atemi is 90% of Aikido

If aikido is 90% atemi, why would you call it "aikido" instead of atemi-jutsu?

Atemi isn't a feint. It's a strike - be it physical or psychological - designed to "cut down" the enemy.

As to what proportion of aikido is actual striking, it depends on what you are doing and how you are doing it. Also, a strike doesn't necessarily involve the use of the hand or feet - it could be any part of the body.

Personally, everything I do involves some sort of atemi, whether it be an actual strike to a pressure point or a psychological strike to the heart of uke. Since I can't be 100% sure, there is a high probability that 99.99% of what I currently practice is atemi-waza.

As to the "qualitative nature" of such striking....that is a different question and a different answer. Because a punch isn't always a punch and a "block" isn't always a "block" and what looks like a throw isn't always a throw.

Funny how on these boards most people are more interested in talking about: how many years they have in, who their teacher was, how many ancient documents they've read, or what rank they hold, instead of trying to get to the heart of the matter and find out what might be going on for them, right now. If O-sensei had spent so many years thinking about how things were in the past, and thinking about how neat he was because he was trained by Takeda, Aikido would probably never have been founded.

-Chris Hein

Ignatius Teo wrote: If aikido is 90% atemi, why would you call it "aikido" instead of atemi-jutsu?

That's the prevailing concept within the system. The body is used pretty often...why not call it tai-jutsu?

I would say it's about 10%. I'm not sure where the 90% quote comes from or if it means an actual strike. Or if O'Sensei actually used atemi alot. However, the way aikido is taught today atemi (a strike) is not emphasized while doing a technique. If I have blended with uke and I am about to deliver a throw or lock I am not going to stop the action by delivering a strike. I will only do that in order to change the direction of uke's attack or break kusuzi if uke resists my initial technique or to deliver a finishing blow if I choose to. I'de much rather counter his resistance with another technique

One thing I have learned in my few years of training in aikido is situational. I can never say that I will do the same techique exactly he same way in every situation.

Chris Hein wrote: Please oh please lets not turn this into anouther "dose aikido work" discussion.

In that case, it'd be "Dose-ido"



Mike

I spell like a drunken sailor.....does....

-Chris Hein

Speaking of atemi...

I love atemi, I use a lot of it in jiyu waza. I have found that it WORKS from personal experience. No, not the pub brawl type, the other type of brawl... DOJO BRAWL (aka multiple uke jiyu waza) in a proper dojo setting.

The power of my atemi is derived from the irimi and/or tenkan movement that I create. I do not cork my hands back, nor do I show any intent to my strikes. I just strike as I move, completely in accordance with my natural movement.

I do not strike makiwara to harden my knuckles. In fact they are as soft as baby's bottom. Makiwara is hard surface, human body is soft; notice the difference? Makiwara is inanimate, it does not strike back. Your opponent, moves about endlessly, makiwara is a very poor representation of human body.

I train my atemi through weapon practice. Ken suburi is a good way to develop power to your strike. Ken-do type drills are good supplement to developing strikes. Actual strikes and blocks using shinai, IMO is a very good way to develop atemi power as well.

Currently, in my Jo-do class, we actually use jo to hit bokken using full speed. It is a good avenue to learn atemi as well. My tsuki punch is exactly how my jo tsuki is, coming straight in as I irimi.
Once an uke caught my empty hand tsuki and he told me later, he had diarrhoea after-wards. I must had hit some nerve spots that cause bowel movement.

OK, I am off now. Just sharing my thoughts and some method I personally feel is beneficial to developing ATEMI, the aikido way.

Boon.

Xu Wenfung wrote: Makiwara is hard surface, human body is soft; notice the difference? Makiwara is inanimate, it does not strike back. Your opponent, moves about endlessly, makiwara is a very poor representation of human body. I train my atemi through weapon practice. Ken suburi is a good way to develop power to your strike.

Are you serious? A makiwara doesn't meet your high standards, but swinging a bokken around is supposed to make you a master in striking? You've punched someone outside of a dojo, right?

I would say that the makiwara would train only a small fraction of the atemi available to an aikidoist. Not sure how swinging a bokken is going to make you a master of striking either but then Boon didn't say that did he? He said he found it a good way to develope the power necessary to deliver aikido atemi. It sure uses a lot of the same mucles.

James Bostwick wrote: Are you serious? A makiwara doesn't meet your high standards, but swinging a bokken around is supposed to make you a master in striking? You've punched someone outside of a dojo, right?

I am serious. As you stated earlier, you come from a Karate background, your point of view is definitely different from mine, I respect that. A makiwara as I explained is a poor representation of a human body. Perhaps you would like to chip in your thoughts? After all this is a forum, would love to hear yours.

Do I detect a sense of equating punching someone outside dojo as the only legitimate source of forming an opinion? And no, if you must know,,,, I have yet to punch someone outside my dojo. There are legal implication you know.

Simply swinging a bokken does not make you a master in striking, but it sure develop the forearm muscle to effect a powerful strike (uchi). Couple that with actual paired shinai exercise using real human practice partner, I do not see why not it could be use as a good drill to develop uchi power. There is a reason why striking makiwara is absent from a a typical aikido dojo, we have alternative training, James.

Like I said earlier, I value that you come from a different background and I am open to your opinion. Let's hear yours now.

Boon.

Xu Wenfung:

"A makiwara as I explained is a poor representation of a human body."

Respectfully, might I ask who it was that ever said makiwara were supposed to serve as representations of the human body? It is a training aid to develop one's sense of timing and maai, and as a means of integrating the component aspects of a strike (And, no, as might have been stated earlier, it is *not* a means of conditioning knuckles. Wrists, yes). It is most often a training aid to be used on one's own, and is one of many ways of learning how to commit one's entire body and intent to an attack.

"Do I detect a sense of equating punching someone outside dojo as the only legitimate source of forming an opinion? And no, if you must know,,,, I have yet to punch someone outside my dojo. There are legal implication you know."

Actually, I only read Mr. Bostwick as trying to convince people that the only way to effectively learn how to strike, is to actually strike something, or somebody. Preferably over and over, under capable tutelage, in a variety of environments, and with partners of varying resistance. (The difference he has with Mr. Ledyard as to what constitutes "atemi" is another opinion of his entirely, which I'm not going to touch here...mainly 'cuz I think they're both right)
I'm not really sure where and how you read his argument as trying to validate formation of an opinion, but you may be reading it differently than I am. Also, in the spirit of full disclosure, I punch people outside of the dojo all the time. They're training partners, and we practice together beyond scheduled hours of keiko. We train in both yakusoku and jiyu kumite, and the speed, force, and intent of our strikes (of all manner) are mutually agreed upon beforehand. Sometimes we go light, sometimes we go so far in the other direction that it might seem criminal to onlookers (and, please, I harbor no illusions that I'm some kind of toughie, or that what we do is "the real thing.")
I get the feeling that you see striking in keiko as an either/or proposition - either it's a pro-forma aspect of your waza, or it's actual battery. There's a lot in between, and it depends on your comfort and conditioning level.

I'm pretty much a plebe lurker here who really enjoys the exchange on this site, but if I might add my (probably worthless) opinion of one aspect of this topic/debate/exchange:
I read this "atemi in aikido" topic enough, and it always reminds me of the story of Joseph Campbell attending a lecture of the eminent Judaic scholar, Martin Buber. It was in the early fifties, I believe, at Columbia University. There was Buber, great beard almost as long as he was, lecturing on the idea of the absent God. His audience, Columbia intelligentsia mostly, sat in engaged silence, but Campbell became more and more upset as the talk went on, until finally he raised his hand.
"Excuse me, Professor Buber," he said, "but there's one word you've been using quite a lot that I don't quite understand."
"Yes, Mr. Campbell, " said Buber, "what is that word?"
"God," answered Campbell.
Needless to say, there was a shocked silence. "You don't understand what I mean by the word 'God,' Mr. Campbell?"
"Well, sometimes you seem to be referring to a universal cosmic principle, and other times to the Jehovah of the Old Testament, and still others to someone with whom you have personal conversations. I've just come back from India, where people have constant and daily experience of God. They dance God, sing, play, eat, live with God. God is anything but absent."
Buber drew himself up and glowered at Campbell, holding out his hands as if to ward off the very notion of Campbell's inquiry: "Surely you don't mean to compare..."
At which point the moderator jumped in to thank everyone for their opinions, and could we please just get on with Professor Buber's lecture?

Not to play at comparative religious studies here - my point is that we're all talking about atemi, but what are we defining that as? That seems to be the meat of the issue, and I don't think it's going to be resolved all that neatly. My recommendation would be to learn Japanese, read the original sources, go there to study under the few remaining Sensei who were there way back when, and then study another twenty or thirty years to figure it out. There. That shouldn't be too hard.

Sincerely,
Murray McPherson

George S. Ledyard wrote: It is one of the koans of Aikido to solve this in your training and understand what is meant by it.

Total agreement.

Yes, I know that koans are a teaching tool specific to Zen, and that O'Sensei's Aikido is Shinto/Omoto.

Yet with some literary license, IMHO there is only so much you can be intellectually taught before you just have to find the answers yourself by dropping the question and just enjoy the experience of training.

You cannot experience the answer until you have more training and experience. If you want to see further down the path, you have to be willing to walk it. Trust those who have walked further than you, they can lead you, but not do it for you or give it to you, if you are willing to follow.

I question and criticize less now, trust and train more.

Yet with some literary license, IMHO there is only so much you can be intellectually taught before you just have to find the answers yourself by dropping the question and just enjoy the experience of training.

I think the nature of this medium can be frustrating as well, and the nature of aikido training also. Gozo Shioda's book gives the best explanation of atemi in aikido that I have seen. But if you give that as a source (which is what the original post asked for), people call 'appeal to authority'. Well, they are right. And if that's not good enough, well, just get on the mat and train.

The source quoted talks about what physical things we train in that prepare us for using atemi; keeping the weight forward, bringing the power up from the ground using the big toe, through a flexible knee joint, using focus, etc. It gives the same explanation Boon gave about how stiking the makiwara is not like striking a human body. It talks (I believe) about picking your spots for atemi accordingly, and using your whole body for atemi.

People like Ellis Amdur teach aikido from a perspective of always being able to atemi from where ever you are in your relationship to uke...not necessarily using each atemi, but being aware of how and when and where. Oh, but there's that appeal to authority again, shoot.

I have had no problem holding my own with atemi when free sparring...and I don't train regularly in striking arts anymore. But that's just personal experience, and if you haven't done that with me, why should you believe that aikido training contributed to that? Its just my opinion after all.

Guess some people just won't be happy with the answers. Just gotta live with it.

Hi Murray, I know you trained at the Doshinkan on Saturday. The various kaitenage waza we performed had atemi in most of them. Did you feel like the seniors there were able to express power in their atemi, and had good body mechanics to dieliver that power if needed? Sorry to put you on the spot a bit, but I think your opinion might be usefull for the discussion here. It's fine if you don't think they had that quality.

Just to be up front, I think many of them do. One in particular used to train in boxing...I've been on the end of his atemi...it is very humbling. During renzoku waza on my ikkyu test, I was able to block about one out of 4 atemi while taking ukemi. I think that goes to the idea that aikido training is often at its best when someone already has effective skill sets, and wishes to go deeper.

Best,
Ron

Lynn Seiser wrote: Total agreement. Yes, I know that koans are a teaching tool specific to Zen, and that O'Sensei's Aikido is Shinto/Omoto. Yet with some literary license,...

With some literary license, we could call Aikido practitioners "fighter pilots". Using the term "koan" in a *vague* way usually is just an excuse to teach vaguely and to give some air of "mysterious understanding". Look at this sentence from below and you'll see the same thing where vague "feelings" instead of facts are being pushed: "In my mind, a koan is nothing until it is filled with the kiai of the one seeking to solve the answer; and the path is resolved by shugyo." Teachers can do better and should, IMO. Look in the Doshu's books, or Shioda's books, etc..... how much artificial blending of Aikido and Zen Buddhism do you see? :^)

IMHO there is only so much you can be intellectually taught before you just have to find the answers yourself by dropping the question and just enjoy the experience of training. You cannot experience the answer until you have more training and experience. If you want to see further down the path, you have to be willing to walk it. Trust those who have walked further than you, they can lead you, but not do it for you or give it to you, if you are willing to follow. I question and criticize less now, trust and train more.

Frankly, in my experience, there are far too many people who use their "years of experience" as a credential while ignoring the obvious clues that their basics are still not complete. I can wear the scrub-suit for many years without ever morphing into a doctor. Why it is suggested that anyone should be expected to trust experience is a real question. Given how many people have poor skills after many years, "experience" doesn't necessarily mean a lot.

Regards,

Mike

Matthew Gano wrote: That's the prevailing concept within the system. The body is used pretty often...why not call it tai-jutsu?

It is. There's a school here in Brisbane that calls what they do aiki taiho-jutsu.

Quite frankly, you can call it what you want, atemi is striking, and if you don't train in it overtly or implicitly, then that's up to you.

As to whether 90% (or whatever proportion) of "aikido" is atemi, that's up to you (collective) to work out. No one can (or will) tell you the answer. Call it a "koan" if you like...

FWIW, MY aikido (at the moment) is probably 90% atemi. And how I practice atemi may not necessarily gel with other's ideas of what atemi is. Then again, I'm drawing on other knowledge I've gleaned through other practices, in order to arrive at some sort of physical and mental practice that I feel (spiritually) comfortable with.

YMMV.

Hi, Ron.

No, I would have to say without reservation that the atemi was inherent in those I saw and worked with (again, the word "humbling" comes to mind) at the Doshinkan. No question - I could feel it before I was even totally aware of it. In fact, having Dennis demonstrate (was it kotegaeshi in the first class?) the waza for me, from start to finish, putting emphasis on proper body placement versus "just" striking was illuminating. Great lesson, that, and I was especially looking for what was going on in the koshi as a tie-in to what Mike and I have been working on. And it was there, soup to nuts, in everyone who was kind enough to show me what was going on. Just one of the many things that I was left impressed by at Utada Sensei's!
I hope my post didn't give the impression that I don't view atemi in aikido as inherent, because that's not the case. Nor do I feel that the, uh, more "percussive" arts are superior. But I have had experiences (in my distant aiki past) where people either put absolutely no emphasis on their strikes (without any decent kuzushi), or they thought that the strikes they were throwing would have much of an effect from the angle they were launching them, merely because they were part of the waza (there's that great Ellis Amdur story about his letting a judoka apply some shimewaza on him, or Big Tony Alvarez' saying, "I'd lose that finger to kill you" to underscore some of this). I guess, for me, there's a difference between someone saying, "C'mon! That was an atemi - you have to move!" and Dennis or Chuck having your center locked up from the 'git go - no ifs, ands, or buts.
I wrote that I though that both Messrs. Ledyard and Bostwick were correct, and I meant that. I just think, in overly simplified terms, one is coming at it from the macro level, the other one from a micro level of emphasis. I'm very interested in your thoughts on it all, and if you have the time, pm me.
Also, I'm an unrepentant Uechi guy, and it's slightly annoying when people gloss over the complexities of atemi, itself being only one aspect of what we do. So I hope it didn't seem like my dander was up. I really do believe there are more fundamental similarities between many of these arts than those in the parochial camp might want to believe. Ushiro Sensei, or, say, Mits Yamashita Sensei are exempar of this (thanks, btw, for the great link on him in another post).
I agree about having an external skill set at your disposal...now if I could just get the one I have to work!

Best regards,
Murray McPherson

Saji: "If I have blended with uke and I am about to deliver a throw or lock I am not going to stop the action by delivering a strike."

Saji: I have to disagree with you on this one. It is my contention that you don't need to stop the flow of action to deliver a strike or for that matter blend. Some of the strike opportunities are inherent in the blending action and motion of the technique. For example, I can strike you on pressure points a minimum of two times on a tsuki kotegaeshi blend (tenkan). It won't stop the flow of my movement although your pain may cause you to hiccup your motion. What's important is it will look like any other kotegaeshi blend to the outside (i.e., the strikes won't be obvious to the oberver but will be felt by the uke). Many of the strikes excuting technique can also be delivered while in motion.

Saji Jamakin wrote: I would say it's about 10%. I'm not sure where the 90% quote comes from or if it means an actual strike. Or if O'Sensei actually used atemi alot. However, the way aikido is taught today atemi (a strike) is not emphasized while doing a technique. If I have blended with uke and I am about to deliver a throw or lock I am not going to stop the action by delivering a strike. I will only do that in order to change the direction of uke's attack or break kusuzi if uke resists my initial technique or to deliver a finishing blow if I choose to. I'de much rather counter his resistance with another technique One thing I have learned in my few years of training in aikido is situational. I can never say that I will do the same techique exactly he same way in every situation.

I feel I have to address this comment about atemi waza because, Saji has a wrong definition of atemi.

You mentioned not wanting to stop your technique in order to atemi the uke. If you are stopping your technique... then your doing something wrong. Aikido is about harmony in motion. All I have ever known of atemi was to strike or threaten the strike while in the motion of the technique.

Now, during demonstration, sometimes an instructor will stop to show "this is where the potential for atemi is," but that's not the same as actually stopping. You atemi and keep on moving!

Some instructors emphasize atemi. Others do not. It is a preference thing or it is what your instructor has leanred and thus YOU are now learning it their way. But just because you have never seen it, or seen it incorrectly, or whatever the case may be... does not negate the fact that the POTENTIAL for atemi is all through Aikido. It is a tool for taking balance, breaking attention and actually moving the uke. Sometimes, it doesn't matter if you touch them or not! The strike isn't the point... the break in balance and attention IS and is a vital tool is aikido.

The source of the 90% quote is Gozo Shioda Shihan. He has a chapter in one of his books titled "Aikido is 90% Atemi" or something... it's been a year since I read it last. Shioda Sensei would know full well about atemi... he went out and practiced it in real life.

Anyhow, I would recommend a little more research on the subject for anyone wanting to shut out the whole concept of using atemiwaza. It DOES have its place in Aikido.

John Riggs wrote: Saji: "If I have blended with uke and I am about to deliver a throw or lock I am not going to stop the action by delivering a strike." Saji: I have to disagree with you on this one. It is my contention that you don't need to stop the flow of action to deliver a strike or for that matter blend. Some of the strike opportunities are inherent in the blending action and motion of the technique. For example, I can strike you on pressure points a minimum of two times on a tsuki kotegaeshi blend (tenkan). It won't stop the flow of my movement although your pain may cause you to hiccup your motion. What's important is it will look like any other kotegaeshi blend to the outside (i.e., the strikes won't be obvious to the oberver but will be felt by the uke). Many of the strikes excuting technique can also be delivered while in motion.

Can you tell? Riggs Sensei is my instructor.

Had I not been interupted while typing my previous message, I would have posted first!

Murray McPherson wrote: Hi, Ron. In fact, having Dennis demonstrate (was it kotegaeshi in the first class?) the waza for me, from start to finish, putting emphasis on proper body placement versus "just" striking was illuminating.

Yep, that was kotegaeshi in the first class...I actually forgot about that one! Its a better example too, probably.

Great lesson, that, and I was especially looking for what was going on in the koshi as a tie-in to what Mike and I have been working on. And it was there, soup to nuts, in everyone who was kind enough to show me what was going on.

What's interesting is that while many people there have had some exposure to other arts, Dennis I believe, is just aikido. But then, he's been training since the Kushida days...make's me look like a young pup!

I hope my post didn't give the impression that I don't view atemi in aikido as inherent, because that's not the case. Nor do I feel that the, uh, more "percussive" arts are superior.

No, I didn't get that impression at all.

But I have had experiences (in my distant aiki past) where people either put absolutely no emphasis on their strikes (without any decent kuzushi), or they thought that the strikes they were throwing would have much of an effect from the angle they were launching them ...

I think we have all felt the 'wave the hand in your face' atemi. I was hoping it was pretty clear that wasn't what was being discussed. This medium exposes assumptions, doesn't it?

I'm very interested in your thoughts on it all, and if you have the time, pm me.

Well, I'll try to keep participating in the thread, and send you some other things as well.

Ushiro Sensei, or, say, Mits Yamashita Sensei are exempar of this (thanks, btw, for the great link on him in another post).

You're very welcome! I got to train with one of Yamashita Sensei's students just about a week ago. Good times!

I agree about having an external skill set at your disposal...now if I could just get the one I have to work! Best regards, Murray McPherson

Hmph, you and me both!

Best,
Ron

I don't normally think atemi discussions but here is an observation:
Atemi is like a power hitter in baseball. Whether or not that player will hit the ball, the threat of the damage resulting from a hit is sufficent to alter the other team's pitching strategy. Statistically, a good hitter will only get a hit 1 out of every 3 times they bat, say 33%. But you could easily argue the presence of a hitter can alter a pitching strategy 75-90% of the time.

I think the statement of 90% atemi is not a literal one. It was mentioned earlier that boxers don't land 90% of their punches, let alone a any other martial art that is more conservative in striking. Rather, I think the statement is to be figuratively interpreted as an illustration of the importance atemi has in creating suki. In my analogy, I use a baseball player that can single-handedly alter a game strategy to accomodate their skill. In aikido, wouldn't it be beneficial to training if you could single-handedly alter the attack strategy of your opponent to acommodate your skill?

Mike Sigman wrote: Frankly, in my experience, there are far too many people who use their "years of experience" as a credential while ignoring the obvious clues that their basics are still not complete.

Then quite frankly and to avoid vagueness, what is your specific experience and training in Aikido?

Lynn Seiser wrote: Then quite frankly and to avoid vagueness, what is your specific experience and training in Aikido?

I realize this might break a tradition for some discussions in Aikido, but let's see if we can finish a discussion without worrying about me or my personal qualifications (which have been stated before). Let's see if the idea of why esoterica has to be substituted for facts has a rationale, in a logic-supported argument.

The idea that someone has been doing something a long time and therefore they are giving correct answers and information via "koans" is the discussion.... not me. Not you. I asked if people were aware how many "many years of experience" teachers there are who obviously are missing basic information. I think all of us are. Ipso facto, "experience" won't cut it, Lynn. Can you try another, more sustainable argument that doesn't appear to be diversionary?

I realize that there are a number of people claiming rank and experience who feel angered, threatened, whatever, whenever an attempt to pin down actual qualifications arises, but I would think that people who pride themselves on selective "Aikido Speak" would be able to engage the issue.

Regards,


Mike Sigman

Retracted.

IMHO and my personal training and experience, I find that those who argue against atemi in Aikido are those who don't know how to strike. Those who know how to strike (admittedly mostly from other arts) see atemi in their Aikido at least 90% of the time.

Likewise, those who argue against authority, experience and rank, are usually those who don't have any. If experience doesn't mean you just might have something to offer, than neither does inexperience or ignorance. Though I must admit that shoshin (beginner's mind) has often helped me see things better.