View Single Post
Old 11-23-2005, 03:13 PM   #40
MM
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,996
United_States
Offline
Re: Article: On the Interdependent Nature of Tactics and Strategies by "The Grindston

Quote:
David Valadez wrote:
You are right, there are no committed attacks being performed in the clips where Sean is the attacker. That is the problem being addressed: How the level of commitment affects the relationship between striking/ground fighting tactics and throwing tactics.

The training environment that day was "do whatever you want." Sean, my deshi, felt his advantage would rely in not committing in his attack. Out of habit, he was trying not to get thrown. This is a result of how subconsciously we as aikidoka are trained to believe that commitment leads to defeat. To unlearn this wrong subconscious view, other crude tactics, tactics that take advantage of the non-committed attacks, were used.
Ah, I see. I never learned it that way. My learning in being uke and/or attacking was to give a good committed attack initially. For training, it helps tore work with energy and it helps uke deal with energy. Now, in randori or in free style with peers, uke makes a committed first attack but after that, it's a matter of who gives the opening and who is able to take advantage of it.

Viewing it like that, I don't mind being uke and dealing with getting thrown because throughout the whole process I'm learning to spot openings, learning to take advantage of openings, and learning when/where/how to move from off-center to centered. Uke's training, therefore, is never about defeat at any time. Uke's training is all about how to take ukemi. In other words, how to deal with energy in a safe manner. If that means falling, that's fine. If it means reversing a technique, that's fine. If it means moving from off-center to centered and able to deliver a good attack again, that's fine. But, half the fun is finding openings and exploiting them.

I never learned that commitment leads to defeat.

Mark
  Reply With Quote