PDA

View Full Version : Death from Ushiro-ukemi



PRehse
1st May 2001, 18:13
Originally posted by P Goldsbury on
E-Budo.com > Gendai Budo > Aikido > bruce klickstein

Such incidents involving death or very serious injury were the subject of an article which appeared in "Aiki News". The (undated) issue is No.80 and the article was written by Mr. Fumiaki Shishida, a professor at Waseda University. The article was a short summary of some serious research done on aikido injuuries and detailed 11 cases, including the one with which I am familiar. The first incident recorded by Mr Shishida occurred in 1972 and the last in 1985: 11 cases in a 13-year period. I am not aware of any research conducted after 1985, but I would be surprised if such incidents suddenly ceased to occur.

All the cases involved death, paralysis, or serious brain damage. As for the techniques involved, 6 involved shihonage specifically and all the others except one involved repeated ushiro-ukemi from irimi-nage or kote-gaeshi. The exception, not fatal, was brain damage from a botched ukemi from ushiro ryote mochi.

In my opinion, the 'classic' ukemi from shihonage, irimi-nage, or kote-gaeshi is ushiro-ukemi. However, in all three techniques it is possible for uke to be allowed to twist the body and take a forward or side ukemi. In shihonage this can put a severe strain on the elbow. I learned this second way in England but when I came to Japan I was told that this type of throw was "too severe", so the 'ushiro-ukemi' is the norm.


I've always liked articles by Shishida Shihan (JAA) especially those on martial arts history which of course he is a Professor of.

I am a bit surprised that the ushiro-ukemi is that dangerous. I assume that we are not refering to a backward role and always understood that it was done in Shodokan because it was safer than the roles. I have been winded by hard ukemi - but brain damage? Peter G. I am shifting to another thread because this interests me far more than some pedophile could you expand on this some more?

Aiki Jeff
1st May 2001, 21:52
I suppose that death from ushiro-ukemi is a possibility if the ukemi isn't done right. The one thing that we always harp on people for is tucking the chin and getting the butt down ASAP.

To quote a senior Yoshinkan sensei in my area that I have the priviledge to train under somewhat regularly "Flipping is a dojo-trained response...a non-aikidoka would never do this. There are a lot less risky breakfalls to do than this." I also remember an interview with one of Shioda Kancho's students in an Aikido Journal article a couple of years ago criticizing the "flashy" breakfalls that were becoming popular.

I think that flipping is a great thing to know how to do, but I still think that ushiro-ukemi is infinitely safer to do, since on a hard throw, if you are relaxed and comfortable enough, you maintain enough control of your body to protect your head and neck. It's not the programmed response to certain throws in Yoshinkan, like kotegaeshi, but it works just as well.

Of course, then there's the jumping back breakfall...which I can see hurting...a lot.

PRehse
1st May 2001, 22:08
Originally posted by Aiki Jeff
I suppose that death from ushiro-ukemi is a possibility if the ukemi isn't done right. The one thing that we always harp on people for is tucking the chin and getting the butt down ASAP.

Yes, yes and yes.


To quote a senior Yoshinkan sensei in my area that I have the priviledge to train under somewhat regularly "Flipping is a dojo-trained response...a non-aikidoka would never do this. There are a lot less risky breakfalls to do than this." I also remember an interview with one of Shioda Kancho's students in an Aikido Journal article a couple of years ago criticizing the "flashy" breakfalls that were becoming popular.

I think that flipping is a great thing to know how to do, but I still think that ushiro-ukemi is infinitely safer to do, since on a hard throw, if you are relaxed and comfortable enough, you maintain enough control of your body to protect your head and neck. It's not the programmed response to certain throws in Yoshinkan, like kotegaeshi, but it works just as well.


My Aikido was critisized when I first returned to Canada because my forward roles where like they were. The amount of time doing roles was definately less in Shodokan. Worries about it then - don't now. For the reason you stated.

Ellis Amdur
1st May 2001, 22:09
I found that there were enough untrustworthy individuals in aikido that I completely shifted my perspective on ukemi (making it, BTW more combatively realistic in the process). In brief, there is absolutely no such thing as "ushiro ukemi." Given that an ushiro ukemi puts one absolutely at the mercy of any thug who chooses to suddenly bridge your arm in shihonage, it's lunacy in many aikido dojos where this is the rule, particularly towards outsiders visiting, or juniors.
Therefore, when I do aikido and when I teach it, I insist that every fall in every throw should be an attempt to roll out/break-fall as the case may be. When the throw is far enough along that it is clear that no arm-breaking cheap shot, or hard slam backwards to the mat is POSSIBLE, then one can "spin out" with curved spine into a "so-called" back ukemi. One does this at the "last minute," right before the point of no return.
With this method, it's nearly impossible for anyone to plant your head backwards in the mat AND you can take what looks like a ushiro ukemi whenever there is no malevolence, idiocy or incompetence displayed by your partner.
In short, then, it's all front ukemi - except sometimes, you "sit out" at the end, when you have the leisure to do so (when people are actually doing aikido in the proper spirit - and I don't mean in bliss-ninny fashion - simply without the intent to deliberately injure or callous use of one's uke as a "training tool" rather than a partner in deleloping skill together.)

Final aside, it's funny, I never had anyone in muay thai, judo, or koryu grappling try to deliberately injure me. Throw me or kick me so hard in clean practice that the snot flew out my ears, but only in aikido (and fairly common, mind you) was there the deliberate attempt to maim.

Regards

Ellis Amdur

Meik Skoss
2nd May 2001, 04:06
To extend Ellis' statement a bit: in Ueshiba-type aikido it seems like people talk a great deal about "spiritual" or "non-competitive" and "co-operative" training, and then attempt to bury you. I recall a particular young teacher, at the Wakamatsu-cho Dojo back in the late '70s/early '80s deliberately trying to slam his partners' heads into the mat (me among them). Not quite the spirit of "loving reconciliation," huh? Yes, he's now a full-fledged teacher of the art. (Wonders will never cease.)

Judo, karatedo, collegiate wrestling, jukendo, tankendo, koryu of various types: all very vigorous training, but all clean and according to Hoyle (in my experience).

The last time I trained at a local aikido dojo though, my aite was some clown who tried to whip an armlock on me when I didn't "go down fast enough," then had the temerity to get nasty when I slapped him in the face to get him off me. There's *no* excuse for trying to hurt somebody in the dojo.

Sooooo, folks... wassupwi'dat, huh? Why is it that aikido is so different? Why is it so screwed up? What's up with all this hidden agenda garbage? Why there and not in a lot of other arts? Enquiring minds want to know.

P Goldsbury
2nd May 2001, 05:06
To P Rehse,

1. The ushiro ukemi I am referring to is illustrated, explained and used in various basic texts on aikido. See, for example, Shioda Gozo Sensei's "Total Aikido", pp. 72 & 73, where the breakfall is from katate-mochi shiho-nage; "Kihan Aikido Kihon-hen" (Standard Aikido, Basics), by Kisshomaru and Moriteru Ueshiba, pp. 36 & 37; "Tomiki Aikido, Randori & Koryu-no-kata", by Dr. Lee Ah Loi, p. 14, p. 51.

2. Ellis Amdur makes a very important point, but I think you learn the truth of it by experience. Before I came to Japan I was taught that ushro ukemi was dangerous and learned to do what we called 'yoko-ukemi' (side breakfall) from shiho-nage, irimi-nage and kote-gaeshi. As I said, when I came to Japan, people told me that this was too rough, especially on the elbow (of course, I do not deny that it can be done roughly).

I think Mr Amdur emphasises one of those 'ura' (hidden, private) aspects of aikido that no one likes to think about very much. You read all the universal ki and harmony stuff and think that every uke you meet will exude the same sweetness and harmony. It comes as a shock when you meet some thug who believes that aikido is a Japanese martial art and therefore Japanese can do it better than foreigners--and needs to prove it whenever he meets one. Of course this sort of thing can be found outside of Japan, but this is one of the reasons why I generally dislike training at the Aikikai Hombu. For a start you stay with the same partner all through the class and there are some people who like to train with foreigners because they are supposed to be bigger and stronger and tori can do the techniques harder. We just don't get this sort of thing in the dojos here in Hiroshima. Nor, I should add, are Japanese solely to blame, for I met some similar types when I trained in the US and UK. Aikido thuggism is not confined to one nationality.

3. Thus I need to stress that the fatal injuries I referred to occur in a certain martial arts subculture, which I explained in the latter part of my post, which you did not quote.

The martial arts clubs in Japanese schools and universities tend to have a rigid sempai/kohai structure. This tends to exhibit itself in at least three ways: (a) forced drinking bouts which sometimes lead to fatal results; (b) mindless training; (c) a kind of hazing during practice, which sometimes has the same result. The sempai/kohai structure is supposed to lie at the very root of Japanese culture and it is sometimes made an essential feature of the martial arts. But this can go haywire sometimes. For example, there was a horrific case in the news here a few years ago. Some seniors of a university karate club (in Tokyo) beat a junior to death (to death, I tell, you) because he did not fold their kekogis properly. The junior was supposed to wash and fold his seniors' kit and they were not satisfied.

The club was disbanded (but has since restarted) and the students were expelled, but there was no criminal punishment for such behaviour. The students were called upon to "reflect on the gravity of their behaviour", or some such phrase.

Another example. During one summer school, students were made to gather in a circle and do push-ups. There were 50 students and each one had to count to 10 while doing 10 push-ups. The captain attempted to go round the circle three times, which means 1,500 push-ups. This was meant to instil 'fighting spirit'. I do not know whether it did this, but it did nothing to improve the generally abysmal level of aikido practice.

In my experience the universities have a 'hands-off' attitude to such clubs, as they do to all student clubs. Running the clubs themselves is supposed to enhance their education. There is usually a professor who is responsible for the club, but he is rarely seen and plays absolutely no part in the running of the club.

If an incident occurs there is much sighing, ringing of hands and discussion about the "gravity of the situation", but little about the individual's possibly criminal responsibility. In any case, usually the seniors close ranks and no one knows who is actually responsible (which occurred in the case with I am familiar with).

Best regards,

Peter Goldsbury

P.S. I had just finished writing this and posted it when I saw Meik Skoss's contribution. I think I have given some idea of why such behaviour occurs in Japanese universities, but, of course, there is a whole lot more to be said.

The Piranah
2nd May 2001, 08:54
i was suprised too to learn that ushiro ukemi could be that dangerous! In fact, i have thought that twisting round to take a foward or sideways roll from (for example) shiho nage was more dangerous!!!

MarkF
2nd May 2001, 10:51
Originally posted by P Goldsbury
For example, there was a horrific case in the news here a few years ago. Some seniors of a university karate club (in Tokyo) beat a junior to death (to death, I tell, you) because he did not fold their kekogis properly. The junior was supposed to wash and fold his seniors' kit and they were not satisfied.



There has been discussion on E-budo about such a case, but was said to have happened in China. It could have been a coincidence, though. A search may bring it up.
*****

Sorry, Meik, but morbidity and fatalities have been in the news in reference to judo throws such as this. It is called "diving in" by the International Judo Federation and has been banned from contest judo. A direct hansokumake and a ban from further organizational judo practices is the punishment for the attempt, until a hearing is held.

That said, the only cases I know of in recent years was one in a high school tournament in which the person received a broken neck in the Southeast US, and the other was in a European tournament which resulted in death. Both of these cases happened in 2000.

My experience is the same as yours, and I've never seen that on any single occasion (except for the action of uke when attempting to break a certain score of Ippon), in the last thirty-eight years of doing judo.

It happens, including armbreaking. The most oft occuring injuries to the arm happen, at least from what I have seen, while doing ushiro goshi or any of similar counters to nage-waza.

However, in Kodokan shiai, it has never happened to my knowledge and probably wouldn't be noted as such if it did. Accidents happen, but I've never seen such an outcome.

Mark

Ron Tisdale
2nd May 2001, 16:02
With respect to Mr. Amdur and Mr. Skoss,

I can't speak to judo, but in shotokan karate, and high school as well as collegiate wrestling, I have experienced people who deliberately tried to cause injury. I believe your experience far outweighs my own(in quality as well as quantity), but not to the extent that I can just ignore my experience completely.

I must admit though, there seems to be a much greater opportunity for abuse in aikido. In the aforementioned arts, as in boxing and many other combative sports and arts, one is told to "be on guard", "defend yourself", "protect yourself at all times". In aikido, we talk of "promise training", "cooperation", etc. This sometimes leaves us unprepared for the overly enthusiastic partner, let alone one whose personal issues allow them to take advantage of a body lent to them in training. Especially since during pinning, your are almost if not completely at shite's mercy. More heinous perhaps than in those other instances, but given human nature, perhaps not so surprising.

I really don't know what the solution is to this problem. It is not appropriate to get up after an inapppropriate pin and kick your partner's butt. And often, if it is a really bad pin, you're not going to be kicking anything for a while anyway. And if you can continue training, "taking it up a knotch" isn't always a good idea either. Perhaps not patronizing dojo where this type of thing occurs is the only thing we can do.

Ron (protect yourself at all times) Tisdale

PRehse
2nd May 2001, 16:43
Originally posted by Peter Goldsbury

3. Thus I need to stress that the fatal injuries I referred to occur in a certain martial arts subculture, which I explained in the latter part of my post, which you did not quote.

I understood that but was curious as to what in the ushiro ukemi make it intrinsically more dangerous.

With reference to your expansion and that of Meik and Ellis.

I must say that my experience both at Tsukuba University and at Shodokan Honbu was very positive. Especially in the latter I was pushed very hard but never was there an attempt by anyone (that I saw) to injure anyone. There were some really brutal looking techniques but, at least from my view, uke knew what was coming and what to do. Shodokan Aikido though does have an outlet that Ueshiba-ryu does not and that of course is competition. I wonder if that is the reason for your observations. I have run into far more ego driven individuals in traditional Aikido in N. America than I ran into in Japan but of course my Aikikai experience there was only a few local dojos.

szczepan
2nd May 2001, 19:25
Originally posted by Meik Skoss

Sooooo, folks... wassupwi'dat, huh? Why is it that aikido is so different? Why is it so screwed up? What's up with all this hidden agenda garbage? Why there and not in a lot of other arts? Enquiring minds want to know.

In my opinion, it's to push uke to his limits and a bit more.It can be excellent tool, coz there is no competition(aikikai) - usually competiton in sports push you - , if done with propre spirit.
Other reason is, in aikido exist many very dangerous techniques forbiden in other martial sports( as judo karate, ...) and we practice it in very dynamic way. Even very peaceful looking technique it is quite easy change to something deathful.

To accept this kind of training uke must know exacly why and what teacher attempts to achieve by that kind of work. If somebody doesn't accept it, he can bow out any time.

In any MA we can find abuses and garbage. Why aikido must be free of that? It's good to be idealist, but let's not be naives.

Ellis Amdur
2nd May 2001, 20:09
First off, if I gave an impression that I believe that there is no violence or abuse in other martial trainings - no, not in the least. I'm sure you can find sadists, cheapshot artists and inadequate individuals anywhere - be it high school wrestling to Burmese thaing. Mick Foley (the only authentic master in existence) describes in his great book Have a Nice Day, how some owners of professional wrestling gyms would deliberately dislocate a young amateur wrestler's knee or ankle, just for the laughs.

But I deliberately pushed the envelope a bit, because I find violence so startlingly prevalent and yet, out of place, in aikido. And cheapshots, particularly so.

Now I know dojos where it never happens, and one can go a year without running into it. But it happens a lot, and what I find especially interesting is how often it is the teacher acting upon an utterly compliant and trusting student. Szczepan is absolutely wrong if he thinks I am talking about "hard training." and it is definitely not because aikido techniques are so devastating or superior. It is because the injuries usually happen in one or another form of "sucker punch." My previous post was only to say that once I learned that a sucker punch could happen at any time, I learned to change my ukemi so that no one could do me.

On one level, this was productive. Not only is my ukemi better, but I can teach other people as well (the key is to keep your head as close to your twisted arm as is possible). BUT, this is not necessarily combative effectiveness in any pure form. It is just a method of protecting yourself within the artificial set-up situations in classic aikido when someone takes advantage of the "rules" to cause harm.

Aikido is a lot of things, some of them quite wonderful. But the number of injuries in no way is evidence of it's 'combat effectiveness.' It's definitely true that 'someone can bow out any time.' But bowing out after a teacher has deliberately and permanently mained your elbow or shoulder simply because he wants others to see him as tough (or contrary to the truth, tries to prove, thereby, to himself that he is tough), is a little late. Seems to me that if the teacher wants to prove his toughness, there are two legitimate avenues: find a war, like the japanese karate teacher who went to Afganistan to fight the communists or the heroic kick boxer from the Sudan who tried to assassinate Turabi (a mass murderer) with his fists and is doing time in Canada or participate in a NHB tourney - lets see how shihonage (with atemi) does in that venue. Or a Third - train hard, get strong, and lead a decent moral life, ready to protect one's family if necessary and otherwise, treat people with respect.

Ellis Amdur

PRehse
2nd May 2001, 20:10
Hi Szczepan;

Maybe I misunderstand but I don't think what you are referring to is the same as the abuses being talked about by the others. There is a huge difference between a level of training which pushes your body and Aikido to the limits and the deliberate injuring of an uke.

You are completely right that it is easy to shift a technique to the high side of nasty and injuries do occur because of accidents - but when its deliberate.... that is abuse.

There are techniques in Judo and Karate that are just as dangerous - if used to deliberately injure students (I am not talking the occaisional split lip here) it is also abuse.

I think the premise here is that abuse of uke is more prevalent in traditionalal Aikido which is strange in that there is all this talk of hormony and loving protection. Personally I don't have enough experience to know if this is true or not - my beef is the constant talk about how competion is all about ego when I have seen far more ego related problems in non-competitive dojos. In my opinion the problem of ego and abuse is the same thing.


Originally posted by szczepan


In my opinion, it's to push uke to his limits and a bit more.It can be excellent tool, coz there is no competition(aikikai) - usually competiton in sports push you - , if done with propre spirit.
Other reason is, in aikido exist many very dangerous techniques forbiden in other martial sports( as judo karate, ...) and we practice it in very dynamic way. Even very peaceful looking technique it is quite easy change to something deathful.

To accept this kind of training uke must know exacly why and what teacher attempts to achieve by that kind of work. If somebody doesn't accept it, he can bow out any time.

In any MA we can find abuses and garbage. Why aikido must be free of that? It's good to be idealist, but let's not be naives.

P Goldsbury
3rd May 2001, 00:49
To P Rehse,

1. I, too, have sometimes wondered whether en element of competition in university aikido clubs would have had any bearing on the fatal accidents. From his affiliation with Waseda University, I assumed that Shihshida-sama practised Shodokan aikido, but in his "Aiki News" article there is no breakdown of the 'political' affilation of the clubs. Further, the incidence of the fatal and severely debilitating injuries has to be seen in the context of the very large number of university aikido clubs in Japan. Not that this makes his figures any less worrying, but it is also clear that there are a very large number of university clubs where techniques like shiho nage is practised without injury. Basically, I think the tone of the dojo, or club, is set by the chief instructor and the senior students.

2. I am not aware of any research carried out into fatal aikido injuries at non-university dojos in Japan, but I have never heard of any such cases. It is noteworthy that all the 11 cases cited in the Shishida article occurred in high school and university aikido clubs and that 8 of these cases occurred during special training camps. I myself have taken part in many of these camps and they are quite different from the summer camps I have experienced in the US and England. Here, the camp is given a certain 'spiritual' aura and the students go off to some island and spend a week in semi-monastic style training six hours daily. Training is largely in the hands of the 'kambu', the 3rd year studentswho run the club, and who would have attained shodan rank the year before. As I suggested in a previous post, this kind of situation contains elements which in combination are potentially lethal:
a: a junior member cannot stop practice and leave the mat if a senior practises dangerously;
b: the 'kambu' are sometimes unsupervised by the club 'shihan', who is not always present;
c: the students are taught smooth and flowing 'ukemi' but this is usually 'sacrificial' in the sense that it is a total surrender;
d: the ukemi required for a hard 'Fujita-Masatake-style' shihonage is never taught, in my experience;
e: in any case, we are talking about continuous practice of the same technique, for example, shihonage done hard between 50 and 100 times without stoppng.

3. I think ukemi, and not just ushiro ukemi, is an interesting topic in its own right. I was once told by the late Osawa Kisaburo Sensei in the Aikikai Hommbu that the ukemi should perfectly match the technique, should be economical, with nothing excessive, and that uke should remained 'centred' throughout. I am sure this is all true, but very difficult to put into practice.

Best Wishes to All,

Peter Goldsbury

PRehse
3rd May 2001, 01:26
Dear Peter G.;

Thanks for the reply.

Part of the Shodokan Honbu dojo dogma is that safety is paramount and I remember being told that even though we do tanto randori the amount of serious injury is less than other styles of Aikido

I say dogma because it may have been just to emphasize how important safety during training is - I have no idea how they came up with the idea or how true it is.

I saw surprisingly few injuries, no breaks a few dislocations, mostly toes. I got dragged off the mat once after a horrendous sprain to my ankle - totally my fault.

The Kambu situation you describe is interesting and scary at the same time. Never experienced it but the idea of a third year university and Aikido student being given complete control does not strike me as wise. At that point gung ho hasn't worn off.

By the way I appreciate your posts and that of several others in the forum - I am not sure yet but I may be in Kanto sometime this summer, definitely three months in Kansai. They pay me for science but Aikido wont be pushed aside. Far less opinionated in person - if anyone wishes to meet up.

Sam
3rd May 2001, 11:35
I'd just like to add my bit to the discussion about the tori/uke relationship.

Recently a group of people from our dojo attended a course run by a sixth dan in a traditional style.
The spoken theme was ki and harmony and the sins of competition. During the second hour this instructor, whilst demonstrating and circulating, struck two people, was verbally threatening, and was rude to half a dozen people including me. He asks for different uke with the warning - 'if you try to compete with me, don't be surprised if you get hurt' - I was not going to volunteer!

The point I want to make is that tori (nage/sh'te)/uke relationships are all about trust. If you don't trust somebody, don't take ukemi for them.


With regard to the ushiro-ukemi issue; I find that the more I train the more it seems that most breakfalls are a sideways landing and that ushiro ukemi is the forerunner to learning this kind of fall i.e. shoulder gridle touches down first to protect the back. I found this especially true with shihonage where a sideways breakfall seems to put less strain on the neck and stops the dreaded head-bump.


BTW I am a university student (albeit 6th year) who sometimes intsructs the university club. It was a long time before I was left to instruct unsupervised. Surely the senior grades in these clubs were prepared for the task by their instructor?

RDeppe
3rd May 2001, 18:20
Originally posted by Sam
'if you try to compete with me, don't be surprised if you get hurt'

--That's the weird part of traditional aikido that's the most bothersome to me (I understand the simple jerk sucker punch part to well to find it bothersome). I've meet a number of teachers with this additude. When I did Tomiki aikido I just didn't see this in the upper teachers-- maybe occasionally in my peers.

This isn't necessarily the same thing as the sucker punch injuries others are mentioning. It's the 'If you push me, I'll take this to a level that's over your head' thing I see some teachers pull on their students that I don't understand-- writing this makes me realize I do understand it. I just really don't like it.

BTW, I've definitely had more people try to hurt me doing other sports/ma than aikido (but, yes, definitely during aikido also).

Nathan Scott
3rd May 2001, 23:21
Good discussion.

This whole issue is pretty disturbing. I'm a big fan of hard training, but hard training is something that should be built up to slowly and carefully. Injuries should be rare and uncommon.

As a point of clarification (I don't have "Total Aikido" with me at work anymore!), is the ushiro ukemi we are talking about a rolling ukemi or a back breakfall. It sounds an awful lot like a back break fall, which would make alot of sense, as opposed to a back roll.

It seems to me you've got too basic types of back breakfall - one in which you get thrown directly to your rear while double weighted on your feet, and as a result you basically bend over backward and drop your shoulder blades to the mat - ending in an arch (keeping your head tucked, in theory).

The other is when you get thrown back to the same point so fast that your feet fly up in the air and you do a jumping back breakfall, landing directly on your shoulder blades (keeping your head tucked, in theory).

So, in English at least, we could say a back breakfall and a jumping back breakfall, depending on the application of technique.

Not an easy ukemi to learn, that I can attest! I'll have to try substituting the side breakfall (yoko ukemi) and see how it works (I like the tucking the head to the shoulder idea - thanks Mr. Amdur).

Why the poor manner, insecurity and violence in aikido? I think alot of it has to do with the reputation aikido has developed of being overly passive and ineffective. The aikikai has taken plenty of hits in this regard in the past, and may be feeling pretty defensive about it still. There also might be this whole stigma remaining from the old days of aikido where "the honbu students could not lose in a match against anyone else, or aikido would lose face".

I haven't been there, so I can't say for sure. But it does sound like a likely contributing factor. I called the aikikai last time I was in Japan, requesting to stop by to visit. The person they put on the phone (who spoke a bit or English) was quite rude, and insisted that it "wasn't necessary" for us to stop by since what we did was not aikido (I was travelling with a different group). I was quite insulted, especially when we had no problem visiting the Kodokan that day a few hours later, and had visited the Yoshinkan honbu on a previous trip without any discouragements. So much for the aikikai - not what I expected to experience.

Anyway, the senpai/kohai heirarchy in the school/university clubs is rediculous. I've heard many a horror story about these clubs. They may be useful for learning endurance and tollerance, but not what budo is all about, that's for sure.

I've been lucky enough to have avoided the majority of a**holes on the mat, but most of my esperience with other aikido groups has been in open seminars where I'm sure it would occur much less. I remember reading about Donn Draeger (I think) a long time ago, in which he had apparently gone to an aikido dojo to practice and the residing teacher (or senior) dislocated his elbow purposely. I believe he had said it was never the same after that. What a shame - that story has always pissed me off.

Regards,

PRehse
4th May 2001, 00:45
Originally posted by Nathan Scott

This whole issue is pretty disturbing. I'm a big fan of hard training, but hard training is something that should be built up to slowly and carefully. Injuries should be rare and uncommon.

Total agreement.


As a point of clarification (I don't have "Total Aikido" with me at work anymore!), is the ushiro ukemi we are talking about a rolling ukemi or a back breakfall. It sounds an awful lot like a back break fall, which would make a lot of sense, as opposed to a back roll.

Not the rolling one. That is a whole other topic. In the first post of this thread I pointed out that Tomiki insisted that it was done as opposed to the role because it was safer. This led me to wonder about the fatalities. I also have a problem with the rolling backwards ukemi from a self defense perspective. I think you are just too vulnerable in the backwards role. With the straight back fall you maintain eye contact and your legs can be used to fend off the opponent.

One lady actually called into question my shodan because I did not know how to do a back role very well which was expected considering I had never seen one until I came to Canada. Her sensei's response sure made me feel welcome and he has now become my sword teacher (TSKR).


I called the Aikikai last time I was in Japan, requesting to stop by to visit. The person they put on the phone (who spoke a bit or English) was quite rude, and insisted that it "wasn't necessary" for us to stop by since what we did was not aikido (I was travelling with a different group). I was quite insulted, especially when we had no problem visiting the Kodokan that day a few hours later, and had visited the Yoshinkan Honbu on a previous trip without any discouragements. So much for the Aikikai - not what I expected to experience.

That really is too bad. I never visited their Honbu but I have trained in or observed several Aikikai clubs with no problem. Mind you they were all local clubs were I was brought by members of the club. Only one club asked that I observe only and at the end they said please visit again and train with us. Unfortunately I never managed. My own Honbu allows non-members to observe only but they are welcome to do that and I have never seen any visitor that did not have a senior student sit down and explain what was happening.


Anyway, the senpai/kohai hierarchy in the school/university clubs is rediculous. I've heard many a horror story about these clubs. They may be useful for learning endurance and tollerance, but not what budo is all about, that's for sure.

Please don't be so quick to toss out the sempai/kohai relationship. It's been pointed out to me that the militaristic bend of some of the university dojos is a direct result of the pre-WWII influence of the government. I understood the true value of the system when I moved to Honbu. At Tsukuba University we were the first year and I had no sempai. I moved to Honbu and was adopted by several advanced students and got far more out of them than I gave. In return I sought out my kohei to return the favour. Both ways I learnt much quicker.

P Goldsbury
4th May 2001, 00:55
Originally posted by Sam

The point I want to make is that tori (nage/sh'te)/uke relationships are all about trust. If you don't trust somebody, don't take ukemi for them.

BTW I am a university student (albeit 6th year) who sometimes intsructs the university club. It was a long time before I was left to instruct unsupervised. Surely the senior grades in these clubs were prepared for the task by their instructor? [/B]

I entirely agree with the first point, above. The problem is that some aikido practitioners do not behave as if they believed in this relationship. When this happpens, one option is to walk away, but this was not open to the student who died. He was Japanese and felt bound by the sempai/kohai relationship. He had joined a club where this relationship was expressed in a certain fashion. I knew the student quite well, since he had taken my classes in the university. He sometimes said that ukemi was difficult and that he needed more practice.

As for the second point, the answer is No. Not really. I was once an instructor in the aikido club at University College London. The local shihan came quite often and there was a close relationship between the university club and the local city dojo. University clubs here seem to be much more closed, as I said earlier, a subculture. By signing up the students sign a blank cheque, so to speak. Practice takes place five days each week and the student should not miss a single practice. Since it is a club, and not simply a dojo, there are other forces at work beyond simply practising and building friendships based on practice (which is how I see aikido). The student's time in the club can be seen as a series of rites of passage from joining until graduation 4 years later (and joining the OB club ). One of these rites of passage is instructing as a member of the 'kambu' (literally "main group").

Of course, usually (and the human being, including the body, is actually quite resilient) some good practice is possible, despite the odds. However, it is interesting that most of the foreigners who come here are very uncomfortable with such attitudes and training. Luckily, there is quite a good local club where they can practise, so they are quickly steered away from the university club. Which actually might have to disband. The club is plagued by injuries (surprise! surprise!) and all the freshmen year, many of the second year, and also the club captain, have left.

To Mr Nathan Scott,

1. As you know, the Japanese 'ukemi' does not really specify the precise form and the fatal ukemi was clearly a break fall. Beginners in my local dojo are taught a version of 'ushiro-ukemi' which is a reverse mirror image of 'mae-ukemi', where you end up in a standing position in both cases. This is simply a backward roll and the point is to place the shoulders correctly and avoid bringing the head into contact with the mat. With a technique like shiho-nage done straight down, as someone like Fujita Sensei does it, this ukemi is impossible and the overriding problem is to avoid hitting the back of the head.

2. I must apologise to you for the bad behaviour of the Aikikai receptionist (I am listed as a member of that organisation on the Aikikai's Japanese web site) and it is not the first time it has happened. When I first came to Japan, a letter of introduction had been sent previously and I was met at the door and introduced to Doshu. So if any of my non-Japanese friends come to Japan and want to visit the Hombu, I usually telephone in advance or write a letter of introduction to Doshu, in Japanese. Why do I do this? Because, when viewed from a certain perspective, the Aikikai are abysmally bad at public relations. But I have found so far that the telephone call or the letter produces better results.

Ah, once again, what was meant to be a brief, pithy Amdur-style post has become an oration. I could go on a lot longr about all this (perhaps I should save it all and write "Angry Black Hakama", as as sequel to Mr Twigger's book).

Best regards,

Peter Goldsbury

Nathan Scott
4th May 2001, 01:44
I wasn't trying to say that there should not be a senpai/kohai relationship anymore. This heirarchal structure is firmly embedded in Japanese culture, and is not going anywhere anytime soon. I agree that it does have value when implemented correctly, but the school/university clubs in Japan in particular are notorious for being overly abusive (to Japanese members - I don't know about foreigners).

**

Yes, ukemi is a pretty vague term, which is why I thought to ask for clarification on the type being discussed. I've racked me melon a few times while taking a hard jumping back ukemi!

You know, I really don't understand why there is a need for some teachers to be using technique variations that are so dangerous. I don't mean any disrespect to any of them, but it seems to me that if you really want to practice/teach/show dangerous variations, then carefully train a few skilled seniors and use them exclusively to take the falls. But, for example, if a 3rd dan student visiting from another dojo trains with such a person, why should the teacher expect that the visitor should be able to correctly anticipate and adjust for their unique and hard approach?

They might be of the opinion that if they can't take the ukemi properly, then they shouldn't hold the rank of 3rd dan (or whatever rank). But is that the students fault or their teachers fault? Should the student be punished for not being better? There *are* no standards for the dan/kyu system. Just look around. It is unfortunate, but skill is a relative and subjective thing, and is going to vary from style to style and teacher to teacher.

I'm under one of the harder instructors out there (Obata Toshishiro sensei), and we have not had any signifcant injuries since I've been there. He throws me and a few others hard that we bounce off the floor, and may swing a bokken at a few of us while we are doing taisabaki practice. But he uses control and sensitivity so that there are no accidents.

If a senior aikido-ka from another dojo/branch visits our dojo, I'll find out first if they have any injuries or limitations, and then build up from simple techniques and get a feel for their uke ability. No damage.

Sorry, but senior aikido instructors with reputations of damaging their students has been something I've been thinking about recently. I've been taught that good aikido involves refined movement, control and sensitivity, and that is what does not make sense to me in these cases.

The students and training partners are volunteering their bodies to you so that you may improve your technique. Why trash them? If you don't care for someone, don't train with them.

Oops, got long again...

Nathan Scott
4th May 2001, 01:56
Hi Mr. Goldsbury,

Thanks for your comments on the aikikai. I know if I would have approached the visit formally (sent a letter in advance, arranged the visit through someone known in the aikikai, used your name with reckless abandon...!) the results would have surely been move favorable.

But what really frustrated me was that the person on the phone knew very little about me, outside of the fact that I was in town with a martial art group, and that a few of us wanted to stop by to visit. He did not know if I studied aikido, who I study under, whether I've studied under the aikikai elsewhere, etc. We did not expect or even want to train there. If someone had time to greet us, then great. If not, we simply thought it would be novel to take a few photos if permitted and look around.

I'm sure people stop by the aikikai honbu unannounced quite often (or try to at least). But it would seem that anyone who is not known to them or anyone that has not set up formal arrangements to visit can expect to be treated rudely and/or turned away. "Dropping by" may be considered a bit rude, but when people travel all the way to Japan and ask to visit while passing through you would expect them to have developed a bit of tollerance for this kind of Westernism (considering how many non-Japanese aikido students there are these days).

It just makes me wonder how many others have gone to Japan and been disuaded from visiting. But, perhaps it may be an uncommon occurance.

Anyway, if I feel the overwhelming urge to visit the aikikai next time I'm there, I'll make sure to go through all the proper hub-bub ahead of time!

Thanks,

David Russell
4th May 2001, 16:31
I think abuse is much easier to spot and fix with beginners. With beginners where I train, if someone starts on the path of abuse some of the senior students will try and correct the behavior, by having a private conversation with that person. Other instructors will be told to watch that person. We assume they don't know any better and try to teach them. If that help is rejected, the student will start having a problem finding a training partner. If they still don't respond they will be asked to leave.

If someone becomes physically unsafe to train with, they are told to leave the dojo immediately and not return.

The real problem is with advanced students being abusive. I've trained in schools where there always seemed to be a favored senior student who would hurt someone occationally. I didn't understand this situation until I read to following written by one of our senior guys, Bob Canup.

"Evil people of normal intelligence are careful to do their best to blend into good society. This insulates and protects them from the angered reaction of good people; who would hammer them just as hard as they hammer the least intelligent of the evil. Indeed, evil people of normal intelligence are so successful at blending into good society that their statements, goals and culture have become 'normal' and 'accepted'

The goal of the average evil person is to make the lives of those around them as miserable as they can - without doing enough to attract the retribution they richly deserve.

Next up the ladder is the evil person of above average intelligence. These people have a similar goal to evil people of average intelligence; the production of human misery. However these people see the opportunity to do something that evil people of normal intelligence don't see how to do; murder someone and get away with it. They understand that the way to murder someone and get away with it is to not care who they kill, how they kill them, or when they kill them. Such people set up conditions where someone will be 'accidentally' killed and wait for the circumstances to occur.

If you are a good person you will meet many evil people in your life, you need to recognize them and their actions. More importantly you need to recognize which evil behaviors you have been conned into excepting as reasonable and to reject those behaviors - both in yourself and in others - as unacceptable."

Never ascribe to malice those things which may be explained by stupidity." That is an important phrase, and a necessary one; it keeps people from being paranoid. However, it has a serious flaw of which most people are unaware; it means that those who are both evil and clever need only mask their malice in a thin veil of apparent stupidity in order for that malice to go undetected. In addition, it has a corollary most people don't know: "One MAY ascribe to malice those things which stupidity cannot explain."

Hope this is helpful to you. I think the only way to stop abuse is for the entire dojo to be on the watch for it and have the integrity to not tolerate it.

David

P Goldsbury
5th May 2001, 01:39
I think I should stress the unusual circumstances of the cases which Mr Shishida researched (see the first post in this thread) and I would be interested to know of any research into fatal aikido accidents (1) in university clubs outside Japan -- in the US, for example, and (2) outside university clubs in the US. I might be wrong, but I doubt that there would be many such cases.

As I stated earlier, I have not heard of any deaths from shiho-nage/ushiro-ukemi outside universities in Japan and I doubt that the case with which I am familar could be explained as a case of malice. The incident occurred during a summer training camp of the Medical Faculty (i.e., students training to be doctors) and the student died of severe concussion three days after the practice. He took ushiro-ukemi continuously and it would be impossible to state whose shiho-nage actually caused his death.

I think the reason why such fatal accidents are/have been? relatively common in university training camps is the weight of tradition and the circumstances in which aikido is practised. One might conclude that this would have caused a major rethink about such matters, but it has not (and this is also probably due to the weight of tradition and the circumstances in which aikido is practised).

The fact also remains that shiho-nage, when done hard and straight down, is dangerous.

I do not wish to deny what David Russell states in his post, and the source he quotes. I am sure evil exists also in Japan, in good measure, but the Japanese seem to handle it differently, without the concept of sin and individual guilt. In Japan everyone is supposed to be "good", especially in a dojo, and if there are "accidents" it is often thought to be the victim's fault. Really, I'm not joking.

Best wishes,

Peter Goldsbury

Joseph Svinth
5th May 2001, 08:38
Of course the Japanese would blame the victim. After all, the only real alternative during supervised training is supervisory negligence.

Discussion: US Army longitudinal studies suggest that about 80% of ALL accidents are due to either supervisory negligence or failure to observe known standards.

Definition: An accident is an unplanned event or series of events that lead to injury, illness, or property damage.

Detailed explanation: Common personal failures to follow standards include:

• Not using or properly maintaining required safety equipment.
• Overconfidence.
• Haste.
• Self-imposed fatigue.
• Drug or alcohol abuse.

Common supervisory errors include:

• Failure to teach standards.
• Failure to enforce standards.
• Failure to maintain equipment.
• Failure to provide proper training.
• Not adjusting training to meet changing situations.

Proper supervision includes:

• Ensuring that areas are clean, well-lighted, and free of hazards.
• Allowing no one to train who is obviously injured or under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
• Keeping egos in check.
• Making sure that sparring partners are evenly matched.
• Controlling the tempo of the play.
• Stopping the play whenever someone gets hurt or appears excessively tired. (Put another way, when the feet quit moving and the chest starts heaving, it's time to stop sparring.)

Some resources for safety include "Force Protection (Safety)," Center for Army Lessons Learned, Fort Leavenworth, KS, 93-9, Dec 1993, http://call.army.mil/products/newsltrs/93-9/939toc.htm

Safety in regard to martial art training and competition is discussed in Martial Arts Injuries by James Canney (London: A. &. C. Black, 1991), Official Karate by David Mitchell (London: Stanley Paul, 1986), and The Martial Arts Coaching Manual by David Mitchell (London: A. and C. Black, 1988). See also Developing and Managing Health/Fitness Facilities by Robert W. Patton, William C. Grantham, Richard F. Gerson, and Larry R. Gettman (Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics Books, 1989), ACSM's Health/Fitness Facility Standards and Guidelines by Neil Sol and Carl Foster (Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics Books, 1992), and Coaches Guide to Sport Law by Gary Nygard and Thomas H. Boone (Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics Publishers, 1985).

As for the injury sustained, I'd guess that it was subdural hematoma. If so, then the actual injury may have been sustained as much as 2-3 days prior to the killing event. Boxers die from this cause on a distressingly regular basis -- they get beat up one day, then drop dead the next while sitting at home. For an introduction to subdural hematoma, see http://muhealth.org/~neuromedicine/subdural.shtml . It's hard to treat this one once it happens, but, basically, if somebody looks groggy, have them sit down with somebody watching them, and if they stay groggy, call the aid car. This is not rocket science, simply standard first aid.

For fatalities associated with judo (close enough to aikido for these purposes), see Dr. Koiwai's article at http://www.ijf.org/commission/ed-rp-01.html .

Doug Daulton
5th May 2001, 17:35
Originally posted by Meik Skoss Sooooo, folks... wassupwi'dat, huh? Why is it that aikido is so different? Why is it so screwed up? What's up with all this hidden agenda garbage? Why there and not in a lot of other arts? Enquiring minds want to know.
Originally posted by Ellis Amdur
First off, if I gave an impression that I believe that there is no violence or abuse in other martial trainings - no, not in the least. I'm sure you can find sadists, cheapshot artists and inadequate individuals anywhere ... .I would agree with Mr. Amdur that their are knuckleheads in every art who mistake hard, combat-effective training with cheapshots. The majority of my experience is in Okinawan karate and I have seen many, many cheapshot artists among the ranks of the larger karate scene. To a lesser degree (because of my lesser experience, not less frequency of occurrence I suspect), I have seen the same thing in aikido and judo.

So to answer Mr. Skoss' question, I don't think these behaviors are more prevalent in aikido. Rather, I think when it does happen in aikido, it is all the more shocking because of the "love & peace" philosophy of the art. When we chop-socky, karate knuckle-draggers :D get a black-eye, it is sort of expected. Almost every media interpretation of the karate dojo bears this out. That said, I don't think thuggery is appropriate in karate either. Contact and injuries will happen, no matter how controlled the dojo is. However, serious injury should be very much the exception, rather than the rule.

In almost every case I've seen where a teacher or senior acts like a knucklehead, the perpetrator claims he is "teaching a lesson" about combat effectiveness. In reality, I suspect the individual is really not interested in teaching (or in the case of a senior ... providing a good example). Rather, these acts are simply an exercise in flexing his/her ego and establishing a dojo/seminar pecking order based on fear of injury, not respect for technique.

Ironically, most of these chest-thumpers that I've seen have holes in their technique that one could drive a truck through. Most of them are young "champions" who win on speed or strength, not technique. Waza lasts, youth does not. When they can no longer intimidate based on these fleeting things, folks like this mostly fade into memory.


Originally posted by Ellis Amdur
Seems to me that if the teacher wants to prove his toughness ... train hard, get strong, and lead a decent moral life, ready to protect one's family if necessary and otherwise, treat people with respect.Hear! Hear! There is no weakness in this option, only strength.

I have had the good fortune to train with several folks who fit this mold. Each one makes the experience very, very real and expose weak technique in the interests of helping their students and juniors grow. In every case, I knew I was in trouble and I did not need a whack in the chest, chops or groin to know It was my fault ... my partner's weapon (tonfa, jo, fist, foot. etc) casually lingering at a vital point was enough to make his/her point crystal clear. In Aikido or Judo ... the lesson was usually taught by the immediate sensation of falling (controlled and safe) when I was absolutely certain I had the stronger position ... or by a constricting choke or rock solid shoulder pin from which I knew I had little chance of escaping without seriously hurting myself.

In all cases, it is the feeling of utter vulnerability and exposure which was the greatest teaching tool ... any associated pain or discomfort was incidental. A friend who lives and trains in Japan said he has learned to love the phrase "shinda" which I am told means "I have died". When he shared this with me, I laughed out loud because I knew exactly what he meant. I love that phrase now as well.

Interestingly enough, most of the folks whose technique I genuinely admire and aspire to emulate are in their 50s, 60s or even 70s. Some even battle a variety of ailments or old injuries. Despite these "disadvantages", all of them still manage to easily handle younger and physically faster and stronger uke like me. When paired with them, I try to give as clean, honest and committed an attack as possible. Still, I end up on the mat or an inch or so away from the business end of a poised weapon. Again, technique will beat strength 99.99% of the time.

These days, I find that most of the violent contact I receive in training is my fault when I am too impetuous and try to execute things too early in my learning cycle. Basically, I get hurt when I "think I got it" and do not. In these cases, the injuries occur not because my partner is malicious, but because "I hit his fist with my face". I am glad to report that these incidents are rarer now. I guess I am starting to learn. :D

Regards to all,

Lenny Rede
6th May 2001, 10:45
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ellis Amdur
[B]I found that there were enough untrustworthy individuals in aikido that I completely shifted my perspective on ukemi (making it, BTW more combatively realistic in the process).

let me tell you story...

I was at a seminar with a high ranked Sensei from aikikai Hombu Dojo, a pleasant enough fellow with whom I am on a first name basis, and I was working out with one of the instructors of this Dojo. Now I had trained there for a number of months while looking for a new Dojo, and knew everyone pretty well...

there wasn't much room on the mat (typical seminar) so I wasn't falling down. receiving his energy allowing him to complete his technique. He didn't like this so he moved his knee behind my back as he was finishing the technique and attempted to drive my back unto his knee.

not cool. But, not an uncommon Dojo story...

"Evil people of normal intelligence are careful to do their best to blend into good society. This insulates and protects them from the angered reaction of good people; who would hammer them just as hard as they hammer the least intelligent of the evil. Indeed, evil people of normal intelligence are so successful at blending into good society that their statements, goals and culture have become 'normal' and 'accepted' "


I believe that in the same way that their have been problems with clergy, scout masters and psychiatrists, there are those that will wrap themselves in the 'lovey dovey' cloth of aikido to place them selves in a position of trust. I know of more than a couple of abuses by aikido Sensei.

I think the fundamental difference between aikido and other MA's is that the expectation is that the person you are giving your body to, will protect you. No one enters a boxing ring with expectation that the other guy is going to love them. As Amdur Sensei pointed out so well this is hooey.

In my first school we trained that it was aite's ( the person attacking) responsibility to protect themselves. the idea being "move your body before they hurt you." yes, yes, it was nage's responsibility not to hurt you, blah, blah, blah... the understanding was the harder you come the harder you fall. Aite set the pace.

It was this style of training that allowed me when faced with an instructor with an agenda to put me in my place, I was able to take ukemi from him without injury. which I might add only made him mad.

There are assholes in aikido. There will always be assholes in aikido.

I think it is important for instructors when teaching aikido to teach ukemi that will work not only in the their Dojo, but outside. Outside the rules and assumptions.

Otherwise, they might be endangering their students.

Like I said, there will always be assholes... but, the question is' what can we do ourselves and for those we train with to protect ourselves?'

Lenny

Dan Harden
6th May 2001, 15:38
I have waded in without reading much of the correspondance in detail. Perhaps that is just as well.
I have had my own experiences wth Aikido that have lead me to think the art is divided in its goals.
After spending some years in Judo, Jujutsu-Aikijujutsu, a Mixed art, and aikido Dojo, I have found the most dangerous place to be was in Aikido Dojo. This is odd since I have found (through personal experience) that Aikido was a pale fighting art in comparison to the others mentioned.
So why the dichotomy in the statement?
The main reasons are (what I have come to believe anyway) *co-operation* and *self doubt*. Both of which aikido has in abundance.

Aikido has several levels where it has set itself up for potentially dangerous dojo situations. *None* of which having to do with its level of technique; good or bad.


Cooperation:

In order to train in any of these arts you need to have a measure of cooperation to learn the techniques. For hundreds of years the arts have managed to move forward with this cornerstone in place "I let you have my arm or body, you throw me, choke me, hit me or lock me so I can take ukeme." The architype exponents were there with an understading that they were doing something serious and dangerous. Therefore a measure of respect and confidance was fostered. Indeed, most of these older arts as well as the more martally viable newer ones had techniques that were rationally sound and martial both in their intent and execution and in their attacks.
In the case of Aikido you have techniques that have been significantly altered (drastically may not be too strong a word) from their martial roots and you use them many times against weak uncommited attacks .

You will get into grand debates with Aikidoka over this statement. It seems rather simple to me when one observes and feels; Takenouchi ryu, Tenshin shinyo, or Daito ryu, that Aikido shares only remnants of basic martial intent, or level of techique. In any matial sense it has departed and diverged from its more martial cousins, in pursuit of a more spiritual self image.
All this should be fine though. So what is the problem?

The problem is (and many Aikidoka hate being told this)that as Aikido has grown and spread; many of the exponents that are drawn to it are the gentle new age "world" citizen type, who have become involved in an art that is giving mixed messages to its exponents.
they are are told it is spiritual, then they are shown techniques for destruction.
All this is placed in the hands of gentle people with no experiences at having this type of power, and they are placed before other people who have little or no experience in giving any real level of attack (some not all) and then told to cooperate in their own demise. This is a *very* dangerous course of action. One that used to be controlled in small dojo. But Aikido has grown tremendously.

The results of this lead to another interesting point....

Self doubt
When so much cooperation is given to effect technique in the dojo. You now start relying on the good will, and level of intent of people who functionally have no clue of the potential they hold to cause damage. A smart or experienced artists starts to "see through" all this cooperation, silly attacking, twirly dancing and may want to mix it up to see if it can "really" work.
Why?
His training has fostered self doubt and doubts of the viability of technqiue against commited real world attacks when his brethren are not cooperating.

results.........more accidents.

Perhaps you don't have this as much in other arts for the simple reason that people in them recognize they are in the pursuit of a better way to control, arrest, or kill you....or in sport oriented arts because there is little or no cooperation.
Thus, there is no dichotomy of intent. I believe this leads to different training regimen, more confidance, and true ability in the exponent. Hence the safer environment to train in.

No where am I arguing that Aikido technique cannot work or that it, or its exponents are bad. I am arguing that the way it is taught could be changed. It cannot be both things. In fact it has proven its own case that it cannot.
Martial or religion.....it needs to find itself.

It is difficult to get into these discusions. You can speak of your training in dojo of 8th dans and seminars with different people around the country. You can add to that "others" similar experience, the written narratives in publications, your own experience in other fighting arts, you can site the articles and interviews in Japan and elsewhere of many senior people (Draeger and Bluming included) and their views on the training in aikido.......it comes to no avail.
To make claims that an art has the ability to subdue an antagonist WITHOUT causing him harm, thus protecting both parites is an admirable goal. But I think it is a goal wholly out of touch with reality. Sadly it is still repeated often enough by the heirarchy to have the unknowing believe it is possible.

On another level I have copies of the written words of 5th and 6th dans where they talked of "Biting" yes BITING! as being part of Aikido in its purest form. I have whole discussions of head butting and kicking and ne waza being part of what Aikido "is" as well.
When you see these types of statements juxtaposed to other sensei telling them to be gentle and gentile and that in time they can subdue an opponent peacefully without harming the opponent, it is no wonder you have mixed signals being sent and received.

Its pointless to argue. The medical records of the training accidents are simply "there." But, they are debated then dismissed. Some may even argue the injuries are evidence of martially viable technique.

In fairness, accidents do happen. We have all seen them. No one should be condemmed for them. But, it is not just the accidents or the percentages of them and serious injury that causes pause and commentary from experienced artist.
Rather it is the number and nature of them, IN LIGHT of the rather tepid technqiues that CAUSED them, that speaks volumes to experienced artists of what is really going on.

Dan

Dennis Hooker
7th May 2001, 14:47
Hey folks over the years it’s been my unpleasant experience that many of those timid little creatures (I speak of confidence not physical stature) who come to Aikido do so because they see it as a safe and hospitable place where they can develop their Samurai fanaticizes and hero complex. They shy away form the harder more physically confrontational arts. They are the ones that after gaining a bit of skill and trickery feed their small minds with the unnecessary pain of the fellow students. They actually believe themselves to be as good as their cooperative partners make them look. Sometimes they really get good, but never having tested their art against skilled opponents they doubt themselves and seek to give validate themselves by hurting unsuspecting people. If I get one of these jerks in my dojo and they injure someone then they have the chance to show their goods by facing anyone of several accomplished karate, judo or jujitsu folks who are also Aikido folks. The last one I had I mistakenly promoted to shodan and then he quickly ran off and joined Mr. Seagals organization and I understand now he has been turned out from it. He took advantage of a friendly situation with another Aikido yudansha who was also a Shotokan instructor. The sparing session that followed did not bode well for the mans Aikido ability under real stress.

Personally I find those hardened, battle scared old warriors who come to Aikido after proving their worth in other arts to be the safest haven of all. They have nothing to prove. I am not for competition in Aikido but I think those folks that like to hurt should test their skill against other skilled martial arts folks who are not there to make them look good. I’ve had my give and getter tested on occasion and it keeps one humble.






Originally posted by Meik Skoss
To extend Ellis' statement a bit: in Ueshiba-type somebody in the dojo.

Sooooo, folks... wassupwi'dat, huh? Why is it that aikido is so different? Why is it so screwed up? What's up with all this hidden agenda garbage? Why there and not in a lot of other arts? Enquiring minds want to know.

szczepan
7th May 2001, 15:00
Originally posted by Dan Harden

Thus, there is no dichotomy of intent. I believe this leads to different training regimen, more confidance, and true ability in the exponent. Hence the safer environment to train in.

Martial or religion.....it needs to find itself.


Dan

Very interesting analysis.

But what happens if this dichotomy is intentional? May be without dealing in daily basics training with this dichotomy reaching goals of aikido is not possible?

it is founder himself who fixed practice this way.Some may think he was a crazy old fool.But if one read ie: M.Eliade books about comparatif religions, we can find very same methods in yoga of Patandzali and others.They working also by dealing with paradoxes in body practice(hence body positions in hatha yoga are contrary to natural order) and mind practice( cutting step by step all links with reality ...)
may be there is no other way to go further, far behind our normal limits?

Dan Harden
8th May 2001, 20:39
Very interesting analysis.
But what happens if this dichotomy is intentional? May be without dealing in daily basics training with this dichotomy reaching goals of aikido is not possible?

*************************
Hi Szczepan

I will leave you and your fellow aikidoka to answer that question......

You know me enough to know my personal views on what the intent of arts should be.

*********************

it is founder himself who fixed practice this way.

Actually I have trouble agreeing with you here. My opnion, and yours really don't count for much. Then again, neither do the opinions of most of the highest senior people in the art.
Stanley Pranins good efforts at interviewing the people who *actually* trained with the founder, as well as the ones who truly did much to create what we now *see* as aikido, were quite revealing and eye opening. His views-and it would appear many of the founders contemporaries as well- were that Aikido, as it is practiced today is more the creation of the son and Tohei.
Further, it would appear that many of his contemporaries couldn't understand a damn principle he was conveying. A few were quoted as saying that they "Couldn't wait for the old man to stop talking" so they could train.

**************************

Some may think he was a crazy old fool.But if one read ie: M.Eliade books about comparatif religions, we can find very same methods in yoga of Patandzali and others.They working also by dealing with paradoxes in body practice(hence body positions in hatha yoga are contrary to natural order) and mind practice( cutting step by step all links with reality ...)
may be there is no other way to go further, far behind our normal limits? [/B][/QUOTE]


Well...I have my own views on religion
and my own views on more effective ways to subdue, control and kick someones a@#$$
I have no illusions about sparing the health or well being of someone who has chosen to be aggressive in my presence.

I see them as two different things......
but that's why we have this big wonderful diverse world we live in

Dan

Jack B
8th May 2001, 22:33
Further, it would appear that many of his contemporaries couldn't understand a [single] principle he was conveying. A few were quoted as saying that they "Couldn't wait for the old man to stop talking" so they could train.

I have heard that similar things were said in regard to Tomiki sensei in his older years.

Tomiki said that he added randori "to paint in the eyes on the paper tiger." I am sure he made no friends with this, but he was addressing a serious point in aikido. Without a method of objectively demonstrating and testing technique in a contested, non-choreographed setting, it is difficult to develop self-confidence. This does not necessarily mean Judo style tournaments, but practice where uke is not determined in advance.

There is a presupposition among aikidoka that it is the ultimate and undefeatable martial art. This is based mainly on the legend of Ueshiba and the skill of his first generation. None of these people trained in the "peace and latte" cooperative, untested system so common today. They came up hard, usually with judo or other rank before getting a shokai to Ueshiba Sensei. The legend says they had open invitations to attack Sensei at any time, and were taught to always throw "with full power."

The disparity between legend and the reality of personal self-doubt creates the need to prove superiority by "cheating." This is an ego problem and is sad, but not limited to Aikido. People make up for their deficiencies with cruelty in all arts and all walks of life.

I think Aikido itself is a great martial art and really works, but very few people really do it. Most of us are chasing it, and don't want to admit that we are doing a very difficult re-programming of limbic responses and are not very far along, or might not even be on a path that gets to the top of the right mountain. The struggle to conquer ego (fear and desire) is the key obstacle.

Jack Bieler

Dan Harden
9th May 2001, 14:04
Tomiki said that he added randori "to paint in the eyes on the paper tiger." I am sure he made no friends with this, but he was addressing a serious point in aikido. Without a method of objectively demonstrating and testing technique in a contested, non-choreographed setting, it is difficult to develop self-confidence

There is a presupposition among aikidoka that it is the ultimate and undefeatable martial art. This is based mainly on the legend of Ueshiba and the skill of his first generation
I think Aikido itself is a great martial art and really works, but very few people really do it.

Jack Bieler

*****************************

We agree that there is no ultimate and undeaftable art. And presumption, based on the myth of one mans abilties is a fools game. Making the claim or stating the goal that you can defeat commited opponents without harming them is simply incredulous.

Were I asked to choose "one" approach, I would choose the "principles" of combat in an art applied in a combatively rational approach against practiced commited attacks.

Principles are the cornerstone
Kata the building blocks
Making it dirty through the crucible of committed attack/ defense is the mortor on which it all stands

What made Ueshiba M. and only Ueshiba M. unique, was the principles of the Daito ryu (as used) in his new creation "Aikido."
"IT" was the engine that drove the machine. I believe it also the reason that no one else remains that can do what he did. They did not learn the principles and angles of attack/defense through jujutsu, to Aiki-no-jujutsu, then use them in his new vision of Aikido.

Take away the principles of Daito ryu "Aiki" from Aikido and you have modern Aikido, as expressed by Ueshiba K. and Tohei.
Trying to "do" Aikido harder or more aggressively (as some are want to do) to get back to the first generation approach, just won't get you there. It is altogether different angles and vectors, and done much, mu-u-ch.......softer.

Dan

Ron Tisdale
9th May 2001, 19:14
I'm sorry, Mr. Harden, but you are displaying (unintended I'm sure) a rather narrow view of aikido here. Gozo Shioda, Minoru Mochizuki, Kenji Tomiki; I'd like to see any evidence that you have that the aikido that these men (and others) promulgated was "modern Aikido, as expressed by Ueshiba K. and Tohei".

As to the rest of your statement about taking away the principles of Daito ryu "aiki", I'm still not convinced that many of these principles *were* taken away, especially when it comes to someone like Gozo Shioda. Someone who was known to continue his training in Daito ryu (explored in another thread on this board under the aikijujutsu section) even after he stopped training with Ueshiba. My limited experience says that many of these principles are still taught and practised. Who knows what it'll say 10 years from now though :)

I agree with you (based on my limited knowledge and experience) that "Trying to "do" Aikido harder or more aggressively (as some are w[o]nt to do) to get back to the first generation approach, just won't get you there. It is altogether different angles and vectors, ".

I don't know about the softer...I think that is where you must end up, but I don't think that is where you start.

But hey, everyone gets their own opinion. Its just a shame that some have such a limited view of aikido.

Ron Tisdale

Den
9th May 2001, 19:33
Making the claim or stating the goal that you can defeat commited opponents without harming them is simply incredulous.

... I believe it also the reason that no one else remains that can do what he did. They did not learn the principles and angles of attack/defense through jujutsu, to Aiki-no-jujutsu, then use them in his new vision of Aikido.

Dan,
Perhaps I've misunderstood, and my apologies if I have, but is this a snub at Aikidoka?

I'm not sure I can agree with your conclusions if you're stating them as fact. Do we know, factually, that there is no modern Aikidoist who can do what O'Sensei did? Do we know as a fact that Daito ryu is the only engine behind modern Aikido, and that other jujutsu ryu-ha would not have served as well given Morihei Ueshiba's mindset? Do we know, firmly, that students of Chiba, Saotome and Nishio, are not as effective as the first generation Aikidoka?

To the first point I've quoted - I've also been called upon to use my Aikido for self defense on two occasions, and each time I was able to do so without injuring anything more than the pride of the person attacking me. And on topic I should mention, neither person knew ukemi. How - specifically by doing what Aikido taught me to do - blend with my attacker's energy and then put them in a restraint which held them without causing injury.

To the second point -I've studied under two second generation Aikido (Aikikai) sensei, Harvey Koenigsberg and the late Paul Sylvain. Both of them excellent teachers and extremely effective martial artists. Are they as good as the Shihan before them, I'm not qualified to say but I'd stand behind them in a fight.

One observation I feel comfortable making is that like many martial arts, Aikido isn't easy. Aikido also attracts a lot of people who have little martial arts experience, and this adds to the difficulty of the art because Aikido takes longer to achieve a competent practice of than say some forms of Karate.

In the end, people who study Aikido professionally are going to be more effective than those of us who can only study in the evening three or four nights a week. People who study multiple arts are going to be more effective than the rest of us. The Shihan who spend their lives studying are going to do things the rest of us can't (but of course they do this at sacrifice). O'Sensei, like few others dedicated his life to studying martial arts, he also had to use his skills during wartime, and was called on to train military officers. Men of such calibre are rare no matter what presuppositions you define.

Again my apologies if I've misunderstood the point you were making.

Respectfully,
Anthony

Dan Harden
9th May 2001, 22:31
Ron:
I'm sorry, Mr. Harden, but you are displaying (unintended I'm sure) a rather narrow view of aikido here. Gozo Shioda, Minoru Mochizuki, Kenji Tomiki; I'd like to see any evidence that you have that the aikido that these men (and others) promulgated was "modern Aikido, as expressed by Ueshiba K. and Tohei".

me
Let me try to answer and be clearer.
I don’t think I am displaying a narrow view. I was trying to differentiate between the first generation and modern Aikido. I specifically used the word “modern” as an intentional time /player reference. As I stated in an earlier post; Much of what we now see and call Aikido is really more of the product of Ueshiba Kissomaru and Mr. Tohei then it is Ueshiba M. The source I used for that statement is the excellent research of Stanley Pranin. My opinion or anyone else’s is secondary to his rather revealing research. I find his conclusions to be supportable by the consistency in the statements of those who were there.
I do consider some of the Aiki as displayed by Gozo Shioda to be more of a product of Daito Ryu (the source and background of which I won’t discuss here.)
The other two you have mentioned are products of first generation training -when Ueshiba M. was still handing out Daito ryu scrolls- and their own considerable training in Judo.
You also left out Shirata, Inoue, Hisa, Takeshita and many others. Some of whom trained with both Takeda S. and Ueshiba M.
I do not consider their Aikido “modern” Aikido though.

Apparently you don’t either

********************************

Ron
My limited experience says that many of these principles are still taught and practised. Who knows what it'll say 10 years from now though


me
By Aikido? I disagree.

There are enough people who have trained in both, under certain sensei who would, and have, disagreed with that statement.
I was at a seminar when a very well known Daito ryu sensei made that very statement.
That many of the principles are the same. His (former Aikido sandan) student that he brought with him smirked at that comment and quipped quietly to several people "Yeah? tell my body that!"

I know several others who having trained in both arts most assuredly do not agree that they are the same. And in fact would argue the point.
I agree with the “See them as different” side.

Others don't....that's why people are different and the world is a big place.

Aikido may continue to try and re-classify itself on a revolving basis, from Dojo to Dojo.
It is what it is, and it is out there enough to define itself to whomever has gotten involved.
And it will become what it will become
But, it isn’t all things to all men.
and never will be
If you like it...........do it with gusto

cheers
Dan

szczepan
10th May 2001, 03:12
Originally posted by Dan Harden

it is founder himself who fixed practice this way.

Actually I have trouble agreeing with you here. My opnion, and yours really don't count for much. Then again, neither do the opinions of most of the highest senior people in the art.
Stanley Pranins good efforts at interviewing the people who *actually* trained with the founder, as well as the ones who truly did much to create what we now *see* as aikido, were quite revealing and eye opening. His views-and it would appear many of the founders contemporaries as well- were that Aikido, as it is practiced today is more the creation of the son and Tohei.
Further, it would appear that many of his contemporaries couldn't understand a damn principle he was conveying. A few were quoted as saying that they "Couldn't wait for the old man to stop talking" so they could train.

I think, I was talking here about dichotomy spiritual vs martial aspect in aikido training.I believe Founder fixed it long time before his son or K.Tohei started learning aikido.





Well...I have my own views on religion
and my own views on more effective ways to subdue, control and kick someones a@#$$
I have no illusions about sparing the health or well being of someone who has chosen to be aggressive in my presence.

I see them as two different things......
but that's why we have this big wonderful diverse world we live in

Dan

I think we are not talking here about our views on religion, but about Founder's.

His religion was second(not less important) pillar of aikido. If you focus only on streetfighting application of techniques aikido you miss a point. there are so many other, better systems to teach it.

Dan Harden
10th May 2001, 12:02
I think we are not talking here about our views on religion, but about Founder's.

**************

I see what you are trying to discuss. I am afraid I will be of no use to you. I do not know the founders views. According to the many-many interviews of those who sat in his direct presense, and under his personal teachings......
they didn't either
So I don't really know who does know, or those who only think they know



His religion was second(not less important) pillar of aikido. If you focus only on streetfighting application of techniques aikido you miss a point. there are so many other, better systems to teach it.

Yes I agree.
I will have to leave that up to you to answer. I have found my faith elsewhere. Perhaps you should share what you have found in it.

Dan

Ron Tisdale
10th May 2001, 13:54
Mr. Harden,

you:
By Aikido? I disagree.

There are enough people who have trained in both, under certain sensei who would, and have, disagreed with that statement.
I was at a seminar when a very well known Daito ryu sensei made that very statement.
That many of the principles are the same. His (former Aikido sandan) student that he brought with him smirked at that comment and quipped quietly to several people "Yeah? tell my body that!"

Me:
I take it you mean that the Daito ryu instructor stated that they (Daito ryu and Aikido) share many of the same principles, and the student did the quiping. I understand the students confussion. Just because many of the same principles are shared, doesn't mean the two will feel the same. In my opinion, Daito ryu takes the shared principles to an extreme (a good extreme)while adding some other things, while aikido supplements those principles with more movement and broader evasions, losing some of the effectiveness of the other principles in the process. At least, from the little training I've done in both.

you:

I do consider some of the Aiki as displayed by Gozo Shioda to be more of a product of Daito Ryu (the source and background of which I won’t discuss here.)

me:
Aw, come on, give! At least in email! :)

From the (again, little) training I've done in Yoshinkan and Daito ryu, there seems to be a solid base in Yoshinkan as I've been taught it to take the next step fairly easily into Daito ryu, under competant instruction (which is hard to come by, and in my case, not very frequent).

I personally like, read, and agree with Stanley Pranin's research. But he does seem to be able to differentiate between the different traditions within aikido, and to recognize that some of these traditions are alive and well, even in these "modern" times.

Be well,
Ron Tisdale

Dan Harden
10th May 2001, 14:28
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ron Tisdale
[B]Mr. Harden,

Ron states
I take it you mean that the Daito ryu instructor stated that they (Daito ryu and Aikido) share many of the same principles, and the student did the quiping. I understand the students confussion.

To be clear this particular sensei has made the statement often that they are the same.
I won't go other peoples feelings about that...
lets just say "Not all agree with that rather "popular" statement.
Can you spell b-r-i-d-g-e.


Ron:
Just because many of the same principles are shared, doesn't mean the two will feel the same. In my opinion, Daito ryu takes the shared principles to an extreme (a good extreme)while adding some other things, while aikido supplements those principles with more movement and broader evasions, losing some of the effectiveness of the other principles in the process. At least, from the little training I've done in both.

I completely disagree.
As you have stated "not all Aikido is the same."
Well, niether is all Daito ryu

Some do it more like Aikido...see it like Aikido
so their opinion would be?

Some do it more like jujutsu
see it like jujutsu
so their opinion would be?


Some have strong Aiki..some not so much
add to that
The levels of Aiki are all over the place, even in the same school / art
even the levels of how one exponent "uses" aiki within the same given ryu are different.
some are martial....some not so much.



Ron:
From the (again, little) training I've done in Yoshinkan and Daito ryu, there seems to be a solid base in Yoshinkan as I've been taught it to take the next step fairly easily into Daito ryu, under competant instruction (which is hard to come by, and in my case, not very frequent).

I won't comment. I have seen too many people, from many different arts, even from within the same Ryu;
Do things so completely different that I don't see anything as cohesive anymore. And some are wholly unconcerned with martial intent, ability or rationale. Even those with considerable skills.
For me it is has become highly individualistic in nature.
There are men who "see"
and others.......not so much



Ron:
I personally like, read, and agree with Stanley Pranin's research. But he does seem to be able to differentiate between the different traditions within aikido, and to recognize that some of these traditions are alive and well, even in these "modern" times.

Well it seems we both do as well. We just discussed the specific topic of "modern VS first generation style" with no significant disagreement that I can see.

Cheers
Dan

Emily
11th May 2001, 19:34
This thread has wandered over to the land of "aikido as a religion" which was not its original intent but does address some of the problems of abuse as well delineated by folks posting before me.

I have 8 years experience in aikido, about . I've tried hard to practice with lots of different folks and see lots of different points of view. I dabbled in Yanagi-Ryu under some of Don Angier's folks and taken Wing Tsun and kickboxing (not the "aerobic" kind ;) ).
I love koryu weapons and have been pretty thoroughly lured to what we joking call "The Dark Side".
I will say that I still love what aikido stands for, and love to practice it, but am far more careful whom I practice with.

I've met a-holes, trained under a-holes, and also met some folks who really understand where strength and compassion meet.
Most of them really do own a big ol' can of whoop-@ss.
The ones who don't, unless they are very gifted, can carry a truly disturbing sense of "more aiki than thou" along with some technique, enough to make the average student very vulnerable... particularly the one seeking salvation of some kind and willing to suffer for it.
I got moderately injured twice because I didn't have good fundamentals in either ukemi or technique.
My teachers had done the best they could, they felt terrible and my technique was scrutinized when I got back. I was never blamed, though I blamed myself.

I never bought the "aikido is the only compassionate art" bit since I know compassionate folks from other arts and murderous egotists in aikido.

There are gradients of reality not understood by MOST people on the planet, no less aikidoka.

People with an awareness of power and its cost seem to me to have a more genuine handle on their art, less delusional and ego-poisoned anyway.
We all suffer from some of that.

That rambles, but I hope I have shared my perspective usefully.

Emily

szczepan
11th May 2001, 21:03
Originally posted by Emily

That rambles, but I hope I have shared my perspective usefully.

Emily

Hi Emily,

Are you Emily from Texas?Good idea to post here.

welcome to e-budo !

Emily
12th May 2001, 14:40
Originally posted by szczepan


Hi Emily,

Are you Emily from Texas?Good idea to post here.

welcome to e-budo !

Yep, that's me.
Thanks for the welcome, Szczepan!

This has been a fascinating thread to follow, and reflects the problems with spreading any art as well as wierdly echoing the problems of modern religion.

Heck, I don't know what Ueshiba was really trying to do.
I've gained much from the art, and if nothing else it's a great "gateway drug" into the koryu. (grinning)

Emily

Den
12th May 2001, 15:53
Emily,
This is a thread I'd like to see started - how many of us began in Aikido, and have now been seduced into the deeper recesses of Japanese budo?

Aikido and religion aside, there is just enough formality and ettiquette in an Aikido dojo to get you hooked on the broader cultural experience. I started out in Aikido, began studying iaido with my Aikido instructor, and now my wife is at me about the time I spend at the kenjutsu dojo!

Drug is the right word!

-Anthony

P Goldsbury
13th May 2001, 03:03
Well, I for one have been seduced by aikido, if "seduced" is really the right term.

I started in England and came out here on a one-year contract. I have been here ever since. However, the seduction involved Japanese culture in general, rather than Japanese budo.

You might have gathered from previous posts in this forum that I believe that there are very serious problems concerning the way aikido is practised and taught in Japan, but I am not sure that people are even aware that there are problems, even less what these are. The seduction has involved the whole "aikido as peace and harmony with the universe" issue and the unresolved question of what is essentially Japanese about aikido. This second question is not one which the Japanese are equipped by their culture to answer.

Best regards,

Peter Goldsbury

P Goldsbury
13th May 2001, 03:41
On rereading my last post, I see that I have brought together two related questions: aikido as a 'drug' for Japanese budo; and aikido as a 'drug' for practising Japanese budo in Japan. From my general experience practising aikido so far, I make two observations:

1. Outside Japan, some people try to be more Roman than the Pope and make of aikido practice a more intensely "Japanese" budo experience than the Japanese do themselves. The use of the term "Sensei" is one very minor example.

2. In Japan, the practice and organisation of aikido are overladen with cultural factors which I do not believe are essential to the art itself. The way that death and injuries are handled, for example, is an excellent illustration of this.

This second general issue is something which I believe that the Aikikai Hombu, for example, feels threatened about, since it might be thought to undermine their domination of the art. I know myself that whenever I even raise such questions there is a general sucking of breath and gnashing of teeth and dark questions are asked about my "real" understanding of "true" budo. Luckily, I have quite a thick skin.

Best regards to all,

Peter Goldsbury

Emily
13th May 2001, 15:12
Originally posted by Den
Emily,
This is a thread I'd like to see started - how many of us began in Aikido, and have now been seduced into the deeper recesses of Japanese budo?

*snippage re: the problems of a non-budoka spouse which I well understand but have changed, for myself*

-Anthony

Um, I don't really qualify to start that thread. I started trying to learn more about the Japanese sword because I was "fencing" with some friends who had started kendo at the university and had taken up whacking each other in parks. I wanted to learn better footwork and a friend of mine whom I respected told me the footwork in aikido came from sword and he thought I'd enjoy it. I did. That was 12 years ago.
So I was a blade-head before I started and am just really going back to my roots.

However, I am not here to dis aikido, unlike some others who will quote out of context to prove a point (I was there for the "biting" discussion on the Aikido List, and yes, I have bitten in randori- safely). It's a big part of my lineage, and I agree that there are problems galore. I can only practice it the way _I_ feel in my heart that it should be practiced, and find teachers I can practice "mutal respect" with.
And no, I am not actively practicing aikido now, but I have been asked to teach it, and have therefore finally decided to speak up after years of sporadic scanning here.
I won't be teaching just what I got my shodan in, but other things I picked up.. seems wierd but seems usual.
Any comments? Especially in terms of affiliation.
Thanks!

Emily

PRehse
13th May 2001, 18:17
Originally posted by P Goldsbury
1. Outside Japan, some people try to be more Roman than the Pope and make of aikido practice a more intensely "Japanese" budo experience than the Japanese do themselves. The use of the term "Sensei" is one very minor example.

Tell me about it - I have had a few lectures about the Japanese and the way they do things by people who a) had never been and b) knew that I had.


2. In Japan, the practice and organisation of aikido are overladen with cultural factors which I do not believe are essential to the art itself. The way that death and injuries are handled, for example, is an excellent illustration of this.

This second general issue is something which I believe that the Aikikai Hombu, for example, feels threatened about, since it might be thought to undermine their domination of the art. I know myself that whenever I even raise such questions there is a general sucking of breath and gnashing of teeth and dark questions are asked about my "real" understanding of "true" budo.

Well its not in Japan alone that we get hit with the true Budo statement from practitioners of Aikikai Aikido. I have heard several people outside of the Aikikai commenting on the excessive use of this statement and what it implies.

Den
13th May 2001, 23:19
Emily,
What's the saying - can't get the kids back on the farm once they've seen gay Paris. I practiced Aikido pretty solidly for eight years, but one day while doing tachi-uchi with a friend I had this exhilarating feeling. More than just the high that comes from practicing, it was a realization that the movement I had been studying in Aikido had come from this root. We were whacking each other with bokuto, and it felt so - appropriate - for lack of a better word. I also realized that aiki-ken wasn't going to be enough. I still like to take an Aikido class every now and then, but its hard since I'm also only a shodan with not enough time to continue advancing. There is just so much to learn in kenjutsu!

Mr. Goldbury,
Given the fascination with Japanese culture that budoka outside of Japan have, the limited amount of ettiquette and budo "culture" within Aikido (again - outside of Japan - as you say the Roman syndrome) seems an apt introduction. Don't you think that in Japan, with the prevalence of koryu arts and other traditional cultural arts that there is less "need" for that behavior to be preserved in Aikido? Is it possible that shortcomings in the instruction of Aikido are part and parcel of the same issue?

-Anthony

Dennis Hooker
16th May 2001, 14:28
There are so many people with so many opinions and, so many and varied attitudes with regard to Aikido it is confusing. Hell with so many different opinions within the Aikido community as to what Aikido is, or should be, it is confusing to those of us that have been involved in it for 30 and 40 years or more. It seems every other shodan now wants to be a teacher, much like Karate and Tai Kwan Do. Some folks think it’s the “movements” that define the art and others think it is the “techniques” while others say it the “philosophy”. Heck some folks even believe it is a religion. They study for a few years (sometimes less) and form more opinions than talent and then proceed to degrade and belittle something they really know very little about.

I remember when I was a student of Judo, Karate and kenjutsu the general consensus was if you weren’t a 20-year man your opinion didn’t count. You may have been talented as all get out and could kick ass in the big league, but you still were to young to make judgments.

Now I don’t know if that’s really true or not but it sure cut the !!!!!!!! factor down considerable. I think if people were a little more discrtimitating about the teachers they select much of the problem would go away. You don’t need to know much about the art you want to study to evaluate the character of the person professing to teach it. That person should hold the qualities you wish to further develop in your life. Those qualities are expressed in the art he/she teaches. If the teacher does not meet or exceed your expectations then do not expect to find your answers in the art they teach.

It may be true that many westerners have a better understanding of budo than the general population of Japan. We may have redefined it a bit around the edges and maybe shaped it to our cultural mold but the essence of it remains.

Now why did I come to Aikido and why did it become so popular among the x-shoulders, flower children, and martial arts practitioners of the late 60’s and early 70’s? Well, it offered another way. It was not just another “martial art” but an art that let us express ourselves in a manner we were accustomed to and taught us how to live with those skills in a peaceful world. Make no mistake about the talent of the teachers. Many of us did not come peacefully or full of gullibility but were won over by superior martial skill.

Dennis Hooker
www.shindai.com





Originally posted by Emily


Um, I don't really qualify to start that thread. I started trying to learn more about the Japanese sword because I was "fencing" with some friends who had started kendo at the university and had taken up whacking each other in parks. I wanted to learn better footwork and a friend of mine whom I respected told me the footwork in aikido came from sword and he thought I'd enjoy it. I did. That was 12 years ago.
So I was a blade-head before I started and am just really going back to my roots.

However, I am not here to dis aikido, unlike some others who will quote out of context to prove a point (I was there for the "biting" discussion on the Aikido List, and yes, I have bitten in randori- safely). It's a big part of my lineage, and I agree that there are problems galore. I can only practice it the way _I_ feel in my heart that it should be practiced, and find teachers I can practice "mutal respect" with.
And no, I am not actively practicing aikido now, but I have been asked to teach it, and have therefore finally decided to speak up after years of sporadic scanning here.
I won't be teaching just what I got my shodan in, but other things I picked up.. seems wierd but seems usual.
Any comments? Especially in terms of affiliation.
Thanks!

Emily