PDA

View Full Version : Deadly Techniques?


Please visit our sponsor:
 

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


Alan_Lamb
03-09-2010, 08:15 AM
I was wondering, are there any techniques that were devised or adapted by o sensei, for aikido, that were designed to kill? I was under the impression that the highest level of aikido was to control the aggressor without causing serious harm? I know they CAN kill, but are they designed to be that way?

NagaBaba
03-09-2010, 08:56 AM
Yes, there is a very deadly technique with the name "tenkan'. However, most deadly technique is "a series of tenkans".

MM
03-09-2010, 09:04 AM
I was wondering, are there any techniques that were devised or adapted by o sensei, for aikido, that were designed to kill? I was under the impression that the highest level of aikido was to control the aggressor without causing serious harm? I know they CAN kill, but are they designed to be that way?

Are you talking about the spiritual side that Ueshiba created or the physical martial side that he learned from Takeda?

I'll skip the spiritual as it pertains quite a bit of history, historical analysis, and experiences that I don't think can be very well conveyed (just the experiences, not the history) over the Internet.

If you read the accounts of when Tomiki met Ueshiba, supposedly, Tomiki was tossed like a rag doll some sixty different ways. With that kind of control, don't you think it is very highly likely that should Ueshiba have chosen to kill, he could have done so? In various manners from various techniques?

Or some of the accounts of students asking to see a technique again and Ueshiba saying they're all the same?

Or how he pinned Tenryu down and stated it was because of the secret of aiki. If he could do that to Tenryu, don't you think he could have killed him in various ways?

IMO, technique-centric thinking is completely the opposite of Ueshiba's vision of aikido. It was the body skill of Daito ryu aiki that enabled Ueshiba to mature into Takemusu Aiki. It didn't matter what technique Takeda or Ueshiba chose to express their aiki with, it was the actual aiki-built body that was the driving force. And that was what gave them the ability to be lethal in any situation.

And on that very same coin of being lethal, the aiki-built body also gave them the ability to control without doing harm and to live a bit freer in the world, unchained from fears of martial encounters.

On one side, I guess you could view them as a killing sword (setsunin to) in that they could use force of will (or rather aiki) to overpower, immobilize and strike down (kill) an opponent. But by the very same force of aiki, they also had the choice to go inside the opponent's technique and to draw them in or to pass them outward in a controlling manner (katsujin ken). I probably have described this incorrectly and if so, others who have more experience will hopefully correct me.

Abasan
03-09-2010, 09:24 AM
What is more dangerous than having total control over your opponent(s)?

phitruong
03-09-2010, 09:28 AM
What is more dangerous than having total control over your opponent(s)?

that and you had lots of beans, cabbage, eggs, cheese, onions, along with curry, a few hours ago then trap your opponent in your hakama. :D

*phi knows nothing of such vicious technique which also works great against/with bjj*

gregstec
03-09-2010, 09:37 AM
While others are more elaborate than me - the short answer is yes, all of them. At their core, all martial activities or movements, whether they be hand to hand, weapon against weapon, or any combination thereof, are designed for one thing only; to kill the enemy. Of course, the practice thereof can be modified or limited in some way for other purposes, but the initial design was to kill - and the quicker the better.

Greg

mickeygelum
03-09-2010, 10:32 AM
If you read the accounts of when Tomiki met Ueshiba, supposedly, Tomiki was tossed like a rag doll some sixty different ways. With that kind of control, don't you think it is very highly likely that should Ueshiba have chosen to kill, he could have done so? In various manners from various techniques?


Hey Mark,

I would like to read that account, Please post a link, or reference, to where I will find it?

Train well,

Mickey

NagaBaba
03-09-2010, 10:35 AM
If you read the accounts of when Tomiki met Ueshiba, supposedly, Tomiki was tossed like a rag doll some sixty different ways. With that kind of control, don't you think it is very highly likely that should Ueshiba have chosen to kill, he could have done so? In various manners from various techniques?

Are you seriously thinking they were fighting? One thing is to have a choice to kill in deadly fighting, other thing is to have a choice to kill in cooperative practice. Which one are you referring on?

Aikido practice is based on cooperation, so in my opinion there is no serious possibility to develop killing skills.

MM
03-09-2010, 11:07 AM
Hey Mark,

I would like to read that account, Please post a link, or reference, to where I will find it?

Train well,

Mickey

Hi Mickey,
If I remember correctly, it was an Aikido Journal article or interview. I'll see if I can dig it up.

MM
03-09-2010, 11:11 AM
Are you seriously thinking they were fighting? One thing is to have a choice to kill in deadly fighting, other thing is to have a choice to kill in cooperative practice. Which one are you referring on?

Aikido practice is based on cooperation, so in my opinion there is no serious possibility to develop killing skills.

Well, are you talking modern aikido practice and comparing it to Ueshiba's martial practice back when he was actually studying and teaching Daito ryu? Are you saying that Ueshiba back then had to rely upon cooperative practice? That's an interesting theory.

Based upon all the accounts of meetings with Ueshiba during that time frame, I don't think there's much evidence to support that theory, though. But, hey, if you want to prove Shioda, Tomiki, Shirata, Mochizuki, etc were all just being cooperative with Ueshiba, I'd certainly read your research findings.

Ron Tisdale
03-09-2010, 01:00 PM
Or you could read the account of the demo with Hideo Oba. THAT certainly was not overly cooperative.

Best,
Ron

DH
03-09-2010, 01:23 PM
Are you seriously thinking they were fighting? One thing is to have a choice to kill in deadly fighting, other thing is to have a choice to kill in cooperative practice. Which one are you referring on?

Aikido practice is based on cooperation, so in my opinion there is no serious possibility to develop killing skills.
It is a big mistake to attach your own limitation to those of others. It rarely works out well.

I'd be happy to entertain your efforts Szczepan ( as I continue to do with with others I have met so far- from shodan to shihan, traditional to MMA) in whatever manner of attack you choose; full on freetsyle with weapons or without.
You can do what ever manner of attack you want
I'll do aiki.
We'll see how that works out for ya.

There is a big bad world out there; with people with vastly more developed skills than you may realize. Stating aiki isn't deadly is self-limiting.
Dan

NagaBaba
03-09-2010, 01:40 PM
Well, are you talking modern aikido practice and comparing it to Ueshiba's martial practice back when he was actually studying and teaching Daito ryu? Are you saying that Ueshiba back then had to rely upon cooperative practice? That's an interesting theory.
I believe that Daito ryu practice is strictly codified, means that tori and uke roles are very well defined. They even can't resist, with exception of Sagawa dojo. So I'd call it in fact cooperative practice as opposed to sparring that can be found in judo practice.


Based upon all the accounts of meetings with Ueshiba during that time frame, I don't think there's much evidence to support that theory, though. But, hey, if you want to prove Shioda, Tomiki, Shirata, Mochizuki, etc were all just being cooperative with Ueshiba, I'd certainly read your research findings.
I don't believe they were allowed to fight back. They had a chance to attack once, and if the attack was not successful, they had to bow and ask to be a student. Maybe after IIWW new students could attack few more times, but still couldn't fight back.

DH
03-09-2010, 01:47 PM
Takeda allowed people to attack freely, he did so at the budokan with several judoka -in front of a large audience, all the while casting insults at them. Needless to say it was not exactly a friendly encounter (not saying I condone that sort of behavior).
There were enough occasions in the various interviews with Ueshiba where men stated they were invited to attack at will.

Secondly, I will say from experience that there is a point where people can attack someone and be so outclassed that they know it instantly and no further proof was needed. I would allow that some of the people who felt Ueshiba and Takeda knew what they were facing- instantly.
Dan

NagaBaba
03-09-2010, 01:50 PM
Or you could read the account of the demo with Hideo Oba. THAT certainly was not overly cooperative.

Best,
Ron
Hi Ron,
We don't really know the details. But do you really believe that ANY Japanese student will fight his teacher in public demo? :eek: :crazy: :freaky:
From cultural context I'd guess he could attack him a bit stronger that usual, but I think if was quite cooperative.:D

NagaBaba
03-09-2010, 01:57 PM
It is a big mistake to attach your own limitation to those of others. It rarely works out well.

I'd be happy to entertain your efforts Szczepan ( as I continue to do with with others I have met so far- from shodan to shihan, traditional to MMA) in whatever manner of attack you choose; full on freetsyle with weapons or without.
You can do what ever manner of attack you want
I'll do aiki.
We'll see how that works out for ya.

There is a big bad world out there; with people with vastly more developed skills than you may realize. Stating aiki isn't deadly is self-limiting.
Dan
Hi Dan,
As far as I know you don't practice aikido, nor Daito ryu. However you allow yourself to behave as an authority in both arts. What are you doing here Dan?

DH
03-09-2010, 02:16 PM
I am ranked in both those arts, and I continue to demonstrate Aiki on those who doubt it's potential. Rank has lost all meaning to me, as it rarely equates to genuine skill. In my view I practice aiki...do everytime I step on a mat. Dan Hi Dan,
As far as I know you don't practice aikido, nor Daito ryu. However you allow yourself to behave as an authority in both arts. What are you doing here Danr?

Gorgeous George
03-09-2010, 02:20 PM
I don't believe they were allowed to fight back. They had a chance to attack once, and if the attack was not successful, they had to bow and ask to be a student. Maybe after IIWW new students could attack few more times, but still couldn't fight back.

'I remember that O Sensei always had a strong presence... There was a very special atmosphere when he was around. This came from his physical posture - the way he sat, the way he walked, the way he moved around was so beautiful. Never could I see any opening in O Sensei's posture . . . not ever.'

http://www.aikidofaq.com/chiba_interview.html

'O-Sensei used to tell us to strike at him with a bokken at any time. Whenever he stopped and turned to speak to his audience seemed like a good chance to do so, since he wasn’t looking our way at all, but even then nobody tried to strike him. He simply had no openings. He wasn’t looking at us with his eyes, but we could feel him holding us fast with his ki. It used to make me break out in an oily sweat, so that I could hardly keep a grip on my bokken.

Still, as his opponents we would keep at it, gradually trying to close the distance. Then, for an instant, an opening would appear. O-Sensei created small openings deliberately to help us train our powers of perception. He wouldn’t use people who couldn’t demonstrate an ability to perceive such openings.

The instant O-Sensei slightly relaxed the intensity of his kokyu power we would rush in with an attack, but he was already gone. For that reason it looked pre-arranged. Actually, O-Sensei was already moving by the time we began our attack. We were just too slow or lacked the ability to perceive it. I find that sort of thing extremely interesting.'

http://www.aikidojournal.com/article?articleID=251

NagaBaba
03-09-2010, 02:31 PM
I am ranked in both those arts, and I continue to demonstrate Aiki on those who doubt it's potential. Rank has lost all meaning to me, as it rarely equates to genuine skill. In my view I practice aiki...do everytime I step on a mat. Dan
I know you practice aiki. But my question was not about aiki or ranks.

mathewjgano
03-09-2010, 02:47 PM
I was wondering, are there any techniques that were devised or adapted by o sensei, for aikido, that were designed to kill? I was under the impression that the highest level of aikido was to control the aggressor without causing serious harm? I know they CAN kill, but are they designed to be that way?

So, to be clear, the question had to do with whether or not any techniques were shaped by O Sensei with the intent to kill. I'm guessing any changes he made later on in life weren't to this aim, though I have no idea about pre-war stuff. It seems quite possible from what VERY little I know about his earlier years. Shiho nage is one that can kill relatively easily, for example, but I don't know whether or not it was exactly "designed" by O Sensei, or if it was designed for that purpose. I know Sensei Barrish has shaped his shiho nage to be a bit safer...not that that has much to do with the question though.

mathewjgano
03-09-2010, 02:53 PM
Aikido practice is based on cooperation, so in my opinion there is no serious possibility to develop killing skills.
Why do you suppose that is? I'm guessing you don't mean to imply that a person cannot learn killing skills in a cooperative environment.

DH
03-09-2010, 05:10 PM
I know you practice aiki. But my question was not about aiki or ranks.
Hello again Szczepan
Actually your points crossed several talking points (including those two) as you were discussing people of rank, testing others in an established practice, mixed in with a DR method of testing.
I was responding to the general idea or tone presented in this the most recent thread of a frequently asked question about effectiveness and lethality.

a. were/are there deadly techniques
b. did/ does Ueshiba or any modern adepts practice anything that could be considered lethal. FWIW, I really think deadly is a poor choice of concept or model, I think a better example is "Percentage of success under duress in a high stress environment."


On the one hand I think it's best to differentiate "the way of aiki" (I call it aiki...do) from modern Aikido™. Modern Aikido is all over the map and many (not all) agree it is NOT the aiki...do of Ueshiba M. but rather Ueshiba Kisshomaru. Therefore IMO, trying to have an intelligent discussion of how deadly Ueshiba M. supposedly was has little relevance to a discussion of modern aikido.

That said, on the other hand I was bringing up aiki as a very real and deadly (there's that word again, can we agree to highly effective and potentially lethal?) skill in the hands of the right people.

Since the discussion ran the gamut of Takeda-to- Ueshiba, and the means and methods of testing those men used it was fair to defend the approach from past to present.

The past
I think their methods were proven in very real environments, Takeda Killed people (thieves and hooligans who attacked him) and Ueshiba was tested by any number of VERY seasoned men.

The present
There is very little I have seen to convince me of the lethality of modern Aikido™, we can agree on that point. However, the thread crossing the past with the present and aiki with modern waza makes it a muddled mess. The volume of people not really getting it does little to "redefine" what aiki is and was capable of.
The reason I offered myself to demonstrate is that the aiki I practice is solely derived from Daito ryu and Aikido. I wanted to make a clear statement that Aiki -in and of itself- is effective in the extreme, in high stress environments in the modern age, once you walk away from the technical approach and focus on the body. The aiki being discussed from the lineage of Takeda-Ueshiba is indeed powerful enough to be considered lethal and brutally efficient in use in the modern age-were one to have the tenacity to develop the body for aiki, and then have the resolve to train it under stress until they own it.

I think what needs to be addressed and seriously considered is just what Ueshiba stated was deadly in the first place. He discussed strikes and aiki, not detailed techniques. I believe HE knew and differentiated his aiki...out from the technical side of the art. I believe he did so because he knew what the real score was and always would be...The development of aiki for power, and never for the art to be just another form of jujutsu.
Cheers
Dan

Kevin Leavitt
03-09-2010, 07:46 PM
Killing and deadly force is pretty easy to do once you have control of the person and can move them and manipulate them to go where you want them to go.

As this is fundamental in aikido, i'd say if you can manage/control folks in this manner...then yeah it is pretty much possible to find deadly force in just about anything. Smashing heads into walls and floors, choking, using knives, sticks and what not are all possibilities.

Of course all this is predicated on the level of skill you possess, and willingness to use it, and of course, timing and luck.

This is near and dear to me right now, as I am instructing this very thing thing over the next few months on a daily basis!

ChrisHein
03-09-2010, 08:10 PM
Yes.

I've also heard that electricity, hammers and cars are deadly as well.

thisisnotreal
03-09-2010, 08:20 PM
Of course all this is predicated on the level of skill you possess, and willingness to use it, and of course, timing and luck.

Luck is something I've been wondering about. In Kimura's "Transparent Power" it basically said the power differential between Sagawa and anyone else was so large that Sagawa never lost. Didn't matter. Nothing mattered. Aiki body + skills was too strong. .. but... I can't quite reconcile what I think about the everpresence of luck and all that. Any one thing can happen on any given day. Isn't it so?

Charles Hill
03-09-2010, 08:36 PM
"Percentage of success under duress in a high stress environment."


Hi Dan,

How do you define success in this context?

Thanks,
Charles

SeiserL
03-10-2010, 05:07 AM
Killing and deadly force is pretty easy to do once you have control of the person and can move them and manipulate them to go where you want them to go.
Have to agree with Keven again.

IMHO, any technique can be applied with deadly force. We can always enter another discussion on intent.

I have heard that two of Aikido's friends are gravity and concrete.

DH
03-10-2010, 06:32 AM
1. Kevin Leavitt wrote:
Killing and deadly force is pretty easy to do once you have control of the person and can move them and manipulate them to go where you want them to go.

2. Lynn Seiser wrote:
Have to agree with Keven again.
IMHO, any technique can be applied with deadly force. We can always enter another discussion on intent.
I have heard that two of Aikido's friends are gravity and concrete.

My argument is with the underlined being the missing and very critical piece when the idea of aikido against fully resisting and capable attackers is discussed.
Kevin's once you have control of the person is such a critical part that it almost defeats all other considerations.
I go back to what I initially addressed. Aiki...do can and has been a determining force that bridges that gap.

Lynn's any technique can be applied with deadly force is just not something I could agree with. How do you propse that could happen Lynn?
And Getting gravity and concrete to be your friend while true, takes some doing when you bring the discussion into a level of deadly confrontation. With what I have seen and experienced with most traditional art practitioners- they are far to cavalier in their approach. Further, I just haven't seen a purely traditional (single art) model capable of developing it for more intense environments.
It is no small wonder that virtually all of our "greats" and "founders" were all deeply immersed in MMA studies and personal research.
Cheers
Dan

MM
03-10-2010, 07:06 AM
Hey Mark,

I would like to read that account, Please post a link, or reference, to where I will find it?

Train well,

Mickey

Found the reference.

http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showpost.php?p=215169&postcount=12

It's from Aiki News #87


I took Mr. Tomiki there and introduced him to Ueshiba Sensei. Mr. Tomiki was a little taller than I was. However, he was thrown in about 63 different ways just by having his hand held by Ueshiba Sensei.

mickeygelum
03-10-2010, 09:55 AM
Thanks for the effort Mark ...

...but, that is hardly a testament to the actual encounter. Considering that Tomiki Shihan was already an well-seasoned martial artist and competitor, having earned national recognition for his accomplishments.

In my opinion, Ueshiba was, and still is, highly overrated and given undue omnipotence.

Considering the era and culture, I think Tomiki Shihan just put up with the extraneous hype.

It is also my opinion, that when Ueshiba started to fantasize, utter quips and quotations, Tomiki made the decision to pursue his view. Just because Alzheimers did not have a name back then, does not mean it did not exist.

Train well,

Mickey

mickeygelum
03-10-2010, 10:12 AM
Is killing that easy, Kevin . . . even after you have control of the opponent? I know that you are a professional soldier. Have you ever killed anyone in close-quarter combat--barehanded or not? Did you find it easy to do?


Absolutely...I am not answering for Kevin, he can speak for himself.

Killing is very easy, Mr. Campbell..it is the individual that is cognizant of the proper response that involves taking a life.
Given the proper situation, it is easily accomplished.

Comparing military operations, civilian law enforcement and the general public's response to lethal force is absurd. The authority granted by of position is limiting.

If One has the ability, and the opportunity, yet it is an unwarranted response, then it is excessive.

If one has the ability and the opportunity, and it is the only response to end the conflict...it is survival.

Train well,

Mickey

Ron Tisdale
03-10-2010, 12:35 PM
Hmm, yes, you think....did you read the accounts of that encounter? You might not have to stress the brain so much. lol

But hey, thinking is good, and I believe you are absolutley correct on the cultural context. Which is why Ueshiba was reportedly so pissed. :D
Best,
Ron ;)
Hi Ron,
We don't really know the details. But do you really believe that ANY Japanese student will fight his teacher in public demo? :eek: :crazy: :freaky:
From cultural context I'd guess he could attack him a bit stronger that usual, but I think if was quite cooperative.:D

mathewjgano
03-10-2010, 01:44 PM
Lynn's any technique can be applied with deadly force is just not something I could agree with.
Would you say any technique can be applied with deadly force if you're doing "aiki...do"? Otherwise, what's one technique that cannot be lethal in some setting? Ideally, every technique should have control over aite's center, etc. right? ....I.E. once you have control of the person and can move them and manipulate them to go where you want them to go.?
I'm wondering if the difference is semantics.

SeiserL
03-10-2010, 02:26 PM
It is no small wonder that virtually all of our "greats" and "founders" were all deeply immersed in MMA studies and personal research.
And here we find full agreement.

eyrie
03-10-2010, 03:15 PM
I was wondering, are there any techniques that were devised or adapted by o sensei, for aikido, that were designed to kill? I was under the impression that the highest level of aikido was to control the aggressor without causing serious harm? I know they CAN kill, but are they designed to be that way? Any martial art worth its salt is, by definition, designed to subdue, or if necessary, maim and cripple. And, if absolutely necessary, kill - as quickly, and as efficiently as possible.

That said, I believe the contrary is equally true - that certain "techniques" are designed to hide the lethality of the art. IOW, a martial art/style, again by its very nature, would seek to hide the obvious lethality of its technical trademarks.

That also said, a more than intimate knowledge of the human body is necessary to fathom the potential lethality of any "technique". Pulling it off - when you need to - is the "art".

Whether that applies to aikido is debatable. IMHO, the "techniques" in aikido were specifically modified to serve an entirely different purpose - namely, as a vehicle for pursuing a particular set of body skills, whilst retaining certain core principles and semblance of a martial art.

Kevin Leavitt
03-10-2010, 03:41 PM
Luck is something I've been wondering about. In Kimura's "Transparent Power" it basically said the power differential between Sagawa and anyone else was so large that Sagawa never lost. Didn't matter. Nothing mattered. Aiki body + skills was too strong. .. but... I can't quite reconcile what I think about the everpresence of luck and all that. Any one thing can happen on any given day. Isn't it so?

Yes...I think it also depends or the semantics and perspective of what is "luck". In any situattions there simply are things that you can't mitigate or manage no matter how good you are. sometimes things go your way, sometimes you don't. The goal through training, of course, is to narrow the gap of "luck".

NagaBaba
03-10-2010, 04:36 PM
Aiki deadly techniques – what nonsense. Some people are still living in a fantasy world. Last 40 years we have seen karate deadly techniques, kung fu deadly techniques, ninja deadly techniques, krav maga deadly techniques, systema deadly techniques, every time somebody promotes new business on the market they use the same syllabus… what a disappointment.

RED
03-10-2010, 05:04 PM
Aiki deadly techniques – what nonsense. Some people are still living in a fantasy world. Last 40 years we have seen karate deadly techniques, kung fu deadly techniques, ninja deadly techniques, krav maga deadly techniques, systema deadly techniques, every time somebody promotes new business on the market they use the same syllabus… what a disappointment.

I tend to agree with you.
I have no authority on the history of Aikido, and don't pretend to.
But I think ideas of "deadly techniques" are rather romantic ideas that stem from a need to chase some sort elusive power. Some people are control freaks. Some people really get off over feeling like they have the lives of other's in their hands, and frankly some people feel morally superior when they show "divine mercy" to spare their foe's life.(A worm like me will never compare to those noble warriors :p ) lol Great marketing. It really hits the nail on the head for some people.

Maybe Aikido techniques did stem from previously deadly techniques, maybe if you have control over some one you have the choice over life and death? I don't know, I'm not a historian, nor do I look for openings for kills in training.
Whatever, it's all good, and doesn't matter.
Because It's Aikido, Aikidoka isn't suppose to go there.

Kevin Leavitt
03-10-2010, 08:13 PM
The irony of the whole thing is that once you can control and maintain in control, then you probably don't have to kill anyway! Which is a MAJOR lesson I think we are supposed to be learning.

I agree, no deadly techniques, yet having the ability to control, and you can find places along the way where you can do so or turn it into something else.

Control...well that is a whole other subject and what it means. Anywhere from obtaining dominate position, OODA loops, and of course, the concept and practice of Aiki.

eyrie
03-10-2010, 11:37 PM
The real irony is that martial arts isn't a prerequisite to executing a deadly technique - as evidenced by the increasing number of reported school yard "fights" instigated for the purpose of broadcasting on YouTube, THAT ultimately led to a fatality.

There isn't much technique required to beat someone to a pulp - any noob with sufficient provocation could do that. Defending yourself from getting beaten to a pulp - without having to invoke the justifiable homicide defence - is more the trick. ;)

Michael Fitzgerald
03-11-2010, 02:32 AM
I was wondering, are there any techniques that were devised or adapted by o sensei, for aikido, that were designed to kill? I was under the impression that the highest level of aikido was to control the aggressor without causing serious harm? I know they CAN kill, but are they designed to be that way?

OP,
You say you know they CAN kill- so do I.

You seem to be asking if they were designed to do so. I can't think of a reliable way of determining this for sure except for consulting the designer.

You might have been better off asking if anyone had any evidence that they were designed to do so- if that's what you wanted to know.

Things take a tangent fairly easily on internet forums.

does it matter if they were or weren't designed to do that?

Kinda hate to go here- but I can stir a cup of tea with a screw driver...if I need that tea stirred- what does it matter why it was designed?

sry bout that.:)

DH
03-11-2010, 08:43 AM
Dan Harden wrote:
"Percentage of success under duress in a high stress environment."


Hi Dan,

How do you define success in this context?

Thanks,
Charles
Degree of percentage of fulfilling your goals under stress.
Many traditional techniques are rather inane to me, and become even more so when people try to pull them off against someone well trained in placing continual stress on them. Moreover I think many if not most traditional MAers really have not experienced being stressed by men truly capable of doing so. Usually it is quite a shock. For that reason this idea of the "deadly" nature of most Martial waza is rather ridiculous. "Technique" is not high up on my list of "deadly", I would place experience in active fighting, and mindset above waza. Of course waza is important, but controlled contact, and the experience to freely change position, and affect their's against their own will while you are actively playing them (personally that would include kicks, punches and throws, but whatever floats your boat) will trump waza every time. The fixation of deadly waza is more or less secondary to me; it's more of your ability to get there control it and get out. IME, most traditional art's adepts do not have what it takes to do that.
Cheers
Dan

DH
03-11-2010, 09:46 AM
Aiki deadly techniques -- what nonsense. Some people are still living in a fantasy world. Last 40 years we have seen karate deadly techniques, kung fu deadly techniques, ninja deadly techniques, krav maga deadly techniques, systema deadly techniques, every time somebody promotes new business on the market they use the same syllabus… what a disappointment.
You are speaking from your experience, and that's fine, I understand that perspective and do not fault you for it.
I would rather you used less confrontational language but since you brought it up, I can only respond to you from my own experience with using aiki in hundreds of sparring sessions and demonstrations; some which were tame testing, some which amped up, others which turned into controlled violence.

It has been "my experience" that from Shodan to Shihan, from traditional arts to MMA, I've not met a single one of you who can manage to withstand my aiki. Not one. In fact it was their "fantasy world" that crumbled, and not my own. Even were that not the case, and I was only discussing a high percentage of succes- it would still be substantial enough, but suffice to say that it caused all those well versed in aiki (some very dismissive of it) to pause and re-evaluate their prevous opinions. Aiki is extremely potent and powerful in use if you know what aiki truly is, how to manifest it, and then get out and fight with it and learn what to do once you have it.


Matthew wrote:
Would you say any technique can be applied with deadly force if you're doing "aiki...do"? Otherwise, what's one technique that cannot be lethal in some setting? Ideally, every technique should have control over aite's center, etc. right? ....I.E.
Quote:
once you have control of the person and can move them and manipulate them to go where you want them to go.

?
I'm wondering if the difference is semantics.

Okay, lets try to reduce the semantic obscurity and be more clear.

Note* I am not talking about just doing solo training exercises and testing against wrist locks and grabs.
I am discussing free movement, at speed against kicks, punches, throws, locks, and entry attempts all while doing the same back at them. I am discussing everything from the simple throws, to wholesale violence. The feedback I have received from openly teaching for the first time these last three years, is that it is now agreed, that there exists a high level of the "use of aiki" in controlled violence unlike anything those I am meeting has felt before. It has become a sort of collaborative from which to re-build their own expectations of their own work. FWIW, it is my opinion that what I am doing is what aiki used to be and what it was meant to produce in an adept.

Then and now
The discussions of Takeda and Ueshiba and "deadly techniques" are intriguing to me in this context; as contrary to much of the counter arguments stated here- both were known for "frightening power" and control. Again it is worth noting that Takeda killed men who attacked him, and Ueshiba continually made comments about the deadly nature of aiki. I am quite sure they would be amused reading modern adepts opinions.
That modern adepts continue to try and redefine aiki- and reduce expectations of its potential (mostly due to their own inadequecies) remains a continual problem. The troube is ,once we set lower expections we are sure to accept them as the norm.

Personally, while I am interested in continuing to communicate and discuss Aiki, I am not interested in debating endlessly with those who continue to demonstrate that they have no ability whatsoever to successfully debate this in person. I am only trying to be straightforward and get the message across that
a) aiki is real
b) it is not some wrist grab game with big body movements
c) it is NOT waza oriented at all-rather it happend internall in the person first and is made manifest through contact and manipualtion. Trying to create the later, without the former, is what has reduced the expectations of it's former potential in the eyes of so many.
d) by it's very nature it is very potent as it produces devastating kicks, strikes, throws, counter throws, and tends to cancel out most attempts to stop it.
There is something very potent out there for those who will pursue it, and get out to find it. The solution begins with you.
Cheers
Dan

Rob Watson
03-11-2010, 11:07 AM
I've also heard that electricity, hammers and cars are deadly as well.

Bathtubs seem to be pretty high on the list ...

This whole thread seems to completely miss the point. The flu kills like 30,000 people a year ... hows your defense against a virus working out? Any fool can kill. It takes mastery to diffuse the deadly encounter with the minimum of casualties.

If one does not train with the deadly encounter to frame the mindset then the training is wide of the mark. Techniques are irrelevant if the mindset is not proper. If one needs to believe the techniques are deadly to get into the proper mindset then go right ahead and think that. Might as well believe that the founder set it up just like that too, if that helps get the mind right.

Mark Raugas
03-11-2010, 11:14 AM
Dan Harden writes:

It has been "my experience" that from Shodan to Shihan, from traditional arts to MMA, I've not met a single one of you who can manage to withstand my aiki. Not one. In fact it was their "fantasy world" that crumbled, and not my own.

Sounds good, but now I am curious.

If you are on such a musha shugyo, why not seek out tougher opponents instead of the aikido people who seek you out or the local MMA crowd? What stops you from going to meet with people like Su Dongchen or Chen Bing or Sagawa's student Kimura or whoever Gracie to spar? They might be interested in getting a good run for their money.

That said, I want to bring up a point to see what your thoughts are. Bill Gleason studies with you and has the utmost respect for your teachings. But his video clip of teaching inspired by your stuff that is on Youtube looks mostly like the opening movement to the taijiquan form, and is not that illuminating. You had to do more to him to make him an advocate of your method. It would be real cool to see a clip of you sparring with someone like him so we can get a better frame of reference. I have only met Mark Murray once, who was still in learning phase, and also another guy in Baltimore who said he trained with you, but I didn't know whether to believe him as he was very rusty. Another person, whose opinion I respect, has nothing but good stuff to say about your ability.

So -- I'm not questioning your aiki. But, putting aside how tough you are for a moment, do you feel you can teach efficiently what you know? Not every good boxer is a good trainer. Are you making a mistake in making the people who meet with you over confident in their own abilities so they can go out and 'change their aikido' without really having the goods that you have? What does a guy like Gleason have now that he didn't have when he first met you -- is he any closer to your level of skill from training with you? Assuming I have a guy to train under who really knows taiji and bagua and xingyi, what is the benefits of your approach over more classical ideas besides Aikido or kata-based Daito-ryu jujutsu practice?

Not meaning to be rude -- only trying to be succinct. I'm picking Bill Gleason as an example because he is high ranking aikidoka. I've never met him.

Best Wishes,
Mark

NagaBaba
03-11-2010, 12:59 PM
It has been "my experience" that from Shodan to Shihan, from traditional arts to MMA, I've not met a single one of you who can manage to withstand my aiki.
Cheers
Dan
Hi Dan,
If you really faced very violent(deadly ?? LOL) encounters, you should perceive my language as very polite, not confrontational. You may have highest aiki skills in the world, I really can’t care less. We in aikido, we are not trying to prove we are the best, aikido is not a sport.Only this point proves you understand nothing about aikido.

In this topic, we are talking here about “deadly aikido techniques’. Of course, if one seriously thinks his techniques are deadly, he must IN REGULAR BASIS use his techniques in deadly manner. In clear – he must kill people to perfect his skills. Otherwise it will be like swimming in an empty pool. I personally doubt very much you are serial killer, that’s why your arguments are not valid to me. That is one point.

The other point is: there is an old saying from wise men from Himalaya: if the only tool you know is a hammer, everything around you looks like a nail.

You are spamming every topic on aikiweb with your ideas of “aiki’, because you have nothing to say about aikido. It prevents any valuable discussion on different aspects of aikido training.

I’m very surprised that Jun didn’t ban you on this forum.

Cheers

phitruong
03-11-2010, 01:09 PM
Sounds good, but now I am curious.

Mark

me too. very curious. now, i wonder when i will have a chance to be in the region to feel dan's aiki. i am a nobody so it wouldn't mean much. probably opens my eyes to new aiki possibility. wouldn't be the first time either.

so many folks with aiki and so little time to experience them. :)

DH
03-11-2010, 01:25 PM
Hi Dan,
We in aikido, we are not trying to prove we are the best, aikido is not a sport.Only this point proves you understand nothing about aikido.

In this topic, we are talking here about "deadly aikido techniques'. Of course, if one seriously thinks his techniques are deadly, he must IN REGULAR BASIS use his techniques in deadly manner. In clear -- he must kill people to perfect his skills. Otherwise it will be like swimming in an empty pool. I personally doubt very much you are serial killer, that's why your arguments are not valid to me. That is one point.

The other point is: there is an old saying from wise men from Himalaya: if the only tool you know is a hammer, everything around you looks like a nail.

You are spamming every topic on aikiweb with your ideas of "aiki', because you have nothing to say about aikido. It prevents any valuable discussion on different aspects of aikido training.

I'm very surprised that Jun didn't ban you on this forum.

Cheers
Aiki is aiki. It remains the driving force that is behind aikido. Whether or not various practitioners are at different levels in manifesting it doesn't matter. What I am discussing IS Aikido. Further, I am deeply involved in training teachers OF aikido to manifest the aiki I am discussing here and to teach it themselves.

How does your own individual understanding of aiki in aikido change what aiki is? I can point you to a number of teachers and a few shihan who would argue with you vehemently that what I am talking about IS the aiki they have been looking for their entire career.

Cheers
Dan

RED
03-11-2010, 01:41 PM
Aiki is aiki. It remains the driving force that is behind aikido. Whether or not various practitioners are at different levels in manifesting it doesn't matter. What I am discussing IS Aikido. Further, I am deeply involved in training teachers OF aikido to manifest the aiki I am discussing here and to teach it themselves.

How does your own individual understanding of aiki in aikido change what aiki is? I can point you to a number of teachers and a few shihan who would argue with you vehemently that what I am talking about IS the aiki they have been looking for their entire career.

Cheers
Dan

Okay, I'll start by saying I don't dislike you.
But, basically, I'm agreeing with Szczepan's view-point here.
Now,
I was gonna ask "which shihans?" But then it came to me that this is a silly argument. I don't wanna play along with it. lol

I'm not saying what you are saying is wrong per say, or what you are speaking of is silly persay, I'm accusing your approach over it as silly-- tactless. It doesn't matter, what you got to prove?

Even the most sensible when confronted by imprudence becomes utter nonsense!

mathewjgano
03-11-2010, 03:22 PM
Thanks for the clarification, Dan! I appreciate it.

And just to summarize some of my thoughts on this thread:
First, I don't know whether any forms in Aikido were specifically designed to be deadly, sorry to say so much for not having an answer to the OP.
Finally, my understanding is that techniques are just examples to work through; they're not the point of training, the principle(s) they lend themselves to are. That said, techniques are as deadly as the situation allows them to be. To touch on an earlier point I forgot to follow up on: my understanding is that some folks have died from shihonage. Aikido was deadly to them, even if it was accidental (that luck factor brought up earlier?).
That said: Ueshiba Ryu Aikido as I understand it, in its purest expression, is non-violent and even healing. It takes enormous levels of skill to make that happen against a capable and violently aggressive person so what most of us mere mortals are left with is doing our best with the Aikido we have developed in ourselves. I tell my friends who think simply having some martial arts experience makes me a bad-ass that, if I happen to get lucky and pull something off successfully, I don't know that I have the control to keep a person from putting their head into the window behind me, or into traffic if we're by a street.

DH
03-11-2010, 03:38 PM
Szczepan
I didn't have time to finish-had to get to a meeting.
You made some fairly bold statements in counter to mine-largely based on your personal experiences, I responded with mine. I think you should consider that your are confusing the issue about aiki and disqualifying what I am pointing at from the discussion because of the source-me.

To be clear I am not discussing aiki from X or aiki from Y and comparing to the aiki of Z. I am discussing the aiki FROM within aikido. Aiki is aiki and comes from the same source-a connected body.

Instead of relegating it to spamming, you might want to consider the dozens of aikido teachers who state openly that what I and others are doing and teaching IS the aiki of aikido and are pursuing it rigorously. It of course helps when we all stand there and do, AIkido , Daito ryu, jujutsu, judo, push hands and MMA waza...with aiki. It tends to clear things up rather well and makes good colaberation and friends.
I don't see it as a source of discontent at all.

Cheers
Dan

rroeserr
03-11-2010, 03:58 PM
Aiki deadly techniques – what nonsense.

From Aikido by K. Ueshiba:

At the Headquarter's Dojo in Tokyo the following RULES DURING PRACTICE are posted for all to see and learn:
1) One blow in Aikido is capable of killing an opponent. In practice, obey your instructor, and do not make practice period a time for needless testing of strength.

http://books.google.com/books?id=FqSlvJXBKAMC&lpg=PA174&ots=yOQm20kCUr&dq=ueshiba%20aikido%20practice%20rules&pg=PA174#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Gorgeous George
03-11-2010, 04:10 PM
From Aikido by K. Ueshiba:

At the Headquarter's Dojo in Tokyo the following RULES DURING PRACTICE are posted for all to see and learn:
1) One blow in Aikido is capable of killing an opponent. In practice, obey your instructor, and do not make practice period a time for needless testing of strength.

http://books.google.com/books?id=FqSlvJXBKAMC&lpg=PA174&ots=yOQm20kCUr&dq=ueshiba%20aikido%20practice%20rules&pg=PA174#v=onepage&q=&f=false

I was thinking of that myself...
Also: i don't know if it was on these forums, or others, but i remember somebody posting a link to a list of accidents - some resulting in death - in aikido training.

And surely if you perform irimi-nage on somebody who doesn't practice aikido, at high speed, on concrete...?

DH
03-11-2010, 04:11 PM
Dan Harden writes:
Sounds good, but now I am curious.
If you are on such a musha shugyo, why not seek out tougher opponents instead of the aikido people who seek you out or the local MMA crowd? What stops you from going to meet with people like Su Dongchen or Chen Bing or Sagawa's student Kimura or whoever Gracie to spar? They might be interested in getting a good run for their money.
Hello Mark
I have met some serious people from traditional Japanese, Chinese and modern arts. There are of course limits with time and money.
I wouldn't consider Kimura worth the effort but there are a number of people I plan on meeting and playing with.

That said, I want to bring up a point to see what your thoughts are. Bill Gleason studies with you and has the utmost respect for your teachings. But his video clip of teaching inspired by your stuff that is on Youtube looks mostly like the opening movement to the taijiquan form, and is not that illuminating. You had to do more to him to make him an advocate of your method.
Of course I did. But that is between us. What Bill chooses to introduce and more improtantly when is his affair. He knows his people.

1. Do you feel you can teach efficiently what you know? Not every good boxer is a good trainer.
I have and still do. I have taught over 300 people with maybe a dozen becoming very capable.
Are you making a mistake in making the people who meet with you over-confident in their own abilities so they can go out and 'change their aikido' without really having the goods that you have?
I'm not sure what you mean here. I don't make anyone " over confident in their abilties" instead I routinely state something along the lines of "I suck, what does that say about you." Ask around with people who actively train here. Most are very focused on their own hard work and have no illusions about where they are.
This is all about nose to the grindstone hard work, with no rewards to speak of other than your own improvements, research and experimentation. What people do and how far they get and what art (or lack thereof) they choose to express it in is their own business. I am not their teacher, senior, or coach.

Assuming I have a guy to train under who really knows taiji and bagua and xingyi, what is the benefits of your approach over more classical ideas besides Aikido or kata-based Daito-ryu jujutsu practice?
The way I look at it Mark is our understanding is in our own two hands. I am not really impressed by some teacher with a big name-fet some who are good, most I woudnlt cross the stree to meet again. What really matters is what they have produced in students.

My "approach" (interesting choice of words) works, people improve, and if your local...it's free.

Best Wishes,
Mark
Likewise
Dan
P.S. if you want to respond to that take it to P.M. I don't think it belongs here.

Not meaning to be rude -- only trying to be succinct. I'm picking Bill Gleason as an example because he is high ranking aikidoka. I've never met him.
There are others, but lets put that aside

Gorgeous George
03-11-2010, 04:19 PM
'It is true that there have been deaths during Aikido practice'

http://www.aikidojournal.com/article?articleID=438

http://www.aikidojournal.com/article?articleID=7

http://www.aikidojournal.com/article?articleID=8

'Killer Shihonage

Parenthetically, one should bear in mind that shihonage is, in particular, a high-risk technique. It seems that on several occasions in Japan, trainees have died as a result of injuries sustained to the head and neck after having been slammed backward onto the mat while practicing shihonage. The incidents I am aware of occurred in university aikido clubs where the juniors are often physically abused by their seniors presumably for their “edification.” This is somewhat akin to the “hazing” which takes place in the military academies in the U.S.

To continue, it is well-known that the bujutsu arts from which the techniques of aikido are derived evolved historically as means for subduing and defeating the enemy. Inasmuch as the structure of the human body has not changed much over the centuries, except for becoming larger and bulkier, the same potential for damage still exists.'

'Countermeasures against shihonage and iriminage and expert opinion: As can be seen from the above cases, shihonage and iriminage stand out as techniques causing the accidents. In both techniques, it is easy to hit the back of one’s head with the inherent danger of a cranial hemorrhage.'

DH
03-11-2010, 04:27 PM
From Aikido by K. Ueshiba:

At the Headquarter's Dojo in Tokyo the following RULES DURING PRACTICE are posted for all to see and learn:
1) One blow in Aikido is capable of killing an opponent. In practice, obey your instructor, and do not make practice period a time for needless testing of strength.

How would you equate that with the Kissomaru's father who spent an enormmous amount of time practicing the testing of strength?
How do we equate it with others in aikido who did the same?
How about other cultures arts-which produced men with incredible skill gained through body development and testing?

FWIW, the "one blow can kill" idea came from a highly developed body, one which Ueshiba K. apparently did not posess, and one which Ueshiba M. was well know for.

Were I to pick the methods and the development of one over the other- I would take the old man's method for development (not the waza) any day.
I am still no advocate for this whole "deadly technique" idea, but the source of the quote was Takeda, then Ueshiba M.
Cheers
Dan

Charles Hill
03-11-2010, 05:18 PM
Thanks Dan, for responding to my question.

I think that the rule posted at Honbu should be balanced with words from Okumura Shihan who said in an interview in ATM that all the deadly techniques were intentionally taken out of Modern Aikido.

Personally, I agree with everything Matthew has written here. Very nice post.

First, I don't know whether any forms in Aikido were specifically designed to be deadly, sorry to say so much for not having an answer to the OP.
Finally, my understanding is that techniques are just examples to work through; they're not the point of training, the principle(s) they lend themselves to are. That said, techniques are as deadly as the situation allows them to be. To touch on an earlier point I forgot to follow up on: my understanding is that some folks have died from shihonage. Aikido was deadly to them, even if it was accidental (that luck factor brought up earlier?).
That said: Ueshiba Ryu Aikido as I understand it, in its purest expression, is non-violent and even healing. It takes enormous levels of skill to make that happen against a capable and violently aggressive person so what most of us mere mortals are left with is doing our best with the Aikido we have developed in ourselves. I tell my friends who think simply having some martial arts experience makes me a bad-ass that, if I happen to get lucky and pull something off successfully, I don't know that I have the control to keep a person from putting their head into the window behind me, or into traffic if we're by a street.

BTW, the deaths from shihonage were caused by inexperienced/immature young people under insufficient supervision by immature older people. I bet there are at least as many deaths caused by American Little League baseball players, aimlessly swinging a bat without checking the space around them first.

rroeserr
03-11-2010, 05:25 PM
How would you equate that with the Kissomaru's father who spent an enormmous amount of time practicing the testing of strength?
How do we equate it with others in aikido who did the same?
How about other cultures arts-which produced men with incredible skill gained through body development and testing?

FWIW, the "one blow can kill" idea came from a highly developed body, one which Ueshiba K. apparently did not posess, and one which Ueshiba M. was well know for.

Were I to pick the methods and the development of one over the other- I would take the old man's method for development (not the waza) any day.
I am still no advocate for this whole "deadly technique" idea, but the source of the quote was Takeda, then Ueshiba M.
Cheers
Dan

My understanding is the rule came from Osensei when they asked him for some rules for the dojo. Anyway it's his son's books so I have to cite him. Further, I think it's interesting because it's the first rule. I am aware that you have to be connected to generate the power to do that. That was my point - rhetorically - how did a 5 foot tall person generate enough power to do that?

It said needless testing of strength. To me that implies there is a time to test ones self, and other times not too.

Later,
Robert

DH
03-12-2010, 06:14 AM
My understanding is the rule came from Osensei when they asked him for some rules for the dojo. Anyway it's his son's books so I have to cite him. Further, I think it's interesting because it's the first rule. I am aware that you have to be connected to generate the power to do that. That was my point - rhetorically - how did a 5 foot tall person generate enough power to do that?

It said needless testing of strength. To me that implies there is a time to test ones self, and other times not too.

Later,
Robert
Rumours abound, and we have any number of "who really said what?" problems to resolve. On the whole I tend to dismiss or support various quotes based on corroborating evidence of other sources, and/or what the person actually did. There are any number of misdirections in martial training, with the teacher saying one thing and doing another. When it comes to Ueshiba M. we have a fairly consistent testimony and video of what he actually did to offset what people think he meant. That presents the real dilemma to appropriate practice though doesn't it?
"How did 5' tall person generate that force?"
By the practice methods he pursued which involved lengthy and repetitive testing of strength.

What is "needless testing of strength?"
Hmmm......
It certainly is a nuanced topic; you can't really learn what he was doing without doing the solo training and push testing, yet you can't be a jerk and jam every technique. Yet if you focus on the former you end with a body that is so connected that will cancel out most anything people are going to try on you. In time-your body, on its own will start to do things that will rival that of most shihan you will ever meet -in much less time. Building the connected body is the single most improtant attribute to the speed, potential for control, positional changes, ability to change incoming force, that famous generation of power of unusual strength and all those wierd aiki effects people seem to get a kick out of. Chances are very good that if you were to stay on that road you will eventually surpass everyone who is just doing technique.

I think more and more are realizing that there is a way to join the martial veracity, with the idea of control without harm, while retaining the practice model, and all the while building a body that generates that kind of frightening power...it's called aiki. And I don't think "deadly techniques" were ever much on his mind, his body just produced that type of potential and control and he didn't need techniques to do it.
Personally, I think it is also the reason you saw joy on his face so many times-it just so happens that it's fun.

Cheers
Dan

Michael Varin
03-13-2010, 04:20 AM
Shomenuchi komi with jo, if you are aiming for someone's head and find your target, could very easily be a deadly technique, as would many other strikes with jo or bokken. Also, yokomenuchi, tsuki, or other strikes with tanto could easily be considered deadly.

Shiho nage is one that can kill relatively easily, for example….

You haven't done many shiho nage, have you?

IMHO, any technique can be applied with deadly force.

That is just foolish.

For example, an arm bar executed violently can easily break an elbow, but only under freakish circumstances where an artery is severed would this technique directly result in death. The fact that a broken elbow may make it easier to kill your opponent cannot be said to make a technique that breaks the elbow deadly.

If one is going to ponder the "deadliness" of techniques, especially empty-handed techniques, one should very seriously consider the following:
Of course, if one seriously thinks his techniques are deadly, he must IN REGULAR BASIS use his techniques in deadly manner. In clear -- he must kill people to perfect his skills.

It is true that there have been deaths during Aikido practice

The inherent risk of death in a physical activity does not equal "deadly technique."

Lastly, I've got to give it to Dan. He can find a way to market his "aiki" stuff in any context.

Gorgeous George
03-13-2010, 09:10 AM
The inherent risk of death in a physical activity does not equal "deadly technique.".

Quite right; i think there has been a bit of discussion which is off-topic (from myself as well): viz., the thread-starter said 'I know they CAN kill, but are they designed to be that way?'.

Having said that, although i'd say that (to my limited knowledge) pins/immobilisations are relatively safe, in that it is hard to see them occasioning death when applied to an unsuspecting person, i can't really see that the same can be said of throws: if they can cause death when applied to somebody who knows what's coming, on tatami...

Of course, whether death is the intent O'sensei had for them is another thing, and that is the topic of discussion.

M. McPherson
03-13-2010, 10:40 AM
Personally, I think it is also the reason you saw joy on his face so many times-it just so happens that it's fun.


Or he might have been having a good chuckle as people had their respective "WTF/How the hell is this happening?!?" moments. You know, the one that precedes the tears of frustration.

Also, I wanted to congratulate you on the aiki marketing blitz. By the way, I got my order in the mail yesterday; in it I found the Dan Harden Signature Hemp Gi, and the "Dan Harden and Robert Bly Explain Aiki at Esalen" DVD series, but for some reason I'm missing the combination tea cozy/Dan Harden's Aiki weapons bag. Could you have your staff look into that for me? Thanks, and keep up the good work (love the new website and line of t-shirts, btw)!

chillzATL
03-13-2010, 02:14 PM
Or he might have been having a good chuckle as people had their respective "WTF/How the hell is this happening?!?" moments. You know, the one that precedes the tears of frustration.


same thing.

Thomas Campbell
03-13-2010, 08:20 PM
the "Dan Harden and Robert Bly Explain Aiki at Esalen" DVD series

Have you seen how much that's going for on eBay??

Nora Ephron is rumored to be working on a script with Quentin Tarantino called "Days of Shugyo and Gimlets." Not sure who's gonna play Dan . . . maybe Paul Giamatti?

mathewjgano
03-13-2010, 11:44 PM
You haven't done many shiho nage, have you?
"Many" relative to what? Most of the folks here? No, but I've done it enough that I think my point on its "relative" danger still seems to make sense to me. I'm not saying it's dangerous like playing Russian Roulette or riding in a Tuk Tuk in Thailand, just that when falling backwards leading with the head (as many uke do during that technique) your likelihood of brain injury goes up a little (I.E. the deadly factor goes up a little compared to other techniques).

The inherent risk of death in a physical activity does not equal "deadly technique."

Semantics? Deadly is as deadly does. The riskier the activity, the more deadly it can be said to be. Seems like a simple functioning description to me.

mathewjgano
03-13-2010, 11:57 PM
If one is going to ponder the "deadliness" of techniques, especially empty-handed techniques, one should very seriously consider the following:


Of course, if one seriously thinks his techniques are deadly, he must IN REGULAR BASIS use his techniques in deadly manner. In clear -- he must kill people to perfect his skills.
So learning some hypothetical technique designed to kill isn't learning a "deadly" technique unless you're doing it on live targets? There's a difference between a deadly practice and practicing something deadly.

Melchizedek
03-14-2010, 04:17 AM
Deadly Techniques?

In Various martial Arts there are many Deadly techniques, moreover Aikido has a creative techniques than destroying techniques ^^ and techniques to Aikido is about correcting your own movements.

A 1st class Martial Artist can reads his opponents heart by just trading blows or throws with him just once even without saying a word.

(deadly then but creative now) just my understanding.

DH
03-15-2010, 07:17 AM
Or he might have been having a good chuckle as people had their respective "WTF/How the hell is this happening?!?" moments. You know, the one that precedes the tears of frustration.
Hmmm...yes, Where have we heard that before?
The more things change, the more they.........

Also, I wanted to congratulate you on the aiki marketing blitz. By the way, I got my order in the mail yesterday; in it I found the Dan Harden Signature Hemp Gi, and the "Dan Harden and Robert Bly Explain Aiki at Esalen" DVD series, but for some reason I'm missing the combination tea cozy/Dan Harden's Aiki weapons bag. Could you have your staff look into that for me? Thanks, and keep up the good work (love the new website and line of t-shirts, btw)!

Thomas Campbell wrote:

Have you seen how much that's going for on eBay??

Nora Ephron is rumored to be working on a script with Quentin Tarantino called "Days of Shugyo and Gimlets." Not sure who's gonna play Dan . . . maybe Paul Giamatti?

Glad that the both of you appreciated the humor in that one as much as I did. I got a kick out of the comment on "marketing" as much as I did when I was told I was "selling the arts" on E-budo. I must be doing a very bad job of it though. Where's the money and the adoring students!! And how can I be refusing to do seminars and offering; no art, no rank, no affiliation, and teaching for free, and still be considered to be "marketing" anything?

The one skill that resolves all question
I remain patient with the misunderstanding of aiki. The great debate among the aiki arts (DR and Aikido) has always been of the aiki in the arts being martially effective while retaining the ability to control the aggression…and here, while still remaining deadly. Most other arts have dismissed "Aiki" all together, as the people talking about it-many by their own admission, can't seem to use it for much when the pressure is on.

So far no one I have felt or seen in Aikido or DR has been able to demonstrate the level of connection between how aiki, in and of itself, without any techniques, can be powerful, deadly, yet controlling enough to retain the potential for peaceful conclusion that I am discussing. And to do so across traditional and modern formats, and with and without weapons.
It's no small wonder that it is difficult to have a conversation about it with most people in the arts-they're not there yet. Most martial artists simply don't have a clue about aiki's real potential. There are some in the aiki arts who more or less get the ideal, but don't seem to ever pursue more advanced aspects and put them together into a method that will work under severe pressure. As has been demonstrated here by many Aikidoka, they themselves don't believe it is even possible. Then you have guys with some connection, but lack the experience to really work under severe pressure and fight with aiki.
1. What is deadly technique?
2. What can control?
The answer to the former is the solution to the later
It's aiki.

Why discuss it?
Why does it keep coming up?
Why did the founder go on and on about it?
It's rather simple, understanding what Aiki is, and being able to use Aiki under pressure solves the questions and physical dilemmas that routinely are brought up here. It also resolves the historical questions of how it could have been possible that these men- who were deadly- could also talk about not using it for violence. Why there were these men who had this weird "power" that we all read and heard about for generations, and yet most everyone in the arts is still lacking and seeking.

Aiki is the fix; the highest level of skill, that everyone is pursuing and few (as evidenced here) believe is even possible, so they continue to pursue "technique" for an answer they will never find.

Cheers
Dan

Phil Van Treese
04-07-2010, 02:38 PM
As Tomiki Shihan was my instructor, I seriously doubt if anyone would/could throw him around. I am sure he was cooperating in whatever he was doing. Deadly techniques, for me, are chokes. Tomiki has a bundle of chokes from hadaka jime to sankaku jime. They work marvelously.

David Orange
04-08-2010, 04:29 PM
I was wondering, are there any techniques that were devised or adapted by o sensei, for aikido, that were designed to kill? I was under the impression that the highest level of aikido was to control the aggressor without causing serious harm? I know they CAN kill, but are they designed to be that way?

I think the key to your question is "devised or adapted by o sensei".

The daitoryu he was teaching pre-war did include at least one specifically deadly waza, which could be delivered by iron fan or by the empty hand. It's not a throw, but a strike. Richard Kim recounts a story of a daito ryu master who used this technique to kill a bear. And there are pictures of O Sensei showing this waza well into his old age.

I never thought much about it until one day Mochizuki sensei directed my attention to the anatomy of the uke and I realized that in those photographs, "in plain sight," O Sensei was showing a "killing" technique.

Moreover, I believe that 1) knowing this technique and 2) being willing to apply it are among the foundations of effective aikido.

It will work for a slightly trained person against an untrained person. It will work for a well-trained person against a less-well-trained person. And while it may or may not work against someone with highly developed IT skills (and I think it would), a fighter with both technique and highly developed IT skills could certainly apply it with virtually perfect effect.

The other side of this idea is that being able to kill an opponent and having that as the baseline for all tactical calculations allows one to choose less deadly responses. The contemplation of killing, alone, (or of being killed) should certainly be sobering for anyone and should keep them honest.

So I think O Sensei carried this technique all the way to the end of his life, but I think he very much de-emphasized it in his teaching, especially after the war, and that many who followed him never even knew that the method exists.

Best wishes.

David

bulevardi
04-10-2010, 08:56 AM
Yes, there is a very deadly technique with the name "tenkan'. However, most deadly technique is "a series of tenkans".

Certainly when performed in a suwari waza mode. :blush:

dps
04-10-2010, 08:58 AM
Certainly when performed in a suwari waza mode. :blush:
Or you are standing on the edge of a cliff.

David

sakumeikan
05-04-2010, 05:27 PM
[QUOTE=Szczepan Janczuk;253516]Are you seriously thinking they were fighting? One thing is to have a choice to kill in deadly fighting, other thing is to have a choice to kill in cooperative practice. Which one are you referring on?

Aikido practice is based on cooperation, so in my opinion there is no serious possibility to develop killing skills.

Dear Szczepan,
Having been in training sessions which included the practice of Shime Waza from a senior Uchi Deshi of O Sensei , and shime waza variations which included severe arm locks being applied I can state categorically that the waza being applied certainly had the potential to kill a person.
Its the same with Judo Shime [choke]Waza could be fatal if Tori does not use good control and judgement.How else could one train in a civilized environment?I have never applied a strangle to any of my training partners [in Judo ] where my partner was as you put it co operating with me.
A dojo is not a war zone, but that doesnt mean that you do not know /have experience of potentially deadly waza.In Aikido I believe that one can acquire the potential to injure / destroy but one can choose not to exercise this knowledge except in extreme situations.