PDA

View Full Version : What's the purpose of this forum?


Please visit our sponsor:
 

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


Jim23
02-09-2001, 10:56 AM
What's the purpose of this forum?

Really, I'd like to know. But please, don't bother with the cliche answers.

Jim23

chrisinbrasil
02-09-2001, 12:07 PM
I will try to be direct and sincere. I understand that this forum is to discuss and inform about martial arts/ways (especially but not limited to Aikido), your personal experiences in them, and your topics of interests or questions concerning them. What do you think itīs for?

Jim23
02-09-2001, 12:29 PM
Christopher,

I agree with your answer. The problem that I find with many people here (and I suppose the same could be said for other forums for other martial arts) is that they are very defensive. So much so, that if I bring up an issue, they take it as a personal attack and accuse me of insulting aikido or worse, them.

For example, a while back I mentioned that I had watched a Ju-Jitsu class and was very impressed with the level of fitness, stamina and general skill of the teacher and students, and how I felt that in aikido there should be more training with punches and blocks (generally), otherwise they might be inneffective in the real world. Boy was I attacked for that and even told that I should take up Ju-Juitsu, etc.

Let's keep an open mind and not be so insecure.

Jim23

chrisinbrasil
02-09-2001, 12:49 PM
Jim23 wrote:
Christopher,

For example, a while back I mentioned that I had watched a Ju-Jitsu class and was very impressed with the level of fitness, stamina and general skill of the teacher and students, and how I felt that in aikido there should be more training with punches and blocks (generally), otherwise they might be inneffective in the real world. Boy was I attacked for that and even told that I should take up Ju-Juitsu, etc.

Jim23



Hey Jim,
I think what got you in trouble here is the part where you said that if Aikido didnīt adopt some of these techniques it might be ineffective. You see, most people(Aikidoka) donīt believe that it is necessary to incorporate other arts into Aikido for it to be effective, but believe that if performed correctly it would be. Thus, your statement might have stepped on some toes. I enjoy cross-training and donīt believe itīs a problem. Aikido, in my view, encompasses all movements which protect yourself and the other while controlling the situation. What it takes to control the situation is a whole īnother ballgame. Aikido, of course, has some distinct trademarks but I think you got the point.
Maybe you should take some JJ classes... I do. :)
You know... they can be defensive, Iīll grant you that, but you are easily offended as well. Iīve read the other threads.
Gotta go........ train......

Jim23
02-09-2001, 01:21 PM
Hey Chris(topher),

You're right, I do take offense when attacked by someone who misinterprets what I said (wrote), and then they become insulting. People have a habit of reading what they want from a post, be it good or bad - human nature I guess.

I find open minds work quite well.

Jim23

Magma
02-09-2001, 02:24 PM
Jim,
If I may respond for those others I have read and discussed this with:

You very often provoke reaction not because of what you say, but how you say it. Examples:


Which word are you having trouble understanding?
*************************
Where did this come from? I wish I knew what you were smoking when you wrote this.
*************************
Tim,
Yep, you are just talking. But, are you growing?
*************************
Don't fool yourselves.
The other stuff can work, but, please, don't try to punch an attacker - you're wasting your time!


And again in this thread "I find that open minds work best." With a not so veiled tenor of "So why doesn't anyone else on this board have an open mind?"

Put simply, Jim, it's your tone: belittling of those you don't agree with, dismissive of those you don't understand, and argumentative at the slightest (misinterpreted) provocation.

What is this forum for? I'll tell you one thing this forum is specifically NOT-for: Climbing the Mountain of Jim, where after years of arduous labor and toil in gaining the summit (each day spent living the precepts that Jim illumines for us) we find the Bodhisattva Jim ready to dole out more of life's truisms for his worthy disciples.

It doesn't work that way, Jim. People are going to have opinions contrary to your own, and they are going to believe them as fervently as you do yours. So what's the difference? Why are people coming down on you if we all know that you believe your opinions just as strongly as anyone believes their own? Again, I point to your tone. If you didn't sound as if you were delivering the next set of commandments in your posts, I honestly don't think that people would have such a strong negative reaction to your opinions. Rather, I think you would have what this forum is truly for: discussion and the sharing of ideas.

It seems you enjoy provoking people for the sake of argument, while trivializing the argument itself so that they seem petty for responding. For example, in this thread:
I find that open minds work better.
Who is going to argue with that. But the implication is that only you have the most-open mind of all.
Another example, from this and previous threads:
commenting on how defensive people are.
What do you expect people to reply to being called defensive? "No, I'm not"? How asinine is that.

Now, my suggestions (just to show that I'm not just coming down on you without advice, too):
1) change your tone - you can provoke thought and discussion without setting yourself up as the master delivering the day's koan for training.
2) think about what you're writing - is it a personal attack; if so, can you put it another way?
3) remember that we're all a community here - we're all exploring, Jim. And the belittling and jabbing that may take place elsewhere on the web in chat rooms and discussion boards should be left at the door, so to speak.

...Or I could just be talking.

Tim

Jim23
02-09-2001, 03:18 PM
Tim,

I find this all very strange.

I'm usually just responding to a rude answer. Also, some of my comments are made in jest (I should put a smiling face in).

I still stand by my comments regarding the punching though. Based on training and observation, I feel that Aikido punches are usually weak (let's not get into that now - of course some aren't) and karate punches are usually strong and judo throws are usually strong. But people get defensive when they hear this stuff. So should it not be said? Remember, if someone acts agressively toward me for no good reason other than a bruised ego, I'll hold up a mirror to them.

Jim23

Magma
02-09-2001, 07:20 PM
Jim23 wrote:
I'm usually just responding to a rude answer....Remember, if someone acts agressively toward me for no good reason other than a bruised ego, I'll hold up a mirror to them.

Jim23

Jim,

All I'm saying Jim, is that you can hold up a mirror without being the mirror. And the more you're able to do that, the less rude/attacking responses you're going to get because
1) you're going to look like you're open-minded and in search of answers, too; and
2) people will look stupid attacking you for no reason.

Turn with the energy of the conversational-punch, rather than try to conversationally counter-punch.

... Or I could just be talking.

Tim

Brian
02-10-2001, 07:33 AM
Magma wrote:
Turn with the energy of the conversational-punch, rather than try to conversationally counter-punch.


You rock, man.

sceptoor
02-10-2001, 09:21 AM
Brian wrote:
Magma wrote:
Turn with the energy of the conversational-punch, rather than try to conversationally counter-punch.


You rock, man.



heh, heh, I agree 100%. The problem is that Jim won't "get it".

Anyway, I agree with Tim here;

It seems you enjoy provoking people for the sake of argument, while trivializing the argument itself so that they seem petty for responding. For example, in this thread:
I find that open minds work better.
Who is going to argue with that. But the implication is that only you have the most-open mind of all.
Another example, from this and previous threads:
commenting on how defensive people are.
What do you expect people to reply to being called defensive? "No, I'm not"? How asinine is that.

These were the condescending type of remarks I was referring to. You also say we're being defensive without an open mind. I say "look into the mirror". In fact, I'll tell you(again) that I've been reading your posts for a while, and got sick of the belittling of Aikido, and these kinds of reponses were LONG overdue, as everyone in here was just bbeing too nice. I'm sorry, but SOMEONE HAD to say something. Let me get this straight, you jump into an aikido forum, ask a few questions, everyone answers you(most quite non-defensively), and you still linger around as if your questions weren't answered, then, the belittling starts.


I still stand by my comments regarding the punching though. Based on training and observation, I feel that Aikido punches are usually weak (let's not get into that now - of course some aren't) and karate punches are usually strong and judo throws are usually strong. But people get defensive when they hear this stuff. So should it not be said? Remember, if someone acts agressively toward me for no good reason other than a bruised ego, I'll hold up a mirror to them.

It seems the fundamentals of aikido just zip right over your head. And are you implying that Judo throws are strong but aikido throws are not??(just asking) It's true that punching and kicking are not taught in detail in aikido, why?? Because it's Aikido, not Tang Su Doe, or Tae Kwon Doe. If an Aikidoka really wants to learn the fundamentals of punching and kicking in more detail, we'll be sure to take up those arts. Some aikidoka hold high rank in other MA's, so I wouldn't say their punches/kicks are "weak" or insincere. Maybe the confusion here is that you possibly think that Aikido senseis are "misleading" their students into thinking that Aikido is the ONLY effective MA and that we should all take a second look at it and decide to venture into a more "realistic" self defense. I have no problem with that, but I can personally tell you that this is not true(I can only speak for my dojo and it's organization ASU) of my sensei(s). My problem lies with your implications in all of your posts that Aikido is NOT effective.


I still haven't gotten an answer on whether or not you've actually walked into an aikido dojo.

Jim23
02-10-2001, 09:21 AM
Magma wrote:

Turn with the energy of the conversational-punch, rather than try to conversationally counter-punch.


Tim,

I actually agree with what you've said here, however, I find some people here don't take this approach though. Take a look at the thread "Who said this?", I somehow don't think I was being sensitive.

Jim23

Jim23
02-10-2001, 09:59 AM
sceptoor wrote:


are you implying that Judo throws are strong but aikido throws are not??

If an Aikidoka really wants to learn the fundamentals of punching and kicking in more detail, we'll be sure to take up those arts. Some aikidoka hold high rank in other MA's, so I wouldn't say their punches/kicks are "weak" or insincere. Maybe the confusion here is that you possibly think that Aikido senseis are "misleading" their students into thinking that Aikido is the ONLY effective MA and that we should all take a second look at it and decide to venture into a more "realistic" self defense. I have no problem with that, but I can personally tell you that this is not true(I can only speak for my dojo and it's organization ASU) of my sensei(s). My problem lies with your implications in all of your posts that Aikido is NOT effective.


Chris,

Look at how this starts out ... Man.

Of course it's not true at your dojo, or many others. I never said that. And some people train in many different styles and some are young and some are old.

What I said was that punches and blocks are often unrealistically applied (and I know that is a thread in itself) compared to, for example, Karate. If some students choose to train in punches in order to be more effective, great! If they choose not to, that's also their choice. But If you don't have a good punch, you could be in for a shock (of your life) if faced by an attacker (after, you try to talk your way out of the situation, of course).

Now I know that many people know all that, but the effectiveness issue seems to always pop up, so I think it's a relevant observation. I have a strong punch after many years of karate and taekwondo, however, even I would question its effect on a crazed mugger.

I never meant that aikido is ineffective, or Judo, or Karate, etc. They're all effective and they're all ineffective depending on how they're trained and used. Also, someone who trains in Judo can (should) do better throws than someone who trains in Karate.

Now I'm being defensive.

Do I need to go into this much detail with each post? I'm sure I've missed many details here and have probably offended some people as well.

Jim23

sceptoor
02-10-2001, 10:34 AM
What I said was that punches and blocks are often unrealistically applied (and I know that is a thread in itself) compared to, for example, Karate. If some students choose to train in punches in order to be more effective, great! If they choose not to, that's also their choice. But If you don't have a good punch, you could be in for a shock (of your life) if faced by an attacker (after, you try to talk your way out of the situation, of course).

I totally agree with this paragraph, but I have to disgree with one thing. I know this is going to "sound" defensive, but are you forgetting that Aikido uses what is called "atemi"?? This practice is usually started around the "Dan" ranks, some even earlier. I'm not saying one shouldn't have a good punch, but punches and kicks are "offensive" tactics. If you meant to say that an aikidoka will be shocked when faced with a good, solid, strong punch or kick, I agree to an extent. But I have to point out that the lack of committed attacks in the dojo is sometimes a problem, and sometimes not. But then again, a good aikidoka "hopes" for such a punch, as it makes it that much easier to throw the attacker. My sensei always points out that strong, sincere, committed attacks are important in training, and NAGE is not simply learning technique at UKE's expense. UKE has to be sincere, they have to try to show NAGE his/her weakness in whatever technique, so that they BOTH learn. Non-committed, insincere attacks do not help Nage, at all. I agree with that. "Timing" and correct distance is of utmost importance when dealing with such quick, strong attacks, and it takes years to develop good timing in these techniques, which is why in the beginning, static movements are more important at first.
Anyway, gotta run--

skittlehop
02-11-2001, 12:37 AM
Hmm...I thought atemi was just something to distract your attacker so that one could gain a split second of time to put them in a nikyo or a similar hold. Not something meant to really cause some damage. BTW, Jim, if you want to kick and smash things with punches, don't do aikido. If you want to learn a way to survive a fight without really caring what happens to your opponent, don't do aikido. Take up a street fighting class, like senshido (a great group of ppl btw, but not what I was really looking for). I see aikido as being something that you do so that you can fall without hurting yourself, not hurt other people both emotionally and physically, and get some excercise. Then maybe after 10 years or so, you can really start using it as an effective self defence.

-Ed

TheProdigy
02-11-2001, 04:12 AM
Hey Jim,

In answering your initial response, you know what the purpose of this forum is...

As for the answer you get, you need to understand the responses when considering who you are commenting and asking. From what I've seen here on this thread, you've accussed aikido as not being entirely effective and did not like the responses you've recieved. But consider this, you walk into a dojo of aikidokas and claim their art is weak and that their training has been foolish once they're faced with a great attacker. Do you expect them to agree? or that they'll not feel the slightest bit defensive?

I'm not saying that you asked a bad question, but rather perhaps you should take their answers for what they are, rather than being upset over the fact that the people answering have strong feelings over the topic. Perhaps they feel so strongly for a reason. If they attack back at you with any type of idea, whether its the simple "You're wrong, get lost.." or a good explanation explaining the strengths and weaknesses of the art, you should consider what they say as they may have a valid point.

Aikido is perhaps the hardest martial art to learn. The concepts are easy to understand, but quite difficult to impliment. My sensei said this. He trained in tae kwon do for nearly 2 decades, and with the same amount of time in aikido. Personally, I don't know the true effectiveness of aikido, but i know this: I once attacked him with a jo(staff) as he was demonstrating something for my partner, and the second his hand touched the jo i was helpless. I literally had a feeling of complete emptiness throughout my body, and no control over what was happening, until he had sent me flying and i could only choose between falling flat on my face or rolling to save myself. Since that day, I have had no question of aikido's effectiveness, only of whether or not anyone can learn to be as effective.

I suppose what I'm saying is that I agree with you that everyone should be more openminded (included both of us). And perhaps rather than taking the attack towards you as an attack, just take it as another idea, one contrary to your own, but nevertheless one worth consideration.

-Jase

andrew
02-11-2001, 07:37 AM
skittlehop wrote:
Hmm...I thought atemi was just something to distract your attacker so that one could gain a split second of time to put them in a nikyo or a similar hold. Not something meant to really cause some damage.
-Ed

Think about it though. "Hmmn, I think I'll hit the sorest nerve point I can reach with a single knuckle, letting my whole weight go into the strike."

Distracting is where you try and get them to charge at a towel you're waving, and even then sometimes you have to jump over the protective barriers surrounding the tatami. Or something.
andrew

Jim23
02-11-2001, 08:01 AM
Jason,

I like your answer (and not only because I agree with it).

I'm always open to other opinions on any subject - always have been - and I really don't feel threatened by other views either, however radical or strange they may be. If I agree or disagree, it's just that: I agree or disagree.

Good answer though.

Jim23

chrisinbrasil
02-12-2001, 01:53 PM
sceptoor wrote:

This practice is usually started around the "Dan" ranks, some even earlier.

Hi,
Iīm having a little trouble understanding what you mean by atemi being trained in Dan ranks. Atemi is trained from white all the way up too Dans. At least it is everywhere Iīve ever been. Remember, atemi doesnīt only mean "punch". Weīre talking about controlling peoples centers, their balance.

Someone else wrote:
"Atemi is a distraction"... well, if thatīs what you want it to be. It can be a distraction or a bone crushing assault to the attackers face or ribs (not that itīs the best atemi). Itīs what you make of it.
"Aikido is only useful in the higher ranks"... well, sorry chum, I disagree.
toodloo, :)

Magma
02-12-2001, 03:11 PM
Atemi as I understand it refers to strikes which in themselves are not the end product of technique but rather can help to set up technique.

I bring this up since I disagree with ChrisinBrazil in his interpretation of atemi, but agree with him that atemi (even the "striking" definition I have given) have been practiced throughout the ranks everywhere I have trained.

...Or I could just be talking.

Tim

Jim23
02-12-2001, 04:15 PM
Could the different opinions regarding atemi be based on whether you train in an older style, like Yoshinkan, or a more modern style like Aikikai or even Kokikai? Perhaps even your sensi's philosophy?

Jim23

sceptoor
02-12-2001, 08:03 PM
chrisinbrasil wrote:
sceptoor wrote:

This practice is usually started around the "Dan" ranks, some even earlier.

Hi,
Iīm having a little trouble understanding what you mean by atemi being trained in Dan ranks. Atemi is trained from white all the way up too Dans. At least it is everywhere Iīve ever been. Remember, atemi doesnīt only mean "punch". Weīre talking about controlling peoples centers, their balance.

Someone else wrote:
"Atemi is a distraction"... well, if thatīs what you want it to be. It can be a distraction or a bone crushing assault to the attackers face or ribs (not that itīs the best atemi). Itīs what you make of it.
"Aikido is only useful in the higher ranks"... well, sorry chum, I disagree.
toodloo, :)

Hi,
You're having trouble understanding because you're not reading the complete sentence. Try again, I said "SOME EVEN EARLIER", but I was specifically referring to the striking kind. I understand that atemi can be and is practiced long before Dan ranks, it's called "being a good, sincere Uke",:) but it depends on the sensei and/or the students' progress. As far as whomever said Aikido is only useful in the higher ranks, I'll have to disagree also, I just won't say "toodloo".:D

Matthieu
02-12-2001, 08:59 PM
Jim23 wrote:
Could the different opinions regarding atemi be based on whether you train in an older style, like Yoshinkan, or a more modern style like Aikikai or even Kokikai? Perhaps even your sensi's philosophy?

Jim23

It has to be because we don't use atemi much in Yoshinkai aikido. The only one we use usualy are small punches using the back of our hands. These punches are mostly directed to to face of the uke to gain the half a second.

I really would like to know though how the other styles use their atemi.

JJF
02-13-2001, 02:22 AM
Matthieu wrote:
The only one we use usualy are small punches using the back of our hands. These punches are mostly directed to to face of the uke to gain the half a second.

I really would like to know though how the other styles use their atemi.
Hi Matthieu

I practice Shojii Nishio Sensei Aikikai style. We use the distracting punches that you describe but as far as I have understood atemi is far more than that. I think atemi is the strike that you potentially could hit uke with, on various places during the technique. What makes it Aikido is to choose not to use this possible punch but instead redirect the power into the technique.

Am I making sense ? I believe this is a good way to think about atemi but I can not do it. Perhaps one day :)

ian
02-13-2001, 06:39 AM
Although I generally train with atemis, I do think it can actually stop the flow of movement and also open yourself up for a counter attack. I think it depends on how much you have sussed out your opponent - people who are flailing madly at you with the sole intent of bursting your kidneys generally don't need any distractions, they have pretty low zanshin to start with.

Ian

P.S. I would also agree that some people do feel defensive about aikido being ineffective. Ineffectiveness has worried me from time to time, so what I've done is try to think why this is so; chat to people and make sure that my aikido is not ineffective (and I'm not talking about just making it stronger/harder, probably more the opposite) as well as seeing what other martial arts can and can't do. Its good we can have these forums to criticise techniques etc. Most criticism just improves me, rather than making me feel like it belittles my ego and my impression of myself as this superb martial artist. - so keep those criticisms coming (but more specifics would be better)!

Ian

RobTrim
02-14-2001, 10:15 AM
Hi forum,

Poor old Jim 23! I think some people on this list need to practice what they preach!! (sorry that sounds really conroversial!! :) )

To answer your original question Jim, I too think think that this forum is merely an open and interesting way of sharing thoughts/ideas/experiences etc.. with other people (and not necessarily like minded either!). Also I'll echo your praise of Jason's response; very well put buddy!

I'd just like to add some thoughts on the atemi issue. I think I heard somewhere that 'atemi' could be translated as 'to strike the body'. Seems pretty straight forward! There are obviously many different takes on the use or necessity of atemi in Aikido.

My personal opinion and experience, through practice, contact with Aikido senseis (including my own), books (o-sensei, Ueshiba Kisshomaru, Saito etc..), and various other sources, is that atemi are an integral part of Aikido. To me they are part of every technique I perform. Even if I do not land a strike, or even indicate one, I am thinking about where one could go.
In my dojo they were tought from the start of my training.

I think one of the biggest areas of division concerning atemis, is their 'purpose', i.e. are they there to distract, disable, knock out etc..

Some people feel that if you can knock out an opponent with a strike, then why practise Aikido? Or that this use of Atemi is an offensive tactic, rather than defensive like other Aikido techniques. In my view, if they were good enough for O-sensei, then they are good enough for me!! :)

No seriously, they way I have trained is to make use of kyusho techniques. In my opinion kyusho are inseperable from the use of atemi and can often limit the damage done to you attacker - i.e. follow Aikido principle - while rendering them temporarily unable to resist you technique. If you render them unconscious though the application of an atemi - which is very possible through the exploration of kyusho techniques - then you are probably again saving that person from a hell of a lot more pain, after receiving a strong shiho-nage or kote-gaish (i.e. possible shoulder dislocation - wrist break).

What do you think guys?

Peace

Rob.

Jim23
02-14-2001, 11:36 AM
m(_ _)m

It seems that everyone I talk to has a different opinion about atemi. Some say it's just done to set up another technique, others say the opposite, that it's meant to do serious damage.

Here's what I found in the words of Kenji Tomiki:

----------
"... Thus the study of Jujitsu's striking and joint-locking techniques started to be far outstripped by the study of throwing and holding techniques. If we look at many of the old Jujitsu schools it is clear, however, that those striking and joint-locking techniques were held in great regard.

Generally speaking an Atemi Waza was a technique in which you strike the opponent at a physiologically weak point (ie. a vital point) in order to render him unconscious. Kansetsu waza were joint locks that were designed to attack an opponent's joint in order to cause severe sprains or dislocations. Although these techniques do have this dangerous side to them, I feel that if you really understand the fundamentals of these techniques you will see that the resulting concussion or pain is only an incidental part of the technique and can be divorced from the technique proper as such. Even though these techniques were designed by our predecessors to have such dangerous and lethal end results, the main core of the technique could still, nevertheless, be seen as a throw or a hold.

Therefore the striking techniques of Aikido incorporate the idea of balance breaking; the result being that the opponent is brought down due to loss of balance rather than because he was hit on some vital point. Thus it is not necesary to kill or hurt him by using strong impact, nor is it necessary to train your hand or fist to withstand such impact.

In the modern Budo form of Judo, the aim is to break the opponent's balance and throw him by using foot and hip movements without injuring him. Similarly in the Atemi Waza of the modern Budo form of Aikido, the aim should be to take advantage of breaking your opponent's balance and push or strike him down using your hand or arm without injuring him."

--------

His view is very clear. But I'm sure there are many others.

Jim23

Erik
02-14-2001, 12:30 PM
RobTrim wrote:
I think one of the biggest areas of division concerning atemis, is their 'purpose', i.e. are they there to distract, disable, knock out etc..


I agree, it's all over the map. I've been taught the "be aware of all strikes during technique bit". I've also seen atemi such as sucking up a big gob of spit (yes, it's gross), dropping the shoulder, moving the head, moving the feet, popping the hakama, basically anything that takes the mind of the attacker. On the other end, I've also been told that if they don't get out of the way of your atemi, well, they should have gotten out of your way.

Personally, I can forsee using all of the above depending on the situation but all things being equal I'd rather not hit someone. It can hurt, a lot, and I'm probably not as good at that as the other guy. Better to play my game instead of their game. Then again, it's great uke training and if you don't know it....

Looks like I'm going around in circles.

Jim23
02-15-2001, 06:33 PM
m(_ _)m

Atemi is either to set up for a technique (which is fine), or it's a blow to hurt/do damage (which is fine, also).

Problem is, if it's meant to do damage, it has to be trained for over and over and over again. Otherwise, it won't really work, even if you can hurt someone in class - sorry, that ain't good enough.

What I'm trying to say, is that if someone attacks you (in real life), a strong punch might not really help. Some people out there are really tough - if you have that wicked punch, fine, otherwise use what works for you.

Only makes sense to me.

Jim23

sceptoor
02-16-2001, 12:46 AM
Problem is, if it's meant to do damage, it has to be trained for over and over and over again. Otherwise, it won't really work, even if you can hurt someone in class - sorry, that ain't good enough. That's right, but this would also apply to Karate, or any other "striking" art BTW.

What I'm trying to say, is that if someone attacks you (in real life), a strong punch might not really help.Exactly!!!but redirecting that strong punch WILL Some people out there are really tough - if you have that wicked punch, fine, otherwise use what works for you.


Exactly!!! I couldn't have said it better. This is the "idea" of Aikido. In other martial arts, strength will always be a factor in determining a "winner". Not so in Aikido. This is why punches and kicks are not a primary focus. Primary focus is on your own center, blending with the attacker's center, their inertia, and redirection of their attacks or energy, not "counterstriking" with (hopefully) more strength. Two people hitting each other is fighting, two people blending with each other's energy is Aikido.

Jim23
02-16-2001, 06:13 AM
We agree!

My point is that if you DO decide to use punches, get a heavy bag or makiwara board (http://ctr.usf.edu/shotokan/makiwara.html) and practice.

Jim23

RobTrim
02-16-2001, 07:03 AM
Hi guys,

Mmmm...atemi.
I see it this way;
O-sensei described Aikido as being "99%" atemi (or there-abouts), as I have said previously. To me that means that atemi should be a part of your technique just as blending or tenkan/irimi is.

To that end I have looked closely at what atemi is. I used to study Shotokan Karate - which I know is fairly devoid of the martial content it's Okinawan cousins have - where the point was to perfect your punching or kicking technique, to provide the greatest impact, on a target of your choice.

So I developed a strong accurate punch and kick, but then thought 'what if the my attacker is stronger or tougher than me - and what if he is wearing a leather jacket and a helmet!!?'. I also at this time started hearing about things called pressure points and meridians and Ki/Chi.

This led to an investigation of Kyusho - which incidentally led me to start practicing Aikido - and the realisation that there was an immense depth to the art of striking that I had never been tought. I now saw that it was possible to KO, or severly weaken a person - of any size - with simple 'taps' on pressure points! (dont take my word for it, look at http://www.kyusho.com and check out the video clips).

This means that the development of a strong punch, was unnecessary and the focus was back on 'technique' rather than brute force.

As I said don't take my word for it,look at the site.

Peace,

Rob.

Jim23
02-16-2001, 08:12 AM
Amazing stuff!

Wouldn't want to be in that class though - ouch!. Looks a lot like a ju-jitsu class that I saw a while back.

Jim23

RobTrim
02-16-2001, 08:24 AM
Hi Jim,

It makes you think doesn't it!!

Trust me though, the classes do not just involve mass KO sessions! :). Techniques are practiced very safely, usually in the kind of paired kata practice that we are used to in Aikido, also various situational drills are used, solo kata forms (which serve as the blue-prints to the self defence and kyusho techniques), etc.. etc..

Most of the time the point is only very lightly indicated or 'touched'. Some cause energy loss, others KO and some death or long term damage. I have only had a very recent introduction to the practice, so I cannot comment further than that.

What I can say, is that as a result of joining one of their mailing lists I have had the chance to talk to these guys about their real life situations, and usually they have no problem (comparitively) with performance of these techniques 'under fire'. Also there are many, many Aikidoka students involved with Sensei Pantazi's association, and feel that it completes their understanding of the use of atemi in Aikido.

Peace,

Rob.

Jim23
02-16-2001, 08:38 AM
Rob,

It makes perfect sense to me.

The point I was making earlier was to do with effectiveness with strikes - this stuff looks very effective!

I just find it annoying to see green belts in aikido, karate, etc. doing the punching and kicking dance, thinking they could be effective on the nice type of guy who might attack them.

Nothing wrong if they don't plan on using it though. Distract, then do your stuff.

Jim23

RobTrim
02-16-2001, 09:29 AM
Jim,

Yeah, I agree with what you're saying. It seems as if for many Aikido ryu, the atemi portions of techniques are ommited. People tend to assume that atemi is something that they can choose to 'opt' for in Aikido.

Judging by everything I have read and watched from Aikido Yudansha, including O-sensei, indicates that atemi isn't something you 'add' to techniques, rather, atemi are an integral part of all aikido techniques.

This may not be relvant to some Aikido students, as they just may not wish to practice them, which is entirely their perogative. For me personally, I am interested in the deeper concepts and techniques of Aikido and atemi is one that cannot be excluded.

Peace,

Rob.

Erik
02-16-2001, 12:47 PM
Jim23 wrote:
I just find it annoying to see green belts in aikido, karate, etc. doing the punching and kicking dance, thinking they could be effective on the nice type of guy who might attack them.


I was curious if you'd hit (pun intended) the other arts. I believe what you are discussing is universal to any closed system and deeper than just atemi. What I mean by this is that in a school systems are set up to produce certain results. Those results work fine in the system. For instance, dojo A does ikkyo version 19, dojo B does ikkyo version 64 and it works fine in each dojo. Go to the other dojo and it doesn't work so well because the training is structured and ukes are trained for it to not work. Both techniques are also probably correct given the dojo situation but certainly incomplete in themselves and who knows on the street.

I think what you are really trying to say is that we are fooling ourselves if we don't question what we are doing on a regular basis.

[Edited by Erik on February 16, 2001 at 01:00pm]

Jim23
02-16-2001, 01:57 PM
I'm not sure if I understand the first part of your post.

However, for:

[i]Erik wrote:
I think what you are really trying to say is that we are fooling ourselves if we don't question what we are doing on a regular basis.
[/B]

This should be a given. In all things.

I was just really making an observation regarding poor technique. Just because you can swing a tennis racket, doesn't mean you have a good smash or lob or can apply topspin - although you may have fun on the court with a friend.

Jim23

Erik
02-16-2001, 02:23 PM
Jim23 wrote:
I'm not sure if I understand the first part of your post.

I was once told by a Tae Kwon Do guy that he was taught never to catch a kick. Gee, I wonder why? I'd bet they never see someone who might do something with one of those kicks. They operated in a closed environment.

We do it too, it just isn't that obvious.

Jim23
02-16-2001, 02:37 PM
Erik wrote:

They operated in a closed environment.

We do it too, it just isn't that obvious. [/B]

You're right. It's like people in a religion (no offense meant) discussing another. We're right and you're wrong (we just won't say it to your face).

What I found strange at first about Taekwondo, karate, etc., was that everyone trains in stances, katas, etc., and although I know the benefits of katas, when it came time to spar, you basically did whatever worked, based on your skills (even grabbing a foot).

Jim23

Jim23
02-16-2001, 02:50 PM
That's probably why there are so many styles of karate and even aikido.

Quite often when someone gets very good at whatever style, they like to think that they can improve it by eliminating certain aspects and adding others.

Look at the variations of even aikido.

Jim23

Jim23
02-16-2001, 03:10 PM
Erik,

Have you taken a look at the other thread "Nihon Goshin Aikido"? Aikido which includes every important aspect of every great fighting system of Japan.

Interesting. And they claim it's the first aikido taught in North America.

How many styles are they?

Jim23

Erik
02-16-2001, 03:29 PM
Jim23 wrote:
What I found strange at first about Taekwondo, karate, etc., was that everyone trains in stances, katas, etc., and although I know the benefits of katas, when it came time to spar, you basically did whatever worked, based on your skills (even grabbing a foot).

And how many people's first offensive move is a wrist grab or shomen strike?

DiNalt
02-16-2001, 03:43 PM
Erik wrote:

And how many people's first offensive move is a wrist grab or shomen strike?

Mine...
But I'm different from everyone else in this hospital.

I do not really come from the outer space, and even though that reality is completely real to me, it's just a product of my imagination.

When I get rid of that, I will be well.

1050 points if you can tell which movie this is from.

Erik
02-16-2001, 04:01 PM
Jim23 wrote:
Erik,

Have you taken a look at the other thread "Nihon Goshin Aikido"? Aikido which includes every important aspect of every great fighting system of Japan.

Interesting. And they claim it's the first aikido taught in North America.

How many styles are they?


Well, if they started in 1962 they could have been the first. That was a couple of years before Mom and Dad got around to me so I couldn't adress that. I was intrigued by the comment Ueshiba style Aikido. Since Ueshiba invented it, there isn't really another in that context. I did like some of the things they said though.

As to styles, I don't really believe in styles in the context you are referring to. I think everyone has a unique style. My single greatest pet peeve in this art is when someone looks at you and says, "ah, X style" or about themselves "I'm Y style." I'm a combo of stuff, picking up little bits and pieces from all over the place. I get really bumbed when I hear things like this because I think it totally misses the point. If I'm style X and style Y does a cool and effective whatever does that mean I can't use it because I do style X and we don't do it that way? That's stupid! You can't cookie cut that way and have it make any sense in the long term (short-term it might be different).

Our dojo has a 6' 6", 300 pound beginner in his 50's and he ain't gonna roll the same way a 5' 4" 110 pound 20 year old woman will. He's also going to do a much different irimi nage than that same woman will. It's inevitable but I'm not sure it's obvious to everyone.

Besides, it's just technique, who cares. Use it if it works and don't use it if it doesn't. Fortunately, I'm in place where I can do this but then I wouldn't be there if I couldn't.

[Edited by Erik on February 16, 2001 at 04:09pm]

Nick
02-22-2001, 01:07 PM
as far as I can see Jim, the answer to your original question lies at the top of the page:

AikiWeb's principal purpose is to serve the Internet community as a repository and dissemination point for aikido information.

Now, as to why I come here? To discuss issues with an interesting and diverse group of people about an activity I love.

Nick

Jim23
02-22-2001, 01:24 PM
Nick wrote:
as far as I can see Jim, the answer to your original question lies at the top of the page:

AikiWeb's principal purpose is to serve the Internet community as a repository and dissemination point for aikido information.

Now, as to why I come here? To discuss issues with an interesting and diverse group of people about an activity I love.

Nick


Cool. It was staring us right in the face all along. :) Funny you should mention it, as I notice it every time I log on.

You must admit, there are some people here who are a bit touchy and cranky regardless of what's said and the tone it's said in. Heaven help us if Seagal ever logs on. ;)

Maybe it's just the nature of this type of forum.

Jim23

RobTrim
02-23-2001, 02:54 AM
Jim23 wrote:
Heaven help us if Seagal ever logs on. ;)

Jim23


Ok, ok I'm new...what's up with the whispering pony-tail man??

Curious,

Rob.

mornmd
02-23-2001, 07:22 AM
I wouldn't worry. After getting choked out and soiling his underwear he'd be much more humble (see Seagal thread).

M