Beginner Question

[Please visit our sponsor:]

[Nathan Richmond]

Hello everyone. I just began studying Aikido a few weeks ago. I did some research before joining other than just liking Steven Seagal.

That being said I have a question that probably many beginners ask. This is probably most directed at those of you who have been in aikido for some time.

I realize that Aikido is basically reacting to what someone else would attempt to do to you. Such as grabbing, pushing, punching, kicking, etc. I am right about this right?

So my question is: Can Aikido techniques be applied in situations that you must make the first move? I realize that in Aikido that is considered going against what you are taught. But there are some situations where you would have to make the first move. Would you provoke someone to have to make a move at you first? Or could you actually use an Aikido move on someone who isn't attacking you?

Thank you,
Sorry for Ignorance.

[Brian]

Apply gratuitous amounts of atemi(striking/off-balancing techniques), at which point their body will be more than happy to cooperate with you.

[mj]

:eek: Hi Brian...
Later on in aiki, if you 'reverse' the direction of a lot of your moves, you will find them to be what you 'want'.
ie... the opposite of aikido. :)

[mj]

:eek: Sorry, Nathan, sorry Brian.
I meant to reply to Nathan of course.

[Mike Collins]

Timing is everything.

My teacher is pretty clear that it is martially not correct to wait, and react. It makes more sense to set them up before any contact is made so that they believe they are making the first move, and you are already in the place of advantage. It can look like waiting or like making the first move but it really isn't either.

Train hard and it'll make sense. It can't here (I hope, or I've wasted a hell of a lot of time).

[MikeE]

In Aikido the old phrase "He who hesitates is lost" is king. In my dojo we practice what Bill Sosa Sensei refers to a shodoseisu (controlling the first move). This doesn't mean that we will always use atemi or geri. Often it will involve control of ma ai (distance). Whether or not this is done by moving towards the person, off the line, or away from the person is dependent on the situation. I would disagree that Aikido is "reacting" to a situation. This implies unpreparedness. I prefer to respond to the situation. This implies thought before action. So, I guess I put alot of emphasis on being aware of my surroundings, and what situation I am putting myself into. This is not to say there is no reflex action in Aikido. I believe the basics should be reflexive, but what you do after that should be cognitive. (i.e. you avoid a punch and control someone with ikkyo--but do you reflexively throw them in front of a bus? No, you avoid hurting or killing them and circle them gently to the ground without harm).

To paraphrase Rickson Gracie "I am afraid of everything...that's why I've been around so long. A little paranoia is a good thing."

So stay alert and be as prepared as possible.

[Chris P.]

Nathan Richmond wrote:
I realize that Aikido is basically reacting to what someone else would attempt to do to you. Such as grabbing, pushing, punching, kicking, etc. I am right about this right?


I had this debate with some other students a few weeks ago. My position was that you must never react to what you are given, you must choose what you are given.

In my opinion, there is nothing more dangerous then a fair fight. Never give a sucker (attacker) an even break.

[akiy]

Chris P. wrote:
My position was that you must never react to what you are given, you must choose what you are given.
Can you explain this a bit? It sounds a little like you're anticipating what's going to be happening...

-- Jun

[Sam]

Reading this thread in what is a pre-emptive strike, I thought I might tell you what happened to somebody who also practises Aikido.

This person was travelling home from training one evening in a subway train when he noticed 3 men whom had obviously been drinking were staring at him (the train was otherwise empty). I guess he sensed trouble when they started pushing each other round as a prelude to beating him up. They started to advance, but before they were able to reach him and he took out a rubber training tanto from his kit bag (the type which is moulded to look like a knife and has a silver painted end) and struck each of them in the chest just like you do in randori. This happened as the train pulled into a station and he then ran out of the train. He looked back to see the three of the completely unharmed but stood in shock, arms open, examining their chest for the wound.


When I heard this I thought it was pretty funny, and whenever somebody says pre-emptive strike I think of this.

[Chris P.]

akiy wrote:
Chris P. wrote:
My position was that you must never react to what you are given, you must choose what you are given.
Can you explain this a bit? It sounds a little like you're anticipating what's going to be happening...

-- Jun

Choosing. Not anticipating. Otherwise you are their puppet and they will pull your strings.

The attacker sees good and bad options. You've really given them bad and terrible options. They choose what looks like their best option, but it isn't quite good enough, you've got them. If they choose the terrible option, you thump them. They should have known better.

This is my way of Mario Kart, and Aikido.

[Chris P.]

Brian wrote:
Apply gratuitous amounts of atemi(striking/off-balancing techniques), at which point their body will be more than happy to cooperate with you.

How come striking is so easy for Aikido people but so challenging for martial artists of other styles? Seriously.

[Brian]

Chris P. wrote:

How come striking is so easy for Aikido people but so challenging for martial artists of other styles?

I really couldn't tell you.

[Jim23]

Brian wrote:
Chris P. wrote:

How come striking is so easy for Aikido people but so challenging for martial artists of other styles?

I really couldn't tell you.

You're joking, right?

You must be joking. Otherwise you don't know what you don't know.

Jim23

[nikonl]

My sensei told us that if we have to wait for the attacker, might as well just walk away. i mean, if he doesn't attack, then why are both of us standing there for? Remember that Aikido is a non-violent martial art. Atemi is used mainly to distract/assist in our techniques.

[akiy]

nikon wrote:
My sensei told us that if we have to wait for the attacker, might as well just walk away. i mean, if he doesn't attack, then why are both of us standing there for?
So, what do you do when someone isn't attacking you but someone else?

-- Jun

[andrew]

Chris P. wrote:

This is my way of Mario Kart

My way of Mario Kart is to leave bananas on the ramp at the beach shortcut.

andrew

[andrew]

Nathan Richmond wrote:
I realize that Aikido is basically reacting to what someone else would attempt to do to you. Such as grabbing, pushing, punching, kicking, etc. I am right about this right?

So my question is: Can Aikido techniques be applied in situations that you must make the first move?


First paragraph: I don't think so. I think it's easier at the start if it's approached this way.

Second part, yes it can. It's just a little tricky to start off with this. In a randori (about which I have little practical experience) he who waits for an attack is going to be in trouble pretty quickly. He must make the first move, draw an attack and hence find an opening to do a technique.

Aikido technique requires openings that we give freely to each other in training by attacking in a committed manner. Eventually we learn to create these openings by drawing the desired attack. If you're an eccentric and wildly gifted old man who created Aikido, you eventually get to the point where you insist that the attacker doesn't actually exist.
andrew

[Chris P.]

andrew wrote:
Chris P. wrote:

This is my way of Mario Kart

My way of Mario Kart is to leave bananas on the ramp at the beach shortcut.

andrew

Once you reach a high level in your training, you can bypass the ramp and jump directly into the cave. Or use a star to trump the bananas. Or, in some circumstances, clear the banana with a green or even a red shell.

[andrew]

Chris P. wrote:
andrew wrote:
Chris P. wrote:

This is my way of Mario Kart

My way of Mario Kart is to leave bananas on the ramp at the beach shortcut.

andrew

Once you reach a high level in your training, you can bypass the ramp and jump directly into the cave

No way! Cool.
andrew

[Maputosimon]

firstly, we would think about whether we would really want to get involved. Vigilanteism doesn't quite equate with inner peace & harmony with the Universe as aspired by traditional schools. On the other side, if someone else is being attacked, there will be movement, and that's all we need to be able to redirect and exploit.

[Maputosimon]

So, what do you do when someone isn't attacking you but someone else?

-- Jun [/B]

If attack is directed towards someone else
firstly, we would think about whether we would really want to get involved. Vigilanteism doesn't quite equate with inner peace & harmony with the Universe as aspired by traditional schools. On the other side, if someone else is being attacked, there will be movement, and that's all we need to be able to redirect and exploit.
__________________
Maputosimon

IP: Logged

[PeterR]

Although most Aikido training is based on reactive (go no sen) situations, there is a whole class of techniques based on sen no sen (siezing the initiative).

For those who are bothered with the idea that Aikido is not supposed to be aggressive (i.e. no attacks) it all boils down to intent. There is a big difference between resolving a situation you have been put in and actively seeking out that situation.

[andrew]

PeterR wrote:
Although most Aikido training is based on reactive (go no sen) situations, there is a whole class of techniques based on sen no sen (siezing the initiative).


I can't disagree with the fact that is the first part of your statement there. That's how we train. However-

"O Sensei: In Aikido, there is absolutely no attack. To attack means that the spirit has already lost. We adhere to the principle of absolute non-resistance, that is to say, we do not oppose the attacker. Thus, there is no opponent in Aikido. The victory in Aikido is masakatsu and agatsu; since you win over everything in accordance with the mission of heaven, you possess absolute strength.

(interviewer): Does that mean ~o no sen? (This term refers to a late response to an attack.)

O Sensei: Absolutely not. It is not a question of either sensen no sen or sen no sen..."



I've cut short his answer. I'm not claiming this statement has practical value to me either, just pointing it out... (I think the squiggle there should be a g, yeah?)
andrew

[PeterR]

andrew wrote:
PeterR wrote:
Although most Aikido training is based on reactive (go no sen) situations, there is a whole class of techniques based on sen no sen (siezing the initiative).


I can't disagree with the fact that is the first part of your statement there. That's how we train. However-

"O Sensei: In Aikido, there is absolutely no attack. To attack means that the spirit has already lost.

That is why I brought in the word intent. Aggressivity will only get you into trouble as would any other strong emotion such as fear.

I suggest that the apparent contradiction between sen no sen and the above quote was one of mistranslation. Replace attack with aggression and it all makes sense. Do you know the source of the translation it wasn't John Stevens was it?.

[akiy]

Maputosimon wrote:

So, what do you do when someone isn't attacking you but someone else?

-- Jun

If attack is directed towards someone else
firstly, we would think about whether we would really want to get involved. Vigilanteism doesn't quite equate with inner peace & harmony with the Universe as aspired by traditional schools.[/b]
My question was in response to someone saying that their teacher said that "if we have to wait for the attacker, might as well just walk away." I can't say I was advocating vigilantism with my question but was wondering what people would do, say, if your young son, daughter, or any other such loved one were being attacked.

Even if someone else weren't being attacked, there's something to be said, I believe, about being able to draw out the attack if necessary. Sen no sen, sen sen no sen, and all that.

Also, Maputosimon, please be sure to sign your posts with your real name as it is a Forum rule. Thank you.

-- Jun

[BC]

[i]akiy wrote: I can't say I was advocating vigilantism with my question but was wondering what people would do, say, if your young son, daughter, or any other such loved one were being attacked.

Even if someone else weren't being attacked, there's something to be said, I believe, about being able to draw out the attack if necessary. Sen no sen, sen sen no sen, and all that.

-- Jun [/B]
If one of my loved ones were being attacked, I would not have a problem doing what is necessary to defend them. That said, if one wishes to use aikido techniques in such a situation, he would just need to utilize the energy and direction of the attack - it just might not be coming directly at him, but in another direction.

Regarding being able to draw out the attack, I don't view that as intiating the attack, but rather getting the attacker to attack in a specific way by way of body positioning and mental attitude. Our Dojo Cho has told us how skillful Kissaburo Osawa Sensei of Hombu Dojo was at this. When demonstrating techiniques, his uke wouldn't need to be told how to attack him, they would know what attacks to use just by the way Osawa Sensei was positioning himself. There essentially would only be one attack available to the uke. This practice is not isolated strictly to aikido either.

I believe that some of the koryu arts made this part of their curriculum. For instance, a bugeisha would sublety create the false appearance of an opening for his opponent to attack, thus causing his opponent to fatally expose an opening for the bugeisha to defeat his opponent.

[andrew]

PeterR wrote:
I suggest that the apparent contradiction between sen no sen and the above quote was one of mistranslation.


I'm not sure about that, I think he was making a very obscure, perhaps impractical point. The interviewer several times said "Ah, just like in judo then?" and received a number of "Not really" type replies. (I'm paraphrasing.


Do you know the source of the translation it wasn't John Stevens was it?.

The interview is on http://www.aikidofaq.com (the interview section is essential reading in my own self-aggrandising opinion..)
The translation apparently..

"The following interuiew, conducted by two unnamed newspapermen, appeared in the Japanese-language text Aikido by Kisshomaru Ueshiba, Tokyo, Kowado, 1957, pages 198-219. It was translated from the Japanese by Stanley Pranin and Katsuaki Terasawa."

What I left out from the reply was:
"....If I were to try to verbalize it I would say that you control your opponent without trying to control him. That is, the state of continuous victory. There isn't any question of winning over or losing to an opponent. In this sense, there is no opponent in Aikido. Even if you have an opponent, he becomes a part of you, a partner you control only."

Really I think the interview needs to be read, to see where they were in conversation. There's not many opportunities I've seen in training to say "there's no opponent" and have it be helpful... (Well, "Ignore me, just touch your nose with your hands" was a piece of advice that really improved my kokyo-ho.... and made my jaw drop.)
I think O Sensei was alluding to things beyond most of us in everyday practice, the kind of thing you experience when you take ukemi from a master. You're still going to have to go back and take forced, fumbling technique from the likes of me for the rest of your life...

andrew

[PeterR]

Hi Andrew

The old line taken out of context trick or how can you attack something that is part of you?

Interesting stuff - what?

I've read that interview a number of times but its been awhile - thanks for reminding me. Still I never understood it as a ban on "sen no sen" or "sen sen no sen" related moves.

The problem with diffuse stuff like this, or the Bible, or .... is that you can often pick out exactly what you like and still miss the point entirely. I am positive I do the same on a regular.

[andrew]

PeterR wrote:
Still I never understood it as a ban on "sen no sen" or "sen sen no sen" related moves.


Oh, big time. I agree. How are you going to start learning otherwise? (Which is what I meant when I referred to practicality.) Obviously he's not referring to what Aikido is to most of us, but what it is (has evolved into) from the perspective of a master. I think what was normal for him was what he referred to- the old cliche of doing your own aikido- and I think that this is what we're aspiring to. Perhaps, for example, aspiring to the level of aikido where it is "Absoloutely not a case" of sen no sen, sen sen no sen, or whatever- not a ban, just a better way beyond them?

I can't claim expertise AT ALL!!! I do know feel that this is analagous though to simpler things in Aikido- you can do Ikkyo in a correct fashion with little effort (which we aspire to) or badly and forcing it by muscle (which we often start to learn with.) I just got triggered by a keyword, and I think that whatever the mitigating circumstance of context you have to be very careful about a statement that seems perhaps to have been directly contradicted by a master. (Any master.)

I suppose, to be honest, there's a lot of pedantry involved here on my part, because the statement that started this little part of the debate was as good a way as any of expressing an opinion I don't disagree with at all.

andrew

[PeterR]

andrew wrote:

I suppose, to be honest, there's a lot of pedantry involved here on my part, because the statement that started this little part of the debate was as good a way as any of expressing an opinion I don't disagree with at all.

andrew [/B]


Understood. The electronic forum provides a wonderful opprotunity to hash out ideas and impressions that would not normally be discussed in the dojo.

Someone once suggested that one should keep all our posts and see how our ideas evolve. Personally I could not stand the embarrasment.