Do You Block?

Just my opinion.

I block if I need to. But when I block, I want the uke to pay a price. I want to control his/her balance and stability as my arm makes contact with uke's. I try to make this block soft and leading (some call it feathering) so that the opponent's base is reduced.

Last month a co-worker invited me to a wonderful boxing club in Oakland, CA. He was a former pro boxer. I used a style of aiki blocking that caused him to fall upon contact. He attacked me with a hook, an upper cut and a right cross. He kept giggling because he was unaware of how I was making him fall.

Lynn Seiser wrote: No, or at least I try not to. IMHO in Aikido it is better to "blend" with rather than "block" against.

I'm with Lynn here - it's not very Aiki (which is not the same thing as "not working"). Sure, you block if you have to, just like you use the heck out of your biceps if you have to, but that doesn't mean you aren't sacrificing something to do that. For me, the reason I try not to block is because it requires a kind of stability that is prone to not moving and that is also prone to being unable to draw your weapons (should you have some to draw). Both of these things are often life-saving things, especially with multiple attackers and/or when your attacker has a weapon - you know, when the crap is really hitting the fan, and you just might have to use the heck out of your biceps.

David Valadez wrote: I'm with Lynn here - it's not very Aiki (which is not the same thing as "not working"). Sure, you block if you have to, just like you use the heck out of your biceps if you have to, but that doesn't mean you aren't sacrificing something to do that. For me, the reason I try not to block is because it requires a kind of stability that is prone to not moving and that is also prone to being unable to draw your weapons (should you have some to draw). Both of these things are often life-saving things, especially with multiple attackers and/or when your attacker has a weapon - you know, when the crap is really hitting the fan, and you just might have to use the heck out of your biceps.

Nicely put DavidV. I agree. I think to proper block or punch you need to have good grounding and rooting which may sacrifice dynamism/movement .

My thinking is that block, parry, blending are tools in your MA kit. When a situation demands it, then use it. Otherwise, let it remain in by your toolkit until a situation demands it.

Boon.

There are many strategies in Aiki. All are appropriate under the right circumstances.

I am not sure how to post a video clip on this site.

I made this video with a buddy over the weekend. It is at U-tube under the title:

Aiki Heavy Hands (by wuweimonks).

<object width="425" height="350"> <param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/KsYgtrcu1E4"> </param> <embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/KsYgtrcu1E4" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="350"> </embed> </object>

Chris Parkerson

Chris, don't post the text from the embedded block. Just cut and paste the URL. Here it is:

http://www.youtube.com/v/KsYgtrcu1E4

interesting video here http://youtube.com/watch?v=7gWYrX0apNY

What I like it this video is that the guy doing the striking, uses his striking and core to overwhelm his two attackers, closing the distance, and off balancing them. Surprise, audacity, and overwhelming force of mass, moving forward. He does not over commit, he does not give them back center. He did not commit to one attack. He could have finished them offf with more, like kicks and such if he had wanted to.

Good choice of tactics overall I think. If this was staged, it was pretty darn good choreography!

My questions for discussion:

Where is the grounding, rooting, and all that stuff we learn in aikido come into play? What is the realitive value of it?

I am not saying it is not in there necessarily, theoretically it must be there in order to transmit movement forward. (last I checked we cannot float through the air like crouching tiger, hidden dragon.

How much of what we do in the dojo environment trains us for these types of conditions in which there is overwhelming force, mass, and concentration of power? how much of what we do considers the principle of surprise and audacity? The "bad guys" did not appear to be expecting that!

How much kamae and foreshadowing of things to come were there? How does lack of this information effect the situation?

All that said, are we really concerned with all this in aikido, or is there a different reason for studying it?

Where is the grounding, rooting, and all that stuff we learn in aikido come into play? What is the realitive value of it? I am not saying it is not in there necessarily, theoretically it must be there in order to transmit movement forward. (last I checked we cannot float through the air like crouching tiger, hidden dragon.

Grounding and rooting is totally necessary if you want to rip the center out of an opponent's body with a block or a strike. In the beginning, we learn to root in static stances. Over time, rooting occurs with weight shift in movement with a quick settling (even on one foot if necessary) at point of contact.

It also helps to study where the opponent's center of gravity is while he/she is moving. When it is near the edge of his/her base, there is little conflict (as the Chinese say, "con-tension".

Weight shift must be studied so that you are not uprooting yourself when stepping. The Chinese proverb says, "Fighting a man is like taking a walk". Study both how weight shift works in your own walking as well as how is works against your opponent when he/she is walking.

Finally (for now), most curricula in Aiki dojos force the study of technique through three joints (wrist, elbow and shoulder). This makes for the natural use of a bigger circle. Take away the wrist and the elbow and the circle can naturally get smaller.

Chris Parkerson

I added a couple of video clips to Utube this morning. The first is a variation on Sumi Otoshi (Tomiki Aikido), It shows how the basic principles of a large circle technique that is normally applied to the wrist, can be applied to the shoulder is a smaller circle.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmaHSOpWTZc

The second video is of Gedan ate. Here I hope to show two things. (1) Another application of blocking. feathering or leading an opponent's weight shift until you have good Kuzushi (in this case it is over his toes) with the spine locked up in a big circle.

(2) That a block is a strike is a push. The only differences are in intent and velocity/impact. Thus the Kosho Monks had an aiki style that focussed on Kenpo punches much like the one I am demonstrating in this video. The punches were used to drop an opponent without hurting them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IPYQrVeDWY

Chris Parkerson

I'm going to connect Chris's and kevin's last posts - if you all don't mind...

I like the direction that Chris demonstrated in his video. Additionally, I agree with his points on grounding. Still, I'm not sure Kevin's point is being addressed yet.

For example, in the video (Chris'), while one is looking to tactically engage a boxing-style punch with various kokyu-nage (etc.), the applied technique is not necessarily being applied against a boxing strategy. The technique is still being employed against an Aikido strategy. That is to say, while the video demonstrates many fine points relative to Aikido, entering in, and to the inside, of a boxer that has just thrown a hook (or an uppercut, etc.) is really going to expose you to the flurry of strikes and angles that make up a boxing combination.

Kokyo nage is probably something one may want to try from the inner-inside when you are facing a single committed strike, but it is probably not something high on the scale of tactical advantages when you are facing a boxing combination. I think that is what Kevin is trying to draw out of the video he posted - i.e. what in Aikido has one capable of dealing with such a strategy. At least, for me, this is how I understood him when he wrote: "He does not over commit, he does not give them back center. He did not commit to one attack. He could have finished them offf with more, like kicks and such if he had wanted to" - since it is quite common in Aikido to only deal with single overly committed strikes where uke has given away his center for notions of increasing damage/penetration, etc.

If we connect this to the thread topic, and what all has already been said against blocking - where grounding (etc.) is relative - I would say that we are again looking at a question that springs no so much from Aikido as it does from the way Aikido is generally taught today. In particular, I would say that the Aikido tactic best utilized against such combinations and/or a strategy is movement (assuming everything else is present concerning a centered heart/mind). This is not to say that grounding is still not relative, as grounding is imperative in quick, decisive, and purposeful movement, but the kind of movement necessary for dealing with such an onslaught as seen in Kevin's posted video is going to be different enough that a person that can ground and move in Ikkyo will not inevitably be able to deal with the flurry that's-a-coming.

I don't think this contradicts anything Chris has said, but i did think it was necessary to say something about what exactly is the "hard" part in what is seen in Chris' posted video: It's the rush, speed, and multiple angles (each one working to zero in on target); it's the accuracy, the overwhelming number of attacks, the relentless pace; it's the vulnerability of the head as a target and it's significance to generating a counter, a defense, and/or an offense. Etc. For me, it makes sense that Bruce Lee greatly admired the boxer's hands, and why the boxer's hands are so spreading from art to art - especially those that are working in the more live training environments.

For what it's worth, I think I posted an article here that is sort of on this topic - I think. It should be under the Grindstone articles if it is here - it has videos too.

d

The sweet science:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6iDlzL7zrNU

If Kevin's was staged (e.g. What was that camera doing up there?), this one probably wasn't. :-)

David,

Yes, you covered it quite well as usual!

his is not to say that grounding is still not relative, as grounding is imperative in quick, decisive, and purposeful movement, but the kind of movement necessary for dealing with such an onslaught as seen in Kevin's posted video is going to be different enough that a person that can ground and move in Ikkyo will not inevitably be able to deal with the flurry that's-a-coming.

I found the blocking I learned in boxing and muay thai (the few lessons I've had) to be far superior to the blocking I learned in TKD and the complex blocking I was shown in krav maga (although the basic krav blocking was just like the boxing and MT blocking).

Simple covering, combined with constant head movement, and constant circular footwork. This helps create angles that are difficult to attack and allow you to pull your attacker off balance so you can finish the fight.

I prefer these kind of blocks because they keep your hands close to the body and head to protect you (I'm not perfect and if I get tricked into doing a TKD block when there is no strike, then I'm going to have a huge hole to hit though.) I had years of TKD training as received a black belt, but was unable to make those blocks work. I was able to employ boxing/MT style blocking the first night I was taught it during a sparing session.

On the flip side of that, I have a friend who is a high ranking Uechi-Ryu (spelling?) black belt. He can kick my butt very fast using all those blocks I never could quite use. Plus his boxing/MT style blocks are way better then mine (I dread kicking him, just because he can check the kicks harder then I can kick him..)

I think a mixed approach should be taught, start with the simplest (good covering), move to the next easiest to learn (parrys, proper footwork, body and head movement), and finally, move to the blocks that require lots of arm movement and the aiki get out on the end of the fist and throw stuff. I'd keep these for last because, when they fail, they fail much more spectacularly then covering.

David,

I can appreciate what you are saying. One problem, however, is how can someone demonstrate a single principle in a video. You are right that I am using large cirlce, single attacks. But to use a flury and try to demonstrate a principle like heavy hands, would blur the point.

That said, I love to fight bpoxers. I love to fight with double sticks even more. Sticks move faster than hands and improve your empty hand skills.

Boxing methods (whether it be western, Chinese, or MMA) can appear quite daunting until you consider chaos theory in general. Grappling matches in wrestling, Judo and Jujitsu have the same effect on the novice grappler.

How do you make sense of chaos? You find one thing that does make sense and work with it until you find the next thing that makes sense. Do not worry if you get hit while doing so.

All punches require some form of grounding, i.e., the boxer must plant one foot and push with his femur/quads in order to extend his punch. Now he is vulnerable to counterattack.

The question is whether you can make sense of chaos at speed when a flurry of technique is coming your way. There are six primary principles I have adopted to begin this task. I hold these six
to be quite useful.

If my principles sound like they are simple, I can only say, "empty your cup". The difference between external and internal art is subtle.

1. Stance
Never stand with a 50/50 weighting. Tai Chi people call this double weighting and believe it to be the kiss of death. Think of it this way. If you are double weighted, you have to shift to one foot before you can move. Why not begin with most of the weight on one foot to begin with. You will become faster. I also propose that you will dwell less on your conscious mind, which when processing data amidst chaos, is much too slow. Processing and reacting from hara comes naturally from being single weighted.

2. Weight shift
Most folks uproot (raise their center slightly) when moving. Thus they have to fall uncontrollably back to earth (even if the fall is ½ inch). They are not in control of their weight shift. High level Tai Chi, Aiki, Pakua, Hsing-I folks (actually most all great martial artists) down root in movement. This provides the controlled momentum you need in performing a heavy hands block, punch or throw. You simply cannot use heavy hands without down rooting. But with down rooting, you can have devastating punches when standing on one foot.

3. Evasion
The Filipinos have sophisticated methods of employing evasion. It works off a simple geometry that is most often absent in Okinawan, Japanese and early western pugilism. Indeed, it was the Filipino boxers that changed western boxing from the linear (Sullivan) method to one that contained angling and zoning. It is like the difference between fencing and swashbuckling.
I used to tell my kids class, "Miss by an inch, miss b y a mile". I taught them evasion in the following manner.
I taught my kid's class like this: How do you win a fight?
Do not get hit! How do you not get hit? Don't be there. How do you not be there? Keep posture and use your both feet to move. Please do not confuse this with traditional methods of evasion. I have uploaded onto U-Tube two clips

(1) The geometry of Evasion
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVqy7Ak11jM

(2) Geometry of Evasion applied to Movement. By wuweimonks.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ilYXLxOZtRI

This geometry requires timing that you can only get by using the above principles of stance and weight shift.
Learn how to evade @ 1" distance first with a padded stick with slow deliberate single strikes until you are single weighting and not uprooting when moving.. Progress to a hard stick. Sticks move faster than hands. Progress to a dull shiny sword. Flash can hypnotize you; steal your attention from your task. Progress to a sharp sword. Finally progress to a riding crop. Sound may be the only thing you can judge distance by on a wet dark night. Crops move too fast to see.

Double sticks are great. That is total chaos. But the principles apply nonetheless. There is so much chaos, that the conscious mind gives up and the hara takes over.

Check out my student responding to single stick attacks at speed. at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0wjWE74c38 Posture

4. The Last to Move is the First to Arrive
Notice how my student trusts his evasion skills. Now he can learn to wait for my mistakes (loss of attention, a flinch when he strikes my arm, or over commitment because I cannot hit him). He uses Pilipino angling and zoning skills that took him 3 weeks to master.

5. Take the stem.

Nowhere in Aiki does it say we must fight a boxer by grabbing his torso. Like the Filipinos, we should focus on any appendage that comes within our range. Sleeve grabbing is great. Attaching to the bicep/humorous bone is fantastic. This is how the Pakua boxers entered (crashed the line) of their opponents. Yes, they used their own form of Kuzushi through their blocks.

6. Use angles of cancellation
This is an old Kenpo term. You either step into a area that cancels the counterattack, or you use your hands (grab, parry, push, feather) to place just enough weight that kuzushi occurs. Now the fight is yours unless you make a mistake.
So what does this diatribe have to do on a devoted to blocking? Everything. These are a few of the underlying principles that make heavy hands blocking effective in a fight.

Chris Parkerson wrote: I can appreciate what you are saying. One problem, however, is how can someone demonstrate a single principle in a video. You are right that I am using large cirlce, single attacks. But to use a flury and try to demonstrate a principle like heavy hands, would blur the point.

I would agree. I did not mean to suggest that your video and the lesson therein is supposed to be the end-all word on every aspect of martial arts training, etc. I understand that you were simplifying things to make some very important points very clear. When I was trying to relate you post to the post made by Kevin, I was sort of posing the question of, "Why not show heavy hands from the outside or against a different tactic from a different strategy?" For, to do otherwise, at least in my mind, raises the kinds of questions that Kevin's posted video raises.

Thanks for the reply.

I have no issue with what you are saying in theory. Fighting to me is much simplier. Close the distance, achieve dominance, and finish the fight.

if you have time to block, you have time to strike. If you are off balance and the opponent has dominance (center), then you are losing the fight and you are probably blocking. If that is the case, then you must get your center back somehow and take his again (achieve dominance).

If you are evading, you are not winning the fight, you are either exiting the fight to run, or you are trying to get back your center to begin to affect your opponent center.

Once you take center, balance, (achieve dominance) you NEVER give it back, you continue on to finish the fight in some way. that might be to kill, render unconscious, or somehow convince your opponent that to continue on would not be in his best interest.

I agree with the double weighting concept. If you are double weighted you are niether committed or uncommitted, you are simply standing there!

We can talk angles, details of weight shift, position of a block all day long...however when it comes done to a real fight...not much of that really matters realitively speaking..

the winner of the fight is:

1. the guy who closes the distance, achieves dominance, and has the necessary tools/skills to finish.

2. OR, the guy whose buddy shows up first with a weapon that trumps your skills.

In my experiences....many traditional martial artist fail in real fights because they discuss in theory fighting, blocking etc. However, they discount or fail to consider the importance of concepts such as suprise, audacity, chaos, overwhelming momentum, failure of the opponent to be concerned with the punch or knife they threw/stabbed.

Many have not mastered or properly conditioned startle/flinch reflexes, or practiced moving forward into a fight once they have been struck hard, stabbed, or pepper sprayed.

That was the main point of showing the video I used. The guy who won the fight probably was a skilled martial artist of some sort, a boxer or what not. Clearly he understood the importance of moving forward into the fight, using mass and overwhelming force to achieve dominance.

Did he employ the princples of grounding? macroscopically yes. How about avoiding double weighting? Yes. Evasion? Well, that was for the losers!

Did it require years of internal martial arts practice for him to employ those theories? probably not. I am betting that guy never stepped foot in a IMA dojo! He understood some very simple concepts of winning a fight. Close distance, achieve dominance, and finish the fight.

To me it is sort of like gravity. It has been around for ever. Before Issac Newton people were still affected by it, today we have scientist that can tell us alot about it, and it is helpful when we do things like send sattelites into orbit, but in daily life, a bushmen in the jungle that has never studied physics can still stand up and walk!

that was my point, what is the relative value of spending time doing all this stuff? I personally don't think it helps out a whole bunch when it comes to fighting!

the winner of the fight is: 1. the guy who closes the distance, achieves dominance, and has the necessary tools/skills to finish. 2. OR, the guy whose buddy shows up first with a weapon that trumps your skills.

In the 1980's I wrote an article stating five things it took to win a fight.
1. Get rid of the butterflies
2. Danger? Go forward.
3. Trust your punch
4. Give more than you take.
5. Do not back off.
I was a Tiger back then.

I worked what Hal Luebbert called Speed Strength. That is: If I only have five units of strength and you have 10. It does not really matter, as long as I can bring more units of strength into the first seconds of the fight than you can. Hal wrote a book on how to use Nautilus machines to achieve this goal based on Judo movements. It was called the Thunder Ridge Study. Probably now it is out of print.

The military as well as most coaches are faced with a team of average folks and one or two talented players. They cannot train technique to everyone and hope to build a superior team. Thus they often train folks to increase speed, strength and endurance. This is definitely a winning formula. In fact, speed, strength and endurance can trump technique due to its overwhelming force.

These days, as most of us who have aged past 40, I have lost much of my speed, strength and endurance. The oonly thing I have now is the subtleties of developing better techniques and strategies.
I now study the ways of the Dragon rather than the tiger. I want to get better until the day I lie down and die.

Once you take center, balance, (achieve dominance) you NEVER give it back, you continue on to finish the fight in some way. that might be to kill, render unconscious, or somehow convince your opponent that to continue on would not be in his best interest.

I agree with you here as well as long as we do not fight force with force. If we agree on single weighting, then we are like a ball. You cannot uproot a ball. It rolls with every punch except one that is dead center. Then it goes airborne and lands on one point.

Sutemi waza (sacrifice throwing) is one way a biped can do this. There are also methods of slipping a punch. If time permits, this weekend I will perform a "worst case scenario" whereby my attacker will clock me in the jaw and i will use small circle evasion to throw him. I will put it on video and upload it on U-tube. The evasion video, like the heavy hands video was done with large (largo mano) angles so that the principle can be understood. But entering, like you say, is the best way to overwhelm an attacker.
At best, largo mano can only break a hand or arm. If you are lucky, you can use dynamic sphere throwing with tenkan and complete a throw. But then you have to enter to finish the deed.

If you are evading, you are not winning the fight, you are either exiting the fight to run, or you are trying to get back your center to begin to affect your opponent center.

I disagree strongly with this statement...this is not what I was taught about evasions in aikido. Different mindsets I guess.

Best,
Ron

Ron,

These days I am less Greek in Philosophy and way more Asian I do not think in terms of either this is right and that is wrong as much as I think in terms of both-and. I suggest that his "truth" simply comes from different expediencies than yours.

The military's main goal, (barring these new policing directives) is to close with and destroy. A commander is willing to take up to 30% losses (correct me if I am wrong on the percentage) to achieve a tactical objective.

In civilian life, we have a mandate to obey the law or suffer punsihment. There is both a moral and legal requirement to find the first means of effective escape from instances that are leading toward mutual combat.

I like the use of evasion and "sounding off" ("Get back, I do not want to fight you") because I am using Aiki to control the environment as a civilian. Witnesses do not see me close with a enemy. They see me avoiding the attack. What they do not necessarily witness is that I have gaged the attackers range, I have created angles of cancellation, I have become ready for the next assault.

I can document with physics and geometry as well as with my written training curriculum how I have not attacked the opponent in a court of law. I can document how I scanned 360 degrees regularly, looking for a another aggressor that might be blocking my avenue of escape or setting up to sucker punch me.

And at no time, unless I simply lose control of the environment, will I punish someone wihtout mercy. And I will eventually find an avenue of escape... whether by walking away or running.

If someone is hurt, I will evaluate my safety and decide whether or not to render first aid or a rescussitation technique.

As Rudyard Kipling said in the poem "If" winning and losing are imposters. It is sophmoric crap. Better to have survival as a goal. Survive the encounter as well as the courts.
I think that is decent aiki strategy for the real world of the civilian.

I suggest that his "truth" simply comes from different expediencies than yours.

Uh, I think that's what I said...

B,
R

One thing Kevin seems to be critical of (reading between the lines) is something i do not care for as well. That is the idea that two guys are going to stand idle in the "medio" medium range and slug it out with punches, blocks and paries.

I simply do not care to train all the Danny Inosanto variations on traps and take-aways. It is much better to use "Tai jitsu" Big body movement at the moment of first contact in the medio range to attach to the opponent's center of gravity, make him unstable and drop weight through that instability. This is the true checkmate where trading blows is just taking a knight or a rook while giving up the same.

One man's center blows the other man's center away. Now the challenge is to determine how an old guy with little explosive strength and a bad back can accomplish this feat at speed without relying solely on the little strength he has. Enter the study of Aiki.

Chris Parkerson wrote: Ron, In civilian life, we have a mandate to obey the law or suffer punsihment... I can document with physics and geometry as well as with my written training curriculum how I have not attacked the opponent in a court of law...

But just writing it here ... may be used as evidence against you

A few years ago I was hired by Frontshight (a large shooting school in Pahrump, Nevada) to develop a defensive tactics program that was taught as "Family Safe Forever".

I worked full time on it for 6 months using their civilian firearms self defense protocols that were approved by their lawyers. we included their existing nomenclature, posture and stances as well as their reactive strategies against assault. The even had lectures on moral and ethical decisions on when and when not to defend yourself.

It was a wonderful experience and one that is well documented. I adopted the lesson that I learned from the assignment and applied it to my own dojo curriculum.

There is not secret to self defense strategy. There is no expectation that you should remain vulnerable or without a plan. The plan must be defensible. It must be reactive. Then you must train it. You should only adopt techniques that support the plan.

There is not secret to self defense strategy. There is no expectation that you should remain vulnerable or without a plan. The plan must be defensible. It must be reactive. Then you must train it. You should only adopt techniques that support the plan.

I need to correct my late night typing.

The plan must be defensible in a court of law.
It must be "reasonable" to a jury of your peers.
It does not have to be reactive. Proactive planning that is developed to minimize the problem is always better.

Ron wrote:

I disagree strongly with this statement...this is not what I was taught about evasions in aikido. Different mindsets I guess

I agree, different mind state...maybe.

Semantics, more than likely.

I think of evasion, in the context used here strictly in the terms of "coming out on top" of "fight".

I use "fight" in terms of preventing further physical violence in that particular moment.

In this context, I can't think of any reasons why I'd want to restore balance, or give space for my opponent to operate.

Evasion in my mind, gives space back to the opponent. This might be a good option at certain phases of situations, however, I don't think so once we are engaged in the "fight".

We may give space up front to de-escalate. This might equate to allowing them access to an exit or maybe running as fast as you can. If you are in a situation say like a police officer detaining someone that is non-compliant (fight), then you have to close on them, and take control, evasion...not good...means you are losing that what you must win. In this situation win/lose is not necessarily a bad proposition. Police are not concerned with the long term goal of creating win/win.

On that subject, I think that when we look at aikido we are really concerned with a philosophical goal of creating win/win. I think it is hard to evolve in aikido (or in terms of humanity) if you are approaching the art with a win/lose mentality.

Thus I completely agree with your assessment of evasion when you look at the big picture.

However, when we consider the limited aspect of the "fight". Pondering or entertaining trying to create a win/wn in a situation where your opponent is trying to create a lose/win might get you seriously hurt or injured.

This harks alot to Musashi philosophy/doctrine I think. That is to enter the fight without regard for the outcome (or something like that)

Which is why I consider evasion in this perspective to not be a good thing! Although Musashi certainly discusses it from a strategic point, that is, you evade when your position to win in unattenable, to return to the day when you can fight. Or was it Sun Tzu???

(oops, broke my New Years resolution to not quote Musashi or Sun Tzu this year! Oh well!)