View Single Post
Old 06-24-2014, 07:57 AM   #40
Blue Buddha
Location: Ljubljana
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 31
Yugoslavia
Offline
Re: Introduction + The missing Atemi

Quote:
Cliff Judge wrote: View Post
Hmm.

First of all….Aikido's martial roots were arts were striking with the hand or the foot was a very last-ditch, its-probably-pointless kind of thing. If delivering a powerful blow were incorporated into Aikido, that would be modernization.

There was a technical syllabus that Osensei taught at the Asahi Shimbun in the 1930s that was quite "hard" and involved lots of explicit atemi. The Takumakai maintains this. This is considered by many to be the very golden age of brutal, deadly, ass-kicking (proto-)Aikido, though I have my doubts that this was not basically a temporary digression.
It is my understanding that Daito Ryu Aikijujutsu, being the root of Aikido, was using striking techniques and powerful blows as a norm. I don't see any modernization here. As a quick reference : http://www.blackbeltmag.com/daily/tr...tsu-vs-aikido/

Quote:
Cliff Judge wrote: View Post
It is interesting that you suggest a small person try to hit a large person, because I think most people who begin Aikido training have considered that scenario and find it futile and ridiculous. If not, they take up an art where people spend most of their time learning how to deliver power in a strike. If they are going to hit a larger person, and they can deliver 80% of their strength, what happens when the larger person hits them and delivers 80%? It is still not a great situation to be in.
I believe the opposite to be true. The clubs promote Aikido as a system that is not based on physical strength, therefore less strong people can effectively confront larger people. And I think this is the main, popular (and dangerous) appeal of Aikido. That is, nice people who are not out seeking fights, who are not lifting weights, who are in a far from perfect physical form, who want to learn to protect themselves in a gentle, moral way. Which is fine - if/when it works. I mean ok, even skinny Shaolin monks or skinny muy thai people, can confront large guys, but what training do they have and what strength lies beneath their skinny-ness. Can the same be said about 2-3 year trained lightweight aikidokas?

I am not a proponent of violence, but I am seeking -and questioning - the martial elements of my art, which I do like.

There is a clip on youtube, a jujitsu lightweight fighting a really strong bodybuilder. What I find interesting in it is that the atemis he used, with the intention of disorienting, disrupting the opponent's body/mind, simply work. Of course in his system, he trained to use these strikes.

Quote:
Cliff Judge wrote: View Post
I think you found the real point when you talked learning how to use the body efficiently to deliver power in a strike. You mention proper technique, and aligning the body in a chain from the ground to the fist. Here is something to think about: it takes practice to teach one's body to naturally form that chain and transfer the power. Aikido movement also requires lots of practice to teach one's body to naturally form these types of "chains" to properly execute Aikido technique.
Again, you say "it takes practice to teach one's body" and I am with you on that. It does take a lot of practice and to me it is a very pleasant journey, to learn to align the body properly for the most effective use (here strikes). But, does it ever start? Not in my experience. Not in the experience of other aikidokas I talk with. This "striking effectiveness" has been consciously left out from Aikido. It started with O Sensei (in a sense) and is further watered down, nowadays, by the majority dojos.
Perhaps you are lucky, but I have yet to find a dojo where atemi is taught in relation to the alignment of the body. To be honest, the only corrections to students regarding atemi is in relation to the Jim Carrey video - that is how to "properly" attack so that the nage can react. Not a word about alignment or effectiveness...

Quote:
Cliff Judge wrote: View Post
What if I told you that the physical component - how to train the body to move and transfer power in a certain way - was quite different between turning, blending Aikido movement and an effective, efficient strike? But that this was only the case for a period of ten years or so. And that ultimately there is mental component - one that enters, penetrates, and overcomes - which is common to both types of art?
This is a very nice analogy. I believe so too that after 10 years of "proper" training there is an expansion of understanding of the dynamics involved, solutions etc. Definitely. But please notice that I mention "proper". It is more often the case than not, that illusions are being fed in the dojo environment that are difficult to overcome. Unless someone has an enquiring bug, or a proper 10 year training as you described, or worst a failed self defence by applying things that worked in the dojo.
  Reply With Quote