PDA

View Full Version : Ground defense



ellison
5th February 2001, 16:12
I'm interested in studying Aikido but I have noticed that ground defense is not taught. Most defenses are practiced from the standing and sitting position. How does Aikido address the possibility of defending when you are on your back?

Matthew Banks
5th February 2001, 19:58
Well, it doesnt address ground work from the mount and guard position etc etc. This is due to the fact that, the whole idea is that they never get you on the ground. I know thats a bit of a crap answer, but its the truth. Aikidoka fight in a way which defends against multiple attacks. Thus any pin to the floor we use, is easily released and in a postion that we have all round awareness. The movement of avoidence from attacks is called 'tenkan' it is very unique, its a turnung movement so that any attacker, will lose balance and youll use his/her energy against that person. By the same token its very direct, thundering through someones weak centre line totally taking them out. The movements are especially practical against weapon attacks, which I dont know of many other arts that are as siuted to it. From the begining you deal with multiple attack ideas, defence against weapons etc etc. In my school we do defence against live knife for shodan and live katana for nidan. The ground work isnt traditionally addressed, as it goes against the fundamental rules of aikido tecnique. However any good aikido club address gournd work on (practical sessions). You wont find a better art for, multiple attack defence, weapon defence, and arresting tecniques to apprehend someone, due to the stressing of the 4 controls e.g. sankajo.

I train on the weekends with a shootfighting oraganisation called the British Thajuka federation- it deals with Brazilian jiu jitsu and other striking tecniques.

Most attacks on someone, are done by more than 1v1 its 1v2+
I have statistics in my district police station which prove it nationally. Thus groundwork is useless against more than one attacker, thus possble less practical for real life.
I mugger mormally has an accomplis if the situation goes pear shaped. Plus it is also said that most fights are over in the first 5 secs, aikido deals with this direct approach unlike grappling arts. Their more situted to sport nhb fights were theres no interferance.



Matt Banks

ellison
5th February 2001, 20:12
Matt, Thanks for the reply. From your description, it sounds like it wouldn't be necessary to learn defence from the mount/guard position becuase of Aikido technique that would prevent one from being caught in a prone position.. but then again,the popular theory is that 95% of all fights wind up on the ground.
Since you've studied BJJ can you contrast/compare with aikido?

Thanks.
Bill

Chad Bruttomesso
5th February 2001, 21:32
Mr. Bill,

Welcome to E-Budo. We look forward to your participation in our diverse discussions here in the Aikido forum. It is the policy of E-Budo that all members include their full name with each post/reply. You can do this by setting it up as a signature or by adding it in manually. Thank you very much for your understanding.

Thank you,

Chad Bruttomesso
5th February 2001, 21:37
I concur with Matt on this one. Throughout the years I have been taught that the reason we don't practice ground techniques is that we never let ourselves end up there. In my opinion, things do happen rather unexpectedly and we could by chance fall down. Not sure how Aikido is used from a technique/practical standpoint if this happens. On the other hand, I don't know of any martial art that can cover each and every eventuality in life. Maybe that is whey so many people practice more than one type of art.

Just my thoughts.

Thank you,

Matthew Banks
5th February 2001, 22:49
The theory ''95% of fights go to the ground'', is the main thing pushed by Rorion Gracie, who incidently is making 5 million a year (!!!!) in prophit from his academy. Probably alot due to that line.

GJJ and Aikido both have strong points.

In my opinion the stand up stuff in aikido is, better than GJJ, due to it regarding multiple attacks, weapons etc etc. But it lacks the ground work, which you may get into.
The thing with GJJ is that , once they teach you to against someone, knowing noone else would intervene I would control your opponent on the ground, they allways teach you to finish, rather than concentrating on escape etc etc. Dont get me wrong, if I were forced to fight in a set area use gJJ as its more siuted.
Im not sure what your looking for in aikido, but it will offer you alot more than the practical side. I train in Yoshinkan Aikido, and the idea that ''your mind controls the body , and not the other way round'' is cultivated in training. The training is tough and exilerating. In a fight its the person with the correct fighting spirit who will win. There are many many, martial artists who have been beaten, as they didnt have the correct mindset in a fight.
In aikido your sensei cultivates 'a samurai fighting mindset'' (which intially I thought was all bollocks) which helps you get through anything. Plus I like the traditional japanese side of things as well, along with the breathing excercises etc etc. I would say that GJJ is too centred around money, rather than the art.


Matt Banks

Nacho
5th February 2001, 23:23
My sensei (he's a 6th dan) has a background in judo, and once in a while he likes to surprise us with judo-like throws and holds, but using aikido principles. I think he does this to show us the endless possibilities of our art and how to deal with the unexpected (fighting on the ground is just one of the possibilities).

Ignacio R. Jaramillo (Nacho)

M Clarke
6th February 2001, 02:22
Hi,
We have all been through the cross-training threads and most agree there is validity in at least being aware of what is out there and how to counter it. So it pays to research all martial arts and blind to ignore any but your preferred. But training in aikido does not necessarily preclude an understanding of how to work on the ground. The more you train as uke, you feel the edges and gaps in nage, you find how to create openings and then principles like releasing the hip apply equally on the ground. I think the main idea is that if you feel yourself going down and a grappler has you, then use the subtly play of balance and control a la aikido to reverse or come up on top or in a controlling position. So by all means try it a couple of sessions to get a body feel of what goes on as you're going down.
Matthew... I am very interested in what you guys train to develop samurai fighting spirit, although this would probably constitute another thread. But briefly since many who come in to the dojo do so because they are not natural fighters, they need to learn not to freeze or that they have the right (long with acquiring the means) to defend themselves. We train with the idea that since we are all decent people not out to hurt others, an unprovoked attack should generate indignation and that provides the clarity and conviction to unhesitantly negate the attack. Like to hear your thoughts.
Regards
Mike

Ron Tisdale
6th February 2001, 15:58
Hi guys,
There is an earlier thread on this board started by Ruari Quinn which deals with this subject. Search on Mits Yamashita. There is a link in the thread which is a very good read.

Ron Tisdale

M Clarke
6th February 2001, 22:12
Yes, thanks Ron. Sorry for moving OT.
Mike

dainippon99
7th February 2001, 03:26
more along the fighting without using ground techniques line---

It has been emphasized to me throughout my training that the only way to deal with a real fighter (i.e.- karateka, jujutsuka,streetfighter, etc) is maai. karateka can kick you, but thats only if you fali to keep proper maai. jujutsu ka can take yout o the ground, but thats only if you do not have proper maai. having proper maai will make the attacker reach for it, so to speak, and then you can get good kuzushi. voila-thats aikido.

dainippon99
7th February 2001, 03:28
and thus good kuzuzhi equals infinite technique

autrelle
7th February 2001, 04:28
okay, everything stated about the proper use of maai and not being taken the ground is all fine and dandy-if you are perfect. i'm sorry, no one is perfect and life is not perfect. things will not always go down as you would like, so what happens if you do get taken to the ground? you get caught slipping if you are not prepared. there are accounts of O'Sensei releasing himself from being held down on the ground by five people. he did not neglect ground training in his formative years of practice, so why should any budoka who really wants to be "versatile."

real life incident: i was at a night club when i noticed a female friend of my who was standing close by. she appeared to be very upset. apparently her boyfriend was about to get in a fight with some guy over something. i went over to attempt to disuade the situation. well the guy who was abou tto fight my friend's boyfriend had his brother with him. the brother made it very clear to ME that if "anyone messes with my brother, i'm going out to my car and coming back with my gun." at this point i knew tha playtime was over and that it was just time to leave. so when i went to gather my female friend, she was struggling with the first guy who was holding by her hair and shaking her vigorously.

i will never sit by and watch acts of violence happen to any woman.

so discussion time being well over, i sped toward the guy holding my female friend and dropped him with a chin strike version of iriminage. i then turned immediately in the direction of the brother, and before he could finish the first step he tried to take toward me, i gave him the same treatment.

so here's where it gets interesting/scary. i say scary because this was a very crowded nightclub and i could not see any of my friends who might come to my aid. anyways, i turn bvack to the first person i threw, and as he got back up, i grabbed by his chin and his hair, and firmly directed him to a wooden staircase column, with which i proceeded to bang his head against a few times. then i was grabbed very forcefully from behind and i fell down on my back (i learned from that to never commit that much attention to one attacker while neglecting the big picture). as i immediately tried to get upright, about six or seven guys landed on me. three or four of them were pulling me backward along the ground, and the others were trying to control my limbs from the front. i did not know any of these guys, and i knew playtime was over for me. then i felt a slight blow to my forehead (i realized later it was one of the brothers that hit me while the others were holding me down). at that point i covered up, tried my best to sit up while being dragged the whole time, and kicked at the guys trying to control me from the top. one of them landed on me in very precarious fashion, such that he wa in a postion that very easily allowed my to apply jujigatame...

now, you're saying, "this stuff only works one-on-one and is useles against multiple attackers." agreed. but you know what my motto is? quite simply, it is this: if i ever have to engage someone in a real alercation, maybe i'll "win" maybe i won't. but i won't make it easy at all. i will not give up. and if you do "win" it still won't be pretty for you; i will make you EARN it. you will never forget the day that kick my ass on the street because you will have some sort of permanent disfiguration to remember it by, i promise. and even if there is more than one of you and you, by virtue of greater odds best me, at least ONE of you will NEVER forget that day. that's not me trying to sound tough, that's just the way i see it. real fights are no joke and should be avoided because anything can happen.

the relavance of the above statement is just to simply give you an idea of the mentality i switch to when i see i am in trouble. so i say to myself "autrelle, there are about seven guys that you don't know holding you down about to HURT you. so as long as you're getting your ass kicked autrelle, BREAK one of these motherf**ker's arm!" so i went for the armlock, had it perfectly, when i hear one of the guys yell "oh sh*t! grab his legs!" i never thoguht that BJJ's popularity would work against me like this! at least one of these guys was knowlegdeable about what i was try ing to do and how to counter it. so now i'm really scared. so as i reach into my pocket for my spyderco (at this point i felt it was their blood or mine), i heard one of them yell pronouncedly "hey man CHILL OUT! we're SECURITY!" i stopped and looked for a second and found that i was fending off the ENTIRE security staff (one of themtold me i was doing a pretty good job of it too!). they helped my up and quickly explained to me that they had seen everything that i had seen beforehand, and that i acted just a fraction of a second before they could throw the guys out themselves. they were only trying to pull me off the poor guy that i was trying to knock unconcious when they grabbed me. they weren't trying to hurt me at all and one of them actually knew me from the nightclub that i worked at at the time.

the funny thing was when one of them said to me "man i know you must know some BJJ (i have NO formal training in BJJ whatsoever!), but what was that crazy stuff you did when you flipped those dudes down?"

two last notes on strategy: the Art of War says something to the effect of "not depending on opponents not coming, rather depend on having ways to deal with them." i take this to carry the meaning of having a preparation for any situation, as opposed to trying to make the situation fit your needs.

read the Wind Scroll in Gorin No Sho lately? all this talk about controlling the maai is another way of saying that victory (for Aikidoka) is best sought from some "ideal" distance. this sounds like the kind of notion Musashi criticized when he spoke of sword schools that placed heavy emphasis on extra long swords, hoping to attain virtue through the longer length. what happens when you face someone with a longer sword (or your maai is not perfect)?

you cannot go wrong by learning some BJJ and i speak from EXPERIENCE. if you can do both Aikido and BJJ and it doesn't confuse you then go for it.

dainippon99
7th February 2001, 21:11
well, while maai is only an "ideal", i have to say that your strategy in the violent-inner nightclub you described is precarious. would it not have been good maai to , after dropping both men, take your lady freind and leave the club? from your post, you dont even sound like you were trying to resolve anything. maai doesnt have to be a priciple applied to only the fighting part of a fight.

autrelle
7th February 2001, 23:05
my friend, i only wished to point out that we as aikidoka should not make any excuses for lack of preparation. and like i said, i'm not perfect. i'm a real prick truth be told. but i do take my training seriously. let's not train with a narrow spirit, that's all. things happen, be ready.

dainippon99
8th February 2001, 00:31
i agree. my sensei was a judoka until 1990 when he started aikido (his main art now), so i get a good amount of ground training. its fun and its the type of stuff that you could study for a week then go out and use it effectively, which i guess doenst leave much room for not studying it at least a little.

9th February 2001, 22:24
Ellison-

I think the lack of ground work is a weakness of Aikido. One martial art can't cover everything. Even though. some try or think they can, every art has a weakness. Even combo's or hybrid arts have weakness. Otherwise we all would be studying the same one art.

Now since BJJ is popular and people think they have to fight on their back to win is becoming popular. This is a falsehood. Sure if you end up on the ground and you didn't get injured, and it does happen, knowing some techniques is an advantage. But, before the BJJ idea and style to take someone to the ground first came along most arts for hundreds of years focused on stand up fighting. Arts like Judo ground fighting was a secondary component. Chinese arts have ground fighting, but most like Judo these techniques are a secondary component. BJJ broke the paradigm, or went outside the box. Now many styles are making the adjustment by putting more focus on their own ground fighting techniques or practicing againist BJJ attacks.

I was told and taught Aikido like most Japanese arts value kazushi. That is getting your opponet off balance and you staying on balance. In this philosophy then we can see why Aikido doesn't go to the ground plain and simple. Aikido is not superior or inferior in relation to ground fighting styles. In this sense that burden falls on the Aikidoka or the BJJ fighter.

My Aikidoka school does practice sawari waza, not sure on the spelling since it ain't part of my spelling vocab. I am told we sit in seisa as mudansha to help us find our ki and get our center. So when we do stand and preform a waza we can utilize our ki and keep our balance. To think that I am going to sit in seisa outside of the dojo is nuts. No way I am I going to fight in that poistion. Sitting is a learning tool and not a position to fight from.

If I find myself on my back, which is more of a possibility now then before BJJ, I resort to another style outside TDK and Aikido, like BJJ or wrestling. I don't expect Aikido to be a ground fighting style, and because it isn't I then deem it worthless. BJJ and Aikido like all arts work best with home court advantage. For BJJ it is taking a brawler / it's pray refering to one of BJJ well known fighters to the ground. The advantage I see is the brawler can't grab anything to use as a weapon, and is all tied up. The disadvange like other ground fighting arts is your tied up with that one person for a while. With Aikido it is putting a knife wheeling idiot to the ground quickly, and while standing, waiting in preparation for the next idiot brawler with a broken beer bottle to come after you. Moral of the story is don't get a hammer if you need a screw driver. Both tools work well for what they are intended for.

MarkF
10th February 2001, 10:27
I seem to recall an interview (similar to the spotlight forum here) on another website with an experienced aikidoka. He had been accepted as a teacher at a police academy, but early on, one who was a college wrestler, took him down, and he could not get out of the ground technique. Nice introduction if one is there to provide and teach moves to police officers in controlling the so-called "bad actor."

So after being embarrassed, he was invited to the Gracie school, and after a while, one of Helio's sons, after his father had said something in Portuguese to him, said to the aikidoka "My father would like to wrestle you." He did.

After an exhausting session, he had to give up, and Helio gracie, in his seventies, I believe, at the time, had am ear to ear grin on his face. The aikidoka had found what was lacking in teaching his techniques to the police department, and never looked back.

No moral here, just a story I read.
****

While standing techniques are always preferred, even as said by the founder of judo, ground randori is much more challenging. It may be because it isn't done often, as stated above, and is not the prescribed position to be in, especially if there are multiple attackers. But it still contains the maxims and terms most of us know. Kuzushi, centering or keeping the center low, and submission, etc.

While all arts do, as said before, have their weaknesses, this is one which may be remedied, even if only for the feeling of centering while on one's back. Escaping is even better, and teaches the maxims even more so than being in control. It can even be practiced where no "waza" exists, just wrestling on the ground, keeping in mind everything you've learned, only you are horizontal and on the ground.

Try it? You try it! Let's get Mikey! Yeah, he'll do anything!

With apologies to Mikey.:D

autrelle
10th February 2001, 10:59
so...how about this in response to the original question?:


Aikido as it is generally practiced, does not realle prepare a person to learn to defend themself from their back o nthe ground.

agreed?

Enfield
10th February 2001, 19:50
Originally posted by autrelle
Aikido as it is generally practiced, does not realle prepare a person to learn to defend themself from their back o nthe ground.

agreed?

Agreed. And when I studied aikido (for about five years) we never were taught how to defend ourselves after being brained with a shovel, either. My point is this: sure, being taken to the ground is probably more likely than being hit with a shovel (at least anywhere I've been), but both situations are bad ones in which to be, and there are things that can be done before either situation arises to prevent them from happening. Sure, aikidoka could afford to spend some time just getting used to being on the ground, particularly at higher levels, but I'd much rather spend my time learning how to not end up there in the first place.

10th February 2001, 22:06
Originally posted by Enfield


Agreed. My point is this: sure, being taken to the ground is probably more likely than being hit with a shovel (at least anywhere I've been), but both situations are bad ones in which to be, and there are things that can be done before.

Ditto on the whole post. I have yet to see anyone have a technique specifically against being clipped from behind. I was thinking these wazas might work :moon: waza or the :toot waza.

I think the nail was hit on the head when Enfield said you do things or at least try to prevent yourself from being at a disadvange in a bad situation. It's the dullest bulb that goes toe to toe outside of the ring. The one that thinks a movie bar fight is how it really goes down. I am not into art bashing I am giving credit to both. Aikido and BJJ aare different arts and techniques, both require good brains to work effectively. It is reasonable to me to consider this the crux of what discussion should be about.

If someone pulls a gun and puts it to my face, I made my first mistake. Now the risk and margin of being shoot is higher then if I stopped that someone from pulling the weapon out in the first place. This is regardless of what art I teach. Both arts are effective before and after a gun is pulled out at close range. Neither art is effective if that someone is allowed to pull that out the gun and pull off rounds in a split second. At this point your only hope is that,that someone has missed. At this point any art will do, or the use of your legs moving as fast as they can.

Point is we really need to keep our arts and what they lack and what they don't in perpective. Which I am reminded what Bruce Lee had said probably based on what he was taught, you have to know your limits. And what my first TDK instructor said on my first day of class, don't come in here expecting that if you learn martial arts it will make you some kind of invincible super hero. It doesn't. Men like Bruce Lee, Norris, Wallace, Lewis, the Jet, are all men and they are a part of a very very small minority of men. They are not superheros. Your brain and temperment is your best weapon.











opps! on the spelling of Japanese words. I hear them and don't often write them and when I do becomes it's butchering.


[Edited by DeshiJack on 02-10-2001 at 04:39 PM]

M Clarke
14th February 2001, 02:21
Hey Mark,
Who? Me? Nah! I'm too warm and huggable... must be another Mikey.

MarkF
14th February 2001, 10:41
Sorry, Mikey.

DJM
18th February 2001, 12:11
Maai... It's been mentioned above, and I think it's an important factor when looking at Ground Defence. While I was at the Leeds BAA Summer School last year, Bob Jones Sensei had us looking at some Judo techniques, and how they related to Aikido techniques. I don't remember the name of the technique, but it was effectively the same, except that Aikido started from a 'Swords drawn' maai and Judo started from a grappling maai.. I guess the point I'm trying to make is that Aikidoka are probably quite able to apply Aikido to a close-in situation, if they work on the priciples, rather than trying to shoe-horn exact techniques into a situation that they weren't designed for.. I believe the term is Takemusu-Aiki?
Just a thought,
David

MarkF
19th February 2001, 09:54
Originally posted by Kent


Agreed. And when I studied aikido (for about five years) we never were taught how to defend ourselves after being brained with a shovel, either.

But you were trained in how to control the situation, if possible, in which you were about to be brained with that shovel.

I happen to agree that one can learn from other art, but adapting these techniques from another with the general applications of aikido is not practical.

In one MPEG of Sensei M. Ueshiba, he is being attacked from the rear, and fends that off before the attacker could get to him, again, ma-ai.

I didn't want to imply it is necessary or practical, only to this one person in this one interview. I don't know how he did handle these barrel-chested (his term) wrestlers at the academy, but I doubt it was stricly a grappling move, but possibly an aikido influenced ground defense or offense, of what he learned.

Regards,

George Ledyard
19th February 2001, 12:29
There are really two reasons why Aikido doesn't have ground fighting of the sort that we see in Brazilian Jiu Jutsu and the like.

O-Sensei was once asked this question and he replied that "rolling around on the ground with another person is unseemly. That's why we have suwariwaza." Since an aspect oif Aikido is character development there is emphasis on elegance and posture etc. that may not be there in a purely fighting form.

But apart from that issue, Aikido, as refined as the practice has become, is an art that: 1) assumes that the opponent is armed and 2) is desigend for multiple attack.

People often completely misunderstand the nature of the attacks in Aikido. Why is there all that grabbing? No one fights that way they say. When I started doing police training I was dealing with the equivalent of the modern samurai. An officer is a walking weapons system with an entire array of weapons on his person. Often he is deploying or attempting to deploy one of those weapons. Guess what often happens when a subject wants to prevent that or even take a weapon away from an officer? He grabs the officer and / or the weapon. All that grabbing stuff starts to make perfect sense again.

As soon as you make the assumption that you and your opponent are armed, possibly with multiple weapons as the samurai was, Gracie style jiu jutsu makes no sense whatever. Poistions such as the mounted position simply give the opponent access to the weapons on your belt. Most of the "pins" in Aikido are not submission pins. The are designed to place an opponent in a position of disadvantage long enough to access a weapon an finish him. In older styels of Aikido ytou can see this symbolically represented by the final knife edged strike that occurs after the opponent is pinned.

As soon as you introduce the weapons element into the equation you can see that suwari waza is preferable in many ways to submission style grappling. All of the techniques that you can do standing are available to you, it is a position from which a weapon can be effectively deployed, and it allows for movement which is necessary in mutiple attack situations.

The last is the main and most important reason for no submission style grappling techiques in Aikido. The assumption in Aikido is that you are in a mutiple attacker situation. The emphasis is entirely on freedom of movement and postitioning. Most techniques have variations that allow the defender to use the attacker he is currently dealing with against the next on-coming attacker. Most techniques contain movement variations that not only allow you to strike or throw the current attacker but position yourself to effectively receive the next attack.

As soon as you assume that there are mutiple attackers many of the most effective submission fighting techniques become suicidal.

It is important, especially for Aikido practicioners themselves, to remember that the art they practice in the dojo is a very refined practice designed to isolate and teach a very complex set of principles. It is not, in its basic form, the real fighting version of the art. People from outside the art misunderstand what is going on because they only see the basic practice. These days, many Aikido practicioners themselves do not really understand the application of the techiques they are studying.

Glenn Scott
19th February 2001, 20:54
Ledyard Sensei-

Thank you for showing the connection of our modern day art to the situations dealt with by those long ago who are a part of our long and rich lineage (I also like your Police comparison, I will try to remember that the next time I am asked these types of questions).

It also seems that if you are able to gain a strong grasp of the principles learned through techniques applied to grabs, you can apply those same principles to any attack.

PS-Thank you for your hospitality at Satome Shihan's seminar last year. :)

All-

I also wonder if Aikido's roots have anything to do with a lack grappling in our art. Does anyone know if Daito Ryu Aikijujitsu incorporates grappling into their training? When I think of various forms of Jujitsu, I tend to invision grappling being a part of the curriculum, but don't remember ever hearing of it's presence with Daito Ryu?

Thanks!
glenn scott
Portland Oregon

Matthew Banks
21st February 2001, 17:35
Hello, I forget the person who asked but, one guy asked if daito ryu has ground work in it. Well I never saw any groundwork in terms of mount and guard position, because as with aikido they're concerned with multiple attacks and having zanshin. They have many lock pins to the floor with tory's head up as in aikido. I train in yoshinkan aikido and a saw very little diffrence in the tecnique.



Matt Banks

Kit LeBlanc
25th February 2001, 04:38
Whoa!

Speaking as one of the "modern day samurai," AND as a Law Enforcement Ground Control Tactics instructor, I have to strongly disagree with Mr. Ledyard, and with several other comments on this thread. Sorry if I ramble, but I want to make a lot of points.

First off, Aikido-type locks and come alongs have a specific application to street work. They are fantastic for dealing with semi-compliant individuals i.e. the drunk that doesn't want to leave the bar but doesn't want to fight; but for the truly motivated suspect that chooses to run or fight, they are close to useless. I have had several suspects go from semi-compliant to aggressive and break Aikido style locks in order to assault me, and have seen multiple instances where suspects suffering mental episodes, intoxication or drug influence were completely impervious to the pain of joint locks. Just read Autrelle's description of his fight to see what it takes to control somebody fighting back. (By the way Autrelle, great story. Very illustrative of how real fights develop and flow. Excellent thinking about the Spyderco.) With ground control tactics I have been able to control several combative suspects without cover officers and resulting in no injury to myself or the suspect.

Lest someone bring up the argument "well, your aikido isn't good enough," my response is no it isn't, and neither is that of 99.9% of police officers. With 14 years experience in martial arts, including several Chinese soft styles focussing on chin na (joint locking), and the last five or so in jujutsu (BJJ and koryu grappling), as well as ten years field experience in plain clothes security and law enforcement, I think I have some knowledge of how to apply a joint lock. Oh, and BTW, groundfighting is rare to non-existent in virtually all Chinese arts, even their wrestling is all standing.

I am also often put in less than ideal positions in real encounters. NO ART prevents you from being surprised or placed in a bad position (why do a lot of people seem to think this?). Murphy's Law generally rules on the street, and if you seriously believe Aikido, or any art for that matter, will help you against multiple attackers in a REAL fight where they are actually TRYING to hurt you, you are in for a surprise. Police use handguns and backup against multiple attackers.

I can tell you from experience that motivated individuals ARE NOT controlled while on their feet or knees, they need to be on the ground, with their hips and/or shoulders and neck prevented from turning/adjusting to relieve pressure on their joints, if they care to relieve the pressure at all. Just watch COPS and BE HONEST with yourselves. Does your aikido make you stronger than FIVE trained and experienced police officers? Sure they might not be martial arts trained police officers, but do you really think you can control that lady in the kitchen that five cops can't control? Or the naked guy in the barber shop? I don't think so. The real world is VERY different from the dojo.

Ground control tactics, both offensive and defensive, and yes often based in Gracie/Brazilian Jujutsu, are absolutely imperative for police officers to have. Under King County Deputy Don Gulla, former head of Defensive Tactics instruction at the Washington State Police Academy and present instructor for King County SWAT , whom I sure Mr. Ledyard is acquainted with, ground control was given a lot of attention courtesy of Dep. Gulla's Arrestling program.

Officers need to be highly proficient in protecting their weapons, shutting down a suspect's attempts to run or attack by taking him down (hair holds, neck holds and leg sweeps are the primary techniques we use in real life, if not the DT class) and then controlling him on the ground. Suspects are controlled there often with submission-type moves, but I agree they are more commonly controlled at this point with traditional style jujutsu techniques. Incidentally, ground control positions are represented very well in certain koryu grappling arts. The bushi knew from experience that you could not count on not being taken to the ground.

More importantly, officers must also be capable of defending themselves on the ground from an attack. I outlined my experience above, and I have been on the ground when I did not want to be two or three times during actual encounters.

A police officer trained in ground control absolutely SHOULD take a mount position, or uki gatame (knee pin) preferably to the suspects back with the suspect face down. These positions allow environmental awareness and the ability to access your weapons in case of mutiple attackers. You SHOULD NOT lie down and try a figure four naked choke with your head scrunched up against the bad guys, though, if you can help it. Sometimes, frankly, you can't.

A suspects ability to fight from the back mount/knee pin position is now seriously compromised, and such a position buys time and better angles in order to defend a weapon takeaway. The mount with the suspect facing up is not as good, but does allow for control of a weapon takeaway, and gives you his arm to bar/wrap and turn him over. The general technique taught is to trap the arm, pass it over his face and then pushing on the elbow roll him over to a handcuffing (face down) position. I taught a female recruit this very technique set in five minutes, and as her training officer watched her use it that very same day to control a mentally deranged woman who was attempting to prevent her from arresting her, and she did so WITHOUT ASSISTANCE.

In some instances you will probably be able to prevent a weapon takeaway BETTER if you go to the ground, particularly if the attacker is stronger. Of course, this would really only apply to someone comfortable with groundfighting, so I will concede that point. The best technique against a weapon takeaway is your back up gun.

Remember that not all the things you see in the ring in jujutsu matches are appropriate for the street, and the Gracies, for example, teach a different curriculum to law enforcement than to tournament fighters. It is this fundamental misunderstanding that causes many people to poo-poo the combat effective methods of BJJ when all they see is the sport side. You do not fight on the street the way you would in the ring.

Controlling maai and using tai sabaki as taught in aikido are great studies, and would be useful, except that most police officers never develop enough of an understanding of Aikido or any other art to be able to use this under pressure. And if you get attacked by multiple attackers, sure angle out , take one of 'em down if you have to and TRY to stay standing, but your sidearm better be coming out and quick (iaijutsu, get it?), 'cause if they get you down you can almost guarantee THEY will take it and kill you with it.

Kit LeBlanc

MarkF
25th February 2001, 11:45
Kit, very well said. I'm looking forward to meeting you in April, and I have the feeling I'm going to learn something to boot.

Please be gentle. I'm an old man.;)

George Ledyard
25th February 2001, 17:54
As most people do who know that I am an Aikido teacher, Mr. LeBlanc misunderstands what I am saying. A good basic knowledge of ground fighting and grappling is essential for all law enforcement personnel. In fact I think that it is the first thing that law enforcement personnel should be taught along with good solid impact techniques. Don Gulla's program for the King County Police is excellent in this regard (yes we are friends). But you should note that they wear a belt with a simulated firearm when they grapple so that they do not utilize moves in training that would be dangerous on the street. This is a big problem for sport grapplers. The last time one of my instructors went down to the police academy to help with training he "shot" one of the students with his own gun as he attempted a fancy arm bar that he had learned in his Pancration class.

Our Defensive Tactics Options program includes quite a bit about ground fighting, first placing the most emphasis on defensive ground fighting: how not to get knocked out when taken down, how to escape from the bottom position. Our basic system focuses on close quarters impact techniques and assumes that in most cases of assault on the ground you will have the option of accessing a primary or backup firearm or a backup blade (my police students carry at least one, usually on the off side from the firearm). We favor the cross body position rather than a mounted position for ground control, as it is easier to keep the subject away from your gun.

As for watching Cops to see how difficult it is to control a subject... None of those guys have much of a clue about the principles of control. Three of my own students have actually been cuffed while in the "pig pile" by other officers who were frantically trying to get a cuff on the subject. We favor a system that should not require more than three officers. The first officer focuses on the upper body, primarily the head, chest and shoulder area. The next officer to arrive will endeavor to restrain the subject's legs, the third if needed will control the midsection. This is far more efficient than the "pig pile" approach and the officers stay out of each other’s way.

I teach Defensive Tactics for the Criminal Justice Program at Bellevue Community College. The very first thing that I teach the students is the fundamental impact techniques required to knock out an aggressive subject. This gives them the degree of security to know that if things start to go bad they can at least defend themselves. Then they are taught the basic takedowns used in basic arrest and control of an eggressive subject. If they stay for multiple quarters we start to focus on how those takedowns can be combined with impact techniques to allow de-escalation in a defensive situation.

I have been doing Aikido for well over twenty years and believe myself to be very realistic about the limitations of various locking techniques for controlling subjects with strong intention. If the subject is merely highly eggressive and is not aggressive towards the officer our program stresses basic ground control tactics that will allow you to get a subject into cuffing position without resorting to beating him (distraction techniques are allowed) but if that subject(s) put the officer under attack the locks we do are designed to break things and the takedowns we do become very impactive.

I think people who are familiar with standard Aikido believe that Aikido for Law Enforcement is focused on the lower levels of force and is most useful for the non-aggressive, non-compliant subject. It may be true that Aikido has more application at that level of force than any other martial art that I know of but it would be gross misunderstanding to think that it isn't effective at higher levels of force. There are plenty of law enforcement pioneers that taught Aikido based defensive tactics that they had used quite successfully on the street.

Robert Koga in LA was probably the first, Bernie Lau here in Seattle was another innovator, his students are some of the top defensive tactics instructors in Washington State. While I am only an instructor myself, my own students have used the techniques we teach on numerous occasions quite successfully on the street. People shouldn't make assumptions about what you do based on what they think they know of your art. Most of the Aikido around is not very martially oriented and it is true, would be quite ineffective on the street. But the stuff we do will and has been shown to be quite effective. It is important not to confuse techniques that are designed to control a subject at low levels of force with those that are designed to defeat an aggressive subject. It is not the techniques that don't work, it is the practitioner that applies the wrong technique for the level of force that is required.

I will end by saying that in terms of defensive ground fighting, that includes grappling but also covers you being down while muliple attackers attempt to attack you, the best system I have seen is from the Russian Sytema folks. The films on "Fighting From the Ground" put out by Mr. Vasiliev up in Toronto, Canada are worth their weight in gold.
Check out www.russianmartialart.com

MarkF
25th February 2001, 19:11
Hello, Mr. Ledyard,
I think since this thread was concerning ground defense, and aikido, Kit was explaining the practicalities, LEO or not. Suwari waza used to be, and sometimes still is in judo, particulary when in demonstration mode. I don't think he missed the point at all considering this was a "ground technique" thread. Kit was answering the unpractical compared to the practical.

I'm a teacher as well with the same messages coming from my body after thirty-seven years, but there is nothing in judo, except perhaps some nagewaza which has one lying next to, on top of, from the guard, etc., which is really practical, except for one thing. It does exist and it can be practical.

You gave an excellent essay on the differences in the way you teach this in comparison to the way Kit applies it, and it is commendable considering the general opinion seems to be that it is "unseemly" a thing to do. I agree. But when speaking in the everyday practicalities, it is a different thing with the principle's still prevailing.

Does it ever happen in which the agressor and the officer non-agressor ever end up on the ground at the same time, with only one's training giving that edge? It must, because we find ourselves there many times, and a trick or two to get them there in whatever posistion may be prudent. But that is not the aikido being discussed by most.

Speaking of Russian Martial arts, I think Chris Dolman, a former Sambo champion (yes, it was competitive), has all that and more.

While everything has a weakness is because that chain has a weakness too, and it had better be replaced by a stronger one, and continue replacing so that only one has one weak link.

I think when Sensei Morihei says "we have suwari waza" it may have been misunderstood, as many of his teachings are, simply because of a lack of being able to be comprehensible. He isn't wrong, he just had preceived ideas which are forever changing, thus the different schools. The term "aiki bunny" is not one I like, even with my very short exposure.

I, too, like Autrelle's story as it does relate to this. When facing something in which a life is in danger, I've found that teaching and practicing technique brings about mushin. In other words, one does not really know until the act is over what they did, or is it imporant. Dave Lowry said one thing I thought most interesting, as did another aiki pracititioner. Those with a judo (meaning any background of the type) background, when all said and done, that is the one thing which comes back and out in a practical setting, and the other said it does during multi attacker drills. This is what I read into Kit's post at the least. It is fundamental stuff, with principles, if not of the altruistic princples of Ueshiba, but not exactly the academinc/mathematic principles of J. Kano.

But if the training, any amount of training is not, then there maybe no last gasp. When I read about the turnover of an agressor by throwing his arm across his face, I immediately thought of the similar move I also might do called kata gatame, only with a finish, or a complete turnover rather than the osae which came to me. I think he is right about certain skeletal locks not really working, as I teach those to inexperienced or this too young, to do wrist locks instead of the more devastating elbow locks because the it doesn't cause as much damage, but enough to teach them what is coming without a single true injury. Same principle, but the mechanics of the mudansha in mind.
*****

I do have a question, though, about sutemi waza, or ma sutemi, or yoko sutemi waza being used in any of this. Is there a time when one must sacrifice one's standing or controlling of the aggressor to use these self-sacrificing moves, or nagewaza? Is there ever a time when one knows he is going down and possibly the only thing left to take control would be to put yourself on the ground and peforming these sacrifice throws at any time? Since there really is no groundwork in the art, are there sacrifice throws which bring the agressor down in which one would also go down, but in control, with this type of sacrifice?

Nice discussion, by the way.

Thanks you.

Kit LeBlanc
25th February 2001, 20:32
Mr. Ledyard,

From reading your post, I do not believe that I am misunderstanding you as much as we seem to have overstated our cases.

Your comment about misunderstanding the application of an art for varying levels of force and street application seems to apply to your previously stated opinion of submission grappling methods as much as it does to mine of aikido. I believe I pointed out that one does not perform techniques meant for the ring in the street, and as you have said, it seems you do not do aikido the way I have seen most people do aikido, it has been modified for the street.

I still maintain that of most of the aikido I have seen, very little has appeared to me be capable of controlling aggressive or strongly eggressive subjects. It is best used when a subject is pre-eggressive. When you start breaking things, and hitting people, you are in my opinion moving towards aikido's jujutsu roots.

But perhaps we have overstated our cases to make a point. You seem to teach quite a bit of ground control and grappling methods, and I should not have stated that ALL aikido, particularly when combined with atemi, is totally useless beyond semi-compliant individuals. I have seen you demonstrate, and I have seen Mr. Lau demonstrate, and I will admit that you both do aikido more like a martial art. (Actually I particularly liked your sword demo, very aggressive stuff!)

You also point out that you teach techniques such as a cross body hold down, which is of course directly from Judo/jujutsu/submission grappling, modified for weapons aware street application. And I am sure that you do not teach suwari waza for street application the way Steven Seagal performs it in Hard to Kill (if you will remember, he kneels down and tells the shotgun toting robber to come get some of it...")

Actually, to clarify, I mentioned classical jujutsu grappling techniques for use in ground control. Pinning a downed subjects head, arms, knees and/or legs with ones knees and body weight while also controlling arms etc. with locking techniques IS suwari-waza, and yes I agree such methods are often the most practical for controlling downed suspects in an armed environment. Suwari-waza allows for the officers head to be up and aware of his environment where frankly even the cross body does not.

There is, though, a conception that Brazilian jujutsu/submission grappling is fighting from your back (I understand you did not make this comment). This comes from a very narrow view of such grappling methods. Such a strategy is often employed in sport jujutsu, and yes, might come in handy in a very serious real world altercation where a larger and stronger suspect gets you to your back. But it is not ideal, and I for one would never teach anyone to "go to the gaurd" in a real fight unless they needed to to defend themselves.

But a mount (which you do criticize) and a back mount also allow for your head to be up. Don Gulla teaches both of these methods. Other methods are a modified cross body/mount where the suspect is lying on his side, and you control his side or straddle him. This effectively pins one arm underneath his own body, and allows you access to his neck and to an isolated single arm to work controlling methods. Variations of ude garami (the "Kimura" lock) are very effective from this position and can quickly get a subject proned on his belly. You can do this from a relatively upright position to maintain environmental awareness. This and its variations is the exact submission grappling position that Sakuraba Kazushi has used in several sport matches to defeat Gracie family members.

As far as controlling resisting subjects, I agree the pig pile is generally not very effective. But I submit to you that attempting to restrain and control a 300lb subject an a methamphetamine high or experiencing a mental episode, and who is demonstrating near imperviousness to pain, is a far cry from training with a bunch of cops on the mat at the academy in a controlled environment. In various incidents I have controlled emotionally disturbed subjects by myself, and have assisted one or two other officers to successfully control combative individuals, each time using methods I have already described. I have also been involved in several incidents where two or more trained officers, myself included, were hard pressed to control a single individual. Control will be based more on a combination of the techniques used AND the motivation of the subject than on simply good control tactics.

I think that any combative methods which can apply to an officer's work are worthwhile. From the tone of your previous post, it appeared that you were dismissing Brazilian Jujutsu/submission grappling methods based on the their sport application and not on their modified application for the street. That is what I strongly disagreed with.

Mark F,

Looking forward to seeing you there too! As far as sutemi-waza, there has been some experimentation lately with going to your back when surprise assaulted by a knife wielding attacker within, say 15'. Interestingly, if you stay on your feet and try to get your gun out, you will get cut (Mr. Ledyard will recognize this as the "21 Foot Rule" in application). An officer seems to remove his vitals from the oncoming blade and buy a few second to draw his sidearm if he drops onto his back, and can usually get off a few rounds to the suspects midsection just as the suspect gets to the officer's position. Don Gulla, whom we mentioned above, has been working with this quite a bit and taught it at a recent Violent Encounter Survival Training session we had at Vancouver.

Kit LeBlanc

autrelle
25th February 2001, 20:34
what i thought would be another "stand up vs. ground" thread has really become an truly insightful bit of reading for anyone who wants to understand the ways that Aikido does and does not prepare a person for groundfighting. hats off to everyone here for the great contributions.

in my lowly opinion, as budoka, we have to assume a certain amount of responsibility for those in our lives who may not be able to help themselves. but how can we help others if we can't help ourselves!? so we are always looking for ways to cover any defeciencies that we find within ourselves, whether it be a matter of technique or personality, we always want to improve.

the desire to improve and be better than you were the previous day is what relates budo to any art or personal interest-we strive for perfection. but budo is different than say, painting, because a bad day in art school s just a bad painting, but mistakes in budo are life and death at stake! that's why we can't humor ourselves when it comes to our training. we must know that what we are doing won't get us hurt or killed if we should ever have to use it.

as mentioned in previous posts, we don't use screwdrivers when you need a hammer. if you have the dedication it takes to do Aikido for ten years, go ahead and try some BJJ for six months. or vice-versa. to me it would be like a samurai dying with a sword still sheathed, not having at least some response to any situation, whether it be a simple disagreement or four or five guys trying to chase you down.

man, did i just type all of that? ;P

truly

Kit LeBlanc
25th February 2001, 20:48
Autrelle,

Great post. I think that is the very reason that the old martial traditions, from, which Aikido and jujutsu deribed, contained complete curriculums, swords, pole arms, knives, jujutsu, grappling in armor, grappling with weapons, ground control, etc. etc. They had both killing techniques and techniques for taking prisoners. The reality is that when your life is at stake, you have to as prepared as possible for any eventuality.

Kit

Raf
1st March 2001, 01:53
sorry for that i accidently pressed entre before i was done.

i hope that all made sense .. i wasn't finished editing


and my name is

rafal jeglinksi

George Ledyard
10th March 2001, 14:30
You fellows are correct. I of course am guilty of making the same mistake that I so object to in others, namely that I am blaming a style for the faults of the practitioners. It is not Gracie Jiu Jutsu or any other style of ground fighting that is inadequate, it is the understanding of practitioners who haven't trained long enough to understand what they are and are not learning.

The Aikido I have been studying under Saotome Sensei isn't a bordered thing. Sensei made us see that Aikido is infinite. So when I leap to the defense of Aikido I am often arguing with people who have only seen Aikido of a limited sort.

As for application of technique in the lower force realm, namely the eggressive subject, it is the most difficult thing to do I can think of. Nothing requires more finesses and deep understanding of your technique than trying to restrain someone who is trying to escape and do it without hurting them.

Locking techniques are largely pain compliance techniques when viewed in this light. The subject ceases to struggle because the pain of the lock is letting him know that he is about to be injured and he ceases his struggles.

So it is true that the subject who doesn't feel any pain or who is so motivated that he can get past the pain, can "beat" most locking techniques because the manner in which they are being executed was precisely meant to be non-injurious. The old combat versions of these techniques, which were much harder to beat, were applied hard and fast and were meant to break and dislocate. When you make the choice to take a destructive combat technique and make it into a control technique you are creating the opening for someone who is not interested in protecting himself from injury to beat the technique,

At the highest level of eggressive resistance about the only way to subdue the subject without undue use of impact technique and without having himself incur injury from forceful application of locking techniques is the sleeper hold. It is the one technique that does not depend on locking or impact that will definitively shut down the subject's resistance. In my opinion it should be utilized in all situations in which the basic control techniques have failed.

That said, it is rare that you get a subject who is purely eggressive in the sense that he has the strongest intention to get away but is completely restrained about using any aggressive actions against the officers. Usually he is pushing, flailing, biting, gouging etc. if he is that serious about getting away. At that point he opens himself up to the use of appropriate impact techniques which will make the control techniques easier to apply.

autrelle
10th March 2001, 19:25
one more comment that i would like to insert here: it may simply be a matter of the way one has learned the waza, but the problem i have had using aikido holds is that they have been almost too effective in application. i have come to prefer the BJJ style hold-downs and nagewaza/atemiwaza of aikido as a more merciful appraoch to dealing with surly types, drunk or otherwise. i have found that when properly applied with even light force, the holds cause a lot of damage to attackers when they resist or try to escape. they provide enough energy to injure themselves badly, and i have actually released and switched to chokes or strikes and throws to keep them from breaking their own joints. even ikkyo proved to be a bit dangerous when the poor guy was thrust head first to the ground and was (luckily for me) mildly concussed.

Sillal
13th March 2001, 16:00
I hope that my reply to this thread is taken in a constructive way, and not as an attack to Aikidoka. To preface I practiced Aikido in Atlant for almost six years, before making the decision that it did not fulfill the goals I had for a martial system. I think everyone who wishes to study a martial art should have a clear idea of what they wish to accomplish through study of that system.

It is my honest opninon that Aikido is not a fighting system and not Budo. It was designed for policing essentially the formation of a Utopian society. It lacks in many areas, most notably in ground fighting.

I would caution those who feel that keeping proper distance will be all that is necessary to keep a wily groundfighter from removing you from your feet. On a martial arts matt, with an even floor, plenty of room, ideal lighting, and passive attackers I"m sure its easy to keep your distance and footing.

I would challenge you to perform the same techniques, and keep your distance on a slippery bathroom floor, on gravel, on an incline, grass, etc... Try to keep proper distance when you are backed against a wall, in a corner, in your living room, or any other place with no room to maneuver.

What then?

It is important to understand that no matter what type of martial art we practice, we must keep our overall goals in mind. If it is self protection we should not disolusion ourselves to think that the men who came before us and created these ryu thought of all contingencies. Peace time martial arts are notorious for lacking in a full curriculum for self defense.

Aikido is a rich, and wonderful art, but practicioners can't assume that it, or any art will be able to prepare them for every combat encounter. ALL Aikido schools that I have seen have a similar format: a warmup, Aiki taiso, rolling, techniques, and randori (sp?). Not in ONE school have I ever seen Shin ken gata, or real combat conditioning practiced. Its just not a part of how the art was formed or developed. O' Sensei had his own goals and motivations, apparently mostly spiritual, in mind when he created the art.

To wrap up, I'm not saying don't practice Aikido, practice whatever you wish and I hope all the best for you. It is very self defeating, however, to assume your means of training is actually preparing you for any form of combat or practical self defense.

Thank you for the time to share my thoughts,

Lance Boggs

Kit LeBlanc
15th March 2001, 02:17
Lance,

Great quote in your signature block!

Kit

Sam
15th March 2001, 12:54
I don't feel qualified to comment on a subject of this nature, however I have followed this thread with great interest.

I would like to ask the following questions-

What is an impact technique?

What does combat conditioning entail?

When on the discussion of aikido being unsuitable for a lot of situations, do you refer to all aikido? I ask because there are some fundamental differences between some styles both in philosophy and techniques.

Greg Jennings
15th March 2001, 15:23
Originally posted by Sillal
It is my honest opninon that Aikido is not a fighting system and not Budo. It was designed for policing essentially the formation of a Utopian society.


Not Budo? You mean it isn't your Budo. Judo, Kyudo, Iaido, Kendo, Naginatado, Jukendo: I don't where "fighting system" in a modern, relevant sense has anything to do with Budo.

George Ledyard
16th March 2001, 08:29
Originally posted by Sam
I don't feel qualified to comment on a subject of this nature, however I have followed this thread with great interest.

I would like to ask the following questions-

What is an impact technique?

What does combat conditioning entail?

When on the discussion of aikido being unsuitable for a lot of situations, do you refer to all aikido? I ask because there are some fundamental differences between some styles both in philosophy and techniques.

"Impact techniques" are a defensive tactics term for strikes or what Aikido people would call atemi.

Anne Marie
16th March 2001, 21:11
I have found this thread to be very interesting and very good constructive criticism of aikido, IMO. But I have a question, and sorry if I am echoing someone else.

What do you mean my "combat conditioning"? Do you mean preparing for a war situation or for defending you life on the street against thugs or for defending yourself against someone you have come to love and trust?

What does this conditioning entail?

Thanks,
Anne Marie Giri

Sillal
16th March 2001, 22:29
When on the discussion of aikido being unsuitable for a lot of situations, do you refer to all aikido? I ask because there are some fundamental differences between some styles both in philosophy and techniques.


==>I can only comment on Aikido that I have had experience with which is the Suenaka Ha Tetsugaku Ho Aikido (please forgive spelling, I have not practiced in their dojo in some time).

Roy H. Suenaka is the founder of this form of aikido, and he was a personal student of O'Sensei. Like O'Sensei before him he was adept at many arts which he held high dan ranks in, and was a fantastic teacher and martial artist.

My experience with Aikido was that it did require alot of room to maneuver, and lacked in techniques to disable attackers (a must in a multiple attacker situation). Also the art was not only second-initiative, but was completely defensive (a big difference IMHO).

Aikido in every book, video, class and seminar I attended in 5 years of study lacked a method of engaging the enemy, and disabling him. I have heard many jokes from low lvl practicioners to master instructors who make jokes about having to ask someone to grab them so they could perform a technique.

Now most of what I am saying could be interpreted as flaming Aikido, let me say that is not the case. I think Aikido is a beutiful art, and know those who have used it effectively in a self defense situation.

I do think, however, that it is only really effective after years and years of training, with sufficient room to move, and with attackers who don't want to kill you. All of this is, of course, IMHO and I would welcome others opinions on the matter.

autrelle
17th March 2001, 03:09
to silal: i think that in your sweeping generalized critique of aikido you just provided your own contretemps. it is well known that you don't criticize an art, but the individuals. people dp martial arts and improve them or weaken them, not vice versa. and besides, five years isn't long enough to even have a grasp of the basics, much less to make judgements about the full practicality of an art. so you met a bunch of crummy aikido people. oh well. you haven't met me.

and i have visited a suenaka sensei school here in town. i agree that his aikido is quite differnt from the "mainstream" and more geared for the "street." but then again, that's another bunch of individuals again, isn't it?

truly

Jim Hadden
17th March 2001, 11:06
"I do think, however, that it is only really effective after years and years of training, with sufficient room to move, and with attackers who don't want to kill you. All of this is, of course, IMHO and I would welcome others opinions on the matter." [/B][/QUOTE]

While I do agree that it takes years of training to become proficent, I don't agree with the rest of the quote. I doubt very much that the Tokyo Riot Police (all of which have the equivilent of a shodan in Yoshinkai) deal with attackers that don't want to kill them, or at least are highly motivated to escape, or that they have "sufficent room to move". I think that if you train with "sufficient " room to move as a baseline to understand the principles involved, making the technique smaller to fit the situation should not pose a problem as long as you adhere to the principles of the technique.

Jim Hadden

Stephenjudoka
17th March 2001, 16:29
Hi,

From my experience I have never needed ground defence.
If I am grounded I get up as quickly as possible. I have been taught many techniques to get up whilst under attack.
If I am dealing with an aggressive person I put them on the ground face down in a pin position (I am still standing with an arm lock on the aggressor) before handcuffing them.
I my opinion ground fighting is not good for defence but is great fun for sport.
Do not get me wrong I love groundwork at the club but on the streets it is just not practical.

I think I can comment on this as I have been a Police Officer for 27 years and have over 30 years experience of Judo and Aikido.

Stephen Sweetlove.

Greg Jennings
19th March 2001, 02:15
Originally posted by Sillal
Also the art was not only second-initiative, but was completely defensive (a big difference IMHO).
<snip>
Aikido in every book, video, class and seminar I attended in 5 years of study lacked a method of engaging the enemy, and disabling him. I have heard many jokes from low lvl practicioners to master instructors who make jokes about having to ask someone to grab them so they could perform a technique.


I posted some of this before, but it was evidently lost...

There being no initiating of techniques in Aikido is just so much bunk. For example, almost _all_ of the techniques vs. shomenuchi in kihonwaza of the Iwama school are initiated by nage. My understanding is that this is a framework for the more general idea of prompting a desired response from uke then acting on it. I've personally heard Saito Shihan describing the Founder teaching this (initiating techniques). Also, I have the AikidoJournal films of the Founder in his earlier days and he sure seems to me to be using this idea.

It is my understanding that being _reactive_ is to have missed the whole point of Aikido.

YMMV,

Sillal
19th March 2001, 15:17
to silal: i think that in your sweeping generalized critique of aikido you just provided your own contretemps.

==>As indicated by my IMHO, I am only expressing my opinion of Aikido from my own personal experience, not only from one school but also from seminars around the country where I have lived (most notably Atlanta, Baltimore, and San Diego).


it is well known that you don't criticize an art, but the individuals. people dp martial arts and improve them or weaken them, not vice versa.

==>The art is what it is, it is written and defined by the scrolls that began in, and passed on through a lineage.


and besides, five years isn't long enough to even have a grasp of the basics, much less to make judgements about the full practicality of an art.

==>If five years is not long eneough to have a grasp of the basics of a "self defense" art, then thank you for proving my point. Look at the word basic, it does not mean complicated to learn and practice.

so you met a bunch of crummy aikido people. oh well. you haven't met me.

==>You are correct, and not having met you I obviously cannot judge your skill, nor would I care to. I never made the comment that their were no competent practicioners of Aikido, nor did I attack the art. My only goal was to share my opinion from my personal experiences and observations.

and i have visited a suenaka sensei school here in town. i agree that his aikido is quite differnt from the "mainstream" and more geared for the "street." but then again, that's another bunch of individuals again, isn't it?

==>I'm not sure if you have actually read any of the spiritual principles behind your art, but the tone of your reply post was quite hostile. Perhaps if you did not seek confrontation, and seek to find peace in yourself you could look more clearly at your art and at all aspects of life.

Lance Boggs

Sillal
19th March 2001, 17:00
While I do agree that it takes years of training to become proficent, I don't agree with the rest of the quote. I doubt very much that the Tokyo Riot Police (all of which have the equivilent of a shodan in Yoshinkai) deal with attackers that don't want to kill them, or at least are highly motivated to escape, or that they have "sufficent room to move".

==>Aikido is rarely taught with riot shields, batons, body armor, and in a formation for crowd control either. I would be interested in seeing these police actually employing Aikido techniques laden with such gear, this would certainly show a high lvl of skill.


I think that if you train with "sufficient " room to move as a baseline to understand the principles involved, making the technique smaller to fit the situation should not pose a problem as long as you adhere to the principles of the technique.

==>Here I must still disagree. It isn't only a matter of room, we must still look at the topography of a location where we are forced to defend ourselves or others.

While I do agree that you try to minimize the amount of motion needed to do a technique, this still does not diminish the fact that most Aikido techniques do require a fair bit of room to "evade" an opponents attack, it also does not take into consideration any terrain outside of a perfectly flat matt.

I am of the opinion that the simple act of taking off the hakama, and practicing with shoes, in more restrictive clothing on the lawn, on ice, on gravel, etc... would greatly amplify an Aididoka's skill and abillity to do the techniques properly.

Also I feel any art should be tested in its weak areas. Try, even without a partner, to do Aikido moves inside of a washroom stall, when backed into a corner, with your hands bound behind your back, etc... Only as this point will you actually be delving into Budo, and taking a true look into what your doing.

Lance Boggs

autrelle
19th March 2001, 20:20
==>I'm not sure if you have actually read any of the spiritual principles behind your art, but the tone of your reply post was quite hostile. Perhaps if you did not seek confrontation, and seek to find peace in yourself you could look more clearly at your art and at all aspects of life.
Lance Boggs

how lofty. what did this have to do with aikido being ineffectual in regard to self defense again? i think that hostility is where you find it, my friend. if you took offense to my post, i won't apologize, simply because no offense was meant. in the meantime try not to judge people by a single reply to you. you statedd your humble opinion for the WWW to read, and so did i-that's all.

Sillal
19th March 2001, 22:14
how lofty. what did this have to do with aikido being ineffectual in regard to self defense again? i think that hostility is where you find it, my friend. if you took offense to my post, i won't apologize, simply because no offense was meant. in the meantime try not to judge people by a single reply to you. you statedd your humble opinion for the WWW to read, and so did i-that's all


==>I will not engage in a contest of negativity with you. The only intention of posting on this topic in the first place was to warn practicioners not to ever have to much "blid faith" in their art.

Any martial art is going to have "weaknesses," or areas where the art is lacking. It is important to look at these areas, and understand them or we are doing ourselves and our students a huge disservice.

If the art you study, no matter what that art is, claims to be a "self defense," art then you are placing your safety and that of your loved ones on that claim. Therefore practicioners should welcome constructive criticism, and not become defensive.

Once again I would challenge people to explore Aikido in less than ideal situations and see how it changes from the dojo.

I do not plan on monitoring this particular forum any longer, so anyone who has need to contact me please use my e-mail address.

Thank you

George Ledyard
21st March 2001, 13:59
Originally posted by autrelle
one more comment that i would like to insert here: it may simply be a matter of the way one has learned the waza, but the problem i have had using aikido holds is that they have been almost too effective in application. i have come to prefer the BJJ style hold-downs and nagewaza/atemiwaza of aikido as a more merciful approach to dealing with surly types, drunk or otherwise. I have found that when properly applied with even light force, the holds cause a lot of damage to attackers when they resist or try to escape. they provide enough energy to injure themselves badly, and I have actually released and switched to chokes or strikes and throws to keep them from breaking their own joints. even ikkyo proved to be a bit dangerous when the poor guy was thrust head first to the ground and was (luckily for me) mildly concussed.

I agree that the sleeper hold (choke) is one of the best techniques for handling a seriously eggressive subject without injuring him. That said, I would say that I learned the technique from my teacher Saotome Sensei and no one told me it wasn't Aikido. Furthermore, despite all the evidence to the contrary, most law enforcement agencies in the country consider the technique to be a form of Deadly force and it is interchangeable with hitting the subject in the head with a flashlight or shooting him in terms of Use of Force.

I am also quite unclear how the use of atemi waza is somehow more compassionate to the subject than joint locking. When assessing techniques and use of force it is usually the practice to assess the likelihood of injury to a part of the body that is crucial to life support, or less importantly crucial to quality of life, and then down the line. It is generally held that spraining a subject's wrist, painful as that might be, is less injurious than knocking him out, especially as impact techniques that can end a fight usually have a much higher possibility of serious or lasting bodily harm than a wrist technique. A wrist or elbow injury has almost no likelihood of causing serious harm. there have been many cases in which a single blow resulted in the death of the person struck. Any time you use impact techniques against the head you are potentially causing concussion and risking the possibility of serious injury. I have never heard of any person dying of a wrist lock.

In Defensive Tactics impact technique targets are sometimes classified as to their likelihood of causing serious harm: Primary Targets, Secondary Targets, and Tertiary Targets. Primary targets being the least likely to cause serious harm and tertiary targets being deadly force. Any target above a primary target has more possibility of causing serious harm than a locking technique. Application of impact techniques to the primary targets such as the big muscle groups of the legs, arms and abdomen are really just pain compliance techniques and don't generally have a higher likelihood of ending serious resistance than a painful lock. Impact techniques that are more effective are causing more dysfunction.

Finally there is the public perception of ones actions. We all saw how bad the Rodney King films looked. That was a perfect example of misapplied impact technique. It looked awful but was quite ineffective as they were using only primary targets and he wasn't responding to pain. One could say that was good because they didn't injure him seriously but the public perception was that he was being mercilessly beaten. Any use of impact technique that goes on past two or three hits doesn't look good at all. And the only impact techniques that will end resistance in one, or two shots are techniques that have a higher likelihood of serious harm than any locking technique.

As for takedowns... modified Aikido techniques are very effective at taking a subject to the ground without injury. They are not throws but rather act to collapse the subject. The techniques we use in the Defensive Tactics Options system either take the subject down forwards (injury to the hands and possibly the knees being the risk here) or backwards on to their butts (they turn and collapse rather tan get projected; possible risk is usually to the elbow or shoulder if they fall on their own arm). Admittedly these are variations of the standard Aikido repertoire which focuses on producing cool looking break falls and therefore requires more powerful projection. Do one of those on an untrained subject and you will hurt him. I have seen very few grappling system takedowns that don't risk hitting the resistant subject's head on the pavement and at the very least potentially injure the hands, elbows and shoulders. That's no different than any Aikido technique.

So I do agree that the sleeper hold should be rehabilitated for use at lower levels of force for law enforcement. It is by far the best way to control a highly resistant subject without injuring him. Other than that I see no inherent advantage in any other system's technique over Aikido for controlling a subject without injury.

Mike Collins
22nd March 2001, 01:39
Sillal-

I wouldn't necessarily disagree that Aikido as an art is not particularly effective as a self defence system. There are a limited number of techniques which get practiced, even over a 5 year career.

If you are learning techniques to use to control or down an attacker, you're missing a big part of the pie.

It is my experience that the techniques of Aikido are most useful as teaching tools to help me understand the principles which form Aikido. Aikido is an art completely without limits, once one understands the principles (which I don't yet, but I may have learned a bit of something). Osensei, and most of the teachers I respect have all said that Aikido principles can apply to virtually any martial technique and enhance it. Yes, you can kick, strike, strangle, bite, twist, pinch, break, mame, tear, rip and injure while staying within the framework (such as it is) of Aikido. You just can't do those things in a malicious manner. Aikido is a lot about timing, distance, leading etcetera, but it is also about an ethic. If your life, or safety, or that of another is in jeopardy, you may apply any of the forementioned nasties, just so your intent is on causing as little damage to your attacker as his/her karma and actions will allow. As soon as your intent is to hurt someone needlessly, it makes no difference how well timed and aiki your technique may be, it is not Aikido.

Conversely, if you are savagely attacked, and you do the most ugly, bad, poorly timed technique in the world, and preserve both you and the attacker, while getting them in control and preventing them from screwing up their karma any further, well- you have done some lovely Aikido. And if you properly utilized the principles the curriculum of Aikido teaches, then you have done good.

I think what I've said is right, it certainly isn't the whole story, though. Come back and train a while longer, try thinking of the techniques as the teachers, and the instructors as models, and see if your opinion doesn't change.

By the way, any relation to Ernie Boggs, the Jujutsu guy?

M Clarke
22nd March 2001, 03:11
Hi All,
I'm off to get married this weekend so unfortunatley I will not be able to reply to any replies to this post for a while...anyway, I think Lance's main point about aikidoka not becomming complacent about testing the validity of techniques on unfavourable ground and in unpredictable conditions is an extremely good one. But, do aikidoka need a large well-lit area to do evasive techniques? How about tainohenko? I will definitely try it in a toilet cubicle (maybe at the dojo where there is less chance that uke and I will get arrested - and definitely after I am married!!). I will try ikkajo osae against shomen tsuki using that tainohenko principle again - in the same amount of space. But this time I will try it in my lounge room and in the hallway and turn the lights down - see if I still can. Good reminder, Lance but also I think there is a lot of aikido out there that is short and sharp.

Regards

MarkF
22nd March 2001, 08:51
Gettin married? Well, congratulations! May I give you a tip, something you may need down the road when twice a year is too often? Deny, deny, deny.

Hey, that's good advice, and not unheard of in the chatroom when one cannot help but brag of a conquest. To me, it is the essence of Verbal Judo.:up:

Mark

yamatodamashii
3rd April 2001, 07:03
This will sound more rude than I intend it to be, but perhaps if you had been a little more "prepared" yourself, you would have recognized the security staff BEFORE you tried to stab them.
Perhaps even called them over for assistance in the first place?

autrelle
3rd April 2001, 12:11
hey, you're absolutely right on that note. i don't particularly enjoy the idea of hurting someone for no reason, y'know? but when you're in the middle of it, sometimes, it's hard to think of everything.

respectfully

autrelle

yamatodamashii
3rd April 2001, 20:52
When I posted that message last night... I saw only one page to this thread! All of a sudden, I'm on page four, and obviously a latecomer...

Sorry for the apparent non-sequitur, all!

chrisinbrasil
10th April 2001, 00:48
Originally posted by dainippon99
would it not have been good maai to , after dropping both men, take your lady freind and leave the club?

Not if the guys were getting back up! (to attack)

Scott
10th April 2001, 06:00
George,

Excellent and informative post. It is important to recognize the dangers of the sleeper hold, however. Those with weak blood vessels could suffer a stroke when the blood rushes back to the brain. Its efficacy, however, cannot be denied.

TIM BURTON
10th April 2001, 10:12
I agree with you Scott.
The effectiveness of attacking the neck in combat has been recognised for centuries. Whether by a blow (impactive), a strangle (cutting off blood supply), a choke (cutting off the air) or a lock (dislocation) the neck remains a decisive target in a violent encounter.
We can see its use advocated in the self-defence kata of Judo. Kime no kata demonstrates a number of strangles and chokes intended to finish the attacker, Ju no kata has similar techniques as does Goshin Jutsu. In Shodokan Aikido the Koryu kata teach many techniques for evading or escaping from such a fate.
I have been taught that if I am caught in such a manner during a real situation then I am in serious trouble as it is life threatening and have been shown a number of ways to defend myself from such an occurrence. Therefore if I considered the use of a neck restraint/sleeper hold, I am in no doubt that I am using serious or deadly force against the other person and must be prepared to justify my actions. I also expect to face the type of resistance I would put up. If you consider the use of a neck restraint then make sure in some way that you have a basic knowledge of the workings of the throat and neck so you understand what it is you have affected to achieve compliance. Finally be prepared to administer aftercare if necessary, some people won’t revive on their own.

George Ledyard
11th April 2001, 07:11
Originally posted by Scott
George,

Excellent and informative post. It is important to recognize the dangers of the sleeper hold, however. Those with weak blood vessels could suffer a stroke when the blood rushes back to the brain. Its efficacy, however, cannot be denied.

The most accepted Law enforcement version of this technique is actually referred to as the Lateral Vascular Neck Restraint or LVNR. This is the name given by Al Lindell of Kansas City to the technique as he teaches it to law enforcement.

When most other departments around the country banned the technique for largely political reasons, the Kansas City PD not only kept the technique but kept detailed statistics on its use. They can definitively demonstrate that it is far safe. They found they had far fewer injuries to both subject and officer when it was used. To my knowledge, in fifteen years they had no deaths which were attributable to the use of the technique.

Traditionally the "deaths" caused by the sleeper actually fell into two categories: a) incorrectly applied techniques which were actually chokes which damaged the throat and led to death; b) manic exhaustive syndrome which wasn't recognized until recently. Often subjects who were subdued by the sleeper hold were thought to have died because of its application turned out to be subjects who had had an adrenaline dump (from high resistance to arrest or fighting with another subject and who had significant drug and alcohol content in their blood. This would be further complicated by a heart condition in many cases but even without that many had enough of the other factors that they would have died even if they had not been put out with the sleeper. The original Coroner's research that indicated that the sleeper was dangerous (it was the seattle coroner who was resonsible for this) has now been repudiated by that same coroner because he couldn't come up with the evidence to verify his conclusions.

So any use of force has some inherent risk but the sleeper hold (as opposed to a choke) is one of the safer techniques that can be used at a variety of levels of force without reasonable expectation of injury to the subject.

Dennis Hooker
11th April 2001, 13:31
Originally posted by George Ledyard


The most accepted Law enforcement version of this technique is actually referred to as the Lateral Vascular Neck Restraint or LVNR. This is the name given by Al Lindell of Kansas City to the technique as he teaches it to law enforcement.

When most other departments around the country banned the technique for largely political reasons, the Kansas City PD not only kept the technique but kept detailed statistics on its use. They can definitively demonstrate that it is far safe. They found they had far fewer injuries to both subject and officer when it was used. To my knowledge, in fifteen years they had no deaths which were attributable to the use of the technique.

Traditionally the "deaths" caused by the sleeper actually fell into two categories: a) incorrectly applied techniques which were actually chokes which damaged the throat and led to death; b) manic exhaustive syndrome which wasn't recognized until recently.



George have you got any more information on this subject?

Dennis

Often subjects who were subdued by the sleeper hold were thought to have died because of its application turned out to be subjects who had had an adrenaline dump (from high resistance to arrest or fighting with another subject and who had significant drug and alcohol content in their blood. This would be further complicated by a heart condition in many cases but even without that many had enough of the other factors that they would have died even if they had not been put out with the sleeper. The original Coroner's research that indicated that the sleeper was dangerous (it was the seattle coroner who was resonsible for this) has now been repudiated by that same coroner because he couldn't come up with the evidence to verify his conclusions.

So any use of force has some inherent risk but the sleeper hold (as opposed to a choke) is one of the safer techniques that can be used at a variety of levels of force without reasonable expectation of injury to the subject.

George Ledyard
12th April 2001, 02:32
I don't have much in writing outside of the notes I took in class at the police academy when I was there for instructor training. The man who is the head of instructor training at the Washington State Criminal Justice Training Center is Robert Bragg. He is one of the nationally recognized experts on the area and is leading movement to get the technique reintroduced for Law Enforcement agencies.

Sillal
12th April 2001, 14:28
A lot of people seem to feel that a "sleeper" style choke is very effective to subdue an opponent, but I must confess ignorance to how this relates to police work.

This type of grappling hold would seem to be difficult to apply to a larger (taller) opponent, or a very aggressive opponent. Also every martial art that I have ever studied has had numerous ways to escape this hold, and to counter it.

I appreciate the job that America's Police force does, and would never volunteer for it myself, but is this technique really going to assist officers in restraining people who are resisting, or is it going to get officers who have not developed the basics necessary to do this technique injured?

When I look at a police officer on the street I see several weapons at his disposal. They tend to carry some type of ranged chemical weapon such as pepper spray, some type of melee ballistic weapon such as a baton or an asp, and a firearm.

Are these tools not more appropriate for the officer to use, following the escalated force principal, as many police officers lack the true understanding of how to apply grappling techniques?

I am very interested in this subject, peoples opinions on my questions are welcome.

Lance Boggs

George Ledyard
12th April 2001, 15:17
Originally posted by Sillal
A lot of people seem to feel that a "sleeper" style choke is very effective to subdue an opponent, but I must confess ignorance to how this relates to police work.

This type of grappling hold would seem to be difficult to apply to a larger (taller) opponent, or a very aggressive opponent. Also every martial art that I have ever studied has had numerous ways to escape this hold, and to counter it.

I appreciate the job that America's Police force does, and would never volunteer for it myself, but is this technique really going to assist officers in restraining people who are resisting, or is it going to get officers who have not developed the basics necessary to do this technique injured?

When I look at a police officer on the street I see several weapons at his disposal. They tend to carry some type of ranged chemical weapon such as pepper spray, some type of melee ballistic weapon such as a baton or an asp, and a firearm.

Are these tools not more appropriate for the officer to use, following the escalated force principal, as many police officers lack the true understanding of how to apply grappling techniques?

I am very interested in this subject, peoples opinions on my questions are welcome.

Lance Boggs

Lance,
Your response makes the assumption that the average police officer is well trained in the use of each of his tools and that he has the traiing to effectivelt escalate and de-escalate up and down the continuum of force.

The fact of the matter is that most police pofficers are poorly trained at the outset and recieve little or no additional training after they get out of their academy.

The national average for in-service training in Defensive Tactics is 2 eight hour sessions per year. That covers everything from OC Spray, impact weapons, verbal judo, and any hands on DT they might do. This coupled with the fact that that same officer probably only had 50 or 60 hours of DT training initially (around 5th kyu in Aikido?) gives you some idea of the level of skill. You would be wrong that the sleeper is difficult to get on a subject. In fact it is remarkably easy as they usually have no real training. It is by far the most effective and safest way that a violent subject could be handled by a smaller officer.

OC Spray is effective about 85 - 90 % of the time. That means in one case in ten you have a seriously pissed off subject. Pain compliance will not work as he is already in a lot of pain. The sleeper can be taught easily to the average officer and is effective whether or not the subject is responsive to pain. I guarentee that when used as a substitute for hard empty hand or impact weapons techniques it is far easier on the subject.

Sillal
12th April 2001, 15:55
****You would be wrong that the sleeper is difficult to get on a subject. In fact it is remarkably easy as they usually have no real training. It is by far the most effective and safest way that a violent subject could be handled by a smaller officer. ****

Have you seen this to be true in a structured class style enviornment or on the street. If the latter do you have any experience with using this method to restrain very aggresive opponents who are facing you with an intent to kill or seriously injure you?

Also are methods of dealing with an opponents strikes to get into a position to use this techinque taught or deemed necessary in Police training? In the teaching of this technique are issues such as striking the back of the opponents leg to "shorten" him, and taking the opponent to the ground covered?

I'm curious how the training methods of the Police dept. equate to the same techniques trained in jujutsu and taijutsu.

Thanks,

Lance Bogs

Sillal
12th April 2001, 16:02
****You would be wrong that the sleeper is difficult to get on a subject. In fact it is remarkably easy as they usually have no real training. It is by far the most effective and safest way that a violent subject could be handled by a smaller officer. ****

Have you seen this to be true in a structured class style enviornment or on the street. If the latter do you have any experience with using this method to restrain very aggresive opponents who are facing you with an intent to kill or seriously injure you?

Also are methods of dealing with an opponents strikes to get into a position to use this techinque taught or deemed necessary in Police training? In the teaching of this technique are issues such as striking the back of the opponents leg to "shorten" him, and taking the opponent to the ground covered?

I'm curious how the training methods of the Police dept. equate to the same techniques trained in jujutsu and taijutsu.

Thanks,

Lance Bogs

Kit LeBlanc
13th April 2001, 01:28
Originally posted by Sillal
****You would be wrong that the sleeper is difficult to get on a subject. In fact it is remarkably easy as they usually have no real training. It is by far the most effective and safest way that a violent subject could be handled by a smaller officer. ****

Have you seen this to be true in a structured class style enviornment or on the street. If the latter do you have any experience with using this method to restrain very aggresive opponents who are facing you with an intent to kill or seriously injure you?

Also are methods of dealing with an opponents strikes to get into a position to use this techinque taught or deemed necessary in Police training? In the teaching of this technique are issues such as striking the back of the opponents leg to "shorten" him, and taking the opponent to the ground covered?

I'm curious how the training methods of the Police dept. equate to the same techniques trained in jujutsu and taijutsu.

Thanks,

Lance Bogs


Lance,

I will try to cut and paste this over to Close Quarter Combatives and answer it there. I think the discussion has gone beyond Aikido Ground Defense and the lurkers there might have some things to say.

Kit