PDA

View Full Version : strikes in aikido



dainippon99
9th October 2000, 03:01
Why is it that almost every aikido dojo or otherwise website that i go to always claim that aikido has no punches or kicks? has it become a popular thing play at complete lack of atemi? O sensei said that aikido was 70 percent atemi.

Gil Gillespie
9th October 2000, 06:14
Good thread. This one may fly. It's true that a great deal of modern Aikido curriculum does not actively teach atemi, but it is untrue that atemi is not an active vital part of Aikido. Mostly this is because the role of atemi in Aikido is "understood" (implied, assumed, taken for granted) in 2 very important ways.

First, Aikido is a "polishing art." It is the ultimate manifestation of O-Sensei's life in budo. Long before his life culminated in Aikido he was an invincible fighter. It was "assumed" when students came to train in Ueshiba's "new" system that they were already proficient martial artists. Most were yudansha and instructors in several systems. So Aikido kihon ignored atemi to focus on the uniqueness of O-Sensei's techniques. Proficiency in atemi was an unspoken prerequisite.

Second, in today's Aikido atemi is "understood" during the movement and application of technique. For example, as nage moves under uke's arm uchi maware to apply sankyo, the atemi is "there"----it is understood. Having created the opening, nage is assumed to be aware of the open targets (floating rib, solar plexus, throat, nose, etc etc) as he moves through! Good point that this awareness can't be there without instruction, so this goes back to first point.

The earlier the branching from Aikido's Tree the more the emphasis on atemi instruction. The first hour of Yoseikan Aikido at Mochizuki Sensei's dojo in Shizuoka is all heavy bag atemi and striking kata (Sensei's famous ha-pon-yoi).

My sensei has taught us from day one that we use atemi to the body to capture the mind; we use atemi to the mind to capture the body. High level Aikido. A study in itself. But never far from atemi.

Blues
9th October 2000, 12:18
But isn't it true that a throw can be seen as a form of atemi, since one 'strikes' one's opponent against the floor?

Kris
9th October 2000, 14:53
I like Gil's point regarding aikido as a "polishing" art. However, I think it has become all to common in some of today's aiki dojo that students have no background in another MA and atemi is not actively taught. I have been on the mat with aikidoka that could not deliver a good punch, either as part of a technique or as uke. (Of course, I have worked with some practitioners of "hard" styles, that couldn't throw a punch either, but that is a different thread ;) ) Please understand that I am not generalizing ALL aikido dojo. This is simply a problem I have witnessed in some.

One of the issues I see related to the instruction of atemi, is the conditioning of one to receive a strike. I see this as important, because no matter how effective your blocking/evasion skills are, there is still a very realistic chance that one will be hit during a confrontation. If you have no conditioning to this sort of thing, it is pretty easy to become completely unfocused after being hit.

Thoughts? I would love to hear from anyone that?@ha only practiced aikido. Most of my experience has been with those that study aikido, but also have experience in karate, tkd, kenpo, jujutsu, etc.

Chad Bruttomesso
9th October 2000, 15:28
First off, Welcome Blues. It is the policy here on E-Budo to sign all posts with our full names. You can either do this manually or by adding your full name to your profile. Thank you in advance for your understanding. We look forward to your involvement here on E-Budo.

Second, what a superb thread. Atemi has always been one of my biggest points of contention with my fellow Aikidoka. Too often I see people "simulating" a strike with a half formed fist. If you have ever spent any time at all on a heavy bag you know how much fun hitting something is with a fist that isn't solid. One of the things that irks me the most are the halfhearted atemi. When someone waves a hand in my face without putting any kind of effort into making me believe that they are going to hit me then I see it as an opportunity to latch onto said hand and perform a reversal.

I too am interested in hearing what people think on the whole atemi issue. In my humble opinion it is an ESSENTIAL part of any empty hand martial art. Besides, it is a great way to loosen up those guys like myself that like to not give in all of the time.


Have a great day,

Kolschey
9th October 2000, 16:14
The point about O-Sensei's original students all being experienced in other arts is a good one. When I first began Aikido, I was in a dojo where virtually all of the students had previous experience in other arts ( myself, I had been training in Shotokan for four years )When people would seize your wrist, it was a solid grab. A punch would have good form and authority. What was distinctive was when a new crop of students came in who had no previous MA or sportive training experience. Their attacks would frankly lose them a fistfight with a bored housecat. I would strongly recommend cross training in other arts, and I don't simply address this to Aikidoka. While it can be detrimental to dabble in too many activities, there is a great value in cross checking your assumptions in different training environments. Great thread, folks!

Kris
9th October 2000, 16:30
Excellent Point Krzysztof! (In regards to cross training).
I came to Aikido after 16 years of punching and kicking. I felt (and still often do) like fish out of water.... and it was wonderful! I know many martial artists who have trained in 2 or more different, but extremely similar, disciplines. I think it is vastly important to put yourself outside of your comfort zone. Even if you find that a style isn't "for you", you may just learn something about your preferred art that you had never considered.

The only bad part (at least for me) to training in multiple arts is "unlearning". Sometimes I wish I could come to an art with an "empty cup", but training in any style for a fair amount of time can give you baggage/habits that are not ideal for another style.


[Edited by Kris on 10-09-2000 at 10:34 AM]

Rolling Elbow
9th October 2000, 17:07
Gentlemen,

I have a llot of respect for high level aikido, especially Yoshinkan Aikido because it is harder in style and focus, however, it is well documented that all of these "aikido fathers" were great fighters themselves..now given this, why is there no focus in aikido on hitting. People are happy dancing rather than fighting.., most of the techniques will not work on someone who has trained in taijutsu, kung fu etc.., why? Because nobody is stupid enough to lunge forward or give you their hand in a downward attack. What about attacks that are not committed? Aikido dojos do not spend enough time focusing on realistic attacks in my opinion..that is why allot of aikido practioners feel the need to have studied another style before hand or will supplement their training with something more external..it shouldn't be this way. Aikido can be tremendous but it has to learn to cover, and be TAUGHT to cover all ranges and facets of combat. To expect a boxer to lunge and not faint is ridiculous..to expect to get a perfect throw or an arm bar/lock on someone in the street is equally ridiculous unless you have phenomenal skill or you hit him many times first..something most people do NOT have. Why? because it takes so long to attain and is dependent on the attributes of the individual and the instruction he/she receives.

A good discussion here though.

Bridger Dyson-Smith
9th October 2000, 18:22
Good thread. Sensei always encourages atemi, even a few kicks (ouch!) although with no other MAs in my background, I've often felt lost when it came time to start throwing punches. What could be some good striking arts to consider if I wanted to expand a little?

Bridger Dyson-Smith

BC
9th October 2000, 18:45
Originally posted by Rolling Elbow
Gentlemen,

I have a llot of respect for high level aikido, especially Yoshinkan Aikido because it is harder in style and focus, however, it is well documented that all of these "aikido fathers" were great fighters themselves..now given this, why is there no focus in aikido on hitting. People are happy dancing rather than fighting.., most of the techniques will not work on someone who has trained in taijutsu, kung fu etc.., why? Because nobody is stupid enough to lunge forward or give you their hand in a downward attack. What about attacks that are not committed? Aikido dojos do not spend enough time focusing on realistic attacks in my opinion..that is why allot of aikido practioners feel the need to have studied another style before hand or will supplement their training with something more external..it shouldn't be this way. Aikido can be tremendous but it has to learn to cover, and be TAUGHT to cover all ranges and facets of combat. To expect a boxer to lunge and not faint is ridiculous..to expect to get a perfect throw or an arm bar/lock on someone in the street is equally ridiculous unless you have phenomenal skill or you hit him many times first..something most people do NOT have. Why? because it takes so long to attain and is dependent on the attributes of the individual and the instruction he/she receives.

A good discussion here though.



I think you need to be careful about overgeneralizing in this area. I trained for about sixteen years in other martial arts before starting aikido. I can tell you that in the dojo where I train, the advanced students are definitely able to handle what you might call "street type" or attacks from other martial arts. How? because I've seen them do it in the dojo, and I pity anyone that would attack these folks (well, almost). It's also important to remember that aikido is an art whose goal is not to teach someone to be a better fighter, but a better human being. Obviously this is my opinion, but one that I believe is shared by many.

Rolling Elbow
9th October 2000, 19:31
Is there any place where myself and others can view this aikido in a street type demonstration? I continue to have my doubts and would love to see it if you could suggest a source. I still have this problem then..if aikido is meantto make you a better person..then why undo all that you have learnt in other arts which will make you a more competent fighter when you have to be? I prefer to be a better fighter right now than a better person..although it bugs me because i feel aikido should also make one a more competent fighter..the argument goes in circles :)

George Ledyard
9th October 2000, 19:45
Originally posted by dainippon99
Why is it that almost every aikido dojo or otherwise website that i go to always claim that aikido has no punches or kicks? has it become a popular thing play at complete lack of atemi? O sensei said that aikido was 70 percent atemi.
Since people seem to come and go on the firum fairly rapidly I'll post this again. It is an article that I wrote a while back about atemi in Aikido. I've posted the link before so apologies to those who may have already seen it.
http://www.aikieast.com/atemi.htm
I hope this helps the discussion for those who are new to the eternal atemi discussion in Aikido.

dainippon99
9th October 2000, 20:59
I have only practiced aikido (well some experience with other arts at a young age). My sensei sort of emphasizes atemi. not to the point of "you have to hit them" but he always says "in a knife fight your gonna get cut, in a fist fight you are gonna get hit. if you cant hit back just enough to shock your opponent so you can get something on him, then your aikido is worth sh**. Because it is very rare that a techinique will happen without some form of parry (which can be considered atemi) or strike." Plus, aikido teaches good use of the hips, and out of 2 years training, i can give quite a punch due to my training in aikido.

kenkyusha
9th October 2000, 21:02
Originally posted by Rolling Elbow
[snip]
I still have this problem then..if aikido is meantto make you a better person..then why undo all that you have learnt in other arts which will make you a more competent fighter when you have to be? I prefer to be a better fighter right now than a better person..although it bugs me because i feel aikido should also make one a more competent fighter..the argument goes in circles :)
Funny,

I would argue that a 'do doesn't achieve the goal of self-improvement if it doesn't make one proficient at the given skill-set. An example this attitude is of cha-no-yu practitioners who can't sit in seiza without bouncing around, and can't boil a cup o' tea. How can they claim to have gained benefit from the art?

No one (but you, who by your own admission haven't trained in Aikido) is asserting that one must unlearn combative skills, it is more loosing the accompanying tension (which tends to hamper one's ability to do Aikido). For many people that come to Aikido after training in other arts, the process of learning is different; waza change from uke to uke in a way that hitting stuff doesn't. :shadowmas From my perspective, these arts are complimentary rather than antagonistic, but it helps not to be a true believer... the right set of circumstances can topple anyone. Who was it that said, "Shut up and train"? :D

Be well,
Jigme

Rolling Elbow
9th October 2000, 21:10
I was merely referrign to what another individual had noticed about having to undue many habits previously learned..I have no experience in aikido and I plan not to until i feel myself confident and capable in "real" combat applications and scenarios. As for the "shut up and train" statement, I will go on recordas saying that I am soo tired of people putting that in their signatures, spouting it out wherever and whenever they can..and just the site of it in text makes me think of an army of sheep being led to the slaughter...can no-one think for themselves anymore lol?

Mike Collins
10th October 2000, 00:40
In Aikido, atemi exists. It is possible to refuse to acknowledge atemi, but if it's Aikido, it exists. It is possible to force atemi where it has no business being inserted, and that may or may not be Aikido (or even good martial art). A throw can be atemi. If you think of using your hip to perform atemi, technique gets easier.

There is a politic within the Aikido community which kind of makes being very martial "not correct" and there are many who prefer to not think in terms of atemi, nevertheless- in Aikido, atemi exists.

There is a huge difference between being truly martial, and being physically powerful. Martial prowess stays with you long after physical power fades.

The ones among us who insist on being physically powerful (long after it's appropriate) cause some of us who are acutely interested in martial proficiency to get painted with the same brush as they. It gets worse if you are of a martial mind and are physically strong (which is different than desiring physical power).

And you guys be nice to each other. It makes us all look silly to start throwing around angry sentiments. Here, we discourse and intercourse.

mccollum thomas sean
10th October 2000, 01:34
I have just started learning about Aikido and seem to see a lot of flaws in most arguments made against "strikes" here. Of course their are strikes in Aikido as in any other fighting arts. But the goal of Aikido is (at least in my respect) ulimate ethical combat. O Sensei's goal was searching to find a harmonious way for two persons to interact with life and within combat.

In Karate one can break an arm with the correct block right? Thats a strike? or is it a block? In Aikido a strike is taken and dismissed as a misunderstanding that the attacker is not as "developed, smart or enlightened" as the defender. but if one drops an attacker on his head, or uses a different lever postion on his arm is that more of a srtike? Is this Aikido?

I think that those people stating that Aikiko is "weaker or does not have the force nesscary of handling an attacker" should look again. It is not that their is no strike but that it is applied to suit the ethics with in a given system.
Than think is it really a "block", "deflection", "strike" or process that you are looking at.

This is my first post I am trying to become more knowledgable about martial arts rather than being a guy of can fight. thank you. also sorry if this is ruff or not Up to "par" but i need to get my feet wet.

with grace
sean thomas mccollum

Mike Collins
10th October 2000, 01:43
Welcome Sean, nice name.

As to the post itself, you kind of have to do Aikido a while to understand what is missing in your understanding of it. That's not a slam, I just don't have the words to say whats missing from your post. There is a bit about energy, circularity, blending that I don't think you yet fully grasp, but that's good, it is the best time of your Aikido life. The beginning is absolutely the most eye opening and fun. Enjoy.

As to effectiveness, well let that be not very important for just now. It'll come soon enough.

R Erman
10th October 2000, 03:23
It seems to me that many of the Aikido teachers professing the "no striking" aspect are usually those who are trying to promote the self-development side of the art over the utilitarian side. Certainly they have the right to stress whatever aspects they want, but, these people should be up front and say that what they offer is not practical self defense. We have enough martial artists out there offering crap and then telling students that they are prepared for the street.

I am an Aikijujutsuka, but I've seen some very impressive Aikido people, who practice in a manner that promotes street effectiveness. I've never seen M Saotome claim that Aikido has no strikes. And I don't think any of his students espouse otherwise.

As far as no one being stupid enough to lunge in for attack...people in the street rarely throw well balanced attacks, and if you can keep your head(and center), they are easy to off balance and control. The statement was interesting coming from a Taijutsu person, since classically, most unarmed Taijutsu kata start from a grab(clinch), or a very Committed(read lunging) hidari or migi tsuke. I don't want to cause bad blood, for I greatly respect, and am heavily influenced by, Ninpo Taijutsu, but if booj techniques get altered for modern use, is it so hard to accept that Aikidoka do the same thing?

Rolling Elbow
10th October 2000, 04:22
The statement of one practitioner(and one who is not an experienced practitioner-me) hardly qualifies a generalization of the entire structure of taijutsu does it? Lunge attacks are learnt so that an individual learns concepts such as balance, positioning, timing etc..BUT, training is not limited to those types of attacks.., in most aikido dojos it is. On that, I think we can all agree. As for aikijujutsu, i think its effectiveness speaks for itself . Why then, can aikido not train with the same concepts in mind? I do not wish to cause bad blood because I know top notch aikido is awesome, unfortunately, most dojos are not teaching the same thing. They teach aikido more as an "art" rather than a "martial art"..that is all. If I contradict myself on occasion, it comes from inexperience in the field, however, i do believe that a large amount of knowledge can be derived from perception. So much has been lost I think that most people training in aikido don't stand much of a chance against someone who is overly agressive and clinching /punching right from the bat. You may think that a thug has no skill but remember, in games such as Ice hockey where fighters are used to maintaining their balance on ice while they get hit and hit in turn, you will be surprised to see how much natural sensitivity these people actually have. That is all. Besides, there seems to be a trend circulating that has people believing that studying martial arts for "internal" and harmonious reasons is more valuable than training for external combat competency..That I think is ridiculous. Tai-chi, Bagua, and H-sing practioners attain internal harmony and power and are still able to focus this energy outward into an incredibly effective fighting system. Any art, internal or external (and I know I misused the meanings of internal/external above :))which chooses to supplement its training with meditation or focus on balance and harmony is great, however, the very fact that realistic fighting skills are being learnt should not be forgotten. Furthermore, any art that is practiced should cause the practitioner to feel some type of harmony with himself. Whether it is a feeling of confidence or completeness, these feelings will have a positive effect on the individual, and he inturn, will affect society in the same way..., hopefully.

P.S- Don't worry about the bad blood, I hardly represent an entire system. I am more concerned about effectiveness than I am about arguing or hurting people's feelings.

R Erman
10th October 2000, 05:56
Rolling Elbow,

I'm glad you made your point more clear(to me). I agree that Aikido teachers should teach with a more combat conscious mindset, for those who want it. Aikido is a discipline about subjugating your aggressive tendencies, like a lot of other budo claim to be. So I don't feel that it is ridiculous that this is stressed more than combat. I personally try to balance combat practicality with personal life development. They go hand in hand, although class time is regulated more to physical technique. My problem is with so many Aikido teachers using self-defense as a marketing tool for recruiting new students. If these schools would stress that they emphasize harmonious interaction with others, and meditation, I've not a problem with them.

As to the internal chinese arts you mentioned. Baguazhang and Hsing-I have very good combat application. Tai Chi does also, but I think there are far fewer Tai Chi instructors teaching combat aplication than Aikido instructors exploring realistic application, in my experience.

By the way, do you have a chinese background as well as your Taijutsu training? Your username puts me in mind of trapping(Bahn Sau=Rolling Elbow).

Thanks

Rolling Elbow
10th October 2000, 19:40
I'm glad someone noticed!

No, my nickname is more out of respect for chinese martial arts and the emphasis I place on sensitivity in my training..sensitivity (backed by skill of course) is the ultimate skill. In my opinion, it allows you to feel where an opponent might go without thinking purely of techniques or what you MUST do in a given situation. I have done some research on Wing Chun and flirted with the concepts ( I love trapping ), but have found the internal styles to cover more range and focus more on body movement rather than speed and sensitivity of the hands/arms alone. "Rolling Elbow" came about because I love to use the elbows to roll off the arms, parry, hit etc.. For a time I was ready to drop japanese martial arts and begin training in either wing chun or Choy Lay fut, but I was fortunate to meet my current instructor who has experience with both those arts (and is an incredible all around martial artist). Through him, I have been able to learn trapping skills through being exposed to, and training in the Bujinkan. In fact, it is no secret that quite a bit of what is learned in taijutsu resembles chinese long hand/fist kung fu systems, showing where at least part of the Bujinkan's roots and origins lie. That is probably what I like so much about the Bujinkan(not to mention the ground and grappling skills which are neglected in allot of chinese systems). I do however continue to research and explore chinese systems, finding them more effective overall because of the emphasis they place on hand skills, sensitivity, body mechanics and flow. There is of course allot of crap out there too though..

I do agree about your statement concerning aikido by the way..if indeed it were advertised in some places to promote harmony and inner peace, then there would be nothing wrong with practicing with those objectives in mind. However, I suspect this would be hard to do as too much of it would be painful for hippies and yoga enthusiasts to get into..but like you said, when you open your doors to the public and advertise yourself as a "self defense specialist" you better be ready to deliver a system that delivers in turn.

Gil Gillespie
11th October 2000, 03:58
Hi Michael

"Just keep training" may seem like a simplistic evasive answer, but like many aphorisms the worth lies in plumbing the depths. I have heard that answer forever in my training from instructors such as Minoru Mochizuki, Mitsugi Saotome, and Hiroshi Ikeda. Don't get tired of it, for it is nothing more than an invitation to "think for yourself;" persevere in your training and cherish each session in the dojo in the spirit of "ichi go, ichi e" (one life, one chance). As you keep training you will fashion your OWN answers. Men like those don't have time for herding sheep.

davoravo
14th October 2000, 12:25
I think this debate illustrates the difference between the "soft and the "hard" styles of aikido. I previously trained in both; initially in an offshoot of Aikikai and then due to an accident of geography in the Takemusu style (Saito sensei).

In the former there was a near complete lack of atemi (or substitution with distracting slaps) and an emphasis on flowing tenkan techniques. Uke's job was to blend and flow with the technique and as uke we generated a lot of sensitivity.

I then trained in Takemusu where the students were a lot bigger and stronger, techniques were resisted (in a graded manner to allow learning) and attacks applied in an effective way. I found the sensitivity I had generated as uke did not translate to performing techniques on an uncooperative partner. I had developed poor balance and ineffective technique. There was much more emphasis on atemi, not just in a distracting manner or to initiate technique but also in body position ("you need to position your body so that you COULD deliver a kick or atemi here").

I felt that in the Takemusu school there was a much better understanding of how large flowing techniques can be broken down into smaller irimi techniques or how atemi can be inserted depending on the type or lack of resistance from uke. Aikikai techniques are more committed.

Training with aikikai students again proved just as difficult - my technique seemed a bit ponderous. I kept wanting to break with technique and flatten uke who was over blending with my technique (and thereby staying on balance till he decided to fall over). Students from different schools resist "improper" technique in different ways, either by running around or by staying put. Uke thereby enforces their own preconception of correct technique on tori/nage and the preconceptions of the school (all very well if you only have street fights with other aikidoka).

The Aikikai would never claim that what they were teaching were not effective fighting techniques but I believe the way I was taught did not lead to effective technique. On the other hand in the Takemusu school the senior students had an excellent understanding of when to throw a punch or knee in.

davoravo
14th October 2000, 12:54
Hmmm, my post seems to have missed its point. The awareness of atemi in aikido (and the awareness that uke might throw one in too if you do not take his balance) is essential to the development of effective technique.

Rolling Elbow
14th October 2000, 16:42
I think you just summed it up right there...dancing vs. knowing why dancing is not effective in the street. Knowing where to position the body and where the strikes lie means you have taken the power away from the Uke(or potential thug)..let him resist a bit- you can hit him. Let him over commit- you can control him. This was the type of strong aikido i was referring to.., it is nice to see that it is not lost. It is a shame though that most practioners are deceived into thinking that the cooperation between Tori and Uke applies to the street. It does not.

Kevin Myers
20th October 2000, 00:30
After studying several other martial styles over the years, I've found that the Aikidoka I study with have no idea how to throw a proper strike/atemi and have great difficulty avoiding anything other than a slow reverse punch. This also includes our Sensei. After being employed in law enforcement and having been in real altercations, I feel my fellow students will be at a great disadvantage in a real self defense situation.

MarkF
20th October 2000, 10:38
If you really want to wonder why the lack of atemiwaza in aikido, go to a judo dojo. While atemi makes up a good one-third to one-half of all movements in judo, it is only now that people are researching it and finding meaning for its use.

Rather than thinking of atemi as "hitting, striking, or punching" think of it as another way to kuzushi. That was its original use. It was never meant to be the "finisher" or even a hard strike. Atemiwaza can be applied "softly" as in applying a knifehand to the brachial nerve in the fulcrum of the arm and shoulder, and would force, if not to dropping a weapon, then dropping the arm, and therefore, unbalancing the opponent.

But the real reason atemi has been avoided is the time problems in training. Even if spending three hours a night, four nights a week, is not enough, and something is always sacrificed for the good of the art, in this case atemi.

There is a renewed interest today in even the most ancient of kata of judo (jujutsu), as in ko shiki no kata, which is the "ura" of judo, and originally done in full armor. Stick it out for a few decades, and you will find the time to learn anew. Besides, don't look at this lack as a problem, rather look forward to it when you have time and training to put into its place in aikido. Judo and aikido are far more similar than different, and basically are the same thing. The absence of the "go no kata" (forms of hardness) happened for a reason, the least is because it was forgotten. No, the reason is because we have found the "softness" or princples of JU to be more important than those of GO (hardness). I would place JU in importance to judo, as AI is in aikido.

Mark

chrismoses
20th October 2000, 18:28
Wanted to touch on a few points here.

Atemi- Ellis Amdur's new book (that others have mentioned around e-budo) has an EXCELLENT chapter on atemi and how it relates to Aikido training. Paraphrasing: one should always be able to deliver an effective strike throughout a given technique. One way that he suggest learning how to do this is while slowly doing a technique look for where the best atemi point would be and apply enough constant pressure there (in whatever manner is dictated by the situation) to induce movement along the path of the technique. This could mean a big fist along the back, a phoenix-eye fist (middle nuckle out) along the ribs, open hand to the groin, shoulder to the temple... If you can't apply slow pressure forcefully enough to induce movement there is a good chance that you would not be able to deliver a strong enough strike at speed to be effective. There is really a lot more in the chapter but that was a major point. For more info or to order go here: http://www.ellisamdur.com/duelingwithosensei/

Strikes and effectiveness: I agree that many schools of Aikido don't deal with strikes in a realistic way, but must insist that many schools do. I trained breifly at one school that kind of prided themselves on being more martial than most styles of Aikido, but I really felt that we were just being more muscular. Everything was done from a grab and always from static. Uke was expected to bend over backwards (literally) to keep "good connection" through a long slow muscular movement then thrown fast and hard down. There's no way someone who was trained to keep their balance and look for openings would ever get thrown. I even had one of their mid level students ask me if I knew any techniques to deal with a face punch. He had always wondered what you would do. At my current dojo I really feel we do effective technique. Atemi points are frequently pointed out and lousy strikes are deflected. I don't feel that we are mixing in other styles to compensate for Aikido's deficiencies, we are just learning aspects of Aikido that are frequently overlooked. Some of our senior students have black belt rank in other arts like Karate, Tae Kwon Doe and Kung Fu (one is even a Kung Fu Sifu) but they all feel that what is going on is effective techniques.

Kevin- if you don't think your Aikido instructor is capable of defending his/herself martially, or even throwing a decent punch, why are you still studying there? Even if your study of Aikido is purely for personal development, to develop Ki or study interpersonal relationsip, you should be learning relitively effective techniques. I really believe that the study of Aikido leads to studying universal truths about human interaction. Approaching those truths requires experiencing genuine martial techniques and reactions. Even if you are practicing dilligently but are studing erronious techniques, are you really approaching any genuine truths? I think of it as like the Platonic forms, where by studing specific examples of a thing you begin to build an understanding of the perfect form of that thing. For example suppose you are trying to get an understanding of what it means to be a chair. You study hundreds of chairs and begin to get an understanding of what a chair really is. Now what if every chair you ever studied only had 2 legs? The chair could still work if you balanced just so when you sat in it, but it was very hard to use and really wasn't very practical. You would probably conclude that the chair was an interesting idea, but that it was structurally flawed. It could be made to work but was not practical (effective) for every day use. Is this starting to sound familliar? I think a lot of people who dismiss Aikido as not martially effective have only seen "two chair leg" Aikido. Who could blame them? If Aikido ALWAYS requires elaborate set-ups and total compliance from Uke than maybe it isn't really Aikido? From what I have seen and heard, O-Sensei would just call people up and present them a target, or deal with what they did. There are many stories of advanced practitioners coming in and just being invited to attack him. I really doubt that he told Karateka how to puch or Judoka how to throw, he just dealt with them. In an attempt to make Aikido more structured and approachable, we must not lose site of the goal of Aiki to effectively blend with whatever attack occurrs.

OK, enough out of me, back to lurking...

Kevin Myers
20th October 2000, 21:49
Chris,

I continue to study Aikido because I enjoy it and find it very relaxing. As for self defense I continue to practice my base art, Hapkido, which I find to be a very well rounded system and more realistic for street defense.

MarkF
21st October 2000, 09:39
Isn't "Hapkido" the Korean pronunciation of Aikido?

Mark

Rolling Elbow
21st October 2000, 22:35
Hapkido is closer if anything to jiujutsu. Add the fancy kicks and there is your difference. In my opinion, Hapkido comes no closer to understanding true Aikido then do most jiujutsu practitioners. Apart from the standard wristslocks or projections that are taught, hapkido cannot be considered korean aikido. There is only one aikido, it is japanese. Furthermore, for those who have said that aikido is in part based on chinese pakua/bagua...I don't really see it. Although the founder of aikido did spend time in China during the war with the Japanese occupying forces, I don't see a great deal of bagua in aikido techniques. Why? let's go back to the original argument...bagua strikes WAY more than aikido does and I think their foot patterns/stepping patterns differ considerably.

I welcome anyone who knows more on this subject to add more but for the aikido=hapkido, I think that it is safe to say that there is no real link there. If you disagree, just look at Bussey and decide whether or not this equation works for you:

Bussey=Aikido? NO WAY.

Rolling Elbow
21st October 2000, 22:43
I also just remembered this tid bit of information which is both foggy in my mind and NOT a proven fact so take it as you like. I seem to remember certain hapkido historians trying to link hapkido's origins with a korean immigrant who was serving one of the prominent aiki-jujutsu/samurai families in Japan. Don't ask me why, but this individual was permitted because of his loyalty or some other reason, to learn the art from his Japanese masters or "sponsors" and presto! That is one theory...although, others will say that hapkido is more like Hwrang Do and based on hundreds of years of Korean battle field fighting...hell, they explain having to kick high in order to knock off opponents from their horses..beats me.

I cannot prove any of this, but this is a forum for exchanging ideas so again I would welcome any input on this subject....So in conclusion lol, if anything, Hapkido might be based on aiki-jujutsu. I would rule out its relation to aikido though. (even though aikido has its roots in aiki-jujutsu, i think hapkido is still too far removed)

[Edited by Rolling Elbow on 10-21-2000 at 04:46 PM]

mccollum thomas sean
21st October 2000, 23:45
i thought that hapkido was some newer form of an older martail art called Yu-sol. also i thought that hapkido was deploved by a Korean man whom lived in Japan during the ocupation named Choi Yong Shul. but to make my point that Hapkido was much like aikido (genreal statement) until it was changed after the 1950's to be a more offensive.

?
sean

Rolling Elbow
22nd October 2000, 00:55
We have a name to put to the art however despite the fact that I obviously made an error with regards to the japanese teacher having been a samurai (but definitely must have been from a line of prestigious family-Samurai class prior to 19th century if my Japanese history class/text serves me well.."modernization of Japan"). The art must have remained in the family and the Korean man must have been taught aiki-jujutsu because prior and during the IInd World War, the founder of Aikido would not yet have cultivated his style. To assume that it was based on aikido until the hits were put back does not logically follow the time line.

Gene McGloin
22nd October 2000, 03:13
Isn't "Hapkido" the Korean pronunciation of Aikido?


I was once told by a TKD/Hapkido instructor from Korea that this was the case. Same kanji and all. I was then informed that aikido actually came from Korea to begin with! I believe the basis for that theory comes from some tales of Sokaku Takeda sensei of the Daito-ryu secretly teaching that art to a Korean servant in his family's employ. Very sketchy stuff as I recall. I remember reading something about this at the Aikido Journal website some time ago. I'm sure Mr. Pranin knows more about the details on this one.


Gene

szczepan
22nd October 2000, 04:34
Originally posted by chrismoses
Wanted to touch on a few points here.

Atemi- Ellis Amdur's new book (that others have mentioned around e-budo) has an EXCELLENT chapter on atemi and how it relates to Aikido training. Paraphrasing: one should always be able to deliver an effective strike throughout a given technique. One way that he suggest learning how to do this is while slowly doing a technique look for where the best atemi point would be and apply enough constant pressure there (in whatever manner is dictated by the situation) to induce movement along the path of the technique. This could mean a big fist along the back, a phoenix-eye fist (middle nuckle out) along the ribs, open hand to the groin, shoulder to the temple... If you can't apply slow pressure forcefully enough to induce movement there is a good chance that you would not be able to deliver a strong enough strike at speed to be effective. There is really a lot more in the chapter but that was a major point. For more info or to order go here: http://www.ellisamdur.com/duelingwithosensei/


OK, enough out of me, back to lurking...




Well, I'm not sure it is so simple.
First, when applying atemi even very advanced students break fluidity of technique.So for beginners it will be many,many years kind of "robotic" aikido - a complete disaster of teaching them harmony and spontanouse mouvement.
"robotic" aikido is VERY easy to teach, but is it idea of O'sensei aikido(even in his video from early 30 - aikibudo period - he does very fluent techniques!!!!!)?
In this moment you must chose what idea is more important for you to pass on.

Secondly, how you avoid to replace poor technique with atemi? If you dont use too much atemi, you will see many openings in your technique very soon, so you get a chance to work on.Otherwise, you will create a mechanism of delivering atemi every time when technique doesn't work, so students will not have any motivation to develop correct technique.

And what happens if attacker makes good bloc and deliver conter atemi faster and stronger(after all we in aikido are not specialists of atemi)?So aikido will be un exchange of atemi? :D like a boxing?.....hmhm.....there is any difference between aikido and boxing?

In actual fight clean atemi is very rare.Difficult to get moving target.So attacker will be back.

How to avoid students put more attention on atemi then on techniques?

regardz

BC
23rd October 2000, 16:02
Originally posted by MarkF
Isn't "Hapkido" the Korean pronunciation of Aikido?

Mark




The kanji for aikido and hapkido are the same. This was confirmed to me once by a Korean store owner once who looked at the kanji on my aikido dojo t-shirt, and said "Ah, hapkido." I corrected him that it was for aikido, and he informed me about the kanji. To the best of my knowledge, both terms mean the same when translated into English, although they are different martial arts. Occasionally we get hapkido students who start classes at our dojo and note some similarities between certain techniques (but not identical!). This is probably due to the claim by both arts that their respective founders trained in Daito-ryu Aikijujitsu prior to creating their arts. Sorry for the deviation from the thread topic, but it seemed no one else felt the need to clarify.

chrismoses
23rd October 2000, 16:51
Hey this thread is fun! I had a couple more points...

Hapkido-Aikido, yes the characters are the same and the official Hapkido story is that their founder (a Korean) learned Daito-Ryu from Sokaku Takeda around the same time as O-Sensei. He then went back to Korea and founded Hapkido, a different art from Aikido but with the same foundation of techniques. How much of this is true is all up for debate but lots of people in the know think that it is ver reasonable to believe that something very much like this did in fact happen. They are different arts and are practiced differently even though they are written the same. SIDENOTE: years ago my girlfriend (also an aikidoka) worked at a coffee shop owned by a Korean gentleman who had done several martial arts in his youth. Every morning he would ask, "How was Hapkido last night?" She would say, "Aikido, Aikido" to which he would reply, "Yes, Hapkido!" Anyway...

I also wanted to clarify a few statements in relation to the previous post. As to replacing poor technique with Atemi: not knowing where the atemi is during a technique (even if you aren't doing it) IS bad technique. (IMHO) At the same time, I think that always training as Ellis Amdur recommended (and I paraphrased in my earlier post) would probably be too much. It's a method for learning about the openings for atemi in a given technique, but I think that a good understanding of the traditional version of the technique would be required before using the slow pressure method to explore openings. I don't think that Ellis meant that to be the only way to practice. As to what would happen if your atemi was deflected/ countered... That's why you need to practice it! If you go along never actually doing any atemi and thinking, "Well I've always got atemi!" maybe what you think of as atemi is the easiest thing in the world to swat away. At the same time however, lets say someone does deflect an atemi and counter, wee, a new strike! Something else to work with! I think a lot of people never practice dealing with more than one attack from uke. How realistic is that? Punch me! Hey you think you can hit me again? Cool, hit me again! I need to know about it, I may even be depending on it!

Ron Tisdale
23rd October 2000, 17:02
Scszpan asked:

"How to avoid students put more attention on atemi then on techniques? "

Well, I would say by learning techniques that contain atemi and are built on the principles of aikido, and using atemi that are designed to work with aikido (not "importing" atemi from other martial arts).

I think that this is one of the values of training in Yoshinkan. The basic techniques taught are not made up by assistant instructors, or techniques made up on the fly, but techniques specifically formulated to teach certain principles. One of the principles taught is where and how to use atemi. The atemi are taught as an integral part of the technique, not as something stuck in so that we can be more "martial".

An example might be katate mochi, shihonage, osae ichi (one hand grasp, all direction throw, pin number one.

Aihamne stance, shite offers back (left) hand, uke reaches with the right (forward) hand.

Shite leads down and to their center with the hand before uke makes contact, bringing uke slightly off balance. As they make contact with the hand, shite draws their right hand back to their ear, and delivers a snapping strike (with focus) to the space between uke's nose and upper lip.

Shite then performs after class exercise number one, for the shihonage throw and pin.

Too much of a strike (say, a shotokan reverse punch) can actually destroy the timing and flow of the techinque.

If uke blocks the strike, I'm happy, because I'm already moving into the shihonage throw while they are trying to block and counter. Their blocking keeps them busy, and shows a convincing strike on my part. I worry more about full contact fighters who simply ingore hard strikes by not reacting to them and pushing through them to score their own hits. Again, I should be moving already to make myself a harder target, and the shihonage grip should be keeping uke off balance.

If uke is already off balance from tai sabaki, and then you atemi, it increases the power of the atemi naturally, without over stressing it.

If 50% to 80% of the basic techniques used for testing contain correct atemi, I'm certain that students can learn how to apply them correctly.

My thoughts on it, anyway.
Ron Tisdale

davoravo
24th October 2000, 11:26
I agree that flow and dynamic movement is important and characteristic of Aikido. In contrast with Szczepan I think that beginners should be taught in a slightly robotic style. Not just to learn the basic movement but also to develop a good base and balance. Dynamic technique evolves from this.

I don't think teaching atemi worsens the robotic stage. On the contrary I find as I go on that techniques open up (like a lotus flower - LOL) and techniques within techniques and atemi within technique reveal themselves.

Using atemi also keeps uke alive and maintaining a martial awareness. I think learning to block those atemi are important as it is probably a little jab from an unbalanced opponent to which aikidoka would be most vulnerable.

PS Chrisian, if you don't maind me asking, what was the school you trained in that was "muscular".

davoravo
24th October 2000, 12:30
I'd just like to add that to a certain extent these things are fashionable. For a while everyone was into the peace and harmony and atemi have been de-emphasised. Now No Holds Barred and Close Combatives have become popular and Aikidoka have responded by becoming more interested in the combat side of the art.

Ron Tisdale
24th October 2000, 13:56
Some schools (Yoshinkan amoung them) have always stressed the more martial aspects. It is not a new fad....there is a consistant history that can be traced to the days of aikibudo.

Ron Tisdale

davoravo
24th October 2000, 15:45
Sorry. I meant to imply that schools that have drifted away from the martial aspect to the spiritual may find themselves pulled back by their students. This of course does not refer to the schools led by Osensei's pre war students which have retained their martial aspect.

MarkF
25th October 2000, 09:32
Originally posted by Kevin Myers:


I continue to study Aikido because I enjoy it and find it very relaxing. As for self defense I continue to practice my base art, Hapkido, which I find to be a very well rounded system and more realistic for street defense.


It was this post which had me thinking about the similarity in name only to aikido, but I was, in no way, equating hapkido with aikido, except by name.

As to the stories of Choi being the recipient of THE scrolls of daito ryu, I read that his bags were stolen from him when he turned his back in a train station in Japan.

I love the stories, but it doesn't make any of them true.:)

Mark

szczepan
26th October 2000, 04:35
Originally posted by Ron Tisdale


If uke blocks the strike, I'm happy, because I'm already moving into the shihonage throw while they are trying to block and counter. Their blocking keeps them busy, and shows a convincing strike on my part. I worry more about full contact fighters who simply ingore hard strikes by not reacting to them and pushing through them to score their own hits. Again, I should be moving already to make myself a harder target, and the shihonage grip should be keeping uke off balance.

My thoughts on it, anyway.
Ron Tisdale

Let's not forget most of beginers( and only them:) ) are not able to follow one technique after another as response to block.Instead they try to punch or kick back or block.
In the other hand block against strike doesn't exist alone, block can very often be un attack itself,or beginning of serie of attacks.Here we enter in strategy of sparring and aikidokas are not ready for that at all.Nobody teach in aikido tactic or strategy for sparring/fight.

It is very difficult to do aikido technique in accord with principles when uke helps, and you want to rise drastically up level of difficulty right from the beginning?

Also, to be faire, if tori has right to strike, uke must have his right also and not only one time in the beginning of attack, but during technique complete.So structured training(it become sparring) will be impossible under these conditions.

Every technique must be done in a special rythm to create response of attacker.Breaking this rythm by striking all openings in attacker position will may be kill or injure him, but is devastating to learn that aikido is about.
I'd see atemi as a tool to put tori's body in right position facing attack(distanse and timimg) and not really to hit him(see your example of full contact fighters ).There so many nicer ways to affect attacker.

regardz

davoravo
26th October 2000, 10:29
"Also, to be faire, if tori has right to strike, uke must have his right also"

Agree (sort of). There are places in technique - such as in katae-goshi when Tori changes direction to apply the wrist turn and complete the throw - where Uke could launch a counter attack with his/her free hand. Half the time I put in atemi here to occupy that hand and half the time my atemi actually becomes a block. This works equally as well (also occurs in shiho nage).

Also agree that nobody teaches sparring tactics (except perhaps in Ken No Kata) and we should avoid this. If I were to get into an exchange of punches with another person (let alone another martial artist) I know who would come off second best. IMHO the true gold of aiki is in attacking Uke's whole self (call it Ki, call it intention, call it balance, call it centre) rather than just applying a strike to the face or body or even to an attacking limb which has limited and unpredictable effects. This neccessitates taking Uke's balance and sometimes you need atemi to get them moving (eg from lapel grab).

I am in favor of atemi in training but I would just like to add a quote I saw on a tai chi site: "The fist is a tool of the ego". Just a reason not to get carried away. Since I started aikido I have not needed a martial art to defend myself - I have learnt to disarm aggressive people with politeness. Also there is a story on the "Judo as a fighting art" thread that describes an aikidoka sparring and forgetting to grapple (pardon for not ascribing).

Ron Tisdale
26th October 2000, 14:47
Hi Szczpan,

That is why we have shite uke training. Uke and shite both have specific roles in terms of the technique. You start out with the basic technique, both people playing their role. As the students progress, they can go deeper into the technique, try some interesting things, find out more about the principles behind the technique by exploring other options. When a beginner, stick to the technique. As you progress, there is freestyle.

Again,
"If uke is already off balance from tai sabaki, and then you atemi, it increases the power of the atemi naturally, without over stressing it."

This, I believe, is the heart of the matter. Its not just tai sabaki, its not just atemi, its not just shihonage(or any other technique). Its all three combined.

I disagree that aikido does not teach strategy for sparring/fight. I think the strategy of aikido works well for both. Things like entering strongly, not opposing force with force, balance, focus and harmony can certainly all be applied. Aikidoka *practise* in that arena much less than other MAs. But that does not mean the strategy does not work there. And the strategies I mentioned are definately taught in aikido. As are strong atemis, in many styles.

Hi David,

Our basic techniques for kote gaeshi always stress to fill that "hole" with atemi. There is a definate gap there without it. Good post.

Ron Tisdale

M Clarke
30th October 2000, 01:42
Good day to you all.
Training in Iwama style, atemi is taught and used in every entry, at every level. What is irimi nage but in truth an atemi start to finish? And a beautiful and devestating one at that. In suwari waza, atemi and move first, pin next. Throws... move with an atemi. Our dojo also trains with friends from Yoshinkan and Tomiki.... they all do the same. Use atemi as an integral part of their techniques, whether to confuse or to finish.
As for the effectiveness of aikido atemi... developement of the infrastructure necessary to deliver a powerful (kokyu) blow comes from receiving, nikkyo, sankyo, yonkyo. The strength and coordination of hip/hara to arm to deliver an effective blow comes from practicing nage waza and from developing kokyu from kihon. Timing and distancing for delivery of an effective blow come from buki waza including tanren uchi. Just because aikidoka don't often train with makiwara is not to say that they can't produce an atemi.
Please excuse the didactic tone. It is an important and enjoyable thread and this is just my opnion which is always open to readjustment.
Regards

George Ledyard
30th October 2000, 15:10
Originally posted by davoravo
I'd just like to add that to a certain extent these things are fashionable. For a while everyone was into the peace and harmony and atemi have been de-emphasised. Now No Holds Barred and Close Combatives have become popular and Aikidoka have responded by becoming more interested in the combat side of the art.

A lot of this is regional. I was talking about the dificulties of growing a good dojo with Saotome Sensei and I told him that my model was his own dojo in Washington DC where I had started. He said that it would be very difficult on the West Coast because people out here were more interested in the spiritual / philosophical side of things and it would be difficult to find many students who wanted to train as we has done in the early days. Certainly in the Seattle area this is true.

Also, you will notice that the vast majority of contributors to this forum are male. I have not noticed that any high ranking female instructors have contributed. In the Seattle area the majority of dojos are run by women. This is largely due to the efforts of Mary Heiny Sensei over a decade of teaching here. But a couple of the dojos are run by female former students from my own school. I would say that generally there is a big difference in focus between the concerns expressed by the male practitioners of the art and the female. So this forum, because it lacks much in the way of female instructor level input, is skewed towards the harhder side of training and much more concerned with the issues of what is effective and what is not than it would be if there were more accurate representation. There is a very large number of female teachers of Aikido, more than any art other than T'ai Chi I suspect, and we are not really seein their input here which effects our sense of what is the general opinion out there in Aikido land.

Gil Gillespie
31st October 2000, 06:53
Interesting. I returned earlier from (Monday night) advanced training. My sensei, an old friend of George's, taught an entire class on what happens when an Aikidoka confronts a karateka or boxer. His point was that usually the Aikidoka gets lured into "fighting" and always loses. Why? First because we get away from what we're trained to do. Mixing and confronting is not Aikido.

And second, and way more important, that gets us away from what we are. We are not fighters. We attempt to bring our Aikido training into our daily lives. Aikido is non-confrontational. Aikidoka should be. The theme of tonight's class as it unfolded was to move out of range. Punch-punch-kick-punch. The challenge was to stretch the attacker's range increasingly slightly. To engage is invariably to lose. At some juncture, the attacker will be overextended and the Aikidoka's window for technique will appear.

It was an intriguing class. Usually Monday night is grind the stone; crash and burn. Bodies fly. Blood sometimes flows. It's the joy of hard training. But tonight was researching a different slant. Sensei had uke crouch in boxing stance and routinely popped his forehead. When uke stood relaxed and upright as an Aikidoka, Sensei couldn't touch him. Uke's hands were much lower but he was relaxed and nonconfrontational. All the difference in the world.

At the end of class Sensei had uke come in for hard choke. He came up from underneath, splitting uke's hands and with irimi painfully pinching the insertion of uke's trapezius muscles just above his collarbones. As a further illustration of the evening's philosophy Sensei taught that the entering hands must be soft. Hard energized hands would fill the space in uke's throat and queer the technique.

Overall an amazing memorable class.

szczepan
31st October 2000, 16:41
Originally posted by Gil Gillespie


Sensei had uke crouch in boxing stance and routinely popped his forehead. When uke stood relaxed and upright as an Aikidoka, Sensei couldn't touch him. Uke's hands were much lower but he was relaxed and nonconfrontational. All the difference in the world.


hmh.......so there wasn't any real boxer to attack "relaxed and upright as an Aikidoka" uke? if we teach dynamic interaction boxer vs aikidoka wouldn't be smart invite a real boxer(not neccesserly M.Tyson) just to see if theories of you sensei make any sens?

regardz

autrelle
31st October 2000, 20:04
i participated in a match bout with a "real boxer." since i can't box, i naturally used aikido after getting punched really hard a few times. the aikido worked out just fine against the boxer, and i have never done any sort of special case scenario training to accomodate a boxer specifically.

davoravo
1st November 2000, 00:42
One of the dojos in town had a student who also competed in kickboxing. At one of his bouts his aikido sensei walked in and the student slipped into an Irimi-nage. Knocked his opponent out cold. Unfortunately this was totally illegal and the aikido student was disqualified.

Interestingly the times I have heard of aikido being used in self defense Irimi nage was the technique used on all occasions except one when a beginner student (2 lessons) used a big circle to spin away from his attacker and flee.

Haimeman
1st November 2000, 02:08
Hello,

Please excuse my ignorance, but what is ha pon yoi?
Thanks.

James feleciano

davoravo
1st November 2000, 03:06
This thread has been a great trip down memory lane. I've been dredging up all the times a sensei has atemi'd me and called it a throw. One teacher had great technique (yoshinkan I think) that was a backhand atemi with the bones of the wrist to the centre of the forehead. He would then unfurl his wrist so his fist rolled across the forehead and knocked down uke. He called this an irimi variation but if uke failed to ukemi it was a double strike (he had fists like iron mallets).

check out Irimi #1 video to see the kind of thing I mean... http://www.aikiweb.com/multimedia/videos.html

Gil Gillespie
1st November 2000, 03:26
Szcazpan, You miss the point of the boxer vs Aikidoka post. It was not my sensei's "theories;" it was his observation of 40 years in budo and 35 in Aikido. The tap to the forehead illustration was 5 minutes in a 90 minute class. The entire point was mindset. He's been through the who-can-kick-whose-ass milieu you use to define everything. He's way beyond that now. The point throughout the whole class was not to get lured into confronting someone else's strength (in this case the linear boxer or karateka). Basic kihon Aikido.

Gil Gillespie
1st November 2000, 03:54
Hi James

The only Ha Pon Yoi I'm familiar with is Minoru Mochizuki Sensei's personal karate kata. He's been tweaking it forever, it seems. He's the founder of Yoseikan Budo, a syncretic art featuring the judo of his early days as Kano's disciple, the Aikido he learned after studying for years with Ueshiba, and karate. Yoseikan is very underrepresented on this website, and many of us have learned to be suspicious of syncretic arts. But at 92 years old Sensei holds 60 dans in his various arts and as late as last year was still attending classes "because I might see something I've never seen before."

In the Yoseikan Ha Pon Yoi kata the budoka performs 4 series of blocks and strikes (adding up to 8 moves; "ha, hachi" =8). I'm sure any Judoka or Karateka could identify each by name. But simply, facing the Shomen to begin, the budoka turns to his left, left hand block right elbow strike. Turning clockwise 180 to his rear,low right hand block left hand tegatana strike to eye socket. Turning 90 degrees counterclockwise to his left (facing Shomen again) left hand block right hand straight punch. Twisting knees and hips to right driving left fist down to block kick to groin upward right elbow strike. Usually the sequence is repeated starting to the right this time, so each move is done as a symetrical reverse, training both sides of the body. Theoretically the kata could repeat ad infinitum.

Ha Pon Yoi is a heavy part of the Yoseikan Aikido classes. The kata is repeated dozens of times as various students are called forward to lead it, testing their spirit and accuracy.

There may be other MA applications under this same name. I would be interested to learn about them.

szczepan
1st November 2000, 15:32
Originally posted by Gil Gillespie
Szcazpan, You miss the point of the boxer vs Aikidoka post. It was not my sensei's "theories;" it was his observation of 40 years in budo and 35 in Aikido. The tap to the forehead illustration was 5 minutes in a 90 minute class. The entire point was mindset. He's been through the who-can-kick-whose-ass milieu you use to define everything. He's way beyond that now. The point throughout the whole class was not to get lured into confronting someone else's strength (in this case the linear boxer or karateka). Basic kihon Aikido.

Hi Gil,

I didn't miss your point :) I also believe training mindset is one of most important part of aikido training and not very many teachers teach it.
Now, to teach things like that and to kick ass around there are two different things.I belive your teacher can kick ass anybody around, no prob.
However, for teaching mindset against a boxer you need a real boxer, not somebody pretending to be boxer.In this case a boxer is a teaching tool.And a real boxer it is not the same as aikodoka-boxer or budoka-boxer.
real boxer is very dynamic, stable,aggressive,and have his own strategy and tactics for attacking and intimidating purposes.If somebody believe it is easy to overextend his attack - well, this is pure fantasy.Even beginners boxers know distans and timing much, much better that big majority of aikidoka.

I believe in atemi training there is no substitude for right tools (real atemi,real timing and maai,angle of attack,etc).
In training mindset against atemi we also need the right tools.

regardz

Gil Gillespie
1st November 2000, 16:14
Hello, again, Szczepan

Good points in your post. All true. When I said that you missed the point, the point was not learning to fight a boxer per se. If that were the goal of the class, then yes a real boxer would be "the right tool." The point was to NOT get lured into a "fight" with someone on their terms. Not to let any situation change us as Aikidoka which is a lifestyle we pursue, not just an aggregate of techniques to learn.

Also as ukes, we needed to experience delivering the oncoming combination of punches and kicks a real linear fighter would employ. As ukes we usually never do that. Aikido is too often attack/ technique. Again, sensei was going beyond waza (technique) to heiho (strategy). The goal of his teaching was way beyond the "reality" of the boxer. That would merely upgrade the quality of the uke and make the lesson one of pure combat. The forest would get lost for the trees.

If you read "Go Rin No Sho" as only a sword manual and ignore the whole lesson of large scale strategy and big picture thinking, then you miss the point. And if you view a class like I was describing as merely combat cross-training, then my friend, you've missed the point there as well.