I never use wrist techniques

Biomechanically they are attacking your wrist and yes it can affect your shoulders. But in essence it is a wrist technique. I feel like I'm talking to someone who thinks rokyo is a wrist technique.

Eric Jones wrote: Biomechanically they are attacking your wrist and yes it can affect your shoulders. But in essence it is a wrist technique. I feel like I'm talking to someone who thinks rokyo is a wrist technique.

I would still beg to differ That may be the way you do it (I know and appreciate there are many styles of aikido), but in both the powerful and softer way I've most experienced, there is very little pressure on the wrist. The powerful way uses the arm and elbow to torque and bend the arm to a position over nage's arm that unbalances immediately, and the pressure is felt on the elbow and shoulder, which raises the body. That pressure is held all the way round before a drop behind uke 'allows' uke to collapse backwards. They are so off balance at that point it's the only way they are going, and it's not the wrist doing that. It's my shoulder and elbow I rub afterwards...

With the softer way we were specifically guided not to grab. The unbalance comes from the movement, so no wrist there either if executed well. So I'm a bit surprised to hear shihonage described as a wrist technique. Only really the beginners end up hammering the wrist at the end, due to lack of unbalancing.

Now that I think of it I believe a more wrist-focused version was executed at a dojo doing Tissier's style, though I've only visited a couple times so do not quite remember the details. So it's quite possible that version exists. It's just not the majority version I've experienced.

As to which is more effective, that would need to be tested.

We don't have a technique called rokkyo here, but from a quick video search we have a similar one, I think called hijishime at least one place. And no, I wouldn't describe that as a wrist technique, although the wrist position does help to tighten up the arm.

Like I said before you are attacking the wrist but you are attacking it in a way that affects the elbow and shoulder. You are telling me how to do shihonage step by step but it's only proving my point. In the so called powerful and softer way you described you're still attacking the wrist. Even if you take their balance which is the prefered way in my opinion you're still using their wrist to throw them. Unless they're using telekinesis you have to attack the wrist to do shihonage no matter what style you're from or else you're just falling down for them.

I have something more important to discuss with you. How often is the armlock practiced in the schools you've been to?

Kristoffer Lawson wrote: I would beg to differ on shihonage. I'd argue that very much is an elbow technique. At the very least it can be executed that way. In its most powerful form I feel my elbow is locked from the very beginning, all the way to the final throw with my body completely off balance at that point. I've also felt it executed as a much lighter version that results in me moving one way (forwards), while the twirl and behind-shoulder throw unbalances my top part. Both seem to work if done well. But I don't think I've ever felt a functional shihonage be a wrist technique. More like if it becomes wrist banging at the end, that means nage hasn't unbalanced me and feels they need to hammer the wrist to get me down.

From my perspective this makes more sense. I'm not sure how something can be a wrist technique if it can be done without the wrist. Regardless of how we choose to think of the technique's point of control, kotegaeshi is defined as happening at the kote area, shihonage is not. I've seen shihonage done where the elbow was at least as much a part of the process as the wrist and I've seen it where the wrist had no real part at all.

Eric Jones wrote: I noticed I never use wrist techniques. I'm more likely to use udegaeshi than kotegaeshi. I just thought that was strange since Aikido is famous for it's wrist techniques.

Eric, I think of kotegaeshi as something very specific involving the tekubi, a specific technique; but now I'm wondering if you are making a distinction between "wrist area" techniques and "arm area" techniques. I know most tend to grasp the wrist during shiho nage, for example.

I get the sense you practice Tomiki Ryu and I have minimal experience there. Tenkai kotegaeshi is probably what you are used to talking about and how we organize our techniques is different. "First technique" can mean anything to any different school outside of the Aikido set.
Anyway, thank you for sharing your thinking. I don't think there is one set of nomenclature that is more correct, but I also know relatively little when it comes to the language, and frankly I spend more time in practical application (as I believe I understand it) than I do on individual terms. I'm more interested in discussion the principles behind the techniques. In my perception, "tenkai kotegaeishi" is typically practiced with the kote, but can be done without it. The name isn't the thing, but again i am sure I'm splitting hairs here.

Is Aikido famous for kotewaza? I thought it was famous for its history.
BJJ is also famous for newaza...and a bunch more, right?

Eric Jones wrote: I noticed I never use wrist techniques. I'm more likely to use udegaeshi than kotegaeshi. I just thought that was strange since Aikido is famous for it's wrist techniques.

Eric, I think of kotegaeshi as something very specific involving the tekubi, a specific technique; but now I'm wondering if you are making a distinction between "wrist area" techniques and "arm area" techniques. I know we tend to grasp the wrist during shiho nage, for example. In the words I'm familiar with I might say kata dori vs katate dori.
These days at my school we don't grab much though. We make a contact point. Katatedori at my school is now more like tegatana crossing...crossing swords with the arm.
I get the sense you practice Tomiki Ryu and I have minimal experience there. Tenkai kotegaeshi is probably what you are used to talking about and how we organize our techniques is different. "First technique" can mean anything to any different school...Aikido notwithstanding.
Anyway, thank you for sharing your thinking. I don't think there is one set of nomenclature that is more correct, but I also know relatively little when it comes to the language, and frankly I spend more time in practical application (as I believe I understand it) than I do on individual terms.

Is Aikido famous for kote?

...Sorry, I'm not sure why both of those last two posts got posted. I thought I was operating within the edit function, but must have messed it up somehow.

Eric Jones wrote: Like I said before you are attacking the wrist but you are attacking it in a way that affects the elbow and shoulder. You are telling me how to do shihonage step by step but it's only proving my point. In the so called powerful and softer way you described you're still attacking the wrist. Even if you take their balance which is the prefered way in my opinion you're still using their wrist to throw them. Unless they're using telekinesis you have to attack the wrist to do shihonage no matter what style you're from or else you're just falling down for them. I have something more important to discuss with you. How often is the armlock practiced in the schools you've been to?

Trust me, we do not use the wrist even for the throw down. With uke so off balance, using the wrist would only weaken the throw. The throw is to the lower arm. Now I have felt some people do a wrist wrench at that point but it's in no way the norm and it would be kind of pointless or even defeat the purpose if the unbalancing is strong. The downward throw is more like a bokken strike. Not wrist wrangling. I actually talked about this with a very experienced sensei recently and he confirmed that it's not about the wrist, beyond at most a relatively light grasp just for control.

Which armlock do you mean? I've practised many.

On a side note I think it’s interesting aikido is known for wrist techniques, to people outside aikido, but of all the techniques I can only think of nikyo and kotegaeshi which are clearly directed at the wrist, and even kotegaeshi has implementations which are more directed at the arm. Some people might be thinking sankyo too, and I might be tempted to throw that in, but a big part of it is really the tightening of the arm and shoulder.

Even if you throw in the ones that use the lower arm, that’s still the minority of all aikido techniques.

Kristoffer Lawson wrote: Trust me, we do not use the wrist even for the throw down. With uke so off balance, using the wrist would only weaken the throw. The throw is to the lower arm. Now I have felt some people do a wrist wrench at that point but it's in no way the norm and it would be kind of pointless or even defeat the purpose if the unbalancing is strong. The downward throw is more like a bokken strike. Not wrist wrangling. I actually talked about this with a very experienced sensei recently and he confirmed that it's not about the wrist, beyond at most a relatively light grasp just for control. Which armlock do you mean? I've practised many.

What I'm trying to get across is that you don't have to crank on the wrist for it to be considered a wrist technique. For example. The way I was taught to perform kotegaeshi was you attack the wrist but you don't crank down on it. I was taught you hold on to the wrist and you off balance them and throw them. But the kotegaeshi I do is still a wrist technique even though I don't perform it like the majority of Aikido does.

Sensei: Do you guys know why shihonage is called shihonage?

Anyway I'm talking about the armlock that resembles hijishime.

Me: Sensei I'll go get your bokken.

Sensei: *reaches out hand to receive bokken*

Me: Beats sensei relentlessely in the head with his own bokken.

Class: You're killing sensei.

Me: I've heard him explain shihonage way too many times. Blah blah balh 4 corner throw. Sword work blah blah blah.

Anyway I mean the armlock that resembles hijishime.

Matthew Gano wrote: Anyway, thank you for sharing your thinking. I don't think there is one set of nomenclature that is more correct, but I also know relatively little when it comes to the language, and frankly I spend more time in practical application (as I believe I understand it) than I do on individual terms.

That is acceptable. Alot of boxers don't understand why they punch hard but they can still punch hard nonetheless.

Matthew Gano wrote: Eric, I think of kotegaeshi as something very specific involving the tekubi, a specific technique; but now I'm wondering if you are making a distinction between "wrist area" techniques and "arm area" techniques. I know most tend to grasp the wrist during shiho nage, for example. I get the sense you practice Tomiki Ryu and I have minimal experience there. Tenkai kotegaeshi is probably what you are used to talking about and how we organize our techniques is different. "First technique" can mean anything to any different school outside of the Aikido set. Anyway, thank you for sharing your thinking. I don't think there is one set of nomenclature that is more correct, but I also know relatively little when it comes to the language, and frankly I spend more time in practical application (as I believe I understand it) than I do on individual terms. I'm more interested in discussion the principles behind the techniques. In my perception, "tenkai kotegaeishi" is typically practiced with the kote, but can be done without it. The name isn't the thing, but again i am sure I'm splitting hairs here. Is Aikido famous for kotewaza? I thought it was famous for its history. BJJ is also famous for newaza...and a bunch more, right?

I've never heard my teacher use the word tenkai kotegaeshi to describe shihonage the only reason I know tenkai kotegaeshi is shihonage is because I read about it being described this way and I asked my teacher about it.

Aikido is famous for it's wrist techniques and BJJ is famous for it's poor stand up skills. It's very good on the ground but it's notorious for it's poor stand up grappling skills.

Eric Jones wrote: What I'm trying to get across is that you don't have to crank on the wrist for it to be considered a wrist technique.

Oh gotcha! Cool. I'm not good at any of this stuff, and frankly I'm exceedingly ignorant, but that does seem to make more sense to me; thank you.

Although to be fair...that's the hiji you're now talking about, not the tekubi?

At the end of the day I have a hard time with technique names because they're very specific and really I think they're just ways of talking about other things, but I would seem to agree that it is generally more effective to attack closer to the core than the wrist.
Anyway, I thank you for communicating your set of ideas. I've been doing this less than many and more than others and I appreciate the different ways of looking at the same things. It's only by considering the differences that we can delineate better.

I would guess that disarming techniques would have been an earlier focus to aiki-jujutsu, and that it would include how to engage wrist techniques, even though arm and body techniques have a higher percentage of efficacy. Taking a weapon requires holding the weapon the other person was holding on to. I would guess this to be akin to the highest levels of ability.
I'm truly guessing though.

Eric Jones wrote: What I'm trying to get across is that you don't have to crank on the wrist for it to be considered a wrist technique. For example. The way I was taught to perform kotegaeshi was you attack the wrist but you don't crank down on it. I was taught you hold on to the wrist and you off balance them and throw them. But the kotegaeshi I do is still a wrist technique even though I don't perform it like the majority of Aikido does. Anyway I mean the armlock that resembles hijishime.

I get that, and I agree kotegaeshi is more than a mere wrist wrench (in fact it probably won't even work done like that), but it does target the wrist. For the way I've experienced shihonage the wrist is pretty much irrelevant. It's not attacking the wrist at all and the other hand could be grabbing any part of the lower arm (just that closer to the wrist gives you a bit more leverage to manipulate the arm, but it's still not attacking the wrist). In the softer form there's not even that. Especially at the actual throw, it really doesn't matter if the other hand is on the wrist or not. In fact you can throw with just one hand on the lower arm at that point. Like mentioned, after a vigorous session it will be my shoulder and elbow feeling the tenderness, and nothing on my wrist.

How aikido techniques are done can sometimes vary greatly, so it's quite possible in your school it's executed as an attack on the wrist. Probably best to compare notes on a tatami. Just worth considering that there may be many outside your school who wouldn't classify it as wrist technique, so that could cause confusion.

As to the hijishime arm lock. At my most regular dojo it's practised rarely. I've only done it once in relation to a weapon attack practise, during 4 years of practise. But in two other places I guess it would be practised as regularly as any other non-basic set. Now given that there are quite a few techniques that's not necessarily saying much I've also done it in a group that mixed karate and judo (and some other bits), called wakigatame. However I think the wakigatame implementation was a bit more gentle (a bit more stretchy, and less breaking the joint).

Why do you ask?

Matthew Gano wrote: Oh gotcha! Cool. I'm not good at any of this stuff, and frankly I'm exceedingly ignorant, but that does seem to make more sense to me; thank you. Although to be fair...that's the hiji you're now talking about, not the tekubi? At the end of the day I have a hard time with technique names because they're very specific and really I think they're just ways of talking about other things, but I would seem to agree that it is generally more effective to attack closer to the core than the wrist. Anyway, I thank you for communicating your set of ideas. I've been doing this less than many and more than others and I appreciate the different ways of looking at the same things. It's only by considering the differences that we can delineate better. I would guess that disarming techniques would have been an earlier focus to aiki-jujutsu, and that it would include how to engage wrist techniques, even though arm and body techniques have a higher percentage of efficacy. Taking a weapon requires holding the weapon the other person was holding on to. I would guess this to be akin to the highest levels of ability. I'm truly guessing though.

I have no idea what you mean by hiji and tekubi. Your not the only one who has trouble with technique names and it's not your fault which I will explain to Kristoffer. I don't know about aiki ju jutsu but I've done Iwama for awhile and there was alot of weapon work but I'm disturbed by how inferior it is to HEMA weapon disarming techniques.

Kristoffer Lawson wrote: I get that, and I agree kotegaeshi is more than a mere wrist wrench (in fact it probably won't even work done like that), but it does target the wrist. For the way I've experienced shihonage the wrist is pretty much irrelevant. It's not attacking the wrist at all and the other hand could be grabbing any part of the lower arm (just that closer to the wrist gives you a bit more leverage to manipulate the arm, but it's still not attacking the wrist). In the softer form there's not even that. Especially at the actual throw, it really doesn't matter if the other hand is on the wrist or not. In fact you can throw with just one hand on the lower arm at that point. Like mentioned, after a vigorous session it will be my shoulder and elbow feeling the tenderness, and nothing on my wrist. How aikido techniques are done can sometimes vary greatly, so it's quite possible in your school it's executed as an attack on the wrist. Probably best to compare notes on a tatami. Just worth considering that there may be many outside your school who wouldn't classify it as wrist technique, so that could cause confusion. As to the hijishime arm lock. At my most regular dojo it's practised rarely. I've only done it once in relation to a weapon attack practise, during 4 years of practise. But in two other places I guess it would be practised as regularly as any other non-basic set. Now given that there are quite a few techniques that's not necessarily saying much I've also done it in a group that mixed karate and judo (and some other bits), called wakigatame. However I think the wakigatame implementation was a bit more gentle (a bit more stretchy, and less breaking the joint). Why do you ask?

Your inability to distinguish what a wrist technique is..... is not your fault. Aikido techniques are poorly categorized in the main styles. Ikkyo nikkyo, sankyo is no way to classify a technique. In fact I showed an Iwama teacher kote hineri and tenkai kote hineri and he told me they were both just called sankyo. Alot of techniques don't even have names they're just called kokyunage. You can do ikkyo without touching the elbow but it's still a variation of an elbow technique. The same goes the same for shihonage. You can do it without touching the wrist but it's still a variation of a wrist technique.

This disturbs me more than any minor argument about technique names. Wakigatame is my favorite technique. Over the years I must have done it at least over a thousand times. It makes me sad that this technique is ignored in the main aikido styles. It's very versatile and can be used against a variety of techniques and attacks. Out of all the grabs and strikes I'm trying really hard to think of an attack I wouldn't use it against. I like to counter kotegaeshi with wakigatame in randori.

Eric Jones wrote: Your inability to distinguish what a wrist technique is..... is not your fault. Aikido techniques are poorly categorized in the main styles. Ikkyo nikkyo, sankyo is no way to classify a technique. In fact I showed an Iwama teacher kote hineri and tenkai kote hineri and he told me they were both just called sankyo. Alot of techniques don't even have names they're just called kokyunage. You can do ikkyo without touching the elbow but it's still a variation of an elbow technique. The same goes the same for shihonage. You can do it without touching the wrist but it's still a variation of a wrist technique. This disturbs me more than any minor argument about technique names. Wakigatame is my favorite technique. Over the years I must have done it at least over a thousand times. It makes me sad that this technique is ignored in the main aikido styles. It's very versatile and can be used against a variety of techniques and attacks. Out of all the grabs and strikes I'm trying really hard to think of an attack I wouldn't use it against. I like to counter kotegaeshi with wakigatame in randori.

Don't you think it is a bit obnoxious to say it is a limit in my ability to distinguish the technique? As mentioned, I'm sure there are places that execute it as a wrist technique. My definition of a wrist technique is something which attacks the wrist or at least where you can feel significant effect on the wrist (e.g. sankyo).

I've experienced aikido and aiki arts at 26 different locations in 4 countries. Admittedly that is still a small sample compared to the overall spread of aikido, but it does include the spiritual home of aikido in Ibaraki, Japan, and Daito Ryu in two places. I've only rarely experienced shihonage having any kind of focus on the wrist beyond, at most, a tug at the end (and that's really just to overcome lack of unbalancing). By that I mean it would be executed exactly the same even if there was no wrist (hand chopped off). Even if you don't believe me, two very senior senseis that I talked to about this repeated the same. Your place might be different.

Note I'm not arguing for which execution is more effective, as I haven't experienced how you do it. Just that I would argue the minority of aikido places would consider shihonage a wrist technique.

As to wakigatame, yes it's one good technique and I do use it in now and then in jiyuwaza or randori. I don't know why it isn't taught more frequently by all senseis, so you'd have to ask them. Probably they just have different interests.

Everything you just said proves my point even more. The main aikido styles don't categorize techniques very well. So your lack of ability to distinguish techniques is not your fault.

How do you do wakigatame against multiple randori partners? I never do use it in multiple randori because you really can't.

This is case of comparing apples and oranges. Styles of Aikido are different and until common ground is established we just talk at each other without any understanding.

Eric Jones wrote: Everything you just said proves my point even more. The main aikido styles don't categorize techniques very well. So your lack of ability to distinguish techniques is not your fault.

By that same argument it's not your fault you have a lack of ability to recognise shihonage as an elbow/shoulder/structure throw (since I guess you have not practised other styles of aikido, or Daito Ryu).

As Mary also pointed out, there are different ways to do techniques.

That reasoning doesn't apply to me. I told you before what style I practiced before. If you read what I said you would know that. I'm not responsible for your low reading comprehension.

Eric Jones wrote: I have no idea what you mean by hiji and tekubi.

As far as I know:

Hiji = elbow

Tekubi = wrist

Eric Jones wrote: That reasoning doesn't apply to me. I told you before what style I practiced before. If you read what I said you would know that. I'm not responsible for your low reading comprehension.

From what I could piece together, mostly Tomiki and some (one lesson?) exposure to Iwama, but I don't know if that's the whole picture.

I'm unclear as to why you seem to want to be confrontational with people here and against other styles of aikido than your favoured style. Others on this thread have been keeping things civil. I'm sure most are just curious about the different ways to approach a technique.

Matthew Gano wrote: As far as I know: Hiji = elbow Tekubi = wrist

Wow I bet anyone (Eric) could have Googled that.

dps

David Skaggs wrote: Wow I bet anyone (Eric) could have Googled that. dps

Lord knows I did, and I was pretty sure I already knew the terms already...granted Google isn't always very accurate.
"Hand neck" always stood out to me for the sense it seemed to make, though.

Although to be fair, I misuse words regularly and tend to try more of a conversational approach than a correct approach.

David Skaggs wrote: Wow I bet anyone (Eric) could have Googled that. dps

I felt like he was using the words in a way that I was unfamiliar with. That's why I asked him.

Kristoffer Lawson wrote: From what I could piece together, mostly Tomiki and some (one lesson?) exposure to Iwama, but I don't know if that's the whole picture. I'm unclear as to why you seem to want to be confrontational with people here and against other styles of aikido than your favoured style. Others on this thread have been keeping things civil. I'm sure most are just curious about the different ways to approach a technique.

The point I'm trying to make is that there is a more rational way of categorizing techniques. Having everything under the sun called kokyunage is kind of annoying.