Thread: Aikido attacks.
View Single Post
Old 02-06-2012, 10:27 AM   #21
jonreading
 
jonreading's Avatar
Dojo: Aikido South
Location: Johnson City, TN
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,209
United_States
Offline
Re: Aikido attacks.

Quote:
Graham Christian wrote: View Post

...So in summary I am saying the following:

1) Those attacks generally called hanging the arm out by the ill informed are correct as Aikido attacks.

2) The attacks in Aikido, namely the strikes, are done so for a reason and the way of striking in other arts is different for a reason.

3) Whether done at 3 miles per hour or fifty, with great power or without, it all fits the basic reason.

4) When it therefore looks 'unmartial' or indeed unreal then the majority of times that is due to not knowing or recognising this reason by the onlooker.

Thoughts?

Regards.G.
1. Attacks that provide a clear line and provide nage with energy for interaction are not incorrect. The ability to provide that attack with limitation to the [over]extension of uke and the ability to withdraw or continue the attack in another direction is a direct reflection on uke's competence in martial engagement. While not wrong, I think it is better to advocate that uke's who are limited in their ability to continue an attack should work to improve that deficiency.

2. Strikes in all martial are are generally intended to strike the opponent and solicit a response. The limitation of nage to deal with a stylized attack is a reflection of his competency in martial engagement. Again, saying that aikido people do not have to be competent to deal with stylized attacks from other arts is not wrong, but I would advocate that aikido people should learn to deal with any kind of attack.

3. No. Here I think we have difference. Any attack must posses intent, commitment, power and speed. You can vary the amounts of each, but an attack that lacks these traits would not solicit a response from a competent martial artist. If your attack does not solicit a response then it is not a provocation.

4. I am not sure I know what this means. There is a level of complexity that may confuse observers, much like a magic trick to the unlearned magician. However, to a competent martial artist there should be some expectation for that observer to reverse-engineer the demonstration to ascertain what is going on. I am not sure claiming that if you witness a feat that does not appear to be sound martial technique, then you just don't know what is going on.

Aikido is a specialization art, not doubt about it. I think for hobbyists and passionate enthusiasts you can get through without a martial education and exposure to sister arts (and there educational experiences). However, how could more education be harmful? If you can perform aikido on an incompetent uke, why would you not try to perform aikido on a competent one?

This is not budo as I understand it, and it certainly limits the type of training you can enjoy. This posts almost reads like it is excusing poor uke waza and justifying why nage should feel they are receiving a complete training experience. What training is there in throwing someone who is incapable of stopping me?

The observation I make for "poor attacks" in aikido is that they are indicative of a disjointed, unbalanced movement incapable of soliciting a response from the intended target. "Limp arm" is a symptom of a poor attack.

The problem aikido faces with sister arts is that the distance and timing are different. The ability to respond to attacks from other arts is linked to the ability to adjust our distance and timing. Weapons work is one of the methods aikido people use to understand the necessity to alter our timing and distance for different interactions.

I think the subsequent follow-up post to the initial post uses "bobbing and weaving". A boxer bobs and weaves to create an opening to strike or defend (or perhaps a jab). The inability to accelerate our timing to the speed of a boxer is a reflection on our ability, not a denigration of the boxer's stylized attack.

Another example used in the follow-up post is that of a swordsmen's cut. The inability for aikiken to accelerate our timing to defend against an initial cut and then the second cut is a reflection of our sword skills, not our partner's ability to quickly perform multiple cuts.

If you want to advocate that aikido starts with the basics of dealing with stylized [aikido] attacks, fine. But I think we need to be careful about stating that all you need to deal with in aikido are stylized [aikido] attacks. I use my aikido far more dealing with verbal attacks than I do physical ones. Unless your dojo practice shouting at each other about money, or apologizing to your spouse, or confronting your boss, then I think we need to be saying "aikido is about dealing with any attack." This is budo as I understand it.

http://youtu.be/3CGMWlXosp4
This reminded me so much of this thread...OMG
  Reply With Quote