aikido and self defense

[ALDOG]

i would like to know why is it a such a big issue in aikido dojo's to mention self-defense? at least here in miami. and also why is my karma so low i just started a few days ago:D

[Ben23]

Jack,

Do you train in Aikido?
I suppose its possible that you do. Since starting Aikido, I have sought out media covering the art and have been dissapointed to discover overtly aggressive practitioners being given the limelight. I have studied under two sensis in the five years since I started training - one a first dan and one a fith. They both emphasised protecting yourself without harming your opponent. For me this is the philosophy which drives aikido - the philosophy which drove Ueshiba to develop Aikido out of the techniques taught to him in Aiki JuJitsu. I always was a bit of a pacifist even before I discovered Aikido and when I started training (originally for exercise, tsch) I was fascinated by this concept of avoid/disarm/restrain as opposed to clash/knockout as was taught in Karate and Tai-boxing classes I attended.
Sure it takes longer to learn, but I feel the cost is well worth it. Like I said before, I trained in Karate and got my first grade within a year. I have trained in Aikido now for five years and for one reason or another havent yet sat my first grade. Yet I feel my skill is superior - far superior - in Aikido than it ever was in karate. Its pretty easy to learn how to knock somebody out, its even easier to learn how to break someones neck. It takes time, effort and patients to learn how to disable several attackers without doing them any physical harm - especially when the techniques you use to do this are often the same techniques you would use to break someones neck. I feel that it is merely laziness and shallow morals (ie they want to kill my wife so I have a right to kill them - how about they want to kill my wife but I can protect her and not harm them) that prevents people from taking the time to learn this skill. Indeed, why bother learning aikido if you dont care about harming your opponent, as Jujitsu can teach you how to harm your opponent far better?
Now, budo and aikido are for self-defense as are the US Armed Forces. But how about using them in such a way as to merely pacify your opponent without just killing everybody? Sure its going to be more difficult, but if America had entered Vietnam with that aim and strategy they probably would have had a lot less opposition at home and more respect in the years to follow (damn, I hate resorting to vietnam, I appologise for that.)
Thats were the whole ethical side of Aikido comes in, its not got anything to do with religion or buddhist philosophy (despit presumably starting there) its just common sense. Were all human, so start being humane.

Ben Gough-Cooper

[Rob Alvelais]

Originally posted by Ben23
Jack,

They both emphasised protecting yourself without harming your opponent. For me this is the philosophy which drives aikido -




Its pretty easy to learn how to knock somebody out, its even easier to learn how to break someones neck. It takes time, effort and patients to learn how to disable several attackers without doing them any physical harm - especially when the techniques you use to do this are often the same techniques you would use to break someones neck. I feel that it is merely laziness and shallow morals (ie they want to kill my wife so I have a right to kill them - how about they want to kill my wife but I can protect her and not harm them) that prevents people from taking the time to learn this skill. Indeed, why bother learning aikido if you dont care about harming your opponent, as Jujitsu can teach you how to harm your opponent far better?




Could someone explain this notion of defending themselves against an attacker ( who is bound and determined to harm you) without harming them? While I understand and admire the philosophy and the goal of subduing someone without harming them, I'm somewhat skeptical of it as a practical reality. Perhaps you aikidoka can help me here?


My understanding of Aikido is that, where the rubber meets the road, what the aikidoist physically does to his opponent is to twist joints and throw people. When you twist a joint, you're attacking the soft tissues in the joint capsule. The risk of a soft tissue injury to your assailant is great. As an athlete, I'd always pray for a break, rather than a sprain, because a sprain involved soft-tissue and just may not heal to the point of being able to compete again, whereas a break would knit and I'd be back to normal in a few weeks. Most career-ending injuries in professional sports involve soft tissue injuries.

When I was teaching defensive tactics to Peace Officers, the aikido like movements that we used in arrest and control were called pain compliance techniques. If drunken Uncle Freddy is getting out of hand, well the alcohol can deaden his sensation of pain. Also, his intoxicated state may make him move in inappropriate ways. That is, instead of moving in the direction to lessen the pain in his joint, and the direction that you want him to move in order to control him, he may actually move in the opposite direction and damage his joint. The police that I taught would actually have to shout, "Down Down, Down!" etc. to tell the person how to move so that he wouldn't hurt himself.

Throwing someone, or even simply knocking them off of their feet has it's own set of safety issues too, given that your assailant probably doesn't know how to fall. Hell, I know how to fall, but I'm not that certain I could pull a nice break fall under the circumstances where I'm unexpectedly thrown by a Juji Nage or shihonage, say.


I've met many high ranking aikidoka in my 30 years in the MA. Even a couple of Uchi Deshi of Ueshiba. NONE of them, while incredibly skilled and far more skilled than I, are skilled enough to compensate for my unexpected movements (let alone an untrained person) and subdue a determined attacker without causing some injury.

If I compare that with knocking somebody out, well he'll be able to go to work the next day. Even if I broke his jaw, he'd sitll be able to make his living. If he were a mechanic or other tradesman who made his living with his hands, creating soft tissue injuries in his joints then threatens his ability to work. Can't turn a wrench if your arm's in a sling. Not creating soft tissue injuries while applying a joint maneuver on a comitted and determined attacker is difficult at best. If I throw him and he hits his head he could die. Heck, if he sticks his hand out at an inopportune time, he could sprain his wrist, shoulder or elbow. There's that soft tissue thing again. Considering the potential damage to someone, it almost seems that punching someone out is actually more humane!

Respectfully,



Rob

[Gene McGloin]

Originally posted by Jack
Listen Aldog,
Quite frankly I just don't understand the whole turn-the-other-cheek-way-to-reconcile-the-world politically correct mumbo jumbo.

Perhaps you haven't been training all that long? I'd like to suggest that you keep training. I don't understand how or where you've developed the concept that aikido philosophy is based on "turn the other cheek". While I won't make any claims that I understand what Ueshiba sensei was talking about, I don't believe that turning the other cheek to reconcile the world was a point he was trying to get across. None of the direct students of Ueshiba sensei I've trained with have ever stated such a thing. If your dojo espouses such a belief, and you don't agree with it then maybe you'd like to try another dojo? In any event just keep training.


"...if someone attacks me and mine while walking to Symphomy Hall in Boston I plan to slam the malcontent in to the ground not teach him a lesson in humility via me flowing with his energy and mind melding with him.
[/QUOTE]

That's fine, but is it really necessary to slam someone into the ground if you don't have to, or is it equally or more important that you take some revenge out on the malcontent? I think that maybe this is what aikido philosophy is aiming at. I recall hearing something about victory over myself is true victory...


Lets cut the baloney Budo is for self-defense first.
[/QUOTE]

OK, then what comes after that? Or is that it or is that where we should stop in our training? Just keep training.

Regards,

Gene McGloin

[Gene McGloin]

Originally posted by Rob Alvelais

When I was teaching defensive tactics to Peace Officers, the aikido like movements that we used in arrest and control were called pain compliance techniques.


Using aikido techniques based on the level of pain inflictd in order to control uke is in my opinion the most early, basic form of the technique. Have you ever had nikkyo, sankyo or yonkyo applied to you without pain? I have, I know it works and I am not a proponent of "tanking" ukemi.

We're taking apples and oranges here. You were teaching law enforcement officers as part of an over all curriculum. They had to learn controlling techniques FAST, not all the subtleties of the techniques. We aikidoka are supposed to learn thse subtleties through our years of training. Just because we don't learn them in the first five or ten years of practice doesn't mean that there aren't such subtleties. I doubt very much that the majority of the officers you initially trained spent years practicing these techniques to the level where it is the kuzushi that takes them down, not the pain.




If I compare that with knocking somebody out, well he'll be able to go to work the next day. Even if I broke his jaw, he'd sitll be able to make his living. If he were a mechanic or other tradesman who made his living with his hands, creating soft tissue injuries in his joints then threatens his ability to work. Can't turn a wrench if your arm's in a sling. Not creating soft tissue injuries while applying a joint maneuver on a comitted and determined attacker is difficult at best. If I throw him and he hits his head he could die. Heck, if he sticks his hand out at an inopportune time, he could sprain his wrist, shoulder or elbow. There's that soft tissue thing again. Considering the potential damage to someone, it almost seems that punching someone out is actually more humane!


I believe that the intention is different. Why bother doing these fancy techniques in response to an attack when one can often times step off the line and effectively counter-attack? The original post spoke about slamming an attacker into the ground, I believe that aikido training ultimately gives one an ability wherin they don't have to do this in order to immoblilize an attack. It's been done to me too many time as uke to not believe this. Aikido gives me the choice between destroying the attacker and destroying the attack, it's up to me to decide which I want to go with. Yes, you can't always account for uke's reactions, but I believe that the intent is different between applying aikido technique and knocking someone out. I don't equate the occasional situations wherein some homeless guy accosts me on the street at night as a battlefield situation. No need for me to slam the guy into the ground when aikido has taught me other means of dealing with the situation.

This thread really brings back what one of my first sensei used to say to me all the time "You always have to ask yourself, 'Why did you choose to study aikido in the first place?'."

Regards,

Gene McGloin

[HinodeBuddha]

Gosh, I don't know where to begin. I think some are offended by refering to Aikido as a self-defense. Why? I can only imagine this is because they feel this is supposed to be the turn-the-other-cheek art that doesn't hurt the opponent and everyone walks away happy and better for the encounter.

I have a couple of points to make, one of which is a short anecdote a friend of mine for the past 10 years or so shared with me, whom also happens to study Aikido.

Let us not forget that the art of Aikido was developed from the arts of the samurai. Along with the physical aspect of those arts is the spiritual or philosophical side to the essence of being a samurai.

In my reading of different books, I came accross a saying the samurai used. Shinu kikai o motomo. Translated this meant, looking for a reason to die. This sounds childish and silly to most, but unless you take the time to try and understand.

To be a samurai meant to serve someone higher. To put others before your life. Looking for a reason to die simply put means not to engage in a physical confrontation that wouldn't be worthy of your life.

For instance; You're in a public place and you are confronted by someone. This person wants your money, you are alone. Do you consider this a reason to give up your life. Whether your life is lost or whether you terminate your aggressor. NO!

Unless you feel that no matter what you do to comply with your aggressor's demands the aggressor will still mean you harm, then by all means, you must do what is necessary to preserve YOUR life, as well as others that may be in jepordy should this person be allowed to continue on the path he/she is walking.

My friend put it best when he told me a story after a seminar he and his son put on for a local highschool. They were leaving and my friend was approached by the father of one of the students. He was an unsavory gentleman to say the least. He wanted to fight my friend because he wanted to test his skill. My friend told him that he doesn't fight. The fella was shocked by his response and retorted that he was going to hit my friend anyway.

Well, the fella threw a punch and without knowing what had happened, picked himself up off of the ground. He was mad now and said to my friend, "I thought you didn't fight!" My friend calmly replied, "I don't fight, but I didn't say I wouldn't defend myself."

The physical aspect of Aikido is about 5% of the art itself. So much more is necessary to truely practice Aikido.

I use Aikido every day. It gives me the option of blending with life rather than clashing head on like a freight train out of control.

In the ART OF PEACE by O'Sensei, O'Sensei states "To injure an opponent is to injure yourself. To control aggression without inflicting injury is the Art of Peace." He also said, "The real Art of Peace is not to sacrifice a single one of your warriors to defeat an enemy. Vanquish your foes by always keeping yourself in a safe an dunassailale position; then no one will suffer any losses. The Way of a Warrior, the Art of Politics, is to stop trouble before it starts. It consists in defeating your adversaries spiritually by making them realize the folly of their actions. The Way of a Warrior is to establish harmony."

I feel, given this informtion, if you go to the dojo and practice the physical aspect of Aikido with malcontempt in your heart and mind you are not practicing Aikido. Aikido is more than the physical. It is however a devastating martial art at the same time.

You exhaust your options trying to avoid the physical confrontation, but in the end you didn't ask for your aggressor to choose you. Your aggressor chose you. It is your responsibility, as a budoka in general, to rediret the misguided sould back onto the path of rightousness.

I know from experienct when you have a non-believer question whether or not Aikido is valid as a self-defense you deal with people that are not familiar with how to fall to prevent injury. In addition to that the Aikido you perform will often look sloppy and ineffective. Keep in mind that this is where you have practiced the best Aikido, because you chose not to hurt your challenger. An aggressor on the other hand should be dealt with deftly, to eliminate the threat of injury to you or others. A challenger though is not and should not be treated like an aggressor. You have to decide, shinu kikai o motomo.

Lyle Laizure

[David Rubens]

As always, the 'Is Aikido valid/effective for self-defence?' question leaves me half wanting to stay out of it, half wanting to put my two cents in...so here goes.....

If you are talking about a 'real' attack, what sort is it? Are you talking about a street ambush from a fit, aggressive young man who has spent three years in the jail system and is fully trained in 'real fighting', is prepared to bite your ear off - and have his own bitten off, or are you talking about a guy in the bar who has had a couple of drinks and takes a swing at you? In short - are you talking about someone who knows what they are doing? If you are talking about someone who is a good, experienced fighter, then it seems reasonable to presume that they are better at that than the aikido-ka is, because that is what they are good at - fighting. Why would we expect that if we train two or three times a week in the dojo we will be able to beat someone who has been fighting regularly for fifteen years - would you expect a green belt to be better than a third dan?

If however you are talking about a couple of people who are looking for drug money, who are unfit, have an unhealthy life-style, sleep out, haven't eaten anything except a couple of burgers in the last three days - then I think that aikido is a wonderful tool for doing exactly what it sets out to do - giving you the opportunity to protect yourself and your family without creating needless damage or bad karma.

I have worked extensively with bouncers, police officers, security personnel, response teams, shopping centre security teams, etc and the basic underlying rule that we teach in all of our Control & Restraint training is - it always helps if you are bigger and stronger than the other person! The best way to apply a wrist-lock on someone is *after* you have gained the dominant position, both physically and psychologically. If you have manged to get someone to the ground, or against the wall, then wrist-locks are truly a gift from the gods - they allow you to neutralise and control someone who is theoretically stronger and more powerful than yourself. But if you think that you can apply a wrist-lock to someone who is in a state of adrenaline rage, then the example I give is of someone trying to get a sock on a two-year old who is having a tantrum, kicking, screaming, freaking out, waving all their limbs wildly in the air - well, you can be the biggest bouncer in London, but you are not going to get that sock on her! So if you cannot get a sock on a non-compliant two-year old, how do you expect to get a wrist-lock on a 220lb man who is not cooperating.

Of course, it can be done - but the one word that has not been mentioned in all of the discussion so far, is 'atemi'. It is always interesting that people analyse the words of Ueshiba Sensei, and even presume to understand his thinking - and then completely ignore the fact that he clearly stated that "Atemis is 70% of aikido" (or 80%, or 90%, depending on your source).
Basically, and it couldn't really be stated any clearer: aikido really works well - once you have broken the other person's nose! That is what atemi is for. The only question remaining is, does this fit in with the philosophical basis of aikido? In my opinion, there is no problem here. Aikido is about the use of 'appropriate' technique - and if, given the level of immediate threat and the potential danger involved in that situation, a broken nose is what it takes to create the opening for a technique to be applied, then that is well within my own definition of 'appropriate response'.

Besides that, all that aikido - or any other system - can give you is an extra edge, ten or twenty per cent (if you are lucky). It worries me that people talk as though they feel sorry for the bad guy because he is about to be on the receiving end of the cosmic energy of an aikido technique. If you are going to be in a street fight, you might die, and you might certainly be on the receiving end of a severe beating. This is not some theoretical death, this is you lying bleeding, your sister and mother crying, and your friends telling stories about you in the dojo after the funeral. Believe it, meditate on it, and then make your decision.

And finally.....In case anyone thinks that I am getting down on aikido, I have been involved in two small street situations in the last five years, both within fifty yards of the dojo. In both cases it involved a street crime situation, no weapons, in both cases I intervened because the victim was obviously very scared. I have no memory of what happened, but in both cases the bad guy took a swing, and the next thing they were lying on the floor and I was asking them 'Are you OK?'. So, aikido worked exactly as promised on the box, but next time....who knows.

Regards,


david rubens

[Ron Tisdale]

Dear Mr. Rubens,

Thank you for that wonderfully written and most appropriate reply to this topic. It is good to have someone with your experience and of your caliber posting here! I hope all is well...If your email to me of late has been bouncing, you may reach me at the email in my profile on this board. By the way, is there any chance of you making the Aiki Expo?

Ron Tisdale

[Budoka 34]

:smilejapa


First of all, I have to admit I have only been studying Aikikai Aikido for about three months. I have studied several striking arts, and several grappling/randori styles. I love the fluid motion and power of Aikido. It is truly a great art, but, as far as "real world" self defence, I would rely on my Jui-jitsu first. Not that I don't think Aikido can be effective under certain circumstances. I have come to realize that it will take years (for me decades) to make this art effective against most attacks. Whether the attacker be a rung out drug user or consumate street fighter, Jui-Jitsu seems to offer "real world" effectiveness much more quickly. I began studying Aikido to better understand the "Aiki" concepts within Jui-Jitsu. It has helped me greatly, and allowed me to have a better understanding of all the arts I currently study.


R.Kite
Budoka 34

[Chris Li]

Originally posted by Rob Alvelais
Could someone explain this notion of defending themselves against an attacker ( who is bound and determined to harm you) without harming them? While I understand and admire the philosophy and the goal of subduing someone without harming them, I'm somewhat skeptical of it as a practical reality. Perhaps you aikidoka can help me here?


I'm reminded of a story told to me by a well known student of M. Ueshiba's. He and some of the other uchi-deshi got into kind of a rumble with some folks from another dojo. M. Ueshiba found out about it and was livid - he sat them down and gave them a two-hour lecture on Aikido, harmony, love, and all that other good stuff. Afterwards he went up to the student and said, "OK, so how many did you get?".

The same person said to me (in another context),"O-sensei had a dream, but he was also a realist.".

In western culture things tend to be kind of black and white - you either turn the other cheek or you don't. Japanese culture is often rife with what seem like paradoxes, and people there tend to be a little more comfortable with them. Basically, there is less of a utopian tendency then in the west, IMO. Japanese people tend to be fairly pragmatic.

Best,

Chris

[Budoka 34]

:smilejapa

Chris:

I agree whole heartedly. I have a co-worker who has declared himself a passivest. I asked him what he would do when one of our boys attacks him (we work with Juvenile felons). He stated calmly that he would walk away. After his first confrontation with one of the boys, I asked the same question. His answer changed slightly " I'll do what I have to!" While we would never think of useing violence to control our clients, the fact remains they are capable of great violence. For your own safety, sometimes you can not just "walk away".



R. Kite

[rupert]

I am sure most people agree with the practicality in David Rubens' posting. Here in Korea all martial arts are practiced with reality in mind, probably a lot more so than in Japan (or the West) where often, the zennish internal peace paradigm often rules OK. Koreans are much more practical in outlook with respect to Aikido, and their martial arts are more..., straight to the point and ever changing / modernising etc. More, all Koreans join the military, and have an agressive North Korea only 40 km to the North of Seoul, and are therefore a pretty tough lot both physically and mentally, much more so than the pacifist oriented Japanese, in my opinion (I think they might compare with Israelis and martial arts in that sense - cornered on all sides - reality reigns). Interestingly, Koreans always seem terrified that Japan will again become oppressive but as far as I can tell, the Japanese have lost that attitude completely and are simply, harmless utopians (OK, except for the loony right) - something we should probably all be aiming for. Anyway, for me, martial arts are meant to be effective. If you are an Aiki fairy, consider this: If you don't develop the ability trash your aggressor at will, how will you be able to just let him off lightly - if you chose to do so? If follows that you have to be in complete control of the situation so that you have the choice to let you attacker off lightly, or not. If you do not develop a martial aiki, then you will have no choices available - just dreams.

Is Aikido useful for self-defence? If it is not, then it is not Aikido!

Thesedays, I just train and don't really think about it anymore. I enjoy my practice. Because of it, I am stronger, am not afraid of being touched, poked, grabbed, or hit. I have been hit and recall being surprised at how it barely bothered me. Another time someone idiot tried to grab something from my top pocket and I just moved out of reach - several times. He was quite surprised and just gave up. I am much calmer. I know one friend who on being attacked in a bar by a mad drunk started laughing because it didn't hurt... and didn't respond at all. He didn't need to.

Rupert Atkinson

[The Opal Dragon]

:wave:

Personally, my mom and I only practice Aikido for the
self-defense part. I don't feel like going all into it
but my older brother was born with Down Syndrome and now
seems to be mentally ill on top of it. He can basically
be happy one second and violent the next. From the limited
amount of knowledge I have about other martial arts, the other
arts wouldn't work as well with my brother because people who
have Down Syndrome (or retarded) usually get all the more
enraged if they feel any type of pain (like if you punched
or kicked them). Aikido has been working well for us so far.
We can try and use the techniques and the pins (a few of the
pins anyway) to get him down and keep him down until he calms
down if it's necessary. So it really IS the self-defense part
why we do Aikido at all. I love Aikido though and would want
to do it even if I didn't have to take it. ;)

:smilejapa

[Ben23]

I was re-reading this section and followed the links to other discussions of a similar nature and it got me to thinking about whether I've used Aikido in a defensive situation before?
The resultant answer I think is both yes and no.
Basically the only situations I can think of have been when people have acted aggressively towards me or my friends. On two occasions that this has happened the situation has been resolved without a fight...
The first time was a decidedly drunk individual who claimed to be a kick boxing champion (and whom I latter discovered worked as security at the Student Union during his more sober moments). Basically someone insulted him and he thought it was me and my friend and so started getting 'verbal'. Realising he was in no fit state to fight me regardless of training, I simply engage in conversation with him until he forgot he was angry and bid us good night! (I'm trying to be polite, like it? :) )
The second time was when my friend (Interestingly enough the same one, I should realy stop going out with him) stopped to tie his shoe lace on the stairs of a night club on our way out. Someone bumped into him and then proceeded to get angry and agressive towards my friend. In this situation I stepped within range of him, stared him down and told him squarely that we were leaving, he was going in and that there was no reason for a confrontation. The look of aggression actually turned to one of fear and he backed off.
I guess in these situations, my training gave me the confidence (Justified or not!) to face the danger in order to try nad protect both myself and my friends where as pre-training I would have simply froze in fear. To this end, Aikido has so far served me well.

[ErikH]

Originally posted by rupert
Is Aikido useful for self-defence? If it is not, then it is not Aikido!

This is a pretty broad statement and I would agree with it because of it's broadness.

However, to clarify, I don't think self-defense has to be a physical event. If practicing "weak" aikido (or whatever term you want) produces a more aware (whatever you take that to mean) person who deals with a conflict without a physical event I would call their practice a success, even if they couldn't tenkan out of the way of an 80 year old drunk.

While I prefer a more physical form, I don't preclude the possibility that a less martial form isn't Aikido. Perhaps it's not my aikido or the aikido I would like to see them do but I can't bring myself to say that someone in that realm is not doing Aikido. No matter how much their practice may pain me.

Erik Haselhofer

[Anne Marie]

Originally posted by ALDOG
i would like to know why is it a such a big issue in aikido dojo's to mention self-defense? at least here in miami. ... :D

Al, I'm from Ft. Lauderdale so I might have an idea why folks in the Miami or South Florida area mention self-defense. I believe aikido has received a bad rap in the area for being "soft" and "ineffective." Also your (we) are in an area known for its high crime rate. It makes sense to mention self-defense.

I train at Florida Aikikai with Peter Bernath. There is no "turn-the-other-cheek" mentality preached; however, we don't preach we are the "ultimate" art meant to slam people to the mat. Peter is really great at leaving it up to the student to get out of it what they want. Me, I focus on both self-defense and self-betterment. Others in my school focus solely on self-defense or self-betterment.

There is some great fluid and effective aikido taught at my school, but you only get out what you put in. Peter isn't going to lecture you one way or the other.

Come give us Florida Aikikai folks a visit at our next seminar. Or whenever you are up our way.

Anne Marie Giri

[Malach]

For me, the principle is roughly as follows... I found this in a sci-fi fantasy novel*, and it fits the principles of aikido (as I see them).

It's a quote I use to "explain" Aikido to people.

Never hold where one should be free.
Never hurt where it is enough to hold
Never injure where it is enough to hurt.
Never maim where it is enough to injure.
Never kill where it is enough to maim.
The greatest warrior is one who need never kill.

(quoted from memory, but reasonably accurate).

Not truly pacifist, but close enough for me :)

The hard part, is deciding what, exactly, is "enough".

[HinodeBuddha]

What is enough?

Enough is when you have eliminated the threat of further attack from your assailant. How far you have to go to reach "enough" will depend on your individual situation.

[Malach]

Originally posted by HinodeBuddha
What is enough?


Enough is enough :)

But making that decision in the "heat of action" is hard.

This is why we train, not only so we know how to perform the techniques properly, but also so we know when, or how "much" to perform them.

Aikido consists (in part) of doing just enough. That much, no more, no less.

[HinodeBuddha]

I agree. Part of our training consists of learning when enough is enough in the heat of the moment. The bottom line is the assailant choose you, you didn't choose the assailant. You don't owe them anything. Your first responsibility is to your family and yourself. When you have eliminated the threat of further attack from your assailant, that is enough. When I teach a self-defense class I try to impress upon the attendents that we are not learing how to trade punches with someone, and we are not going to be doing fanciful movie martial arts. Most importantly I try to ingrain that we are not invincible and to get away. Unless you have to face the assailant in combat, and that is what it is, don't. But once the line is crossed you have to approach it as though your life is on the line. If you can make it too much work for an assailant to continue his attack and he/she flees that is awesome. If you cannot and have to escalate your defense for your protection then so be it.

[Malach]

I don't hurt/injure an attacker as little as possible for their sake, I do it for mine. Sure, they benefit from it (through not getting hurt as much as I'm capable of hurting them), but I benefit more.

I agree, that the attacker has "earned" some response from you, and that you have a responsibility to look after yourself, and those you protect before you concern yourself with the well being of an attacker. In such a case, a greater response than is strictly required would be a better option than under-doing things, and getting injured, or allowing those that you protect to get injured.

I feel that if my skill is sufficient, then I can do "Just Enough". If my abilities don't allow that, then more is better than less, but that doesn't meant that my abilities aren't lacking.

[Aikido girl]

Hello, all! I'm new here, so don't be throwing me, quite yet! I need to work on my "E-Breakfalls" first! Hehe!




AL..right, in my experience, [14 years; I'm 19, by the way=)] Aikido has been what I made it: Flexable. I am not training to destroy anything, I'm training to be myself. If someone wants to stop me, or guide me, I know I will "win" simply because I don't fight it; I become a mirror to them.



One of my last boyfriends was a football player in the town I used to live in. This was last spring, and I was looking for a college. He didn't like that I was also looking at colleges that were out of state, and he literally, blew up right there in the mall in which we were in. I was scared. I'm 5'3 100lbs. and he is over 6 feet tall, and a genetic anomoly! [He could be a Professional Wrestler...]
So I'm trying to get him to relax, but he is getting more angry. He gets so mad that even my friends are looking away because they are scared. He grabbed me, and I went from scared to "I'm-going-to-wrist-lock-you-NOW!" And I did, with nikyo. It happend so fast, and unexpectedly, that neither he, nor I, knew what had just happend. I held on, just like I had trained to. He was on his knees, and both of our groups of friends came to separate us. [I haven't spoken with him since.]




My point is that there shouldn't be one way to apply what the situation requires. If hitting them is what happens, cool! [My last "real" fight involved me hitting the person with my knees, which were sore for weeks afterward...] If it's off-balancing them, groovy!



But the very most important thing is timing. It's ageless...just ask my mother, who has been training Aikido since the mid-sixties! She has many "tricks" that confuse me, but I'm getting the hang of them. My goal is to be able to apply what technque I need to, with as little strength as possible. Someday!





Thanks for reading my post, and have a great day! Aikido girl.