static vs. dynamic waza

to provide a brief context for my question, i've trained in several aikido 'branches' and have experienced different emphases by the senseis whilst doing waza.

when training kihon waza, my first school was fairly static. when uke grabbed, the grip was firm and static (i.e. no overt pushing or pulling). of course, there were variations between ukes, but that was the general feeling.

at the next 'branch', i went through almost a 180 degree shift into almost purely dynamic waza, i.e. uke were constantly moving/pushing/pulling - from slow to fast. loved it. techniques worked beautifully, and flowingly.

and now, at a different dojo due to an interstate move, it's a mix of static and dynamic.

when i was training 'dynamically', i was sort of going through an aikido 'growth spurt phase' in middling-high kyu level then, and i felt myself learning really quick at that point. as there were different factors happening, i couldn't isolate whether it was the training style itself that was great, or that was simply a confounding variable for my growth period.

i struggled a while when i had to go back to static waza as i felt like i had to do much more work, i.e. rather than leading the uke, i had to give my own energy to move them, which i thought/felt was antithetical to being aiki.

but rather than whinging and wasting my training opportunity, i've been trying to shift my mentality about static training.

i'd really appreciate getting some viewpoints and ideas about the differences between static and dynamic waza, the benefits of each, and maybe tips of how to maximise the learning from both.

onegai shimasu.

Seng-Yew Ong wrote: but rather than whinging and wasting my training opportunity, i've been trying to shift my mentality about static training. i'd really appreciate getting some viewpoints and ideas about the differences between static and dynamic waza, the benefits of each, and maybe tips of how to maximise the learning from both.

Hi,

my own viewpoint is that both are valuable aspects of aikido training. I have had periods when I felt that the static training was getting in the way of 'the good stuff' which at the time I thought the dynamic training was.

This viewpoint has changed over a number of years of teaching. Now I feel that the dynamic waza is 'too easy' in that you already have the momentum of uke to play with, keeping them going isn't really a challenge.

Static training allows for much more in depth understanding of how mind body connection works, you can work at a pace that allows you to explore where tensions are arising, where your mind is, how the two are or are not working together.

So for me, the static waza is where all the good stuff is learnt and the dynamic waza is where all the fun is had

regards

Mark

Personally I prefer "dynamic" -- NOT in the sense of uke running around or dancing! or even necessarily moving quickly, but essentially entering nage's space with an attack that (in practicing a set attack>a set technique) elicits the technique to be done - in other words, very clearly a cut through versus a cut that come to a full stop just at the top of my head, or a grab that has some kind of push or pull component rather than just sitting there. I prefer this because it teaches from the start that technique is not arbitrarily imposed but is directly related to the attack.

Both are needed. Dynamic teaches how it feels when everything works perfectly as in a true street situation. However, if it doesn't work as planned and uke doesn't move any more, then static teaches you what to do in order to move uke as in a true street situation.

Since you're from Yuishinkai, you got to trust Koretoshi Maruyama sensei, he is a great teacher, he knows how to teach his students the best way.

Static training is for sure the most important training in any sporting arts, as well as in Aikido. It's how we learn the basics. Once we (mind and body) get the basics, the dynamic techniques come naturally.

Kihon waza (static) is important. It teaches you to move in an organized fashion, and teaches you the important details of each technique. Iwama students in my opinion often have the best, most clear techniques in the since of strict movement.

Ki no nagare waza (dynamic) is important. Without Ki no Nagare waza you can't really learn how to blend. Only when things are done in motion can you actually find the "Aiki" of the interaction. Often times Hombu style represents this best in my opinion.

You also must add Jiyuwaza/Randori to the mix. This teaches you how to use the techniques and blends under pressure, in a situation where you don't know what is going to happen. It teaches you to be spontaneous and adapt to what is happening. You see this in Shodokan/Tomiki style Aikido.

Those are the three types of practice I teach to, and all a very important.

I think they both teach different things, and I really see it as a subset/superset kind of thing.
In static, you can learn to manage the forces and potential forces that are in any given state. You can become comfortable in all the states that commonly occur. You can study them and work on them diligently.
In dynamic training, you can't (easily) study/learn any of that. Instead what becomes the obvious focus is motion, momentum, and kinetic energy. So I say, first static and then dynamic:

You can bring everything you have learned in static into the dynamic training.. but not the other way around. (so working in a dynamic type interaction means doing all the good stuff you do in static PLUS other stuff like momentum work.)

So I agree with most of what has been said. But one thing I would disagree with is that "blending" is learned mostly or entirely in the dynamic type of training. Can't blending of structures and the forces they produce be done very thoroughly in static? That's what I use static training for.

Jonathan Wong wrote: But one thing I would disagree with is that "blending" is learned mostly or entirely in the dynamic type of training. Can't blending of structures and the forces they produce be done very thoroughly in static? That's what I use static training for.

In my opinion, blending can't be learned in a static fashion, at least not the kind of blending I'm talking about. You can learn the movements, and technical details of the blend, but the blend itself requires motion. Static is just that, void of motion.

Without this motion you can't learn the natural timing of the event, and how to move your body inside of that timing. This is what I call (and I believe my teachers were calling) "Aiki"; although there is much Aikiweb discussion of this.

I find that being able to do static techniques in a very slow, deliberate way without pauses or falling back to speeding trough difficult parts of the waza is an excellent tool to get solid, fluid techniques in ki nagare.

However; doing static techniques in a start/stop-way does very little for my ability do the same technique in flowing fashion (but is perhaps a necessary transitional phase that everybody goes through).

Peter Gröndahl wrote: I find that being able to do static techniques in a very slow, deliberate way without pauses or falling back to speeding trough difficult parts of the waza is an excellent tool to get solid, fluid techniques in ki nagare.

Me too. I call it "kihon at taichi speed" and find this practise useful as transition from kotai to jutai.

However; doing static techniques in a start/stop-way does very little for my ability do the same technique in flowing fashion.

Because doing techniques in a start/stop, step-by-step, is for learning the standarized "form". nothing more but nothing less.

Kuriowa Sensei wrote a great article on this:
http://www.aikidojournal.com/article?articleID=463

I would advocate that you must first learn shape (kata), then how to express shape naturally (waza); The difference between kihon waza and nagare waza would simply be the appearance of the technique. Kihon waza would more closely resemble kata while nagare waza would have a more organic appearance.

I would also advocate that if you cannot perform kihon waza, then you cannot perform nagare waza. In aikido we sometimes skip kihon waza because its "hard" - uke hunkers down and the muscling begins. Do not fault kihon waza because of poor uke waza. Similarly we tend to push nagare waza because its "softer" - uke maybe complies or over extends. Again, do not fault nagare waza for poor uke waza.

Either way, the point I am getting at is our perceptions of kihon waza and nagare waza are flavored by our ukes.

Good points Jon,
Uke understanding his job is very important, I would say that it's one of the major stepping stones in understanding what we are doing in the techniques.

For example, ura waza techniques usually require uke to give forward, pushing energy, while omote technique requires uke to have weaker, retreating energy. If you mix the two up, the techniques don't work correctly, but in the proper context, they work like they're suppose to.

I often think having the more advanced student take the ukemi first (when paired up) makes this go much more smoothly.

Chris-

I think in many koryu the sempai acts as uke first.

Poor uke waza is one of my soap box issues with aikido because I felt I had a pretty good introduction to good uke waza and I am still reminded by my seniors about bad habits and poor tactics I employ. I think aikido could make leaps and bounds in our training if uke was better prepared. Issues like this thread are fallout from bad uke waza and loose terminology.

The people I respect in aikido could care less whether you attack them or grab their hand statically. It doesn't matter. There is another thread ongoing right now that is talking about kuzushi, or "aiki" that relates directly to this premise.

I also think that there is a big difference between flowing and dynamic waza.

Ie: doing ikkyo ura in ki no nagare because that´s whats you are supposed to do (flowing waza) is not the same as doing ikkyo ura in ex jiyu waza because the movement and intention of uke makes it a good choice (dynamic waza)

Jon Reading wrote: I think in many koryu the sempai acts as uke first.

This was also the way it was when I started Kendo, and at first I thought it was backwards (because I wasn't used to it) then I realized that it was a much better idea.

I wonder why in Aikido, the person to play the roll of nage first is always the senior student?

Peter Gröndahl wrote: I also think that there is a big difference between flowing and dynamic waza. Ie: doing ikkyo ura in ki no nagare because that´s whats you are supposed to do (flowing waza) is not the same as doing ikkyo ura in ex jiyu waza because the movement and intention of uke makes it a good choice (dynamic waza)

I agree! I think you have to have all three: Kihon, Ki no Nagare, and Jiyuwaza/Randoi. The three all cover needed areas very nicely!

Chris Hein wrote: I wonder why in Aikido, the person to play the roll of nage first is always the senior student?

I agree that it makes a lot more sense for the sr to uke first.

I believe Ellis Amdur and others have addressed the historical issue of OSensei changing this - something to do with belief that repeated receiving of technique would have an effect n terms of changing the students' bodies to better use aiki or ? - I don't recall the details and perhaps others will step forward with the relevant info - I do remember thinking at the time I read it, well that's one teaching paradigm that didn't take....

Even if we were to change the roles (senior uke, junior nage) in common practice, would it make any real difference as long as we keep switching roles all the time (2 or 4 techniques)?

Janet Rosen wrote: I believe Ellis Amdur and others have addressed the historical issue of OSensei changing this

While I do enjoy thinking about O-sensei's possible thoughts on this matter and what the "exercises" done in the dojo are good for.. Ellis Amdur in Hidden in Plain Sight also presents another reason for this backwards setup. It could be an artifact of Takeda's paranoia.

Peter Gröndahl wrote: Even if we were to change the roles (senior uke, junior nage) in common practice, would it make any real difference as long as we keep switching roles all the time (2 or 4 techniques)?

Yes, I find it does make a difference in that when working with a newbie, they watch the instructor demo and if I then have them immediately work on the technique they have a sense of connection between what they saw and what they are asking their bodies to do. If I instead ask them to jump into attacking/receiving mode it is more of a cognitive leap and instead of smooth demo to training transition in which I shape their nagewaza via my ukemi, all of a sudden I am having to teach the ukemi...so I feel my first round as nage is sort of wasted and me leading off as uke is more efficient n
YMMV.

When I first started teaching, I got the difficult class where only like 3 students who didn't know Aikido would show up. I never had a good uke to use. Every time I started a technique the uke would give the wrong energy, often ending in disaster.

So I started letting the uke pick the technique I would do. I would not say what the technique was, have him grab, katate or what ever, start my technique, and whatever his response was, I'd go with it and that would be what we did next.

It worked out really well, and taught me that what nage does is dependent on uke's response instead of the other way around. I used to think that my technique had to be so solid that there was no resisting it. Then I realized that it works much better (and is more realistic) to change based on the attacker.

Good approach, Chris! I'll murmer "domo arigato" your way when I steal it :-)

Chris Hein wrote: When I first started teaching, I got the difficult class where only like 3 students who didn't know Aikido would show up. I never had a good uke to use. Every time I started a technique the uke would give the wrong energy, often ending in disaster. So I started letting the uke pick the technique I would do. I would not say what the technique was, have him grab, katate or what ever, start my technique, and whatever his response was, I'd go with it and that would be what we did next. It worked out really well, and taught me that what nage does is dependent on uke's response instead of the other way around. I used to think that my technique had to be so solid that there was no resisting it. Then I realized that it works much better (and is more realistic) to change based on the attacker.

This is the difference between doing and learning/teaching. Technique HAS to fit to uke's attack and response. So many problems (injuries, etc.) come from trying to force a technique on an inappropriate attack or uke response.

Another problem with that is that you may not be teaching a beginner what they need to be learning. At the beginning, I start by teaching a new person how to learn to pay attention to their body and how to walk. Until they start to get that reasonably correct and can take it on as homework (and they won't get it totally correct for a long long time), I don't even start in on techniques.

My sense of static vs. dynamic is simply one of scale. If you're breathing or resisting, you're certainly not really static. I believe a beginner is better served with very mildly dynamic attacks which can be escalated into very energetic attacks and made impossibly tiny so that tori can learn the extremes. But that is only once they have a reasonable handle on how to solve a simple, middle of the road sort of problem.

Best,

Chris Hein wrote: Aikido, the person to play the roll of nage first is always the senior student?

Where I train it's always the junior grade who goes first, except in paired weapons practice we reverse with the higher grade swinging the lump of wood at the lower grade first.

There are reasons one could argue the benefits of practicing either way but for me; senior student should be able to provide the appropriate attack as uke to allow the lower grade to "feel" what is expected as well as get straight into putting in to practice what they've seen.

With weapons, demonstration of the movement in a controlled manner can help to keep the dangers of bokken colliding with wood (in the case of my head) by emphasising the exercise over the exuberance.

I'm not saying it's the only way or the right way, just the way that I do things

Rich Hobbs wrote: Where I train it's always the junior grade who goes first, except in paired weapons practice we reverse with the higher grade swinging the lump of wood at the lower grade first. There are reasons one could argue the benefits of practicing either way but for me; senior student should be able to provide the appropriate attack as uke to allow the lower grade to "feel" what is expected as well as get straight into putting in to practice what they've seen. With weapons, demonstration of the movement in a controlled manner can help to keep the dangers of bokken colliding with wood (in the case of my head) by emphasising the exercise over the exuberance. I'm not saying it's the only way or the right way, just the way that I do things

I think this makes quite a bit of sense. It's very important, especially for the newer students, to understand the proper fit of technique and attack.

The idea that we need to force our techniques on someone is bad martial arts, in my opinion. Flowing around the attackers force, to find his weakness, is safer, more feasible, and a much more demanding practice. Training to feel the appropriate response physically, helps to train us to mentally/emotionally put this kind of practice into our everyday lives.

In short, it's a more sound practice, both martially, and practically (in daily life).