Re: Why Aikido has such strange strike defense.
 

might be better if you went into it with the notion that you were trying to kill somebody who is also trying to kill you.

Re: Why Aikido has such strange strike defense.
 

While this is an interesting debate on who did what when where- the point of the video is much simpler.

When people pick something up (sticks knives etc) and try to hurt you with those things, they most often swing them overhand or thrust them into you. Sure there are specific techniques for these, and these specifics do have their place. But the general idea presented in this video is that Aikido has defenses when people try to hit you on the head with something, or thrust something into you.

These attacks are timeless and culture-less, they are simply the gross movements used by man when he is using a weapon on another man.

Re: Why Aikido has such strange strike defense.
 

This is a really good thing about Aikido, but it is not the whole answer to the question you pose in the title of this thread. :)

Re: Why Aikido has such strange strike defense.
 

Fixed.
:)

Re: Why Aikido has such strange strike defense.
 

In the interest of another baby step towards improving my manners I should actually say, using my out-loud voice, that I liked the video and find it is a really good way to present these ideas to the public. :)

Re: Why Aikido has such strange strike defense.
 

Arguably, the Dog Brothers are some of the better trained (non projectile)weapons fighters of our time- Accounting for actual experience in live full contact fighting. Here is a meeting of the pack https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKEM5EQxBTs

I see LOTS and LOTS of shomen yokomen and gyaku yokomen being used...

I can understand the importance of specific training techniques. But we often get so obsessed with details the we miss the "forest for the trees".

Re: Why Aikido has such strange strike defense.
 

Thanks, and that is really what I'm trying to get across. Understanding the kind of context we are in when discussing the kinds of techniques Aikido uses is very important.

Re: Why Aikido has such strange strike defense.
 

Cliff where can we see some of that!
It sounds epic.

Re: Why Aikido has such strange strike defense.
 

Akk, never mind I've seen the vid you are referring to :D

Re: Why Aikido has such strange strike defense.
 

Well let me hijack the thread for a minute...I'll see if I can tie it into what we are talking about.

Here's a clip of the main Yagyu Shingan ryu Taijutsu group, under Kenji Shimazu Sensei. This is apparently the same line Ueshiba studied with. This is likely Ueshiba's first exposure to classical weapons training. I believe the origins of Aikido weapons are in here. You can kind of see it in their bojutsu and some of their sword work. They have a lot of sword work that appears to be almost more grappling than fencing, which resembles Kashima Shinto ryu (which Kisshomaru trained formally and, for whatever reason, Saito Sensei's Aikiken strongly resembles.)

Now one thing relevant to the thread here - this group doesn't seem to emphasize the classical sword cut shapes we make in the Aiki arts. But Ono ha Itto ryu and Yagyu Shinkage ryu both do; Takeda is well known as an Itto ryu swordsman. Ueshiba had some training in Yagyu Shinkage ryu and obviously realized that it is the sword style closest to the gods.

Here's a good video of the group's jujustu. You are not expected to see any aiki in this. :) Might be informative to observe the types of attacks . This is training for men wearing armor. You get lots of lapel grabs and such, not so much atemi as an attack (but they have some robust tanto dori stuff, so that should still fit in with the idea that aikido strikes generalize an attack with a weapon). You don't see so much wrist grabbing as though you are going to stop someone from pulling out a sword.

There is another major Yagyu Shingan ryu group, the split occured in the Edo period, and the other group calls their system Yagyu Shingan Ryu Heiho. When they do embu, they wear armor and it looks very rough and not delicate. But they get a little more ritualistic with their empty-hand training, which you can see starting at about 3:00:

Yagyu Shingan ryu Heiho.

Then there is this curiosity, a really high-quality video shot by Gudkarma productions last year at an embu in Tokyo. They do Yagyu Shingan ryu....Heijutsu? Something like that? I think the teacher was given a full license under the Heiho system and sort of ... took the interesting body mechanics to another level. And then he also teaches Daiwado, which is a gendai budo that has some kind of relation to Aikido that I can't recall right now.

Interesting video of a newer branch of YSR and Daiwado.

These groups are some of the only koryu that really maintain an abstracted body training to the level that it is something they do outside of their paired kata and consider it something worth demonstrating to the public.

Re: Why Aikido has such strange strike defense.
 

While somewhat beating a dead horse...

If Aikido (empty-hand) is based on "real sword attacks" and not "aikido weapons," then are we claiming that aikido empty-hand is not based on "aikido weapons" (since they are different)? If "real sword attacks" differ from "aikido sword attacks," then are we also claiming that aikido sword is not based on "real sword attacks"?

I am willing to concede that "real" does not equal "formal" and there is some room for practical variation. But, I continue to struggle with what appears to be a ethos-based claim upon some pre-existing foundation for our weapons. When pressed, the claim seems to be very circumstantial and our actual movement discredits any claim to a functional weapons system foundation. My inner dialogue often sounds something like this:
Me: We use weapons in aikido.
Observer: Really? That's great. I do some sword stuff. Can you demonstrate your sword moves?
Me: [look like idiot]
Observer: Hmmm. That's nice movement, but we don't cut that way. You'd get killed if you cut that way.
Me: Well, our weapons are really for teaching us empty-hand movement, which is based on sword strikes.
Observer: Really? We'd never move that way either. There's too much movement and it's unbalanced. Not to mention no power.
Me: Oh. Our attacks are generally considered to be for multiple attacker environments and someone has a weapon. We move alot to stay in control of multiple attackers.
Observer: I don't know about that. My sword style was based on a battle-field environment and we still would not move that way. But, thank you for showing me aikido.

Seriously, I have had that conversation. I do not practice another weapons art. Aikido is it for me and I love it. But, I see so much value in aiki weapons that I want to keep it part of my practice.

Secondly, I am not sure if our ethos is so low such that we need only claim , "we defend like this because a monkey with a Jim Beam bottle is gonna swing it at you like that." (no offense to the monkey for my implication it would drink Jim Beam #JDman4LFE). I like the point in the video that the attacks are stylized to support a general tactic of attack. But then the claim need not be specific to the swung object. Why not call upon a yokomenuchi similar to the unorthodox swing of Ty Cobb? The general arc of the bat and hand posture would be similar (Ty Cobb was known to spread his grip 1 hands breadth apart to have more control over his swing). Why do we call upon the majestic image of the sword?

In part, I am asking these questions because I do not feel comfortable with my stance on weapons, empty-hand, and the roll practicality plays in our weapons work. I know good sword people in aikido who impress and inspire me... and have some exposure to sword outside aikido. I want to get to a level of aiki weapons in which I am comfortable demonstrating aiki with a weapon but free to let weapons people see what I am doing makes sense, even if it is not practical. Right now, I am not convinced I am doing that...

If I am to learn to move as if I was holding a sword, it would stand to reason that I should learn how to hold a sword, correctly. If aikido sword is not the real sword work that gives me that knowledge, then how can we make it so?

Re: Why Aikido has such strange strike defense.
 

My point was that there is no chicken and egg problem here. First came sword, then came Aikido, then came Aikido weapons forms. I wasn't talking about attacks, i was talking about systems. The attacks are the attacks....Aikido attacks with weapons can be said to have tons of problems from another art's perspective but all the weapons arts are like that.

Again, this conversation could play itself out between two practitioners of any two different sword arts. But they'd both be less self-effacing than an Aikido person.

(he's probably wrong).

Well, I get people throwing all kinds of differently-shaped yokomens and shomens at me all the time in my Aikido training. You get some variation.

As far as the sword...originally, in Daito ryu, sword attacks were simulated for very specific reasons. (Entering, building up to tachi dori, meeting yo with in, stuff like that). We have this nice thing going on in Aikido where we took a bit of the old and abstracted it and turned it into a more general framework. I think you should just embrace that, JD bottle and all!

One of the problems as I see it is you really need to put away your concerns about aiki when you are working with weapons. Most of the action in a classical kumitachi kata takes place before the training partners are close enough to cut each other. You can feel free to broaden your definition of aiki to include all of those things (kiai, rhythm, timing, distance, targeting, blah, blah, blah) but you need to study them. And I am not sure how to do that without finding a good teacher of a classical sword art, and there aren't many of those around.

When you say you have interacted with people who are really good with weapons, what is it that impresses you? Maybe it is something other than aiki...and maybe start a new thread on that, we've taken this one so far off course I can see P-3s in the sky thinking we are 777 wreckage.

Re: Why Aikido has such strange strike defense.
 

HEY!!! We're not less self-effacing than they are!!!!! :eek:

NOW we're talking self-effacement we can all embrace !!

Re: Why Aikido has such strange strike defense.
 

Well this is a can of worms!

Suffice to say that when we practice, especially with more beginner students, we slow down the attacks and may not have the commitment that is "martial." We (royal we here) should then ramp up the attacks (empty hand or weapon) to a more martial level as our proficiency improves. This is where many aikidoka fall short, and why IMHO we garner the kind of criticisms that ruffle our feathers that aikido is not practical, martial or effective.

At some point, all aikidoka need to re-evaluate the attack strategies and examine their attacks critically. We need to make sure we are, at some point, attack in a martial way so we can evaluate the effectiveness of our technique. I will frequently, as nage, not move out of the way, not do a technique and just stand there and receive the attack to make sure my uke is paying attention and putting effort into the attack.

We can be critical of "aikido attacks" but must also be critical of ourselves to say that we have not just become complacent.

Re: Why Aikido has such strange strike defense.
 

It is definitely a good idea to develop more powerful Aikido attacks - more focus, more power, more intent - you could even call it kiai, really - but that's not the same thing as the issue where people from other arts call Aikido ineffective or unreal.

Mr. Hein's video is good for disabusing the notion that we will finally get the chips off our shoulders if we just do things with "more power." Our attacks have a contextual basis in our training, we use them to study our technique, and we study our technique and see where that leads us.

The boxer isn't criticizing the lack of power in our attacks, she just doesn't understand why one guy is standing there in hanmi, waiting, and the other guy steps in with a straight full-power punch and that's all he's going to do. Boxers don't hit you with a lot of power until they feel like you are both positioned such that you will have to take that power. There is a lot of movement and testing and feinting to get there, which Mr Hein points out is not part of the heritage of Aikido.

The knife fighter, on the other hand, would probably criticize the power in your attacks, because a sharp knife is best used with the bare minimum amount of power to cut, and that's not much, unless there is a particular kind of armor involved.

incidentally each of those fighters might have criticisms of how the other trains, because for their context it isn't beneficial.

Re: Why Aikido has such strange strike defense.
 

Thanks for the juicy links Cliff.

I just read back a page, this is a great quote ;

Re: Why Aikido has such strange strike defense.
 

Well, it's obvious that a boxer may use quick, non committed jabs and an attacker with a knife will probably use fast small moves instead of a full step from a distance.
But, imagine that you have a beginner in the dojo and all of a sudden you just jab him fast. And you repeat that in every attack.
Not only he is gonna get badly...bruised but also, and that's the worst, he will never learn anything. You can't start teaching a six year old how to write by asking him to write an essay on the greatest authors of english literature on his first day at school.
But after a level when he has learned the basics the attacks must become, gradually more and more demanding and this is the way we train, we use the basics and also we use attacks like a close fast jab with the front hand with no step at all.
I know the majority of the dojos neglect that and give a wrong impression, but that does not reflect the true effectiveness of aikido as a martial art, only their own, personal level of effectiveness...

Re: Why Aikido has such strange strike defense.
 

See the thing is, if you want to try to figure out how to "make your Aikido work against" proper boxing techniques, you need to learn how to box properly. Right? Or else you won't be giving good combinations of jabs, crosses, uppers, hooks, what have you. You'll wind up with a new set of attacks that still don't look to an actual boxer like real attacks.

In order to begin to figure out how to apply the principals of Aikido on this new field, you need to learn the principals of pugilism yourself.

So how much of your Aikido training time should you spend doing that? That's always my question when people start talking about the attacks as though they are singular physical events as performed by a robot on an assembly line. We've all got a finite amount of time to train, even if we're full-time students. How much Aikido training time do you spend practicing in a different martial context (or non-martial context, as the solo training people do) in order to develop some level of understanding of that context, so you can then begin to figure out how Aikido is supposed to work over there?

For boxing that's going to be heavy bag and speed bag work, hitting striking pads with a trainer, various types of conditioning, and lots and lots of sparring. For knife fighting that is going to require hours and hours of learning techniques (often similar to Aikido fwiw) and running through continuous flow drills. So how much time is left for Aikido, and what happens when you realize you like boxing or escrima better? :)

I tend to think that the most reasonable answer to these questions involves taking some generalized, standard attack vectors and sticking with those. Get new students familiar with them and then build intensity...I am not sure increasing complexity or sophistication of the attacks is worth the effort.

Re: Why Aikido has such strange strike defense.
 

The issue I have with a lot of these 'theories' is most aikido people are not used to getting hit and keeping their composure under pressure. The most important part is what sparring offers you. You can do all the pad work, bag drills, etc but I've seen too many freeze (boxers, grapplers included) when it's go time, even if they've done some sparring in the gym. Change to environment coupled with knowing that your opponent is just as skilled or more so than you and a persons emotions can get the best of them.
As long as people think aikido is fighting system I think they're going to be disappointed when faced with a serious situation.

Re: Why Aikido has such strange strike defense.
 

And as long as people seek out "serious situations", they're going to be in trouble no matter what they studied.

"Fergus spake these words and he said, This shall be my creed, whereby shall I live my life, as it were a shining example of Virtue and Excellence, well worthy to be enshrined in Heaven as a model for all who are wise to follow. My creed shall into three parts, like Gaul, be divided. Firstly, I shall constrain myself to Mind My Own Business. Secondly, I shall endeavour at all times and in all places to Keep My Nose Clean by the most expedient possible means. Thirdly, and finally, I shall always exercise the utmost care to Keep My Hands To Myself."

Re: Why Aikido has such strange strike defense.
 

I said 'when faced' not 'seek out'. I certainly don't advocate looking for trouble. Unfortunately sometimes good people happen across bad situations. Also in my dojo I have several students who are in law enforcement so applying aikido principles to dynamic physical situations is of interest to them. This may not be the case with everyone of course.
The OP was in regards to aikido's response to strikes (or origin), not about how to avoid confrontation- which I am all for btw.

Re: Why Aikido has such strange strike defense.
 

I think this is where I start to get confused. Using the same logic, should we not be able to change arts... So the claim would then be, "You need to learn aikido to make your boxing work against aikido people." I am not sure this is a bi-directional declaration, which implies (to me) that we are still missing a step in our educational process that precludes us from learning how to deal with attacks beyond aikido-style attacks. Is a point of concession in aikido that we excuse our inability to deal with a boxer-style strike, as opposed to an aikido-style strike? Is a boxer-style strike so dissimilar to an aikido-style strike that is renders our waza ineffective?

Thoughts again rise up of Jim Carey... "Like most beginners, you attacked me wrong."

I completely get style attacks for our kata. As a learning tool, I understand we need everyone to know their role and work within defined movement. I am still unresolved as to why our stylized attacks are so dissimilar from our sister arts as to cause issue for us. This is both from the standpoint of our empty-hand attacks and our weapons attacks.

Honestly, I do not have a problem if the answer is because I do not train enough. To Cliff's point, a lot of this conversation is answered by training more. But to at least reach a point where the judo player says, "That's not a bad throw. If you trained more you'd probably be pretty good." Or from the boxer, "You kept up a good guard and have some great combos, if you trained more you'd be a pretty good boxer." After all, shouldn't we be able to say to a judo player, "you've got some good throws. If you softened up a bit and used more aiki, you'd be a good aikido person." There should be some elementary education that affords us the appreciation from our sister arts to look at aiki and not the shell of movement that is an "attack".

We practice aiki and should be demonstrably better at illustrating aiki than other sister arts. That is the focus of our training and we should allow the other arts the expertise in what they do better. My continued observation for this thread is that we need to be critical in assessing our level of ability for what we do. Are we? If we sacrifice the practical martial arts education for focused education in aiki, are we satisfied in our ability to express aiki? If I can express aiki, shouldn't I be able to put that power in my hand? or my sword? Isn't that what gives me the respect and appreciation of my sister arts? Not that I can box, but that I can put power in my hands? Not that I can throw, but that I can put unmovable stability in my posture? Not that I can duel, but I can put aiki in the tip of my sword?

Re: Why Aikido has such strange strike defense.
 

They do, but I'm not sure how we train for them. I think effective self-defense is based on realistic scenarios, which is to say, scenarios that might reasonably be expected to affect you. If you're a LEO, your realistic scenarios are different than if you're a middle-class non-LEO non-military individual, living and working in a reasonably sedate area of town. Your realistic scenarios are different if you're a woman than if you're a man. And one problem is that not many people want to look at the realistic scenarios, because of what it says about their situation. Women are more likely to be attacked by their partners or dates, and children are more likely to be attacked by trusted adults or authority figures, than either one is to be attacked by the stereotypical stranger. People don't want to confront that. So we keep on seeing the same "street-lethal" training for people who are unlikely to ever be attacked on the "street". We train for the "bad situations" we might "happen across", as you say, and to ignore the likely threats. Does this make sense?

Re: Why Aikido has such strange strike defense.
 

I definitely agree Mary. We need to train for likely threats and most people don't actually fight or engage like a trained boxer or fighter. The main value that I personally see in working with trained fighters is learning to deal with your emotions.
But again I look at my aikido training as I do my running, kettlebells, etc...It's another component of my overall self defense conditioning, not a self defense in itself. I feel aikido has made me a more efficient fighter. At the same time boxing/grappling has given me a lens to view my aikido.

Re: Why Aikido has such strange strike defense.
 

I like this distinction...and by coincidence, I had just decided to add both running and kettlebells to my conditioning :D Not sure where to start with either, but I gotta start somewhere, right?