Defence against hooks

But your question is what is the proper technique for defending against a hook. Maybe go to your sensei and ask what is the proper way to blend?

By all means ask your teacher, but also consider this: would you ask a boxer how to reverse a sankyo?

By all means ask your teacher, but also consider this: would you ask a boxer how to reverse a sankyo?

Ahh yes. I imagine a boxer would say they'd punch the snot out of them. Boxing is not a martial art. Aikido however, is. Martial artists tend to think about these things where as in boxing, tae-bo, or yoga, you learn how to box, burn, or bend better, respectively.

I wouldn't ask a boxer this question because it's not in his realm of knowledge. However, it is in Aikido. I would be fully justified in asking.

But if you ask a boxer, "What would you do if someone tried stepping around to get behind you?" he/she would have an answer.

I believe the big question to ask is,
"When do we start learning to deal with drunken boxing?"

Well, we're not going to be seeing much drunken boxing except from Mr. Chan. So by incorporating boxing, grappling, and tae-bo into our everyday practice, we can be better able to defend ourselves against the average tae-bo black belt on the street.

Aikido is growing. Maybe there is no "kao no hook tsuki waza" but it's all there. There is no set do this, do that. That's what O-sensei means by encompassing the universe. Many of the master have said that you first learn the form or way, then you must remove yourself from the self-imposed bindings that puts on you to truly become free to embody the way.

Umm, I'm not being articulate today, but you get the gist I hope.

Brandon

I just realized what a glaring error I made in my last post.

Well, we're not going to be seeing much drunken boxing except from Mr. Chan.

The time when the majority of altercations take place is happy hour!!

Originally posted by bcole23 I just realized what a glaring error I made in my last post. The time when the majority of altercations take place is happy hour!!

Thankfully the only time I was punched by a drunk, I managed to block both of his haymakers.

Drunks are easier to defend from.

Brandon: Yeah I totally agree with you in the sense that the black belt is just the beginning of your journey. Not that i'm implying there's an end of the journey but just that it's only then can you begin to touch beyond the surface of Aikido.

I will ask my Sensei on Tuesday.

I remembered when I was a little boy and asked him what do you do against kicks. I still can't remember exactly what he did but he just caught my kick and then pressed a nerve point somewhere on my calf and next thing i knew i was on the floor in pain trying not to shout out.

I hope there's no repeat of this Haha Oh man my sensei is a sadist. He must have got it from his friend Fujita.

Ciaoz!

Originally posted by bcole23 Boxing is not a martial art. Aikido however, is.

I am not a boxer, but I would consider boxing a martial art, as much as wrestling or sumo or judo. In western terms, most sport evolved from military training. We see ancient Greek infantry combat still in practice on rugby and American football fields.
People practicing Aikido think they are martial artists, when most are not being martial and a very few are being artists. I really hate the term "martial arts" and how cliche it has become. If you really want to get picky, Aikido is not a martial art (bugei or bujutsu) but a martial way. It is budo, which does not really have a succinct Western translation. Nuff said.
Any good combat system relies on intelligence, feedback, knowing what the other guy is doing. When Aikidoists bring up the subject of boxing, we get real antsy because most good boxers could beat the stuffing out of us. We try to apply wrist grabs and sweeping forehead strikes to someone who moves fast, doesn't mind getting hit a couple of times, and dishes out combination punches. No wonder our "technique rationale" doesn't work. So we talk about ma-ai and timing, like that is going to save our bacon when we are cornered with nowhere to run. Do we train ma ai as if we were cornered with nowhere to run? Get backed into the ropes with someone punching your solar plexus and try to do shihonage. We are at a disadvantage because of training differences. And that is our greatest strength.
Boxing is a sport. There are rules. Like not hitting someone on the back of the head. Like not covering their gloves with yours. Like not biting ears (couldn't resist). Using this as intelligence gains the upper hand against a boxer. Boxers don't know how to fall down very well. Joint locks are not allowed. Foot sweeps and hip throws are illegal.
Here's a strategy against a hook. I am going to get hit using this strategy because boxers are good at hitting things. When I get within striking distance of a boxer, I will cover their hands with mine, maybe as they are taking a swing. I will move quickly or spin him around to get behind him. Then I will use a hadaka jime (naked choke) to subdue him as I drag him to the ground.
Is it Aikido? Not technically. But it isn't boxing either. That is half the battle. Exploiting tactical weakness is the basis of all technique. Creating tactical weakness while exploiting it is real aiki. Kobo ichi.

Jim Vance

Originally posted by jimvance Then I will use a hadaka jime (naked choke) to subdue him as I drag him to the ground.

I'd been planning on suggesting that they "tackle the fothermucker", but your explanation works too.

This is exactly what you need to do. A takedown. Very little style points here and little art to see but effective. I got the impression Reuben wanted some cool wrist lock or throw that sends uke out 10 feet. This ain't going to happen with a trained fighter. From what I understand, the pretty, peaceful ideals of aikido (and other arts) kind of go out the window when you have some trained person that is cooly trying to take your head off. A more budo attitude takes over. Jim makes sense.

Originally posted by Ghost Fox I don't know if this is aikido, but I did it during Jiyu waza (free technique) and the Yudansha seemed to approve. You step into clinch and cover the distance fast. You hug your uke slipping your arms under his. Pivot keeping hara to hara contact and sacrifice throw. Both of you will end up on the ground with nage lying on top of uke. I've seen it done in jujitsu, and Graeco Roman Wrestling. It's feels almost like a hip throw. It catches most people by surprise, but you have to be really committed to entering. **************** Now thats funny

I loved the last couple of posts.... good comments on techinique, and about the whole "boxing and wrestling being martial arts".
As far as strengths of boxers and kickboxers (sorry...don't know anything about wrestling...and it shows) is that they fight extremely well trained, in shape fighters. Anybody can take on an overweight drunk (provided you aren't that drunk either).
If martial arts are about strategy, isn't devising and executing a plan technically part of our art? Just because I do aikido, does it forbid me from coming up with something new? (Then again, every time I think I have, it's either not a good idea, or somebody else thought of it first and does it better ;-) )

Largo

p.s.- on the whole knee attack bit... tangs are aimed for the solar plexus...which is a beautiful place for any atemi

I have a question about saying things along the lines of "well, what we do in class doesn't/won't work 'in the street' " , or that we can't expect to do techniques when faced with a trained boxer or wrester wanting to take us down: (and I probably have the details wrong, someone from Ki Society feel free to correct me ), but on Koichi Tohei Sensei's first tours to the US, when he was introducing the art of Aikido to very large Americans, did he not essentially do randori against multiple (5 or 10??) trained Judoka and/or wrestler (or boxers?) during his demonstrations? How was his Aikido different that it worked against trained attackers who were not chosen as ukes, but rather came to the demo to prove Aikido did not work?

Originally posted by ca I have a question about saying things along the lines of "well, what we do in class doesn't/won't work 'in the street' " , or that we can't expect to do techniques when faced with a trained boxer or wrester wanting to take us down:

It won't work. Kata by definition is prearranged, with a "winner" and a "loser". This is what allows us to train using deadly intent. Even randori is not true to life, since it has a different intent than shiai. Neither are physical conditioning methods used to enhance what nature has given us, which is what founded sport.
I don't think training in budo prepares us directly for combat, that is not its goal. Indirectly it plants the seeds of combative intent and intuition, so that people who practice budo have an extra edge on the minimum prerequisites (strength, quickness, etc.), proportionate to the length of time spent training. In other words, budo training allows us to cheat on nature.
This was the unspoken message in my first post. Aikido does not compare to boxing because it is a martial way, budo, not a martial sport, or even a bujutsu. Mike Tyson is not looking for the Tao, regardless of how many books he read in prison.

(and I probably have the details wrong, someone from Ki Society feel free to correct me ), but on Koichi Tohei Sensei's first tours to the US, when he was introducing the art of Aikido to very large Americans, did he not essentially do randori against multiple (5 or 10??) trained Judoka and/or wrestler (or boxers?) during his demonstrations? How was his Aikido different that it worked against trained attackers who were not chosen as ukes, but rather came to the demo to prove Aikido did not work?

Don't forget that these Americans came to him, and were probably "checked out" beforehand by Tohei's guys. These tours were only fifteen years after the end of WWII, in an America rife with anti-Japanese sentiment. Aikido does have sharp edges and painful joint locks used on judo men changed some minds. My first Aikido teacher learned that in the early sixties. Watch the film "Rendez-vous with Adventure" and compare it to the stories you are hearing. I sure have heard a lot of different ones.

Jim Vance

Originally posted by jimvance It won't work. Kata by definition is prearranged, with a "winner" and a "loser". This is what allows us to train using deadly intent. Even randori is not true to life, since it has a different intent than shiai. Neither are physical conditioning methods used to enhance what nature has given us, which is what founded sport. I don't think training in budo prepares us directly for combat, that is not its goal. Indirectly it plants the seeds of combative intent and intuition, so that people who practice budo have an extra edge on the minimum prerequisites (strength, quickness, etc.), proportionate to the length of time spent training. In other words, budo training allows us to cheat on nature. This was the unspoken message in my first post. Aikido does not compare to boxing because it is a martial way, budo, not a martial sport, or even a bujutsu. Mike Tyson is not looking for the Tao, regardless of how many books he read in prison. Don't forget that these Americans came to him, and were probably "checked out" beforehand by Tohei's guys. These tours were only fifteen years after the end of WWII, in an America rife with anti-Japanese sentiment. Aikido does have sharp edges and painful joint locks used on judo men changed some minds. My first Aikido teacher learned that in the early sixties. Watch the film "Rendez-vous with Adventure" and compare it to the stories you are hearing. I sure have heard a lot of different ones. Jim Vance

Well if you looked at it on the other side of the coin, if these ppl were full of anti japanese sentiment i would think they would have given it their all in trying to beat this so called Japanese master and once again proving that Japanese can be beaten.

I have a question about saying things along the lines of "well, what we do in class doesn't/won't work 'in the street' " , or that we can't expect to do techniques when faced with a trained boxer or wrester wanting to take us down:

I glanced back over my last posts, and I guess it does kinda look like I was saying that a boxer could take down an aikidoka. Trust me, I don't think that at all (if a boxer or a kickboxer could take down an aikidoka that easily I wouldn't let my sensei toss me around like a rag doll ) I've found that things do work...just sometimes not the way we expect.

I'll just want to expand a little on what Largo stated.

What you do in real life situations is going to look nothing like what you do in the dojo. It's similar to the difference between Randori and Waza practice. During a waza uke and I are trying to work on and perfect a particular technique, be it Koshinage or what have you. If you ever watched Randori you almost never see a pure technique being performed. What you see is body movements and concepts coming into play. You see hybrid of wazas, strange mergers of various wazas.

I really don't know what I would do against a boxer, I really don't know what I would do in a fight period (It's been such a long time, and not as angry as I used to be.). Each time that I engage in a confrontation it's completely new. All I can do is keep my maai, try to stay as relaxed as possible with all the adrenaline flowing through my veins. Try to keep the thoughts of choking under pressure out of my head. Be patient, wait for my opening, and launch in with wild abandon.

I do think what you learn in the dojo can work in the street, as long as you remain free flowing and not try to make an attack or defense conform to something you are used to in the dojo.

******

Originally posted by Reuben Ghost Fox: How about against multiple attackers? Wouldn't the falling on the ground make you vulnerable?

I do agree it's not the most ideal position to be in. If you land correctly you're almost in a runner's start pose (lunge), and can get up relatively quickly. I actually performed the technique in randori once when I got caught with an uke being to close to perform a standard waza. The other ukes were so surprise to see their partner fly threw the air that they all leapt back to avoid being hit. The awe continued long enough for me to roll over the uke's body and get into a better position.

Peace and Blessings.

Originally posted by Reuben Kneeing groins seem totally against my philosophy of self defence.

Hmm. I guess you have to really look at how you define self-defense, then. In the dojo, we study for the ideal. In the street, when the feces hit the fan, I believe the best strategy is to be open to ANY strategy that keeps you alive and in one piece.

That said, no, the groin's simply not a good target, I think. But that's a whole 'nother discussion.

More to the topic, first, while studying any traditional budo (including aikido) will give you some great tools that can be adapted to use in self defense, the fact of the matter is that MOST budo is simply not suited to self defense in this day and age.

Good budo training SHOULD teach you excellent timing, control of your space, awareness, stability, movement etc etc etc.

However, most budo is a snapshot, or a series of snapshots out of time.

Traditional attacks in aikido and the attacks you might face today can overlap and can have much similarity, but there are things in each that simply do not.

I know of aikido dojo teaching defense against modern (boxing/street-fighting/etc) attacks, and that's a good thing, but it's something added to the art (not a bad thing, either) and not really part of the core curriculum.

The argument can be made that a 'living' budo must adapt, change, incorporate new ideas and techniques. This line of thought would lead one to examine critically any dojo that ONLY taught the trad. attacking methodoligies.

I believe both sides of that coin are valid. I thing the trad. stuff must be preserved, but that there's no wrong in finding ways to adapt trad. theory and practice to modern situations.

Then, the answer to your question "How to deal with a hook" is to experiment, to build from the basics you already know (and after 8 years should have a solid grasp upon).

ANY attack can be analyzed and deconstructed using the concepts you already know. Then apply those concepts to what you learn about the attack. This presumes of course, that you must learn HOW to throw a proper hook in order to reverse-engineer it and learn to counter it.

A dear friend who's done aikido for many years has recently begun playing with some of us 'dark side' folks and was in his first newaza situation a while back. His partner, a judo sandan, easily pinned him and kept him from doing much but squirming.

He lay there panting and asked the judoka what he was doing wrong. Judoka says "You do aikido, you do very NICE aikido. Just do aikido here."

A light clicked on above the aikidoka's head ... almost visibly! He started applying the principles and ideas he already knew.

While he did not (indeed, likely might not ever) instantly defeat the judoka, he DID find the going much easier and gave back pretty well. He even got the judoka on his back, pinned him and kept him down for a considerable time. Since then, his newaza has gotten much better.

It is impossible that samurai had nothing against any tom dick and harry's hook? I don't believe i'm the first to have thought of this and it is rather absurd if a well established art such as Aikido was found to be incomplete?

Ehh. Tough question. Systems of jujutsu used by Japan's warrior class and later by Japan's middle and commoner classes did include a wide range of attack and defense concepts.

Understand that the average foot soldier probably was handed a spear and his drill instructor said "Sharp end goes that way, blunt end goes this way, don't break ranks, don't stick your buddy" and sent him off on his merry way. Any additional training was of the life-or-death variety or possibly occured back in the barracks comparing survival notes with his buddies.

Only in times of peace did they have enough time to really do any serious martial arts study.

The higher class the samurai/bushi, the more opportunity he had to train in an organized fashion. And even then, the better-trained samurai corss-trained extensively.

Understand that what you are studying in aikido is, while a discrete whole, still largely incomplete in terms of 'what the samurai did'. Ueshiba and his students removed much and replaced much that was present in older jujutsu systems he had studied. Same thing in judo or other systems.

Why? Many reasons. Some of them pertaining to the same things I talked about above. Times changed, techniques were adapted, changed, dropped, added. No system of budo is completely free of that sort of evolutionary shift.

And none is fre of the process of synthesis, of having bits grafted on from other ryuha.

For a very nice overview of 'what the samurai did', in terms of jujutsu, read Serge Mol's excellent book "Classical Fighting Arts of Japan" as well as Diane Skoss' koryu budo series and Karl Friday's "Legacy of the Sword".

Chuck

Originally posted by jimvance ...get picky, Aikido is not a martial art (bugei or bujutsu) but a martial way. It is budo, which does not really have a succinct Western translation. ...

Ehhh ... I have to disagree. Aikido is budo, yes. It is also a part of the bujutsu and bugei.

The line is so blurry as to be damn near indistinguishable.

The use of "do" in martial systems in Japan came about long before Kano named his art Judo and WAY before Ueshiba named his art aikido.

It is a reflection and extension of the personal and spiritual changes we effect through training in the bujutsu. We study bujutsu, we live budo.

Justu and do are facets, and are not, indeed, discrete concepts. Both are part of bugei.

Otaki Risuke of the Tenshin Shoden Katori Shinto Ryu is well-known for using 'do' when referring to his arts. So are other such folks.

When we seperate the do from the jutsu, we're drawing a very artificial line, and one not easily maintained.

If you study say, Toda Ha Buko Ryu for 20 years and as result, find great inner peace, grow spiritually, evolve as a person, have you only done 'jutsu'?

If you study say, ASU aikido for 20 years and, in a fight, successfully defend yourself and loved ones, have you only done 'do'?

Using 'do' and 'jutsu' as discriminators in describing Japanese martial systems is largely a Western affectation and was probably largely spawned by the writings of the late Don Draeger.

He tried valiently to explain, in Western terms, some things that were very alien to us back then. And did a damn good job.

However, in the years following, more avenues have opened for Westerners to study budo, more research has occured, more analyses been done.

What we find today, is that DO and JUTSU are not seperate, they are indeed so intimately intertwined that it is simply impossible to say "This is DO and that is JUTSU!"

And it smacks of a certain arrogance (please understand, I'm not calling YOU arrogant, only the attitude one finds in certain organizations) in certain budo circles. "We are a more highly evolved system! We do blahblahDO, not that nasty, barbaric blahblahJUTSU!"

It's just not a valid way to examine things.

In terms of aikido, Ueshiba created a very beautiful, powerful system of jujutsu which, in later years, he opted to call 'aikido' ... however, there is no concept in aikido that did not exist before he synthesized his art.

That did not make what he taught any less jujutsu. It is still jujutsu and could easily be considered Ueshiba-ha Daito Ryu, except that he opted not to call it that (again, only in later years. Many of his early students were taught Daito Ryu and the early shihans received DR menkyo.)

What he did was create a system that reflected his personal needs and motivations, one that fit his religious and philosophical bent.

And this, ultimately, is what we each must as we study the budo.

Chuck

Hi Chuck;

Two very good posts in close succession - slow weekend?

Originally posted by PeterR Hi Chuck; Two very good posts in close succession - slow weekend?

Heh! Slow Monday.

cg

Originally posted by Chuck Gordon And it smacks of a certain arrogance (please understand, I'm not calling YOU arrogant, only the attitude one finds in certain organizations) in certain budo circles. "We are a more highly evolved system! We do blahblahDO, not that nasty, barbaric blahblahJUTSU!" It's just not a valid way to examine things.

This was the point I was trying to make in regards to Western vs. Eastern disciplines. As westerners, we tend to get real interested in something that sounds oriental, and give it special status. This exclusivicity (?) is has now been translated over to the JUTSU/DO groups; what happens next? Organizational elitism?
I would use your example above, that if a dedicated boxer or wrestler used his experience in the ring in order to "find great inner peace, grow spiritually, evolve as a person", they have done budo.

I understand the point you were trying to make in the differentiation of DO and JUTSU, and agree with your intent. In my post, I guess I meant that aikido is typically identified as budo because it espouses similar philosophical and aesthetic ideals in its exponents, more than the technical and group identification ideals inherent within bujutsu. So I would generally still consider Toda ha Buko ryu as a bujutsu, even though I know its long term adherents are doing budo. I still hate the use of the word "martial arts" though. My fondest wish is that someday someone will come up with a better translation for what we do.

Jim Vance

.....I still hate the use of the word "martial arts" though. My fondest wish is that someday someone will come up with a better translation for what we do.

[sound of clapping]

Originally posted by bcole23 [sound of clapping]

Was that the sound of both hands clapping, or just the one?

Sean
x

Originally posted by deepsoup Was that the sound of both hands clapping, or just the one?

[sound of gagging]

One hand. It's quite easy to do..

Just clap with your fingers against your palm

Now go into the woods with an axe and infrared goggles at night and make sure you weren't followed. Double check with the goggles to make sure you're alone. Then, chop a tree *almost* down and rig the axe so it will fall and chop down the tree when you're out of hearing range.

Now go get some pistuteschuuga (pistacio) ice cream and see if you can hear the tree fall with your soul.

Ok you completely lost me there



Well I just feel that sometimes classifying everything although it does helps us define the world(this is not in reply of the other posts but just a thought that came up), doesn't need to be so in all circumstances. Whether aikido is a form of jutsu that is called do or a true do is rather irrelevant.

It's like looking at a piece of modern art and say I see 'minimalism' in it while another sees 'conceptualism'. If you ask the artist on what it means, he will most probably reply, 'you see what you see!'.

So in other words Aikido just is, it is up to you how you define it. How some Shihan defines Aikido is not necessarily the same as how you define Aikido. And that's an important concept here. If you think Aikido as a form of self defence, so be it if that's the aspect you want to concentrate on, if you think it's a way of life, to each his own!

I think this is very clear in the fact that I think O Sensei did not stop his students founding their own schools and if I'm not mistaken encouraged Shioda to do so. It just means that these people have decided that they want to personalize Aikido to their own needs and have reached a sufficient level to do so.

So i guess i have come to a sort of mini enlightenment on the subject. I will practice Aikido according to how I feel about it and not worry about being 'true' to Aikido.


Cheers.

I haven't read most of the posts, but I'll just write in my thoughts here...

In the dojo I trained, it is very important to train in applicative techniques. Basic techniques are important to learn the principles. These principles are then applied to conditions that are not familiar during basic techniques.

The basic hitting attacks are probably not the way the people are going to hit you, but the directions are.
Shomen : cutting in line with the center
Yokomen: cutting the center from the sides
Tsuki : cutting through the center
These attacks have covered our sphere.

What should be paid attention to is not the type of the attack but the direction of the attack. For example, we know that shomen is a downward motion, but in real life, an attack could be an upward motion like an uppercut. Tsuki in aikido is always towards the hara (abdomen), but in real life it could be a punch or a knife to the face, chest, even through the back.