Deadly Techniques?

Dan Harden wrote: "Percentage of success under duress in a high stress environment."

Hi Dan,

How do you define success in this context?

Thanks,
Charles

Kevin Leavitt wrote: Killing and deadly force is pretty easy to do once you have control of the person and can move them and manipulate them to go where you want them to go.

Have to agree with Keven again.

IMHO, any technique can be applied with deadly force. We can always enter another discussion on intent.

I have heard that two of Aikido's friends are gravity and concrete.

1. Kevin Leavitt wrote:
Killing and deadly force is pretty easy to do once you have control of the person and can move them and manipulate them to go where you want them to go.

2. Lynn Seiser wrote:
Have to agree with Keven again.
IMHO, any technique can be applied with deadly force. We can always enter another discussion on intent.
I have heard that two of Aikido's friends are gravity and concrete.

My argument is with the underlined being the missing and very critical piece when the idea of aikido against fully resisting and capable attackers is discussed.
Kevin's once you have control of the person is such a critical part that it almost defeats all other considerations.
I go back to what I initially addressed. Aiki...do can and has been a determining force that bridges that gap.

Lynn's any technique can be applied with deadly force is just not something I could agree with. How do you propse that could happen Lynn?
And Getting gravity and concrete to be your friend while true, takes some doing when you bring the discussion into a level of deadly confrontation. With what I have seen and experienced with most traditional art practitioners- they are far to cavalier in their approach. Further, I just haven't seen a purely traditional (single art) model capable of developing it for more intense environments.
It is no small wonder that virtually all of our "greats" and "founders" were all deeply immersed in MMA studies and personal research.
Cheers
Dan

Michael Gelum wrote: Hey Mark, I would like to read that account, Please post a link, or reference, to where I will find it? Train well, Mickey

Found the reference.

http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showpo...9&postcount=12

It's from Aiki News #87

Nishimura sensei wrote: I took Mr. Tomiki there and introduced him to Ueshiba Sensei. Mr. Tomiki was a little taller than I was. However, he was thrown in about 63 different ways just by having his hand held by Ueshiba Sensei.

Thanks for the effort Mark ...

...but, that is hardly a testament to the actual encounter. Considering that Tomiki Shihan was already an well-seasoned martial artist and competitor, having earned national recognition for his accomplishments.

In my opinion, Ueshiba was, and still is, highly overrated and given undue omnipotence.

Considering the era and culture, I think Tomiki Shihan just put up with the extraneous hype.

It is also my opinion, that when Ueshiba started to fantasize, utter quips and quotations, Tomiki made the decision to pursue his view. Just because Alzheimers did not have a name back then, does not mean it did not exist.

Train well,

Mickey

Is killing that easy, Kevin . . . even after you have control of the opponent? I know that you are a professional soldier. Have you ever killed anyone in close-quarter combat--barehanded or not? Did you find it easy to do?

Absolutely...I am not answering for Kevin, he can speak for himself.

Killing is very easy, Mr. Campbell..it is the individual that is cognizant of the proper response that involves taking a life.
Given the proper situation, it is easily accomplished.

Comparing military operations, civilian law enforcement and the general public's response to lethal force is absurd. The authority granted by of position is limiting.

If One has the ability, and the opportunity, yet it is an unwarranted response, then it is excessive.

If one has the ability and the opportunity, and it is the only response to end the conflict...it is survival.

Train well,

Mickey

Hmm, yes, you think....did you read the accounts of that encounter? You might not have to stress the brain so much. lol

But hey, thinking is good, and I believe you are absolutley correct on the cultural context. Which is why Ueshiba was reportedly so pissed.
Best,
Ron

Szczepan Janczuk wrote: Hi Ron, We don't really know the details. But do you really believe that ANY Japanese student will fight his teacher in public demo? From cultural context I'd guess he could attack him a bit stronger that usual, but I think if was quite cooperative.

Dan Harden wrote: Lynn's any technique can be applied with deadly force is just not something I could agree with.

Would you say any technique can be applied with deadly force if you're doing "aiki...do"? Otherwise, what's one technique that cannot be lethal in some setting? Ideally, every technique should have control over aite's center, etc. right? ....I.E.

once you have control of the person and can move them and manipulate them to go where you want them to go.

?
I'm wondering if the difference is semantics.

Dan Harden wrote: It is no small wonder that virtually all of our "greats" and "founders" were all deeply immersed in MMA studies and personal research.

And here we find full agreement.

Alan Lamb wrote: I was wondering, are there any techniques that were devised or adapted by o sensei, for aikido, that were designed to kill? I was under the impression that the highest level of aikido was to control the aggressor without causing serious harm? I know they CAN kill, but are they designed to be that way?

Any martial art worth its salt is, by definition, designed to subdue, or if necessary, maim and cripple. And, if absolutely necessary, kill - as quickly, and as efficiently as possible.

That said, I believe the contrary is equally true - that certain "techniques" are designed to hide the lethality of the art. IOW, a martial art/style, again by its very nature, would seek to hide the obvious lethality of its technical trademarks.

That also said, a more than intimate knowledge of the human body is necessary to fathom the potential lethality of any "technique". Pulling it off - when you need to - is the "art".

Whether that applies to aikido is debatable. IMHO, the "techniques" in aikido were specifically modified to serve an entirely different purpose - namely, as a vehicle for pursuing a particular set of body skills, whilst retaining certain core principles and semblance of a martial art.

Josh Phillipson wrote: Luck is something I've been wondering about. In Kimura's "Transparent Power" it basically said the power differential between Sagawa and anyone else was so large that Sagawa never lost. Didn't matter. Nothing mattered. Aiki body + skills was too strong. .. but... I can't quite reconcile what I think about the everpresence of luck and all that. Any one thing can happen on any given day. Isn't it so?

Yes...I think it also depends or the semantics and perspective of what is "luck". In any situattions there simply are things that you can't mitigate or manage no matter how good you are. sometimes things go your way, sometimes you don't. The goal through training, of course, is to narrow the gap of "luck".

Aiki deadly techniques – what nonsense. Some people are still living in a fantasy world. Last 40 years we have seen karate deadly techniques, kung fu deadly techniques, ninja deadly techniques, krav maga deadly techniques, systema deadly techniques, every time somebody promotes new business on the market they use the same syllabus… what a disappointment.

Szczepan Janczuk wrote: Aiki deadly techniques – what nonsense. Some people are still living in a fantasy world. Last 40 years we have seen karate deadly techniques, kung fu deadly techniques, ninja deadly techniques, krav maga deadly techniques, systema deadly techniques, every time somebody promotes new business on the market they use the same syllabus… what a disappointment.

I tend to agree with you.
I have no authority on the history of Aikido, and don't pretend to.
But I think ideas of "deadly techniques" are rather romantic ideas that stem from a need to chase some sort elusive power. Some people are control freaks. Some people really get off over feeling like they have the lives of other's in their hands, and frankly some people feel morally superior when they show "divine mercy" to spare their foe's life.(A worm like me will never compare to those noble warriors ) lol Great marketing. It really hits the nail on the head for some people.

Maybe Aikido techniques did stem from previously deadly techniques, maybe if you have control over some one you have the choice over life and death? I don't know, I'm not a historian, nor do I look for openings for kills in training.
Whatever, it's all good, and doesn't matter.
Because It's Aikido, Aikidoka isn't suppose to go there.

The irony of the whole thing is that once you can control and maintain in control, then you probably don't have to kill anyway! Which is a MAJOR lesson I think we are supposed to be learning.

I agree, no deadly techniques, yet having the ability to control, and you can find places along the way where you can do so or turn it into something else.

Control...well that is a whole other subject and what it means. Anywhere from obtaining dominate position, OODA loops, and of course, the concept and practice of Aiki.

The real irony is that martial arts isn't a prerequisite to executing a deadly technique - as evidenced by the increasing number of reported school yard "fights" instigated for the purpose of broadcasting on YouTube, THAT ultimately led to a fatality.

There isn't much technique required to beat someone to a pulp - any noob with sufficient provocation could do that. Defending yourself from getting beaten to a pulp - without having to invoke the justifiable homicide defence - is more the trick.

Alan Lamb wrote: I was wondering, are there any techniques that were devised or adapted by o sensei, for aikido, that were designed to kill? I was under the impression that the highest level of aikido was to control the aggressor without causing serious harm? I know they CAN kill, but are they designed to be that way?

OP,
You say you know they CAN kill- so do I.

You seem to be asking if they were designed to do so. I can't think of a reliable way of determining this for sure except for consulting the designer.

You might have been better off asking if anyone had any evidence that they were designed to do so- if that's what you wanted to know.

Things take a tangent fairly easily on internet forums.

does it matter if they were or weren't designed to do that?

Kinda hate to go here- but I can stir a cup of tea with a screw driver...if I need that tea stirred- what does it matter why it was designed?

sry bout that.

Charles Hill wrote: Dan Harden wrote: "Percentage of success under duress in a high stress environment." Hi Dan, How do you define success in this context? Thanks, Charles

Degree of percentage of fulfilling your goals under stress.
Many traditional techniques are rather inane to me, and become even more so when people try to pull them off against someone well trained in placing continual stress on them. Moreover I think many if not most traditional MAers really have not experienced being stressed by men truly capable of doing so. Usually it is quite a shock. For that reason this idea of the "deadly" nature of most Martial waza is rather ridiculous. "Technique" is not high up on my list of "deadly", I would place experience in active fighting, and mindset above waza. Of course waza is important, but controlled contact, and the experience to freely change position, and affect their's against their own will while you are actively playing them (personally that would include kicks, punches and throws, but whatever floats your boat) will trump waza every time. The fixation of deadly waza is more or less secondary to me; it's more of your ability to get there control it and get out. IME, most traditional art's adepts do not have what it takes to do that.
Cheers
Dan

Szczepan Janczuk wrote: Aiki deadly techniques -- what nonsense. Some people are still living in a fantasy world. Last 40 years we have seen karate deadly techniques, kung fu deadly techniques, ninja deadly techniques, krav maga deadly techniques, systema deadly techniques, every time somebody promotes new business on the market they use the same syllabus… what a disappointment.

You are speaking from your experience, and that's fine, I understand that perspective and do not fault you for it.
I would rather you used less confrontational language but since you brought it up, I can only respond to you from my own experience with using aiki in hundreds of sparring sessions and demonstrations; some which were tame testing, some which amped up, others which turned into controlled violence.

It has been "my experience" that from Shodan to Shihan, from traditional arts to MMA, I've not met a single one of you who can manage to withstand my aiki. Not one. In fact it was their "fantasy world" that crumbled, and not my own. Even were that not the case, and I was only discussing a high percentage of succes- it would still be substantial enough, but suffice to say that it caused all those well versed in aiki (some very dismissive of it) to pause and re-evaluate their prevous opinions. Aiki is extremely potent and powerful in use if you know what aiki truly is, how to manifest it, and then get out and fight with it and learn what to do once you have it.

Matthew wrote: Would you say any technique can be applied with deadly force if you're doing "aiki...do"? Otherwise, what's one technique that cannot be lethal in some setting? Ideally, every technique should have control over aite's center, etc. right? ....I.E. Quote: once you have control of the person and can move them and manipulate them to go where you want them to go. ? I'm wondering if the difference is semantics.

Okay, lets try to reduce the semantic obscurity and be more clear.

Note* I am not talking about just doing solo training exercises and testing against wrist locks and grabs.
I am discussing free movement, at speed against kicks, punches, throws, locks, and entry attempts all while doing the same back at them. I am discussing everything from the simple throws, to wholesale violence. The feedback I have received from openly teaching for the first time these last three years, is that it is now agreed, that there exists a high level of the "use of aiki" in controlled violence unlike anything those I am meeting has felt before. It has become a sort of collaborative from which to re-build their own expectations of their own work. FWIW, it is my opinion that what I am doing is what aiki used to be and what it was meant to produce in an adept.

Then and now
The discussions of Takeda and Ueshiba and "deadly techniques" are intriguing to me in this context; as contrary to much of the counter arguments stated here- both were known for "frightening power" and control. Again it is worth noting that Takeda killed men who attacked him, and Ueshiba continually made comments about the deadly nature of aiki. I am quite sure they would be amused reading modern adepts opinions.
That modern adepts continue to try and redefine aiki- and reduce expectations of its potential (mostly due to their own inadequecies) remains a continual problem. The troube is ,once we set lower expections we are sure to accept them as the norm.

Personally, while I am interested in continuing to communicate and discuss Aiki, I am not interested in debating endlessly with those who continue to demonstrate that they have no ability whatsoever to successfully debate this in person. I am only trying to be straightforward and get the message across that
a) aiki is real
b) it is not some wrist grab game with big body movements
c) it is NOT waza oriented at all-rather it happend internall in the person first and is made manifest through contact and manipualtion. Trying to create the later, without the former, is what has reduced the expectations of it's former potential in the eyes of so many.
d) by it's very nature it is very potent as it produces devastating kicks, strikes, throws, counter throws, and tends to cancel out most attempts to stop it.
There is something very potent out there for those who will pursue it, and get out to find it. The solution begins with you.
Cheers
Dan

Chris Hein wrote: I've also heard that electricity, hammers and cars are deadly as well.

Bathtubs seem to be pretty high on the list ...

This whole thread seems to completely miss the point. The flu kills like 30,000 people a year ... hows your defense against a virus working out? Any fool can kill. It takes mastery to diffuse the deadly encounter with the minimum of casualties.

If one does not train with the deadly encounter to frame the mindset then the training is wide of the mark. Techniques are irrelevant if the mindset is not proper. If one needs to believe the techniques are deadly to get into the proper mindset then go right ahead and think that. Might as well believe that the founder set it up just like that too, if that helps get the mind right.

Dan Harden writes:

It has been "my experience" that from Shodan to Shihan, from traditional arts to MMA, I've not met a single one of you who can manage to withstand my aiki. Not one. In fact it was their "fantasy world" that crumbled, and not my own.

Sounds good, but now I am curious.

If you are on such a musha shugyo, why not seek out tougher opponents instead of the aikido people who seek you out or the local MMA crowd? What stops you from going to meet with people like Su Dongchen or Chen Bing or Sagawa's student Kimura or whoever Gracie to spar? They might be interested in getting a good run for their money.

That said, I want to bring up a point to see what your thoughts are. Bill Gleason studies with you and has the utmost respect for your teachings. But his video clip of teaching inspired by your stuff that is on Youtube looks mostly like the opening movement to the taijiquan form, and is not that illuminating. You had to do more to him to make him an advocate of your method. It would be real cool to see a clip of you sparring with someone like him so we can get a better frame of reference. I have only met Mark Murray once, who was still in learning phase, and also another guy in Baltimore who said he trained with you, but I didn't know whether to believe him as he was very rusty. Another person, whose opinion I respect, has nothing but good stuff to say about your ability.

So -- I'm not questioning your aiki. But, putting aside how tough you are for a moment, do you feel you can teach efficiently what you know? Not every good boxer is a good trainer. Are you making a mistake in making the people who meet with you over confident in their own abilities so they can go out and 'change their aikido' without really having the goods that you have? What does a guy like Gleason have now that he didn't have when he first met you -- is he any closer to your level of skill from training with you? Assuming I have a guy to train under who really knows taiji and bagua and xingyi, what is the benefits of your approach over more classical ideas besides Aikido or kata-based Daito-ryu jujutsu practice?

Not meaning to be rude -- only trying to be succinct. I'm picking Bill Gleason as an example because he is high ranking aikidoka. I've never met him.

Best Wishes,
Mark

Dan Harden wrote: It has been "my experience" that from Shodan to Shihan, from traditional arts to MMA, I've not met a single one of you who can manage to withstand my aiki. Cheers Dan

Hi Dan,
If you really faced very violent(deadly ?? LOL) encounters, you should perceive my language as very polite, not confrontational. You may have highest aiki skills in the world, I really can't care less. We in aikido, we are not trying to prove we are the best, aikido is not a sport.Only this point proves you understand nothing about aikido.

In this topic, we are talking here about "deadly aikido techniques'. Of course, if one seriously thinks his techniques are deadly, he must IN REGULAR BASIS use his techniques in deadly manner. In clear -- he must kill people to perfect his skills. Otherwise it will be like swimming in an empty pool. I personally doubt very much you are serial killer, that's why your arguments are not valid to me. That is one point.

The other point is: there is an old saying from wise men from Himalaya: if the only tool you know is a hammer, everything around you looks like a nail.

You are spamming every topic on aikiweb with your ideas of "aiki', because you have nothing to say about aikido. It prevents any valuable discussion on different aspects of aikido training.

I'm very surprised that Jun didn't ban you on this forum.

Cheers

Mark Raugas wrote: Sounds good, but now I am curious. Mark

me too. very curious. now, i wonder when i will have a chance to be in the region to feel dan's aiki. i am a nobody so it wouldn't mean much. probably opens my eyes to new aiki possibility. wouldn't be the first time either.

so many folks with aiki and so little time to experience them.

Szczepan Janczuk wrote: Hi Dan, We in aikido, we are not trying to prove we are the best, aikido is not a sport.Only this point proves you understand nothing about aikido. In this topic, we are talking here about "deadly aikido techniques'. Of course, if one seriously thinks his techniques are deadly, he must IN REGULAR BASIS use his techniques in deadly manner. In clear -- he must kill people to perfect his skills. Otherwise it will be like swimming in an empty pool. I personally doubt very much you are serial killer, that's why your arguments are not valid to me. That is one point. The other point is: there is an old saying from wise men from Himalaya: if the only tool you know is a hammer, everything around you looks like a nail. You are spamming every topic on aikiweb with your ideas of "aiki', because you have nothing to say about aikido. It prevents any valuable discussion on different aspects of aikido training. I'm very surprised that Jun didn't ban you on this forum. Cheers

Aiki is aiki. It remains the driving force that is behind aikido. Whether or not various practitioners are at different levels in manifesting it doesn't matter. What I am discussing IS Aikido. Further, I am deeply involved in training teachers OF aikido to manifest the aiki I am discussing here and to teach it themselves.

How does your own individual understanding of aiki in aikido change what aiki is? I can point you to a number of teachers and a few shihan who would argue with you vehemently that what I am talking about IS the aiki they have been looking for their entire career.

Cheers
Dan

Dan Harden wrote: Aiki is aiki. It remains the driving force that is behind aikido. Whether or not various practitioners are at different levels in manifesting it doesn't matter. What I am discussing IS Aikido. Further, I am deeply involved in training teachers OF aikido to manifest the aiki I am discussing here and to teach it themselves. How does your own individual understanding of aiki in aikido change what aiki is? I can point you to a number of teachers and a few shihan who would argue with you vehemently that what I am talking about IS the aiki they have been looking for their entire career. Cheers Dan

Okay, I'll start by saying I don't dislike you.
But, basically, I'm agreeing with Szczepan's view-point here.
Now,
I was gonna ask "which shihans?" But then it came to me that this is a silly argument. I don't wanna play along with it. lol

I'm not saying what you are saying is wrong per say, or what you are speaking of is silly persay, I'm accusing your approach over it as silly-- tactless. It doesn't matter, what you got to prove?

Even the most sensible when confronted by imprudence becomes utter nonsense!

Thanks for the clarification, Dan! I appreciate it.

And just to summarize some of my thoughts on this thread:
First, I don't know whether any forms in Aikido were specifically designed to be deadly, sorry to say so much for not having an answer to the OP.
Finally, my understanding is that techniques are just examples to work through; they're not the point of training, the principle(s) they lend themselves to are. That said, techniques are as deadly as the situation allows them to be. To touch on an earlier point I forgot to follow up on: my understanding is that some folks have died from shihonage. Aikido was deadly to them, even if it was accidental (that luck factor brought up earlier?).
That said: Ueshiba Ryu Aikido as I understand it, in its purest expression, is non-violent and even healing. It takes enormous levels of skill to make that happen against a capable and violently aggressive person so what most of us mere mortals are left with is doing our best with the Aikido we have developed in ourselves. I tell my friends who think simply having some martial arts experience makes me a bad-ass that, if I happen to get lucky and pull something off successfully, I don't know that I have the control to keep a person from putting their head into the window behind me, or into traffic if we're by a street.