AikiWeb Aikido Forums

AikiWeb Aikido Forums (http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/index.php)
-   General (http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=1)
-   -   back to basics, punch (http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showthread.php?t=21884)

Andrew Macdonald 10-19-2012 08:06 AM

back to basics, punch
 
how many people have you met in aikido (that have only studies aikido) that can deliver a good solid punch

phitruong 10-19-2012 08:48 AM

Re: back to basics, punch
 
i am waiting for the aiki skirmish to flare up in less than 10 posts. waiting.....waiting.....waiting.....

ps. not many

aiki-jujutsuka 10-19-2012 08:58 AM

Re: back to basics, punch
 
I remember the Steven Seagal documentary 'the path beyond thought' in which one of his close training partners talks about honesty in training, referring to strikes. This is an issue too in AJJ, punches and strikes must be delivered with honesty, meaning realistically and not weakly. Whenever I train and I have to punch I do my best to aim for the person's face and while I pull the punch to a degree, for safety reasons, I try and make it a realistic attack. I'd personally like more training on the different kinds of strikes using the different knuckles on the fingers. I've got a book at home on Hakko Ryu Jujutsu, which includes the various strikes but we don't seem to practice all of them at my club.

Sometimes though we're taught not to punch but just to apply bodyweight through the knuckle and this against your ribs, underneath your armpits is incredibly sensitive and painful. I think a couple of pinpoint atemis to the ribs would take the fight out of alot of people.

Walter Martindale 10-19-2012 10:24 AM

Re: back to basics, punch
 
I can deliver a good punch. Lemonade, ice, vodka, and a few other ingredients... However, in the context of this forum/thread, I'm fairly sure my knuckle sandwiches would be pretty soggy. Most of the Aikido folk with whom I've practiced and who haven't actually trained in a "striking" format are also quite likely not great at punching.
Cheers,
W

Belt_Up 10-20-2012 02:45 PM

Re: back to basics, punch
 
Quote:

Andrew Macdonald wrote: (Post 317522)
how many people have you met in aikido (that have only studies aikido) that can deliver a good solid punch

The easiest way to find out is let them punch you in the face.

Let us know how that goes.

Krystal Locke 10-20-2012 11:17 PM

Re: back to basics, punch
 
About as many folks as I have encountered "on the street" who can throw a good solid punch.... I notice that there's often a big diff between a punch that freaking hurts or would knock someone the hell out vs a "correctly" done punch from a martial art. I also notice that a whole boatload of mma knockouts come from very unclean, very out-of-alignment, totally telegraphed but from an unexpected angle, unorthodox punches.

Dave de Vos 10-21-2012 02:53 AM

Re: back to basics, punch
 
Quote:

Krystal Locke wrote: (Post 317610)
About as many folks as I have encountered "on the street" who can throw a good solid punch.... I notice that there's often a big diff between a punch that freaking hurts or would knock someone the hell out vs a "correctly" done punch from a martial art. I also notice that a whole boatload of mma knockouts come from very unclean, very out-of-alignment, totally telegraphed but from an unexpected angle, unorthodox punches.

I only trained in kyokushin for half a a year, so my striking art experience is limited, but I think you're right. I also wonder about "correct martial art" punches. IME, some details are different from art to art. Particularly the use of the shoulder seems to differ. Also, some of the differences may be attributed to gloves (big / small / no gloves).

wxyzabc 10-21-2012 07:03 AM

Re: back to basics, punch
 
Hya Andrew

Where I come from almost everybody can throw a good solid punch...including the women, after a beer or two. Spend time in the dojo though and you're usually fairly safe. We don't tend to punch each other ^^

All the best

Lee

lbb 10-21-2012 10:06 AM

Re: back to basics, punch
 
Why would you expect people to be proficient at a skill they haven't been trained in?

Krystal Locke 10-21-2012 11:11 AM

Re: back to basics, punch
 
I have never seen a pure judoka do a good, solid spinning back kick. And I can't even imagine a capoeristra with anything like a decent hadaka-jime.

My cat is a very flawed dog, since he has such a lousy bark.

lbb 10-22-2012 12:17 PM

Re: back to basics, punch
 
Quote:

Krystal Locke wrote: (Post 317629)
My cat is a very flawed dog, since he has such a lousy bark.

Love it. Absolutely love it.

This is a classic that should be enshrined next to the Circus Ponies, IMO.

phitruong 10-22-2012 03:33 PM

Re: back to basics, punch
 
Quote:

Mary Malmros wrote: (Post 317625)
Why would you expect people to be proficient at a skill they haven't been trained in?

why don't they? we spent half of our time in aikido attacking, why don't we be proficient with attacks? if we are not, then aren't we wasting half of our time?

Krystal Locke 10-22-2012 03:55 PM

Re: back to basics, punch
 
What is proficient in this context? Am I looking to shatter someone's cheekbone when I punch my training partner in the face? Am I training to defend against someone who is standing in kibadachi throwing gyakuzuki?

Marc Abrams 10-22-2012 03:58 PM

Re: back to basics, punch
 
Quote:

Phi Truong wrote: (Post 317701)
why don't they? we spent half of our time in aikido attacking, why don't we be proficient with attacks? if we are not, then aren't we wasting half of our time?

+1..... Let me see...... I run a school where I don't teach proper/good attacks so that my students can learn good responses to feckless attacks so that I can properly train my students to handle themselves in real-life conflicts...:eek: NAH!

Practice is 100% of the time. That means attacking properly, responding properly and everything else before, in-between and after.

Marc Abrams

Michael Varin 10-23-2012 03:41 AM

Re: back to basics, punch
 
Quote:

Phi Truong wrote: (Post 317701)
why don't they? we spent half of our time in aikido attacking, why don't we be proficient with attacks? if we are not, then aren't we wasting half of our time?

I was taught, and it seems borne out in my experience, that if you don't take the role of uke seriously you are missing more than half of the training.

As I reflect on this over the years, I continue to find it true on many levels.

The techniques we learn as uke are probably more useful and more practical in many situations than, and often serve as a bridge to the more glorified techniques from nage's side of the practice, and are most definitely part of aikido.

Whether "attack" is a part of aikido is a whole other discussion.

phitruong 10-23-2012 06:02 AM

Re: back to basics, punch
 
Quote:

Krystal Locke wrote: (Post 317702)
What is proficient in this context? Am I looking to shatter someone's cheekbone when I punch my training partner in the face? Am I training to defend against someone who is standing in kibadachi throwing gyakuzuki?

proficient meant speed, power, accuracy and control. cracked someone's face meant lack of control, i.e. not proficient. when i punched someone, he or she will know that if they don't do something about it, i will take his/her head off. it will be delivered on target, on time, at the right amount of power, and if need be, can be stop within a cm of the target and i won't give away my balance. at least, that's the goal. and folks who practice with me will do the same. and not just about striking, but when grabbing, the uke's goal is to unbalance nage, without giving away uke's balance.

grondahl 10-23-2012 06:16 AM

Re: back to basics, punch
 
Quote:

Andrew Macdonald wrote: (Post 317522)
how many people have you met in aikido (that have only studies aikido) that can deliver a good solid punch

Many who can deliver a solid punch. Many dojo actually teaches stuff like punching, kicking etc. Aikidoka should be able to deliver a solid punch but itīs unreasonable to expect them to operate at the same level as expert level strikers (boxers etc).

lbb 10-23-2012 06:17 AM

Re: back to basics, punch
 
Quote:

Phi Truong wrote: (Post 317701)
why don't they?

That's the subject of another thread, if you want to start it. The fact remains that if someone isn't taught how to do a thing, and you look down on them for not being able to do it, that reflects poorly on you, not on them.

In that other thread, if you should feel moved to start it, you might consider what you're really trying to accomplish and whether teaching people to punch is the best way to do that. I spent a lot of time in karate learning how to punch, but that was part of the point of that style. If you're studying a style where the ability to punch is incidental, you might ask yourself whether there's a better way to achieve your goal.

Marc Abrams 10-23-2012 08:37 AM

Re: back to basics, punch
 
Quote:

Mary Malmros wrote: (Post 317724)
That's the subject of another thread, if you want to start it. The fact remains that if someone isn't taught how to do a thing, and you look down on them for not being able to do it, that reflects poorly on you, not on them.

In that other thread, if you should feel moved to start it, you might consider what you're really trying to accomplish and whether teaching people to punch is the best way to do that. I spent a lot of time in karate learning how to punch, but that was part of the point of that style. If you're studying a style where the ability to punch is incidental, you might ask yourself whether there's a better way to achieve your goal.

Another passive-aggressive swipe a someone who in good humor, is asking a legitimate question as to why a student should not be taught how to engage in good attacks. Why should this question be viewed as reflecting poorly on the poster?

This post (my opinion) should be the standard for what we look to achieve in a balanced practice:

Quote:

Phi Truong wrote: (Post 317722)
proficient meant speed, power, accuracy and control. cracked someone's face meant lack of control, i.e. not proficient. when i punched someone, he or she will know that if they don't do something about it, i will take his/her head off. it will be delivered on target, on time, at the right amount of power, and if need be, can be stop within a cm of the target and i won't give away my balance. at least, that's the goal. and folks who practice with me will do the same. and not just about striking, but when grabbing, the uke's goal is to unbalance nage, without giving away uke's balance.

It is unfortunate that Mary seeks to attack the messenger when the message being delivered is not only valid, but contributes to a serious discussion as to the nature of our practice.

Marc Abrams

Krystal Locke 10-23-2012 09:12 AM

Re: back to basics, punch
 
I can train for self-defense. I can train for "martial" correctness. I can train to learn to imbalance someone. I can train to win a fight. I can train to beat the snot out of a black belt in any number of styles. Each purpose is best served by a different style of attack.

I can accomodate my nage if he or she is training for one of those purposes. The attack I give will be in line with what they want to work on. But when my body hits the mat, what I will have given them in each case is a puzzle to work out. The pieces of the puzzle are the mass of my fist (and body behind it), the acceleration I impart to the strike through my efficient use of body mechanics and muscle, and the directional vectors my fist follows. The gift of energy is a huge physics word problem.

So yes, I should punch "well", but only as far as my nage's needs are met.

Lots of folk train for self-defense. They are not as served by facing a dispassionate, perfectly performed oi-zuki as they are by an off-balanced, poorly timed haymaker coming out of the deep south. The skill level of attack I see the most of in aikido class is pretty much the skill level of attacks I see when I am bouncing. Crappy punches that will mess a person right the hell up if they land.

The really funny thing is that my dojo is blessed with a godan in aikido who is also pretty far up there in a hard style striking art. His attacks are virtually indefensible. Really hard to stop him from reaching out and touching a person, anywhere, anyhow, anywhen he wants. And I have rarely if ever seen him throw a "correct" punch of the sort this thread is about. A whole different look at power, purpose and alignment. And it looks really wrong to a classic puncher.

I think it boils down to sensei (also ranked well in both aikido and a hard style) not telling me my attacks suck and showing me how to do them better.

phitruong 10-23-2012 10:05 AM

Re: back to basics, punch
 
Quote:

Krystal Locke wrote: (Post 317743)
I can train for self-defense. I can train for "martial" correctness. I can train to learn to imbalance someone. I can train to win a fight. I can train to beat the snot out of a black belt in any number of styles. Each purpose is best served by a different style of attack.

And I have rarely if ever seen him throw a "correct" punch of the sort this thread is about. A whole different look at power, purpose and alignment. And it looks really wrong to a classic puncher.

I think it boils down to sensei (also ranked well in both aikido and a hard style) not telling me my attacks suck and showing me how to do them better.

if you read my posts, i didn't mentioned anything about "correctness" or martial correctness or whatever correctness there is. what i mentioned was "speed, power, accuracy and control". i can punch someone while failing down, getting up, on floor, sitting in a chair, or in some strange drunken chimpanzee pose (why would anyone want to get chimpanzee drunk? they are not happy drunks!). and it will be with "speed, power, accuracy and control".

however, that's not the point of my posts. the point of my post is what is the percentage of average aikido dojo spent working/training on attacks, 5%, 10%, 15%,...what? then consider that we spent half of our aikido time attacking, that's 50% of the time, just in case folks didn't get the percentage part (higher math is my problem too, since i can't count pass 3, but mostly 10).

i don't have problem telling my folks that their punches have problem, but i also proceed to work with them to correct it. things like,

why are you lean so far forward to punch and put yourself in an off-balance position?
why are you stiffen up your body when you punch?
why are you holding your breath?
why is your other hand dangling on the side and not covered your center in case the other person decide to whack you?
why are you lean you head forward before you throw the punch?
why are you lean your head away when you punch and look like you don't really want to hit me?
why are you punch at me instead of through me?
why are you try to miss me?
why are your belt comes untie? aha! you looked down and took your eyes off me, so i whack you! *this did happen but not with me, but i was there and it was pretty funny*.
why did you stop hitting me in the face? keep do it until i can improve with my technique! (told this to a lady in my dojo after i spent quite a bit of time helping her working on the punching bag. i got to stop teaching folks!)
why did you not bring your knife hand up to block my Moe attack? and you need to watch all the Stooges shows!

lbb 10-23-2012 12:21 PM

Re: back to basics, punch
 
Quote:

Phi Truong wrote: (Post 317752)
if you read my posts, i didn't mentioned anything about "correctness" or martial correctness or whatever correctness there is.

Well, the thread started off by talking about "punching", which is what I responded to, and you said "why don't we [train people how to punch]". Now you're talking about "attacks", and there I agree with you. I used to think our dojo would benefit from a makiwara, but I'm not so sure about that any more. What we care about are attacks, not punches per se, and we don't really care about the correctness of the punch as such. I just whacked myself on the nose with a log of wood (you stack three cords and you'll get a little sloppy too); now I've got a cut on the end of my nose and a couple of mashed toes from where I dropped the log. I doubt you'd say it was a martially correct log attack, but it was sure enough effective :D

phitruong 10-23-2012 12:54 PM

Re: back to basics, punch
 
Quote:

Mary Malmros wrote: (Post 317781)
I doubt you'd say it was a martially correct log attack, but it was sure enough effective :D

don't knock the log attack. it's one of the most deadliest (is that even a word?) attack. my shin, toes, fingers and various body parts got caught in such vicious and horrific and did i mention deadliest attack? i used to study aaiiiiieeedo in order to handle such attack. that's why now i am going with prepacked, compressed, in seal package that is ready to light kind of wood. you got to be smart about this stuff, the art of wood war and all. :)

Krystal Locke 10-23-2012 04:10 PM

Re: back to basics, punch
 
It's log, it's log, it's big , it's heavy, it's wood. It's log, it's log, it's better than bad, it's good!

We've all been pwned by something stupid, logs, geckos, whatever. I had a falling stack of maybe 3 or 4 empty potato salad containers mess me right up. Almost needed stitches. Combined weight of those 3 or 4 attackers must have been 200-300

grams.

Marc Abrams 10-24-2012 01:03 PM

Re: back to basics, punch
 
Heck with the logs! It's the fruit I worry about! :eek: Luckily, the British military helps to prepare us for the very, very worst......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piWCBOsJr-w

Marc Abrams


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:01 AM.

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