AikiWeb Aikido Forums

AikiWeb Aikido Forums (http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/index.php)
-   Techniques (http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=4)
-   -   Aikido Techniques are Weapons Techniques (http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showthread.php?t=12667)

ChrisHein 05-29-2007 09:50 AM

Re: What technique would you apply to neutralize Brazilian Jujitsu attacker
 
The Aikido techniques are weapon techniques.

Saying that you are going to be in an unarmed situation and use Aikido is like saying you are going bowling but not going to use a ball.

The best fly fishermen in the world wouldn't catch a thing if they didn't have a pole and some flies. Techniques are situation dependent, and Aikido's techniques are based on situations involving weapons.

DonMagee 05-29-2007 11:03 AM

Re: What technique would you apply to neutralize Brazilian Jujitsu attacker
 
Quote:

Chris Hein wrote: (Post 179564)
The Aikido techniques are weapon techniques.

Saying that you are going to be in an unarmed situation and use Aikido is like saying you are going bowling but not going to use a ball.

The best fly fishermen in the world wouldn't catch a thing if they didn't have a pole and some flies. Techniques are situation dependent, and Aikido's techniques are based on situations involving weapons.

And by that logic I can conclude aikido is meant for persevering history and not self defense. Most of us do not carry the weapons of ancient japan.

ChrisHein 05-29-2007 05:17 PM

Re: What technique would you apply to neutralize Brazilian Jujitsu attacker
 
Quote:

Don Magee wrote: (Post 179572)
And by that logic I can conclude aikido is meant for persevering history and not self defense. Most of us do not carry the weapons of ancient japan.

A more myopic view point there could not be.

As long as people hold weapons (any and all weapons) in their hands, Aikido's techniques are valid. Whether it's a club, knife, screwdriver, pistol, rifle, stun gun, laser blaster, or sonic disrupter. If you or they are holding it, Aikido has an answer.

DonMagee 05-29-2007 05:27 PM

Re: What technique would you apply to neutralize Brazilian Jujitsu attacker
 
Quote:

Chris Hein wrote: (Post 179601)
A more myopic view point there could not be.

As long as people hold weapons (any and all weapons) in their hands, Aikido's techniques are valid. Whether it's a club, knife, screwdriver, pistol, rifle, stun gun, laser blaster, or sonic disrupter. If you or they are holding it, Aikido has an answer.

My point is a self defense art should not fall apart when your attacker is unarmed. That makes it woefully lacking as a self defense art.

Ahh he only has a knife, piece of cake. Oh no! He dropped the knife, now I"m screwed!

ChrisHein 05-29-2007 07:04 PM

Re: What technique would you apply to neutralize Brazilian Jujitsu attacker
 
Quote:

Don Magee wrote: (Post 179602)
My point is a self defense art should not fall apart when your attacker is unarmed. That makes it woefully lacking as a self defense art.

Ahh he only has a knife, piece of cake. Oh no! He dropped the knife, now I"m screwed!

I'm not picking on you here Don, but this is pretty hard to let go.

A) You are the one who should be armed. The ultimate in "self defense" is armed self defense. If you are really worried about protecting yourself and you are not using a weapon, you really aren't trying to protect yourself as best you can.

B) "He only has a knife, piece of cake". I'm sure that's sarcasm, but none the less; foolish. I would rather know nothing and be smaller then my attacker in an unarmed fight. Then face even the smallest unskilled child with "just a knife".

I don't know why everyone talks about "self defense" like it means unarmed fighting. I am armed 90% of the time, even in places where I'm not suppose to be armed. I do this for "self defense". Learning to box and wrestle is for children and sportsmen. If you are really interested in defending your life, use a weapon.

DonMagee 05-29-2007 08:07 PM

Re: What technique would you apply to neutralize Brazilian Jujitsu attacker
 
Quote:

Chris Hein wrote: (Post 179609)
I'm not picking on you here Don, but this is pretty hard to let go.

A) You are the one who should be armed. The ultimate in "self defense" is armed self defense. If you are really worried about protecting yourself and you are not using a weapon, you really aren't trying to protect yourself as best you can.

B) "He only has a knife, piece of cake". I'm sure that's sarcasm, but none the less; foolish. I would rather know nothing and be smaller then my attacker in an unarmed fight. Then face even the smallest unskilled child with "just a knife".

I don't know why everyone talks about "self defense" like it means unarmed fighting. I am armed 90% of the time, even in places where I'm not suppose to be armed. I do this for "self defense". Learning to box and wrestle is for children and sportsmen. If you are really interested in defending your life, use a weapon.

My point was that posters have said that aikido is meant for weapon and therefore will not work unarmed. At first I thought this meant all aikidoka are armed at all times. I then was told I was wrong and that aikidoka train against weapons and therefore are useless against bjj (or an unarmed attacker). This brings my sarcastic remark that a knife is easy but a unarmed attacker is too tough.

Obviously I do not want to fight anyone with a weapon. But if you can't deal with an unarmed person, how are you going to deal with an armed one? Its like the old aikido is for multiple opponent line. If you can't spar a single attacker, how can you deal with 3? I do not train anything for self defense. I'm not worried, I live in a great area. I train for the enjoyment it gives me. But I refuse to let people spout garbage and claim it as valid self defense.

ChrisHein 05-29-2007 10:12 PM

Re: What technique would you apply to neutralize Brazilian Jujitsu attacker
 
Weapon training and unarmed training are just different. They require different skill sets, and a different training mentality.

Examples:
Headlocks are a great idea in unarmed fighting, but only work in an armed fight if you have the weapon.

Boxing skill works great if the other guy is unarmed, but not if he has a stick.

Learning to hold someone's wrist so they cant escape is very useful if you are fighting an armed man who has a weapon in that hand. But is not so productive if he is unarmed.

Kicking is an awesome long range attack for the unarmed man, but will likely cost you a leg if the other guy has a machete.

SeiserL 05-30-2007 05:31 AM

Quote:

Chris Hein wrote: (Post 179625)
Weapon training and unarmed training are just different. They require different skill sets, and a different training mentality.

This is one of those were I agree in general, but don't agree in specifics.

Yes, weapons work requires a different mind set. So, they are generally different.

Yet, in FMA our weapons and hands are the same. And, when I do Aikido, having roots in Kenjutsu, and "cut" rather than "pull" the waza is more effective. Done this way, even without a weapon, I am never unarmed.

George S. Ledyard 05-30-2007 07:19 AM

Re: Aikido Techniques are Weapons Techniques
 
This is true if one is talking about understanding the essential "logic" behind the way we practice. Why are the basic strikes shomenuchi, yokomenuchi, and munetsuki? Why do we have so many grabbing attacks? When folks from other martial arts look at Aikido practice they generally comment on the fact that no one in their martial art would attack in that manner. As I found with my police students, however, once you introduce weapons into the interaction, you really do see grabbing taking place. Give your partner a short sword or a katana and it's easy to see the relationship between our very stylized attacks and attacks with these bladed weapons.

But this does not mean that what we do cannot be effective as an empty hand art, you just need to adapt the principles to a different reality. If this is your interest, you need to work with folks who can execute strikes as they are found in karate, boxing and muy thai. Work on application of ones technique with a wrestler, judoka or mixed martial artist. Put some time in with a kali or silat practitioner on knife technique.

The result of this work will be much more impactive than how we generally manifest the principles in our practice but the principles will be the same.

ChrisHein 05-30-2007 09:45 AM

Re: Aikido Techniques are Weapons Techniques
 
Quote:

George S. Ledyard wrote: (Post 179651)

But this does not mean that what we do cannot be effective as an empty hand art, you just need to adapt the principles to a different reality. If this is your interest, you need to work with folks who can execute strikes as they are found in karate, boxing and muy thai. Work on application of ones technique with a wrestler, judoka or mixed martial artist. Put some time in with a kali or silat practitioner on knife technique.

Well yes and no.

If you literally mean the principals of Jiu and Aiki as found in Aikido, then yes sort of. However the techniques of Aikido (shihonage, jujinage, Sankyo etc. etc.) cannot readily be adapted to unarmed fighting. In fact it would be really silly to try. The whole of Aikido's technical syllabus is simply not an effective means of unarmed fighting.

To make Aikido an unarmed system you would have to add lots of techniques to it (boxing skills, wrestling skills, and throwing skills). And you would have to add tons of new forms dealing with common unarmed positions. Why do all that when you have a perfectly understandable readily usable weapon system at your disposal??

If you are good at actual weapon fighting (like say the dog brothers), you will probably do pretty well in an unarmed fight against a novice. The reason being, that you are comfortable in confrontation. You know what it's like to take and dish out pain, and you know what it feels like to have someone aggressively coming at you. You will coupe with the stress much better, and likely come out on top. But if you think a trained weapon fighter is going to be as good as a trained unarmed fighter in an unarmed situation, you are kidding yourself.

To be for sure the opposite of this holds true as well, an unarmed fighter is likely going to lose his life to a trained weapon fighter in an armed situation.

DonMagee 05-30-2007 09:52 AM

Re: Aikido Techniques are Weapons Techniques
 
Ok, I just want a straight answer Chris. I can't seem to make heads or tails of this.

Pick one or tell me if these are off base conclusions. I am refering to the core training and main purpose that all techniques are really attempting to develop skill for.

1) Aikido is designed for you (the aikidoka) to use a weapon against an unarmed attacker. It's primary focus is weapon retention.Because of this we must assume for aikido to be effective you must always carry a weapon you train with.

2) Aikido is designed to handle attacks from armed attackers while you are unarmed. Because of this it is unable to deal with unamed attacks like grabs, punches, kicks, etc.

3) Aikido is designed to deal with unarmed attacker while you are unarmed.

4) Aikido is designed to deal with an unarmed attacker while you are unarmed, with limited weapon defenses.

5) Aikido is ment to deal with an armed attacker while you are unarmed with limited unarmed defenses.

Once I am clear of the position, I can make a rational conversation.

Jim Sorrentino 05-30-2007 09:52 AM

Re: What technique would you apply to neutralize Brazilian Jujitsu attacker
 
Chris,
Quote:

Chris Hein wrote: (Post 179609)
I don't know why everyone talks about "self defense" like it means unarmed fighting. I am armed 90% of the time, even in places where I'm not suppose to be armed. I do this for "self defense".[emph. added]

With all due respect, it is not wise to state this openly in a public forum.

Sincerely,

Jim Sorrentino

ChrisHein 05-30-2007 10:05 AM

Re: Aikido Techniques are Weapons Techniques
 
Don,

Aikido's technical syllabus is designed mostly to deal with:

You being armed and your attackers unarmed, quite likely out numbering you.

But it also has techniques to deal with:

Them armed, you unarmed.
and
You armed, them armed as well.

Jim,
I fully understand your point. And I thought about that before I posted it. However I believe it is mankind's right to be armed, and if everyone took an open stance about it, it would simply be understood. And we would no longer have to fear repercussions arming ourselves.

L. Camejo 05-30-2007 10:40 AM

Re: Aikido Techniques are Weapons Techniques
 
Quote:

Chris Hein wrote: (Post 179665)
However the techniques of Aikido (shihonage, jujinage, Sankyo etc. etc.) cannot readily be adapted to unarmed fighting. In fact it would be really silly to try. The whole of Aikido's technical syllabus is simply not an effective means of unarmed fighting.

Chris,

What training, testing, experience, professional credentials etc. do you bring to the table to make such categorical statements? The quoted post above is totally the opposite of proven, repeated results using Aikido waza and tactics in actual situations. From my own testing and experiences (and those of people much more skilled in Aikido than I) Aikido gives good options for dealing with certain weapon attacks and can work quite well when one is armed (weapon retention) also, but the possibilities for success are exponentially increased when one deals with an unarmed attacker. The measures applied are almost identical if the Aikidoka is armed or not, there is no need for high variation between the armed and unarmed approach unless your armed waza is insufficient to start with. The weapon retention aspects are directly related to the unarmed tactical paradigm.

Many of the safety measures one takes in properly dealing with a blade for example are not required with an unarmed attacker, providing quite a lot more opportunities for effective waza and tactical creativity and adaptation.

From your posts above I honestly get the impression that you are thinking of using Aikido in a "fight" (i.e. trading of strikes/blows, grappling for a superior position etc.) with an unarmed person. If you are doing this then you are not doing Aikido and not adhering to its tactical paradigm. Of course it would not work if you approach it this way, have you ever seen a Kendoka or Kenjutsuka aim to trade strikes (block and counter) with their opponent? No, one moves in to take instant victory, engaging their strategy and path to domination long before physical contact is made. This is Aikido's ideal domain and the concept works well both when armed or unarmed if one understands how Aikido works in a tactical situation.

I'm not sure what level or type of Aikido you have been exposed to but having trained with Shihan in 2 different Aikido styles who both view (and have literally used) their tegatana/shuto (hand blade) as if it were a bokken, quite often I don't see how one cannot apply the basic principles of the striking/thrusting blade to unarmed tactics via good use of tegatana. What you are saying does not hold up to actual testing imho. the difference between the use of tegatana and actual katana are minimal and operate using identical mind and body concepts.

So unless I am missing something Chris you need to explain why you believe the techniques of Aikido cannot readily be adapted to unarmed fighting. What objective testing and research has led you to this belief? This of course given that the vast majority of Aikidoka do not train the art with a true self protection mindset.
Quote:

But it also has techniques to deal with:

Them armed, you unarmed.
This is a good concept but has great practical limitations regardless of what real unarmed skill you may have when facing a weapon. Have you ever put on Bogu and tried to disarm a semi-skilled Kendoka really trying to hit you? You should try it sometime if you get the opportunity, it puts the "bokken disarm" concept in a whole new light.

Gambatte.
LC:ai::ki:

gdandscompserv 05-30-2007 11:09 AM

Re: Aikido Techniques are Weapons Techniques
 
Quote:

Larry Camejo wrote: (Post 179673)
Have you ever put on Bogu and tried to disarm a semi-skilled Kendoka really trying to hit you? You should try it sometime if you get the opportunity, it puts the "bokken disarm" concept in a whole new light.

LOL
Yeah, I almost lost my arm.

DonMagee 05-30-2007 11:36 AM

Re: Aikido Techniques are Weapons Techniques
 
Quote:

Chris Hein wrote: (Post 179669)
Don,

Aikido's technical syllabus is designed mostly to deal with:

You being armed and your attackers unarmed, quite likely out numbering you.

But it also has techniques to deal with:

Them armed, you unarmed.
and
You armed, them armed as well.

Jim,
I fully understand your point. And I thought about that before I posted it. However I believe it is mankind's right to be armed, and if everyone took an open stance about it, it would simply be understood. And we would no longer have to fear repercussions arming ourselves.

Oddly, I only have a little under 2 years training aikido, yet I have not once been shown how to use a weapon. I have been shown kata's that were designed to help me extend further and develop ki and improve my unarmed techniques. But not once have I been shown how to defend myself with a weapon. This tells me that at least the style I trained does not focus on weapons as a means of self defense. The self defense portion of any art is usually the gross motor skill techniques taught at the beginning (aka the basics).

what you have basically said is counter to what you have previously said. If I understand you right you have just said aikido can deal with armed or unarmed attackers while you are armed or unarmed. But in the bjj thread you said aikido can not deal with unarmed while you are unarmed and was not ment to do this.

I submit that at least the aikido I have been taught is designed to deal with an unarmed attacker who attacks you in a way that assumes you might be armed (thus the focus on wrist grabs which is a great way to prevent a sword draw) and also focuses on very primitive forms of weapon defense (lunge knife stabs and swings of clubs). However these principles can be applied to more advanced weapons techniques and unarmed techniques. However the core of what I was shown was to deal with wild swings (haymakers), lunge punches and grabs of all kinds. This leads me to believe that trained properly aikido could help you develop skills to control attackers who are either in escape mode, untrained, or so angry they are stupid. Which could be great for police.

There is no reason however these same principles could not be applied to proper defenses to skilled attacks. There is no reason there can not be an aiki sprawl. The technique itself does not have to change, but the intention can make a big difference, as well as the strategy in which it is employed.

In conclusion, I'm still confused as to the point you are trying to make about aikido, and armed vs unarmed self defense and effectiveness. If all we need are weapons, lets buy some guns and get proper training on their use and retention. If armed is the only thing that matters, this method will nullify the use of aikido for self defense and relegate it to the study of ancient weapons and history and philosophy.

Walker 05-30-2007 12:05 PM

Re: Aikido Techniques are Weapons Techniques
 
To echo what George has said above, it is my understanding that the assumptions of aikido include edged weapons and multiple attackers. I think those two features are very important in understanding why aikido is the way it is. Without assumptions like these, say the assumption was no weapons, ungloved hands, single person, then something like BJJ or sambo might be the form to follow that function.

But to disagree with a few other posters above -- aikido isn't straight jujutsu or grappling with weapons either, in my opinion. The other concept that helps me to understand aikido is that the jujutsu is more properly powered by sword mechanics. I find that while aikido waza can be powered like jujutsu and function it functions even better when powered like sword waza. This makes things doubly difficult because one has to then understand what sword movements are like and how they differ from other types of power.

Interestingly there is a similar issue in Wado ryu karate from what I understand. To do it properly one must do karate with jujutsu and sword mechanics. If one does it like Okinawan karate then it doesn't work the same.

Marie Noelle Fequiere 05-30-2007 01:57 PM

Re: What technique would you apply to neutralize Brazilian Jujitsu attacker
 
[quote=Chris Hein;179625]

Learning to hold someone's wrist so they cant escape is very useful if you are fighting an armed man who has a weapon in that hand. But is not so productive if he is unarmed.

With less than a year of training under my belt, I am not sure that I am getting this right.
Aikido is for defense. You never attack. Therefore, you are not supposed to hold on or chase someone who has decided to end the fight.
Now, if my Sensei has trained me well, I understand that the purpose of holding someone's wrist is to make them let go of yours, put them off balance, and to apply a painful lock that might break their arm or wrist, and will certainly change their mind about fighting.
Those techniques will work wether the opponent is armed or not.
I just do not get your point.

jss 05-30-2007 02:00 PM

Re: Aikido Techniques are Weapons Techniques
 
I think we need to accept that aikido was not created by O-sensei after he traveled the world, made a scientific analysis of all martial arts and all physical confrontations, after which he reached an enlightened conclusion as how to create the ultimate martial art.

He learned Daito-ryu from Takeda and added all other interesting stuff he could find. Daito-tyu is a member of the Japanese jujutsu arts. These arts grew from a very specific part of broad martial systems that included weapons, grappling, strategy, etc.
As you can read in Ellis Amdur's blogs on AikidoJournal: in these older forms of jujutsu the guy with the weapon kills the unarmed guy. And somehow, somewhen this was changed. And this changed in a period in time in which Japan was isolated culturally. How much did the Japanese know about boxing at the time, or about karate? Did they ever realize there are better ways to hit a man than with a te-gatana?
To put it bluntly: one can think of far more suitable cultures for a truely effective martial art to develop.

Or in conclusion: aikido is not about Intelligent Design, it's about evolution in an isolated environment. (Aikido is a kangaroo.)

ChrisHein 05-30-2007 05:18 PM

Re: Aikido Techniques are Weapons Techniques
 
Larry,
Nope I've never put on bogu and let a kendoka come at me. However I have let a dog brother come at me with a rattan stick (no bogu though).

Everyone,
We seem to have so little common ground here that I cannot explain all of this to you in a post.

Michael Varin 05-30-2007 06:12 PM

Re: Aikido Techniques are Weapons Techniques
 
It's great when threads move. Keeps me on my toes.

Quote:

Joep Schuurkes wrote:
Aikido is a kangaroo.

Maybe, but watch a show like Court TV's Most Shocking (it's a security camera show in the US at least), pay attention to the situations that arise, watch how both sides respond, and ask yourself, What techniques and tactics make sense in these situations?

The aikido paradigm appears 10 to 1 over the MMA paradigm. The people who are most likely to assault you are either cowards, sociopaths, total idiots, or very highly trained. All of these with the exception of the idiots will likely favor the use of weapons, numbers, and/or surprise for their assault. Granted most aikido dojos may not train with this in mind or at the appropriate level of intensity, if you scratch the surface a little bit you will see that this is the proper domain of the tactics we see in aikido.

Doug Walker alluded to one of my favorite axioms -- form follows function. It's something you should always consider when asking Why?

Quote:

Larry Camejo wrote:
What you are saying does not hold up to actual testing imho. the difference between the use of tegatana and actual katana are minimal and operate using identical mind and body concepts.

Not true. How successful is your tameshigiri with your tegatana? Even a small blade (3-4") in the hands of a semi-trained individual can inflict so much more damage than a highly trained person can bare-handed that there really is no comparison. In addition, there are many responses to bare-hand strikes that won't effectively protect you against a blade.

L. Camejo 05-30-2007 06:54 PM

Re: Aikido Techniques are Weapons Techniques
 
Quote:

Michael Varin wrote: (Post 179708)
Not true. How successful is your tameshigiri with your tegatana? Even a small blade (3-4") in the hands of a semi-trained individual can inflict so much more damage than a highly trained person can bare-handed that there really is no comparison. In addition, there are many responses to bare-hand strikes that won't effectively protect you against a blade.

Wow you totally missed the point of what you quoted. Nowhere am I comparing the effectiveness of tegatana against that of a live blade, that is just idiotic. However the same mind and body principles I use when doing tameshigiri (focus on the point of impact, using bodyweight and proper alignment to transfer power through the target, following through with the body after the cut is made etc.) are what I use to execute effective strikes with tegatana. That was the point of what I said, which was quoted in your last post, it was never a comparison between the cutting ability of blade and that of flesh. The result in using the same principles is that in both cases the transference of power is focused enough to cut cleanly through the target with a live blade and cause severe blunt trauma with tegatana, both of which are effective in ending an opponent's attack.

In addition, there are other movements done in Aikido that are based on using the blade that are directly applied in joint techniques as well as throws and atemi waza. One only needs to do some study or observation to find them.
Quote:

Michael Varin wrote: (Post 179708)
In addition, there are many responses to bare-hand strikes that won't effectively protect you against a blade.

Of course there are. I never said anything to indicate otherwise. My point was that waza executed to deal with a weapon requires certain extra safety measures to be put in place because one is dealing with a weapon (in the case of a knife - edge awareness and weapon control is important) this makes the waza slightly more difficult as a result. However, in executing the same waza against an appropriate unarmed attack the blade's edge is no longer an issue and allows the Aikidoka more options in movement and dealing with the attack (you don't have to worry about locking or projecting such that you don't get cut from a blade).

My point is that the principles that allow Aikido as an art to deal with weapon attacks or weapons retention are the same methods used to deal with an unarmed attack. The gap between the two is not as large as you and Chris are having people believe. It merely sounds like you have not been able to bridge the gap and found an alternative means to deal with the situation instead of finding ways to apply what you know in Aikido to that situation. Just recently we had a local seminar showing precisely how weapon and empty handed tactics interchange seamlessly in executing effective Aikido waza with minimal changes whether one was armed with a knife, hanjo or with tegatana.

There is no problem with trying to be armed at all times to defend oneself, this is a good thing. But the reason many often come back to questions of empty handed defence is that many times your body and mind are the only weapon you have on you or alternatively when ambushed you don't have time to go for a weapon (been there). Even handgun experts train in empty handed tactics for times when they get caught in the hole with their gun in the holster and the attackers own already drawn at close range. Learning to operate empty handed is simply part of being prepared.

Gambatte.

Michael Varin 05-30-2007 09:27 PM

Re: Aikido Techniques are Weapons Techniques
 
Larry,

I didn't miss the point of what you said.

Quote:

Larry Camejo wrote:
the difference between the use of tegatana and actual katana are minimal and operate using identical mind and body concepts.

I understood that you said "use," but just prior to the above you wrote the following:

Quote:

Larry Camejo wrote:
If you are doing this then you are not doing Aikido and not adhering to its tactical paradigm. Of course it would not work if you approach it this way, have you ever seen a Kendoka or Kenjutsuka aim to trade strikes (block and counter) with their opponent? No, one moves in to take instant victory, engaging their strategy and path to domination long before physical contact is made. This is Aikido's ideal domain and the concept works well both when armed or unarmed if one understands how Aikido works in a tactical situation.

I'm not sure what level or type of Aikido you have been exposed to but having trained with Shihan in 2 different Aikido styles who both view (and have literally used) their tegatana/shuto (hand blade) as if it were a bokken, quite often I don't see how one cannot apply the basic principles of the striking/thrusting blade to unarmed tactics via good use of tegatana.

You brought up aikido's tactical paradigm, instant victory, literally using your hand as a bokken.

I mentioned the effectiveness, because it does matter. One of the principles of the striking/thrusting blade is that it is going to severe/pierce its target.

What possibility does even the best fighter have of surviving an attack by four men with bad intentions? If he uses a weapon his chances increase, because of the effect of the weapon.

Quote:

Larry Camejo wrote:
The result in using the same principles is that in both cases the transference of power is focused enough to cut cleanly through the target with a live blade and cause severe blunt trauma with tegatana, both of which are effective in ending an opponent's attack.

You probably hit a lot harder than I do, but my personal experiences, which include Muay Thai, don't really support that.

You can use combat shotgun tactics with an airsoft shotgun, but your tactical paradigm will break down when the pellets don't have the same effect as the buckshot.

There is nothing wrong with knowing empty-hand techniques or being able to strike hard, however I do believe there are far more effective ways to strike bare-handed than with tegatana.

Who knows? I could be wrong. It wouldn't be the first time!

L. Camejo 05-31-2007 06:00 AM

Re: Aikido Techniques are Weapons Techniques
 
I'm sorry Michael. You're still missing my point. I agree totally with you on the comparative effectiveness of a blade over a hand or that of a real shotgun over an airsoft gun. But I am not talking about this.

The literal use of tegatana as a weapon (like a bokken because they are both blunt objects compared to a live blade) is obviously for situations where you have no other weapon. A weapon is most times preferable for defence, this is not a point of contention. When you train in this manner the weapon you have and your understanding of it becomes decidedly more developed. If you train moreso with blades and guns then your greater development will lie there. If one trains moreso with tegatana and applying Aikido's empty handed repertoire then here is where the development will lie. However in my situation the only weapon I am assured of having with me at all times are my hands so I train to use those, anything extra is gravy. There are also times when empty hands are totally insufficient for the situation, here is where on has to get creative.
Quote:

One of the principles of the striking/thrusting blade is that it is going to severe/pierce its target.
Precisely. So how do you apply this principle of severing/piercing the target to the empty handed tactics of Aikido to effect successful waza? I know how we do it. For example, the thrusting motion is quite powerful in creating kuzushi among many other things. The penetrating/piercing effect is critical to create good kuzushi and empty handed technique. This comes directly from sword and tegatana work, but I guess if you are looking only at the obvious sword movements as a blade technique whose only purpose is to puncture a target then you would miss the host of other applications that the same piercing movements have on a person in an empty handed or other context. This would explain your situation imho.
Quote:

What possibility does even the best fighter have of surviving an attack by four men with bad intentions? If he uses a weapon his chances increase, because of the effect of the weapon.
This is a very general statement not taking into account a host of variables. But just to address the question of possibility I would say it is quite possible (depending on the variables) because I have not only done this myself when ambushed and unable to get to a weapon but know of many others who have also. There is no question that a weapon increases chances, but where I come from the bad guys and the cops have most of the really good ones (guns) so you are always at a disadvantage and are forced to use what you have, which is most often empty hands or a small blade. Of course if you do have a weapon you'd need to be in good control of your own psycho-chemical reactions. The weapon does nothing if the person weilding it is not all together and ready to use it properly.
Quote:

You probably hit a lot harder than I do, but my personal experiences, which include Muay Thai, don't really support that.
Well this is also irrelevant isn't it, since I've never hit you.:) The truth is also that both striking systems do not operate under the same premise. MT is about fighting, Aikido is about not fighting, quite different mindsets and application. Many people go outside of Aikido to find "better" methods without ever understanding what Aikido offers to start with. I also have had a bit of muay thai exposure and it is very good for certain areas of strike fighting but also has its weaknesses within the striking context as well.

To be honest, what I am hearing are people who were disappointed by the "fighting effectiveness" of the Aikido they were taught and instead of digging deeper into the core of the art to find the answer, found other methods to make up for the perceived gap in their training. This is common and is a good approach for someone who just needs practical self defence skills right now and doesn't have the time to go plumbing the depths. However the effect is that you convince yourself that "Aikido" (which really means your Aikido) is not a useful unarmed self defence art and go on to create a psychological structure that supports this theory (e.g. "it is a Do art so it's not meant to be effective or practical" or "that it is only effective when weapons are used"). You then spout this theory to others who may be willing to share your belief, which now helps one feel more secure that the theory is correct since there are more minds supporting it. Only it is not correct, since one has decided not to fully understand Aikido and what it is really capable of. This is ok if one is dabbling in Budo taking bits and pieces from here and there, but if one wants to seriously teach the art of Aikido it is not acceptable imho. An added danger is that when many seek out "effective" arts they find "fighting" arts which teach very different tactical concepts than those embodied in Aikido, even if the strikes and techniques are quite usable in their own context.

Imho.
LC:ai::ki:

Paul Sanderson-Cimino 07-09-2007 11:53 AM

Re: What technique would you apply to neutralize Brazilian Jujitsu attacker
 
Quote:

Don Magee wrote: (Post 182999)
One of the first armbar setups I ever learned was from inside the guard.

I've actually been shown this, I think. Not very good at it yet, though. Right now, I'm trying to develop some skill at getting a simple kimura from guard.

Quote:

Don Magee wrote: (Post 182999)
I understand how you feel about using aikido in grappling. I try it every day.

Maddening, isn't it? Aikido seems like such a well-developed and sophisticated system, but it seems so much worse performance-wise than anything else. I'm not sure how to reconcile these two things.

I think that Chris Hein's argument that it's about retaining a weapon is persuasive...but in addition to having no real experience doing that kind of live practice, I'm also suspicious of saying that techniques will magically start working better than judo/BJJ if you put a knife in one person's hand, or strap a sword at your waist. It seems like even if they're optimized for weapons, they should function empty-handed.

Another theory I'm considering (not mutually exclusive with the weapons one) is that aikido isn't so much a standalone, foundation art as it is an advanced study for people already competent in judo and grappling. There's some historic evidence for this, in the biographies of aikido greats.

Quote:

Don Magee wrote: (Post 182999)
The highest success I've had is with wrist locks.

Are you thinking from standup or from on the mat?


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:39 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.