Re: Why bother keeping Aikido 'pure'?
Quote:
Among other things, life or death situations are very stressful, involving lots of tension and large surges of adrenaline. It is very difficult to learn anything -- much less fine motor skills like aikido -- if your body believes your life is at risk. So this idea that we should train with that level of intensity all of the time is pedagogically ridiculous. Rather, I would say that dealing with intensity is a separate field of study. It needs to take place in parallel with waza, not instead of it. Katherine |
Re: Why bother keeping Aikido 'pure'?
Quote:
I was probably 4th kyu when introduced to tantotori....a very likeable sempai did munetsuke, not at all in a "life or death" manner...but for this Brooklyn girl it called for an immediate response and I had never ever done a kotegaishe nearly as smoothly, quickly and efficiently as that one. Didn't feel like fight or flight, just automatic. And, in fact, it would be a while before it would be matched, because after that the buttons weren't being pushed the same way. However, it set my bar higher and gave me an in-the-body model for myself that I could work on learning from. |
Re: Why bother keeping Aikido 'pure'?
Quote:
He nevertheless insisted to practice and even 'teach' this nonsense to others? And your solution is to add some other random techniques from other combat sports and PUFFF magically aikido become efficient and full of sense? I usually don't waste my time for such trivial topics, but your choice of words draw my attention - Aikido 'pure'. This became interesting.... In reality aikido is a purification practice using martial techniques as designed by O sensei. It is not a heap of locks and throws, martial techniques are doing merely body and mind conditioning, they are not a goal in itself. So if they are done in pure form(not talking here only about external shape of techniques), they may result in proper state of mind which can lead to transcendent human condition and develop a spiritual intuition. In turn this intuition can be used to answer the questions like From where are we coming? Who are You? Why are You living? If you distort these techniques, all your practice is useless. So yes, pure Aikido. |
Re: Why bother keeping Aikido 'pure'?
First of all thanks for all the replies!
Also appreciate if the replies are kept non-derogatory...some seems to be leaning in that way. Quote:
To quote an example, from a certain position a kaiten nage and also a guillotine presents itself. I pick the guillotine because it's an 'end' position similar to a pin and arguably safer too both in a self defense situation both for me and the attacker (since a choke offers more control and is non lethal while a fall is harder to predict). To me the most difficult and technical part of Aikido are not the throws the pins etc etc...it is those initial moments when receiving the attack and breaking the balance, what follows after is just a matter of preference. Quote:
Quote:
My point is that rather than viewing 'pure' Aikido as the end solution to everything, what's wrong with increasing your repertoire with other techniques as long as it fits into the whole economy of movement and do no harm principles of Aikido? I really disagree that we should only stick to training in the 'traditional attacks' like shomen, tsuki etc etc and that it would be better to have better methods/techniques while still following Aiki principles in dealing with modern attacks that involve combinations and strikes we don't see in traditional Aikido practice. Case in point, I think tsuki kote-gaeshi is really not practical if someone is properly punching. It works if uke continues to hold his hand out, and i think it's more designed to be against something like a spear thrust as opposed to just a punch to the stomach (and that's with you anticipating it). And frankly, who attacks like that outside there? Why is it wrong to learn and adapt techniques to deal with more common attacks like a jab/cross/hook/haymaker etc? Why aren't these incorporated into Aikido's standard repertoire? As to collapsing under pressure, I think Aikido training does not prepare u for that. Even when you do get hit, it's going to be just one hit, it's hard to deal with a persistent attacker that's going to keep attacking you unless you can get him everytime he makes that first attack. I have NEVER seen anyone achieve this level. You need a different kind of training, some type of 'stress innoculation' which allows you to keep calm when under pressure. This I got it through sparring. I'll be very surprised to see a pure Aikidoka that has trained in nothing else deal with a determined attacker that's not going to just attack with one attack and has a genuine intention to land solid hits. How can you train for stress situations when you've never been put under stress? I've been dealing with this by introducing more proactive randori by having an attacker come in with an attack but continue to attack in rapidly in combination if nage fails to perform a technique. Strikes of course have to be light (and open handed) but grips will be full force and with an intention to take down if possible. The Aikido then may be sloppy but it is hoped with time, more and more effective techniques can be pulled off (which still happens now and then). Quote:
Quote:
Totally agree with you on advanced students being free to experiment and not afraid to look bad though. it takes a lot of experimentation to know what works. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I worry that without these, we lose sight that Aikido is a martial art (or if it isn't then let's not pretend). If accepting challenges is not "Aiki" then why did O-Sensei engage in them? He was confident enough of his martial ability in showing them that it worked and that there was another path besides destruction and converted many of these challengers into his students. Why is this wrong today? Is it because we lack the confidence? Also note that O-Sensei was dealing with a very different breed of challengers and therefore his techniques may be catered towards the arts of the day. Why has there been no innovation to update these techniques to modern attacks? I wondered what techniques would O-Sensei have created if faced with a modern challenger. |
Re: Why bother keeping Aikido 'pure'?
Quote:
Without the hard training, without the martial elements he put himself through, i don't believe O-Sensei would have achieved the heights he had. I don't believe anyone who just practised in Aikido in a traditional environment JUST doing Aikido techniques can gain that sort of mastery without any form of sparring or training in a stress situation. if that is possible, then why hasn't there been a video on Youtube of it? I haven't seen ANYTHING convincing. Or is it because we are so high up that we don't want to share our knowledge to the world and we shouldn't put videos on Youtube etc etc. We have to show the world that Aikido works and yet remain compassionate and not surround ourselves in some isolated coccoon where we are undefeatable within our own small circle. That's the beginning of a McDojo. O-Sensei did the challenges, Shioda did the challenges as did many great Aikido masters of late why can't the masters of this generation do so? O-Sensei was VERY good. So good that he was devising techniques that worked because of his ability which was honed. Even Shioda said that to do Aikido, we need to achieve exceptional speed. He also regularly tested out his techniques (and sometimes even in questionable scenarios). Our training does not provide that physical element as much anymore or the stress element, so how can we hope to achieve mastery by just the techniques? You're assuming that O-Sensei has devised a system that can defeat all types of attackers. He was dealing with a different type of attacker and my point is that the world has evolved. Perhaps it's time for the Aikido masters of today to come up with new novel ways to deal with modern attacks and perhaps some of these ways have already been discovered from other martial arts while keeping in the spirit of Aiki. There will always be masters of a generation, and other martial arts are evolving (especially those with a sparring element), why can't Aikido evolve too? |
Re: Why bother keeping Aikido 'pure'?
Quote:
|
Re: Why bother keeping Aikido 'pure'?
Quote:
I'm not against difficult physical training; in fact I'm doing it every day. However it must be clear for you -- what is a final goal of these "‘improvements"? |
Re: Why bother keeping Aikido 'pure'?
Quote:
I don't think working with different attacks or demonstrating more complex submissions is at all against the spirit of Aikido, actually. We already have pins and some strike combinations. I think the problem you are likely to have is that, unless your students all cross-train in the same sport combatives you do, they won't really be able to deliver the kinds of attacks you are looking for and you may wind up spending more time teaching them to fight than teaching them Aikido. Might not be a bad thing, or maybe you might want to hold a separate class where you require that people cross-train in a fighting system. And since I didn't mention it above, I don't think that would introduce any "impurities" into your Aikido teaching by any means. |
Re: Why bother keeping Aikido 'pure'?
Quote:
|
Re: Why bother keeping Aikido 'pure'?
Quote:
Which is the rock on which all of these discussions founder: One person says "Aikido training should do X," and others come back and say "My dojo already does X. What's the problem?" Point being that I think it's more productive to talk about what training methods are appropriate for which skills, rather than launching an attack on "aikido" as a whole. Katherine |
Re: Why bother keeping Aikido 'pure'?
Quote:
A lot of the more subtle aspects of aikido just won't work on MMA people. Why? Because they've deliberately trained themselves to ignore it: be very strong, be able to take a lot of punishment, and just wade in and impose your will. Which is fine, but let's not pretend it has anything more to do with "real" fighting than aikido dojo training does. What happens if you give either person a knife? Heck, what happens if you simply introduce the possibility that either person *might* have a knife? Suddenly taking punishment becomes much less important, and being attuned to your partner's most subtle movements becomes much more important. Suddenly this whole business of very dynamic, connected ukemi makes a lot more sense. Which is not to say that aikidoka are good knife fighters, but rather to suggest that "beating MMA guys" is not necessarily the right goal, either for "self-defense" (whatever that means) or for studying the aspects of aikido that make the art unique. Katherine |
Re: Why bother keeping Aikido 'pure'?
Quote:
|
Re: Why bother keeping Aikido 'pure'?
Was sitting in on a class and heard someone say something to the effect of "you can take a few punches and still function". I was really quite tempted to offer to deliver just one punch to see how well that worked... Gettin' hit by someone who means harm and can deliver the goods is a profoundly awakening experience. That is, once you wake up...
Yeah, I have continued to function after missing something and getting tagged. And frankly it is a good experience to realize that you can take *some* abuse. But those who tend to say you just wade in I would imagine haven't just "waded in" for real. Ever. Especially if a weapon is involved. Just rambling... |
Re: Why bother keeping Aikido 'pure'?
Quote:
|
Re: Why bother keeping Aikido 'pure'?
Quote:
*raises hand* It's a bit like that "Oh you can just catch the leg/grab the punch" line... |
Re: Why bother keeping Aikido 'pure'?
Although the OP said it was pointless, I think it is necessary to talk about what "pure" aikido is in order to answer the question: In order to be able to "keep" (or "not keep") something pure, it has to be pure in the first place. All this talk of adding stuff (especially compensatory stuff) or changing the goal might be meaningless if what you’re working on is already missing ingredients, watered down or contaminated.
Regards Carl |
Re: Why bother keeping Aikido 'pure'?
There are currently quite a few different styles of aikido being practiced all over the world. Which one is the pure one?
|
Re: Why bother keeping Aikido 'pure'?
Quote:
|
Re: Why bother keeping Aikido 'pure'?
Let me rephrase the question for clarity:
I never claimed there was a true 'pure' Aikido. Hence the inverted commas and also the reference to many people claiming to be more 'pure' than the other. Usually "pure" as commonly seen is such as it is the Aikido that O-Sensei taught, some see it as the official Aikikai syllabus ala Doshu style and some see it as the formalization of techniques that happened under Saito with his Iwama school being the best preservation of O-Sensei's art. List goes on and on with the main one being lineage. Let's not get into a discussion of what is pure, my point is that the point of 'purity' is subjective. Hence given that there's so many different interpretations of Aikido, there is no point in talking what is 'pure' but as other posters have said, it is more about maintaining Aiki. Maintaining Aiki or What is Aikido Now I'm told that Aiki is something intangible and cannot be explained...though personally (and I may be wrong) Aiki is about a) Not harming your opponent and loving them; and b) Not using force but not just submitting to threats If a technique can meet these requirements then I would say, why isn't it Aikido? Being willing to put Aikido to the Test I really like the quote for this: "Only a warrior chooses pacifism; others are condemned to it." This is what O-Sensei was. An amazing warrior but one who chose pacifism and had the skill to back up his beliefs (and he was willing to be tested on it to also spread his art). Aikido today arguably doesn't have that and if it does, I would be very happy to see an example (hence one of the reasons I bring this up). There's all sorts of other McDojo schools that go, "We don't test our techniques or else it will be lethal" "We are above that" "You don't have the right sensitivity" and this is very common in Aikido circles as well, the first one especially which is total rubbish since the whole aim of Aikido is not to be brutal/lethal. Evolution of Aikido Don't get me wrong. I'm not proposing we tack on other martial art techniques to Aikido but why isn't there a) A standard training method for dealing with modern attacks b) A training mechanism for true free randori whereby an attacker will come at you with whatever attack he feels like rather than be limited by the standard Aikido attacks. Why isn't there more demos of this? Now sure, some dojos may practice this but I don't see it much either in the dojos I go to (and I have been to many dojos in Malaysia, UK and Hombu) and if so, why isn't this more publicized. Why aren't there more discussions on this sort of practice? The way I see it being taught is instructor teaches, students do and perhaps a controlled randori session. I feel that without the above elements, there's a great danger that Aikido will become nothing more than just a elaborate dance or exercise. Also why I mention other martial arts is that there are other techniques that come naturally from Aikido positions and I wonder why there isn't any discussion on incorporating these as alternatives which according to an individual, may be more efficient/effective? Well some others would say, well why don't you cross train then? I do but many people don't have the opportunity to do so and I believe that every martial art system that claims to be applicable to self defence should be decently complete enough to deal with self defence situations. If not then don't claim to be self defence. For e.g.: I highly doubt our tanto-dori training reflects in anyway how a real knife attacks is like in this day and age. (I personally like http://centerlinegym.com/red-zone-knife-defense/) Similarly the same goes with our standard strikes (yokomen, tsuki, shomen). Some would argue that learning these would prepare you for all manner of attacks but I beg to differ. They are far from how someone would attack in a real situation. My biggest beef is that why isn't there any movement for the big guys in Aikido to agree on some techniques that would work against modern attacks? Lesser people like us are left to experiment and trawl Youtube and there's so much crap out there that it's not always easy to sift out. Now I don't agree with all of this guy's techniques but I believe it's a great step in the right direction: http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCpRWDh_MSnLROlsO4E0oYOg At least he's trying! Why can't some of the key influencers in Aikido try this out and put a video out for us to see and learn from? |
Re: Why bother keeping Aikido 'pure'?
Quote:
I did at one point long ago try to ask about Aikido Against Hooks and instead of a simple discussion it turned into a very very long discussion which resulted in nothing that concrete but general ideas. http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1492 It was a interesting discussion but I can't help but be frustrated that such a simple question would take so long to answer. Btw I've seen the expertvillage videos :/ don't think they work. I don't mind taking a video of me attempting them and getting smacked in the face...a lot. |
Re: Why bother keeping Aikido 'pure'?
On a side note, this is what happens when you don't keep it real:
Nobuyuki Watanabe Shihan teaches at Hombu btw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPET7KCQmDk See on the 8:30 mark. I'll be willing to go full on on whoever who claims to be able to do a no-touch throw (even if it's some 8th dan master). |
Re: Why bother keeping Aikido 'pure'?
Quote:
Aiki, as I understand it, and as pre-aikido arts used the term, describes a collection of specific physical phenomena. As such, it is value-neutral. For further discussion, see the "Internal Training in Aikido" forum. Katherine |
Re: Why bother keeping Aikido 'pure'?
Quote:
Katherine |
Re: Why bother keeping Aikido 'pure'?
Quote:
For me, aiki has nothing to do with philosophy anymore than say shiho-nage is philosophical. Aiki is a skill - the skill we should be aiming to get. The skill to be able to manipulate your uke with minimum force to maximum effect. The skill to be able to use his own energy against him. Good wrestlers use it, Sumo use it etc. - but they don`t name it so if they are good at it they won`t quite know just what that `it` is or how to get more of it. We name it - aiki - and so we should be aiming to develop it ... should we not? Can`t see any philospohy in there. Except, if you attain it, don`t use it for bad purposes. Which means, the philosophy comes later - if / after you attain it. Certainly not before. |
Re: Why bother keeping Aikido 'pure'?
Quote:
Quote:
Any sort of grappling ar then uses 'Aiki' and I don't think just because they lack that terminology it means they can't develop it. In fact I believe at all higher levels of training in grappling arts at least I know it with wrestling and jujitsu, we are taught that we to strive to use minimum effort to achieve maximum effect through a combination of leverage, timing, direction of uke's attention, going with the flow and using physics to help achieve this. In fact, I think many Aikidoka despite training in Aikido like to attribute all these elements to 'ki' which really doesn't help in understanding what it is. A bit off topic so let's get back on track :D |
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:33 AM. |
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.