Primary Techniques for Self Defense

Daren Sims wrote: Tai No Henka - Omote & Ura. Why? Because TNH contains the foundations of all Aikido hence the vast majority of classes starting with this basic reference. Cheers D

and why omote and ura?

Because there is a widespread misconception that Aikido is limited to self-defence...even this thread has it in its title.

By using omote the attacking pre-emptive potential of aikido can be demonstrated.

Regards

D

Mary Eastland wrote: 1. paying attention 2. correct distance Mary

zanshin and maai. I stand corrected and agree, thank you.

David Skaggs wrote: If you had an opportunity to demonstrate to a group of people and due to time constraints could only show two examples of Aikido, what would you show.

I would probably not show any technique. I'd show two examples of kuzushi, that are occasionally referred to as the "ikkyo" principle and the "shihonage" principle. I'd call them something else, but the demonstrating of kuzushi and how it can affect the spine in each direction is fundamental from my point of view.

Regards,

sometimes you hear "there are no stupid questions"

well....

if I am picking out a technique to do before hand, I am in deep do do.

Since there is a multitude of techniques to learn in Aikido and it takes many years to learn them, what two techniques would you practice the most to be able to use in a self defense situation. It would be stupid to wait until your attacked to try to figure it out. You react as you train.

David

David Skaggs wrote: Since there is a multitude of techniques to learn in Aikido and it takes many years to learn them, what two techniques would you practice the most to be able to use in a self defense situation. It would be stupid to wait until your attacked to try to figure it out. You react as you train.

I agree with your last statement. But one does not react with any technique at all, but some technique will find itself blooming naturally on the stem of the trained reaction. There ain't no figgerin'. So the question of technique, in the sense you intend, is precisely the wrong way round.

I can teach almost anybody a technique inside of an hour -- what I cannot easily do, except through mindful repetition and critical correction, is teach the sensibility that makes one perceive that technique in the process of presenting itself in the encounter and the sensibility that makes it capable of being applied in that encounter.

If pressed I would say that if somebody did nothing else, ever, they could do funetori and udefuri and gain the essential sensibility to apply techniques, but not necessarily the sensibility to perceive the opening for any technique. For the the latter I would show kokyu tanden ho (kokyu-dosa), and furitama -- Putting them together? Well -- there is the art, isn't it?

And none of that looks like there is much "martial" in it ... but, of course, half of war is deception,....

If you look at the various statistics available, most of them seem to indicate that > 90% of potential situations and encounters can be avoided by simply being aware and taking preventative physical measures.

So, I would agree that spatial awareness and distance - especially distances that can be afforded by simply running away - would form the "primary techniques" (or more accurately, "strategies") of the majority of SD responses.

As far as "secondary techniques" (or more appropriately, "responses") go, the principles of "blending" and "redirection", as applied to psychological and verbal de-escalation, are far more preferable to any physical "technique".

Actual physical "technique" is usually the action of "last resort", when all else fails. Even then, I would certainly not show ANY "technique", much less, ANY specific Aikido technique, simply because ritualized movement, such as that being touted as "technique", is antithetical to the situational dynamics of any encounter.

Rather, I would layout the physical and bio-mechanical basis of the human body, and how its natural physical limitations and weaknesses can be exploited by simple and rather basic gross movements; movements which comply with basic physical laws that would at the very least enable one to temporarily disable and/or disengage from an assailant, to create an escape opportunity - and thereby create distance.

In any case, the legal premise and ramifications of physical self-defence, is sufficient to preclude, and in certain cases even invalidate, the use of many "martial arts" techniques as a legal defence.

Ignatius Teo wrote: In any case, the legal premise and ramifications of physical self-defence, is sufficient to preclude, and in certain cases even invalidate, the use of many "martial arts" techniques as a legal defence.

Excellent point.

Ignatius Teo wrote: . Rather, I would layout the physical and bio-mechanical basis of the human body, and how its natural physical limitations and weaknesses can be exploited by simple and rather basic gross movements; movements which comply with basic physical laws that would at the very least enable one to temporarily disable and/or disengage from an assailant, to create an escape opportunity - and thereby create distance.

And where in Aikido do you find this?

David

David Skaggs wrote: And where in Aikido do you find this?

Musubi renshu.

Ok, guys. David is asking a simple question that requires a simple answer. He's obviously and plainly asking for it again and again. This is not about strategy, principles or anything but he simply wants your two techiniques of choice.

Alejandro Villanueva wrote: Ok, guys. David is asking a simple question that requires a simple answer. He's obviously and plainly asking for it again and again. This is not about strategy, principles or anything but he simply wants your two techiniques of choice.

Fair enough.
1) All
2) None.



I think many have come from different paths at the the same answer which is that it has a mistaken premise of "choice" and that there is some generic hierarchy of utility. Neither is true. That doesn't mean it is a BAD question -- it is just a koan of sorts.

"Name the two colors that are your preferred piece of theatre"

"Techniques" are physical metaphors -- shorthand non-verbal
sketches.

On a (believe it or not) somewhat serious note, the first thing is Run Away! Run Away!.

On a more serious note, since attacks can come in so many different ways I don't really see how one can come up with 2 most important "techniques". Unless you consider "irimi" a technique.

Or maybe... Don't get hit, move, then connect with their center and control them...

Or...

Aiki, I guess...

Not the answer you want, I suppose, but the best I can do.

Alejandro Villanueva wrote: Ok, guys. David is asking a simple question that requires a simple answer.

True, but sometimes a simple answer isn't possible.

"How do you remove a cancerous tumor? Give a simple answer."

Well, "cut it out." is a simple answer but woefully inadequate. And every other answer assumes a particular type of cancer in a particular area with a patient with specific other issues. And then is the answer still all that simple even if you qualify all those things?

We often make things more complex than they need to be. But sometimes things really are complex.

Or as an old philosophy professor of mine used to say, Occam's razor isn't a law, just a suggestion. Or to quote Gershwin "It ain't necessarily so..."

Keith Larman wrote: True, but sometimes a simple answer isn't possible. "How do you remove a cancerous tumor? Give a simple answer." Well, "cut it out." is a simple answer but woefully inadequate. And every other answer assumes a particular type of cancer in a particular area with a patient with specific other issues. And then is the answer still all that simple even if you qualify all those things? We often make things more complex than they need to be. But sometimes things really are complex. Or as an old philosophy professor of mine used to say, Occam's razor isn't a law, just a suggestion. Or to quote Gershwin "It ain't necessarily so..."

Or to quote Confucius, "Life is really simple, but we insist on making it complicated."

David

David Skaggs wrote: And where in Aikido do you find this?

In the "Universal Exercise"? Wax on, wax off?

I understood the question, but like everyone else has already said.... limiting yourself to specific techniques, in what is essentially a dynamic situation, is fraught with danger. You can certainly demonstrate a "technique" to illustrate a point or physical principle, but I, personally, would not rely on "dojo technique", Aikido or otherwise, to do so.

So the question as to what 2 "primary techniques" one would show is moot. Because, "it depends"... on what variables you are limiting the demonstration to, for the sake of simplicity and what basic assumptions you're making; i.e. What sort of attack? Standing up, on the ground, etc...? What specific principle, or set of principles, are you demonstrating and why? After all, a "technique" is merely how the principles can be applied, within the context of those predefined variables and assumptions, some of which would have to be modified, discarded, or added to in order to encompass the multitude of variations. BTW, this applies directly to dojo techniques as well.

I'm sorry it's not the direct answer you're seeking, and I would be loathed to say, sure, just use this or that technique, as it would unnecessarily stymie your imagination and creativity.

FWIW, I've just come back from conducting a women's self-defence workshop, and NOT one of the many "techniques" I demonstrated looked remotely like an Aikido technique. Although, I am certain that one of the participants who does/did Aikido would have immediately recognized the similarity of principles and potential applications within Aikido itself. Likewise, there were some example scenarios covered within the workshop where an assailant is on top of you. To someone in the know, it might have looked like basic BJJ, or a variation thereof, but I would hardly call it BJJ.

However, I would recommend, that whatever technique you do decide upon, keep it really really simple. If it's simple, it's easy to learn, and more importantly, remember.

Erick Mead wrote: "Techniques" are physical metaphors -- shorthand non-verbal sketches.

If someone asks you to demonstrate what Aikido is about,
which two physical metaphors would you sketch.

David

I don't know. It all depends on the situation, the attack, the type of attack, the number of attackers, the attacker, the environment, the space size, the place, if a weapon is or isn't used, the direction, line and angle of attack, my mobility capability- restrictions due to obstacles, barriers, object interference, moving or stationary hindrances. My location, am I sitting (in a car, chair etc.) or standing.

I would answer all techniques as my only one technique.

Ignatius Teo wrote: However, I would recommend, that whatever technique you do decide upon, keep it really really simple. If it's simple, it's easy to learn, and more importantly, remember.

Yes, do you have techniques that you would suggest?

David

Philip Burgess wrote: I would answer all techniques as my only one technique.

I asked for two.

David

David Skaggs wrote: Yes, do you have techniques that you would suggest?

No. Even if I did... it wouldn't be an Aikido "dojo technique", so what's the point of asking the same question repeatedly to get the same answer? Sure, I can show you a trick or two, but that's all they would be - tricks, and then I'd have to kill you.

Like I said, what are you aiming to convey? What is the purpose of the demonstration? To show what Aikido is? Or to show self-defense applications of Aikido? In any case, my answer is still "it depends". Since I don't know what you do, can do, don't do, can't do, I can't answer this for you. Only you can.

In case, I wasn't clear before... I would NOT show ANY specific Aikido technique. (That in itself should already raise a few question marks as to why.... and if you don't know the answer to that, then I don't think you have any business demonstrating what Aikido is, or how it can be applied in a self-defense situation). However, if you wish to speak to common principles found in any martial art, that *could* be applied in a contrived self-defence scenario, we can talk about those here, or in another thread.

If you go back and read my first post, everything contained therein can be found within Aikido... both principles and "technique".

David Skaggs wrote: If someone asks you to demonstrate what Aikido is about, which two physical metaphors would you sketch. David

A chain and a handshake. I demonstrate both aiki age and aiki sage with a length of chain. We demonstrate sensitivity in connection to your partners' physical disposition with a handshake. (Ever wonder why people "shake" hands with that typical short, sharp oscillation? ) Furitama.

Same processes are in action in both those examples as are applied in aiki, aiki simply applies them more generally, and in more complex ways -- like seeing the "shape" of your chain that will "push" on his resisting chain when you are "shaking hands." (kokyu tanden ho). But again, these hardly look martial --- I suppose the chain looks a BIT "martial"

Striking too, as I teach it, (empty handed or with sticks), is chain-like. If you doubt that can be done with a stick, try doing the "rubber pencil" trick and ask why your eye sees it oscillate and "bend."

Alejandro Villanueva wrote: Ok, guys. David is asking a simple question that requires a simple answer. He's obviously and plainly asking for it again and again. This is not about strategy, principles or anything but he simply wants your two techiniques of choice.

Perhaps he should listen to the answers he's gotten. Some of us aren't going to change what we perceive as the correct answer just because he isn't happy to hear it, even assuming that is the actual case.

Tarik Ghbeish wrote: Perhaps he should listen to the answers he's gotten. Some of us aren't going to change what we perceive as the correct answer just because he isn't happy to hear it, even assuming that is the actual case.

If he's asking for a technique (well, two), then an abstract concept is not to be perceived as the correct answer, IMHO. I agree with what most people's answering here, mind you, but that's not the point. I would say maai, or deai, or awase... but these won't be correct answers to that question.

Alejandro Villanueva wrote: but these won't be correct answers to that question.

Let's agree to disagree.