Bad Scenario - On the Ground

Don J. Modesto (Don_Modesto) wrote: 2) "within the parameters of practice" That's he issue. It seems to me that they are set kind of arbitrarily. You also say, "We inhereted the art from him and our teachers, and it's up to us where it goes" so one assumes we would not accept stagnation but demand responsiveness to needs. Many feel a gap with aikido on the ground. Ergo...

Something I've been wondering recently is what if Ueshiba had come along 70 years later. Assuming he still had all the spiritual stuff going on, would his technical repetoire have been more inclusive of things like grappling and kicking? Assuming he was open to other arts, and seemingly he was, I wonder where he would have taken it.

Erik Haselhofer (Erik) wrote: Something I've been wondering recently is what if Ueshiba had come along 70 years later. ...would his technical repetoire have been more inclusive of things like grappling and kicking?

Erik, the following is excerpted from http://judoinfo.com/whatis.htm (Highlights are mine)

Judo comes to us from the fighting system of feudal Japan. Founded in 1882 by Dr. Jigoro Kano, Judo is a refinement of the ancient martial art of Jujutsu. Judo...involves considerable grappling on the ground utilizing specialized pins, control holds, arm locks, and Judo choking techniques.

Now, I have never taken karate, but I do believe they train to kick, and I believe it to predate O'Sensei as well.

So, if O'Sensei primarily taught students that were Yondan and Sandan in Judo and Karate, I am under the impression that he allowed for such things, and found them wanting for his martial art.

Mel Barker wrote: Erik, the following is excerpted from http://judoinfo.com/whatis.htm (Highlights are mine) Judo comes to us from the fighting system of feudal Japan. Founded in 1882 by Dr. Jigoro Kano, Judo is a refinement of the ancient martial art of Jujutsu. Judo...involves considerable grappling on the ground utilizing specialized pins, control holds, arm locks, and Judo choking techniques.

Judo was synthesized from the techniques of many koryu jiujustu schools, though apparantly not Daito Ryu. I think that the JJ schools from which judo's newaza orignates were designed or adapted for unarmed combat. The best example of these would probably be so-called "farmer's arts," those designed for the lower classes who were prohibited from carrying serious weaponry during the Edo period. Daito Ryu, the source for Aikido, is an art designed primarily for the bushi, who were usually armed. Because of this, there is a large ma-ai and an emphasis on wrist control techniques, both of which make most of the techniques effective against an armed attacker. Groundfighting was usually never an issue. I don't know if it would be considered unseemly for a bushi to engage in such, but generally for these people some sort of weapon, even a tanto or dagger, would be in play during any confrontation. I doubt that either party would want to be flailing around on the ground in such a situation. It would be much better to remain standing and attempt to control the weapon well enough to decisively end the fight.

Now, I have never taken karate, but I do believe they train to kick, and I believe it to predate O'Sensei as well.

Karate was developed on Okinawa from Chinese kung-fu. I believe that this happened because swords were not legal on the island, and hence kicking and punching were primary weapons. Bushi never trained in kicking because their conflicts normally involved weapons and, during the Sengoku Jidai, they also often involved armor. Kicking and punching don't make much sense in this context.

However, modern Aikido is now primarily an unarmed art, so it is reasonable that kicks could be incorperated. Some people occasionally do so, but I beleive that I read somewhere that the second Doshu disapproved of this for some reason probably relating to historical disdain for geriwaza among bushi. I can't find the source right now, though.

So, if O'Sensei primarily taught students that were Yondan and Sandan in Judo and Karate, I am under the impression that he allowed for such things, and found them wanting for his martial art.

As far as kicking goes, the common wisdom is that an attacker on one foot is less dangerous than one of two feet, so kick defenses should be a simple adaptation. As for newaza, I see the Aikido response as simply maintaining a large enough ma-ai to prevent a confrontation from going to the ground. In judo, competitors hold each other's lapels and manuever for a take-down. In Aikido, one would normally have started doing a technique as soon as, or even before, the attacker reaches out to grab.

Mel Barker wrote: Erik, the following is excerpted from http://judoinfo.com/whatis.htm (Highlights are mine) Now, I have never taken karate, but I do believe they train to kick, and I believe it to predate O'Sensei as well. So, if O'Sensei primarily taught students that were Yondan and Sandan in Judo and Karate, I am under the impression that he allowed for such things, and found them wanting for his martial art.

I should have chosen my words more carefully. I didn't mean to imply that we would be kicking or grappling, rather, that the art may have been more directly inclusive of technical responses to such things had it been created today rather than in the past. I understand that those things existed in Japan during this time but I believe the MA community is much more diverse today than it was then.

For instance, I live in a relatively small area all things considered made up of roughly 5 cities and approximately 200,000 people spread over anywhere from 20 to 40 miles. In that small area I can find Jiu Jitsu (several styles), Aikido (8 dojos), Kung Fu (probably several styles), Judo, Tai Chi, Kendo, Karate (many styles), Brazilian Jiu Jitsu, wrestling, probably dozens of Tae Kwon Do schools and dozens more I don't know about. I can watch MMA, boxing, wrestling, TKD, Judo, Karate and more on tv in both a competitive format and for entertainment. Then there is the internet.

Maybe Aikido would have been the same if it were created today but I can't help but think it would be different given all the information and diversity available today.

Erik Haselhofer (Erik) wrote: Something I've been wondering recently is what if Ueshiba had come along 70 years later.

Or during Sengoku...would we all be doing YUMI?

Erik Haselhofer (Erik) wrote: I can find Jiu Jitsu (several styles), Aikido (8 dojos), Kung Fu (probably several styles), Judo, Tai Chi, Kendo, Karate (many styles), Brazilian Jiu Jitsu, wrestling, probably dozens of Tae Kwon Do schools and dozens more I don't know about.

Erik, I understand what your are saying. I was worried about this for some time myself.

Each of the martial arts you described may seem very different, but they all do one or more of the four following types of attacks: strike, throw, grapple, or use weapons which will either be blunt or edged. If they make funny arm movements, or turn flips on their way to do one of these attacks doesn't much matter.

Now, Aikido is about controlling maai. Proper control of maai is how to deal with each attack. Aiki happens when maai collapes. That's what we train. Granted, I've met many dan grades that don't do a very good job of this. It reminds me of a quote I've seen on some board attributed to Ikeda Sensei when asked if Aikido works. He said, "Mine does, does yours?"

So the best way to deal with these attacks is to become proficient at delivering them. Many people that havent' trained against kicks worry about them. Heck, I'm terrified when I have to attack with kicks, cause I know it's going to be a difficult fall.

Well, how do we train against each of these attacks? Strikes? seems obvious enough, we do it every time we work out. I consider kicks to be funny stikes where uke falls twice as hard. Weapons? again, seems obvious enough. Throws? well any response that is applicable to ryokatatori seems applicable, and of course the other grabbing attacks.

Grappling? well you've been thrown. Best to practice to not get thrown. But if you are, I have found that nikkyo and sankyo work wonders on the ground. Ikkyo can be done. You have to move your hips, just like tachiwasa. The way to do this on the ground is by doing a wrestlers bridge. I often practice taking our warm up kokyu ho back streches into a bridge.

Mel

http://aikido.nowright.com

Don J. Modesto (Don_Modesto) wrote: Or during Sengoku...would we all be doing YUMI?

Ya think?

It's nice to just say "Don't go to the ground. Keep ma-ai. Etc etc." This is very wise. In fact, my former judo instructor was very insistent that, outside the dojo, you don't go to the ground. "Sure, with your grappling skills, you can take care of the guy on top of you. But you can't do anything about his buddies that are about to stomp on your face."

The problem is, you don't intentionally go to the ground. If you're an aikido practicioner, and you end up on the ground, chances are you got there against your will. Saying "don't go to the ground" doesn't help the poor sap that finds himself on the ground.

The real life application of matwork is being able to get back on your feet as fast as you can. The ground game is a whole different beast, and if you're not familiar with it, getting back on your feet is going to prove very, very difficult.

Rather than simply speculating about the issue, which, in the end, is pretty useless (although I always find speculation quite fun), I urge those that haven't to get themselves into a judo/jujitsu/wrestling class a time or two and see what it's like, and then make a judgement.

As for aikido on the ground... I know people before have stated that after much practice in aikido and a ground art, they've found that the principles are the same, but as far as what an aikido practicioner acually practices and it's application on the mat... from my experience, if an arm is there, that slapping a wrist lock on someone is very effective. It's an illeigal technique in judo for a reason. Of course, if the guy knows you do aikido, the opportunity probably won't present itself.

Brian Kerg (Brian) wrote: It's nice to just say "Don't go to the ground. Keep ma-ai. Etc etc." This is very wise....The problem is, you don't intentionally go to the ground.

That needed saying as simply as you said it. Thank you.

Don J. Modesto (Don_Modesto) wrote: Thank you.

Obliged. :bows:

In response to Post #25:

Those same finger and thumb manuevers would also be very handy to get out of a lot of arm bars and similar holds.

Giancarlo DiPierro (G DiPierro) wrote: As far as kicking goes, the common wisdom is that an attacker on one foot is less dangerous than one of two feet, so kick defenses should be a simple adaptation.

True, unless the other foot is upside your head!

I agree that kick defenses SHOULD be a simple adaptation. I look at it like this: there are two types of attacks direct and indirect, whether it be a punch or kick. A hook punch is indirect, as is yokomenuchi, as is a roundhouse kick. A jab or a front kick or shomenuchi are all direct attacks. I think the principles apply the same across the board.

Matt Rice (MattRice) wrote: I think the principles apply the same across the board.

but really I don't know jack!

James,

Those same finger and thumb manuevers would also be very handy to get out of a lot of arm bars and similar holds.

Maybe.....

If you're being controlled on the ground you won't be in a position to use small joint manipulation. It's the same as standing techniques. Finger/thumb locks might get you out of nikkyo, but I wouldn't count on it. In my experience, "foul tactics" (small joint locks/breaks, eye gouges, biting, pinching, etc...) are too often used as a substitute to solid training in basic technique.

Regards,

Paul

Of course! Where do you think the "do" in do-si-do comes from??

Avery

Don J. Modesto (Don_Modesto) wrote: ________________ We could explore square-dancing in depth and call that self-development, too.

Found this on Google Groups courtesy of Meik Skoss:

Aikido (particularly the Ueshiba-style, which I've done for more than 34 years, and the Shioda, Tomiki, or Tohei styles, which I've seen a *lot*) doesn't have anything that can *honestly* be called grappling or weapons. By grappling, I mean training that systematicically teaches you how to muckle onto someone, throw him down hard enough to incapacitate him, proper training methods notwithstanding, and/or make him submit to a pin, joint lock, or choke (or strangulation, if you want to be technical). Grappling doesn't fit into any current aikido paradigm that I have seen. Atemiwaza are studied most thoroughly in Shioda-style, a bit in Ueshiba-style, almost not at all (in a realistic manner) in either the Tomiki or Tohei styles.

The full post can be found here:

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=fa....uio.no&rnum=8

Kevin Wilbanks wrote: I don't see how adding ground techniques will necessarily help in the exploration of human interaction, or of experientially absorbing principles such as leading, joining, listening, following, shugyo, mushin, zanshin, etc... or do anything to make the art more likely to help us to achieve the kind of exceptional grace and spirit exhibited by O'Sensei.

I agree with everything except this last little bit ;-)

Infact. Moshe Feldenkrais wrote an entire book on just how ground techs of judo could be used for these purposes. Book is called Higher Judo - Groundwork. Ask me nicely and I may post a few snippits ;-)

So we should add all the techniques of Judo and the Feldenkrais method to Aikido, too?

Kevin Wilbanks wrote: So we should add all the techniques of Judo and the Feldenkrais method to Aikido, too?

Hey, now there's an idea...

Seriously tho, you misunderstand.

I was merely disagreeing with the idea that ground techniques CANNOT help us learn abt human interaction, blending etc and offer the above said book as a reference

Ask me nicely and I may post a few snippits ;-)

please pretty please pretty pretty please

Bob Strahinjevich (bob_stra) wrote: Hey, now there's an idea... Seriously tho, you misunderstand. I was merely disagreeing with the idea that ground techniques CANNOT help us learn abt human interaction, blending etc and offer the above said book as a reference

Actually, you are misrepresenting my argument. I never argued that ground techniques cannot help us learn about the listed things. I argued that adding them to Aikido won't make Aikido any better at helping us learn those things. To reiterate once again, I am contending that adding a bunch more of anything to Aikido will make it worse by making it a more shallow diffused discipline as opposed to a focussed and deep one.

Kevin Wilbanks wrote: Actually, you are misrepresenting my argument.

Seems par for the course on this board

>I never argued that ground >techniques cannot help us learn >about the listed things.

Ok, my bad.

>I argued that adding them to >Aikido won't make Aikido any >better at helping us learn those >things.

Could argue against that, but... meh.

(To those curious, go a googling for schema theory of movement / generalized motor programs)

> To reiterate once again, I am >contending that adding a bunch >more of anything to Aikido will >make it worse by making it a more >shallow diffused discipline

I'm not disagreeing here. Question - what's your feeling on aikido Vs aiki-jitsu re: diffused discipline?

Kevin Wilbanks wrote: I don't think Aikido claims to be a martial art, since it is an abstraction. People make claims. Who claims Aikido is a 'martial art'?

People like K. Ueshiba (not to mention his dad and son), others more contemporary include M. Saotome, R. Shirata, K. Tomiki, G. Simcox, C. Clark, K. Tohei, etc etc etc.

Aikido is budo and thus MUST have a martial component. AT least within the scope of the Japanese budo ...

Kevin Wilbanks wrote: The name itself implies that it is a 'do' form and not a 'jutsu'. Even if it was a 'jutsu' form, that does not mean it needs to cover all fighting ranges and combat/defense scenarios.

Correct. It must cover what it professes to cover. It is not today (but perhaps once was) truly a 'sogo budo' in that it sought to touch all bases.

However, the perceived (and much misunderstood) dichotomy between jutsu and do is false and misleading. Folks want to put far more into that than actually exists ...

Aiki-DO includes jutsu and do. So does Ju-DO, Ken-DO and Cha-DO. And (for instance) Takeuchi Ryu Jujutsu includea a significant DO component, as does Kashima Shinryu ken-JUTSU, Tenshin Shoden Katori Shinto Ryu ken-JUTSU and Muso Jikiden Eishin Ryu iai-JUTSU.

Ther'es not much difference except this: What you do techincally is JUTSU, what you do WITH that in your life, THAT is DO.

Kevin Wilbanks wrote: As far as Aikido authorities that make claims, everything I've ever read in translation by O'Sensei emphasizes that Aikido is fundamentally different from other

Mostly in translations by one individual (who's well-meaning but largely narrowly-focused translations are much overrated. Read Larry Bieri's translation of "Budo Training in Aikido" for another perspective (one far more accurate, in my estimation).

Kevin Wilbanks wrote: I think the comment about what would O'Sensei do when taken to ground is irrelevant, as he

As he had studied a handful of jujutsu systems, some of which included newaza, I also suspect he made a good accounting of himself on the mat from time to time.

Kevin Wilbanks wrote: have used them. Similarly, when faced with a host of gun-toting enemies in war, he reportedly grabbed a Mauser, ran into their midst and mowed them all down.

Eh? Source? As far as I know, he never entered combat (unless you consider the advennture in Manchuria with Onisaburo as combat ...)

Chuck

Giancarlo DiPierro (G DiPierro) wrote: Judo was synthesized from the techniques of many koryu jiujustu schools, though apparantly not Daito Ryu.

Kodokan Judo's Goshinjutsu no Kata was built by K. Tomiki, a student of M. Ueshiba and holder of a menkyo in Daito Ryu.

Giancarlo DiPierro (G DiPierro) wrote: I think that the JJ schools from which judo's newaza orignates were designed or adapted for unarmed combat. The best example of these would probably be so-called "farmer's arts,"

Nope. There WERE no 'farmer' arts. This is a myth. Most farmers in any medieval society were too busy staying alive, paying taxes and keeping the foxes out of the henhouse to have the luxury to train in martial arts.

As Japan developed a 'middle class' during times of relative peace, some commoners did have the chance to study budo, but throughout Japanese history, by and large, the budo were clearly arts belonging to the warrior and ruling class. This includes most systems of koryu jujutsu.
[quote="Giancarlo DiPierro (G DiPierro)"]Daito Ryu, the source for Aikido, is an art designed primarily for the bushi,
[quote="Giancarlo DiPierro (G DiPierro)"]This is really questionable, historically. Best research available indeicate a great deal of, um, inconsistency with many DR claims about lineage. However, it IS known that Kano did come from 'samurai' stock, whilst Ueshiba was from common blood. His father was a merchant, IIRC.

Especially after the War, Ueshiba was leaning more toward the idea that Aikido was for everyone ...

Giancarlo DiPierro (G DiPierro) wrote: Because of this, there is a large ma-ai and an emphasis on wrist control techniques, both of which make most of the techniques

ALL of the Japanese budo have great emphasis on maai ... and many of the jujutsu systems (of which aikido is one) focus on the wrist first ... for that matter, so does escrima, which is very much a commoner's art ...

Giancarlo DiPierro (G DiPierro) wrote: Groundfighting was usually never an issue.

Most systems of jujutsu had, at one time or another, some form of newaza. Having the luxury to dispense with groundwork is a recent thing.

Most systems of jujutsu originated as auxiliary arts to weapons systems. What happens when your weapon is broken, lost, rendered ineffective? You grapple. What happens when you grapple in the mud and blood?

You go to ground.

Giancarlo DiPierro (G DiPierro) wrote: I don't know if it would be considered unseemly for a bushi to engage in such,

It was considered unseemly for a bushi to throw away his life, it was considered unseemly for a bushi to fail in his duty.

It was considered (somtimes -- remember that we're speaking of a broad-ranging culture and a period of severla hundred years ...) 'distasteful' to grapple with a commoner, however, and the preferred method in some eras and some palces was simply to cut them down. Another bushi, on the other hand, could be grappled, pinned, captured and then killed or ransomed quite happily.

Giancarlo DiPierro (G DiPierro) wrote: but generally for these people some sort of weapon, even a tanto or dagger,

Most commoners were armed as well, they were simply (during SOME eras of history) forbidden from wearing long swords. Merchants routinely wore wakizashi and commoners wore and used knives of all kinds.

In many cases, the samurai were farmers who got drafted and found a calling in arms and made their fame and fortune through being the baddest muthas on the block.

Japanese history is long, diverse and never as simple as it would appear on the surface. In fact, the precursor to the shogunate was held by a commoner who'd raised himself to high status on the battlefield.

Giancarlo DiPierro (G DiPierro) wrote: would be in play during any confrontation. I doubt that either party would want to be flailing around on the ground in such a

In war, and this is where most of the budo were born, you do what you must. Period.

Giancarlo DiPierro (G DiPierro) wrote: Karate was developed on Okinawa from Chinese kung-fu. I believe that this happened because swords were not legal on the island,

Disinformation. Myth, maybe. Very romantic, but only partly, at best, true. History does not support the armed Samurai vs unarmed commoner theory. However, Yes, Okinawan arts owe much to the influence of Chinese emigrants, merchants and missionaries.

It was, however, the upper class Okinawans studying these arts, not the peasants.

The ones who invited the Satsuma into the Ryukyu islands ...

Giancarlo DiPierro (G DiPierro) wrote: Bushi never trained in kicking because their conflicts normally involved weapons and, during the Sengoku Jidai, they also often involved armor. Kicking and punching don't make much sense in this context.

One word: Kempo. It's a sub-division of Japanese jujutsu. There are four or five active systems of 'koryu' kempo that punch and kick quite freely. Even some of the old, well known systems such as Kashima Shinryu and Araki Ryu have subsets of kempo within their curricula.

Giancarlo DiPierro (G DiPierro) wrote: However, modern Aikido is now primarily an unarmed art,

SOME modern aikido is mostly unarmed. However, the found often aid the root sof aikido lie in the sword. Many styles of aikido and many dojo train routinely in sword and staff and not just the misogi either ...

Abbe, Nishio, Shirata ... more recently Chiba, Saotome, Homma, et alia.

Then even MORE recently and close ot home, there's dennis Hooker, Chuck Clark, Julian Frost, Stefan Stenudd and others.

Giancarlo DiPierro (G DiPierro) wrote: As far as kicking goes, the common wisdom is that an attacker on one foot is less dangerous than one of two feet,

Absolutely!

Giancarlo DiPierro (G DiPierro) wrote: so kick defenses should be a simple adaptation.

Adaptation, yes, not simple. Especially for uke.

Aikido principle fits very well into newaza. It's still allabout centering, flowing, blending, moving with rather than against, etc. The BEST judo has more in common with aikido than you'd think ...

Chuck

Chuck Gordon (LOEP) wrote: Mostly in translations by one individual (who's well-meaning but largely narrowly-focused translations are much overrated. Read Larry Bieri's translation of "Budo Training in Aikido" for another perspective (one far more accurate, in my estimation).

I assume you are talking about John Stevens. FWIW, Kanai S. gave a lecture at summer camp this year in which I understood him to be saying that Aikido is fundamentally different from other budo. The lecture was given in Japanese with English translation by one his newer students, so it was somewhat difficult to follow. Nevertheless, I think he was pretty clear on that point.

I tried to explain my understanding of this issue to Larry not to long ago, but I don't think it was very clear. If you are interested, I will try again here. I haven't seen Larry's translation of Budo Renshu, so I don't know anything about the argument he presents there.