AikiWeb Aikido Forums

AikiWeb Aikido Forums (http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/index.php)
-   General (http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=1)
-   -   "Fighting does not work in Aikido" (http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4793)

thisisnotreal 12-23-2003 10:42 AM

"Fighting does not work in Aikido"
 
Greetings!

I was re-reading an old thread called "Aikido does not work at all in a real fight" in the general secion...which is where J. DeLucia (i.e. Aikidog), as mentioned in the recent "What the Hell?" thread, is also being discussed.

In this section I found this exchange with the Aikidog himself:

---------[snip]-----------

LYLE BOGIN:
Quote:

Perhaps the issue is that fighting does not work in Aikido.
JASON DeLUCIA:
Quote:

lyle bogin,truer words were never spoken.of course it is necessarily true that aikido must be competent for defense ,and by it's thearetic basis it is the perfect martial art simply because if you only move evasively the enemy will not be able to attack ,as has been my experience when i first began to apply these principles in a professional fighting ring ,i noticed that the opponent would withdraw and only comense when i would engage offensively ,which is the antithesis of the art.once you violate the principle you lose the phenomena,but then i evolved into ''suigetsu''and ''awase ho'' made sense .infact'' awase ho'' is gate way to ''take- musu ''.
---------[snip]-----------

So my question is:

Could anyone please explain, comment or expound on this (and it's validity):

" once you violate the principle you lose the phenomena,but then i evolved into ''suigetsu''and ''awase ho'' made sense .infact'' awase ho'' is gate way to ''take- musu ''. "


I have been studying the idea takemusu aiki, but do not understand suigetsu or awase ho (i.e. and what they really mean, and how to work with them.)

Thank You.

Curiously yours,
josh


p.s. I'm not intending to infer that I *have* figured out takemusu aiki. ;)

Eric Joyce 12-23-2003 11:28 AM

Re: "Fighting does not work in Aikido"
 
Quote:

josh phillipson (thisisnotreal) wrote:
Greetings!

So my question is:

Could anyone please explain, comment or expound on this (and it's validity):

" once you violate the principle you lose the phenomena,but then i evolved into ''suigetsu''and ''awase ho'' made sense .infact'' awase ho'' is gate way to ''take- musu ''. "

Good question. My gut tells me he is just quoting something Ueshiba had said, I could be wrong however. The defintion of Takemusu is: AIKI which gives birth to martial techniques. An expression coined by Morihei UESHIBA to refer to the highest level of aikido where one is capable of spontaneously executing perfect techniques.

So..is he saying that he has found the gateway to executing perfect techniques? Maybe I am missing something here.

Bronson 12-23-2003 02:33 PM

From the David Brent Wolfe Dictionary of Martial Art Terms

Sui getsu means moon reflected in the water. A practitioner's mind should trained to be like water, reflecting the moon without distortion. The water remains still and unaffected by the reflection of the moon. Likewise, the warrior's mind should remain still and unaffected by actions happening around him.

Sui getsu means maintaining a constant fighting distance from an opponent by adjusting the distance every time the opponent moves. This means staying unapproachable, like the reflection of the moon in still water.



Awase means joining together. It was also used to describe the games and amusements of the aristocracy. It comes from awaseru, meaning to meet together.

Ho means method.

To me it sounds like he's basically saying that once he understood how to use proper distance, perhaps both mental and physical, blending became much easier.

Bronson

p.s. Didn't someone determine that it wasn't actually Jason Delucia on that thread? Wendy, is it possible to find out?

Don_Modesto 12-23-2003 04:23 PM

Quote:

Bronson Diffin (Bronson) wrote:
Sui getsu

I think in their video, Aikido in Training, the Cranes use this term to refer to initiating an attack. This is where NAGE actually directs a blow at UKE precipitating UKE's responding SHOMEN at which point NAGE takes down UKE.

Confusing enough?

wendyrowe 12-23-2003 07:44 PM

Bronson,

It really was Jason DeLucia posting on those other threads about a year ago (someone doubted it at the time).

He even remembers the discussions.

Bronson 12-24-2003 02:30 AM

Quote:

Wendy Rowe (wendyrowe) wrote:
It really was Jason DeLucia posting on those other threads about a year ago (someone doubted it at the time). He even remembers the discussions.

Ok, glad that's settled. For what it's worth I enjoyed his posts. He should do so more often.
Quote:

Don J. Modesto (Don_Modesto) wrote:
Confusing enough?

Not nearly :confused:

Bronson


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:11 PM.

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