion of the water that combines and then separates in the same place -- not the substance of the water, but its the angular or rotational momentum as a direct quantity. A wave is nothing but its momentum.

With this understanding, all the timey-wimey interaction, early, same time, or late -- is the same. Uke expects his own peak energy -- he is even prepared for peak energy opposed to his. He is not prepared for a sudden engagement with his peak energy that is not opposing but meshing with it -- carrying it where he did not intend. I described this in response to a specific technique some time back. (http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showpost.php?p=224145&postcount=5)

The point is, that dodging is not a winning strategy, but a losing one...always. So, I cringe when I hear that Aikido is a defensive art that envolves evasion, dodging or what not as it is not correct. Can I have an "Amen?!" :D

[philippe willaume]

Hello
I think you are spot on Kev. I quite like Georges Silver concept of true place to describe that.

It is really important to understand that by over extending or over comiting uke is giving us the space, just as if we had taken it away from him.
It is martialy valid, it is just that especially in aikido, it is seen as being the "norm" where it is just one the possibilities.

This vid is about medieval wrestling but it is really aiki o tohi and irimi nague koshi done from different distances

phil
and that is the vid
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K63uNMGTGc8

[Kevin Leavitt]

Nice video. I lost a No Gi fight this weekend from a greco roman tie up and a hip toss just like the one in your video. Guy got a real clean throw on me!