Is it kokyu-nage if you don't use kokyu-power?
 

I'm trying to frame a simplistic debate in response to something George Ledyard wrote, if for no other reason that it's an interesting discussion.

The question is whether an *Aikido* technique called "kokyu nage" is a kokyu nage even if you don't use kokyu-power to do it with. That should be a fairly straightforward "yes" or "no" question. Sure, someone could argue that "when you're learning to do it, of course you don't have it down correctly, yet", but the question still devolves to a reasonably straightforward yes or no on that part.

The second part of the question is this: Let's say that you don't have any kokyu power (or you have erroneous or incomplete power that is somewhat aimed at kokyu, but not really kokyu)... does doing the kokyu nage with all sorts of subtleties and "advanced understanding", etc., then make it a kokyu nage? Even though you don't do it with kokyu power.

Again, it's going to be an opinion-driven discussion, but there's a part of it that is worth thinking about. Particularly if you're concerned with spiritual purity! ;)

By the way... please read my tone as good-humoured bantering, not as hectoring.

Best.

Mike Sigman

Re: Is it kokyu-nage if you don't use kokyu-power?
 

I would say no.

Now, if it were just a poorly executed kokyu nage by a student who said "let me show you my kokyu nage" and there was no real "kokyu", I wouldn't say to him "that was no koky nage". I might try to offer some pointers.

On the other hand, is some karate teacher says "I'm an Aikido master too" and came up with some lame excuse for kokyu nage, I would then say that was not Kokyu Nage. Then of course his response would likely be that I was just being political.

I had a similar situation when a Tae Kwon Do teacher told me they do "Aikido techniques" as part of thier self defense program, then showed me some very crude, poorly performed half karate half jujutsu technique. He had his "uke" step into a front stance and hang out his fist as if punching his face. He did a hard "rising block", punched him back and twisted his wrist as he fell to the ground.

My question was "what makes that an Aikido technique?". He said it was Kote Gaeshi and that is found in all Aikido.

So the next question again was "where's the Aiki that would make it Aikido?".

You can also find the same situation with people who teach Jujutsu and call it Aikido. Sure it looks like Aikido to some, but it certainly doesn't feel like Aikido to someone who has experienced Aikido.

The same would go for a kokyu-less kokyu nage. It just is not kokyu nage.

Re: Is it kokyu-nage if you don't use kokyu-power?
 

I would say no. Its just as the same an irimi nage without any true "irimi" to speak of.

It's gradual
 

Well, do you make shihonage in four directions? And do you make tenchinage all the way from heaven to earth?
Kokyu means breathing out and in, and I guess everybody is doing that...

About breath power, kokyu ryoku, I don't think you can think of it as an on/off switch. It will increase by time, through training.

And it is not necessarily so that kokyunage should be done as an expression of kokyu ryoku. To me, it is mainly an exercise in blending with the partner, and leading the attack on.
Breathing in corresponds to accepting the attack (joining with it), and breathing out is leading it on.
If I hasten to use kokyu ryoku power to throw the attacker away, I am not sure that I am doing aikido.

Re: Is it kokyu-nage if you don't use kokyu-power?
 

IMHO, yes.
It is kokyu-nage in its initial physical form while learning.
It is kokyu-nage when you learn and apply kokyu-power.
And they are different.

I often kid that unless its otherwise specified, its kokyu-nage.

Re: Is it kokyu-nage if you don't use kokyu-power?
 

I would say yes too.

For me the technique is a tool to develop the skill.

For 99% of us we may perform the technique but it does not contain full kokyu.

Depending on skill / experience there may be some measure present of course.

So I think its still kokyu Nage ...maybe not good kokyu nage.

Cheers

D

Re: Is it kokyu-nage if you don't use kokyu-power?
 

I liken the techniques used in aikido to the mathematics used in physics. Physics is not a bunch of mathematical models; it is a set of principals based on fundamental concepts and expanded on. It is the same with aikido. People using "kote gaishi" and saying it's aikido is like someone using "Pythagoras' theorem" and saying it is physics. It only becomes physics when it is representing something physical (i.e. from the universe) likewise "kote gaishi" only becomes aikido if there is 'harmony'.

My 2 bits.

And kokyu nage without kokyu power is still kokyu nage because otherwise we would need a load of more names for the moves and that would be even more confusing than differentiating between a kokyu nage that is light on the kokyu or a kokyu nage "proper".
:D:D

Peace and love budoka

Jo

Re: Is it kokyu-nage if you don't use kokyu-power?
 

Well, I tried to intercept that argument in my original post. If you follow that line of reasoning, there is absolutely no reason to name the application "kokyunage" since you don't need kokyu-power to do it.

I think what really happens is that many westerners learn some Japanese words as names for things. A rei is a bow. A hakama is a black, cool-looking samurai pants. A front-punch is a Tsuki. And so on. Just names. A "kokyu" throw is really just a general name to the vast number of westerners who practice Aikido.

If you push enough, you'll get people who define kokyu, in the sense of kokyu-ryoku , as breath. "Watching the breath". The in-out of breath (that's actually not bad, but it's not complete). Or just "breathing".

The breath and breathing have a lot to do with the power of kokyu, but it's more in the sense that the breathing practice, for instance like Tohei's breathing exercises, develop a kind of power in the body. That's why the power is called "breath" power... it's developed from breath practice. But it's not the core power and you can develop kokyu power, to a certain extent, without spending so much time doing the complementary breathing exercises (although you'll need them if you plan to go very far).

Some people say Kokyu is about "timing". Well, but what "power" isn't about timing? Sure kokyu is dependent upon timing. But that doesn't define kokyu power in itself.

What I'm getting at is that "kokyu" is not just a name applied vaguely to some sort of techniques. It's a defining criterion of those techniques. If, as some people suggest, the defining criterion is not really necessary, then it's pointless calling it a "kokyunage". Call it what you want. It seems that many people in Aikido simply define things like they want to anyway and claim that it's "just as valid" because they "feel it" so strongly. ;)

But at some point in time the question arises about the people who claim to love and cherish Aikido as Ueshiba's art. If they care so much, why do they just shrug when others of the community treat Aikido like a New Age plaything? :straightf Exactly the point I was making. What throw in Aikido is NOT a kokyu throw? Except for some of the "ki throw" category, of course, but they're a special case of "aiki", regardless.

So if a real kokyunage has to have real kokyu in it, how dependent is Aikido on having ki/kokyu skills? It's the basic building block from all things stem.

Best.

Mike Sigman

Re: Is it kokyu-nage if you don't use kokyu-power?
 

Whats in a name? kokyu is kokyu and labels are labels, the two have little to do with one another in reality.

Mike

Re: Is it kokyu-nage if you don't use kokyu-power?
 

I think your personal perspective is dealt with in the first two paragraphs of my previous post.

Regards,

Mike Sigman

Re: Is it kokyu-nage if you don't use kokyu-power?
 

I hesitate to step in here, but against my better judgement...

I would offer that sometimes "big" terms like "kokyu" can indeed take on specific "smaller" meaning. Putting aside any value judgment on that, I'll offer an example from my sword ryu-ha. In almost every kata, after the final cut, we have a small movement before the chiburi where the sword is pushed forward a few inches. This is a very specific movement, the tip cannot raise or lower even though the act of extending the arms will raise the tsuka slightly. The movement also has to be slow like you're stretching through something. This movement is called "zanshin". Now in the general world of budo, "zanshin" has a much bigger meaning than simply extending your sword forward after finishing an (imagined) opponent. Even in our sword line, "zanshin" carries that larger more primary meaning. But it is entirely possible to do "zanshin" (pushing the sword forward) correctly without any "zanshin" (larger remaining mind). Conversely, one could do "zanshin" (pushing the sword forward) incorrectly while maintaining amazing "zanshin" (remaining mind).

Well, that's actually how the naming came about in the first place, different students of Ueshiba just started calling things by different names to remember them, so it's very difficult to associate name with (Ueshiba's) intended lesson. By all accounts, OSensei didn't really name them. The effects of this can be seen in all of the different names that different lineages call things. Many of the "kokyunage" throws that we did at my last Aikido dojo had different more specific names at my first Aikido dojo (zemponage, sayonage...). At my first Aikido dojo, kokyunage referred almost exclusively to a single specific throw. There was not a very big movement from nage to finish the throw, and nage was expected to exhale forcefully at the same time as the throw. But as you and Lynn pointed out, it's become a rather catch all term, generally for non-kansetsu waza throws.

Well the problem is that Aikido had taken on a life of its own long before OSensei had even died. One could actually make the argument that OSensei's Aikido (even his vision of Aikido) began and ended with him. I believe Aikido today is more a representation of his student's (and very significantly his son's) vision of Aikido than it ever was his. A lot of folks don't really like to even hear that though.

To go back and answer your initial question however, "can kokyu-nage be done without kokyu?" I would have to ask, how do you define kokyu? Please don't reply that you've been perfectly clear about that in the past and that it's been well covered, or that we should all understand that already or we're not worth talking to. You seem to be making the assertion that "kokyu" is a well understood and specific concept in Asian martial arts. If so, please do me the favor of offering your definition (or your paraphrased version of a definition) so that we can speak more clearly to each other. You spent some time in your post discussing how many people (seemingly incorrectly or incompletely) understand/define kokyu, but I don't really see your version. Until I know what you mean by kokyu, I don't know how I could respond.

Re: Is it kokyu-nage if you don't use kokyu-power?
 

That's fine, Chris, that you "have to ask" that question, but that's not the original question. In the post of mine that you're actually quoting from, I define the "breath" and "timing" issues that are a part of kokyu, but not the core power. The core power is going to be the trained skill of jin, or more generally "ki", as is shown very repeatedly in Tohei's "ki tests". That should be enough of a definition for you to go on and make your point. If you don't think the core power being shown by Tohei is a necessity for a throw to be a kokyu throw, you have the option of saying it publicly.

Mike Sigman

Re: Is it kokyu-nage if you don't use kokyu-power?
 

Well I can certainly understand why you'd think that based on my post, but you're wrong I think.

I'll elaborate and explain why I think that (boredom warning, sorry can't be helped). I spent a year studying biological classification at the Natural History Museum in London. There is probably nothing more convoluted, complicated or blurry in its essence than a species, there are hybrids, there are sub-species, convergent forms, out-groups, physiological classifications, genetic classifications, cladistics versus phylogentic points of view. All to be considered when deciding what the official name of a species should be. As an example to show you how befuddling it all is, consider that the Orang Utan has two recognised sub-species (Bornean and Sumatran) these two sub-species are genetically more distinct from one another than Humans and Chimps, and humans and chimps aren't even in the same genus, let alone the same species. I still don't know what that's all about except to say that an illogical exception seems to have been made for great apes and chimps should probably be considered to be very primitive humans (and therefore be bestowed with all legal human rights).

In the course of my MSc studies I came to the conclusion that there simply is no such thing as a species, it is an invention of the human mind (I'm by no means the first to argue this point, Darwin refused to define a species in his famous work for some of the reasons I've already mentioned) for us to use and communicate with. The human mind has a nasty habit of pigeon holing and classifying parts of things which are actually continuously varying phenomenon. It just seems to be how our brains work.

Taxonomic names also take after a defining criteria. Ever see a name like Lutra lutra or Meles meles? These are examples of the genus being named after its defining species (in this case otters and badgers respectively), in other words someone said that all animals that look like a badger belong in the badger group. Just as someone said all throws that look like this belong in a kokyu group. Now maybe they were defining it by what it looks like on the outside or maybe they were defining it by what it is on the inside, either way is valid depending only on the importance placed on various characteristics. So, just as one taxonomist may argue that a specific feature of a claw is a more important characteristic than something else, you can argue that Mike Sigman's interpretation of kokyu is a more defining aspect than something else. Ultimately though, there is never any right or wrong, there is only opinion and more learned opinion, and its up to you to decide who you think is the wiser when talking about these things.

I think kokyunage and other terms are similar issues. Just replace the word species above with the word technique. All aikido requires the use of kokyu as you said yourself, so in a sense all aikido is kokyunage. It only depends on how you choose to label things. You can call it kokyunage even if it has no kokyu in it as it is in the end only a label. Just as if I felt like it, I could call you Susan instead of Mike and it wouldn't change who you are. If however you wanted to learn kokyu, well that is a different story, and you'd probably find your use of language changing to accommodate your newer understanding. But even then it still wouldn't be any more than a convenient label. If you want to communicate kokyu as an idea then language becomes more important, but that's not a function of the label, it's a function of the context in which the communication is taking place. Talking about kokyu in one of your workshops would be more meaningful than talking about it elsewhere, but there is no reason you can't use the same label elsewhere, just depends on what you understand by the word kokyu. If you know more about it it'll mean more to you. If you don't then its just a bit of Japanese that means throw the guy like this.

Labels are labels alone, they are not the essence of the thing they represent, just a convenient tag for enabling communication between people. The sky is blue because we've chosen to call it blue, no other reason.

Apologies for the waffling on. Its an interesting question just not sure exactly how to answer it effectively at present :)

Best

Mike

Re: Is it kokyu-nage if you don't use kokyu-power?
 

Irimi nage without irimi is called "kokyu nage" :D

(Sorry, couldn't resist!)

Re: Is it kokyu-nage if you don't use kokyu-power?
 

In that case, everything is Aikido and there is no right way to do it. That's the problem with your relativism... you don't stop and think what the full implications of it are. In fact, there is no such thing as "Aikido", it's simply Daito Ryu, if you want to go by the trendy idea of relativism. It's pretty simple, despite all the attempts to say "everything is kokyu; it means what you want it to mean", etc. Either you know what kokyu is or you don't. Tohei's "ki tests" are classic examples of the core of kokyu-ryoku... that's why he teaches them and why they are considered the essential of Aikido technique. But hey, I'm quite well aware that a lot of people don't understand that fairly simple point and are going to argue without a care to what the argument does for them in the public arena. I think that's as it should be, TBH.

Regards,

Mike Sigman

Re: Is it kokyu-nage if you don't use kokyu-power?
 

Mike,
Please define kokyu-power.

Re: Is it kokyu-nage if you don't use kokyu-power?
 

I'm afraid I'm missing the distinction, you asked:
and I paraphrased:
Those seem to roughly equivalent to me, perhaps I made a mistake by using the quotes, I was simply trying to isolate the question at hand, not put words in your mouth. Or is there a distinction that you feel need to be made between your initial inquiry and my paraphrase?

You seem to be making the point that there is a general confusion in Aikido circles about what "kokyu" actually is, but then expecting us to all answer your simple (and legitimate) question without offering a standard definition of "kokyu" that we can all refer to. I would really appreciate it if you could offer that. I understand that you have talked about this a lot, but if the concept is as clear and universal as you seem to be implying then it should be fairly simple for you to offer that. If I read you correctly, you seem to be saying that kokyu is a combination of timing, breath and jin is that correct?

Re: Is it kokyu-nage if you don't use kokyu-power?
 

Not really. I'll give another example. Before the advent of cladistics Linnean taxonomy was the primary method of classification of living things, i.e. Kingdom, class, order, family, genus species. all things had to fit into those boxes and were boxed acording to physical characteristics alone. Along came cladistics and swept that away by ignoring the boxes and insisting that naming reflected evolutionary pathways. Until that time the taxonomic question of what is kokyunage was decided by the guys who had the greatest scientific reputation. Cladistics levelled the playing field and is a more scientific way of doing things. I don't think you've got the cladistics of aikido going for your argument at present IMO (apologies again for the nerdy biological stuff, but its something I know a lot about and so I tend to think in those terms).

Put it this way, people used to decide that x characteristic was more important that y characteristic and so it was a defining feature. When asked to justify why x was more important the answer was invariably 'cos i said so and I get more research grants than you'. You would have it that the Mike Sigman interpretation of kokyu is more important than other interpretations of kokyu and therefore your ideas behind the name are those which should define the name. Now I happen to agree with you, but you don't have any definitive neutral framework for saying that your interpretation of kokyu is more important than anyone elses (unless you wish to use your lengthy posts upon the subject here and elsewhere, but I wouldn't accept that scientifically and I don't think you would either). So that leaves us in the position that even though I agree with you there is no neutral methodology to allow you to definitively state that the Mike Sigman interpretation of kokyu is more important than anyone elses. Therefore we're back to what I said before, its just a name and a label, more important is how you use it and in what context.

Best

Mike

Re: Is it kokyu-nage if you don't use kokyu-power?
 

Sure, but the core is the jin. Or the "ki", if you want to be vague about it. What Tohei showed in his Ki Tests. But I've already said that a couple of times in this thread.

Do you think a kokyunage is a kokyunage if it doesn't have the type of power shown in Tohei's "ki tests"?

That should simplify it for you so you can answer with a yes or no.

Mike Sigman

Re: Is it kokyu-nage if you don't use kokyu-power?
 

Plonk! Back on my ignore list.

Re: Is it kokyu-nage if you don't use kokyu-power?
 

Oh mike...
...could you imagine that we agree with your definition of kokyu-nage, but still stick to the widely spread meaning it has more or less to the rest of the people?

We have all our little fights against windmills...

One hint: Read the interview with Tissier
http://dublinaikido.com/wp/2008/02/2...h-dan-aikikai/
...and maybe you can understand that it might be OK to start training without ki and kokyu...

Re: Is it kokyu-nage if you don't use kokyu-power?
 

I love this post Mike. This illustrates a great point. We often think our perspective is right because the perspective is ours. This fervor makes it hard to see the from other people's perspectives, especially if, historically, we are usually correct. Just because you are the protagonist of your story doesn't mean you are the protagonist of everyone else's. If I spend years working on the form and pattern and external details of kokyu nage without super-double-secret kokyu power, and that work makes me a better person or helps me be a part of a wonderful community, then the work is both valid and valuable, despite being incomplete, weak, or even utterly useless for battle. Is that work "aikido" because koky nage is an aikido technique and I am wearing a hakama in an aikido dojo? I believe so.

Re: Is it kokyu-nage if you don't use kokyu-power?
 

Erm...the gist of that interview was that Tissier doesn't know or have Ki/Kokyu skills, which is even more troubling if you ask me.

Re: Is it kokyu-nage if you don't use kokyu-power?
 

Hmmm... if I stick close to the words I would say:
A kokyu-nage which has the type of power shown in Tohei's ki-tests is NOT a kokyu-nage. It is something you should name ki-nage (e.g.)

Re: Is it kokyu-nage if you don't use kokyu-power?
 

lol, I'll try to contain my disappointment :D