Techniques Designed For Pain

[Please visit our sponsor:]

[Adam_Aikidoka]

Is there a place in Aikido for techniques specifically designed to injure Uke? The answer of course, is no. Is it correct that Aikido techniques are designed so that ideally the attacker is neutralised without causing injury to him? It says in Aikido and the Dynamic Sphere by Adele Westbrook and Oscar Ratti:
'..the ultimate in ethical self defense. Neither attacking nor provoking an attack, the man on the left (defender) defends himself in such a way, with such skill and control that the attacker is not killed. In this case, he is not even seriously injured.'

If this is true to the workings of Aikido, then there is no place for 'injuring techniques'.
I have been taught, that Aikido holds or locks, only injure uke is the assailant tries to fight the lock, tensing their limbs and causing injury to themselves. But of late, I have been shown some techniques which are holds which injure uke even without struggle.

I have stated my opinion, I am just interested in any other opinions or experiences with such techniques.

Thanks
Adam.

[DaveO]

IMO, there may be a time when causing injury may prevent further injury to yourself or others. (I'm thinking about multiple armed attackers, for instance.) In this situation, breaking an attacker's arm with shihonage (for instance) would be preferable to a knife in your ribs, so the injury should be carried out as quickly and efficiently as possible in order to properly turn and defend against other attackers.

That being said, all possible care should be taken that an attacker isn't injured; deliberate injury should be committed only when there is no other choice.

Dave

[Chris Li]

If this is true to the workings of Aikido, then there is no place for 'injuring techniques'.

I have been taught, that Aikido holds or locks, only injure uke is the assailant tries to fight the lock, tensing their limbs and causing injury to themselves. But of late, I have been shown some techniques which are holds which injure uke even without struggle.
1) I agree with the "ultimate in ethical self defense" part, but that doesn't mean that it is the only form of self defense that is ethical. In reality, the "ultimate" is rarely achieved and often not even achievable. You do your best and hope that things turn out alright. That's why you have "injuring techniques", and why they may be applied - because they may be a better choice than an even more injuring outcome.

2) IMO, the "only injure uke is the assailant tries to fight the lock" argument is something of a cop-out. How many people in an actual fight wouldn't fight the lock? Some, I guess, but not many - just look at how many people get injured with those locks in Aikido classes, and that's a controlled situation where you know what's happening. In my book, if you apply the technique than you have to accept responsibility for the outcome.

Best,

Chris

[Adam_Aikidoka]

Thank you for your feedback.

With regard to 'How many people in an actual fight wouldn't fight the lock?'

I have been taught in my club to relax and not to fight the lock as to not cause injury. Anyone not trained to do that i.e in an actual fight, would fight the lock and that is why the lock is effective.

My arguement is not against using Aikido to harm in order to defend yourself, for Aikido techniques allow you to make that choice. I am against showing techniques which can only harm, not control.

Thanks, Adam.

[MaylandL]

Hello Adam

IMHO, the "ethical self defence" is something to strive for and represents an ideal. In an actual situation where you have to defend yourself (unfortunately I've had to a couple of times) there's a lot of things that happen to your body: the fight/flight response, the impact of a massive and instant hit of adrenalin and the fear associated with the getting hurt, the loss of fine motor control, emotions like anger and disbelief, tunnel vision, lack of aural acuity etc. Given all of these things, the ability to defend yourself ethically becomes very difficult.

According to a lot of people who have been there and done that (eg Messrs Peyton Quinn, Marc MacYoung and Sammy Franco) in an actual fight you have to deal with the situation quickly and decisively. It ends up being brutal and messy.

From an ethical and practical self defence perspective de escalation and avoidance are probably relevant.

If you are interested in finding out more on self defence have a look at:

www.rmcat.com

www.sammyfranco.com

www.nononsenseselfdefense.com

All the best for your training.

[Chris Li]

Thank you for your feedback.

With regard to 'How many people in an actual fight wouldn't fight the lock?'

I have been taught in my club to relax and not to fight the lock as to not cause injury. Anyone not trained to do that i.e in an actual fight, would fight the lock and that is why the lock is effective.
So you're learning techniques that you admit would injure in the great majority of actual situations? My point exactly.
My arguement is not against using Aikido to harm in order to defend yourself, for Aikido techniques allow you to make that choice. I am against showing techniques which can only harm, not control.

Thanks, Adam.
I'm not sure which techniqes can only harm and not control. Even a killing technique controls an opponent, albeit perhaps in a manner that you would not desire. My point was that "control" and "harm" are not absolute quantities. I might be able to "control" somebody by breaking their arm - is that right or wrong? I don't know, but I suppose that it would depend upon what was happening at the time.

Best,

Chris

[Kevin Wilbanks]

It may be admirable to hold to non-harming principles even at the possible or even likely expense of your own health or life, but I'm skeptical about people who make such proclamations... unless, of course, they have actually faced serious life or death self-defense situations. I hear similarly grandiose statements from hardcore vegetarians that they would never eat an animal, even to survive.

I think these kinds of postures come from an idealistic place born of either a lack of imagination, or a life relatively free of real hardship. Ask someone who has come close to starving about the ethics of killing and eating an animal. Ask someone who lives in a war zone about the morality of causing harm in self-defense. If you've never been in these dire situations, it seems absurd to be presumptive about what others or even you would do when faced with such harsh difficulties.

On a more nuts and bolts level, I think it is wrong to assume that Aikido is about non-violence. O Sensei is not Gandhi. The 'harmony' talked about in Aikido is not about some kind of utopian, lovey-dovey world where no one gets hurt. I think the dynamics of Aikido are much more along the lines of 'what goes around comes around'. If someone attacks with extreme force and speed, that force and speed is quite likely to come back to them in proportion, as their face hits the ground, or a wall. In many situations, I can see the attacker coming to more harm than if you merely ducked and punched them a couple of times... imagine doing Ikkyo Ura on someone in a room full of heavy furniture with sharp corners... If someone comes in with a knife, that knife might well end up stuck in their own abdomen.

Another whole aspect of realistic Aikido self-defense is atemi. Many of the techniques and especially the pins have little hope of working against a strong, tense attacker without a fairly serious blow to a vulnerable point of their body. If that person is intent on serious harm, such atemi doesn't seem out of line at all, but if you don't use it, it is unlikely that you will end up in any position to show any mercy, and instead might end up begging for it.

Harmonizing is about doing what's appropriate to the situation, not imposing some fantasy or ideal on it. I see an ideal Aikidoka as giving an attacker what they need and precisely what they ask for. The more dangerous and out of balance their action, the more severe the reaction. Seagal dramatizes this pretty well (movie-style) when he shows reversals of attacks with shotguns, cleavers, etc...

[Sam]

But of late, I have been shown some techniques which are holds which injure uke even without struggle.

I have stated my opinion, I am just interested in any other opinions or experiences with such techniques.

Thanks

Adam.
I would be interested to know (if you don't mind expanding) what techniques you have learn which injure uke as a mtter of course?

It may add more scope to this discussion........

[DaveO]

It may be admirable to hold to non-harming principles even at the possible or even likely expense of your own health or life, but I'm skeptical about people who make such proclamations... unless, of course, they have actually faced serious life or death self-defense situations. I hear similarly grandiose statements from hardcore vegetarians that they would never eat an animal, even to survive.

I think these kinds of postures come from an idealistic place born of either a lack of imagination, or a life relatively free of real hardship. Ask someone who has come close to starving about the ethics of killing and eating an animal. Ask someone who lives in a war zone about the morality of causing harm in self-defense. If you've never been in these dire situations, it seems absurd to be presumptive about what others or even you would do when faced with such harsh difficulties.

On a more nuts and bolts level, I think it is wrong to assume that Aikido is about non-violence. O Sensei is not Gandhi. The 'harmony' talked about in Aikido is not about some kind of utopian, lovey-dovey world where no one gets hurt. I think the dynamics of Aikido are much more along the lines of 'what goes around comes around'. If someone attacks with extreme force and speed, that force and speed is quite likely to come back to them in proportion, as their face hits the ground, or a wall. In many situations, I can see the attacker coming to more harm than if you merely ducked and punched them a couple of times... imagine doing Ikkyo Ura on someone in a room full of heavy furniture with sharp corners... If someone comes in with a knife, that knife might well end up stuck in their own abdomen.

Another whole aspect of realistic Aikido self-defense is atemi. Many of the techniques and especially the pins have little hope of working against a strong, tense attacker without a fairly serious blow to a vulnerable point of their body. If that person is intent on serious harm, such atemi doesn't seem out of line at all, but if you don't use it, it is unlikely that you will end up in any position to show any mercy, and instead might end up begging for it.

Harmonizing is about doing what's appropriate to the situation, not imposing some fantasy or ideal on it. I see an ideal Aikidoka as giving an attacker what they need and precisely what they ask for. The more dangerous and out of balance their action, the more severe the reaction. Seagal dramatizes this pretty well (movie-style) when he shows reversals of attacks with shotguns, cleavers, etc...
I agree - and would like to qualify my previous statement. While the concept and philosophy of Aikido may be interpreted as very peaceful, one must keep this strictly in mind: whatever technique is used and whatever the situation, fighting is fighting; it's you vs. the other guy (or guys). While it is entirely possible to resolve a fight without injury, this is not always possible or even preferable. Remember; as aikidoka, we don't start fights, so the only reason we're involved in a fight is if the opponent has dangerous intent to either yourself or the person(s) you are protecting. In other words, he means to cause bodily harm. There are times when simple avoidance is enough to end the situation (i.e. the guy has had too many beers), but there are also times when getting in there and planting his face in the dirt may be required (i.e., same guy, too many tequilas). It follows, therefore, that there are also times when the direct use of extreme force may be required (same guy again, with friends and a broken beer bottle - and don't sneer at the example; that's a potentially fatal situation.)

Your task, therefore, is to assess the situation in a precise manner, and to act accordingly.

As I said before, Aikido or no aikido, fighting is fighting. There is always an attacker and a defender. If you want to - as some believe Aikido teaches - subdue an attacker with the power of gentleness, you have to be a good fighter first, a good aikidoka second. You have to be able to keep your mind on an unemotional, rational (some would say 'cold'; that's fine with me) plane in the midst of an extremely unrational situation - believe me, it's hard to do - such a massive shot of adrenaline (actually, I think in this case it's noradrenaline - any doctors, confirm?)reduces 99 per cent of those inexperienced with it to an animal level of survival instantly.

Personally, I agree wholeheartedly with the ideal of nonviolence - of 'bringing your opponent back into harmony with Ki'; but I urge you to consider: Defend yourself FIRST; protect your opponent second.

Dave

[Kevin Wilbanks]

I should add that I think the proportional outcome/response in Aikido is not so much along the lines of 'an eye for an eye', when I say the attacker gets what they need and ask for. Since you are working with the attacker's energy and movement, and harmonizing with the situation, you are not really in control of the scenario, only influencing it - the outcome will be neither exactly what you want or they want, and cannot be planned. As such, if someone comes flying in, they may well run into a fist or the ground, that's just a natural consequence of what they did (in terms of physics), and protecting them from those consequences may well be beyond the scope of the Aikidoka's power or responsibility.

If you really want to subdue an attacker with minimal harm, retain maximum control to decide exactly how much damage to cause, I suggest taking up BJJ. It has it's draw backs in that it is one-on-one, and you're on the ground, but if you have substantially more skill than your opponent, you can pretty much do whatever you want to them - everything between putting them into an uncomfortable, inescapable position for as long as you wish, to knocking them out gently with a carotid choke, to breaking them into little pieces and killing them. The physics of the situation are much more under control, and if they have substantially less skill they are virtually helpless.

[ian]

Although I would myself consider injuring an opponent in certain situations (e.g. where I am unlikely to survive a second attack), I don't know of any aikido 'techniques' which are designed to injure someone. Which techniques are being reffered to?

For example, although kote-gaeshi can break a wrist, kaiten-nage, shiho-nage and sumi-otoshi can dislocate the shoulder, sankyo can cause a spiral fracture, irimi-nage can break someone's neck/knock them unconcious, ikkyo can be used to break an arm etc the changes Ueshiba made to these techniques are such that this doesn't occur.

If kote-gaeshi is breaking wrists, it is possible that the uke's body is not been thrown properly and they are just being expected to 'leap' over. Also, I've recently found that nikkyo can be applied without pain by moving the locked wrist down, and stepping slowly backwards. If they try and resist the motion it is painful, but the actual down motion is not (obviously hard to explain in words).

Also, I've mentioned on another post that, though yonkyo is painful, the pressure point can be used in shiatsu to relax someone and calm them down.

Ian

[Bruce Baker]

You are correct in the ethical sense that Aikido does not propigate the use of violence for its art, or in its training, but you are mistaken that it does not contain much more deadly techniques within the safe practice.

Just like kata was designed to contain no blocks, but strikes, as it looked like a dance but each movement was designed to kill with the combinations presented, so too does the true root hold for Aikido.

It is a path that you must study, but we will not teach it in Aikido class. Learned too early, without the right attitude, the kindness toward other human beings, and the understanding of learning the healing befor the violence, it is not a path to be taken lightly.

Hence, the movements of Aikido, although effective, do contain opportunities for a much more deadly effect.

If you train with bokken or jo, then you have merely scratched the surface in seeing the transition from using your sticks to variations of hand to hand.

Don't be overconfident in using your Aikido against other fighting styles.

Remember, there is much more to be learned in both your physical practice of Aikido, and you growth as a human being.

About the vegetarian thing, aren't plants alive? If you have a problem with eating anything alive, why stop at animals?

Those poor plants are screaming for mercy too?

We didn't chose these bodys we inhabit, but we do have to learn certain lessons of living in them. Vegetarians aren't bad people, just a little off to the radical side.

Kind of like Aikido people ....

[akiy]

I would be interested to know (if you don't mind expanding) what techniques you have learn which injure uke as a mtter of course?
I'n not Adam, but my thought about this is that it's not the techniques of aikido (or any other art) that is forgiving or lethal -- it's the practitioner...

-- Jun

[DaveO]

Bingo.

Someone once said: "There are no dangerous weapons; only dangerous people." It's not Aikido, or BJJ, or Karate, or a Beretta 92-F that determines how dangerous you are to your opponent, it's how - and why - you use all of the above.

Dave

[Jim ashby]

Hi Adam. Which techniques are you referring to? BTW I saw the faces of your Ukes during your Shodan grading!

Have fun, see you sunday.

[Bruce Baker]

Yep, people are the damndest conflagaration of scruples to be defined.

If there are more of use who enforce peace than those who wish violence, we will have peace.

History, I am afraid proves me wrong. The few who create death, war, violence are almost always neutralized by the same methods they choose to unbalance the peace.

Not the best way to view maintaining harmony or peace, but that is the lesson of our history to maintain balance, and harmony.

People choose to screw it up.

[Kevin Leavitt]

agree Bruce.

An to add to what Dave said above about the person being the lethal force, not the weapon. It is not so much that you use the weapon that makes it right or wrong, but the intent and spirit you possess while using it.

[Bud]

Aikido techniques without pain? Techniques that don't do any harm? Any aikido technique done on an non-aikidoka attacker can be seriously damaging. But the beauty of the art is that we are given a choice as to how we use these waza. If your best friend gets a bit out of hand at a party, you won't be restraining him to injure him.

Hopefully, if I train long and hard enough, I'll be able to attain that OSensei ideal of completely harmless seld defense. But until that time, I think is would be terribly naive for me to treat a deadly attack as anything less than what it is.

[Bruce Baker]

If you are leaving bruises, black and blue marks on your partner during practice, you need to learn to use the pressure points of Aikido, which leave no bruises or marks. There is definitely the opportunity to give each other pain, but then again how often do we reach into this area without extended training in sensitivity, transition, and flow?

It is incorrect to block out the pain, as it leads to injury. To be able to resist the pain up to the point of feeling immenent injury ... that is the area I feel we should attend to in the sensitivity of Aikido practice.

Of course, gentle practice will not cause injury or pain, but sooner or later, you will want a more atheletic, or taxing practice that raises the bar in speed, motion, and interaction. What you gonna do when it gets going and you don't have the capacity to stay within safe parameters because you have not raised the bar of your practice enough times?

Both uke and nage need to train on both ends of the scale to make Aikido a safe practice.

[Brian H]

Is pain, in itself, "harmful"?

I don't think so.

If you are under attack and you apply a lock on someone as part of technique, and their eyes "pop out of their head," chances are the next part of the technique may go well for you.

I can not tell you how many times somebody has "gotten me good" and I had to slap out fast to get them to relent. But when it was all over nothing remained but a little tenderness and a more limber wrist. The pain fads quickly and in minutes is forgotten.

Injury on the other hand must heal. Time works for most injuries, but some stuff can be very serious. I have never seen someone intentional injure someone in the dojo, but accidents happen.

But pain should be a tool not a crutch. Some people are very flexible and resistant to pain. I can ignore nikyo locks that would cause many to dance around the mat (however doing so can court disaster if nage applies greater force to gain control of me- accidents happen).

So pain is not a bad or good thing to me, it is just a tool in the tool box.