Do We Need To Invent A New Training? Yes/No/Maybe/How?

William Hazen wrote: the way 95% of all physical conflicts start ( with a series of punches).

I think that statistic is bound to time and place. Street fighting in the US in modern times may involve a lot of punching, but what about other times and places? I think a tendency to punch is influenced heavily by Hollywood fighting scenes. It might have been very different in Japan in 1930.

I have very little experience in street fighting, but from what I have seen, it starts quite often with intimidating like shouting, feinting and pushing. Like pushing away or a sumo push where you grab someones'body trying push him over. When adrenaline really starts flowing, strikes and kicks could come into play. But most people are not very experienced with these, so strikes may be haymakers instead of punches (perhaps instinctively avoiding hurting ones wrist or bare fist when punching a head) and they might even fall over when a strike or kick misses (especially when alcohol plays a part).

Chris Hein wrote: Alright, a bit reactionary William, but I'll bite. Having a technique or two that can loosely deal with a "punch" does not a punching system make. If you want to compare Judo punch defense to western boxing... You see where I'm going. Atemi doesn't mean "punch". Atemi means strike. Baseball bats strike things, arrows strike things, hands strike things, many things strike. A punch is an atemi, but atemi is most often not "punching". Aikido is 90% atemi, this discussion has been had many times, but we can cut to the quick here and see, quite decidedly that Aikido isn't 90% punching. 95% of all physical conflict starts with a punch. I couldn't think of a more misleading statement. When wars take place, do we punch at each other? Do you think the Samurai were running around punching people? Do modern "men of action" (LEO, Military) deal with punching a lot? Your 95% of physical conflict represents a very small portion of what physical conflict is. If you envision drunks fighting in the streets, or thugs fighting with police officers who have taken them into custody, perhaps you are correct. However this represents a VERY small portion of "all physical conflicts". If you would have gone to the James Williams seminar this weekend you could have heard him talking about coming out of the ego macho world where we believe unarmed fighting is somehow "important". Punching is a pretty good chunk of unarmed conflict. Unarmed conflict is a tiny piece of the whole of physical conflict. In the grand scheme punching isn't really very important.

Seen in your context I would absolutely agree. I am glad you made it to James Williams Seminar. I would be interested in your impression of his practice and meanwhile I'll work on my semantics. Atemi/Strikes/Punches are all the same in my view. The Impact "weapon" is usually some portion of the hand (or elbow in our case) That may also be a question of semantics but make no mistake I am hitting someone when I use Atemi. So I will like you think about your last statement a bit. I agree it's a small portion of the big picture and perhaps unimportant. My purpose for practice is not to learn how to fight but to develop the Martial Spirit of Budo.

My View is there are many methods available to develop Budo and I feel Aikido is technically on par with most of them. That is my view and the reason I asked you for yours. Self Defense occurs on many levels and the Martial Arts for me are a physical expression of my spiritual journey. In our Aikido (and in many others) There is no "Budo" with out "Martial" if you get my drift. And to be considered Martial then an Art must be technically proficient as one. If ones practice includes an effort to make their Art more Martial then I am all for it.

William Hazen

William Hazen wrote: No need to fight... he wins!!!

Everybody wins.

I am so very wrong and he is so very right. So now that is settled perhaps the victor "DC" can address Chris's post

Chris can explain his opinions himself and, as you can see, he can put some reasoning behind them.

Or since his Aikido also contains Atemi Perhaps he would like to share How His Syllabus deals with folks who like to throw from the shoulder, and thus improved upon the founder's apparent said lack of expertise on the subject.

With double leg takedowns and kouchi makikomi, which in "my syllabus" are physical manifestations of the principles of irimi and atemi (with a planet), followed by pinning and telling the opponent to chill out because violence is not the solution.

I don't know if that can be considered an improvement or not, but for unarmed individual encounters is effective and compassionate enough, especially if compared with punching/elbowing faces, bending joints and throwing in ways few untrained people can land safely.

If we are talking of armed or multiple opponents with very serious intent... I could produce some "metal poisoning" tools if needed.

I am really not interested in turning this thread into a cat fight. I have nothing personal against anyone here.

Same here. Now, can we go back on topic?

BTW. Who is DJ?


Best regards.

Demetrio.
Don't you know who DJ is? You'll find him on the Aikido and Music thread.......

Just imagine that, a DJ AND Music or maybe a live band too.

Regards.G.

Alberto.
Seriously, if you want some tips then first you would have to practice not fighting.

Get rid of the competition frame of mind when confronted by your boxer friends. This takes practice, practice, practice.

Thus you would have to practice movement and timing and ma-ai, every time you get it wrong then you get hit.

It's going where your 'mind' believes you can't go, this is the discipline of learning good taisabaki, tenkan, entering correctly. For instance when you understand what off center line means then you realize it's a safe path to follow rather than a dangerous one. When you realize where taisabake should take you then you understand what being behind the attacker means. Much to practice my friend.

No invention needed. You could say in keeping with what others are saying here on percentages that 90% of Aikido is understanding Aikido and 10% is invention and experimentation.

Resgards.G.

William Hazen wrote: Seen in your context I would absolutely agree. I am glad you made it to James Williams Seminar. I would be interested in your impression of his practice and meanwhile I'll work on my semantics. Atemi/Strikes/Punches are all the same in my view. The Impact "weapon" is usually some portion of the hand (or elbow in our case) That may also be a question of semantics but make no mistake I am hitting someone when I use Atemi. So I will like you think about your last statement a bit. I agree it's a small portion of the big picture and perhaps unimportant. My purpose for practice is not to learn how to fight but to develop the Martial Spirit of Budo. My View is there are many methods available to develop Budo and I feel Aikido is technically on par with most of them. That is my view and the reason I asked you for yours. Self Defense occurs on many levels and the Martial Arts for me are a physical expression of my spiritual journey. In our Aikido (and in many others) There is no "Budo" with out "Martial" if you get my drift. And to be considered Martial then an Art must be technically proficient as one. If ones practice includes an effort to make their Art more Martial then I am all for it. William Hazen

Hey William,

From what I read here, we are kindred spirits, you and I. I also practice martial arts for spiritual development. I choose martial arts as my spiritual practice because I get the side benefit of learning to physically protect myself and those around me. So, just like you, my martial arts need to be, "martial".

It's just that I don't believe unarmed fighting is all that martial. Unarmed fighting has taught me a lot about myself. Unarmed fighting has been a wonderful spiritual practice for me (making me face my fears on many occasions). Unarmed fighitng is an interesting pass time. But as far as being martially effective goes, unarmed fighting is very limited.

Modern American culture tricked me with, movies, video games, and fantasies. For a very long time I believed that unarmed fighting was fighting. This myopic view made me chase my tail for years. Made me think that Aikido didn't offer much as a martial art. It made me waste a lot of my time.

When I gained a larger understanding of physical conflict, I realized how important the lessons of Aikido are, martially. Important things in physical conflict are: surprise, weapons, numbers, and environment. Aikido addresses these important factors constantly, western boxing doesn't work on any of them. Wester boxing is the best way to learn about punching (in my opinion) Aikido is about worthless. But how martial is punching, really?

95% of all physical conflict starts with a punch. I couldn't think of a more misleading statement. When wars take place, do we punch at each other? Do you think the Samurai were running around punching people? Do modern "men of action" (LEO, Military) deal with punching a lot? Your 95% of physical conflict represents a very small portion of what physical conflict is. If you envision drunks fighting in the streets, or thugs fighting with police officers who have taken them into custody, perhaps you are correct. However this represents a VERY small portion of "all physical conflicts".

Also if you consider muggings and sexual assaults, I don't get the impression most of them start with punches, at least not if I go by a quick skim of the police reports from my city.

Chris Hein wrote: Hey William, From what I read here, we are kindred spirits, you and I. I also practice martial arts for spiritual development. I choose martial arts as my spiritual practice because I get the side benefit of learning to physically protect myself and those around me. So, just like you, my martial arts need to be, "martial". It's just that I don't believe unarmed fighting is all that martial. Unarmed fighting has taught me a lot about myself. Unarmed fighting has been a wonderful spiritual practice for me (making me face my fears on many occasions). Unarmed fighitng is an interesting pass time. But as far as being martially effective goes, unarmed fighting is very limited. Modern American culture tricked me with, movies, video games, and fantasies. For a very long time I believed that unarmed fighting was fighting. This myopic view made me chase my tail for years. Made me think that Aikido didn't offer much as a martial art. It made me waste a lot of my time. When I gained a larger understanding of physical conflict, I realized how important the lessons of Aikido are, martially. Important things in physical conflict are: surprise, weapons, numbers, and environment. Aikido addresses these important factors constantly, western boxing doesn't work on any of them. Wester boxing is the best way to learn about punching (in my opinion) Aikido is about worthless. But how martial is punching, really?

I totally agree. Good Post. See you on the mat one of these days. Hopefully you'll consider doing a write up of Sensei Williams Seminar. To me he exhibits a pure expression of Budo.

William Hazen

Chris Hein wrote: But how martial is punching, really?

Chris:

Ushiro Sensei will be at George Ledyard's Dojo for the last weekend in October. If you are as open-minded as you say that you are, stop by and see if punching can be martial. Maybe it is not the act that defines something as martial, but the spirit of the person behind the action that defines some act as martial.

Marc Abrams

Marc Abrams wrote: Chris: Ushiro Sensei will be at George Ledyard's Dojo for the last weekend in October. If you are as open-minded as you say that you are, stop by and see if punching can be martial. Maybe it is not the act that defines something as martial, but the spirit of the person behind the action that defines some act as martial. Marc Abrams

Exactly...Thanks Marc.

William Hazen

Marc Abrams wrote: Chris: Ushiro Sensei will be at George Ledyard's Dojo for the last weekend in October. If you are as open-minded as you say that you are, stop by and see if punching can be martial. Maybe it is not the act that defines something as martial, but the spirit of the person behind the action that defines some act as martial. Marc Abrams

Hey Marc,
Washington is a bit far (it's only a thousand miles or so ). I'm not saying that punches are "un-martial", I'm just saying, in the grand scheme, we don't need to reorganize Aikido so that we can deal with them.

There are lots of valid areas of martial study to pursue, unarmed martial arts is one of them. However I believe as martial artists it's important that we realize it's only a very small field.

If I asked an F/A-22 Raptor (fighter jet) pilot about fighting, he would talk about angles of attack. If I asked what his punch defenses are, he'd roll his eyes at me. It's all a matter of perspective and context. A man with a 28" razor doesn't need to worry too much about punching.

Chris Hein wrote: Hey Marc, Washington is a bit far (it's only a thousand miles or so ). I'm not saying that punches are "un-martial", I'm just saying, in the grand scheme, we don't need to reorganize Aikido so that we can deal with them. There are lots of valid areas of martial study to pursue, unarmed martial arts is one of them. However I believe as martial artists it's important that we realize it's only a very small field. If I asked an F/A-22 Raptor (fighter jet) pilot about fighting, he would talk about angles of attack. If I asked what his punch defenses are, he'd roll his eyes at me. It's all a matter of perspective and context. A man with a 28" razor doesn't need to worry too much about punching.

Chris:

I fully agree with you that we do not need to re-organize Aikido to deal with a good puncher/boxer. There are enough Aikidoka out there that seem to be doing fine with those types of attacks that should result in people assuming responsibility for what they do (rather than blame it on an art).

Martial studies revolve around martial principles that can then be used in a variety of martial applications. If that raptor pilot ejects, I hope that he can deal with angle of attacks in a more up-close and personal setting.....

Regards,

Marc Abrams

ps- what is 1,000 miles amongst friends. Heck, I am off to Japan for a LONG weekend in several weeks (yes, you heard me correctly, only a weekend of training).

One other thing about punching -- one thing I used to hear a lot in my striking-style days was, "Don't ever, EVER punch someone in the head with your bare hand." It's what they show in the movies, but in real life? Talk about a way to get hurt! Elbow strike, maybe, palm strike, maybe...plain ol' punch to the head, no.

(But amateurs who "know" about "fighting" from the movies will try it. They also try to kick, which is pure comedy gold)

First, I think that in general, the founder wished aikido to be an incomplete "fighting" curriculum. Long story short, I believe he did this (amongst other reasons not applicable here) to: 1. allow students to focus on "aiki" without pre-requsite combat training. 2. to protect the art from fraud and separate those who are "doing" aikido and those who study aikido in a larger sense; I believe the missing curriculum is available for those who wish to find it.

Second, I think the educational delivery method is under scrutiny. Dr. Goldsbury has several pieces on transmitting aikido, these are good pieces. I think there is a fair argument that the Eastern traditional method of shu ha rei progressive instruction is under scrutiny here in the West. I think the West is already influencing a new delivery system that is easier for Westerners to consume and targeted towards a greater delivery of information within a shorter time-frame of training. I think part of this delivery method allows (even encourages) for cross-training and specialization.

Those two things said... yes, aikido could benefit from a little cross-training. Knowing how to throw a punch would be the first step for many aikido people... However, I believe that aikido allows for the specialization of combat if you want to incorporate it into your training. I think we need to be careful to cross-train and not bastardize aikido, but many good aikido people I know train/trained in one or more sister arts.

Somewhere along the lines, we went from "aikido does not focus on combat" to "aikido is not combat effective." I think the founder intended to draw attention away from a focus on fighting and instead we have gradually migrated to dismiss the need for martial competency. If you need to brush up on striking and its related blocks and techniques, do it.

Marc Abrams wrote: Ushiro Sensei will be at George Ledyard's Dojo for the last weekend in October. If you are as open-minded as you say that you are, stop by and see if punching can be martial. Maybe it is not the act that defines something as martial, but the spirit of the person behind the action that defines some act as martial.

Second the recommendation.

Perhaps we do not need a new training method but to find the right people to train under and with.

I have not compliments.

Lynn Seiser wrote: Second the recommendation. Perhaps we do not need a new training method but to find the right people to train under and with. I have not compliments.

Or perhaps the right context for the system.

In any case, like the tea master Sen Rikyû said (or so it seems):

Observe the standards and rules of form to the limit, and though you may break them or depart from them, never forget the principles.

I'm feeling a bit mischievous. Throughout many threads here I have seen blame ascribed to organizations, methods of training, teachers not being able to teach properly. Mmmmm.

It's time to invent!!! Mmmmmm.

Now from a purely zen/mischievous point of view you understand may I say it's time to invent a new STUDENT.

Now wouldn't THAT be a thing?........Mmmmm.

Regards.G.

Graham Christian wrote: Now from a purely zen/mischievous point of view you understand may I say it's time to invent a new STUDENT. Now wouldn't THAT be a thing?........Mmmmm.

Maybe the only thing worth doing. As Pema Chodron says, you don't get lasting happiness by moving around the external circumstances. Or, to put it another way, I control myself...I don't control my training partner, my teacher, the USAF, the weather, etc.

I didn't think this thread could develop in such interesting a manner. I thank you all for your contributions, and I am eager to read more as further thoughts hopefully arrive.

It does not seem to me there is somebody wrong and someone else right. All instances make a rational point, a perspective on the problem. A few are more encompassing, others less (but in this latter case maybe it's just my understanding that fails).
I thank you all, and I am sincere when I say that I found all of your insights in this issue useful and enlightening.

I would like to add that I do have a boxing background. In fact some have argued that I was wondering about this problem because I had none - I have been in boxing competitions, fighting an overall of 36 official matches (not as a pro, however). But that was long ago, over 20 years ago.
I am an ex-ex-ex boxeur who got fascinated by aikido.

Now, those who have stated that most attacks in street/bar fights start exactly with sequences of punching strikes, have understood my question in its essence for at least 50% of it.
In this setting, I am imagining not a casual or improvised striker, but a SKILLED and competent one.

It is precisely because those attacks are the most common ones, that I find rather serious a shortcoming of the standard aikido training method that it is never geared towards dealing with those type of attacks and rather devotes a lot of time imagining attackers who grab your wrists (a very unlikely, and "lady-like" type of attack...) and (as if that alone wouldn't be unrealistic enough already) wait there.

Uh, at Ueshiba's times, in their taverns, guys did not punch each other, but grabbed each other's wrists and waited in that positions staring intently into each other's eyes?
I don't believe this.

So, the other 50% of my question derives from the fact that theorical approaches dealing with tsuki like http://www.youtube.com/results?searc...ries=17&page=1 will NOT work in a real situation against a skilled striker who is DECENTLY FAST.
They are good on camera, but in a real fight they won't be that easy in the least. I know it's hard to accept, but it's true: they would fail in most cases.

Get a striker who is competent, mobile on his feet, who can follow you and keep facing you squarely (attackers can both RESIST VIGOROUSLY AND VEHEMENTLY any arm grab, and they have this incredible ability, unknown to many ukes, to rotate in order to face you AGAIN AND INSTANTLY whenever you attempt to go lateral with an irimi - this NATURAL "predisposition" of any competent striker is what our standard Ukes make us forgetful about), all the while delivering combination of fast punches without pauses.

Your atemi will do nothing on them - those are attackers used to get combinations of punches on their faces and yet they keep their focus - i think we all have seen, at least on tv, a few boxing matches: you won't "atemi" those guys, after you have seen them getting hooks in their faces and yet stay still and fully capable of immediate retaliation.

The fact is, the rare times I can find an opponent who resists with all his vigour and attacks me with realism, I fail and YET the more I fail, the more I feel I am getting BETTER.

There is NOTHING SO INVIGORATING like ending 45 minutes of aikido with a dedicated partner where you have experienced the full range of difficulties that physical clashing, robust resistance, flying hands, full determination to oppose you, clever attempts to bring you down, counter-techniques, punches , pose to somebody attempting to insert aikido in that type of violent (though controlled: punches are all thrown with OPEN hands) setting.

However, this is so rare a possibility, and the dojos that will allow you to experience this type of physical clash are so few all over the world, that thence came my question: how can I surrogate fire? What training may make us get closer to that type of confrontation and realism, provided most dojos won't allow us to go even remotely close to that?

Unfortunately i can't go to fight in bars as someone has suggested - I'm no criminal, simply
I'm just interested in controlling violence with a refined response, and aikido to me seems such a response. But gosh if it's difficult against a realistic attacker! damn if it is D I F F I C U L T !

So I am here listening to you all, and hoping over time we'll have more ideas about how we can develop a training geared towards realism - for our default aikido training isn't (it's not a critic, simply a fact. Really, NO critic or polemic whatsoever!).

Three days ago I trained with my buddy and it was rather brutal a training - I can't tell you how difficult it was, and yet how still today I feel incredibly more confident simply because I am getting acquainted once again with the dynamics of a real physical clash.

Those who advise against it, perhaps have never experienced how enriching an experience it can be for a martial artist (I am none, but you are!) coming back from an aikido training session led with full intensity of violent contrast (safety measures can easily be included - for instance we keep hands rigorously open and no clenched punches, and we throw at the chest)

I refuse to believe that in order to be realistic, one has to forfeit Aikido and go to die in bars.
Thence my hope someone has ideas about new training options. We won't always have the right partner for realism.

Demetrio Cereijo wrote: Alberto, Does the "only leverges and projections, and no force allowed except that which could move say 15 kilos" limitations still apply?

Of course.
The point is all there. The challenge is all there.

Matthew Gano wrote: My understanding is that, even if you could match/catch the strike, you're probably not going to be trying to keep it from being re-chambered simply because if the guy is stronger than you it won't work. Aikido method is based on the premise that the other guy has stronger muscles than you. The ideal is to slip the bulk of the strike's force, neutralize it enough to allow you affect the limb (and body through that limb), or to enter through another point (some form of "ate" comes quickly to mind). So, in short, whatever their trajectory is, we probably want to add to it rather than work against it.(...) I'm comfortable with that, but recognize going against a good striker, I'd probably be with some key disadvantages. However, at my dojo I have been hit a few times because I didn't move quick enough. It's a far cry from what would have happened in "real life" by a good striker, but it at the very least points toward certain realities..

Exactly Matthew: they re-chamber. And not only they re-chamber, but they do that with force and high, high speed.

You won't get any easy hold of those arms, and you won't irimi a fast paced attacker wyho steps back instantly or faces you squarely again.
Attaining that goal (going lateral, and conquering an effective arm grab) will require a lot of work and attempts, and in the while, in a real fight, one has to keep in mind you might have endured unbearable damage while you were after your trial and errors pursuit - damages possibly incompatible with pursuing your goal any further.

To make his force work against himself. Yes. That's the goal. My goal too.
And that is precisely what a skilled puncher makes you realize how difficult it is. Very far from our idealized videos for demonstration purposes.

So, if it is dfficult to apply those principles in a real situation where a skilled puncher is intent on delivering HELL on you, I was precisely wondering how we may ever become able to do that indeed, to apply his force against himself, if our training nearly never makes us face the real (and often overwhelming) difficulties that our goal would meet when pursued against the real force of "the real thing".

it's a question, my question - not in the least a derogatory statement. I love Aikido! But in those realistic setting, I realize that the standard aikido training is not preparing us for that. We risk of being incredibly good "a la charte": "in the menu".

Not a new Training method. Just a little bit "released" kata.
True: No boxing here. Also no kicks.

(But it's Italian )

Alberto Italiano wrote: I love Aikido! But in those realistic setting, I realize that the standard Aikido training is not preparing us for that.

I say it a thousand time that it's the person not the art!! Out of any class there may be only a handful of students that can make the jump from what they learn in class and apply it in the streets.

I took Aikido to learn to fight better. Not to be at peace with the world etc etc. I grew up being picked on and was constantly in fights. I learned what worked for me and what didn't. I took Karate as a kid thinking it would help but it was a waste of my time. It didn't fit my body or mind. I always liked Judo and Jujitsu from what I read in books but never was able to take classes as a kid.

Boxing skills were essential for me but they have their limitations. What Aikido, Jujitsu and Judo taught were very in tune with my body and motions. I thought constantly about the techniques I learned and how to apply them. I had a couple like minded training partners that I could experiment on and figured out what worked and what didn't work for me. All the arts have overlapping principals so maybe you won't get it all in just Aikido.

I took Miyama Ryu Jujitsu and learned a lot of similar techniques to Aikido but with a more violent twist. Knowing these extra locks, pins and situations just added to my foundation I had in Aikido.

In the end I know for a fact that Aikido works for me. My training is my own creation because I internalized what would work for me.

So in the end, I think it's up to the individual to make his own training. There is NO secret to self defense or fighting other than you fight like you train so. If all you want to do is be at peace and Aikido helps you do that then that is your training method. If you want to defend yourself in a violent attack then that's another method.

-

Carsten Möllering wrote: Not a new Training method. Just a little bit "released" kata. True: No boxing here. Also no kicks. (But it's Italian )

Very nice and inspiring clip, I like the creativity, that made me smile. Thanks for posting!