Within the Parameters of Aikido?

Kevin Leavitt wrote: We all have a idea fixed in our head about what belongs within the parameters of aikido and what does not, which really is very silly if you think about it, and very dangerous if you confine yourself to this paradigm in real life.

O'Sensei did not teach people how to do flying side kicks. I don't think that it is silly to state a fact.

...learn blood chokes, they are your best friend in realty.

Remind me to never try to sell a house to you.

Justin,

Your missing the point.

BTW, I am looking for a house in arlngton right now.

Kevin Leavitt wrote: We all have a idea fixed in our head about what belongs within the parameters of aikido and what does not, which really is very silly if you think about it, and very dangerous if you confine yourself to this paradigm in real life

It seems more silly and dangerous to basically say 'aikido is everything you want it to be', and change aikido to be something other than the philosophy and techniques as envisioned and practiced by O'Sensei.

He did not teach how to do flying high kicks as part of aikido, for example, so one can confidently say that learning how to do flying high kicks is not part of an aikido cirriculum.

Justin Smith wrote: It seems more silly and dangerous to basically say 'aikido is everything you want it to be', and change aikido to be something other than the philosophy and techniques as envisioned and practiced by O'Sensei. He did not teach how to do flying high kicks as part of aikido, for example, so one can confidently say that learning how to do flying high kicks is not part of an aikido cirriculum.

1935, Asashi News demonstration film. Ueshiba is demonstrating hanza-handachi techniques. Basically jiyuu-waza from his knees. After throwing one uke, Ueshiba "kicks" him in the face (stopping before making contact, of course).

Of course, I think many aikidoka would say that kicks to the face are not "aikido". I say kicks to the face and flying high kicks fall under "atemi", and thus may or may not be aikido, depending on the practitioner.

Kevin Leavitt wrote: Justin, Your missing the point. BTW, I am looking for a house in arlngton right now.

My parents rinky dink house in the South side of Arlington goes for $500K easily. This is the reason that my siblings and all my friends have moved further out in the subarbs/boonies. Good luck hunting Kevin!

Justin wrote:

it seems more silly and dangerous to basically say 'aikido is everything you want it to be', and change aikido to be something other than the philosophy and techniques as envisioned and practiced by O'Sensei.

Justin, it would much easier for you to understand aikido if you actually DID aikido.

Aikido is NOT about any particular punch, kick, or strike, neither is it exclusive of any punch, kick, or strike.

To exclude these things would NOT be aikido, to focus on these things as techniques would NOT be aikido. It is a paradox. (an aikido thing, you wouldn't understand....)

Aikido is a principal based and philosophically based art designed to teach us about conflict resolution, peace, harmony and a few other things.

I have seen no where on any sensei's website that I have ever seen that identifies with Aikikai that aikido is an efficient means to teach you how to fight effectively. That is NOT to say that you cannot take what you learn in aikido and apply it in a situation.

If you truely understood training and most traditional forms of aikido, you would see eventually that is does a good job of teaching us principals that apply universally in situations, but yet, it in itself is NOT primarily concerned with fighting effectiveness. Again, a paradox that one must work out for themselves.

When aikido becomes dangerous to you is when you take what you learn in the dojo as gospel or fundamentally and attempt to use the training paradigm on the street.

Again, a paradox....

If you focus on training for the street 100% all the time you will never develop long and lasting skills. If you focus solely on developing principals you will never learn how to fight on the street.

A paradox.

Aikido is good at teaching us principals and fundamentals, and the philosophy of aikido...which are very applicable and very relevant lessons.

It is not however, the answer to everything that is!

Open your mind, get off the internet, find a dojo, and honestly seek to understand it, if you care. Otherwise you are wasting your time here as your understanding will be limited to questions, theories, and subjections.

Joshua Reyer wrote: 1935, Asashi News demonstration film. Ueshiba is demonstrating hanza-handachi techniques. Basically jiyuu-waza from his knees. After throwing one uke, Ueshiba "kicks" him in the face (stopping before making contact, of course). Of course, I think many aikidoka would say that kicks to the face are not "aikido". I say kicks to the face and flying high kicks fall under "atemi", and thus may or may not be aikido, depending on the practitioner.

I think if it was part of regular aikido teaching, and not one teacher, showing one technique, in a demo, then it would fall under the aikido cirriculum.

Else, we have a hard time saying what is part of aikido. For example, is kicking apples off the tips of swords part of taekwondo becuase it occurs in a few demos?

Well, we are talking about the founder of the art here...not just some average, backwater, 1st dan...

But hey, the entire subject is a bit silly...so why not take it as far as you can??

Also, many dojo teach a kick to the body or the face while pinning in ikkajo/ikkyo when there is a need to rachet up the force applied in a given situation.

But then, if you didn't actually TRAIN in the art, that probably wouldn't be important.

Best,
Ron

Kevin Leavitt wrote: Justin, it would much easier for you to understand aikido if you actually DID aikido.

Kevin, I'm sure you maintain that Ebert and Roper need to be directors everytime they make a criticism of a movie that you disagree with.

Aikido is NOT about any particular punch, kick, or strike, neither is it exclusive of any punch, kick, or strike.

Yet we clearly do not see certain techniques taught in aikido cirriculum. And we clearly see that the Ueshibas emphasized certain things more than others.

If you're saying learning how to do a flying kick to the face is part of aikido, fine, but expect to be taught that no Ueshibas taught that, teach that, and ditto with tons of other techniques, so you're no longer learning aikido as envisioned by the founders of the art, but some MMA-ish mutt (which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it isn't the genuine aikido).

If you focus on training for the street 100% all the time you will never develop long and lasting skills.

I'm wondering why you believe you won't have developed the long lasting skill of knowing how to fight in very real situations.

Open your mind, get off the internet, find a dojo, and honestly seek to understand it, if you care. Otherwise you are wasting your time here as your understanding will be limited to questions, theories, and subjections.

My mind is open, but it is not as open as yours because I don't believe all techniques are part of aikido, since the evidence tells me what is and what isn't taught in aikido classes.

For example, check out

http://aikidoonline.com/Archives/200...03_doshu3.html

This is by Kisshomaru and Moriteru Ueshiba, printed originally in Best Aikido: The Fundamentals.

Are kicks used in Aikido? No. The Founder had very powerful legs, and on occasion he demonstrated kicking techniques during a demonstration but almost none of those techniques were incorporated into modern Aikido. As we have mentioned several times, Aikido emphasizes being centered in mind and body, with both feet on the ground, literally and figuratively. Kicks or leg sweeps temporarily ham-per that good balance and are thus avoided. Aikido techniques are not put into set pat-terns, and there is no "If that happens, do this" kind of instruction. We do not usually practice defenses against kicking attacks in Aikido, and many may view that approach as problematic, but in fact if one has a solid foundation in the basics, any kind of attack can be dealt with.

So I'm wondering, if two of the main people in aikido, direct descendents of the Founder of aikido say something that I also am saying, why do I need to get out more, according to Kevin?

I did not or do not know any of the Ueshibas. I have trained with and I train under ASU with Saotome Sensei.

Very old 14 sec clip of Saotome using kick.

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

Read closely and look at the essensce of what the article you quote is saying. It is talking about principals. You simply cannot take a black and white and fundamental view of aikido. In fact, I believe the word they use is usually, not never.

I am not here to nit pick the minor details you seem to troll for looking for technicalities and then providing cross post using google.

I admit, you have demonstrated a profound proficiency as a shodan of the cross post Justin!

Principally, aikido must be concerned with kicks therefore they exsist within the scope of the art.

Punches, grabs, knifes, and sticks also play a part, but we don't train to be boxers, grapplers, knife fighters, or escrima students either. Atemi is atemi...it is all there.

Go to a dojo and experience it for yourself I am not saying this sarcastically. Please do go if you are truely interesting in aikido.

Anyway, my last post on this, because I obviously losing my bearing and drifting this thread into another area that it does not need to go in. Sorry.

Kevin,

You would have liked Mochizuki Sensei. He defined aikido in much the same way as you. He told this story in Aiki News # 72, September, 1986:

Minoru Mochizuki wrote: "There was a man named Tadashi Abe who passed away recently. I had the following encounter with him when I visited the Iwama dojo to greet O-Sensei after my return to Japan when the war ended. O-Sensei was pleased to know that I had come back safely and welcomed me warmly. I stayed there over night. That night an evil-looking man with a monk-like hairstyle came to the room where I was staying and asked permission to come in. When I gave him permission this man came in. "My name is Tadashi Abe. Sensei, could I ask you a direct question?". I told him to ask me anything. He asked if I was really studying aiki jujutsu seriously. At that time the art was not yet called aikido. When I replied I was, he said: "Ace you really? I have heard about you, Sensei, for a long time. I heard that you have had experience in actual fighting situations. I think it is strange that a person like you feels satisfied with an art like aiki jujutsu." When I asked why he thought so he said that Ueshiba Sensei or Mr. Morhiro Saito would not be able to stand against him in a match even for three minutes because he would defeat them with one blow. "You're quite boastful, aren't you?", I replied. "You feel confident that you can defeat Ueshiba Sensei?", I added. He said that he thought it would be easy for him to defeat Sensei and added: "Although I have been observing Ueshiba Sensei for a long time, I don't feel like practicing an art like aiki jujutsu. I feel confident that I can defeat him with one boxing punch. I hear that you emphasize actual fighting. Is that true?" I replied as follows: "I have been in many street-fights but I wouldn't include them in the category of actual fighting. I have also drawn a sword and stormed the enemy camp." Then he asked me whether or not aikido was really useful for fighting. When I replied that aikido was very useful not only for fights but also in times of war, he said my answer didn't convince him. So I suggested that he attack me and stood there telling him to come anyway he wanted. He asked me to adopt a ready stance. I told him: "Don't say unnecessary things. There is no way for someone to defeat his enemy if he tells him what to do. Attack me as you like!" Abe still mumbled: "Sensei, can I really strike you? Strange... You have openings everywhere..." Then he took a stance and suddenly came straight in. I dodged the blow and kicked him with my leg. He groaned and fell. I applied a resuscitation technique and massaged him. "How can a person like you who faints when he catches a little kick last in a fight?" "Sensei, does aikido also have kicking techniques?" "You fool! What do you mean by such a question? We use kicking techniques or anything else. I even used artillery. Martial arts, guns and artillery are all aikido. What do you think aikido is? Do you think it involves only the twisting of hands? It is a means of war... an act of war! aikido is a fight with real swords. We use the word 'aiki' because through it we can feel the mind of the enemy who comes to attack and are thus able to respond immediately. Look at Sumo. After the command is given ("Miatte! Miatte!), they stand up and go at each other in a flash. That's the same as aiki. When a person suddenly faces his enemy in an mental state free from all ideas and thoughts and is instantly able to deal with him, we call that aiki. In the old days it was called 'aiki no jutsu'. Therefore, artillery or anything else becomes aiki." "Is that so... I think I understand." "If you still don't understand, come to me again." After that he was afraid of me and bowed to me from far off. When I went to Europe he asked me to take him as well."

Aiki is without limitation.

Best wishes.

David

Aikido is not about techniques but about principles. If you learn the principles you can apply them to any technique you like, be it Judo, Aikido, Jujutsu, Kendo, or even, Karate. If you are smart, you may learn those other arts to steal a few extra principles.

Just my opinion.

The principles the the techniques are two different things. One is philosophy, the other is what is actually physically done.

One could certainly have an argument for saying aikido is everything; kicks, guns, gouging eyes out, cutting off a limb, whatever. But one just needs to look at aikido cirriculum to see what is actually taught in aikido.

No, the principles are the little bits within the techniques that bind them together and make them work. 'Principles' in a martial art is not about philosophy - in my definition.

Philosphy comes after twenty years of training. Then you can talk about it. But, not too much, because the students have come to train, not be lecturered to. Train first, then think, then talk. But don't stop training. When he was a student, do you think Ueshiba was after techniques and the principles hidden within, or philosophy?

As far as I understand it, his philosophy did not come from his training but elsewhere. But his skill did. Later, he merged them.

Justin Smith wrote: .. But one just needs to look at aikido cirriculum to see what is actually taught in aikido.

a) join a dojo, then lecture us, thanks.
b) what if what is actually taught as aikido is not aikido, have you thougt about this for a bit?

I think what is taught is a framework for the priniciples to be understood

Anything goes is not the case; Anything goes using the correct principles of Aikido is more like it.

Justin has a definite rhetorical style, or if you like, a predictable way of arguing. He resorts to arguments from authority, digging up quotes from here and there. Just once I'd like to see him arguing based on his actual experiences on an aikido mat. Its tough to accept such a person's view on what is and what is not orthodox aikido. One might as well accept a definition of Catholicism from an ayatollah.

The principles of aikido are not philosophy; they are the reason I am able to move someone much larger and heavier. I don't mean talk of universal love and the kami. I mean things like musubi, the center to center connection, the powerful connection to the ground, and so on. None of these are "philosophy." I speak as someone whose college degree was in philosophy. Musubi is much more real than talk of the categorical imperative and the summum bonum.

Justin Smith wrote: One could certainly have an argument for saying aikido is everything; kicks, guns, gouging eyes out, cutting off a limb, whatever. But one just needs to look at aikido cirriculum to see what is actually taught in aikido.

Aikido is not about armchair discussion or even about dojo ritual, but about what you really will do when your life is really on the line. When you're at the point that you may lose your life, "life" ceases to be an abstract idea and you realize that you will do whatever you must to live. Real aikido enables us to access whatever we need and respond however we need to survive and continue to live. We can't propound or teach our peaceful philosophy if we're dead, huh?

You may have read Gozo Shioda's account of finding himself trapped, during WWII, in a building. Believing that he was about to find himself in a fight for his life, he armed himself with a broken bottle. I don't remember if he had to use it, but no doubt he would have and that would have been a real master's aikido.

Best to you.

David

Demetrio Cereijo wrote: a) join a dojo, then lecture us, thanks.

That's lovely, but you're not really addressing the issue. One, whether enrolled in classes or not can observe what is taught in aikido classes.

One can also read the words of the Founder, his son, and his son's son to see what the people closest to aikido say about aikido.

Raul Rodrigo wrote: He resorts to arguments from authority, digging up quotes from here and there.

I feel that when talking about aikido, quoting the Founder, his son, and his son's son, about aikido, is quite relevant. Of course, Raul, I referenced not just a quote, but a rather long passage that was printed in one of their books. I reason that if the Founder's son and his son put it in one of their books it is quite an important point.

You need to brush up on what an argument from authority actually is. That is saying 'X is correct because, and only because, X is an authority'. Saying 'X is correct and X is an authority' is not a fallacy. Coupled with the direct evidence of observing what is and is not taught in aikido classes, it is quite valid to say that learning how to do a flying side kick is not taught in aikido classes.

I could see why some want to dismiss their quotes, however.

Justin, does your assertion include ukemi skills? Some styles practice responses to various kick attacks, and in order to practice those responses, one might assume that (basic) lessons on how to deliver those kicks might be part of aikido practice in those styles.

Chiba shihan makes it a point that his students attack properly, and that includes knowing how to kick properly. As Peter Goldsbury wrote: "On another occasion we were practicing techniques from kicks aimed at the lower stomach. Mr. Chiba was very unhappy with his uke's attacks and so roles were changed and he became uke. Sensei's kick was very fast and one landed in the crotch: the uke crumpled up and we male students keenly felt the possible effects on our reproductive potential." So in a dojo run by a senior and well respected uchideshi of Morihei, kicking was taught. Between Chiba and Justin Smith, I know who i would rather believe.

It is self evident that the aikido of Kisshomaru and Moriteru is not quite the aikido of their forebear. Morihei liked kiai and atemi; the younger Ueshibas did not. Morihei worked intensely with sword and jo, his son and grandson do not. Morihei had many waza that are no longer taught in Hombu. He could do the push trick and the jo trick.

So are Kisshomaru and Moriteru the final word on aikido? Only in a political sense. In a technical sense, we can look around and find many teachers, direct students of Morihei, who each have valid and powerful versions of aikido, that are not quite the same as Kisshomaru's. We have the freedom to chose what tradition—such as those of Saito, Saotome, Yamaguchi, Chiba— that we want to follow. I wonder how aware Justin is of just how varied aikido is? Or maybe he would be, if he actually spent some time learning aikido.

Raul Rodrigo wrote: .... we can look around and find many teachers, direct students of Morihei, who each have valid and powerful versions of aikido, that are not quite the same as Kisshomaru's .....

And not quite the same as O Sensei's, either. All of hhis students were different from him and different from each other. That's also true of the earlir generations -- Shirata, Sioda, Tomiki, all different from O Sensei and and different from each other.

So there's a certain amount of wiggle room, but does this mean "Aikido can have anything we want it to"? Maybe; maybe not. If its distinct identity is compromised, then maybe not. I feel very strongly thattinkering with a system is something one should be careful about.