my sensei "video clip"

Thanks for the comments Sensei Amdur...

Again without much ado I would like to point out The issue does not concern Soft or hard Technique which by the way is really only a matter of interpretation and intention. The issue is the ethical responsibility of Nage to be honest in thier execution of any technique/style with Uke. Now if the Uke has a mad look in thier eye and thier intention is to f**k you up then by all means bounce thier head off the mat or concrete. but if the Uke is trusting your ability to do Aikido and to demonstrate/teach this ability to others then how does harming your Uke accomplish this?

Thats not Aikido in my book "Hard or Soft" Nor does such an Ego based exercise develop any kind of Martial Spirit or Budo in my view.

William Hazen

I personally don't teach students Aikido's version of the sucker punch How about you folks?

Ellis Amdur wrote: I remember discussing aikido with a teacher of mine (definitely non-aikido) - someone who had participated in ring fights, street fights, even full combat - and I described aikido cheap shots: the crank of the already pinned person (how do you ukemi out of that?) or the concussive slam of the head. (Matsuda Seijiro did that one to me. I have some ability in ukemi, but he, as a "joke", did irimi-nage, waited until I was a few inches above the ground, and with palm on forehead, dropped his body weight and concussed me. And he, when I staggered to my feet and off the mat, laughed and patted my shoulder. Shioda wasn't the only one.). Anyway, I described this, and my teacher got a genuinely puzzled look on his face. "Let me get this straight. It's not a shiai. The student takes ukemi and is supposed to attack and fall a certain way" - he then repeated the incidents I described. And then slowly, as if talking a foreign language, he said, "And then the students think the teacher is tough?"

This and Mr. Hazen's prior comment get at what I was talking about all along. In Aikido, much of the practice is set up like a scientific experiment where many of the possible variables are assumed to be constants. Things like driving someone into the mat after they are already falling or cranking on someone who has already yielded are violations of the implicit agreement one makes as uke to participate in the experiment. It's dirty pool. It has nothing to do with being tough, combat-ready, hard, or whatever terms apologists seek to use to glorify it. Quite the contrary. It's cowardly and much more akin to behaving like a rapist or a assassin than any kind of legitimate badass.

If you are looking to prove how tough you are, at least do it in a situation where your opponent/victim is free to attack, reverse, resist, improvise and so forth to the best of their ability. Then, depending on the agreed upon rules, we are talking about sparring, shiai, or an actual fight. Even then, there are other ways to exploit the rules, and take advantage, but at least you are on the right track, and not engaging in some kind of obviously creepy, predatory behavior.

Ron Tisdale wrote: Whoa! wait a minute... Ok, I've trained with Don...he is not from any "camp". He has some excellent waza, and excellent ukemi. For those who doubt it, buy the Friendship demo where he takes some INTENSE ukemi from Saotome Sensei in Japan. Don has every right to his opinion, as does Ellis (Original Graduate of the School of Hard Knocks). Look, different people will have different opinions of those clips, of the clips of Shioda, etc. I know for a fact that there were yudansha that were praying Shioda Sensei wouldn't call them up for ukemi. Yoshinkan can be a very rough style, and just because someone has excellent physical skills doesn't mean they will embody the "peace and love" ethics of post war aikido. As long as the person signing up for the demo is aware of what's up...that's between them and their instructor. Ueshiba Sensei put Shioda Sensei in the hospital for 3 days...after trashing the arm of the first uke in the demonstration before the emperor. That is some rough stuff...as Shioda Sensei was the founding member of the OGSHK himself . It is what it is. No need for any of us to be casting aspersions on the people who are making valid comments. That doesn't mean I have to agree with them, or to take it as seriously as they do. But both Don and Ellis are buds, and I can't sit by and watch people mis-characterize them. Especially since I've felt and seen their waza, and know they don't match what some people have said. Best, Ron

Well It is not a matter of camp or mischaracterization or casting dispersion, is it?
I understand Don is your mate and you took what I wrote to heart;
however The soft/rough bit was addressed to all (hence the two bit of the post don and then all). I should probably posted separately but his comparison was a good support for my argumentation.

From what don wrote I understood that he found the roughness in the video was unacceptable and plain bullying, borderline of wife battering (which I find very excessive, but that is another story).
That really Tarring the sensei with the same brush that you believed I used on don.
Basically we can not judge, I can even understand making the point that it is rough, and not to ones tastes, however the tarring has been going for two pages.

My tack seems to be quite similar to yours.
We do not have enough elements to pass judgment on the men in the video, and you can practice aikido at different level of intensity. (And as I mentioned twice it is fine by me).
I am not sure if we are on the same line on the idea, that every physical activity has an inherent part of risk, and if you practice aikido with intensity thing will go wrong and the going is going to get rough and that is the way of things, It is the same in Rugby, American football, Greco roman wrestling, judo horse riding and so on. So if you are practicing a hard/tough /intense style of aikido, there will be some rough landing, even if you take precautions.
No bullying needed, that is the way of thing with "intense" activity.

Phil

Don J. Modesto wrote: Ha! That's cute. Had heard Ionesco's about cats being dogs, but hadn't heard this one. But I don't think it applies, though. The psychology is the same, I think: The victim blames him/herself. Oh, man! I hate to find myself on the other side of an argument with someone bashing Fox...If nothing else, thanks for that. Societal and peer pressure certainly do obtain. I'll grant that economic variables don't. Still, the psychology is the same, blame yourself for someone else's brutality. Uh, no. Some of it is criminal. Sorry. Accountability seems right to me. "I'm sorry, honey. I don't know what came over me. I promise not to do it again, and I'm cooking you dinner as soon as the doctor signs the release papers." 'Took him four or five bloomin' tosses to knock the poor guys senseless. For which would he be apologizing? Poppycock. The evidence is right before us. Actually, this distinction is untenable. It is precisely the "spiritually oriented" people who train the hardest, cf. Osensei. Don't think I count myself in this camp, but wouldn't be embarrassed to... It is precisely the question of control we are discussing, isn't it. And some of us expect Mori of it, if you will.

Hello
I see where you are coming from and I see where we disagree.
(I can not get argumentative with someone that does not like Fox)

I think we both think that "landing" someone on his head, in practrice at least, is not a good thing to do. Ie that is not what we should be looking to achieve in training or demo.
We could get into countering each other example with a counter example.
Ie but he landed him on his head only once the head on 5,6…10 throw and then yes but he almost landed him on his head here and there but I think that is tangent to the issue.

To be fair, I have seen people continuing to go to dojo (or horse riding lesson). Not enjoying it for due to peer/parental pressure. And in that case I would agree with you that we are in the battered woman case. (i.e. I can not escape. And I blame myself to cope with the situation)
But I have seem many many more people simply quit, because the training was too hard or the did not like/believe in X,Y or Z.(and that X,Y or Z can be a single individual in whole group). I have seen that in martial arts, sports or extracurricular activity.
To me it seems that it is the most common behavior by far

So I think that side of your argument is intrinsically valid but would apply the only a small minority of Uke.

The other part of your argumentation that I think I disagree with is the responsibility and control on tori/uke side
No so much in the uke staying or leaving as I presented above but more on the practice side of thing.
For me it is criminal to practice with intensity without a safe frame. (Hence my reluctance with taijutsu free sparing, even though I really believe in pressure training)
However any intense training, spots or martial arts you will have accident.
Once I hit someone in the face with my lance feral (metallic sockets for the balsa tip). His saddle turned on the horse and his head replaced the targe.(the bit you are aiming at with the lance).of course it happened at the most opportune moment, when I was couching my lance to hit him.
He was a seasoned jouster, his equipment has been used many times on that horse, and his saddle turned after he had run several pass without problem in that very joust.

We all agree that hitting someone in the visor with a solid piece of wood, finished by a steel tube, all that on a800 kg horse at about 80kmh is stupid idea (Unless the helmet is specifically designed for that).
Now whose fault is it who is responsible, surely experience jouster should know better than that.

The more intensity you put in your training, the more minor deviation will have consequences. If you train safely those consequences will mostly result in being battered, but any intense pratice has an inherent possibility of permanent damage or even death.
I think it is criminal to practice in situation where those risk have not been reduce to a minimum but , provided that you freely engage in them, you have no ground to complain when the going gets tough.
(I understand that your bugbear with that line of reasoning is concerning people that are not freely engaging)

phil

phil

Don J. Modesto wrote: Who said this? The issue is brutality, not uniformity. Osensei did it. And we ARE supposed to keep improving aikido, right? I'm guessing this is a spurious distinction, as others have commented, above.

The point is that some interpret that Yoseikan or Aikibudo advocates and utilizes brutality. The methodology of one to another Aikido is not necessarily the same. Perhaps there are core principles that they share, but with vast differences as well.

We should improve our Aikido, but they will vary tremendously based on the focus of the style and methodology of Aikido, which we practice. You miss the point of the different methodologies of Aikido, there are not all the same, hence the interpretation of brutality will always be subjective to ones Aikido.

Sensei Mochizuki Minoru advocated a style of Aikido that was geared for self defense. He thought that there were some inherent fallacies with the Aikido that he learned. So his objective was to improve the art. He was a direct student of Morihei Ueshiba.

Wow, this thread sure got lively.

I don't recall my sensei ever injuring anybody. I never feared taking ukemi for him. In fact it was just the opposite. Always an honor and always one helluva ride. I knew it would be all I could handle. Complete and unwavering trust in him that he would keep me safe. All the while pushing me ever closer to the edge of my ability and endurance, and then some. That's how I learned it and how I try to transmit it.
However, I'm not going to suggest that other consenting adults need be subject to my training paradigms. I mean we pay people to get in cages and beat the snot out of each other. Slam into each other on the football field. Why we gettin all excited about some rough aikido. I don't subscribe to the "domestic violence" comparison either. In all likelihood, these uke's are paying good money for instruction. They must like it.

Salim Shaw wrote: The point is that some interpret that Yoseikan or Aikibudo advocates and utilizes brutality. The methodology of one to another Aikido is not necessarily the same. Perhaps there are core principles that they share, but with vast differences as well. We should improve our Aikido, but they will vary tremendously based on the focus of the style and methodology of Aikido, which we practice. You miss the point of the different methodologies of Aikido, there are not all the same, hence the interpretation of brutality will always be subjective to ones Aikido. Sensei Mochizuki Minoru advocated a style of Aikido that was geared for self defense. He thought that there were some inherent fallacies with the Aikido that he learned. So his objective was to improve the art. He was a direct student of Morihei Ueshiba.

I think Mochizuki Sensei tried to create a MMA. He tested Daito Ryu Aikijujitsu and Shotokan Karate in France against fencing, savate, boxing and wrestling and basically came to the conclusion they don't work too well. However, he found judo and kendo to be very effective.

Yoseikan still retains its aikido techniques but at the higher levels the emphasis is on Judo/jujitsu. I think Mochizuki wanted to create a better martial art not a better aikido. His son has accomplished this in his own Yoseikan Budo.

Anyway getting side tracked here...

I think you can compare Yoshinkan aikido to say Kyokushin karate. Its just full on kick ass type of training therefore not for everyone...

Darin Hyde wrote: I think Mochizuki Sensei tried to create a MMA. He tested Daito Ryu Aikijujitsu and Shotokan Karate in France against fencing, savate, boxing and wrestling and basically came to the conclusion they don't work too well. However, he found judo and kendo to be very effective. Yoseikan still retains its aikido techniques but at the higher levels the emphasis is on Judo/jujitsu. I think Mochizuki wanted to create a better martial art not a better aikido. His son has accomplished this in his own Yoseikan Budo. Anyway getting side tracked here... I think you can compare Yoshinkan aikido to say Kyokushin karate. Its just full on kick ass type of training therefore not for everyone...

Aikido that we practice has a lot more to do with the original methodology of post WWII Aikido (Aikibudo) verses the creation of Yoseikan Aikido. The mentality of some is that post WWII Aikido advocates brutality, hence the styles of Aikido from Mochizuki Minoru's, Aikibudo and Gozo Shioda's, Yoshinkan Aikido.

My point is more of the methodology and implementation of techniques. Mochizuki Minoru kept the legacy of the original Aikibudo alive. Some people perceive some techniques in these two styles as brutality, which is simply not the case. The mentality of a person's Aikido is the problem here.

I think I better see where you are coming from. Thanks for the clarifications. See below for some addtitional comments.

Best,
Ron

Philippe Willaume wrote: Well It is not a matter of camp or mischaracterization or casting dispersion, is it? I understand Don is your mate and you took what I wrote to heart; however The soft/rough bit was addressed to all (hence the two bit of the post don and then all). I should probably posted separately but his comparison was a good support for my argumentation. From what don wrote I understood that he found the roughness in the video was unacceptable and plain bullying, borderline of wife battering (which I find very excessive, but that is another story). That really Tarring the sensei with the same brush that you believed I used on don. Basically we can not judge, I can even understand making the point that it is rough, and not to ones tastes, however the tarring has been going for two pages. My tack seems to be quite similar to yours. We do not have enough elements to pass judgment on the men in the video, and you can practice aikido at different level of intensity. (And as I mentioned twice it is fine by me). I am not sure if we are on the same line on the idea, that every physical activity has an inherent part of risk, and if you practice aikido with intensity thing will go wrong and the going is going to get rough and that is the way of things, It is the same in Rugby, American football, Greco roman wrestling, judo horse riding and so on.

Sure, I get that because I used to wretle in div 3 in college. The crucial difference there being that there was a referee who called fouls when someone slammed you too hard or unfairly, and that you were able to fully resist and defend yourself. In aikido, in kata training (a significant portion of yoshinkan training) uke is cooperating. Perhaps less than some other styles...but still cooperating, in that you have clear, structured attacks followed by then receiving your shite's throw. You are NOT resisting as in judo shiai, or a boxing match, or as in wrestling.

Therefore, the valid critique is that shite should not abuse that position in a non-shiai (but rather, kata) environment.

Of course injuries will happen accidentally; but that is not the topic of discussion here.

So if you are practicing a hard/tough /intense style of aikido, there will be some rough landing, even if you take precautions. No bullying needed, that is the way of thing with "intense" activity. Phil

Understood. But see above as well. I am kind of playing devil's advocate here, because I do see the need for looking under the hood, and evaluating openly other's perspectives, even on the style in which I mostly train. Even if in the end, I do not come to the same conclusions, even about the video in question.

Some people perceive some techniques in these two styles as brutality, which is simply not the case. The mentality of a person's Aikido is the problem here.

Happy to admit I'm biased in that I agree with Don and Kevin with regard to uke abuse. However, your phrasing interested me here - so if the clip that we all watched was not to be considered brutal or abusive, where would you actually draw the line? "first break"? "first hospitalization?" Don't get me wrong, nothing against a bit of brutality between consenting adults, but if I'm going to agree to get hurt I want the option to hurt you as well.

If you use a demo to display the "practicality" of your technique, at best you're showing the quality of your ukes, not your technique. I'd be more impressed with a demo if the elements of brutality and practicality were displayed without breaking the uke in the process - then I'd go wow and be interested in learning more.

Ellis Amdur wrote: Ron - Class G war criminal - http://rmmla.wsu.edu/conferences/con...tractc2e4.html Clearly, a minor - "thought" crime.

Hi Ellis, I can't seem to find the info off of that page. Do you have to be a member to view it? I'll try again when work slows down a bit. The links I could find did not mention class G...just A through C.

Also, see Steve Morris's "No Hold's Barred" - Morris is an infamous guy in British karate circles - you can read about it on different areas on his own website. But what is interesting is the research he got into regarding martial arts and right-wing atrocities pre-and-during WWII - and a whole section in which he SEEMS TO fill in a LOT of blanks in Shioda Gozo's official biography. http://www.morrisnoholdsbarred.co.uk...noteslinks.htm

Excellent stuff. Known about some of it for some time, but no where near this level of detail. Really sheds some light on Ueshiba, Deguchi, Daito ryu, Shioda and that whole side of aikido that is often left unspoken.

I do not know how accurate all of Morris' research is - but some is clear historical record. And it's a read that makes one think. I got a considerable reaction in one of my pieces in Dueling with Osensei (Tenchi: Head in the Clouds, Feet in the Muck) which asked some questions about Ueshiba's collusion and relationship with right-wing organizations, providing a meeting place at the Kobukan for what, by any definition was a terrorist organization.

I remember that piece...one of my favs!

Personally, I think we do far better - particularly in an art like aikido, when we take a clear-eyed look at what our teachers do and who they are. Learning and playing with violence is too important to leave anything to faith. We will make different decisions on whether to stay or leave -but this should be based on truth - not "reframing" (abuse is hard training) or wishful thinking ("he's spiritual thus he can do no harm" ) . . .Oh yeah, I'm repeating myself - I already wrote on this, didn't I? Best

Agreed.

Best,
Ron

Spirited discussion. Thanks all.

Several posters have said things I could have or wished I'd said. I think perhaps we've begun reiteration. To summarize my thinking:

SMALL ISSUES:

* Can/Do teachers abuse?--My answer: Yes.
* Was Mori abusive?*--My answer: Yes.
* Are founders and SHIHAN human and given to the typical weaknesses of humans?--My answer: Doh!

BIGGER ISSUES:

* Do MA students fall into idolatry, hero worship, clouded thinking, and abusive relationships?--My answer: Yes.
* Have we a right to criticize our teachers?--My answer: Incontrovertibly, Yes.
* Have we a right to criticize others' teachers?--My answer: Of course.

...and Philippe--

Some people perceive some techniques in these two styles as brutality, which is simply not the case.

Just to be clear, what _would_ you consider to be brutality? Can you give an example of a technique that you do find brutal? Or of one that some people perceive as brutal but you don't believe is so?

I've far more often heard people arguing that brutality and cheap shots were justifiable in some way (usually either that it had some positive psychological or training effect on the uke, or on the nage, or sometimes simply that the perpetrator was teaching enough skills that the brutality was 'a fair price to pay', or that it should be tolerated because the person was high ranked, etc), than arguing that things like intentionally increasing an attack on an already trapped uke, and some of the specific examples given, aren't actually brutal.

Well, please note that the uke in the clip was not broken or hospitalized to the best of our knowledge.

I also know people that have been hurt, broken, or hospitalized not from brutality, but simple accidents.

Unfortunately, I also know people who were hurt, broken and or hospitalized from what I consider brutality. And not just in Yoshinkan dojo, that's for sure.

Best,
Ron

Ian Hurst wrote: Happy to admit I'm biased in that I agree with Don and Kevin with regard to uke abuse. However, your phrasing interested me here - so if the clip that we all watched was not to be considered brutal or abusive, where would you actually draw the line? "first break"? "first hospitalization?" Don't get me wrong, nothing against a bit of brutality between consenting adults, but if I'm going to agree to get hurt I want the option to hurt you as well. If you use a demo to display the "practicality" of your technique, at best you're showing the quality of your ukes, not your technique. I'd be more impressed with a demo if the elements of brutality and practicality were displayed without breaking the uke in the process - then I'd go wow and be interested in learning more.

Just to be clear, what _would_ you consider to be brutality? Can you give an example of a technique that you do find brutal?

Just to be clear, I don't think THIS conversation is about WAZA that are brutal. It is about shite/nage's *application* of waza...after having broken balance, then using that opportunity to needlessly pile on the power.

As Boon mentioned in another (or the same, I forget) thread, I believe one of the purposes of yoshinkan training is to train uke that allow shite to express power (safely). That means uke must be trained to receive power (safely). With that in mind, you will see throws that constantly push the edge of uke...and that constantly push the edge of shite's control and application of power. That is often a major part of yoshinkan training. Such a fine line of balance between that and what may be percieved as brutality is drawn, that sometimes it will cross the line. That is a part of the risk we accept. Sometimes I have to inform someone that on a particular day, I am not up to what I might be up to on another day. Sometimes I have to say that I am just not up to it period.

Or of one that some people perceive as brutal but you don't believe is so?

Some people find the basic pinning version of shihonage in yoshinkan brutal because uke is really torqued and bent over backwards, then forcefully thown/pinned down, this followed by todome. All of which to me is simply a styistic difference, and no mark of brutality. Not to mention the fact that there are many non-yoshinkan schools that utilize the same or a similar form (some even aikikai).

Not really the topic here, though.
Best,
Ron

Basia Halliop wrote: I don't so much disagree with this. It just seems to me that it's not really what the discussion/disagreement is about. It's more like 'poor sportsmanship' or something, or like someone else put it 'cheap shots'. I think that's quite separate from hard training. It's more things like hitting someone who's already effectively surrendered (ie already falling or pinned). No matter how hard you like to train, it's easy to think of examples that seem like poor sportsmanship at best.

But it all boils down to the same thing though.
I think we are all convinced that one do not need to do "hard aikido" to use cheap shot.
In fact that type of behavior seems be evenly distributed through out the martial arts community). But I do not think this what we have on the ms Nori video.

I have the distinct feeling we are mixing intent, tactical philosophy (ie application of the technique and brutality. (as well as spiritual and soft). You can have lots of intent even a "soft" aikido.

Like in the video, which is a demo, and in a demo even when it is not choreographed, both uke and tori do their utmost to look good and deliver crisp technique.
So there is a big intent from both side, most of the time not really antagonistic. I mean when you are uke in demonstration you much more likely to promote the technique than resisting it
That mans that there is little margin for error and if Uke or Tori are slightly off, there is go chance for uke to go "splat". It does not mater who is the guilty party; it is very likely that Uke will reap the reward (i.e. go splat).
Even with soft aikido if you end up being the technique where there is intent; you are likely to go "splat".

From my limited experience, the difference between "hard" and "soft" is the ease for uke to avoid the "splat."
Either in way the technique is implemented or in the way it is set up, I would say that "hard" a much more restrictive on those escapes possibilities but it is still designed to permit a break fall but that break fall is really the easiest one if not the only one to get.

In softer aikido, I would say than when uke is in trouble break falling there is a direct correlation between Tori easing the power/control and the ease for uke to recover his break fall. In a way easing up the power helps uke to regain some of his balance.

In harder aikido easing control and power does not have such an effect when uke is in trouble break falling. It is kind of too late, it is about of an exaggeration but cutting of the power/control only equates as getting out of Uke way for his ukemi. There is no real active help that you can deliver as in softer style

I think as well this is what Don was about with his battered woman example.
With softer style you do need to get out your way to snot someone like in the video. So I can see why someone can see that as being totally out of order and a malevolent conscious act

But equally softer style people need to understand that harder style are intrinsecly designed to "make life difficult" for uke. So when things go pear shape there is much more ernest put on him in order to Ukemi. So there is no need for malevolent intention.

And in my opinion this is where the brutality or perception of it come from..

It sounds like you are saying that if people are falling badly or banging their head it's basically an accident. But if even the highest ranking people (ie, supposedly very skilled and also good at judging uke's ukemi), still very routinely have that happen on an ongoing basis (even in edited demo videos, where we may be getting above average examples), maybe it's time for that person to consider if they're really able to do that throw well enough to gamble on it like that on students with such a high rate of failing in a dangerous way? And if even they haven't mastered it, then can they really try to teach it to much less skilled people?

I think what we're really talking about aren't accidents, though, more an intentional way of ending a technique.

BTW I have seen and trained in ways that would (sometimes did) cause injury if there was an accident, and I don't think that's what we're talking about. I'm not sure exactly where my dojo fits into the spectrum but it seems closer to the hard than the soft... but I have also seen perfectly well that someone skilled enough, 'hard' or not, is capable of keeping enough judgement and control of the situation to avoid constant accidents to their ukes.

Unfortunately, I also know people who were hurt, broken and or hospitalized from what I consider brutality. And not just in Yoshinkan dojo, that's for sure

Now here I certainly agree, believe it or not brutality and abuse can even exist in Ki-aikido. There's nothing like a ki-instructor having a hissy fit for the claws to come out - and surprisingly enough I've even had a "tai-chi for health" instructor attempt to get practical (yes, I annoy lots of people, it's a gift). I also agree accidents happen and will when you test the limits (which I also agree you should)

However, what I continually get annoyed with is the same attitudes that Ellis referred to - the glorification of a violent instructor when all they've ever shown is that when uke doesn't (or isn't allowed to) hit back, they can hurt them. Great, I challenge any and every martial artist in the world to take me on as long as first all their limbs chained securely to the deck and even if they struggle free they're not allowed to move. I'll soon show them who's hard... Essentially, that's the position uke is in in a demo so showboating is not inspiring.

Philippe, that last post of yours is much in line with my own thought. I'm kind of ashamed that I could not explain it as well.

Best,
Ron

An art form is a vessel which forms itself around and becomes an expression of who we are. If a person is a violent, angry, insecure, hurt..... person, that will come through LOUD AND CLEAR in their own particular form of expression be it martial arts, or any other vessel of communicating one's self with the world. The same holds true for a centered, secure, happy person.

I started out in hard martial arts (Karate, etc), wrestled for a many years, crossed trained in a variety of martial arts and fighting sports before I found Aikido. I have found violence being intentionally expressed throughout EVERY ONE OF THOSE ARENAS! Ushiro Sensei (at this years Boulder Camp) said it is better to spend three years finding a good instructor than three years training with a bad instructor. I have been lucky to have always stayed with good instructors. NEVER, did anyone of them intentionally hurt any of their students. RARELY, if ever, did training accidents happen at the hands of those instructors.

As a psychologist, I can spend hours discussing the psychological issues surrounding teachers who are violent and those students that gravitate towards, stay with and later reflect that violence when they become teachers. This is not necessarily the venue for such a hot-aired discussion.

The larger issue that others have raised is that IT IS NOT THE ART, BUT THE PERSON. I have never experienced this Sensei's Aikido, nor can I necessarily gain enough information from this video clip to ascertain as to whether or not he was engaging in unnecessary violence towards his ukes. I can say very strongly, that I have never supported, engaged in, or trained under people who intentionally harm other people, simply because they can. If budo is suppose to forge us into better people, than I do not believe that this process can occur when training with, and emulating these types of people. I frankly find it pathological (in a psychological sense) and pathetic that those types of teachers and students are as prevalent as I have seen. I have come across too many people who had to stop training in martial arts and fighting sports because someone intentionally injured them in such a manner that permanent injury resulted.

We should always train with the intensity, sensitivity and severity so that the uke/attacker is aware of the danger and vulnerability that can occur in an instant without having to enact that danger through actual actions. The "thug" martial artist takes advantage of those moments to inflict harm was there was no need to do so. Doing this to someone "weaker", less skilled, and more vulnerable than the nage is simply an abuse of power. To me, the indication of a good martial artist is someone who can be open and accepting of the violent attack of someone else in such a manner that they can enter inside of the attack and control the attacker in a manner that is efficient, effective and does not include gratuitous violence, yet simply puts an end to the violence.

I can only hope that we as a community can accept different expressions of the art of Aikido, yet stand firm in our condemnation of those that are simply abusing power through thuggery, whether they be shihans, teachers, or students.

Marc Abrams

Basia Halliop wrote: It sounds like you are saying that if people are falling badly or banging their head it's basically an accident. But if even the highest ranking people (ie, supposedly very skilled and also good at judging uke's ukemi), still very routinely have that happen on an ongoing basis (even in edited demo videos, where we may be getting above average examples), maybe it's time for that person to consider if they're really able to do that throw well enough to gamble on it like that on students with such a high rate of failing in a dangerous way? And if even they haven't mastered it, then can they really try to teach it to much less skilled people? I think what we're really talking about aren't accidents, though, more an intentional way of ending a technique. BTW I have seen and trained in ways that would (sometimes did) cause injury if there was an accident, and I don't think that's what we're talking about. I'm not sure exactly where my dojo fits into the spectrum but it seems closer to the hard than the soft... but I have also seen perfectly well that someone skilled enough, 'hard' or not, is capable of keeping enough judgement and control of the situation to avoid constant accidents to their ukes.

No that is not what I said at all.
In fact it has almost nothing to do with it and you will not get it unless you put yourselves in my side of the argument.
First Lets drop the caring for uke take. Basically in any martial arts you have to care for uke., If only for the reason that you will run out of partner. It just take a different form according to your style.

What I am saying is that I think I understand more precisely what Ron & Don where saying. I missed it until now because I coming from a harder aikido style. And before your post I did not realize that there was another rational to what they have been saying.
What I failed to get from Ron, Don and you was that in softer style tori can much more readily facilitate uke ukemi than in harder style.

It is not even a matter of soft or hard or martial or fluffy, it is a matter of what the application of the technique implies for Uke.or if you prefer what it constrains Uke to or what uke is able to do.
For that you have two components the way the technique physically works and the impetus with which it is done.

Regardless hard or soft, the more impetus or intent the more uke need to be on the ball.

It a bit of a generalization but with hard style, the technique puts more physical constrain on uke from the onset of the technique.
To oversimplify we could say that hard style technique have a greater intrinsic control, and frame the uke fall with the movement (soft style compensate/replace that with movement, so that is not really more martial per se ) .
That limits uke options for the ukemi much more drastically than in softer style. Usually the techniques are more direct (and take a shorter time to completion). As well it limits the help that tori can give to uke.

One way to be kind to uke, is to reduce the intent/impetus of the technique from the beginning. So that uke has sufficient time to take care of himself.
In softer aikido, tori reducing the imput at any point during the technique will help uke to recover his ukemi, with harder style not that much is possible after the beginning of the technique.

One way to express that is to say that Uke has more responsibility regarding is own break fall than in softer style.

For harder style it does not matter whose fault it is (ie who coked up) it can be uke or tori. The net result is that once the technique has started the only one that can do something about it is uke.
Statistically speaking it is more likely to happen with harder style, and there is no need for tori to have it in for uke, it just takes tori and uke not to be in sync.

What Ron & Don made me realize is that it is not really the case for softer style. To get the same result in softer style you need to actively want to snot uke.
So from that context their comment that it is way out of order is totally founded. And I agree with them
Hopefully if you have a softer approach, you will understand that if you come from a harder style, it does not denote ill intentions, it is just an occupational hazard that can happen when things go wrong (and not really the end result that tori expect).

So yes it is easy to see softer style as a bunch of big girl blouses and harder style as aikido after Modor fashion but may it is missing the forest for the tree.

Phil

ps thanks ron

Well, let's be carefull (though I like your post very much). I can't speak for Don (well, I could, but he will probably hurt me if I do ), but I have never said that I think that clip is or is not abusive. I'm sitting on my nice white picket fence.

My main source of training is in the yoshinkan, so I am not at all unfamiliar with what some describe as "hard style".

I have to think some more about "softer styles" being able to have tori care for uke more. There is something to what I think you mean, but there are soft versions of waza that are still very sudden. And those soft styles work regardless of how uke attacks if you have the correct shite. And even in hard styles, you can still "pile on" at the end of a waza if that is your inclination, even though what you describe may be true to some or even a great extent.

Best,
Ron

Part of this issue may be how well leadership sets the example - within a given population (dojo, sensei, behavior, boundaries, etc.) - versus the level at which they (leadership as well as the population) are held accountable for their actions (abuse, thievery, neglect, incompetence, etc.) and who is in a position to do so?

In some cases, it may be as simple as voting with your wallet (or even your participation), but in arts that have been influenced by "traditional" approaches to Japanese society, this may be even more problematic, since the "traditional" approach of working for harmony may result in ignoring a problem rather than addressing it.

Again, without commenting on the specific vid, I'm more or less stating (maybe the obvious . . . d'oh) how issues within an acitivity or organization can sometimes become ingrained - or even widely accepted.

Phil, maybe I haven't seen enough different varieties of Aikido (ie, softer styles, etc) to be completely sure what you mean (or how it contradicts what I suggested, which is something vaguely along the line of 'if something's going wrong very often and people genuinely don't want it to, _something_ in the situation should change otherwise continuing as before starts being reckless and future accidents stop being accidents' Even if what went wrong is in routinely overestimating the falling skill of ukes, there's still something there).

And I also think the fact that things can unintentionally happen doesn't change the fact that it's also very easy for things to happen gratuitously, and sometimes even with ooos and aaahs for how 'tough' the person is.

Thanks for trying to explain, anyway.

Mori Sensei's aikido doesn't seem at all brutal to me....fairly normal stuff ..... I'm not sure that I understand what people are talking about here, at least in reference to this example