Thread: Ukemi styles
View Single Post
Old 05-10-2001, 12:39 AM   #14
jimvance
Dojo: Jiyushinkan
Location: Mesa, AZ
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 199
Offline
To start off, I would like to say there are no pat answers for any of these situations, which is why I voted "no resistance". Kata training must be predictable and facilitated by good teachers.

Originally posted by [Censored]
Quote:
I would think that maintaining the connection should be nage's problem at imtermediate/advanced levels. Otherwise there is little opportunity to practice establishing and re-establishing the connection, with someone who likes to break that connection for a tactical advantage.
Nage should always be maintaining connection, at any level. I haven't met anyone who could throw me across the room by looking at me.
I don't think that breaking the connection gives me any advantage, especially if I am the one who has lost my balance. Where I practice, breaking connection while trying to regain my balance often results in competent (and sudden) atemi. The only place breaking connection may be of use is if the nage did not take my balance to begin with.
I don't look at Aikido techniques as "first line of defense" applications. Most of them are "what-ifs", meaning in a "realistic" situation the technique just happens. I may be repeating myself, but just because (in the dojo) you know what the nage will do to you does not mean you get to resist their technique. Why train? Go lift weights. I feel a lot more openings (suki) in my partner's waza when I am relaxed, listening, and not trying to make openings. Sounds like you are blurring the line between kata and randori.
Quote:
If you are concerned with maintaining a connection, wouldn't it be better practice to accept a hard, fast attack and restrain the power in your response, rather than telling uke to try again?
Sure, but not always. There are different ways to approach training. Some days stretching the limits, others listening attentively.
Good questions. I would like to hear some other feedback.

Jim Vance
  Reply With Quote