Re: Atemi waza: good or bad for Aikido?
Quote:
|
Re: Atemi waza: good or bad for Aikido?
Most important I think.
|
Re: Atemi waza: good or bad for Aikido?
Just thought to chime in a little...
Taken from "Aikido Shugyo" by G. Shioda: "In REAL FIGHT Aikido is 70% Atemi". Further in his book he continue to say ATEMI is all about TIMING, which G. Shioda went on to give numerous REAL LIFE example. Quote:
|
Re: Atemi waza: good or bad for Aikido?
Quote:
It is true that our opponent can over extend, which is what I understand ki no nogary is about. Like in swordsmaship, you can always cut the hands of someone that over extend and keep your self out of range. So yes there is no need for atemi, in fact in that case it would be contra-productive But there is case where our opponent does not extend outside his balanced extension range. In that case not using atemi is as contra-productive as using them in the case above Phil |
Re: Atemi waza: good or bad for Aikido?
Quote:
I was wondering if you could expend on that. The reason I ask is that I am interested in 15th century Ringen and in the manuscript I am studying there are strikes called "murder-strike". The idea is to strike or press as you move forward some particularly sensitive area of the body. It is bigger area than what we would cover now by pressure points. (But it can be use to press or to strike). And I was wondering if you were refereeing to something similar. Phil |
Re: Atemi waza: good or bad for Aikido?
Quote:
|
Re: Atemi waza: good or bad for Aikido?
Quote:
You can see the beginning of this in the basic Daito ryu response to yokomen uchi ikkajo (ikkyo.) The first response is both a connection to the strike, and also a strike to the nerve point under the attacker's elbow. |
Re: Atemi waza: good or bad for Aikido?
Atemi waza good.
|
Re: Atemi waza: good or bad for Aikido?
Hello Larry, I think you may have misunderstood what I was trying to say. (I have a felling that we are saying the same thing)
I do not oppose in movement and static. And opponent can overextend attack from movement or from being static. By the same token he can remain within his own space whilst moving, which is what enables use to do counter technique. What I was taking about was more in line with the timing Xu brought about and which is present even in the earliest fighting manuacript albeit in different guise, the "before" and the "after" foe the medieval German, the true times for 17cent England or timing in modern combative. Let's use your kihon static attack from yokomen. If our opponent over extend: (I.E have his shoulder in front of his hips as he moves forward). He can not mount an effective reply to the initial grab of ikkio (or any technique) so we are already in front of him. So even if he tries to remove his hand withou moving the rest of his boddy, which is quikest thing he can do, we are a step in front of him and we can use whatever he does to stay in front of him If the atemi, like the one you describe goes with the normal functioning of the technique. (We are going to have to grab the elbow anyway) It can only re-enforce our being in front. So we might as well do it, but not doing it is not going to be detrimental either. However hitting him in throat is spending that advantage and possibly stops him doing something that we are quite happy for him to do. As Napoleon said do not interrupt your opponent when he is making a mistake. So you could say that in that case (strike to the throat) you either hit him or finish the technique If our opponent is centred when he attacks: Our initial grab if we take it on his own is exactly the same thing as us attacking him with one of the katatedori. In those condition the atemi the one you do or an attack to face throat is capital for us to be in control (and need to be there at te same time or there about as the initail grab) Either way we have created a situation when he can not substract his arm or we force him to move his body in a way that is favourable for our technique to develop (e g that is detrimental to him) so as in the previous case we are before him. And other way to gain that control is to move and to force him to extend as he adjust his strike as he tries to hit us but that relies on him being fooled by us. But if that works we are in the same case as the first option. Phil |
Re: Atemi waza: good or bad for Aikido?
Quote:
Anyway - it's complicated to me - for instance - why would I really need to hit someone? It causes a negative emotional reaction which might come back to me, and if the only tool I have to allow someone to become unbalanced, then for my approach, my Aikido isn't very complete. It's the old argument - what Is atemi? It's different things to different people. LN |
Re: Atemi waza: good or bad for Aikido?
This topic is like asking "Tires, good or bad for your car?"
|
Re: Atemi waza: good or bad for Aikido?
Quote:
LN |
Re: Atemi waza: good or bad for Aikido?
Michael:
The "one knuckle punch" is a type of strike that is designed for soft tissue areas and particularly nerve spots. The focus of energy, like the beam of a flashlight is focused into a narrow "beam". This type of punch would be a bad idea against strong, bones and bone plates. Attacking those areas are best done with broad knuckle fists, or knife hand strikes (depending upon area to be struck and trajectory of the strike). my 2cents marc abrams |
Re: Atemi waza: good or bad for Aikido?
http://www.shodokan.ch/en/compet_detail.html
'Technical Background Information on Atemi and Kansetsu' 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. Most Judo throwing techniques employ the use of force to two points on the opponent's body in two directions at the same time. In Aikido, on the other hand, force is usually used in one direction on one part of the body. " by Kenji Tomiki David |
Re: Atemi waza: good or bad for Aikido?
Nice post.
Like I said, different people look at atemi differently. I personally don't think one way is the only right way. I see Aikido the same way. For instance, I never try to "break" anyone's balance. I look at kuzushi very differently. I experience it as -allowing- someone to -lose- their balance - which is actually different. So I would then look at atemi very differently. If I were doing Aikido to break someone's balance, I might look at atemi as an actual strike. But I don't. Plus, I believe that Aikido is evolving. LN |
Re: Atemi waza: good or bad for Aikido?
Quote:
David |
Re: Atemi waza: good or bad for Aikido?
Quote:
LN |
Re: Atemi waza: good or bad for Aikido?
Quote:
|
Re: Atemi waza: good or bad for Aikido?
Quote:
Atemi is implicit in every aspect of what we do in Aikido. Katate tori isn't an attack, it's a practice tool. It presupposes the strike with the other hand and people need to practice as if the other hand were doing that strike or they are totally open. If I grab you and you begin to take my balance, what reason do I have for holding on? Why don't I just let go and break the connection? It's the knowledge that I am open to your atemi that forces me to keep the grab once I've committed. When I attack and you enter, why don't I just hunker down and plant so I cannot be moved? I am forced to stay responsive by the possibility of your atemi. Saotome Sensei said that if you knew the other guy wouldn't strike you, all techniques would be stoppable. Every throw you do in Aikido is a strike you are choosing not to do. The strikes are at the heart of the logic behind the whole interaction. That does not mean that you necessarily see them. I seldom throw an atemi in practice... but my students seldom put me in the position that I need to. |
Re: Atemi waza: good or bad for Aikido?
Quote:
I have put my Aikido to the test over many years and learned a lot about martiallity, if that's a word.... studied Judo, Karate, Hapkido, and other stuff as well.... including a long stint in BJJ with a friend who was the main teacher under Rickson. I also teach women's self-defense, successfully. So, actually, I think my style is extremely martially responsible. Perhaps the clips don't reflect that though.... or it's not so "visible." But I can -guarantee- you, it's there.... just because I don't use atemi much - don't mean a thang.... :-) |
Re: Atemi waza: good or bad for Aikido?
Quote:
That being said, can there be Aikido without atemi waza? That is, there are some instructors who do teach an "atemi-less" Aikido. |
Re: Atemi waza: good or bad for Aikido?
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
A different way, my friend. LN |
Re: Atemi waza: good or bad for Aikido?
Quote:
|
Re: Atemi waza: good or bad for Aikido?
Quote:
In truth, when people come to see my Aikido, I am well aware that it often looks fake. I don't have a problem with that. I have had the same reaction many many times when they feel it - or not, as the case may be. That is: "Huh, do that again." We use the principle of what my original teacher termed Kinesthetic Invisibility, where there is no real perceptable physical reference to react against. This goes a long way in "allowing uke to unbalance themselves" - yes, with a little help, but if done right it doesn't take much, and isn't about doing something To them. I've practiced many different styles of Aikido, including Seagal's when he was teaching every night. There really are many paths. Some do tend ot have different outcomes though. LN |
Re: Atemi waza: good or bad for Aikido?
Quote:
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:29 PM. |
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.