Resistance

Smart ass? Maybe ... Thug?? NO WAY!!

Don't worry Don, we love ya anyway!

It is one of the problems with much of aikido Don. I think you'd enjoy a Shodokan class. Wish there was one in your area. I too feel your pain, but I guess I drank the kool-aid...I'm pretty much bought and paid for by aikido.

Best,
Ron

Don Magee wrote: I guess these kind of explanations (use more ki, etc) just stonewall me. I am a scientific learner. I like exacting responses (keep your hands up, you are flat footed, you did not take his balance first, etc) and exacting requirements from me (punch him in the face as fast as you can, grab and attempt to lift your partner off the ground, throw harai goshi 10 times as fast as you can, take this guy down and submit him, etc). Every time I show up for aikido class, I have no idea what is acceptable and what is unacceptable, every time I ask I am made to feel like a smart ass thug who wants to fight (which is questionable).

Amen Don...I am exactly like you...I just wish I could express myself better when it comes to helping folks learn Aikido.

William Hazen

One of the quandries in which I find myself these days, is that as I work to improve the ability to bring the "ground" into my limbs, certain waza have much less affect on me. Nikkyo/Nikajo is one of these. I try to be judicious about when, where, and how long I resist it. But it is so easy in so many situations now it is hard to resist (resisting), if I can call it that. It's more like just blocking the power of the waza with the mental connection...I don't stiffen up, the control just doesn't have the expected affect.

As these kinds of skills develop, one challenge is playing nice...and being sure to show others how to do the same things, so that both levels go up. Not just mine. Just some additional thoughts...
Best,
Ron

Hi Don and William,
I hope I don't confuse the situation as I try to explain extending ki (I'm still learning): see, whenever you move with mind and body coordinated, you are in essence extending ki. It doesn't matter what you are doing- as long in what ever you are doing, as long as your mind and body are coordinated, you are extending ki. When you attack with mind and body coordinated, proper intent, balance, and proper execution of the attack using natural body movement and something else that I may be forgetting are all included.

You have to understand that I am at a disadvantage because this is the only perspective I have on aikido and for that matter any martial arts. Ki aikido is the only martial arts I have experience on and i'ts only limited to 4 years. We also don't use the phrase "use more ki", instead "extend ki" is used and for us student in ki aikido, we understand what state we need to be: mind and body coordinated (easier said that done most of the time of course).

Larry Cuvin wrote: Hi Don and William, I hope I don't confuse the situation as I try to explain extending ki (I'm still learning): see, whenever you move with mind and body coordinated, you are in essence extending ki. It doesn't matter what you are doing- as long in what ever you are doing, as long as your mind and body are coordinated, you are extending ki. When you attack with mind and body coordinated, proper intent, balance, and proper execution of the attack using natural body movement and something else that I may be forgetting are all included. You have to understand that I am at a disadvantage because this is the only perspective I have on aikido and for that matter any martial arts. Ki aikido is the only martial arts I have experience on and i'ts only limited to 4 years. We also don't use the phrase "use more ki", instead "extend ki" is used and for us student in ki aikido, we understand what state we need to be: mind and body coordinated (easier said that done most of the time of course).

I for the most part understand by what is ment by extending ki (well I think I do anyways). I don't practice ki, but I hang out with a lot of guys who do. I guess my problem is not the extending ki, so much as what I'm going to be doing while I extend it.

Lets say we are practicing a technique where uke's job is to throw a strike. What is an acceptable strike? How hard can it be? After I throw the strike, what should I be doing? Is my intent to throw the strike, or to strike the nage? Should I throw a proper strike with good posture and balance, or give my center in a off balanced attack? Do I attempt to retract my hand after striking as most people who strike would do? Do i become defensive after striking in anticipation of a counter attack, or do I continue my strikes in anticipation of overwhelming my target?

I think I can do any of those things with proper intent, mindfulness and ki extension.

Another example was the time I was uke for some knife defense drills. I was asked to make a trusting attack to the gut. After doing the standard fare of defenses, nage decided to step across my center and grab my non-knife wielding hand and do a technique on that. Now throwing a single knife thrust with no regard to my balance allows this to work because I leave my hand out there and I'm slightly off balance. A balanced attack where I retracted my hand allows me to stab the nage multiple times in the back. I was simply told to stab with no direction as to the intensity or what to do after the initial stab. When I did show that I could stab, I am told "Well here you would apply atemi before you did that.". Which of course could lead to acceptance, or a chess match style "I could do X" argument. Neither I find acceptable.

A more acceptable version would be like this.

The job of the uke is to attack the body of the nage with a rubber knife. His intent should be to deliver a single large attack to the body, retract the knife, reposition and attack again while being prepared to submit or take ukemi to protect yourself.

The job of the nage is to use aiki principles and techniques to throw or submit the attacker and retrieve the knife. Possible techniques allowed are joint locks, small joint locks, slaps (or whatever), pins and throws.

Now we know exactly what we are getting into. Another example could be a simple drill where the role of uke is to do a 50% speed thrust with the knife and the role of nage to step off the line, receive the attack and execute a single throw over and over. Again, we each know our place, I am to throw a 50% strike that would indeed hit if it reaches, and nage is to step off the line and throw me with X.

When defined this way, it's hard to argue about what uke should be doing. If you tell me to throw a fast strike that would hit, and you get hit, it's the fault of the drill not of me going to hard.

Don, I really like your perspective on this issue. I consider myself fortunate that I train at a dojo where we define clearly the parameters of the engagement (is this a drill, is this randori, is this a kata), the method of engagement (grab to pin the hand, throw a jab/cross combo, cut me, yadda yadda ad infinitum) and we attempt to train the same sort of foundational skills (power generation, awareness, sensitivity, proper movement as defined by our aikido style) that we will require as nage while we are being uke.

By clearly defining what the goal of the practice you are partaking in is at all times, you minimize the influence of ego, personal opinion, and the dreaded "But I could have done this" statement, and can focus on acquiring the skills you need to improve. The proof will be in the pudding, as it were, and there will be no questioning the results and outcome of your practice.

In aikido people often do not say what they mean, so you have to observe the general pattern and read between the lines. What is almost never stated but is the case in the vast majority of aikido dojos is that the prime directive for uke is the ensure that nage maintains a 100% success rate, especially when the nage is a teacher or a high(er)-ranking person. Thus, all other technical directions must be subordinate to this, and must be compromised if neccesary to ensure that nage maintains a 100% success rate.

If the direction is to "really try to hit nage," this should be interpreted as "appear as if you are trying to hit nage, but don't actually hit nage or otherwise do anything to impede nage's technique." Similarly, if the direction is to "try to resist," this really means "make it look as if you are trying to resist, but do not do so in a way that would be successful." What are doing wrong is simply not realizing that the implicit rules of all drills in your dojo is to allow nage to succeed 100% of the time. Apparently you cannot be told this directly but must be given some other excuse for why are you are doing it wrong. Most likely it is to preserve the fantasy that what you are learning would actually work against someone who was not colluding with nage to ensure a perfect rate of success.

Resistance doesn't seem to be an issue when people respect each other and try to blend on both a physical and psychological level. Without it, we can't find the Aikido Goldilocks Zone.

Too much resistance: Two macho guys completely shut down each other's technique just to prove who is best in a "Who Can Shut Down This Technique?" competition. Some people will line themselves up for a head-butt or whatever, just to stop someone lifting their arm. In this kind of competition one doesn't usually want to let the other guy know how to win.

Too little resistance: as Giancarlo so eloquently described, you get folks throwing themselves for their partner when said partner has done nothing that would cause such an action to occur. A poor understanding of etiquette ("I'm sempai, so you should fall") is another problem. If someone screws it up, they need to know. They might not want to know, but I guess that's what makes awase and the reigi important.

The Goldilocks Zone: People foster a level of honesty and trust where they can "resist properly" or "naturally" so that they can test a technique without ego or competition coming into the equation. When someone can shut another person down, they just drop a gear and help them work out how to avoid that shutdown. It's the point where learning can flourish and it will be different for every person you train with since we all have different physiology and tolerance to pain. This is the drawing board stage for solving problems that we never want to happen, so we want the designs to be flawless. Isn't that what keiko is all about? You practise for the real thing. If you just do the real thing from the start (a real fight where anything goes), you'll mainly use what you already know and will probably impose limits anyway (making it an unreal fight).

Rather than "resistance", how about thinking of it as "honestly testing the technique"?

Giancarlo DiPierro wrote: In aikido people often do not say what they mean,....the prime directive for uke is the ensure that nage maintains a 100% success rate, especially when the nage is a teacher or a high(er)-ranking person.... What are doing wrong is simply not realizing that the implicit rules of all drills in your dojo is to allow nage to succeed 100% of the time. Apparently you cannot be told this directly but must be given some other excuse for why are you are doing it wrong. Most likely it is to preserve the fantasy that what you are learning would actually work against someone who was not colluding with nage to ensure a perfect rate of success.

"A cynic is a man who, when he smells flowers, looks around for a coffin." ~ H. L. Mencken

You have to ask yourself, what is the point of resistance? Usually there is no point. Resistance will degrade to the point of who's stronger which usually ends up with pulled muscles and soar joints. You can make the same point and suggestion before or after the technique which will probably be taken better than if you do it in the middle of, this will come out more as a challenge than lesson. I say do one of these, if you want to make the point of faulty technique:

1) If they are lower or same rank, tell them point blank your suggestion, but be polite, "Do you think that if you turn your hip this way you will get a better technique?" or say, "I like to move my hip this way because it blah blah blah, what do you think?" It's all in how you say it.
or
2) If they are higher or same rank, wait for the lead instructor to get to your area and ask the SENSEI for clarification of how the movement works exactly. Then you both will get the real answer, not just your view of it.
------
I've found people to be more receptive to these two routes to changing movement. Lower ranks will listen to the higher ranks, and higher ranks will listen to the sensei.

Resistance in the middle of action has no merit to it, there is not a single technique in the world that doesn't have openings. There is always a point of counter. But good counters involve less resistance and more relaxation/flow, it's the only way to really counter effectively. That would be the only way I'd counter a technique, through redirection by relaxation.

Anyway you cut it, resistance would not fit the way you think. Even in kokyudosa we aren't "resisting" as uke, but we are extending and testing their movement with unbendable arm. Think counter more than resistance...and even that has it's places.

-Alexander

I am not talking about beginners. I am talking about someone who has been training for a little while. I am also not talking about the kind of resistance where you "bear down" on the person. But many times you see people just rushing through the technique and they more or less are just going through the motions. For many people, this has become a normal way of training. Proper resistance can be a tool that wakes up the nage and can help to fix many things, such as them not using their hips, not extending ki, and not using their whole body as one unit. Again, I say that I am not speaking of resisting each and every time, but just enough to call the nage's attention to a particular point of practice that they may to correct.

I think talking about resistance is misleading, one should talk about Uke role, and the correct way of being Uke. Resistance should be just one minor tool of many in Uke toolbox.

People seem to take the role of correcting Tori too lightly. It is NOT the role of each partner to teach, only of Sensei and (if Sensei wishes) the Sempai. They, should be experianced enought to correctly utilize the elements in the Uke toolbox to assist Tori in learning, adjusting the tools to Tori level.

Being a good Uke is an artform of itself, and most benefitial for becoming a good Aikidoka. Uke should always strive to be active, within the role the Kata\Waza provides him and his own level of experiance.Active Uke means Uke should feel the pressure applied on him and respond to it.
The most basic Uke behavior, is to simply follow the power directions.
More advanced reactions would be:
- to lead the pressure to create a good technique.
- to take advantage of some pressure directions and get away or reverse (Keashi-Waza) the situation.
- to resist some pressure directions and follow only the right ones.

Ignoring Tori pressure and resisting in a passive way is the least instructive way, and should generally be avioded. Just like Tori is learning to perform a technique on more powerfull people, so does Uke learn. The practice against resistance per-se, can be used as an instructive tool, under correct guidence, when the a small portion of technique is being focused, and Tori is learning to perform it in such a way he can overcome the resistance.

Amir

Stefan Stenudd wrote: I was probably unclear. What I regard as rather pointless resistance is when uke knows that tori should do a specific technique, and resists that particular technique forcefully, in a way that is contrary to how an attacker would or should behave. For example, both ikkyo and shihonage involve bringing uke's arm up. Some uke resist it by pulling their arm down with great strength and commitment - even before the aikido technique reaches the moment when to lift uke's arm. In such a case, tori should not fight this force, but join it, which would lead to another technique - and that technique, agreeing with the direction of uke's force, is a piece of cake. To me, that is quite meaningless. Also, by such behavior uke is actually weakening him- or herself, by committing to resist a certain technique and thereby becoming extremely vulnerable to other techniques. Am I making sense?

This is very common excuse for a weak technique. If an attacker can resist (in any form he like) it simply means that your technique let him to do it. You have the openings, the holes in your technique – that’s whole secret. If in your technique there are no openings, he simply can't resist.

Take a look at great athletes in judo competition. They know very well which technique is coming. They can feel it with eyes closed. And HELLAS!!! They are able to execute this technique against full power resistance ->active resistance with counters etc.... So please don't tell such cheap excuses, rather polish your technique into such level, that you will not need anymore a 'trained' - as Pavlov dog - uke.

Aikido is art no resistance --- but it is NAGE who must NOT resist. Not uke. Uke can do whatever he want to do.

This is very funny - correct way of being Uke ....You don't know what uke will do. It is impossible to define the 'right' behavior' of attacker. He has a different view of reality, he can be very stupid, or influenced by alcohol, drugs, or simply very advanced and experimented fighter. Your technique can't depend of his behavior. It will be not anymore aikido.

Nice post Mr. S! Good to read you again.

Best,
Ron

Szczepan Janczuk wrote: This is very funny - correct way of being Uke ....You don't know what uke will do. It is impossible to define the 'right' behavior' of attacker. He has a different view of reality, he can be very stupid, or influenced by alcohol, drugs, or simply very advanced and experimented fighter.

Dude, it's practice. It's a drill. It's not free-form fighting, it's practice, a particular attack and a particular response. You may not like that type of practice, but that's what it's supposed to be, not improvisation. If uke has discarded his/her inhibitions and good judgment as a result of drugs or alcohol, he/she shouldn't be there. Likewise, if uke is too stupid or too experimental or too off on his/her own version of reality, and thus is unwilling to get with the program, he/she shouldn't be there. When you're doing shomenuchi ikkyo, uke is supposed to attack with shomenuchi, not something else. You don't have the right to unilaterally change the rules on the fly and thus endanger yourself and your partner, and if you can't restrain that impulse, you need to not be there.

What was taught to me is "the more resistence you meet in your opponent, the more relaxed you become to overcome the strenght of your opponent".
I want to take the example of Stenudd Sensei, unless I misunderstood his words. It happened many times, since you mentioned Shihonage, last right yesterday, that Sensei asks me to resist the more I can with my arm down and don't let him lift it. He uses this to show me that no matter the resistence applied, if positioning and relaxations are perfect the technique works the same. Adjusting the body and redirecting the energy the right way will help in carrying out the technique. If the push is downward, you go with the flow and go down...might end up doing a Shihonage in seiza.
Now I agree that in a "non-practicing" situation you don't force the technique, but adapting can mean changing technique. After all we all know in a fight you don't pick a technique to use, they should come out naturally according to the situation.
But in an enviroment where you have a set technique to practice you cannot change. So it is up to Nage to find "the sweet spot" from where the resistence of Uke is useless. In my opinion, that can be right or wrong, saying that a technique cannot be done because Uke is using too much resistence is putting the whole Aikido system in discussion.
I don't think in a real fight you will ever find someone who won't try to push himself free or try elbow strike you in an Iriminage. Someone that in a kotegaeshi will try to pull instinctivily is arm closer to his body creating resistence. And the examples are endless.

Mary Malmros wrote: Dude, it's practice. It's a drill. It's not free-form fighting, it's practice, a particular attack and a particular response. You may not like that type of practice, but that's what it's supposed to be, not improvisation. If uke has discarded his/her inhibitions and good judgment as a result of drugs or alcohol, he/she shouldn't be there. Likewise, if uke is too stupid or too experimental or too off on his/her own version of reality, and thus is unwilling to get with the program, he/she shouldn't be there. When you're doing shomenuchi ikkyo, uke is supposed to attack with shomenuchi, not something else. You don't have the right to unilaterally change the rules on the fly and thus endanger yourself and your partner, and if you can't restrain that impulse, you need to not be there.

Ahh but even a drill can have levels. In your example, do I step in and blast that shomenuchi as fast and as hard as I can right though you? Or do I throw a slow but off balance shomenuchi that is of no threat to my grandma? What happens after the shomenuchi, do I continue to try to hit you will them until my balance is broken and I am placed in ikkyo?

To me, these are important parts of the drill that need to be defined in a spoken or unspoken context (depending on the people involved). Obviously I know the examples I gave are extremes, but that balance needs to be found for both partners. In combat sports this balance is easy to attain because the goals of each partner are well defined. In my experience in aikido, I have not had such luck in well defined goals (besides looking good on the ukemi). This would hold true in any art. If I was instructing a bjj class and told the students to pair up and practice armbars from the guard, I would see many ways of practicing armbars. Some would drill with resistance, some would do static reps, some would just spar. If I defined the goal of the practice by telling them "Do 20 armbars with no resistance, then do 20 armbars with 25% resistance, then have the guy on top try to pass and the guy on bottom try to armbar or sweep." then they know exactly what I mean and there can be no argument.

Hi Don,

I guess that while I understand the desire for a more concrete instruction set, one of the challenges and beauties of aikido is having to sort a lot of that out in an instant, by feeling your partner and acting appropriately in that moment. I like the idea of having better instructions for aikido kieko...more well established parameters. But at the same time, I think the most value that aikido has provided me, at least, is that sussing out of your partner in an instant...and knowing what to do, as uke or as shite.

Been thinking about your posts a lot over the last day. I'll try to keep it in mind during my next keiko as well. Maybe I can write more after that.

Best,
Ron

Ron Tisdale wrote: Hi Don, I guess that while I understand the desire for a more concrete instruction set, one of the challenges and beauties of aikido is having to sort a lot of that out in an instant, by feeling your partner and acting appropriately in that moment. I like the idea of having better instructions for aikido kieko...more well established parameters. But at the same time, I think the most value that aikido has provided me, at least, is that sussing out of your partner in an instant...and knowing what to do, as uke or as shite. Been thinking about your posts a lot over the last day. I'll try to keep it in mind during my next keiko as well. Maybe I can write more after that. Best, Ron

Remember too that I don't think nage always needs parameters, only uke. Sometimes it helps to give nage parameters, but mostly I think uke just needs to know what is acceptable for the task at hand. A good example of this is randori, you don't really want to tell nage what to do, you want him/her to be freeform and to learn to blend with the moment. At the same time however, you probably want nage to be experiencing some kind of pressure. Maybe they are new to randori so you want slow attacks and grabs, maybe they are a experienced black belt you want to put the pressure on, so you want the ukes to really try their best to tie up and take down nage (think steven segal black belt test type randori where they pin nage up against the wall and take him down). Both uke and nage without instruction will come to their own unspoken understanding, but that might not be the best for their growth.

In judo, when I am placed with a new person for their first randori, without instruction, I will have to decide what level of contact is appropriate. Do I let them throw me? Obviously they really have no chance (unless they come from a wrestling background or something). Do I drill them into the ground over and over again? Do I keep them defensive with threats of throws but never really throw them? Maybe I should just go one for one, make mistakes on purpose and give them a chance to throw, then after they throw, I can throw them back. All of these tactics have advantages and disadvantages. Against a stubborn new kid, it might be good to give him a taste of what I brown belt can do and throw him over and over again with every single throw I know. With a timid kid, it might be a good idea to give him the chance to throw a lot and help build confidence. With a rough and tumble kid, I might go one for one and give him a great workout with practice defending and throwing. You get the picture. Left unguided, we will both come to a unspoken agreement of what our roles are. Most of the time this agreement will focus on our strengths and not our areas of weakness. This is where verbal guidance can help force us to face our weakness and work on building them up. My instructor might tell me to not throw the new student but give him openings so he can work on attacks, the new student now knowing I will not throw him will be emboldened to work outside of his protective shell and try new throws and ideas. Alternately I may be told to only throw with a few select throws (say foot sweeps, or only Ogoshi). This forces me to come up with new ways to deal with an opponent who although new, knows what I am going to be trying and can be onguard for it while attacking me. Sometimes, when paired with a smaller person (like a teen) I may be told to go one for one and fight/defend at 25%, and give no resistance once the balance has been taken, this way the kid will get to throw and work on his defense. It makes it harder for me because the kid is under no such restrictions to move at 25%. Sometimes we are just paired up and told to go. In these cases the instructor knows we both have it down and know our roles are.

It probably doesn't have to be done every single time you train. In fact I'd say it probably most of your students probably already get what you want from them. If they don't one time is probably enough for most people to get it. It really is only useful in a few cases. When you get people like me who need the goals defined at least once, and when you want people to do something other then what you normally have them do.

Just another tool box for people who are teaching. It's like in the classes I teach at the college. Sometimes I want the students to write a free form program to solve a problem, sometimes I want to make sure they solve the problem using a set method. They still have the creativity to find a way to use that method to solve the problem, they will just be forced to think about that method and how it applies to the problem.

This is very common excuse for a weak technique. If an attacker can resist (in any form he like) it simply means that your technique let him to do it. You have the openings, the holes in your technique -- that's whole secret. If in your technique there are no openings, he simply can't resist.

I don't think so. If you tried, for instance, to do katatetori shihonage on me and I didn't want you to, I could make it quite impossible for you to do so - even if you tried to relax and adjust. I'd just do the same and continue to stymie you - if I didn't punch you in the kisser first.

Saotome sensei has a video out where he details what he calls "oyo henka waza". In it he demonstrates what can be done when uke gives full resistance to technique. Generally, he changes technique entirely or varies his method of application of a technique quite significantly in order to overcome uke's resistance. Now, if he believed you just had to have more polish on your technique for it to work no matter who attacked you and how, he wouldn't be making videos about how to switch from one technique to another when uke resists. Maybe he just doesn't have your deep understanding of aikido, NagaBaba...

Aikido is art no resistance --- but it is NAGE who must NOT resist. Not uke. Uke can do whatever he want to do.

In free-attack practice, or a full-out fight, yes, uke may do whatever he wants to do, but not during technique-specific practice.

Jonathan Hay wrote: I don't think so. If you tried, for instance, to do katatetori shihonage on me and I didn't want you to, I could make it quite impossible for you to do so - even if you tried to relax and adjust. I'd just do the same and continue to stymie you - if I didn't punch you in the kisser first. Saotome sensei has a video out where he details what he calls "oyo henka waza". In it he demonstrates what can be done when uke gives full resistance to technique. Generally, he changes technique entirely or varies his method of application of a technique quite significantly in order to overcome uke's resistance. Now, if he believed you just had to have more polish on your technique for it to work no matter who attacked you and how, he wouldn't be making videos about how to switch from one technique to another when uke resists. Maybe he just doesn't have your deep understanding of aikido, NagaBaba... In free-attack practice, or a full-out fight, yes, uke may do whatever he wants to do, but not during technique-specific practice.

Interesting post. I agree with some of it, not all. First part - if your balance is lost in the unfolding of the attack itself, then no, you couldn't make it impossible to do the technique. If you attack in the first place with that in mind, yes, things might be different, depending. This is all subtle stuff in terms of what people have posted here about "proper" attacking, resisting etc. If one's Aikido is technique based, then you are correct - if it is "Musubi/Kuzushi" based, then no.

Second part - not everyone subscribes to the way Saotome does Aikido, in fact I don't. It's right for some people, not everyone, that's all - no one person teaches Aikido in a way that is right for everyone. There are different ways that are valid.

Third part - I agree completely.

Kuzushi is the key...anybody can resist just about anything we do...IF they don't have their balance taken.

I think one major problem in aikido today is the loss of kuzushi on contact with shite.

Best,
Ron

Interesting discussion. Ron your last post is true... kuzushi is an ongoing, changing connection, and effect that must be there to take the sente and keep it.

Mary Malmros wrote: Dude, it's practice. It's a drill. It's not free-form fighting, it's practice, a particular attack and a particular response. You may not like that type of practice, but that's what it's supposed to be, not improvisation.

Obviously, you don't follow O sensei teaching. He never taugcht drills. He always did improviisation. Never had structured teaching system. Please read more S.Pranin search on aikido history, may be you will better understand what aikido is about.

One other thing to your information, Mr. Stefan Stenudd is high ranking instructor, not a beginner. I expect him to handle ANY behavior of uke and still be able to do a planified technique .

Jonathan Hay wrote: I don't think so. If you tried, for instance, to do katatetori shihonage on me and I didn't want you to, I could make it quite impossible for you to do so - even if you tried to relax and adjust. I'd just do the same and continue to stymie you - if I didn't punch you in the kisser first. <snip> In free-attack practice, or a full-out fight, yes, uke may do whatever he wants to do, but not during technique-specific practice.

Hi Jonathan,
There is an old saying from Himalaya: Aikido ends when attacker touch you.
more I practice, more I tend to agree with that.

Also Sugano sensei often has been laughing that I'm not doing aikido but jujutsu. So I started to carefully study time and space BEFORE contact.

Having said that, I don't 'try to relax and adjust.' This mistake is common for quite beginners on jujutsu level. So you could never stop my technique this way. Please find something more sophisticated

Exactly, technique-specific practice can give expected results ONLY when technique is executed in most difficult conditions. Extreme conditions. Not only because the is the only way to close all openings, but such teaching follows O sensei teaching that every technique we must execute as it will be our last technique before dying. That makes difference aikido from any other sport oriented practice.