PDA

View Full Version : Any offensive moves in Aikido?


Please visit our sponsor:
 

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


JeffCW
04-08-2010, 05:14 PM
Are there any offinsive move in Aikido my friend works in the county jail and a deputy and he wants to learn aikido but some times in his line of work he needs to be offinsive not just deffinsive so would it benifit him or no?

ChrisHein
04-08-2010, 06:38 PM
All of Aikido is offensive.

Janet Rosen
04-08-2010, 07:25 PM
I'm offended by that remark :-)

Gorgeous George
04-08-2010, 08:18 PM
In Yoshinkan aikido, in shomen-uchi ikkajo osae ichi 'you (sh'te) attack with shomen-uchi' to initiate the technique.

Source: Total Aikido: The Master Course by Gozo Shioda

wideawakedreamer
04-08-2010, 09:29 PM
Usually one first learns the techniques as a response to an attack.

Example: Uke (the attacking partner) attacks with a straight punch to the chest and Nage (the one practicing the technique) responds with a technique.

However, it is possible for nage to attack first, with say, a punch to the face to elicit a reaction. If uke raises his hand to block, nage can then execute a technique on the blocking hand.

It's also possible to attack with a direct iriminage.

John Matsushima
04-08-2010, 11:13 PM
Usually one first learns the techniques as a response to an attack.

Example: Uke (the attacking partner) attacks with a straight punch to the chest and Nage (the one practicing the technique) responds with a technique.

However, it is possible for nage to attack first, with say, a punch to the face to elicit a reaction. If uke raises his hand to block, nage can then execute a technique on the blocking hand.

It's also possible to attack with a direct iriminage.

So what happens when uke doesn't raise his hand to block, he gets punched in the face? Then what?

PeterR
04-08-2010, 11:45 PM
Tears spring to eyes.

Loud recriminations about what is and what is not Aikido.

All round gnashing of teeth - assuming some are left.

Seriously - at least within Shodokan Aikido there is a heavy emphasis on the explosive irimi. The first five techniques are atemi waza and there is no requirement that uke has to move first.

Adam Huss
04-09-2010, 12:12 AM
So what happens when uke doesn't raise his hand to block, he gets punched in the face? Then what?

Typically you don't want a knock out blow here....you usually lead nice and big so they see its coming...if they don't block, continue to lightly slap them in the grill until they bring a hand up to stop the annoyance....then control that hand. This is kihon waza for Yoshinkan Aikido...as mentioned, all shomenuchi dai ichi (energy to rear of uke) kidon waza. This concept is also applied to Yoshinkan Shihonage pin (uke face up), and some others in oyo waza. The idea of nage/shite attacking first was removed from O'Sensei's Aikibudo around 1942 when aikibudo became aikido.

Walter Martindale
04-09-2010, 01:23 AM
Kawahara shihan (Canada) frequently says "Nage initiates".

aikishihan
04-09-2010, 03:16 AM
If an "offensive move" is described as a preemptive or proactive move to take and maintain control of an unavoidable conflict situation, it may be deemed not only acceptable, but highly recommended.

If it is meant to instigate conflict or to impose one's will arbitrarily on an unwilling subject without cause, then it is not "Aiki", and not appropriate.

Atemi waza may be called the Swiss Army Knife of Aikido, since it has so many uses for so many scenarios. Again, what the intent and circumstance for properly using Atemi should be, must be strictly the responsibility of each person, and may not be prematurely judged by others without full discovery of the facts.

It is to be hoped that we will each have enough time to decide correctly, and to follow through effectively with any decision that we make when acting proactively to protect ourselves and loved ones.

Amassus
04-09-2010, 03:23 AM
Why not let your friend go to an aikido dojo and try out some classes for himself. He will know if what he is shown is worthwhile or not.

I know at my own club we have had bouncers come through to learn a few techniques and then leave once they are happy they have a few tools for the job.

From what these guys have told me, the stuff works fine in a proactive context.

bulevardi
04-09-2010, 05:01 AM
Try the moves in suwari waza. Seems more offensive on this picture, and certainly more odd to your attackers.

http://griffithaikido.com/pic/tassie/exclamation.jpg

John Matsushima
04-09-2010, 05:27 AM
Typically you don't want a knock out blow here....you usually lead nice and big so they see its coming...if they don't block, continue to lightly slap them in the grill until they bring a hand up to stop the annoyance....then control that hand. This is kihon waza for Yoshinkan Aikido...as mentioned, all shomenuchi dai ichi (energy to rear of uke) kidon waza. This concept is also applied to Yoshinkan Shihonage pin (uke face up), and some others in oyo waza. The idea of nage/shite attacking first was removed from O'Sensei's Aikibudo around 1942 when aikibudo became aikido.

Why do you presume that an attacker would bring a hand up to stop the annoyance? There are many other options available in that situation. They may duck down to your waist and go for a takedown, or slap your hand out of the way and just punch you in the face hard, OR blend with your attack and use a technique to take you down, like irimi-nage, etc.

How do you blend with a person who is not attacking? As to my understanding, one blends with an attacker's energy and redirects that energy to a point of kuzushi for the attacker.

I think that Aikido in general doesn't work offensively because the other person will react differently when they feel they are being attacked, and that changes the dynamics of the technique. In my experience, I have tried some of these "offensive" techniques to no avail. Either the person was being too defensive and retreating, or he was experienced with training, and reacted differently which put me in an disadvantageous position.

sakumeikan
04-09-2010, 05:59 AM
I'm offended by that remark :-)

Dear Janet,
Why?Its a legitimate question.I see know reason why you should find the remarks offensive.Please explain you position.
All the best .Joe.
Ps I trust this mail finds you well.

Anjisan
04-09-2010, 10:09 AM
Dear Janet,
Why?Its a legitimate question.I see know reason why you should find the remarks offensive.Please explain you position.
All the best .Joe.
Ps I trust this mail finds you well.

It is just my third party observation that Janet was just making a play on words with the word "offensive".

Anyway, I belive that with regard to Aikido and offensive techniques, I belive that one has redefine as what "offensive" actually is. Specifically, when there is a confrontation with a opponent the first technique that is used is grabbing your opponents mind- even when they are across the room.

The first offensive technique has already been delivered. Your opponent has to want you for there to be conflict in the first place and they have to come to you where you are, on your terms if it is done right, to get you. That want, can be used to your advantage in terms of baiting them ala leaning forward, movement on your part and the resulting angles and openings that result.

Stormcrow34
04-09-2010, 10:21 AM
Irimi; direct and to the point.

phitruong
04-09-2010, 10:26 AM
any moves you make toward the other person is offensive. sometimes just looking at the person is offensive. other times just being who you are is offensive to another person. lots of time i myself is pretty offensive to me, especially early in the morning, before a heavy dose of coffee. :)

to the OP, deputy of county jail = pretty offensive to the criminals there. does your friend want to make the matter worst?

Aikibu
04-09-2010, 11:22 AM
I think a better question would be what "moves" in Aikido are defensive...

Either you help your Uke by leading (aka offensive movement) them or they continue the fight by leading you.

William Hazen

ramenboy
04-09-2010, 11:31 AM
i think any time i'm practicing with someone who doesn't wash their dogi... that's an offensive move.

Janet Rosen
04-09-2010, 12:05 PM
Dear Janet,
Why?Its a legitimate question.I see know reason why you should find the remarks offensive.Please explain you position.
All the best .Joe.
Ps I trust this mail finds you well.
I refer you purely and simply to the smiley that followed my sentence.

Ketsan
04-09-2010, 12:07 PM
If uke attacks enter in and throw. If uke doesn't attack, enter in and throw. If uke runs away make large entry and throw. :D

DonMagee
04-09-2010, 01:48 PM
Are there any offinsive move in Aikido my friend works in the county jail and a deputy and he wants to learn aikido but some times in his line of work he needs to be offinsive not just deffinsive so would it benifit him or no?

If the person doesn't attack him, he shouldn't need to defend himself. As far as I know guards don't just beat up on prisoners not trying to harm them.

David Board
04-09-2010, 03:22 PM
If the person doesn't attack him, he shouldn't need to defend himself. As far as I know guards don't just beat up on prisoners not trying to harm them.
He may, however, need to defend another or intervene in an attack.

This would require some modification of technique but not unimaginable modification. Beyond my skill but I'm just a beginner.

Adam Huss
04-09-2010, 03:52 PM
How do you blend with a person who is not attacking? As to my understanding, one blends with an attacker's energy and redirects that energy to a point of kuzushi for the attacker.


Because you are forcing uke into movement, regardless of what it is. Since nage is initiating, and forcing uke to react, nage creates a gap for control. The point is to create movement where there isn't any. If uke rears back...as is intended in Yoshinkan Shomenuchi ichi...nage continues that momentum to uke's rear. This is a technical concept called irimi...better still it is the idea of sen or sensen no sen. We practice go no sen as well, of course. Shioda Sensei and Ueshiba Sensei could be wrong in these concepts, but I tend to adhere to their teachings.
cheers,
A

sakumeikan
04-10-2010, 01:22 AM
I refer you purely and simply to the smiley that followed my sentence.
Dear Janet,
Missed the smiley!! Did not fully use my extension of Ki to fully in order to appreciate your Zen like statement.In fact I guess I was half asleep when I read Aikiweb.Have a nice day,
A.T.B. Joe .

Nafis Zahir
04-10-2010, 02:46 AM
Are there any offinsive move in Aikido my friend works in the county jail and a deputy and he wants to learn aikido but some times in his line of work he needs to be offinsive not just deffinsive so would it benifit him or no?

The answer to your question is yes. It's called Atemi.

bulevardi
04-10-2010, 03:26 AM
The answer to your question is yes. It's called Atemi.
Yes, but in training mode, you never give atemi so the uke gets a nosebleed. You hold your fist just before his head but don't give hem the real hit.

You don't actually train on punching hard on others... It stays in training mode, not going to combat.

If you want to train on real hitting and kicking, you should go for Karate or Tae Kwon Do or some other martial arts.
With Aikido, it's more learning and training the techniques, not the attacks. The attacks are just "acted" so you can learn the defence.

Flintstone
04-10-2010, 06:39 AM
The attacks are just "acted" so you can learn the defence.
Really?

Kevin Leavitt
04-10-2010, 07:17 AM
you need control measures for sure to ensure safety. However, I would not say that the attacks are "acted" per se, or that they should be. Attacks should be real in the sense that they train and trigger the emotions and reactions that you need to trigger in order to identify/condition your partner to improve.

I think not many folks really understand this and simply go through the motions of training the exact same level that trained at the first day they went to the dojo.

Of course, training should be deliberate and controlled. It should also be appropriate for the skill level of the person training. It makes no sense to simply overwhelm a inexperienced student with stimulus/stress to the point they are actually reinforcing the very instincts/responses we wish to "train out" of them while "training in" new ones.

The correct use of atemi..I have seen very few people that really know how to do this correctly in a progressive manner that allows one to translate to real life/spontaneous and appropriate responses.

It is not simple. It is not one size fits all. and it requires constant and careful attention.

Simply put "Acted" atemi = "acted" responses.

Jon Marshall
04-10-2010, 08:32 AM
Hi all,

An excellent opening question. My current teacher regards the "uke attacks" protocol as a training convention, and I'm inclined to agree. It has a certain philosophical charm that's characteristic of aikido, but it takes little imagination can construct scenarios where initiating an aikido attack may be important - e.g. removing someone from a building, breaking up a fight, etc.

Jason Delucia - fairly well known in early MMA circles, albeit mostly for losing (against top-class opponents) - has made a DVD series called Combat Aikido. In it, he talks about "ikkyo boxing", whereby one uses ikkyo like a boxer uses his jab. He builds a repertoire of techniques based on the ikkyo not working! That is, if ikkyo works, fine. If not, then you can atemi with the rear hand, or go into something else. I've tried it a bit and it seems to work well enough, especially when someone first raises a guard. You can see his ikkyo attacks in this clip from the series:



Could make you a bit predictable, I suppose.

Attacking with grips is interesting. For example, a little ai-hanmi katatedori pull to create an opportunity for iriminage or uchi sankyo. Or morotedori and tenkan into a yonkyo (Stephan Stenudd recommends this in his book Attacks in Aikido).

The main question seems to me to be one of achieving kuzushi, after which it's aikido-a-go-go. Taking the offence is also a good way of not getting into a rut with training, and has the marvellous side-effect of developing better (not acted) attacks.

Jon.

Jon Marshall
04-10-2010, 08:34 AM
Looks like I messed up the link. Here it is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVbS0xHCerw

Jon.

sakumeikan
04-10-2010, 09:50 AM
Looks like I messed up the link. Here it is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVbS0xHCerw

Jon.

Hi, Jon,
The most offensive thing about this sample vid you posted is the performance of the players in the vid.The standard shown be it Judo or Aikido? is very low.I sometimes wonder why people feel a need to post this type of material on Youtube.I guess it must make somebody happy-----

Jon Marshall
04-10-2010, 12:24 PM
Hi, Jon,
The most offensive thing about this sample vid you posted is the performance of the players in the vid.The standard shown be it Judo or Aikido? is very low.I sometimes wonder why people feel a need to post this type of material on Youtube.I guess it must make somebody happy-----

Hello Joe,

I was posting more as an example of using aikido offensively, than of good aikido. However, aikido is a stylised art with stylised attacks, and I suspect that most of us really know what it looks like in a rough and tumble - probably more like judo if you don't significantly outclass or surprise your opponent.

I do hold with the idea that the competitive arena is significantly different to real life violence, but at least Jason Delucia has mixed it up with some class fighters and sought to apply aikido techniques - I know that I haven't dared try it out with the MMA crowd. I personally found experimenting with using ikkyo offensively (and working off the failed ikkyo) moderately enlightening, so I am grateful to Delucia for giving me the idea.

The main gist of my post is that it's fun, interesting and beneficial to break with convention and find ways to practice aikido techniques offensively from time to time. Also, that there are real life situations (as suggested in the opening post) that require a more pro-active approach than is suggested by the "uke attacks" convention.

Jon.

Kevin Leavitt
04-10-2010, 01:11 PM
I think the words "offensive" and "defensive" are the wrong paradigm. It puts a picture in our minds that we are either attacking or defending and those two things are independent of each other. way, way too basic if you ask me.

Example. I am a soldier and interact with people in dangerous places. People that you may or may not know of there true intentions when you first encounter them. You cannot be offensive or defensive. How do you do that? I don't know.

I do "move forward" though. Engage both figuratively and directly depending on the situation and simply do what ever I do.

It could be that I am shaking their hand or I am going to jack them into the wall and drop them. Basic movement is still the same, it is neither offensive or defensive in nature...no distinction between the two other than the end state or intent.

Not sure if that makes sense. THe point is, both cases require moving forward and engaging in someway. In all cases I am trying to listen to the situation and take the lead...hopefully as skillfully as possible.

As far as Aikido being stylized, I don't think so, at least mine is not. As it is principle based, the principles of engagement are no different for me in combat, how I train in MMA, or in an Aikido dojo.

I also don't think that the competitive arena is significantly different than real life. Sure, there are differences, however those differences are easily identifiable and you can train around those things. There are many good things that come out of the competitive arena that we can learn from, that is, as long as we keep things in perspective.

Ikkyo is a very useful and universal concept in martial arts. In the ring it is mostly seen in the standup clinch as someone underhooks and steps to the side to turn the opponent up against the cage. It is based on the exact same principles we train at albeit a different distance and under a different set of conditions/assumptions.

I think were style comes into view is when we inject weapons or the possibility of weapons. It changes alot about a fight strategy and how we manage things. I think this is what we typically label as "style" in aikido and why we might think it is different and looks different than say MMA stuff.

Trained correctly though it is not about style, but about correctly and safely managing the weapons and the distance that is needed to do so.

I think this perspective also gets lost in daily training in the dojo.

Jon Marshall
04-12-2010, 02:17 PM
Hi Kevin,

A few interesting points to think about there. I'll just respond to the first one.

I think the words "offensive" and "defensive" are the wrong paradigm. It puts a picture in our minds that we are either attacking or defending and those two things are independent of each other. way, way too basic if you ask me.

Philosophically, I agree - dualistic thinking and all that. But in training, doesn't someone have to initiate an aggressive movement? Even if...
Kawahara shihan (Canada) frequently says "Nage initiates".
...uke still has to choose whether to back off, engage nicely or seize a perceived opportunity to attack. Unless he chooses the last one, where's the practice. For example, if one were to simulate your soldier scenario on the mat, the second soldier (uke?) would still have to decide whether he was going to shake your hand or give you cause to jack him into the wall.

Hmmm... OK, maybe nage doesn't have to decide whether to be aggressive or not, but that's fairly high level practice. What if we play semantics and use the word "pro-active" instead of aggressive. Is it not a useful training practice to try applying aikido techniques in a more pro-active way? This, in my experience, is not something that many aikidoka do on a regular basis.

Jon.

mathewjgano
04-12-2010, 03:24 PM
I think the words "offensive" and "defensive" are the wrong paradigm. It puts a picture in our minds that we are either attacking or defending and those two things are independent of each other.
...I do "move forward" though. Engage both figuratively and directly depending on the situation and simply do what ever I do.
I like how this frames the question. My sense of Aikido is that I should always be trying to enter to the heart of the matter; in some way I am always moving "forward." Sometimes that looks more offensive than others (where called upon, shomen ate is a great way to move someone into a safer location:D ).

RED
04-12-2010, 05:03 PM
Yes, but in training mode, you never give atemi so the uke gets a nosebleed. You hold your fist just before his head but don't give hem the real hit.

You don't actually train on punching hard on others... It stays in training mode, not going to combat.



I hit... :freaky: not hard enough to harm, just enough to get a reaction. Uke gets lazy in never having to actually be aware of his own safety if he thinks you won't actually hit him. Then he learns he doesn't actually have to react or adjust to Nage's movements. So I hit. If they block their face, I hit their ribs... fun for everyone!!!:D

Kevin Leavitt
04-12-2010, 10:07 PM
Jon Marshall wrote:

Philosophically, I agree - dualistic thinking and all that. But in training, doesn't someone have to initiate an aggressive movement? Even if...

Someone has to initiate movement for sure.

I don't think it has to be aggressive. A couple of examples.

I try and move in such a way when in the role in nage that I could either shake hands or hit my opponent. I think balanced movement is the key. You could choose to do either.

Ever do the exercise friend or foe? I think this is a big part of the study of ma ai.

Of course, I agree, in practice, we will attack or agress in order to provide fodder for training.

But I don't believe any good attack or reaction to an attack is purely offensive or defensive in nature.

Kevin Leavitt
04-12-2010, 10:13 PM
another thing to add. Remember the question ask is: Any offensive moves in Aikido?

hence the answer, I don't believe that you can divide things in this way. Nothing is purely offensive and/or defensive. Your either in control or you are not. If you are not you do what you do to gain control, if you are then you do what you do to maintain control.

In all cases, ethically I think, we attempt to use minimal force.

The potential should be there to cause great harm...this is what we should be training, to reach a deeper understanding of our potential to do great harm.

Through training, we learn how to identify that and hopefully use it in as skillful way as possible.

The short answer to this question might be "yes". Another might answer it "no".

I believe both are right depending on your perspective.

However, I think the answer is really not as simple as that.

IMO, Offensive means that you have the potential to control the situation and you are continuing on past that point of control in order to further destroy or do damage.

Ethically, I'd say that once we have control, we have an obligation to restrain further damage.

This is in line with the Geneva Convention as well....and I think, is a good example. As a Soldier, I can move forward and engage the "enemy" with lethal force, however, once I have rendered him incapable of fighting (Control), then I can no longer use force to do so.

So to me, this is the Catch 22. Are you truely being Offensive if you don't have control? Can you really divide things up between Offensive and Defensive?

SeiserL
04-13-2010, 01:32 PM
IMHO, offense and defense is an attitude and application more than a specific move, its how you move and when.

Tinyboy344
04-13-2010, 02:37 PM
Yes there is. Object-nage. You pick up a rock or whatever object you can find, throw it really hard at the person :freaky: and when they start attacking you, immediately switch to defensive mode.

Tips: if you have really good aim, throw it with all you have at the person's head :dead: , you might be able to skip the second step.

Michael Varin
04-15-2010, 05:11 AM
A couple of really good posts, Kevin. Great perspective.

I do hold with the idea that the competitive arena is significantly different to real life violence, but at least Jason Delucia has mixed it up with some class fighters and sought to apply aikido techniques - I know that I haven't dared try it out with the MMA crowd. I personally found experimenting with using ikkyo offensively (and working off the failed ikkyo) moderately enlightening, so I am grateful to Delucia for giving me the idea.
Jason Delucia's ideas are way off base. The UFC-style, one-on-one, empty-handed context doesn't create the necessity for aikido's core techniques. There are many other options that make much more sense. Add weapons, multiple attackers, and surprise and you get a much different picture. The techniques will appear more frequently, and the patterns of movement will get clearer. Also, techniques like jabs, kicks, shooting for takedowns, etc. will begin to seem foolish. The techniques of modern aikido came from a time when the men who used them were constantly armed with a sword and a knife. This is the context in which they function.

Kevin Leavitt
04-15-2010, 07:02 AM
Thanks Michael. Yeah weapons change thing dramatically and give Aikido the context it was meant to be used in.

I wish that more folks would realize that and stop trying to translate everything we do into some sort of superior/zen/aiki fighting style that can be applied stylistically to a empty handed context.

It just ends up looking stupid and gets all our grappling brethren laughing at us.

RED
04-15-2010, 12:43 PM
Aikido was intended to be a defense against armed attacks originally. Especially if you look at the type of attacks we have. (seriously who would shomanuchi to some one's skull without a blade?)

I am in the full opinion that Aikido is offensive. It is a means of self defense, but is completely offensive in tactic. It isn't simply a nage acting in full reaction to the attacker, but the nage is in a position of control over his situation.
Aikido is not a reaction to an attack, it is an utter intolerance towards an attack. Aikido is not simply jujitsu. It does not accept the attack and react to it. It is intolerant to the concept of violence and refuses to exist on a just ground with it.
Aikido does not defend against attacks, it eliminates attacks, often before they are initiated.

We are taught constantly to not wait for the uke to attack. Anticipate the uke's motive and move, don't wait for uke to attack. Aikido wasn't made to react to an attack, it was made to bring people back into ballance.

I find that concept highly offensive in nature.

mathewjgano
04-15-2010, 04:14 PM
Anticipate the uke's motive and move, don't wait for uke to attack. Aikido wasn't made to react to an attack, it was made to bring people back into ballance.

I find that concept highly offensive in nature.
This fits with my meager sense of things too. I think in somewhat different terms, but I think the meaning is basically the same: engage/act the instant an attack is recognized, ideally before it's had much chance to coalesce (be proactive/learn to anticipate). Aikido as I understand it is very assertive even when it's soft and lovey-dovey and appears to be yielding.

BC
04-19-2010, 01:44 PM
I know one technique that almost universally offends uke. Some people know it as "monkey steals the peaches." ;O

George S. Ledyard
04-21-2010, 10:13 AM
Every response you execute when grabbed can be done when grabbing. Every atemi you execute when attacked can be used when attacking. We need to lose this whole uke / nage dichotomy. We also need to stop attaching pseudo moralistic value judgments to things like who initiates.

Peace is something you carry inside you. It's not something that has to do with who moves first. It is an attitude.

The misunderstanding of what the attacks really are that we routinely do in our daily training causes us to attach all sorts of baggage to the whole uke / nage relationship which shouldn't be there. This is caused by allowing two different mindsets and two different physical skill sets on the part of uke and nage. Nage is supposed to be relaxed and "defensive" in attitude, executing techniques of great technical sophistication while Uke attacks like an idiot, typically either is too tense or fails to really connect effectively. What would an attack look like if the uke knew what the nage knew?

If Aikido training was about BOTH partners having the same access to "aiki" skill sets we wouldn't have the need for discussions like this because people would understand what they are really doing, or choosing not to do, depending on the level of practice. A katatetori would break nage's balance instantly on contact and set up the atemi with the off hand. No one would be under the misconception that an attack has anything to do with not allowing the nage to move but rather to compromise his structure and make it impossible for nage to defend against the atemi.

We need to get way past trying to impute some sort of moral, right and wrong value judgment to the term "aiki". "Aiki" can be used for good or evil. That's why O-Sensei felt it was important not to teach technique to people not of good character.

I spent a number of years teaching law enforcement and security personnel. LE officers are required to initiate technique on subjects who are e-gressive, not just a-ggressive. I can assure you that "aiki" works just as well when the person initiates as when he is being attacked. Virtually every technique in the Aikido repertoire can be used as an attack, not just a defense. The circumstance and ones personal mindset determine whether this is "violent" in an immoral way or not.

Erick Mead
04-21-2010, 10:35 AM
... Every atemi you execute when attacked can be used when attacking. We need to lose this whole uke / nage dichotomy. We also need to stop attaching pseudo moralistic value judgments to things like who initiates.
... We need to get way past trying to impute some sort of moral, right and wrong value judgment to the term "aiki".To paraphrase Dr. Freud: Sometimes a punch in the face -- is just a punch in the face ...

Chuck Clark
04-21-2010, 10:47 AM
Every response you execute when grabbed can be done when grabbing. Every atemi you execute when attacked can be used when attacking. We need to lose this whole uke / nage dichotomy. We also need to stop attaching pseudo moralistic value judgments to things like who initiates.

Peace is something you carry inside you. It's not something that has to do with who moves first. It is an attitude.

The misunderstanding of what the attacks really are that we routinely do in our daily training causes us to attach all sorts of baggage to the whole uke / nage relationship which shouldn't be there. This is caused by allowing two different mindsets and two different physical skill sets on the part of uke and nage. Nage is supposed to be relaxed and "defensive" in attitude, executing techniques of great technical sophistication while Uke attacks like an idiot, typically either is too tense or fails to really connect effectively. What would an attack look like if the uke knew what the nage knew?

If Aikido training was about BOTH partners having the same access to "aiki" skill sets we wouldn't have the need for discussions like this because people would understand what they are really doing, or choosing not to do, depending on the level of practice. A katatetori would break nage's balance instantly on contact and set up the atemi with the off hand. No one would be under the misconception that an attack has anything to do with not allowing the nage to move but rather to compromise his structure and make it impossible for nage to defend against the atemi.

We need to get way past trying to impute some sort of moral, right and wrong value judgment to the term "aiki". "Aiki" can be used for good or evil. That's why O-Sensei felt it was important not to teach technique to people not of good character.

I spent a number of years teaching law enforcement and security personnel. LE officers are required to initiate technique on subjects who are e-gressive, not just a-ggressive. I can assure you that "aiki" works just as well when the person initiates as when he is being attacked. Virtually every technique in the Aikido repertoire can be used as an attack, not just a defense. The circumstance and ones personal mindset determine whether this is "violent" in an immoral way or not.

I tried to clip some of this wonderful post, but it needs to be read again, and again.

In my opinion, this is one of the best posts I've read anywhere in ages. Bedrock truth, no kool-aid drinking necessary... just solid practice of kihon dousa with a teacher who knows and can do along with a good group of folk searching for similar practice.

I'm gonna stop entering strokes on this keyboard and make some coffee and then read this again...

Best regards,

Kevin Leavitt
04-21-2010, 01:19 PM
Yes, I am with Chuck, great post!

Allen Beebe
04-21-2010, 04:41 PM
I'll third George's post adding to it:

a) I was taught this explicitly. [As mentioned in another post somewhere and sometime ago, when Takeda and Ueshiba taught L.E. and Military personnel are we to assume, despite all evidence to the contrary, they taught "grab my wrist" waza?]

b) If one does precisely the same thing when attacked as when "attacking," there are some implications here. Whatever one has a proclivity for screwing up when "defending" one will, in all likelihood, screw up when "attacking." This is because, with Aiki (and the worms crawl out of the can . . . :eek: ) there is no defense/attack there is only Aiki . . .

c) Why teach one sidedly then? Well, first of all, I think this wasn't always the case on the whole. Secondly, I suspect it is the easiest (least screw-up-able) way to learn Aiki. (i.e. it is easier to learn by being pushed then to push . . . but somebody's got to push . . . one may as well learn how to push while learning to recieve. But I think the learning curve is faster on the receiving end. Once one develops an understanding and ability, one experiences no difference (or in my puny case, less of a difference.) The same thing is happening, within one's self, either way so why not emphasize (initially) that which seems to produce the desired result (Aiki) the quickest? And, if the end result lends itself to being interfaced conveniently with a particular moral paradigm, cool! (Although one ought to be careful about erroneously asserting a causal relationship to that interface if one wishes for reproducible results.)

Anyway, "a" was taught to me. "b" is a logical outcome of if a = b, then b = a reasoning. And "c" is my guess based on circumstantial evidence and a smattering of experience.

In case one hadn't noticed I wasn't talking about waza although I was taught that what was stated holds true for that as well.

FWIW,
Allen

Alberto_Italiano
04-23-2010, 04:50 PM
My not particularly valuable guess on this subject is that, if you look for an effective way to take the initiative of attacking, then you shouldn't look for Aikido too.

I elsewhere advocated, with mixed results at best, that I do expect a martial art to work unceasingly, since day one, for the confrontation with the real struggle.

However, the responsibility of starting such a struggle ought never to rest on the shoulders of an aikidoka. This not because we want to be good doves in a world of wolves, but simply because if what you want is the attack, then aikido is outplaced being quintessentially defense (that this substance may lead or not to cultivating an utterly unrealistic attitude towards what a real fight may look like, is another story).

To be sure, no moral judgement is implied here. Only, if you want to attack, most likely you wouldn't be looking for Aikido in the first place.

Kevin Leavitt
04-23-2010, 06:47 PM
Alberto, understand what you are saying, but I think it imposes an artificial limitation and a morale presumption of what right and wrong should or could be.

I think the Zen Koan "Stop Harm, Do no Harm" is very applicable to the art of aikido.

I mean how to you accomplish this? It may require you to take agressive and destructive measures in order for a greater good to be realized.

Of course we could argue all day long about the justification of such actions an the morality/ethics of the actions in specific cases.

However, I think though that it is not so important that we make a choice to use violence, but that we do so with as clear of mind as we can, in the most unemotional manner, using as much skill as we have to minimize damage if possible, and we do so with compassion and not anger.

For me at least, this is what I want out of my aikido...NOT an over simplification of morality that relegates me to be a passive only.

I think there are alot of good practices and models to draw from. Ghandi is a great one.

However I don't believe that Ghandi was a Budoka nor he ever intended to be one. Non-violence is certainly a worthwhile goal, and one I would love to see in the world.

I think Budoka have (or should) understand clearly the path they have chosen and understand that in doing so, they have signed up for an obligation to use what skill they have in a manner that helps others...whatever that may be.

I think there is too much revisionism in budo to try and turn it into something other than what it is, and that is both sad and dangerous IMO.

RED
04-23-2010, 10:09 PM
I don't believe Aikido is passive. I don't even think it is strictly defensive. It takes a very real stance on what it thinks about violence and malice. And the stance it takes on violence is not a passive one. I don't think Aikidoka was intended to be pacifists.

From an ideological stance, when some one takes a strong opinion of something either way, there is no room for pacifist mentality.

I think the opinion of Aikido is that malice is intolerable. Aikido doesn't defend against fights, nor does Aikidoka train to win fights, or even prevent or end fights.IMO Aikido does not tolerate the existence of fights periods. Ideologically, it strives to identify what is out of ballance and through its intolerance of that malice, bring it back into ballance.

Jon Marshall
05-02-2010, 03:32 AM
The first paragraph of what George said. That's what I has hoping to hear from a senior aikidoka.

Thanks George,
Jon

niall
05-02-2010, 09:09 AM
How do you blend with a person who is not attacking? As to my understanding, one blends with an attacker's energy and redirects that energy .

I agree with John. There is a lot of stuff being written in this thread by people who are talking theoretically about stylized training - not practical applications. If there is no energy there is no aikido because there is no ai and there is no ki. If you do an atemi (= attack someone!) and they throw up their hands in self-defence or run away you might be able to do something - but it wouldn't be aikido. And attacking someone who is not posing a threat wouldn't be aikido either - it would be completely alien to the philosophy of aikido. And has anyone ever seen a top teacher do that - attack someone? So the honest answer to the original question is no - there are no offensive moves in aikido.

If the person doesn't attack him, he shouldn't need to defend himself. As far as I know guards don't just beat up on prisoners not trying to harm them.

But Don is right (and Alberto is right too)! So aikido is OK after all... :)

Anjisan
05-02-2010, 10:48 AM
I agree with John. There is a lot of stuff being written in this thread by people who are talking theoretically about stylized training - not practical applications. If there is no energy there is no aikido because there is no ai and there is no ki. If you do an atemi (= attack someone!) and they throw up their hands in self-defence or run away you might be able to do something - but it wouldn't be aikido. And attacking someone who is not posing a threat wouldn't be aikido either - it would be completely alien to the philosophy of aikido. And has anyone ever seen a top teacher do that - attack someone? So the honest answer to the original question is no - there are no offensive moves in aikido.

But Don is right (and Alberto is right too)! So aikido is OK after all... :)
It really does depend on the situation. If one can sense the malice intent, but that intent has not been formulated into an "attack", it may be tactically sound to draw out that attack. This can be accomplished by leaning forward--Osensei was known to do this-- or like some Aikido styles either actually strike or feint a strike. If it is not feasible to just leave the situation it does not strike me as sound to simply stand there and wait for them to attack on their terms or just ignore them and go about one's business.

niall
05-02-2010, 12:01 PM
Deliberately leaving or creating an opening (suki) to encourage an attack is normal in high level aikido. Attacking someone who isn't a threat isn't. But I take Jason's point about what to do in a dangerous situation - it might be best to do something.

I was just looking for a definition of sen no sen (initiating) budo and go no sen (reacting) budo and sen sen no sen and saki no saki and I found this interesting article. O Sensei clearly says there is no attack in aikido here but the article goes on to describe some of the strikes mentioned by previous posters. So maybe we're both right. But there is still the question of energy. If you attack with a tsuki and the bad guy (I can't call him uke because you've become the uke!) just retreats instead of making the stylized aikido response what do you do? And gripping someone is even more dangerous - then you might really become the uke.

http://www.aiki-shuren-dojo.com/pdf/Go%20no%20sen.pdf

Mikemac
05-12-2010, 01:04 PM
Are there any offinsive move in Aikido my friend works in the county jail and a deputy and he wants to learn aikido but some times in his line of work he needs to be offinsive not just deffinsive so would it benifit him or no?

Either curse at or insult your opponent first, then it all flows.

Joking :)

Mark Peckett
05-12-2010, 01:22 PM
I think Gandhi was a great budoka, and he really took his attackers' energy and turned it against them. The Satyagraha (loosely translates as "truth-force", literally "satya"="truth"; "graha"="asking for", which is what I like to think I'm doing every time I get on the mat) campaign was directed against a British tax on producing salt. Gandhi walked across India, gathering more and more followers on the way and in the end was arrested by the British authorities. This turning of one's attacker's force (in this case, a blatantly unfair and ridiculous law designed simply to oppress) against the attacker by forcing them to imprison him and look ridiculous themselves in the eyes of the world, is to me a pure example of aikido in a wider context. And it won a whole sub-continent its freedom from foreign rule - which over 200 years of violent opposition failed to do.

I know it might be disappointing to those who want to learn an art that gives one the techniques for subduing our attackers violently, but if aikido isn't about changing our minds and our hearts, and after that, the world, then why not carry a big stick, a knife or a gun?

RED
05-12-2010, 01:57 PM
here's some very offensive Aikido:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8sp74JdZ44U

George S. Ledyard
05-12-2010, 05:20 PM
Deliberately leaving or creating an opening (suki) to encourage an attack is normal in high level aikido. Attacking someone who isn't a threat isn't. But I take Jason's point about what to do in a dangerous situation - it might be best to do something.

I was just looking for a definition of sen no sen (initiating) budo and go no sen (reacting) budo and sen sen no sen and saki no saki and I found this interesting article. O Sensei clearly says there is no attack in aikido here but the article goes on to describe some of the strikes mentioned by previous posters. So maybe we're both right. But there is still the question of energy. If you attack with a tsuki and the bad guy (I can't call him uke because you've become the uke!) just retreats instead of making the stylized aikido response what do you do? And gripping someone is even more dangerous - then you might really become the uke.

http://www.aiki-shuren-dojo.com/pdf/Go%20no%20sen.pdf

This is a nice descriptive article on the issue of "timing". I think that O-Sensei's statement about there being no "attack" in Aikido is often misunderstood. Once again, it ends up carrying a lot of moral / ethical baggage which I think distracts from an understanding of what I believe he really meant.

If you really want to understand what O-Sensei was saying here (my opinion, of course) you need to add the balancing statement that there is absolutely no "defense" in Aikido.

In other words, there is no attack or defense in Aikido. Discussions of "timing", regardless of which particular timing we are discussing, are necessarily relative. The very notion of "timing" contains the elements of something happening at a time relative to something else happening at another time or even the same time. But the whole notion is dualistic to begin with.

O-Sensei's fundamental mode of perception was non-dualistic. If one exists in the state of "aiki", as in "take musu aiki", there is no timing because there is no separation between the attacker and defender. In fact they simply do not exist as separate entities. In that state of consciousness, it is impossible for an attacker to move separately from a defender and therefore, any violent encounter is over in the instant an attack is even conceived.

I use an Aikido "Koan" with my students when we talk about this. It say "what happens to all notions of timing when you introduce the notion of already?". I think that this is what O-Sensei meant.

That said, until we are advanced enough to perceive reality in the present instant, we are stuck in the dualistic world and understanding issues of timing, as described in the article, will only enhance ones Aikido.

guillermo santos
05-12-2010, 08:56 PM
Are there any offinsive move in Aikido my friend works in the county jail and a deputy and he wants to learn aikido but some times in his line of work he needs to be offinsive not just deffinsive so would it benifit him or no?

If the AIKI doesn't work use KIAI !! the opposite!!!

sakumeikan
05-13-2010, 09:51 AM
This is a nice descriptive article on the issue of "timing". I think that O-Sensei's statement about there being no "attack" in Aikido is often misunderstood. Once again, it ends up carrying a lot of moral / ethical baggage which I think distracts from an understanding of what I believe he really meant.

If you really want to understand what O-Sensei was saying here (my opinion, of course) you need to add the balancing statement that there is absolutely no "defense" in Aikido.

In other words, there is no attack or defense in Aikido. Discussions of "timing", regardless of which particular timing we are discussing, are necessarily relative. The very notion of "timing" contains the elements of something happening at a time relative to something else happening at another time or even the same time. But the whole notion is dualistic to begin with.

O-Sensei's fundamental mode of perception was non-dualistic. If one exists in the state of "aiki", as in "take musu aiki", there is no timing because there is no separation between the attacker and defender. In fact they simply do not exist as separate entities. In that state of consciousness, it is impossible for an attacker to move separately from a defender and therefore, any violent encounter is over in the instant an attack is even conceived.

I use an Aikido "Koan" with my students when we talk about this. It say "what happens to all notions of timing when you introduce the notion of already?". I think that this is what O-Sensei meant.

That said, until we are advanced enough to perceive reality in the present instant, we are stuck in the dualistic world and understanding issues of timing, as described in the article, will only enhance ones Aikido.

If one fully understands the principles related to the three timings one has the capacity to absorb /neutralize any potential attack.
As O Sensei stated it is not about speed of opponents attack its all about perception and timing.This is what blending or harmonizing with ones partner is all about.

aikilouis
05-13-2010, 12:00 PM
A pertinent point of view on the subject:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4278223088070106403#docid=-2192345782609134529