Welcome to AikiWeb Aikido Information
AikiWeb: The Source for Aikido Information
AikiWeb's principal purpose is to serve the Internet community as a repository and dissemination point for aikido information.

Sections
home
aikido articles
columns

Discussions
forums
aikiblogs

Databases
dojo search
seminars
image gallery
supplies
links directory

Reviews
book reviews
video reviews
dvd reviews
equip. reviews

News
submit
archive

Miscellaneous
newsletter
rss feeds
polls
about

Follow us on



Home > AikiWeb Aikido Forums
Go Back   AikiWeb Aikido Forums > General

Hello and thank you for visiting AikiWeb, the world's most active online Aikido community! This site is home to over 22,000 aikido practitioners from around the world and covers a wide range of aikido topics including techniques, philosophy, history, humor, beginner issues, the marketplace, and more.

If you wish to join in the discussions or use the other advanced features available, you will need to register first. Registration is absolutely free and takes only a few minutes to complete so sign up today!

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 02-23-2006, 12:24 AM   #51
PeterR
 
PeterR's Avatar
Dojo: Shodokan Honbu (Osaka)
Location: Himeji, Japan
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 3,007
Japan
Offline
Re: Why these techniques?

Quote:
Ignatius Teo wrote:
Don't get me wrong, I can see how aikido's specific technical executions relate to sword movements, but it does not explain how these base techniques in its common form are also derived from sword movements.

Am I being clear? I'm trying to make a subtle distinction here.
Ah subtle - sometimes I'm not so good at subtle.

I'm going to move away from Daito-ryu toward the Aikido I know which is probably intermediate between what Ueshiba learned from Takeda to what he died with.

I see Aikido specific techniques as those employed in closing the distance and hence distinct from pure grappling techniques. Using that definition you will still see similar techniques to the ones you see in Judo and other grappling styles but still different in subtle ways with respect to timing and how kuzushi is manifested.

The old teachers including Takeda, Ueshiba and the pre-war students such as Shioda, Tomiki all seemed to relate the more aiki techniques to the sword. I would say more by way of analogy rather than origin but still to a point where the way the techniques are performed are heavily influenced (use of tegatana for example).

The analogy is quite easy to understand since both Aikido and Kenjutsu are based on rapid closing of distance and the execution of technique before coming to grips.

As an aside I don't think Budo Renshu was a compilation of all Aikido techniques or its theory. Just like weapons work in Shodokan Aikido is left till after Nidan - Budo Renshu may reflect a stage in training.

Peter Rehse Shodokan Aikido
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2006, 01:17 AM   #52
eyrie
 
eyrie's Avatar
Location: Summerholm, Queensland
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,126
Australia
Offline
Re: Why these techniques?

Well, he was also proficient in a number of other arts (both armed and unarmed), but IIRC, he was purported to have said that Sokaku "opened his eyes to budo", which typically says nothing really.

I think we can safely assume that timing (usually in relation to something/someone else) is fundamental to everything - all martial arts included. Ever mis-time a judo/jujitsu throw? Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that the tempo of aikido may be different and may be more akin to weapons-based arts.

As for ma-ai and kuzushi, well, that's fundamental to many arts as well, the latter being more pronounced in throwing arts.

Back on topic.... I don't think we are debating that aikido has (some?) roots in weapons arts. I'm not totally opposed to the idea that the technical changes to aikido waza may have been influenced by weapons, but I think what we are debating why these techniques in particular.

Last edited by eyrie : 02-23-2006 at 01:19 AM.

Ignatius
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2006, 01:31 AM   #53
Edwin Neal
Dojo: Ronin
Location: Henderson, North Carolina
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 597
United_States
Offline
Re: Why these techniques?

i am not arguing that there is a link between aikido and weapons... that is understood from aikiken and aikijo... it is also generally accepted that taisabaki and maai principles are from and developed by weapons... in Budo there are several instances where waza against an armed attacker is demonstrated... there is one section of sword vs sword, but the majority is empty hand waza... no one is challenging the fact that samurai were armed and this was their primary area of expertise, but certainly they also studied empty hand arts Yagyu Ryu is the example here while primarily kenjutsu they also have a area of study of empty hand jujutsu in their curriculum... the issue of which is better or more real, armed combat or unarmed combat, is not the point both were trained for and happened... no one is disputing the facts that Takeda and Osensei studied BOTH DRjujutsu and forms of kenjutsu... no one is disputing that the body movements and maai were derived from kenjutsu and yarijutsu, but the locks and throws are specifically jujutsu empty hand forms... again i accept a 'close relationship' with weapons arts, but it is clear that the empty hand waza of aikido were not taken from weapons arts and adapted to empty hand... they were in fact empty hand forms from jujutsu applied to empty hand forms in aikido... body movement assuredly comes from weapon arts... jointlocks and throws clearly do not... thus aikido is an empty hand AND a weapons based art that is based on techniques and principles from BOTH empty hand and weapon arts... joint lock, throws and principles from empty hand... body movements and principles from weapons arts... no evidence or argument presented has shown specifically how weapon techniques were adapted and made into joint locks and throws in aikido... thus aikido is not a weapon based art...

Edwin Neal


  Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2006, 02:03 AM   #54
PeterR
 
PeterR's Avatar
Dojo: Shodokan Honbu (Osaka)
Location: Himeji, Japan
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 3,007
Japan
Offline
Re: Why these techniques?

Quote:
Ignatius Teo wrote:
Well, he was also proficient in a number of other arts (both armed and unarmed), but IIRC, he was purported to have said that Sokaku "opened his eyes to budo", which typically says nothing really.
How proficient is debateable.
Quote:
I think we can safely assume that timing (usually in relation to something/someone else) is fundamental to everything - all martial arts included. Ever mis-time a judo/jujitsu throw? Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that the tempo of aikido may be different and may be more akin to weapons-based arts.

As for ma-ai and kuzushi, well, that's fundamental to many arts as well, the latter being more pronounced in throwing arts.
Is how I write so obtuse? I said but still different in subtle ways with respect to timing and how kuzushi is manifested which is basically what you just re-hashed. Never suggested that the grappling arts don't require either.

Quote:
Back on topic.... I don't think we are debating that aikido has (some?) roots in weapons arts. I'm not totally opposed to the idea that the technical changes to aikido waza may have been influenced by weapons, but I think what we are debating why these techniques in particular.
Well you have to excuse thread drift for that. We are always our parent's children - I don't think there was ever a conscious decision to include or exclude this set of techniques either by Ueshiba with respect to what he learned from Takeda or up and down the line of transmission. The process was probably much more organic.

Peter Rehse Shodokan Aikido
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2006, 02:16 AM   #55
eyrie
 
eyrie's Avatar
Location: Summerholm, Queensland
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,126
Australia
Offline
Re: Why these techniques?

Sorry Peter, I was actually responding to Chris.

But since you mentioned it, what subtle ways and differences are there in your opinion?

Yes, how proficient is debatable... IIRC, he did study Yagyu-ryu kenjutsu - to what degree of proficiency is debatable too, since that is not recorded or mentioned in detail other than a passing mention.

I'm suggesting that (the general form of) the techniques are more or less universal, with the exception of maybe yonkyo and kokyu nage (which may be reasonably presumed to be an artifact of Daito-ryu). I also think the inclusion of such techniques were deliberate firstly due to their universality as well as the manner in which they were "modified".

Ignatius
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2006, 02:49 AM   #56
xuzen
 
xuzen's Avatar
Dojo: None at the moment - on hiatus
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 965
Malaysia
Offline
Re: Why these techniques?

Quote:
Edwin Neal wrote:
i am not arguing that there is a link between aikido and weapons... that is understood from aiki-ken and aiki-jo... it is also generally accepted that tai-sabaki and maai principles are from and developed by weapons... in Budo there are several instances where waza against an armed attacker is demonstrated... there is one section of sword vs sword, but the majority is empty hand waza... no one is challenging the fact that samurai were armed and this was their primary area of expertise, but certainly they also studied empty hand arts Yagyu Ryu is the example here while primarily kenjutsu they also have a area of study of empty hand jujutsu in their curriculum... the issue of which is better or more real, armed combat or unarmed combat, is not the point both were trained for and happened... no one is disputing the facts that Takeda and Osensei studied BOTH DRjujutsu and forms of kenjutsu... no one is disputing that the body movements and maai were derived from kenjutsu and yari-jutsu, but the locks and throws are specifically jujutsu empty hand forms... again i accept a 'close relationship' with weapons arts, but it is clear that the empty hand waza of aikido were not taken from weapons arts and adapted to empty hand... they were in fact empty hand forms from jujutsu applied to empty hand forms in aikido... body movement assuredly comes from weapon arts... joint-locks and throws clearly do not... thus aikido is an empty hand AND a weapons based art that is based on techniques and principles from BOTH empty hand and weapon arts... joint lock, throws and principles from empty hand... body movements and principles from weapons arts... no evidence or argument presented has shown specifically how weapon techniques were adapted and made into joint locks and throws in aikido... thus aikido is not a weapon based art...
OK, Edwin, let me get your points straight:

1) You do not argue, therefore agree that there is a link between weapon and aikido as per aiki-ken and aiki-jo
2) You agree that tai sabaki and maai are from weapon art
3) You agree that Takeda and Osensei are experienced swordsman
4) You accept close relationship between aikido and weapon arts
5) The only point that you disagree is that aikido joint locks and throws are jujutsu derived; hence you disagree totally that aikido is a weapon derived art. (You are a nit picker!)

With 4 points you saying aye and only on one single point you disagree, I think you are nit picking and argumentative for the sake of argument.

Documentation and proof were called by the naysayer to support the argument. They were given by me, and further supported by PeterR's post #45 (I wonder if you did read the link on the post? Very good article actually)

So far, Kancho Shioda viewed that aikido and sword are inseparable. Tokimune Takeda, the scion and heir to Sokaku Takeda also held a similar view. So far two very distinguish and influential people wrt aikido are in agreement with the concept that aikido is a weapon derived art.

Let me be a sport. You argue that aikido is not a weapon based artů kindly show me documented and substantiated proof like what I did previously.

You mentioned your lineage to be that of Yoshinkan and yet your views are different from the conventional school of thoughts. I really wonder if you did indeed learn anything about aikido. Or maybe you did indeed learn, but choose to be nit picking and argumentative for the sake of arguing.

Boon.

SHOMEN-ATE (TM), the solution to 90% of aikido and life's problems.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2006, 02:50 AM   #57
PeterR
 
PeterR's Avatar
Dojo: Shodokan Honbu (Osaka)
Location: Himeji, Japan
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 3,007
Japan
Offline
Re: Why these techniques?

Ignatius;

Ok this is evolving nicely - sort of like the techniques in my mind.

Several members here remember Peter Boylan who was a Judoka and sword guy who liked to say that all techniques found in Aikido can be found in Judo (http://www.aikiweb.com/general/boylan1.html) and by extension most other Japanese grappling arts and beyond. We had some interesting talks when we got together and got me to start looking around. I suspect this observation also includes Yonkyo and Kokyu nage (any and all definitions) but will bow to greater expertise especially with the latter.

My point is not denying that but through what eyes the masters of Aikido and Daito Ryu saw their art.

By subtle differences in timing and kuzushi I really don't mean anything mysterious or mystical but really just a function of how the bodies are moving in relationship to each other during the engagement. A function of necessity brought about by proximity, how solid a grip you have, your opponent has, and so on. Part of my fascination with Aikido is its dynamic nature - far more than the relatively locked down feel I get doing Judo much as I'd like it to approach that of Mifune or Kano.

Last edited by PeterR : 02-23-2006 at 02:56 AM.

Peter Rehse Shodokan Aikido
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2006, 02:57 AM   #58
Dirk Hanss
 
Dirk Hanss's Avatar
Dojo: Aikidoschule Trier
Location: Merzkirchen
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 471
Germany
Offline
Re: Why these techniques?

Quote:
Chris Hein wrote:
Good Idea Michael.


Looking at these techniques, the majority of them (Ikkyo, nikyo, sankyo, yonkyo, gokyo, rokkyo, kote gaishi, shiho nage, kaiten nage, juji nage,) have to do with controlling or using a arm/hand to apply the device. Only two real exceptions being Kokyu nage (some variations also use an arm) and Irimi Nage, both of these are throws done basically side by side, and separate the lower half of the ukes body for the upper half. This makes Aikido's technical syllabus very heavy on arm/hand techniques, and very light on any of the many other types of techniques. This would suggest that Aikido has an agenda with the arm/hand, my belief is that this is because you are support to be controlling an armed person, and the most efficient way to do that is to first control the arm/hand, and then controlling the body through the appendage.

In other unarmed systems there is a great deal of time spent on techniques that relate to the core of the body instead of the appendage. In styles like Greco-Roman or judo, you see lots of techniques focusing on the core of the body, not the hands. In Judo we see lots of leg attacks, and sweeps, but we don't see any of these in Aikido. In western wrestling styles the objective is to use the whole of your body to pin the whole of your opponents body, with little regard to the arms/hands themselves (with the exception of using them as a bridge to get to the core of the body).

With a little bit of attention to the techniques and attacks Aikido enlists, you can see an over kill of arm/hand techniques then one might expect from an unarmed system. However for an armed system these techniques are vital, and techniques involving only the core of the body dangerous.

-Chris Hein
Chris, I guess your description is right in where the techniques come from. My sensei always tells us: "you still try to control the arm/hand/wrist. You did not understand. The arm is only an extension, not your opponent. You have to control the body, not the arm. Your focus has to be on the whole opponent - or even better on yourself (next step - empty)."
So the techniques are all designed to control the body, always in mind that your opponent might have a weapon, which you probably just did not see. And when you master this, you can start to perceive and control your partners mind. You can do this with all standard techniques, but this is the stage, when kokyu nage really works. technically it is between a threat and a feint. But if it just threatening, it does not work, when the agggressor is not used to it and he will die. If it just a feint it does not work, if the agressor is not silly enough.If you really feel the "vibrations" of the opponents power, you can always change in a way that it works.

I can not yet, unfortunately.

The major reason , why these techniques you might detect in a lecture from O Sensei. "If you die, your life is lost and you did not reach the goal, if the enenmy dies, you are a murder and your karma is lost. The result is the same."
Quite freely quoted and I do not want too much on quotes. My opinion is just that those techniques are chosen, to protect yourself and your opponent - and not only as training partner, but aas a principle idea. Nevertheless aikido training could in most schools focus more on punches and kicks as "aiki principle". As a beginner ("shodan means beginner") you can use them to control - if you beat them down, it might be useful, but yu still need some partners - and when you are at an advanced level, you really have the choice not to strike, but protect your partner.

That is the humble opinion of a pre-beginner (3rd kyu).


Regards Dirk
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2006, 03:02 AM   #59
eyrie
 
eyrie's Avatar
Location: Summerholm, Queensland
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,126
Australia
Offline
Re: Why these techniques?

No, Boon, Edwin took issue with the claim that aikido is an empty-handed art derived from weapons-based arts, as did I. I think we are both in agreement that some elements of weapons movements can be found in aikido, but for the main part, the techniques we are discussing are primarily found in jujitsu, which implies that jujitsu is also a weapons derived art - which may or may not be the case, more likely not, given the probable connection to qinna.

Meynard makes a very interesting case for evolutionary development of all martial arts from a weapons perspective. I think the idea has merit given the strategic rationale of military advantage, as well as from a survival instinct perspective.

So I don't think either of us are necessarily nitpicking, or being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative. It is a fine point, which is easy to miss.

Ignatius
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2006, 03:28 AM   #60
Edwin Neal
Dojo: Ronin
Location: Henderson, North Carolina
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 597
United_States
Offline
Re: Why these techniques?

"hence you disagree totally that aikido is a weapon derived art. (You are a nit picker!)"

wrong, i disagree that aikido is totally a weapon derived art... i have claimed it is both weapon based and empty hand based art... the waza are not weapon techniques that were morphed into empty hand techniques... this is the point i totally disagree with

"So far, Kancho Shioda viewed that aikido and sword are inseparable. Tokimune Takeda, the scion and heir to Sokaku Takeda also held a similar view. So far two very distinguish and influential people wrt aikido are in agreement with the concept that aikido is a weapon derived art. "

the views expressed by these notables in no way "means" that aikido is a weapon derived art or that they would agree with that assertion... they hold the reasonable view that there are indeed weapon aspects to aikido, but this does not imply that it is weapon based art morphed into empty hand techniques... indeed as i have continued to state it is both a weapon based and empty hand based art... aspects of each have been used and applied to the art of aikido as a whole...

Edwin Neal


  Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2006, 03:28 AM   #61
eyrie
 
eyrie's Avatar
Location: Summerholm, Queensland
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,126
Australia
Offline
Re: Why these techniques?

Quote:
Peter Rehse wrote:
...By subtle differences in timing and kuzushi I really don't mean anything mysterious or mystical but really just a function of how the bodies are moving in relationship to each other during the engagement. A function of necessity brought about by proximity, how solid a grip you have, your opponent has, and so on. Part of my fascination with Aikido is its dynamic nature - far more than the relatively locked down feel I get doing Judo much as I'd like it to approach that of Mifune or Kano.
Differences in training methodology aside, what you really mean by subtle differences in timing is really the difference in tempo - which is one reason why aikido doesn't work as well when you have a non-aikidoka (or raw beginners) as a uke who is unfamiliar with the tempo. Not because their timing is off or mis-cued, but because their tempo is start-stop-start, rather than a continuous flow of fast-slow-fast.

As for differences in kuzushi, well, there's only so many ways (11?) to break someone's balance. The subtlety lies in the use of pivot points, fulcrums and levers, whereas aikido relies mostly on directional changes to a body in motion, and less on the use of the former, although the opportunities are there to exploit if and when the situation dictates.

As far as proximity goes, there is no real difference whether the attacker is armed or not, the commonality of approach is to get in so close that you're in the spot where uke's body is about to move into. Although in jujitsu, the saying is "no gaps" between you and uke, whereas in aikido, it is much more lax, due to the dynamic nature of uke's movement. Again it mostly comes down to differences in training approach. But the general principles are the same.

Is that how you understand the "differences"?

Ignatius
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2006, 03:56 AM   #62
Michael Varin
Dojo: Aikido of Fresno
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 567
United_States
Offline
Re: Why these techniques?

The reason that I asked the initial questions is that I see an increasing number of people adding or adapting techniques from other arts to make aikido "effective." If your view of aikido is that it is only the way of aiki, that it has no distinctive appearance, then there is nothing wrong with this approach. After all, aiki can be applied to any situation. All you would be doing then is explicitly stating what any high level practitioner of most arts is seeking to attain. Anyone who saw Roy Jones Jr. in his prime would have to say he had true mastery of aiki.

My original questions were about the techniques of aikido. Why do they exist? What was their intended use? Why spend so much time training them only to eschew them for kickboxing and grappling methods?

Speaking of jujutsu as an empty-hand system, if you watch recent UFC programs you will notice that that stand-up striking and ground-and-pound are the most efficient and effective methods. While a particular style of jujutsu educated people about the realities of one-on-one empty-hand fighting, it no longer dominates; not even close. What is the purpose of the techniques if they are merely an annoyance that the savvy fighter has to learn to defend against?

If a possibility existed that one of the fighters could pull out a knife do you think the savvy fighter would continue to view ground-and-pound as a wise strategy?

How does the presence of a weapon shape a system? Attacking with it, defending against one, taking one away, trying to keep yours, struggling over one. If a system considers the presence of a weapon, is it a weapon based system?

I used to practice kickboxing. It does not consider weapons. You learn blocks and covers that would lead to serious injury against a knife or club and certainly be fatal against a sword. Aikido has no blocks. Why use aikido's sword stance if the 45 degree stance is proven to generate more power and provide greater access to your weapons (hands/feet)?

By the way, there is nothing wrong with learning kickboxing and grappling. They are valuable skills to have.

Dirk,

Thanks for the post. I'd like to point out that the techniques of judo don't have to harm your opponent, and are probably safer (for them) than aikido's techniques.

Michael
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2006, 05:23 AM   #63
Edwin Neal
Dojo: Ronin
Location: Henderson, North Carolina
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 597
United_States
Offline
Re: Why these techniques?

Michael, the principle of takemusu aiki means IMHO that there is no 'technique' that is excluded in aikido... the 'core' traditional waza are techniques that are really principles that are fundamental to aikido and other martial arts... i do not eschew aikido techniques/principles, i apply them to kickboxing and grappling...
your view of UFC is somewhat narrow... stand up is atemi waza jujutsu/aikido... ground is takedown/throws again jujtsu/aikido... pound is more atemi waza... it is still about the total range of fighting these are addressed by jujutsu and aikido... if you included the use of weapons many so called ground and pounders would learn jujutsu/aikido to address them... any system that is not 'sport' oriented must address the use of weapons both offensively and defensively... IMO an art is weapon based if its primary emphasis is on the use of weapons... kendo, kenjutsu, fencing, arnis, archery, yarijutsu, and naginatajutsu are examples of weapon based arts... most arts are Both empty hand and weapon based arts... as they split the emphasis between empty hand and weapon in some porportion... Yagyu Ryu is both, but primarily kenjutsu with some jujutsu to a lesser extent... aikido is both, but primarily empty hand with some aikiken and aikijo... things like boxing, kickboxing, savate, wrestling, and sport judo/jujutsu are empty hand as they use no weapons...
the issue that many are still debating revolves around the idea that aikido empty hand techniques were derived from weapon techniques that were in some way morphed to be applied empty handed... this i hold to be incorrect... the empty hand came first, techniques were used empty handed, weapons were made to be used by and extensions of the hands, therefore all weapon arts may be said to derive from the use of the empty hand, but the use of the empty hand may not be said to have derived from the use of weapons... this is like saying the cart is pushing the horse...

Edwin Neal


  Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2006, 10:32 AM   #64
Meynard
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 32
Offline
Re: Why these techniques?

Weapon based means the root of the art comes from the use of weapons. The methods, mechanics, techniques, principles, strategies, and tactics were derived from the use of weapons.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2006, 10:42 AM   #65
Josh Reyer
 
Josh Reyer's Avatar
Location: Aichi-ken, Nagoya-shi
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 644
Japan
Offline
Re: Why these techniques?

Quote:
Chris Hein wrote:
Basically this is what I was trying to tell some folks a few months back ( AikiWeb Aikido Forums > General >atemi is 90% of Aikido). Atemi, does not mean punch, it does not mean kick, it does not mean hand strike, it means for something to go through space and strike another body. Arrows make atemi, swords make Atemi, baseballs make atemi.
As atemi is a term specific to jujutsu, and derived arts, every definition I've found of it refers to using the body to strike.

Koujien:

柔道で、拳(こぶし)・肘(ひじ)・足先などで相手の急所を突き、または打つ技。危険な技なので、乱取りや試合では禁止。

In judo, a technique of thrusting or striking an opponent's vital points with the fist, knee, or the foot.

Daijirin:

柔道で、こぶし・ひじ・つま先などで相手の急所を突き、または打って相手を制する技。乱取りや試合では禁止されている。

In judo, a technique of controlling an opponent by thrusting or striking an opponent's vital points with the fist, knee, or toes.

Wikipedia:

当身(あてみ)もしくは当身技(あてみわざ) とは、日本古来から伝承される古武術や武道で「突く・殴る・打つ・蹴る・当てる」の技の総称である。

Atemi, or atemiwaza, is a generic term for techniques of thrusting, punching, hitting, kicking, and striking in old bujutsu and budo traditionally coming down from olden times in Japan.

My feeling is that the "mi" of atemi, like in the words 四つ身 yotsumi, 差し身 sashimi*, and 捨て身 sutemi, describes not the opponent's body, but rather one's own.

*Not to be confused with 刺身 - raw fish!

Josh Reyer

The lyf so short, the crafte so longe to lerne,
Th'assay so harde, so sharpe the conquerynge...
- Chaucer
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2006, 10:47 AM   #66
Meynard
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 32
Offline
Re: Why these techniques?

Quote:
My original questions were about the techniques of aikido. Why do they exist? What was their intended use?
1. weapons use allow for a greater advantage, it's a stable strategy.
2. disarming a weapon user is very important.
3. weapons user don't want to be disarmed.
4. it's good to have a weapon. weapon = advantage
5. it's bad not to have a weapon. no weapon = disadvantage
6. the goal is to have an advantage or level out the playing field
7. go get a weapon or disarm the weapon user.

And repeat...

1. weapon user don't want to be disarmed
2. weapons use allow for a greater advantage

Techniques and methods developed to solve this problem. That is why aikido techniques exist. They were intended to solve this problem.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2006, 11:05 AM   #67
Ron Tisdale
Dojo: Doshinkan dojo in Roxborough, Pa
Location: Phila. Pa
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 4,614
United_States
Offline
Re: Why these techniques?

Quote:
My original questions were about the techniques of aikido. Why do they exist?
I don't think anyone can answer this. Why does anything or anyone exist?

Quote:
what was their intended use?
Perhaps to train the body, mind, spirit? To train for what would be the follow up question. Universal harmony? I don't know. But I do enjoy the feeling a productive keiko gives me. That heavy/light coordinated, flexible feeling.


Quote:
Why spend so much time training them only to eschew them for kickboxing and grappling methods?
It is funny how all the fancy movements in many arts come down to kickboxing and grappling in a ring/sporting environment. And often in self-defense environments if I am truthful. But to be completely honest, I think we give up to easily sometimes on arts like aikido.

Best,
Ron (just because it's hard, doesn't mean we shouldn't make our best effort)

Ron Tisdale
-----------------------
"The higher a monkey climbs, the more you see of his behind."
St. Bonaventure (ca. 1221-1274)
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2006, 11:12 AM   #68
Meynard
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 32
Offline
Re: Why these techniques?

Why do they exist...

To ensure survival especially in armed conflicts.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2006, 11:20 AM   #69
ChrisHein
 
ChrisHein's Avatar
Dojo: Aikido of Fresno
Location: Fresno , CA
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,628
United_States
Offline
Re: Why these techniques?

Quote:
Dirk Hanss wrote:
The arm is only an extension, not your opponent. You have to control the body, not the arm. Your focus has to be on the whole opponent - or even better on yourself (next step - empty)."
Dirk,
I believe your objective in any fight is going to be to control your opponent (rendering him unconscious, pining him, killing him, making him lose heart). In general the best way to do this is to control the core of his body (I'd say head to hips) controlling the body is done in unarmed styles by going straight to the core, taking hold of it (the core) and taking control of him. Now this is not a sound Idea in an armed system, if you go for the core and ignore the armed hand, you will be stabbed, however if you grab the armed hand and ignore the body, you will not control your opponent. This is why I believer Aikido techniques forgo the approach of unarmed systems (attacking the core with little regard to the hands) and instead chose to control the core via the arm/hand.

Josh Reyer,
I may stand corrected, I don't speak Japanese. I'll have to dig out the information I found months ago, I was pretty sure what I got from the definition I saw was that atemi could be any object flying through space striking another body. Thanx for the post.


-Chris Hein
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2006, 03:13 PM   #70
Edwin Neal
Dojo: Ronin
Location: Henderson, North Carolina
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 597
United_States
Offline
Re: Why these techniques?

This is why I believer Aikido techniques forgo the approach of unarmed systems (attacking the core with little regard to the hands) and instead chose to control the core via the arm/hand.

unarmed systems ignore the hands at their peril... understand that the hand is considered the FIRST weapon, and is just as deadly as the tools that are generally called weapons... but the hand wields the weapon... traditional systems of jujutsu including aikido, do not ignore the hands for the fact that they CAN stike, empty or with weapon this is an aspect of combat/self defense that must be addressed since any strike, indeed every strike MUST be considered deadly, sports that limit or eliminate 'strikes' over look this because well it's a sport, strikes are against the rules...

Meynard...
Weapon based means the root of the art comes from the use of weapons. The methods, mechanics, techniques, principles, strategies, and tactics were derived from the use of weapons.

weapons based means they use weapons...The methods, mechanics, techniques, principles, strategies, and tactics were derived FOR the use of weapons...

Edwin Neal


  Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2006, 04:00 PM   #71
ChrisHein
 
ChrisHein's Avatar
Dojo: Aikido of Fresno
Location: Fresno , CA
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,628
United_States
Offline
Re: Why these techniques?

Edwin,
Yet again your lack of experience is telling,
in a sound clinch, the type used in unarmed systems the hand is generally kept in enough check that it cannot cause vital damage (this is what I ment by "little regard"), the advantage of these clinch types (example bear hug, boxers clinch, rear headlock, rear waist lock) is that they connect more surely to the core of your opponents body, however the disadvantage is that they leave enough space for an armed hand to cause great damage. This is different then Aikido's approach, which is to solidly control the armed hand, and take a less powerful connection to the core of the body. If Aikido was truly an unarmed systems I think we would see these common types of holds, and not consistently see holds addressing the arm as a way to connect tot he core.

Strikes are not against the rules in many of the "sport" forms I have been in, and if you fought in one of these "sport" forms I'm sure that you would understand that the amount of damage you take from someone trying to strike you while you have them in a sound clinch hold, is negligible, but if they had a weapon it would probably be enough kill you. I do however agree with you that sport is different then real fight (where for example I would pull out a knife and be done with you).

We can keep arguing this all day, but I think I've stated my position, if you can't understand, or don't choose to understand that's fine by me.

-Chris Hein
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2006, 04:16 PM   #72
Meynard
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 32
Offline
Re: Why these techniques?

jeez... I've never interacted with a more thick skulled human being in my life. I'm done with this forum.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2006, 04:54 PM   #73
eyrie
 
eyrie's Avatar
Location: Summerholm, Queensland
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,126
Australia
Offline
Re: Why these techniques?

I think it would be more accurate (and reasonable) to say that unarmed combat evolved out of necessity to disarm or deal with an armed attacker. So in order to construct an unarmed system predicated on an armed attack, one must necessarily begin with how an armed attacker would move. Thus the starting point would be the principles, strategies, tactics, techniques and mechanics (in that order), of armed assaults. The end point would be a codified set of unarmed responses against an armed assailant.

I think this is what Meynard is getting at.

But the mental and philosophical leap from aikido itself being derived from the use of weapons is something I am not comfortable with. Because, what this suggests is that the principles, strategies, tactics, techniques and mechanics of aikido (or other unarmed combat system) is based on the principles, strategies, tactics, techniques and mechanics of weapons use.

The keywords being "based on" and "derived from" - which suggests that weapons use came first, ignoring the probability that unarmed conflict (perhaps in the form of rudimentary striking and grappling) is in all likelihood the real precursor to the necessity of taking to arms, in order to afford one with a physical and psychological advantage of a weapon.

On one hand, it is conceivable and reasonable to assume that the use of weaponry evolved from simple household and hunting implements. But on the other hand, what would drive someone to resort to the use of a weapon in a conflict with another? The answer, I think, lies in warfare.

However, this does not address Michael's questions as to why the particular techniques of ikkyo-rokkyo, tenchi-nage, shiho-nage, irimi-nage, kaiten-nage, koshi-nage and kokyu-nage, were included in aikido? Why do these techniques form the basis of the majority of aikido training?

I believe the answer lies in the universal nature of these techniques - that these techniques contain the fundamental, core principles of aikido, from which all other applications flow.

That these techniques can be found in other unarmed systems is no accident, nor coincidental. There's only so many ways the human body can move and so many ways in which joints can be bent, twisted and broken.

Last edited by eyrie : 02-23-2006 at 04:57 PM.

Ignatius
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2006, 05:01 PM   #74
eyrie
 
eyrie's Avatar
Location: Summerholm, Queensland
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,126
Australia
Offline
Re: Why these techniques?

Quote:
Meynard Ancheta wrote:
jeez... I've never interacted with a more thick skulled human being in my life. I'm done with this forum.
And your ability to effectively communicate your ideas has absolutely nothing to do with someone else's lack of understanding, of course....

Ignatius
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2006, 05:28 PM   #75
Edwin Neal
Dojo: Ronin
Location: Henderson, North Carolina
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 597
United_States
Offline
Re: Why these techniques?

'in a sound clinch, the type used in unarmed systems the hand is generally kept in enough check that it cannot cause vital damage'

'I'm sure that you would understand that the amount of damage you take from someone trying to strike you while you have them in a sound clinch hold, is negligible,'

in a clinch... eye gouges certainly nasty though probably not fatal... crushing the trachea possibly fatal... strongly twisting the neck/head, breaking the neck possiby fatal... repeated heavy blows to the skull possibly fracturing and possibly death... crack/break ribs punctured lungs possible death... the hands are in fact deadly weapons must be defended against just as strongly or possibly more so than weapons because of the flexibility/utility of the hand to apply in many different ways...

'Strikes are not against the rules in many of the "sport" forms I have been in, and if you fought in one of these "sport" forms...'

strikes are not permited in Judo, sport jujutsu/grappling, and wrestling... even the sports that do allow strikes do not allow all types of strike... i have fought in these formats as well as amatuer karate, kung fu, boxing, MMA, and vale tudo rules... they do allow strikes, and even the sports that do allow strikes do not allow all types of strike.. for example the UFC rules are as follows... note rules # 2, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 18, and 19... all brought to you by the lowly hand that is disregarded as a 'weapon' because it capable of only 'negligable damage'... clearly YOUR inexperience is showing

Fouls: [Top]
1. Butting with the head.
2. Eye gouging of any kind.
3. Biting.
4. Hair pulling.
5. Fish hooking.
6. Groin attacks of any kind.
7. Putting a finger into any orifice or into any cut or laceration on an opponent.
8. Small joint manipulation.
9. Striking to the spine or the back of the head.
10. Striking downward using the point of the elbow.
11. Throat strikes of any kind, including, without limitation, grabbing the trachea.
12. Clawing, pinching or twisting the flesh.
13. Grabbing the clavicle.
14. Kicking the head of a grounded opponent.
15. Kneeing the head of a grounded opponent.
16. Stomping a grounded opponent.
17. Kicking to the kidney with the heel.
18. Spiking an opponent to the canvas on his head or neck.
19. Throwing an opponent out of the ring or fenced area.
20. Holding the shorts or gloves of an opponent.
21. Spitting at an opponent.
22. Engaging in an unsportsmanlike conduct that causes an injury to an opponent.
23. Holding the ropes or the fence.
24. Using abusive language in the ring or fenced area.
25. Attacking an opponent on or during the break.
26. Attacking an opponent who is under the care of the referee.
27. Attacking an opponent after the bell has sounded the end of the period of unarmed combat.
28. Flagrantly disregarding the instructions of the referee.
29. Timidity, including, without limitation, avoiding contact with an opponent, intentionally or consistently dropping the mouthpiece or faking an injury.
30. Interference by the corner.
31. Throwing in the towel during competition.


'if they had a weapon it would probably be enough kill you...'

I totally agree with you Chris... i just include one more weapon to the list it's called a hand... maybe you have seen one or two?

'The original intent of bujutsu was to kill an enemy with one blow; since all techniques can be lethal, observe the instructor's directions and do not engage in contests of strength.'
Osensei

Edwin Neal


  Reply With Quote

Please visit our sponsor:

Aikido DVDs and Video Downloads - by George Ledyard Sensei & other great teachers from AikidoDVDS.Com



Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Diato Ryu Aikijujutsu's relation to Aikido Kelly Allen General 19 11-23-2007 03:24 PM
Gokyo-why? Steve Morabito Techniques 65 11-26-2006 05:18 PM
aikido and competition ewodaj General 129 08-10-2006 10:43 AM
Definition of "Dan"? H. Trinh Language 27 02-10-2006 02:54 PM
Randori kocakb General 26 06-20-2004 08:51 PM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:28 AM.



vBulletin Copyright © 2000-2014 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited
----------
Copyright 1997-2014 AikiWeb and its Authors, All Rights Reserved.
----------
For questions and comments about this website:
Send E-mail
plainlaid-picaresque outchasing-protistan explicantia-altarage seaford-stellionate