Deadly Techniques?

I was wondering, are there any techniques that were devised or adapted by o sensei, for aikido, that were designed to kill? I was under the impression that the highest level of aikido was to control the aggressor without causing serious harm? I know they CAN kill, but are they designed to be that way?

Yes, there is a very deadly technique with the name "tenkan'. However, most deadly technique is "a series of tenkans".

Alan Lamb wrote: I was wondering, are there any techniques that were devised or adapted by o sensei, for aikido, that were designed to kill? I was under the impression that the highest level of aikido was to control the aggressor without causing serious harm? I know they CAN kill, but are they designed to be that way?

Are you talking about the spiritual side that Ueshiba created or the physical martial side that he learned from Takeda?

I'll skip the spiritual as it pertains quite a bit of history, historical analysis, and experiences that I don't think can be very well conveyed (just the experiences, not the history) over the Internet.

If you read the accounts of when Tomiki met Ueshiba, supposedly, Tomiki was tossed like a rag doll some sixty different ways. With that kind of control, don't you think it is very highly likely that should Ueshiba have chosen to kill, he could have done so? In various manners from various techniques?

Or some of the accounts of students asking to see a technique again and Ueshiba saying they're all the same?

Or how he pinned Tenryu down and stated it was because of the secret of aiki. If he could do that to Tenryu, don't you think he could have killed him in various ways?

IMO, technique-centric thinking is completely the opposite of Ueshiba's vision of aikido. It was the body skill of Daito ryu aiki that enabled Ueshiba to mature into Takemusu Aiki. It didn't matter what technique Takeda or Ueshiba chose to express their aiki with, it was the actual aiki-built body that was the driving force. And that was what gave them the ability to be lethal in any situation.

And on that very same coin of being lethal, the aiki-built body also gave them the ability to control without doing harm and to live a bit freer in the world, unchained from fears of martial encounters.

On one side, I guess you could view them as a killing sword (setsunin to) in that they could use force of will (or rather aiki) to overpower, immobilize and strike down (kill) an opponent. But by the very same force of aiki, they also had the choice to go inside the opponent's technique and to draw them in or to pass them outward in a controlling manner (katsujin ken). I probably have described this incorrectly and if so, others who have more experience will hopefully correct me.

What is more dangerous than having total control over your opponent(s)?

Ahmad Abas wrote: What is more dangerous than having total control over your opponent(s)?

that and you had lots of beans, cabbage, eggs, cheese, onions, along with curry, a few hours ago then trap your opponent in your hakama.

*phi knows nothing of such vicious technique which also works great against/with bjj*

While others are more elaborate than me - the short answer is yes, all of them. At their core, all martial activities or movements, whether they be hand to hand, weapon against weapon, or any combination thereof, are designed for one thing only; to kill the enemy. Of course, the practice thereof can be modified or limited in some way for other purposes, but the initial design was to kill - and the quicker the better.

Greg

If you read the accounts of when Tomiki met Ueshiba, supposedly, Tomiki was tossed like a rag doll some sixty different ways. With that kind of control, don't you think it is very highly likely that should Ueshiba have chosen to kill, he could have done so? In various manners from various techniques?

Hey Mark,

I would like to read that account, Please post a link, or reference, to where I will find it?

Train well,

Mickey

Mark Murray wrote: If you read the accounts of when Tomiki met Ueshiba, supposedly, Tomiki was tossed like a rag doll some sixty different ways. With that kind of control, don't you think it is very highly likely that should Ueshiba have chosen to kill, he could have done so? In various manners from various techniques?

Are you seriously thinking they were fighting? One thing is to have a choice to kill in deadly fighting, other thing is to have a choice to kill in cooperative practice. Which one are you referring on?

Aikido practice is based on cooperation, so in my opinion there is no serious possibility to develop killing skills.

Michael Gelum wrote: Hey Mark, I would like to read that account, Please post a link, or reference, to where I will find it? Train well, Mickey

Hi Mickey,
If I remember correctly, it was an Aikido Journal article or interview. I'll see if I can dig it up.

Szczepan Janczuk wrote: Are you seriously thinking they were fighting? One thing is to have a choice to kill in deadly fighting, other thing is to have a choice to kill in cooperative practice. Which one are you referring on? Aikido practice is based on cooperation, so in my opinion there is no serious possibility to develop killing skills.

Well, are you talking modern aikido practice and comparing it to Ueshiba's martial practice back when he was actually studying and teaching Daito ryu? Are you saying that Ueshiba back then had to rely upon cooperative practice? That's an interesting theory.

Based upon all the accounts of meetings with Ueshiba during that time frame, I don't think there's much evidence to support that theory, though. But, hey, if you want to prove Shioda, Tomiki, Shirata, Mochizuki, etc were all just being cooperative with Ueshiba, I'd certainly read your research findings.

Or you could read the account of the demo with Hideo Oba. THAT certainly was not overly cooperative.

Best,
Ron

Szczepan Janczuk wrote: Are you seriously thinking they were fighting? One thing is to have a choice to kill in deadly fighting, other thing is to have a choice to kill in cooperative practice. Which one are you referring on? Aikido practice is based on cooperation, so in my opinion there is no serious possibility to develop killing skills.

It is a big mistake to attach your own limitation to those of others. It rarely works out well.

I'd be happy to entertain your efforts Szczepan ( as I continue to do with with others I have met so far- from shodan to shihan, traditional to MMA) in whatever manner of attack you choose; full on freetsyle with weapons or without.
You can do what ever manner of attack you want
I'll do aiki.
We'll see how that works out for ya.

There is a big bad world out there; with people with vastly more developed skills than you may realize. Stating aiki isn't deadly is self-limiting.
Dan

Mark Murray wrote: Well, are you talking modern aikido practice and comparing it to Ueshiba's martial practice back when he was actually studying and teaching Daito ryu? Are you saying that Ueshiba back then had to rely upon cooperative practice? That's an interesting theory.

I believe that Daito ryu practice is strictly codified, means that tori and uke roles are very well defined. They even can't resist, with exception of Sagawa dojo. So I'd call it in fact cooperative practice as opposed to sparring that can be found in judo practice.

Mark Murray wrote: Based upon all the accounts of meetings with Ueshiba during that time frame, I don't think there's much evidence to support that theory, though. But, hey, if you want to prove Shioda, Tomiki, Shirata, Mochizuki, etc were all just being cooperative with Ueshiba, I'd certainly read your research findings.

I don't believe they were allowed to fight back. They had a chance to attack once, and if the attack was not successful, they had to bow and ask to be a student. Maybe after IIWW new students could attack few more times, but still couldn't fight back.

Takeda allowed people to attack freely, he did so at the budokan with several judoka -in front of a large audience, all the while casting insults at them. Needless to say it was not exactly a friendly encounter (not saying I condone that sort of behavior).
There were enough occasions in the various interviews with Ueshiba where men stated they were invited to attack at will.

Secondly, I will say from experience that there is a point where people can attack someone and be so outclassed that they know it instantly and no further proof was needed. I would allow that some of the people who felt Ueshiba and Takeda knew what they were facing- instantly.
Dan

Ron Tisdale wrote: Or you could read the account of the demo with Hideo Oba. THAT certainly was not overly cooperative. Best, Ron

Hi Ron,
We don't really know the details. But do you really believe that ANY Japanese student will fight his teacher in public demo?
From cultural context I'd guess he could attack him a bit stronger that usual, but I think if was quite cooperative.

Dan Harden wrote: It is a big mistake to attach your own limitation to those of others. It rarely works out well. I'd be happy to entertain your efforts Szczepan ( as I continue to do with with others I have met so far- from shodan to shihan, traditional to MMA) in whatever manner of attack you choose; full on freetsyle with weapons or without. You can do what ever manner of attack you want I'll do aiki. We'll see how that works out for ya. There is a big bad world out there; with people with vastly more developed skills than you may realize. Stating aiki isn't deadly is self-limiting. Dan

Hi Dan,
As far as I know you don't practice aikido, nor Daito ryu. However you allow yourself to behave as an authority in both arts. What are you doing here Dan?

I am ranked in both those arts, and I continue to demonstrate Aiki on those who doubt it's potential. Rank has lost all meaning to me, as it rarely equates to genuine skill. In my view I practice aiki...do everytime I step on a mat. Dan

Szczepan Janczuk wrote: Hi Dan, As far as I know you don't practice aikido, nor Daito ryu. However you allow yourself to behave as an authority in both arts. What are you doing here Danr?

Szczepan Janczuk wrote: I don't believe they were allowed to fight back. They had a chance to attack once, and if the attack was not successful, they had to bow and ask to be a student. Maybe after IIWW new students could attack few more times, but still couldn't fight back.

'I remember that O Sensei always had a strong presence... There was a very special atmosphere when he was around. This came from his physical posture - the way he sat, the way he walked, the way he moved around was so beautiful. Never could I see any opening in O Sensei's posture . . . not ever.'

http://www.aikidofaq.com/chiba_interview.html

'O-Sensei used to tell us to strike at him with a bokken at any time. Whenever he stopped and turned to speak to his audience seemed like a good chance to do so, since he wasn't looking our way at all, but even then nobody tried to strike him. He simply had no openings. He wasn't looking at us with his eyes, but we could feel him holding us fast with his ki. It used to make me break out in an oily sweat, so that I could hardly keep a grip on my bokken.

Still, as his opponents we would keep at it, gradually trying to close the distance. Then, for an instant, an opening would appear. O-Sensei created small openings deliberately to help us train our powers of perception. He wouldn't use people who couldn't demonstrate an ability to perceive such openings.

The instant O-Sensei slightly relaxed the intensity of his kokyu power we would rush in with an attack, but he was already gone. For that reason it looked pre-arranged. Actually, O-Sensei was already moving by the time we began our attack. We were just too slow or lacked the ability to perceive it. I find that sort of thing extremely interesting.'

http://www.aikidojournal.com/article?articleID=251

Dan Harden wrote: I am ranked in both those arts, and I continue to demonstrate Aiki on those who doubt it's potential. Rank has lost all meaning to me, as it rarely equates to genuine skill. In my view I practice aiki...do everytime I step on a mat. Dan

I know you practice aiki. But my question was not about aiki or ranks.

Alan Lamb wrote: I was wondering, are there any techniques that were devised or adapted by o sensei, for aikido, that were designed to kill? I was under the impression that the highest level of aikido was to control the aggressor without causing serious harm? I know they CAN kill, but are they designed to be that way?

So, to be clear, the question had to do with whether or not any techniques were shaped by O Sensei with the intent to kill. I'm guessing any changes he made later on in life weren't to this aim, though I have no idea about pre-war stuff. It seems quite possible from what VERY little I know about his earlier years. Shiho nage is one that can kill relatively easily, for example, but I don't know whether or not it was exactly "designed" by O Sensei, or if it was designed for that purpose. I know Sensei Barrish has shaped his shiho nage to be a bit safer...not that that has much to do with the question though.

Szczepan Janczuk wrote: Aikido practice is based on cooperation, so in my opinion there is no serious possibility to develop killing skills.

Why do you suppose that is? I'm guessing you don't mean to imply that a person cannot learn killing skills in a cooperative environment.

Szczepan Janczuk wrote: I know you practice aiki. But my question was not about aiki or ranks.

Hello again Szczepan
Actually your points crossed several talking points (including those two) as you were discussing people of rank, testing others in an established practice, mixed in with a DR method of testing.
I was responding to the general idea or tone presented in this the most recent thread of a frequently asked question about effectiveness and lethality.

a. were/are there deadly techniques
b. did/ does Ueshiba or any modern adepts practice anything that could be considered lethal. FWIW, I really think deadly is a poor choice of concept or model, I think a better example is "Percentage of success under duress in a high stress environment."


On the one hand I think it's best to differentiate "the way of aiki" (I call it aiki...do) from modern Aikido™. Modern Aikido is all over the map and many (not all) agree it is NOT the aiki...do of Ueshiba M. but rather Ueshiba Kisshomaru. Therefore IMO, trying to have an intelligent discussion of how deadly Ueshiba M. supposedly was has little relevance to a discussion of modern aikido.

That said, on the other hand I was bringing up aiki as a very real and deadly (there's that word again, can we agree to highly effective and potentially lethal?) skill in the hands of the right people.

Since the discussion ran the gamut of Takeda-to- Ueshiba, and the means and methods of testing those men used it was fair to defend the approach from past to present.

The past
I think their methods were proven in very real environments, Takeda Killed people (thieves and hooligans who attacked him) and Ueshiba was tested by any number of VERY seasoned men.

The present
There is very little I have seen to convince me of the lethality of modern Aikido™, we can agree on that point. However, the thread crossing the past with the present and aiki with modern waza makes it a muddled mess. The volume of people not really getting it does little to "redefine" what aiki is and was capable of.
The reason I offered myself to demonstrate is that the aiki I practice is solely derived from Daito ryu and Aikido. I wanted to make a clear statement that Aiki -in and of itself- is effective in the extreme, in high stress environments in the modern age, once you walk away from the technical approach and focus on the body. The aiki being discussed from the lineage of Takeda-Ueshiba is indeed powerful enough to be considered lethal and brutally efficient in use in the modern age-were one to have the tenacity to develop the body for aiki, and then have the resolve to train it under stress until they own it.

I think what needs to be addressed and seriously considered is just what Ueshiba stated was deadly in the first place. He discussed strikes and aiki, not detailed techniques. I believe HE knew and differentiated his aiki...out from the technical side of the art. I believe he did so because he knew what the real score was and always would be...The development of aiki for power, and never for the art to be just another form of jujutsu.
Cheers
Dan

Killing and deadly force is pretty easy to do once you have control of the person and can move them and manipulate them to go where you want them to go.

As this is fundamental in aikido, i'd say if you can manage/control folks in this manner...then yeah it is pretty much possible to find deadly force in just about anything. Smashing heads into walls and floors, choking, using knives, sticks and what not are all possibilities.

Of course all this is predicated on the level of skill you possess, and willingness to use it, and of course, timing and luck.

This is near and dear to me right now, as I am instructing this very thing thing over the next few months on a daily basis!

Yes.

I've also heard that electricity, hammers and cars are deadly as well.

Kevin Leavitt wrote: Of course all this is predicated on the level of skill you possess, and willingness to use it, and of course, timing and luck.

Luck is something I've been wondering about. In Kimura's "Transparent Power" it basically said the power differential between Sagawa and anyone else was so large that Sagawa never lost. Didn't matter. Nothing mattered. Aiki body + skills was too strong. .. but... I can't quite reconcile what I think about the everpresence of luck and all that. Any one thing can happen on any given day. Isn't it so?