No Touch Throws

The problem is that aikido students are the very last to know if a "no-touch" throw works. One becomes so conditioned to taking ukemi that one reacts "as if" one has to. A year ago, I was teaching a seminar and during a break I grabbed one of the super-good uke and really started to let go. By the end, I was throwing him with my fingerprints (almost "no touch") and I was thinking, "damn I'm getting pretty good." Went back to my Araki-ryu dojo and tried the same thing, and my guy just stood there looking at me, kinda puzzled. Can a "no-touch" throw produce the same effect on someone from another fighting system, particularly one that has no ukemi similar to aikido? Or on a beginner?

Best

One thing with beginners, though: not only will they not flinch from a no-touch, they won't necessarily flinch (or block) from a full-on strike to the face either. Being a novice and from a schol that does not emphasize atemi, I have painfully proved this to myself many times. My Aikikai friends wonder why I let them hit me....

If the reflexes that make the no-touch throw work are the same reflexes that keep you from getting slugged when the strike is just a hair more emphatic, I'd expect the technique to work on anyone with reasonable training in not getting hit. But I am nowhere near good enough yet to experiment with this as nage. My practical research is limited to taking the occasional fist in the face....

I do know that if I go into a no-touch expecting to be thrown, I take crappy ukemi--it looks fake and contrived and is also generally painful. The only thing that works is to put the technique completely out of my mind and try to hit or grab nage; it's up to them to show the throw. Or hit me, if that's how it works out.

The practical thing I have learned from this, something I never expected, is "So he hit me, big deal." All my life I thought this was a really big deal, and that change in attitude is probably more important than any technique I've learned. For this I am grateful to all the Aikikai people who inadvertantly hit me, and especially to that one yudansha (you know who you are) who didn't apologize but just looked at me as if to say, "You knew there was an atemi in that technique, what did you *think* would happen?" A priceless lesson.

Mary Kaye

Ellis Amdur wrote: The problem is that aikido students are the very last to know if a "no-touch" throw works. One becomes so conditioned to taking ukemi that one reacts "as if" one has to. A year ago, I was teaching a seminar and during a break I grabbed one of the super-good uke and really started to let go. By the end, I was throwing him with my fingerprints (almost "no touch") and I was thinking, "damn I'm getting pretty good." Went back to my Araki-ryu dojo and tried the same thing, and my guy just stood there looking at me, kinda puzzled. Can a "no-touch" throw produce the same effect on someone from another fighting system, particularly one that has no ukemi similar to aikido? Or on a beginner? Best

The "no-touch throw" isn't waza, it's an investigation of principle. The so-called "no touch throw" is simply a form of communication between the uke and the nage. It "works" on someone "taking ukemi". The "critical instant" (de-ai) and "critical distance" (ma-ai) represent that instant in time and space at which you own the space in which the uke needs to be to continue his attack. This is the instant at which you could strike him. The Aikido uke acknowledges that you own that space by vacating and taking his fall.

If the uke could have blocked the technique or avoided it, it isn't a real "no-touch throw". The way that most people are doing ukemi in Aikido will not result in anyone being able to tell the difference between when the nage "owns" the critical space at the critical instant and when he doesn't. But that doesn't mean the concept isn't valid.

No one goes into a martial interaction thinking he's going to do a "no-touch throw", at least not if he knows anything at all about fighting. In a "real" confrontation that technique is about atemi. It requires proper placement, proper execution along with an understanding of the timing required. Aikido practice normally focuses on the timing - spacing aspect of the interaction but is woefully lacking in focus on the technical side of executing the atemi. This is a gap in knowledge that must be addressed by anyone wishing to actually have defensive capability with his Aikido.

This doesn't mean that the whole concept isn't worth while. From an aiki standpoint, the timing - spacing aspect of a strike is the most important aspect in that one can have the most powerful strike in the world and know all the vital spots to target and not be able to utilize that ability due to not getting the timing -spacing aspect under control. It's just one aspect of Aikido training which differs from other martial arts. It's one of the ways in which we take something that is designed to be destructive and make it into something creative.

It just needs to be done better than most Aikido folks are apt to do it. The attacks need to be better and the ukes need to be taught to defend their openings (suki) if they can rather than simply taking a fall because someone directed their attention in their direction. It is also important not to confuse Aikido ukes with Araki Ryu partners, neither one functions very well in the other's domain.

Ellis's anecdotal response has more depth than its given credence for.

Disparity of responses of Ukes from Aikido to Araki ryu make sense if one is doing a "thing."
I would not be happy trying to Marengue with someone insisting on doing swing. But then again we are dancing not fighting.
When does conflict resolution come in?

I think the deeper meaning behind Ellis's reply is what and where is Uke's center at any given moment that he would somehow "fall down."
When you punch-where is this connection moment where you would fall down without being touched.
When you throw someone where is this connection moment where your center is so compromised that you would fall down if they didn't occupy that space.
Why would a human being attack anyone or anything in such a manner?
In falling down why is the receiver who apparently --for lack of a better word, lost his balance- not kicking the legs out from under the do-er or kicking him in some fashion like many grade school children naturally do?
It certainly is valid to ask since we are not doing swing dancing or salsa.
At some point we have to agree to go beyond agreement of the thing in order to learn things.
Training to not take Ukemi and to remain standing with a very good attachment to the ground pretty much blows up most arts "responses."
Its just isn't as much fun. Ya don't get much "air time."
In the same vein of receiving...when do you begn training to just stand there when someone tries to lock you out instead of "taking" a throw? All the mechanics for being unlockable are in Aikido in the first place why "take" anything from anyone? To protect what?
Why Ukemi?
In the first place.

Cheers
Dan

I think that for the most part, the "no touch" throws can be broken down into two catagories. What I mean by "for the most part" is that these are the majority of "no touch" throws done in Aikido.

1. Walking in the woods, you are going down a hill and suddenly, a branch is coming straight at your eye. Physically and instinctively, you react. Your body goes backwards. Unfortunately, your feet aren't on stable ground, you were in mid-step and with your body reacting backwards, you fall on your rear. In the dojo, this would be like a hand in the face.

2. You start to walk through an open doorway. You're in a hurry and aren't paying attention to where you are going. Someone suddenly appears out of the corner of your eye and he/she is headed straight for the doorway. You react instinctively because you believe that they will be exactly right where you wanted to be - in the doorway. Only, you feel that this person is going to be there a micro-second before you. So, you reverse your momentum, except part of your body is still going forward. Your shoulders are out of line with your hips and feet. In most circumstances, you would be able to recover, but this one time, you can't and you fall. In the dojo this would be like a really good irimi from nage.

One is the physical aspect of a no-touch throw. Two is the psychological aspect of a no-touch throw. (Not to get into the arguments of what constitutes a "throw")

Are there other variations? I believe there are and I think that it involves some of the higher end Aikido skills. No experience in them, just a belief. And in Aikido, it's a lifelong path of learning, so who knows what I'll end up experiencing.

Mark

1. Walking in the woods, you are going down a hill and suddenly, a branch is coming straight at your eye. Physically and instinctively, you react. Your body goes backwards. Unfortunately, your feet aren't on stable ground, you were in mid-step and with your body reacting backwards, you fall on your rear. In the dojo, this would be like a hand in the face.


Why on earth would you choose to fall down as any reaction to a punch?



2. You start to walk through an open doorway. You're in a hurry and aren't paying attention to where you are going. Someone suddenly appears out of the corner of your eye and he/she is headed straight for the doorway. You react instinctively because you believe that they will be exactly right where you wanted to be - in the doorway. Only, you feel that this person is going to be there a micro-second before you. So, you reverse your momentum, except part of your body is still going forward. Your shoulders are out of line with your hips and feet. In most circumstances, you would be able to recover, but this one time, you can't and you fall. In the dojo this would be like a really good irimi from nage.

Are you referring to your body involuntarily falling down from an unknown source of impetus?
Or in its conditioned and trained response to take ukemi in agreeing with that impetus?
Are these things universal motor and receptor nerve responses?
What if my trained response was to remain balanced from various impetus from all angles and punch or throw back in reply. Where would the "no-touch" flinch response come in then and how would it cause my body to want to fall down?
I think you will find that my points for conditioned response VS actual response are valid if you cross train with other fighters. Mind you I am not saying right or wrong, good or bad. Some things are art specific and a hell of a lot of fun-and aint nothing wrong with that. Its just knowing what a hell of a lot of fun is and what exactly art specific and conditioned response means VS real conflict resolution. Many guys know the difference real well.. train it. and still just have fun as well.

Cheers
Dan

George S. Ledyard wrote: The "no-touch throw" isn't waza, it's an investigation of principle.

And waza isn't???

If the uke could have blocked the technique or avoided it, it isn't a real "no-touch throw".

Uh oh.... that's a paraphrase of the guy who sold the Emperor his new clothes, isn't it? Ellis, you wouldn't know fine raiments if you saw them!!!!

Seriously though, there's a good and a bad side to a lot of these practices. A lot of the Aikido we see is full of "no touch throws", for all practical purposes. And as Ellis noted, a lot of that stuff doesn't pan out in the real world AND it leads many, many Aikidoists into a confusing mindset that has little to do with reality (and yes, I know a lot of Aikidoists are not the slightest interested in reality).

Interestingly enough, the idea of "no touch throws" has a lot to do with the western perception of the woo-woo stuff about ki/qi. Originally the woo-woo stuff about "lin kong jin" or "empty force" was simply about "no touch throws". It was a study in itself of making slight moves at just the right time that would cause an opponent to react in such a way that he threw himself, defeated himself, put himself into a bad position, etc. These controls using the right gestures at the right moment were "no touch" or "controls from a distance". Some of the Chinese "distance throws" have been usurped by 'emitted qi' practitioners, but in reality unless someone is psychologically susceptible, the 'emitted qi' stuff doesn't do much of anything (the stunning thing though is how many people are susceptible to these feelings/suggestions).

The point I was trying to get around to making was that this area of study is one that adds confusion to the whole "ki" scenario. In other words, Ellis, your suggestion that people go look for the ki training methods is great, but there's this whole mindset that confuses "no touch throws", "lin kong jin", etc., in with the serious stuff you're talking about on Aikido Journal at the moment and thereby confuses it. I.e., it's probably worthwhile to make sure the 'no touch' and woo-woo stuff is clearly separated from the other discussion, at least in my opinion.

FWIW

Mike

Dan Harden wrote: Why on earth would you choose to fall down as any reaction to a punch?

LOL! Barring some very detailed strategic moves, I'd say that no one would choose to fall down as a reaction. But we aren't talking about choosing. At least I wasn't. I was referring to ingrained reactions.

I grew up in the woods. I grew up running through the woods. Those around me grew up in the woods and none of us studied martial arts. But when a branch appears out of nowhere, pointed at your eye, and you're moving forward ... well, the body does some wondrously, quick things. Like the upper body jerking backwards away from said pointy stick in eye while the legs and arms don't get the message (or if they did, they're being slow to respond) and suddenly you find yourself in a precarious position. Yeah, sometimes you recover, but sometimes you don't. The latter usually ends up with you on your rear. Consciously, you don't choose to end up there. Of course, you'd rather block. But the option just isn't there at that point in time because your body did things simultaneously on its own. Maybe after years and years of training, you won't do that. Maybe not. But, it really is like suddenly having a hand coming towards your face in the dojo. Sometimes you can recover, sometimes the hand connects (and you either recover or don't), and sometimes the hand doesn't connect at all (and you either recover or don't).

Dan Harden wrote: Are you referring to your body involuntarily falling down from an unknown source of impetus? Or in its conditioned and trained response to take ukemi in agreeing with that impetus? Are these things universal motor and receptor nerve responses?

I'm talking about universal human responses according to the laws of physics. No two bodies can occupy the exact same space at the exact same time. So, if a body is going to be in the exact same space that you wish to occupy in the exact same time that you wish to occupy, one of the bodies has to be moved elsewhere before that conjunction occurs. While you might wish fervently that your body be the one to occupy that space, if the other body is there just a microsecond before yours, your body can adjust subconsciously before the crash occurs. (On the other hand, you might not react and you just might collide with the other body, but I'm not talking about that situation) So, when your body reacts, at times it won't react together. The shoulders, hips, and feet get out of alignment. And at times, it is enough to let gravity do some work and you find yourself on your rear.

Dan Harden wrote: What if my trained response was to remain balanced from various impetus from all angles and punch or throw back in reply. Where would the "no-touch" flinch response come in then and how would it cause my body to want to fall down?

Well, like I said. Every situation will not present an occurance of one falling down without being touched. In fact, it's usually rare. Typically, one will do something else. Training helps. But, if you say that your training allows you to remain balanced from every encounter, from every impetus, from all angles, and that your training allows you to punch or throw back in every reply ... hmmm ... some great training. Personally, I don't believe in every, all, ever, never, etc. I've seen too many instances of higher level martial artists making mistakes. We're all too human.

Dan Harden wrote: I think you will find that my points for conditioned response VS actual response are valid if you cross train with other fighters. Mind you I am not saying right or wrong, good or bad. Some things are art specific and a hell of a lot of fun-and aint nothing wrong with that.

Oh, I agree here. In fact, I say that the responses in an Aikido Dojo are choreographed. However, they are done that way for safety. We learn to roll and fall a certain way. When we are presented with an option, we learn to roll or fall for safety.

But, what I'm presenting here isn't about *how* we fall, but *why*. If you are standing on the train track with a train speeding towards you, you have basically two options. Stay or get off the tracks. Now, if you move off the tracks and step onto a patch of ice, you have two options. Recover without falling or recover with a fall.

In regards to the falling -- The *how* we recover with a fall is ingrained training according to the martial art. The why we fall is because of the laws of physics. Feet going one way, upper body going another, and gravity affecting everything. You will fall, that is a given. No one can fly. But, you can apply that situation to training in a dojo. If you properly unbalance someone and let gravity do its work, there will be a fall.

I don't know about most Aikido dojos and how they do the "no touch" Aikido. I just know about what I've experienced. I'd venture to say that some no touch throws are merely people falling down. Just as I'd venture to say that some no touch throws were perfectly timed and executed and are valid.

This is all regarding throws that can be defined according to physics and how the human body reacts, bends, twists, recovers, etc. I haven't touched upon "no touch" throws that are defined in the spiritual aspect of Aikido. No, that one I'll leave for others to do.

Mark

How about the one where your attacker's arm is coming at you for irimi nage so you (instinctively, it feels like to me) brace yourself by shifting your weight further forward to avoid being offbalanced when you counter -- but suddenly he changes his arm's trajectory and brings it up over your head and without the arm making the expected you fall forward because your solo weight is too far forward? I class that as a "no touch throw." Do you? The companion "throw" is when you're so sure the irimi nage is unavoidable that you commit to ukemi backwards and when the arm goes over your head it's still too late for you to stop the fall. This second one seems more like avoiding the eye-poking branch in the woods.

Wendy Rowe wrote: How about the one where your attacker's arm is coming at you for irimi nage so you (instinctively, it feels like to me) brace yourself by shifting your weight further forward to avoid being offbalanced when you counter -- but suddenly he changes his arm's trajectory and brings it up over your head and without the arm making the expected you fall forward because your solo weight is too far forward? I class that as a "no touch throw." Do you? The companion "throw" is when you're so sure the irimi nage is unavoidable that you commit to ukemi backwards and when the arm goes over your head it's still too late for you to stop the fall. This second one seems more like avoiding the eye-poking branch in the woods.

For me, if at any point, one can recover in any way, shape, or form, then I don't classify it as a "no touch" throw. To me, just thinking that the irimi nage is unavoidable means that it can be avoided. Anytime that uke commits to ukemi, then it can be avoided. Ukemi, in my veiw, isn't something to take. Ukemi is something that one uses when one has no other options and it is something used instinctively, not something one commits to.

But, everyone views Aikido differently. Each person's Aikido is their own, so I can only say how I view things and how I am as an Aikidoka.

Mark

What if there was no Uke?
What if the other guy is fully trained, in balance and a fighter and has -no interest-in "taking" technique?
Where would this enable a no touch throw?

I think all things considered it is an artiface or conditioned responses among people who do not show adequate training in martial skills in the first place.

Cheers
Dan

Dan Harden wrote: What if there was no Uke? What if the other guy is fully trained, in balance and a fighter and has -no interest-in "taking" technique? Where would this enable a no touch throw? I think all things considered it is an artiface or conditioned responses among people who do not show adequate training in martial skills in the first place. Cheers Dan

Hello,
I think you might have answered your own question there; someone who is fully trained, in balance, and a fighter will indeed have no interest in taking technique, and I expect that this will be true whether one is talking tree nage or irimi nage. But as I understand it, the execution of an Aikido technique is predicated on taking uke's balance, at least a little, in the first place. If I step up to a trained, balanced fighter and try a throw, it isn't likely to come out well for me. If, on the other hand, the fighter is unbalanced, and if I can maintain that state, there's a chance for the technique, touch in all likelihood, no touch a possibility.
Granted, the better one's training, the less likely it is that one will be unbalanced, or stay that way for long. But on the other hand, I tend to see Aikido techniques as having been evolved to deal with trained, balanced fighters — the art is far too detailed, places far too much emphasis on covering openings, maintaining contact, being prepared to flow with unexpected developments, to be meant for untrained, unbalanced people. And as uke, on the rare occasions I have felt something that could be called a no-touch throw, it wasn't so much that I was in the thrall of some mysterious ki tractor beam as that, given the precise trajectory of some incoming hand or arm, and given my own trajectory, the proper thing to do was to fall down, to avoid a worse option. And in every case, my balance was of course already compromised to some degree.
Looking at it another way, let's have a spectrum of throws, with Really, Really Touch (RRT) at one end, and No Touch (NT) at the other. A basic RRT throw might involve swinging a cricket bat at someone's head. No co-operation or conditioned reflex or lost balance required on uke's part. Somewhere further along the spectrum there'll be a Touch Kind of Hard (TKH) throw, in which uke has been softened up with what people at our dojo like to call "hematemi," or atemi that leaves bruises. If one can land enough of those, without getting similarly treated, uke's training and balance are more susceptible to our technique. We will still need to be quick and skillful, but we have compromised uke.
And so on, with the things that create openings for us getting subtler and subtler, until all the sudden you are in NT territory. Maybe there is a level at which that stops happening, maybe not. But it is clear to me that, given sufficient skill, some people can fight circles around others, apparently doing very little while their opponent flails away. An NT throw seems like a logical extension of skill, even if most of the throws that have been described as such are conditioned response matters.
Yours,
Brion Toss

I am thinking that jo-nage would be an interesting laboratory for exploring this, because you can give uke a clear goal that does not involve taking ukemi--either "Grab the jo with both hands and take it away from nage" or "Grab the jo with both hands and throw nage with it."

In my limited experience with this, uke can do things to greatly decrease the chance that she is thrown (and make no-touch almost impossible) but they also decrease the chance that she gets the jo. Strategy on nage's part involves letting uke think that she *can* get the jo when in fact it is not quite possible; both the touch and no-touch throws flow from there, depending on whether uke lunges out of balance and catches it, or just misses.

I like this one particularly because it is symmetrical--once both people have their hands on the jo, who's to say whose jo it is?--so it seems easier to break out of the "uke is here to fall" mindset.

Mary Kaye

I would add a third category: "Grab the jo with both hands or get hit with it." This attitude tends to assure sincere ukemi, and should cause nage to be more sincere also, i.e. to offer the jo in an inviting way, but then to maneuver to take uke's balance, whether or not the jo is grabbed, while also getting in a position to strike. Encouraging uke to grab, and then to hang on by making a possible strike evident is what makes a throw possible.
Yours,
Brion Toss

sometimes this in depth overly intelectual analysis gives me a head ache...
the best no touch throw i ever saw was by a bullfighter who to my knowledge did not study aikido... bull came charging in, bullfighter executed perfectly timed tenkan, bull plows face first into the dirt... viola no touch throw... i believe we can agree that the bull was not faking it for the bullfighters benefit (okay maybe someone will )
i likewise saw a no touch in a kyu level randoori when one mid level kyu charged forward the nage let loose an amazing (really intense loud and unexpected) kiai right in their face ... scared the you know what out of uke ... involuntary reflex, flinch or startle, fall down ... not mysterious or magical just fortunate...

sometimes this in depth overly intelectual analysis gives me a head ache...

Me too, I have just read all 6 pages of the thread!

For those who believe that no touch 'throws' are nonsense or impossible, maybe they've never been on the recieving end of one. I wonder if their mind would be changed if they experienced one or would they still hang on to their old certainties. Plenty of people have posted sound explanations as to how and why they exist, they are not magic or mystical. Mind you, offering proof in no way gaurantees acceptance. Showing fossil records to a creationist rarely gains acceptance of the facts.

When I see total non acceptance of something that some of us practice, I wonder about the 'beginners mind' so often talked about. In my early days of practice I watched the same footage of O Sensei as was mentioned earlier. I was completely wide eyed and in awe, but I knew that I wanted to be a part of the training that one day might see me doing/recieving the same/similar.
Luckily, my Sensei has over 50 years of practice under his belt and regularly demonstrates touchless 'throws' at the same time he is the first to point out that we must look for the truth in the movement and all that that entails - co-ordination, balance, relaxation, non-contention, extended mind etc etc. He berates any uke that launches themselves into the air, or 'throws' themselves when not necessary.
I love being on the recieving end of this 'type' of Aikido, it is dynamic and 'pain free'. Whenever I practice with people who choose to use physical effort and force, they can 'throw' me, but I rarely stand up with the same smile that accompanies the effortless throw.

At the end of the day, I don't practice to be effective in a so called 'real world' fight. I know that if I was attacked 'on the street' my assailant is unlikely to 'follow' like an aikidoka, so expecting to perform touchless throws on him would be 'weird'. However, if by position, attitude, words, I could convince him that an attack may not be in his best interest, then I may not have thrown him but the attack may have been converted without 'touch'.

Cheers,

Mark

Mark Freeman wrote: For those who believe that no touch 'throws' are nonsense or impossible, maybe they've never been on the recieving end of one. I wonder if their mind would be changed if they experienced one or would they still hang on to their old certainties. : : : At the end of the day, I don't practice to be effective in a so called 'real world' fight. I know that if I was attacked 'on the street' my assailant is unlikely to 'follow' like an aikidoka, so expecting to perform touchless throws on him would be 'weird'. However, if by position, attitude, words, I could convince him that an attack may not be in his best interest, then I may not have thrown him but the attack may have been converted without 'touch'. Cheers, Mark

With a big automatic gun, I can "no touch throw" a dozen of people at same time. So what does that prove?

It's more like "no touch fall" than "no touch throw".

With a big automatic gun, I can "no touch throw" a dozen of people at same time. So what does that prove? It's more like "no touch fall" than "no touch throw".

Not a believer then, eh?

for roosvelt ... a throw happens when someone attacks and YOU use a technique that causes them to hit (fall to) the ground for a no touch the technique is one of timeing and evasion and leading and unbalancing oohh and probably some other things too... does that help???

p.s. gun waza is considered ki extension and no touch...;-)

In the classic experiment, a bell is ringed before feeding a dog. After a while, upon hearing the bell, the dog will drool saliva even without seeing the food.

whenever I see a aikidoda fall like a leave when his sensei waving the arm, the picture of a drooling dog appears in my mind.

i totally agree roosvelt that aint aikido that is trained poodles for me too...

Ellis Amdur wrote: The problem is that aikido students are the very last to know if a "no-touch" throw works. One becomes so conditioned to taking ukemi that one reacts "as if" one has to. A year ago, I was teaching a seminar and during a break I grabbed one of the super-good uke and really started to let go. By the end, I was throwing him with my fingerprints (almost "no touch") and I was thinking, "damn I'm getting pretty good." Went back to my Araki-ryu dojo and tried the same thing, and my guy just stood there looking at me, kinda puzzled. Can a "no-touch" throw produce the same effect on someone from another fighting system, particularly one that has no ukemi similar to aikido? Or on a beginner?Best

I am guilty of such as well. I will flinch and do a koho ukemi whenever my sensei does his trade-mark nodo-tsuki (actually his nasty variation of irimi tsuki) in class. It is a learned response. I am not stupid and it is better to take the koho ukemi than get a nasty sore throat the next day. I guess I am guilty of being a "trained poodle"

Once, I was sucker punched with a straight jab to my face by a non-aikido practitioner and to my surprise, my instinctive response was not to flinch, but to slip pass the jab and executed a beautiful irimi tsuki (shomen-ate).

The opponent was slammed on the mat but he manage to do a proper koho ukemi (He is a judo guy). After that he got up, slightly dazed and said that luckily he knows ukemi, or else, that technique was a nasty SOB. I can bet you a million dollar, he will flinch or just fall down the next time he sees that technique again... resulting in another trained "poodle" responding to a no-touch throw.

Back to the question of no touch throw. IMO, it will not work on someone who is naive to it. You need to "convince" them of the existence of no-touch throw.

Ossu!

ukemi helps your defense if you learn the proper responses ie instead of watching your arm break you react with a sutemi... true that some people turn into trained poodles, but if you trust your ukemi you learn to take more force from nage and still not be injured by harsh waza... kind of like rolling with a punch...

Roosvelt wrote

In the classic experiment, a bell is ringed before feeding a dog. After a while, upon hearing the bell, the dog will drool saliva even without seeing the food. whenever I see a aikidoda fall like a leave when his sensei waving the arm, the picture of a drooling dog appears in my mind.

If I for one minute think that you are refering to to me (as I am one of those who practices with a teacher who can perform no touch throws) as a Pavlov's dog, I would respectfully ask you to go and think before you make such statements.
My teacher has spent 50 years perfecting his Aikido and do you think that he wants to practice with a pool of trained dogs that he can make jump around on his command?? No. he wants strong commited uke's who can attack with commitment and total co-ordination, so that he in turn can
polish his own practice. I personally have only been training for 13 years, some of his students hav been with him for 30+ years I know how good these students are. I totally resent the implication that I or they are like trained poodles.

It has already been pointed out that OSensei performed many of this type of throw on film and easily available. George has given long and detailed explanations as to what and how they happen.

What is wrong with you guys, do you think that O'Sensei trained a load of poodles to be his students, get a grip, open your minds.

No one is implying you can just pick any person up and throw them without touching them. But if your aikido practice does not embrace this high level experience then you are the unfortunate one.

i totally agree roosvelt that aint aikido that is trained poodles for me too...

See above

I believe in no touch throws, however

I do not believe they can be taught ie and now class let me demonstrate this secret "no touch" technique...

no touch happens as a result of properly executed techniques ie blending timing evasion etc...

i have seen Osensei on films its not magic or faking... it is technique executed with aiki

trained poodle aikido happens when someone IS faking either nage or uke or both...

anyone offended by anything written on an open public forum should consider why they are so easily manipulated by the words of a complete stranger...

no touch throw...