Ushiro

Cherie Cornmesser wrote: As it has been explained and demonstrated to me... ukes choice to run around behind nage and attack from behind, having first grabbed from in front, is not his choice. It is nage's choice.

From a martial point of view this has never made sense to me.
As a training exercise, maybe. But I'm unconvinced when it is LITERALLY, as I've seen, uke running around nage versus attacking and redirecting the grab from close range to contact and attack.

Tim Ruijs wrote: Not all techniques in Aikido have martial/fighting purpose. Ushiro waza is to improve posture/shisei and work with the 'backside' of your center.

Can't say I agree with this, at least the initial statement. I would say that all techniques in aikido DO have a "martial/fighting purpose," though it may not be clearly evident on its face, e.g. kneewalking and suwari-waza in a western society, but the point of learning it was pointed out by Phi above. Can you say banana peel, or oil spill, or ice on the street, anyone?

I would say that the ushiro-waza kata techniques do improve ones center work while an opponent is behind you... it's not training you for a specifically, targeting uke doing that, but as was stated before, "stuff" happens and people end up all over, i.e. see Katherine's practice outlined above and go slow to watch how it develops (the body positioning).
I'd say it does indeed HELP to have good backwards center control, when doing ushiro techniques, not that the techniques actually help that... but the practice of the kata certainly does do so or the techniques will fail, hey?

Janet Rosen wrote: From a martial point of view this has never made sense to me. As a training exercise, maybe. But I'm unconvinced when it is LITERALLY, as I've seen, uke running around nage versus attacking and redirecting the grab from close range to contact and attack.

I think my sentence lacks the clarity I aimed for. Still in response to Cherie's post.
As near as I can tell, it is a training convention, or perhaps uke totally giving up her center and falling forward and pitching after nage, but I don't see how it would be a matter of necessity.
If I am uke and I have successfully grabbed one of nage's hand, and nage starting turning/leading, why would I not change target and zero in on her center.
I think a more sensible attack is uke making a tight, inward turning movement around nage's back, aiming an attack at nage's center. Not arms swinging and running around nage like a pony running around a mill....

Janet Rosen wrote: If I am uke and I have successfully grabbed one of nage's hand, and nage starting turning/leading, why would I not change target and zero in on her center. I think a more sensible attack is uke making a tight, inward turning movement around nage's back, aiming an attack at nage's center. Not arms swinging and running around nage like a pony running around a mill....

As an attacker you would ALWAYS go for the center. Atemi posed by tori will prevent you to this in this scenario and the attacker will change strategy and try to grab from behind. As long as tori maintains rotation/distance aite cannot attack.

for others: I do not practise Aikido for more than 25 years to prevent a slip over a banana. come on

Tim Ruijs wrote: As an attacker you would ALWAYS go for the center. Atemi posed by tori will prevent you to this in this scenario and the attacker will change strategy and try to grab from behind. As long as tori maintains rotation/distance aite cannot attack.

Sure uke can attack. Uke can decide not to try to match tori's rotation/distance. Uke can maintain her integrity and attack the center via a more logical target.
I write this as a short and slow person who was told (at about 4th kyu) my job was to do just that and keep aiming to attack NOT the center but the other hand....of a black belt 8 inches taller than me, long limbed and fast. It was only the "training convention" that dictated I run like a witless, out of control, unbalanced greyhound after the fake rabbit of his hand. It was in no way an attack and in no way had anything to do with his center. And in much of the practice I have observed in a variety of dojo of different styles, even experienced and fit uke are chosing to surrender their own structure in order to go diving after the tantalizing second hand.
There should be no need for nage/tori to do that kind of prolonged rotation. Keeping uke in, economically getting uke to where you can deal with her as directly as possible seems more martially appropriate.

Janet Rosen wrote: It was in no way an attack and in no way had anything to do with his center. And in much of the practice I have observed in a variety of dojo of different styles, even experienced and fit uke are chosing to surrender their own structure in order to go diving after the tantalizing second hand. There should be no need for nage/tori to do that kind of prolonged rotation. Keeping uke in, economically getting uke to where you can deal with her as directly as possible seems more martially appropriate.

I think this raises an important point. There are two participants in the encounter, and a situation like this shows that neither of them is being taught correctly.

We've already talked, at length, about uke's role. (I'll get back to it in a minute.) But what about nage? What is nage trying to accomplish by holding uke at arm's length while turning in a circle? That doesn't look like any kosadori technique I'm familiar with. To pull off a kosadori response, he would need to change the angle -- stepping toward or away from uke instead of turning, maybe -- and he'll probably need to relax that arm a bit: if uke is too far away to get behind nage's back, then he's probably also too far away for nage to take his center effectively.

Now, if nage is just turning in a circle, there are lots of options for uke. She can seek to reverse the (attempted) kosadori technique, for instance by rotating her core to create an irimi nage-like relationship. She can try to either drop nage's arm down or take nage's balance through it. Lots of choices. And maybe if she does that enough times, nage will figure out that turning around in a circle with arm extended isn't actually all that useful.

But if the teaching paradigm is that uke runs around in a circle trying to grab the other hand, while nage tries to prevent them from doing so, neither person is learning anything martially relevant. They're just generating more video that people can use to point out aikido's flaws.

Katherine

Katherine Derbyshire wrote: think this raises an important point. There are two participants in the encounter, and a situation like this shows that neither of them is being taught correctly. We've already talked, at length, about uke's role. (I'll get back to it in a minute.) But what about nage? What is nage trying to accomplish by holding uke at arm's length while turning in a circle? That doesn't look like any kosadori technique I'm familiar with. To pull off a kosadori response, he would need to change the angle -- stepping toward or away from uke instead of turning, maybe -- and he'll probably need to relax that arm a bit: if uke is too far away to get behind nage's back, then he's probably also too far away for nage to take his center effectively. Now, if nage is just turning in a circle, there are lots of options for uke. She can seek to reverse the (attempted) kosadori technique, for instance by rotating her core to create an irimi nage-like relationship. She can try to either drop nage's arm down or take nage's balance through it. Lots of choices. And maybe if she does that enough times, nage will figure out that turning around in a circle with arm extended isn't actually all that useful. But if the teaching paradigm is that uke runs around in a circle trying to grab the other hand, while nage tries to prevent them from doing so, neither person is learning anything martially relevant. They're just generating more video that people can use to point out aikido's flaws. Katherine

Thank you

I am not sure where the idea came from to have aite literally circle around tori. It what certainly not what I meant.
The way I practise it, is to move sideways and back (kimusubi) and 'draw' aite in. This potentially invites aite to attack my center, hence atemi. That in turn would aite make rethink his attack and go for the side/back. The motion is more spirally or tangentially (good word?), not perfect arc of a circle: that would make me and aite move at the same speed, which is not good.

Tim Ruijs wrote: I am not sure where the idea came from to have aite literally circle around tori. It what certainly not what I meant. The way I practise it, is to move sideways and back (kimusubi) and 'draw' aite in. This potentially invites aite to attack my center, hence atemi. That in turn would aite make rethink his attack and go for the side/back. The motion is more spirally or tangentially (good word?), not perfect arc of a circle: that would make me and aite move at the same speed, which is not good.

Then we are on the same page; alas, many are not :-)

Real life ushiro:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zs4zCwxfo_4

Tim Ruijs wrote: I am not sure where the idea came from to have aite literally circle around tori. It what certainly not what I meant. The way I practise it, is to move sideways and back (kimusubi) and 'draw' aite in. This potentially invites aite to attack my center, hence atemi. That in turn would aite make rethink his attack and go for the side/back. The motion is more spirally or tangentially (good word?), not perfect arc of a circle: that would make me and aite move at the same speed, which is not good.

That sure seems like a complex sequence of things that need to happen first before it's appropriate to pull off an ushiro technique. The attack has to be kosadori. then uke has to fade to invite uke in, uke has to take that bait and attack center, nage has to atemi, uke then has to choose to go around it and get behind. So we are not asking uke to run around foolishly anymore, but we are giving them a script of three moves they must take in sequence. Before we can "martially" practice techniques that are (for some of us) on the testing syllabus for people who have possibly been on the mat for less than a year.

Still seems a bit weird to me.

The extended form is true for other attacks - i.e. When does kata menuchi start? When Uke reaches for my shoulder, when he grabs my shoulder, when he prepares his hand to strike, or when he strikes? All are valid ways of practicing this, but I don't wait for the grab.

For a beginner, there is a benefit to practicing Ushiro tekubidori for structure, kata Dori for body movement. This feeds into other practices.

Cliff Judge wrote: That sure seems like a complex sequence of things that need to happen first before it's appropriate to pull off an ushiro technique. The attack has to be kosadori. then uke has to fade to invite uke in, uke has to take that bait and attack center, nage has to atemi, uke then has to choose to go around it and get behind. So we are not asking uke to run around foolishly anymore, but we are giving them a script of three moves they must take in sequence. Before we can "martially" practice techniques that are (for some of us) on the testing syllabus for people who have possibly been on the mat for less than a year. Still seems a bit weird to me.

I think there is something to this. As I see a little more of the world, there are some aikido things that stand out. I have posted before about my perspective that sometimes we introduce concepts into aikido far too early in our training to functionally understand and that warps our consumption. Similarly, if you bundle ushiro to include a front attack and rear attack you are increasing the complexity of the attack. If you cannot successfully attack kosadori, you cannot successfully attack kosadori ushiro (ryotedori, shime, whatever).

Part of the "running around" stuff is because uke does not let go. This is mostly a courtesy of uke; if you are one of the people from whom uke cannot let go, you are not even reading this thread because we're idiots. If I attack and the attack fails I am going to disengage and look to re-engage with a new attack. In our training we generally do not disengage because we want to give our partner the opportunity to figure out what's going on. Yes, we can excuse requiring uke to hold on with "if you let go I would punch you," blah blah blah. When I feel good nage waza, I am usually compelled to remain connected because disengaging puts me at greater risk than staying engaged.

Cliff Judge wrote: That sure seems like a complex sequence of things that need to happen first before it's appropriate to pull off an ushiro technique. The attack has to be kosadori. then uke has to fade to invite uke in, uke has to take that bait and attack center, nage has to atemi, uke then has to choose to go around it and get behind. So we are not asking uke to run around foolishly anymore, but we are giving them a script of three moves they must take in sequence. Before we can "martially" practice techniques that are (for some of us) on the testing syllabus for people who have possibly been on the mat for less than a year.

Where do you get that number? Looking at the ASU requirements, sankyu (plus the preceding tests) requires a minimum 15 months of training.

But yes, attacking competently is difficult. Learning the uke role requires as much time and effort as learning the nage role.

That this is in any way surprising points to a major flaw in much aikido training, IMO. We don't have enough respect for attackers. Too often, uke is trained to be a throwing dummy, not an independent agent with his own capabilities and goals. And so when we encounter people from other arts who haven't been taught "correct" ukemi, we tend to dismiss what they know how to do. How much trouble do you think karateka and judoka with a year of experience have with the idea of continuing to attack toward the center?

Katherine

When I use ushiro as a teaching tool I have various goals.

Sometimes I want uke to really follow and move. Sometimes I want nage to establish their position with a strong base and to move into the void. Sometimes I want uke to resist and sometimes I want uke to be totally complaint. I may give different directions to different ukes on any given day.

A set of ideas about how uke must move to be "martial" is not always applicable. Self-defense skills appropriate to today's challenges can be developed using the principles and techniques of aikido.

Being attacked from behind in a dojo setting from standing or from motion helps students learn timing, centering and movement in the flow with others. Uke can learn to follow and to attack in a logical manner. When nage moves, uke should continue their attack if it is warranted. If nage moves too fast or too slow or in an illogical way the connection will be broken and then must be forced. For this kind of training uke and nage must learn to be adaptable and to take instruction so that the exercise of the moment can be accomplished.

Aikido is a live practice that can utilize all types of attacks for the development of different and varied skills.

Mary Eastland wrote: Aikido is a live practice that can utilize all types of attacks for the development of different and varied skills.

No argument there.

I think the discussion is primarily about what it means for uke to "attack in a logical manner," and the fact that, often, they don't.

Katherine

Cliff Judge wrote: That sure seems like a complex sequence of things that need to happen first before it's appropriate to pull off an ushiro technique. The attack has to be kosadori. then uke has to fade to invite uke in, uke has to take that bait and attack center, nage has to atemi, uke then has to choose to go around it and get behind. So we are not asking uke to run around foolishly anymore, but we are giving them a script of three moves they must take in sequence. Before we can "martially" practice techniques that are (for some of us) on the testing syllabus for people who have possibly been on the mat for less than a year. Still seems a bit weird to me.

That's why at our dojo rear attacks are taught from static at first.
And the parsing out you describe really isn't complex. It's nage reacting to the first grab with a small gathering movement and letting uke come just far around enough so that nage's in position to do ikkyo, nikkyo, etc to the first hand proactively OR wait a moment longer for the second hand to engage so that kotegaishe or shihonage etc can be easily eaccessed.

Demetrio Cereijo wrote: Real life ushiro: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zs4zCwxfo_4

really?
You consider this a real ushiro attack? This guy is completely unaware what is going on around him. His situational awareness is ZERO. If you consider this appropriate, please visit me and train with us for you have not been practising Aikido AT ALL.

Katherine Derbyshire wrote: No argument there. I think the discussion is primarily about what it means for uke to "attack in a logical manner," and the fact that, often, they don't. Katherine

+1

@others.
Sure there are different levels of practise with different points of attention. But ultimately, when things finally come together, this is what happens.
I think you should expose your students to this type of training early.


kata dori menuchi:
The initial attack is a shoulder grab and a strike with the other hand. (Anybody still thinks the shoulder grab alone is the attack?)
The moment aite grabs your shoulder you do atemi (with the inside arm) in a shomen like manner. This prevents aite to execute the strike and must use that arm to protect himself (from your atemi).

Tim Ruijs wrote: really? You consider this a real ushiro attack? This guy is completely unaware what is going on around him. His situational awareness is ZERO. If you consider this appropriate, please visit me and train with us for you have not been practising Aikido AT ALL.

Dude, chill a bit. You do not need to shout to me in all caps.

Regarding your invitation, I respectfully decline. Someone could get hurt.

Tim Ruijs wrote: really? You consider this a real ushiro attack? This guy is completely unaware what is going on around him. His situational awareness is ZERO. If you consider this appropriate, please visit me and train with us for you have not been practising Aikido AT ALL. +1 @others. Sure there are different levels of practise with different points of attention. But ultimately, when things finally come together, this is what happens. I think you should expose your students to this type of training early. kata dori menuchi: The initial attack is a shoulder grab and a strike with the other hand. (Anybody still thinks the shoulder grab alone is the attack?) The moment aite grabs your shoulder you do atemi (with the inside arm) in a shomen like manner. This prevents aite to execute the strike and must use that arm to protect himself (from your atemi).

First, I think I would still say that defending your rear is not an easy task. You can YouTube any number of rear submission fights as evidence that good fighters, paying attention to their partners, still cannot defend their rear all of the time. I understand we tweak our attacks, but rear attacks should be successful and yield strong avandtage for partners who achieve rear position. After all, this is what we do with our irimi tenkan position, enter and achieve strong rear position. Kosa dori ushiro menuchi or ushiro kata dori menuchi are irimi nage techniques, just from the perspective of the attacker. If we claim irimi nage is a functional technique, then we should also claim these as functional attacks.

When things finally come together, your attacks should be successful most of the time. if you set out to achieve a rear position, you should accomplish that goal most of the time. If you don't... you are doing it wrong. Dialing back from success, you create parity with your partner by creating opportunity for your partner to figure out how to defend you attack. Dialing forward beyond ability, you can work with partners who are more skilled than you and you simply cannot successfully attack, creating opportunity for you to improve your skill.

Aikido has no attacking syllabus. We do not work to develop skills in mugging, murdering, dueling to the death with, restraining or incapacitating people. (Maybe Tomiki guys learn the proper way to cut a resisting victim, I don't know.) But the cross hand grab to run around behind attack is probably always going to seem awkward. It might have always been a contrived, unrealistic / non-martial situation-setter....Jon has pointed out that Aikido Renshu has ushiro kata that resemble more what's in Daito ryu, where the attacker advanced straight in from behind.

Demetrio Cereijo wrote: Dude, chill a bit. You do not need to shout to me in all caps. Regarding your invitation, I respectfully decline. Someone could get hurt.

Where are these times when Spanish invaded Netherlands

Someone thought switching from German kings to French kings would be a good idea...

Cliff Judge wrote: Aikido has no attacking syllabus. We do not work to develop skills in mugging, murdering, dueling to the death with, restraining or incapacitating people.

See what I said up above about not respecting attackers? This is an example of exactly what I mean. Everyone who can attack competently is a mugger or murderer? Really?

It is true that aikido does not have a formal attacking syllabus. At best, test requirements will call for "ukemi appropriate for these techniques." But how is nage supposed to get better if uke is a clueless bozo?

Katherine

Katherine Derbyshire wrote: See what I said up above about not respecting attackers? This is an example of exactly what I mean. Everyone who can attack competently is a mugger or murderer? Really? It is true that aikido does not have a formal attacking syllabus. At best, test requirements will call for "ukemi appropriate for these techniques." But how is nage supposed to get better if uke is a clueless bozo? Katherine

This is a whole new can of worms and for sure I don't want to get into a "Well in my style" argument but ...

across styles training uke means not just ability to take falls but also to provide a good attack. Granted that attack does not have murder or mayhem directly in mind but there is no reason that we can't play with the scenario. Further, and just to mess with things a little bit, we do have a formal attacking syllabus just that in many cases it is too stylized to satisfy those who need to explore the mayhem.

I will say that the most effective street attacks that I can think of (my fevered brain) are if not impossible to train for damm difficult.