Quote:
Erick Mead wrote:
Who said "move beyond?" All that analysis goes into things like windage in sniping and time-on-target in artillery, and many many others -- but they all resolve to "Blow the bastard to kingdom come."
Now the question is one of efficiency and with efficiency comes minimization of NECESSARY violence. I don't need refined striking to destroy a person with blunt force damage -- a car does just fine. Element of surprise, too.
On the other hand if I wish to have effect with minimal damage refinement is the only course, and analysis is necessary to remove the unessential dross.
|
What you say is perfectly true here - I can easily concede. But, my point is this: What almost always goes hand in hand with seeking a refinement with or through formula (even if that formula is thought to come after a practical development) is not only a minimal damage or a minimal effort (with maximum effect) but also a minimal amount of time actually training in such developments.
As a result, where, for example, it has been postulated and/or even stated that Aikido is 99% striking or atemi, no dojo I have ever been to even comes close to actually practicing striking even 50% of the time. Instead, what you have are folks relying on formulas, deeper understandings, etc., that are all or often very true, but tend to suggest or support that folks are actually practicing striking WITHOUT striking, or that they could strike if they wanted to, etc., so they don't need to, etc.
Contrast this with your average Karate dojo...? Not sure if they would utter a phrase like "99% striking," but granting that they don't need to, while you may have some formulas regarding the tactics and strategies of striking, you don't often see, "Σ F= dp/dt [momentum (p) time (t).]" What you do see instead is folks doing a hell of a lot of striking. Additionally, you see the instruments of striking development (sparring, bags, etc.) and you see them being used.
When I say "move beyond," this is what I am referring to, this kind of strange jump in practice that at some level seems very related to an over-analyzation of striking, where what often seems the only real thing being supported is a lack of actual striking practice.
Let me try and be clearer: When an analysis more supports folks practicing less than practicing more, I am suggesting that one has an over-analysis, one that goes beyond the pure, simple, and reliable position of just hit the f*****. The reason is this: When you don't have much to say, you got a lot left to do.
If folks want to get a whiff of what I'm trying to talk about, before anyone answers with "strikes are in all my techniques, even if I don't throw them" or "learning how to throw is conducive to learning how to strike," etc., (which are not true), please just truthfully answer the following questions:
1. Out of an hour training session, how many minutes are dedicated purely to striking practice?
2. What strikes do you practice regularly?
3. Does your dojo own heavy bags, kicking shields, focus mits, makiwara, etc.?
4. Does your dojo use such equipment as often as it does not, more than it does not, less than it does?
5. Do you practice sparring in your dojo? How often?
6. Do you consider your dojo an average Aikido dojo?
Granted there is much more to striking that this, but in all the Aikido dojo I have ever trained at as a deshi, taking all of them as one, just with these questions, here is what my answers would look like:
1. None
2. None regularly, but occasionally we threw an upper-cut or middle knuckle strike to the head area (various targets) or the ribs.
3. Only one dojo owned (only) makiwara.
4. The only dojo that owned makiwara used much less than the mat was used.
5. No, never.
6. Yes.
In my opinion, according to the larger martial arts world, answers like these cannot support the position that striking is really part of Aikido practice (which is different from whether it should be or could be) - not at least currently, and not outside of Aikido's analysis and formulas of or for striking.