PDA

View Full Version : na waza


Please visit our sponsor:
 

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


Paula Lydon
12-20-2002, 08:58 AM
~~We go on a lot about no na waza (ground working techniques) in Aikido, but aren't shiko and swara (can't spell it) waza just that? Please educate me. :D

paw
12-20-2002, 11:05 AM
Paula,

Swariwaza seems to me to be a subset of newaza and shiko is just a way to get from point a to point b.

Newaza are ground techniques. These are commonly held to include pins, submissions (joint locks, chokes, strangles), reversals, entries (set ups) and transitions between all of the previously listed items. (Come to think of it, some folks would also add striking to that list as well) Here are some newaza techniques (http://www.judoinfo.com/techdrw.htm) that are common in judo.

You can find a fairly heavy newaza emphasis in bjj, sombo(sambo), judo and folkstyle wrestling (just to name some arts). A web search on those arts will probably provide you with some starting information and video clips. Of course, the best approach would be to experience one of those styles (maybe a nearby school will let you drop in for a free class).

Regards,

Paul

siwilson
12-20-2002, 04:57 PM
Some Aikido schools look more in to Newaza than others, but Suwari is only a fraction of this subject and quite a diverse angle of approach, as Newaza posture is very different. On the ground there are stronger ways of grounding your power than center-line.

Thalib
12-20-2002, 06:21 PM
Imagine yourself in battle. There are others fighting other than you are. Your squad got their hands full. You are tackled down by an enemy, you struggled and finally got on top of your enemy in a mounted position. You are about to throw a punch at the enemy and suddenly you got your head chopped off from behind.

During battle, the type of ground fighting that is made so famous by UFC, Pride, or other one-on-one competition is basically useless. That's why the actual Jujutsu of Japan is nothing like Brazilian Jujutsu.

Jujutsu is developed during the sengoku jidai (warring era) of Japan. A soldier needs to finish off the enemy quickly an practically. When put to the ground and mounted, the soldier must get back on their feet and be alert of other enemies. Staying too long on the ground, on top or bottom, or on one person means death.

That's why there is no ne-waza in Aikido. Aikido was developed where in the end it is one-against-many, not one against one. The mentality of fighting too long on the ground must be taken off the mind.

There are many practices where one is pinned down on the ground and one must get back up. For example in Daito-ryu Aiki-Jujutsu, there are techniques that could get you out even when you are pinned down by 5 people (2-legs, 2-arms, 1-head).

In Aikido, when someone grapples one to the ground, "get rid of that person", don't "play his game". There are many Aiki techniques of getting out of pins and mounts and back to the standing position. Aikido rarely demonstrates these type of techniques, look to Daito-ryu for reference. Since the principle is also Aiki, it is easier to understand.

Chris Li
12-20-2002, 07:18 PM
Jujutsu is developed during the sengoku jidai (warring era) of Japan. A soldier needs to finish off the enemy quickly an practically. When put to the ground and mounted, the soldier must get back on their feet and be alert of other enemies. Staying too long on the ground, on top or bottom, or on one person means death.

That's why there is no ne-waza in Aikido. Aikido was developed where in the end it is one-against-many, not one against one. The mentality of fighting too long on the ground must be taken off the mind.
Of course, Aikido was developed long after the sengoku jidai, at a time when nobody had used jujutsu on the battlefield for hundreds of years.

Given, going to the ground ala BJJ is not the best strategy against multiple attackers, but just because a strategy is wrong for one situation doesn't mean that it isn't good in another.

Best,

Chris

paw
12-20-2002, 08:05 PM
Chris Li is correct.

However, since the digression has started, I would point those interested to this thread started by Matt Larson, author of FM 3-25.150 (http://mma.tv/TUF/DisplayMessages.cfm?TID=112848&P=76&FID=43&c=1) the current official field manual for combatives of the US Army and continuing the discussion there.

Mr. Larson would be much more qualified to address the combative needs of today's soldier, and more particular, the role of newaza in the modern battlefield.

Regards,

Paul

Thalib
12-21-2002, 01:51 AM
I read Matt Larson's post about the field manual and it was quite interesting. What he dislikes about BJJ is the concentration on one-on-one competition fighting. That's why he changed the system so it would be more effective for the battlefield.

Sometimes going to the ground is inevitable for one reason or another. But staying on the ground could get you killed. Imagining Larson's modified version of BJJ, it seemed it went back to traditional Jujutsu, where it concentrates on field combat instead of the ring.

Traditional Jujutsu (koryu-jujutsu) is like a mixed martial art if you think about it. They learn all types of weapons, they learn kicking and punching, they learn locks and throws, and they learn grappling, with and without armor. And they teach it in amost efficient and effective way, since the soldiers don't have enough time to learn.

Jujutsu is actually "The Field Manual" of the sengoku-jidai.

paw
12-21-2002, 06:15 AM
Thalib,

Again, the points you are raising would be better dealt with on the other forum and in the other thread.

Chris Li
12-21-2002, 07:13 AM
I read Matt Larson's post about the field manual and it was quite interesting. What he dislikes about BJJ is the concentration on one-on-one competition fighting. That's why he changed the system so it would be more effective for the battlefield.
I noticed that he modified the system, but didn't eliminate the ground work - just adjusted the focus somewhat and added on for situations not encountered in a sport environment. In other words, he kept ground work as one option - just where it ought to be, IMO.
Jujutsu is actually "The Field Manual" of the sengoku-jidai.
If you look at the curriculum of almost any koryu that dates to those days you'll see that the jujutsu portion is almost always a very small and minor part of the curriculum. If you want a "Field Manual" of the sengoku-jidai you'd be better off concentrating on the weapons portions, IMO.

Best,

Chris

Thalib
12-21-2002, 06:47 PM
At first I thought Jujutsu is only hand to hand combat, but then I bought a book by Serge Mol, "Classical Fighting Arts of Japan: A Complete Guide to Koryu Jujutsu". My perception have changed since then. The way Jujutsu was taught during that era was actually impossible if they weren't taught other arts, especially weapons.

I see your point though. It is possible that a soldier may have no knowledge of Jujutsu at all. It is more practical to have them concentrate on a weapon, let's say on yari-jutsu. I do see Jujutsu were more for higher ranking officials and nobles. Foot-soldiers have no time to learn an extensive art such as that.

Maybe I was wrong to say "The Field Manual", I should say "A Field Manual". "The Field Manual" is Bujutsu of the respective families.

And about Larson's BJJ, I agree that he kept the ground work. He just changed the mentality of the soldier from sports-oriented to battlefield-oriented. For competition purposes, I see Larson also changed the rules a bit. The system of getting points on the army BJJ is a bit different then Gracie's. The competition is more concentrated on battlefield simulations. Therefore strategies are different.

That's why I believe that the Army's BJJ is going back to Koryu Jujutsu. Koryu Jujutsu also have groundwork, except not like the one that we know as Gendai Jujutsu or Judo today. The groundwork in traditional Jujutsu is actually quite swift and deadly.

Actually I've never seen or witness any of the koryu first hand nor spoken to koryu practitioners. These are only observations from what I've read, hear, or seen on videos. So mostly are still speculations.

はい、 李さん、 どうぞ よろしく おねがいたします

Hai' Li-San, douzo yoroshiku onegaitashimasu

P.S.: Did I get the kanji for your name right?

Kevin Leavitt
12-21-2002, 07:54 PM
Funny you guys are talking about this. I am active duty Army (Ranger Qualified).

I am going to Fort Benning over the next few months to get "Certified" to teach Combatives for the army.

I have been in contact with Master Sergeant Larson, and will be working with him.

It is a coincidence that I just finished reviewing the new Army FM. Yes it is very BJJ heavy.

I have me own opinions about ground fighting, but will withhold them until I complete my certification.

I appauld the MSG Larson's efforts since prior to this, the Army basically did nothing with Combatives training. At least now it is a little more comprehensive and did go through a fairly rigourous and thoughtful process.

As with anything, you must consider your audience. I will let you know my opinions later in the year once I complete the certification process and assimilate it from a "martial/military" perspective.

bob_stra
12-22-2002, 01:50 AM
Some random thoughts -

It's nice to see the new FM3-25.150. The last URL I have for that had long expired. Certainly looking at it, there seems to be much more newaza.

Paula

No, suwari wazi (I can't spell it either ;-) Is not newaza per se. The army field manual above gives a good feel for it.

Having said that, there is a very real place for suwari in newaza, especially in those school that start from the knees. Take a look at some of the clips here and see if you could imagine the link.

http://www.royharris.com/Merchant2/merchant.mv?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=HIOS&Product_Code=TFK&Category_Code=IV

To my mind, grappling goes like this -

Long range (aikido)

Mid range (wrestling / judo etc)

Knees

Floor (newaza)

Ppl rag on sport BJJ and to some extent I guess they're right - some of the scenarios in that context are kind of silly. Some.

PS: Nice to see some very aikidoish techs in that field manual (unarmed knife defence).