# Breaking Structure



## K-man

A very good example of a top Aikido guy's ability to break his partner's structure to enable an effortless takedown.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

At 1.32,

- A's left hand grabs on B's right wrist.
- B rotates his right hand clockwise and puts pressure on A's left wrist.

There is nothing that B can do to prevent A from letting go A's own left hand grip. Why does A just let go his own left grip?

IMO, A should grab B's wrist with his own "tiger mouth (between thumb and index finger)" facing to himself instead of facing to his opponent. This way, B cannot turn his right hand clockwise because B will have to fight against A's 4 fingers instead of just fight against A's thumb (1 finger). Of course B can rotate his right hand counter-clockwise and still deal with A's thumb. But this will open B's own center line and allow A's left arm to move into B's front door (space between B's both arms).

IMO, if you want to use your left hand to grab on your opponent's right wrist, the following grib is better.


----------



## K-man

Kung Fu Wang said:


> At 1.32,
> 
> - A's left hand grabs on B's right wrist.
> - B rotates his right hand clockwise and puts pressure on A's left wrist.
> 
> There is nothing that B can do to prevent A from letting go A's own left hand grip. Why does A just let go his own left grip?



I think you have missed the whole point of the exercise. Aikido is all about breaking structure. Training from gripping is part of that. If you are grabbing for someone's wrist and they move your instinct is to follow. To grab and control there is tension in the arm and that tension goes right through the body allowing the break in structure. If there was, say, a knife in the hand you would be trying to hang on and in doing so you would lose your balance with that combined movement of the turn of the wrist and the lifting of the arm.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

K-man said:


> If you are grabbing for someone's wrist and they move your instinct is to follow. To grab and control there is tension in the arm and that tension goes right through the body allowing the break in structure.


You still have not answered "why A won't let go his own grip" yet. Since your "wrist grip" doesn't really control your opponent's arm (his elbow joint is still free), it's a "temporary" grip. Why do you want to hang on your "temporary" grip for?

I know it's just for training purpose. But it still have to make sense and you can't assume that your opponent will "hang on his own grip" without any good purpose.

If you try to date a girl but she says no, will you still try to mess with that girl, or will you let go that girl and find other girl instead? You have control on your own well. the girl has no control on you.


----------



## K-man

I think you miss the subtlety of it. When a girl says no, sometimes she means maybe.  You have to read the body language. You have to read the body language in martial arts also. It is not all ... "fist meets face".  When you reach to grab someone's arm you are trying to grab their arm. You don't suddenly let go because it is your intent to grab and control. You are actually being led. In this exercise you know ahead of time what is happening so sure, you could let go, but that defeats the purpose of the exercise which is learning how to break the structure.


----------



## Hanzou

Any examples available outside of demonstration format?


----------



## Tony Dismukes

The instructor's body mechanics are excellent. The issue I have with the demonstration is the reaction of the uke to tori's movements. The extreme disruption of uke's structure and balance only occurs because uke has learned to act the part of a completely incompetent attacker for demonstration purposes.

In a more realistic scenario, if a competent opponent grabs your wrist and you apply this sort of movement to disrupt his balance and structure he will likely respond by either

a) adjusting his grip and body position to regain his own structure and attack yours or, failing that,
b) release the grip and transition to a different grip or strike or disengage completely and reset before attacking again.

Hand fighting would be so much easier if my opponents just held on to their grips for dear life without making any effort to maintain their structure. 

None of this is to question the instructor's skill. As I said, his body mechanics are excellent and the underlying concepts are sound. It's just that the actual application will look completely different against an opponent with any actual ability to be dangerous.


----------



## K-man

Tony Dismukes said:


> The instructor's body mechanics are excellent. The issue I have with the demonstration is the reaction of the uke to tori's movements. The extreme disruption of uke's structure and balance only occurs because uke has learned to act the part of a completely incompetent attacker for demonstration purposes.


I think that what we have is a guy bending over backwards, literally, to do what he thinks his teacher wants him to do. It looks bad to outsiders who are looking for a martial application in a training technique. 



Tony Dismukes said:


> In a more realistic scenario, if a competent opponent grabs your wrist and you apply this sort of movement to disrupt his balance and structure he will likely respond by either
> 
> a) adjusting his grip and body position to regain his own structure and attack yours or, failing that,
> b) release the grip and transition to a different grip or strike or disengage completely and reset before attacking again.


In reality neither of those will occur. The demonstration is done slowly so you think that is the case. At normal speed two things happen. You don't have time to adjust a grip because the hand is actually coming up as maybe a back fist strike to the face. Secondly, the person trying to grab the wrist has made the decision to catch the wrist and as such will chase the wrist whether he has hold or not. If he removes the hand to block the strike the takedown will still occur, so disengaging at that point really is not an option.



Tony Dismukes said:


> Hand fighting would be so much easier if my opponents just held on to their grips for dear life without making any effort to maintain their structure.


Yes but any fight would be a breeze if people fought the way the basics are trained.



Tony Dismukes said:


> None of this is to question the instructor's skill. As I said, his body mechanics are excellent and the underlying concepts are sound. It's just that the actual application will look completely different against an opponent with any actual ability to be dangerous.



The martial application comes about when there is a reason to hold as I pointed out in post #3 where there might be a knife. I posted this in the Aikido area because it is an Aikido video but the principle applies across the board. The exact same move occurs in karate when the hand returns to carriage with the palm up. Of course in that situation it is you gripping, not being gripped. A similar breaking of structure occurs in any CQ martial art when you move to the side controlling your opponent's elbow. A similar scooping move will break the opponent's structure.


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> Any examples available outside of demonstration format?


Sure, I'm sure there are thousands. Why don't you go off and see if you can find some?


----------



## Brian King

I really like Ikeda Sensei's work. Top martial artist, honest student (i.e. gets on the mat at open seminars and trains like a white belt) and is a VERY good person. Very polite classy guy. 

Regards
Brian King


----------



## hoshin1600

K man I respect you as a martial artist and in many cases I agree with but on this i dont. you have made a couple of typical aiki mantra comments about the actions and reactions of the uke. How the uke will follow the hand or wrist ect...
I agree with tony.  Tori can break ukes structure because the uke is acting in a pre prescribed fashion that is unrealistic.
In aiki the tori or nage is learning to move in a particular way but the uke is also learning how to respond in a particular way. the actions to break the structure will be very different without a trained and compliant uke.
My debate here would start with ukes intent.  In aiki the intent applied is often the grab itself but in reality the grab is not the intent but rather to...move you pull you take away somthing you are holding, find the striking distance, ect.  If you add a true intent then ukes actions will be very different thus in many cases rendering tori techniques usless.
I Understanding that sometimes we need to practice a simplified version of action in order to learn the core. However aiki requires both tori and uke to exist.  Without uke aiki is not aiki.  You and I have both done aiki and other arts. I have found I cannot do aiki on/with  karateka. Yes a I can do a wrist controll or a takedown but it is not true aiki.  So how do you rectify this and make it work on someone who is not an akidoka and is not going to comply or behave in a way that is unpredictable.


----------



## K-man

Kung Fu Wang said:


> IMO, if you want to use your left hand to grab on your opponent's right wrist, the following grib is better.


Why? What is the context? The first grip makes perfect sense if you want to apply a sankyo lock, the second perhaps if you were thinking of kote gaeshi. But the fact is, neither grip is secure. We train gripping so we understand how to escape from grips. In the video the grip is part of the training exercise to demonstrate how to break your partner's structure.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

K-man said:


> neither grip is secure.


If can be secure if you use double wrist control, use your opponent's one arm to jam his other arm, at the same time you press his both arms against his own body.

Most of the time, the "wrist control" is a "temporary control". Since it's "temporary", you should not commit on it, you should be able to "change" along with your opponent's respond.

In the following clip, the

- wrist control is the 1st set up,
- elbow control is the 2nd set up,
- face punch is the final goal.








Tony Dismukes said:


> b) release the grip and transition to a different grip or ...


Agree! To assume that A will hang on his own wrist grip will not be realistic. Here is another example. It's double wrist grips but the same concept can also be applied on single wrist grip.


----------



## hoshin1600

Kung Fu Wang said:


> That's my main point. The "wrist control" is a "temporary control". Since it's "temporary", you should not commit on it, you should be able to "change" along with your opponent's respond.
> 
> In the following clip, the
> 
> - wrist control is the 1st set up,
> - elbow control is the 2nd set up,
> - face punch is the final goal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agree! To assume that A will hang on his own wrist grip will not be realistic. Here is another example. It's double wrist grips but the same concept can also be applied on single wrist grip.



i understand the first clip you posted but as you said the face punch is the final goal in your scenario, however in other instances the goal is to break the joint or to control the person, not to punch. in many circumstances you cannot or do not want to strike, like law enforcement you are not allowed to strike.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

hoshin1600 said:


> i understand the first clip you posted but as you said the face punch is the final goal in your scenario, however in other instances the goal is to break the joint or to control the person, not to punch. in many circumstances you cannot or do not want to strike, like law enforcement you are not allowed to strike.


Agree that the "grappling art solution" is much more civilized than the "striking art solution".

When you  give your opponent a

- "bear hug", he may become your best friend.
-  "face  punch", he may become your worst enemy.


----------



## K-man

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If can be secure if you use double wrist control, use your opponent's one arm to jam his other arm, at the same time you press his both arms against his own body.
> 
> Most of the time, the "wrist control" is a "temporary control". Since it's "temporary", you should not commit on it, you should be able to "change" along with your opponent's respond.
> 
> In the following clip, the
> 
> - wrist control is the 1st set up,
> - elbow control is the 2nd set up,
> - face punch is the final goal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agree! To assume that A will hang on his own wrist grip will not be realistic. Here is another example. It's double wrist grips but the same concept can also be applied on single wrist grip.


I don't think you understand that this is an Aikido training exercise. Can I ask just how much Aikido have you studied? We train against grips every session and I can tell you a single hand grip like you posted will not stop anyone trained in even the most basic Aikido. I teach my Krav students how to trap hands and I can promise you that in a life and death situation as you would have with a knife, your grips would see you dead. Ask any of the RBSD guys like Brian VC or knife guys like Rich Parsons if they would grab a wrist like that if someone had a knife.

As to grabbing a wrist and transferring to control the elbow, why would you bother gripping like that? I teach to control without gripping, at least until you are in a position to apply a lock or arm bar. The grips in your videos do nothing to break structure and the second video is a perfect example of how to get a shin kick to the groin.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

K-man said:


> I don't think you understand that this is an Aikido training exercise. Can I ask just how much Aikido have you studied? We train against grips every session and I can tell you a single hand grip like you posted will not stop anyone trained in even the most basic Aikido. I teach my Krav students how to trap hands and I can promise you that in a life and death situation as you would have with a knife, your grips would see you dead. Ask any of the RBSD guys like Brian VC or knife guys like Rich Parsons if they would grab a wrist like that if someone had a knife.
> 
> As to grabbing a wrist and transferring to control the elbow, why would you bother gripping like that? I teach to control without gripping, at least until you are in a position to apply a lock or arm bar. The grips in your videos do nothing to break structure and the second video is a perfect example of how to get a shin kick to the groin.


I know it's Aikido training exercise. Since I know nothing about Aikido, I ask why Aikido uses this kind of training method. I'm very interested in "wrist grip" and it doesn't matter which MA style that "wrist grip" may come from.

As far as why anyone wants to grab his opponent's wrist? One answer can be, "He tries to turn a striking game into a grappling game ASAP".

Both clips that I put up has nothing to do with "break structure". As far as the groin kick, it won't be easy after the "wrist grip" has been obtained. A quick "shaking" can be used to interrupt your opponent's groin kick.

If you want to keep this discussion within the Aikido boundary, what I have described may not fit into that boundary. If you think this thread has been "sidetracted" and don't intend to discuss any further, I can understand.


----------



## K-man

hoshin1600 said:


> K man I respect you as a martial artist and in many cases I agree with but on this i dont. you have made a couple of typical aiki mantra comments about the actions and reactions of the uke. How the uke will follow the hand or wrist ect...
> I agree with tony.  Tori can break ukes structure because the uke is acting in a pre prescribed fashion that is unrealistic.
> In aiki the tori or nage is learning to move in a particular way but the uke is also learning how to respond in a particular way. the actions to break the structure will be very different without a trained and compliant uke.


Thank you for your insight. It is purely an exercise to train the breaking of a structure, in this case, certainly with a compliant uke. Much of our training could be termed 'unrealistic' but there is generally method behind the madness. Before starting Aikido my opinions were similar to yours. In fact I would never have started if I hadn`t found a teacher who could make his techniques work. I can assure you that the technique shown in the OP video does work against non-compliant partners although in the martial application it is not done slowly like that.



hoshin1600 said:


> My debate here would start with ukes intent.  In aiki the intent applied is often the grab itself but in reality the grab is not the intent but rather to...move you pull you take away somthing you are holding, find the striking distance, ect.  If you add a true intent then ukes actions will be very different thus in many cases rendering tori techniques usless.


I have found very few Aikidoka who are effective in what they do. There are many reasons for that, mainly because they never test their techniques. Without testing against total resistance you don't get to be effective as the difference between success and failure is minuscule. So where I agree with the main thrust of your post, I would suggest that those who have good training will be able to make their techniques work under pressure.



hoshin1600 said:


> I Understanding that sometimes we need to practice a simplified version of action in order to learn the core. However aiki requires both tori and uke to exist.  Without uke aiki is not aiki.  You and I have both done aiki and other arts. I have found I cannot do aiki on/with  karateka. Yes a I can do a wrist controll or a takedown but it is not true aiki.  So how do you rectify this and make it work on someone who is not an akidoka and is not going to comply or behave in a way that is unpredictable.


I test my techniques regularly against my Karate and Krav students and they do work. Mind you, it took me about six years to get to that level of proficiency and that is on top of a significant MA background. Every so often I get to teach some Aikido classes. I don't teach the usual way but from the perspective of  ... "how do make you techniques work in real life?"


----------



## K-man

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you want to keep this discussion within the Aikido boundary, what I have described may not fit into that boundary. If you think this thread has been "sidetracted" and don't intend to discuss any further, I can understand.


Mate, I don't mind discussing it in another context but bear in mind that the training methodology in Aikido is quite different to other martial arts. Learning to receive is contrary to most other training but it is the basis for starting to reverse techniques. Sticky hands from Kung fu is the closest analogy I can envisage. In sticky hands you are not resisting your partner yet you end up in a controlling position. We can discuss this outside the Aikido framework. That's fine, but in that situation if we could discuss it without reference back to the Aikido training method it would make it more relevant to all other training styles.

Further down the track I may have the opportunity to describe how I have applied the same principles to my other training. 

Please continue to put you view. It makes me look at what I do with a critical eye.


----------



## Jenna

eeek!  K-Man!! I cannot see the video where I am though there are some comment I wanted to post and but I cannot get past this here!!



K-man said:


> I think you miss the subtlety of it. When a girl says no, sometimes she means maybe.  You have to read the body language.



I know what you mean and I am not on your case and I bet any thing your good wife would agree with me if you ask her and you have a wink emoji so I know you are not so serious!! and but there are maybe some young men or boys who would read this and not understand.. 

WHEN SHE SAYS NO.. NO MEANS NO!!!!!!!!!!! IT IS BLACK AND WHITE!!!!! THERE IS NO QUESTION IT IS NOT A MATTER OF INTERPRETATION!!!!

Is a good thread only cannot let that go unsaid for who ever might stumble here some time read this! Anyways..  friends Jxxx


----------



## K-man

Jenna said:


> eeek!  K-Man!! I cannot see the video where I am though there are some comment I wanted to post and but I cannot get past this here!!
> 
> I know what you mean and I am not on your case and I bet any thing your good wife would agree with me if you ask her and you have a wink emoji so I know you are not so serious!! and but there are maybe some young men or boys who would read this and not understand..
> 
> WHEN SHE SAYS NO.. NO MEANS NO!!!!!!!!!!! IT IS BLACK AND WHITE!!!!! THERE IS NO QUESTION IT IS NOT A MATTER OF INTERPRETATION!!!!
> 
> Is a good thread only cannot let that go unsaid for who ever might stumble here some time read this! Anyways..  friends Jxxx


I did say 'sometimes' and I did say 'read the body language'. In the situations to which I know you are referring, I agree, no means no.


----------



## TonyDismukes

K-man said:


> I think that what we have is a guy bending over backwards, literally, to do what he thinks his teacher wants him to do. It looks bad to outsiders who are looking for a martial application in a training technique.



Agreed. That's what it looks like to me as well.



K-man said:


> In reality neither of those will occur. The demonstration is done slowly so you think that is the case. At normal speed two things happen. You don't have time to adjust a grip because the hand is actually coming up as maybe a back fist strike to the face. Secondly, the person trying to grab the wrist has made the decision to catch the wrist and as such will chase the wrist whether he has hold or not. If he removes the hand to block the strike the takedown will still occur, so disengaging at that point really is not an option.



My personal experience in hundreds of hours of hand fighting has been very different. Bear in mind that I and many of the people I work with apply similar principles for breaking structure.



K-man said:


> The martial application comes about when there is a reason to hold as I pointed out in post #3 where there might be a knife.



I have read suggestions that many of these sorts of techniques originated in a context where the opponent might be seizing your wrist to prevent you from drawing your sword. I don't know the historical truth of that, but it would seem to give a bit more plausibility to the techniques.



K-man said:


> Thank you for your insight. It is purely an exercise to train the breaking of a structure, in this case, certainly with a compliant uke. Much of our training could be termed 'unrealistic' but there is generally method behind the madness.



I have no problem with these sorts of exercises as long as the participants don't start to confuse them with actual application.



K-man said:


> I don't teach the usual way but from the perspective of ... "how do make you techniques work in real life?"



I'd love to see how you approach that.


----------



## K-man

TonyDismukes said:


> My personal experience in hundreds of hours of hand fighting has been very different. Bear in mind that I and many of the people I work with apply similar principles for breaking structure.


And herein lies the answer. In all my training we are training to fight untrained people or at least people who are not training the same way. I am assuming you are training for competition with people of at least a similar standard, if not higher. I would suggest that your techniques would work virtually every time when you have beginners come to your gym, regardless of their physical size or strength. Certainly there are people I can't move also but they are few and far between and all highly trained.



TonyDismukes said:


> I have read suggestions that many of these sorts of techniques originated in a context where the opponent might be seizing your wrist to prevent you from drawing your sword. I don't know the historical truth of that, but it would seem to give a bit more plausibility to the techniques.


I have no experience with the sword arts so I am guessing here. We do some work with bokken against the grip trying to prevent the draw. Basically that utilises the handle of the bokken to put pressure on the opponent's wrist similar to using a kubaton. I think the main purpose of training from gripping is to be able to ignore the grip and still perform the technique, something perhaps for a different thread.



TonyDismukes said:


> I have no problem with these sorts of exercises as long as the participants don't start to confuse them with actual application.


Exactly, and again, I think it is one of Aikido's failings, where a lot of students train solely with a compliant uke. The techniques need to be tested continuously against total resistance, IMO.



TonyDismukes said:


> I'd love to see how you approach that.


I would genuinely like to show you. You are one of a number of guys here who I would love to train with sometime. In a nutshell, I try and provide a situation where the guys have to recognise what techniques are available to them rather than knowing ahead of time what technique they are going to perform (ie unscripted) and I make sure the guys can perform the techniques against resistance.


----------



## hoshin1600

K-man said:


> Thank you for your insight. It is purely an exercise to train the breaking of a structure, in this case, certainly with a compliant uke. Much of our training could be termed 'unrealistic' but there is generally method behind the madness. Before starting Aikido my opinions were similar to yours. In fact I would never have started if I hadn`t found a teacher who could make his techniques work. I can assure you that the technique shown in the OP video does work against non-compliant partners although in the martial application it is not done slowly like that.



K-man , just as a reminder  ...i trained with Fumio Toyota Sensei of AAA.    i can assure you and other readers that these aiki techniques work against non-compliant or resisting uke.  but that is not exactly  the point.  when i took uke for Toyota i would attack with power and focus and i was not "falling" for him. but attacks are done in a way that as a karate-ka or as a street fighter i would not do. if we take a typical aiki defense against a right hand  punch, the uke will start left foot forward and take a large step forward and punch.




if i was in an aiki class i would punch like this and if i was going against sensei i would punch full force and full speed,  this is not how i would punch outside of aikido.  the uke is preconditioned to punch in this fashion which is a predetermined failure.  the balance and center is lost from the begining and tori could do any technique and it will work.  uke might or could punch full force, so it is not about compliance but rather the structure was lost because of the predetermined bias of the attack not because of tori's  technique.

in the clip the distance was far to great between the two combatants. i would never punch from that distance.  this extra distance forces uke to reach with the upper body or to do extra foot work. (notice, the instructor mentions in the clip how he hates when people are unable to reach his body with the punch..and "fan" him)  
and unexperienced uke might lead with his upper body thus he is breaking his own structure.  the more advanced uke will understand the need to keep "one point" and will do extra work with the feet to close the distance.  but this is incorrect as well.  when doing extra foot work it tends to cause a lag in the punch.   
we will notice in the clip there was no "retraction" of the punch.  aikido is the only martial art i can think of where the punch is not thrown and retracted or moved back quickly to a cover position.





while this clip is not great it does point out that other systems have methods to close the distance and that the correct distance to throw a punch is very very close.





while Art is showing a different kind of punch in this clip you can see the true punching distance is often very close. there is an immediate retraction to a cover position.

i wonder how a aikidoka would deal with Arthur Rebesa in his younger days?     good fighters should know how to close the distance and not lose their own structure.  will return to a cover position with the same speed as the out going punch.  
this is different than resisting and different than being compliant or being non-compliant.  it is simply not being pre programed to act in a way that forces you to break your own structure.


----------



## K-man

hoshin1600 said:


> K-man , just as a reminder  ...i trained with Fumio Toyota Sensei of AAA.    i can assure you and other readers that these aiki techniques work against non-compliant or resisting uke.  but that is not exactly  the point.  when i took uke for Toyota i would attack with power and focus and i was not "falling" for him. but attacks are done in a way that as a karate-ka or as a street fighter i would not do. if we take a typical aiki defense against a right hand  punch, the uke will start left foot forward and take a large step forward and punch.


I am not aware of Fumio Toyoda's Aikido but the fact that he was promoted to such a high rank by Koichi Tohei says it all. That must have been a great experience. To me Koichi Tohei was the best. My background is karate so I do punch properly in terms of not overreaching. However, when we get to this video clip, to me it is not realistic at all and I disagree with a number of his moves from a technical aspect. We could probably have a complete thread on it alone and why his stuff wouldn't work in the real world.

I don't have an issue with his call for a committed strike. Without that, the martial aspect goes out the window, however I would suggest that against a punch that he is not expecting there is no way he could catch that wrist. That doesn't invalidate the technique or the training as there are other situations where it could be applied, just that, against a punch like that, this isn't one of them.



hoshin1600 said:


> if i was in an aiki class i would punch like this and if i was going against sensei i would punch full force and full speed,  this is not how i would punch outside of aikido.  the uke is preconditioned to punch in this fashion which is a predetermined failure.  the balance and center is lost from the begining and tori could do any technique and it will work.  uke might or could punch full force, so it is not about compliance but rather the structure was lost because of the predetermined bias of the attack not because of tori's  technique.


In our training we do punch with full force and speed but also with proper structure maintaining centre. The technique will still work but as I said above tori knows, ahead of time, what punch is coming. FWIW, the video was talking about yellow belt training. Most black belts couldn't make that work against a proper punch even if the did know it was coming.



hoshin1600 said:


> in the clip the distance was far to great between the two combatants. i would never punch from that distance.  this extra distance forces uke to reach with the upper body or to do extra foot work. (notice, the instructor mentions in the clip how he hates when people are unable to reach his body with the punch..and "fan" him) and unexperienced uke might lead with his upper body thus he is breaking his own structure.  the more advanced uke will understand the need to keep "one point" and will do extra work with the feet to close the distance.  but this is incorrect as well.  when doing extra foot work it tends to cause a lag in the punch.
> we will notice in the clip there was no "retraction" of the punch.  aikido is the only martial art i can think of where the punch is not thrown and retracted or moved back quickly to a cover position.


No. A lot of Karate has the same stupidity of punch and leave the arm out to dry. In fairness it is kihon but students do tend to keep using it when they shouldn't. Then you get the opposite extreme where someone gives a short sharp punch like a jab but pulls it short then says, "see you can't catch a punch". Just as unrealistic. Again we could have another entire clip on irimi and how to make distance. As I think we both can see, this is not a great advertisement for Aikido.


hoshin1600 said:


> while this clip is not great it does point out that other systems have methods to close the distance and that the correct distance to throw a punch is very very close.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> while Art is showing a different kind of punch in this clip you can see the true punching distance is often very close. there is an immediate retraction to a cover position.


Agreed. But obviously you're not going to apply kote gaeshi from a grapple position as shown but there are plenty of other techniques you can use. That's the sort of thing I teach when I occasionally do take over to teach a few advanced classes, when I say I'm trying to show the guys how to make their techniques work in a real environment.



hoshin1600 said:


> i wonder how a aikidoka would deal with Arthur Rebesa in his younger days?     good fighters should know how to close the distance and not lose their own structure.  will return to a cover position with the same speed as the out going punch.
> this is different than resisting and different than being compliant or being non-compliant.  it is simply not being pre programed to act in a way that forces you to break your own structure.


I think against anyone like Art he would be sitting on his backside dribbling, then again, he might be better than we give him credit for.


----------



## hoshin1600

As a side note
This is a good example of how video clips don't always give the whole picture. I know Mr. Rebesa.he is a 9th dan. I will admit this recent clip does not seem impressive in the least.  Art in his earlier days could hit like a semi trailer truck. While the abilities he had back in the 60's and 70's may be gone, the point was that he likes to fight (and he has fough a lot of street fights) in close from the clinch distance.  This was my point not his ability. A typical akidoka is I'll equipped to deal with the short range fighter.


----------



## Spinedoc

Keep in mind that the technique being demonstrated at the 1:32 mark is called Tai no Henko. It is not a formal technique (although it can be moved into a throw) but is a kihon waza or basic fundamental that we practice EVERY single class. It is designed to teach blending, reinforce the unbendable arm concept, and centering. That's all it's designed to do. What he was demonstrating was the "presence" that uke should feel when he grabs, it is not a push, it is not a collapse, but rather uke should feel that the arm is "alive" when he grabs and it should almost make him move backwards but not so much that he lets go. This is something we practice every class. The arm becomes alive, your center drops, and in Tai no Henko, you instantly tenkan. It's like kokyudosa. Not something you will ever do in a real fight (unless you have a very tense tea ceremony), but is a foundation for every technique in Aikido.

A very famous aikido Sensei once said that if you mastered tai no henko, kokyudosa, and morotedori kokyunage, you have mastered Aikido, because those movements are found in EVERY single other aikido technique.


----------



## hoshin1600

i dont really need or want to debate the street viability of aikido or its street effectiveness, i am sure we have done that many times on the forums. i am only pointing out that uke because of the pre conditioned way aikidoka tend to make their attacks they are breaking their own structure rather than working on maintaining it.  i do not feel this is a few unexperienced individuals who "dont know any better" i believe it is part of the standard practice.   there are many assumptions made in aikido on how a person will move or react and i feel most of them are false.    to learn to break a persons structure  when they are out of position or out of balance is not hard to do.  the question is, is aikido as an art flexible enough to train with uke who are making realistic attacks or within a realistic scenario. i think if that were to happen it wouldnt be aiki anymore and would look more like any other art doing wrist controlls.









same style controlls  but this is not aiki.





some really good applications but again this is not aiki.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

hoshin1600 said:


> i dont really need or want to debate the street viability of aikido or its street effectiveness, i am sure we have done that many times on the forums. i am only pointing out that uke because of the pre conditioned way aikidoka tend to make their attacks they are breaking their own structure rather than working on maintaining it.  i do not feel this is a few unexperienced individuals who "dont know any better" i believe it is part of the standard practice.   there are many assumptions made in aikido on how a person will move or react and i feel most of them are false.    to learn to break a persons structure  when they are out of position or out of balance is not hard to do.  the question is, is aikido as an art flexible enough to train with uke who are making realistic attacks or within a realistic scenario. i think if that were to happen it wouldnt be aiki anymore and would look more like any other art doing wrist controlls.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> same style controlls  but this is not aiki.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> some really good applications but again this is not aiki.


I'm not an aiki practitioner, so maybe it's not my place to comment on what is or is not aiki.  However I do have some idea of the concept based on watching many demonstrations and reading many explanations from aikido practitioners.

Based on my understanding of that concept the most amazing display of aiki in action I ever saw was, believe it or not, in a sumo match. It was in the finals of a tournament, with an older and relatively small* grand champion up against a huge up-and-comer who was about twice his size.

They met in the middle of the ring with the customary shoving, and the smaller sumotori gave way while retreating in a tight spiral, much like the opening footwork in the kotegaeshi clip above. He allowed just enough contact so the big guy felt he had something to keep pushing against, but no so much that the small guy lost any structure or balance. The big guy doubtless felt like he was winning and so  kept trying to chase the little guy around the spiral up until the point where he overextended, tripped over his own feet, and fell. It wasn't a fluke and the big guy wasn't a klutz. The grand champion had just moved so beautifully as to maneuver the behemoth into throwing himself.

I watched that and said "Wow. that may be sumo, but it looks like aikido to me."

*(The "little" guy was actually about 200 pounds, but in a professional sumo context that's pretty small. His opponent was at least twice his size.)


----------



## K-man

hoshin1600 said:


> i dont really need or want to debate the street viability of aikido or its street effectiveness, i am sure we have done that many times on the forums. i am only pointing out that uke because of the pre conditioned way aikidoka tend to make their attacks they are breaking their own structure rather than working on maintaining it.  i do not feel this is a few unexperienced individuals who "dont know any better" i believe it is part of the standard practice.   there are many assumptions made in aikido on how a person will move or react and i feel most of them are false.    to learn to break a persons structure  when they are out of position or out of balance is not hard to do.  the question is, is aikido as an art flexible enough to train with uke who are making realistic attacks or within a realistic scenario. i think if that were to happen it wouldnt be aiki anymore and would look more like any other art doing wrist controlls.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> same style controlls  but this is not aiki.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> some really good applications but again this is not aiki.


I think what we are getting into here is the exact same argument we get into with karate when people say karateka don't fight as they train. That is because they see karate as being the kihon whereas the actual fighting is the advanced version where you apply the basics but they just don't look like the basics in practice.

Aikido is no different. We learn the basics but when we use them it may well be in a different way using the same principles. Also it may require an atemi. If an Aikidoka was the one in any one of those videos, why would it not be aiki! In the first chin na video the guys were demonstrating a basic wrist control that will only work using aiki principles. I was at a seminar where a highly ranked Hapkido guy had us doing it. It was even failing for him against resistance and none of his students could make it work either because they were all trying to use straight strength. I invite anyone on this forum to grab a partner and try it. Unless you use aiki it will not work unless your partner is untrained or compliant. Using aiki I had no problem with the technique.

The second video is just a variation of a nikkyo technique mixed with a bit of kote gaeshi. Again, I suggest, against a stronger, non compliant person it will not work without aiki. In a real life situation it could be used to get an arm bar but it may well need the atemi. You might say, well then it's not aiki, but even Ueshiba is quoted as saying Aikido is 70% atemi.

Third video contains versions of nikkyo, sankyo (into the goose neck)the person used Aiki, kaiten nage (into the shoulder lock) and even a touch of yonkyo. If an aikidoka was performing those techniques under the same circumstances they would look similar. If the person used the principles of aiki it would just make the techniques a little easier. I don't see why aikido wouldn't be aikido when applied in real life or are you expecting to see the same flowing techniques that you see on the dojo floor against a compliant uke?

I use aiki all the time grappling with my Krav students, I use aiki all the time in the 'Ju' part of my Goju. Every time I want to break a structure in any of my training I am using aiki.


----------



## Steve

K-man said:


> I did say 'sometimes' and I did say 'read the body language'. In the situations to which I know you are referring, I agree, no means no.


 ??? What other situation could you be referring to???


----------



## K-man

Steve said:


> ??? What other situation could you be referring to???


Obviously you don't have flirting where you live.


----------



## Steve

K-man said:


> Obviously you don't have flirting where you live.


It's been my experience that no always means no, and flirting is something you do with people who aren't saying no.  Maybe things are different in Australia, but in America, flirting with someone who isn't interested isn't flirting.  It's harrassing.


----------



## K-man

Steve said:


> It's been my experience that no always means no, and flirting is something you do with people who aren't saying no.  Maybe things are different in Australia, but in America, flirting with someone who isn't interested isn't flirting.  It's harrassing.


Not sure what people do in America but flirting takes two people, just like good sex. After all, you said it yourself, flirting with someone not interested in flirting is not flirting.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

K-man said:


> I think you miss the subtlety of it. When a girl says no, sometimes she means maybe.  You have to read the body language.





K-man said:


> I did say 'sometimes' and I did say 'read the body language'. In the situations to which I know you are referring, I agree, no means no.



I didn't want to derail the thread, but I think Jenna is right that this important enough to need addressing.

You are correct that there may be times where someone says "no", but means "yes" or "maybe" or "convince me" or "I'm making a token protest for forms sake." There are plenty of people out there who have been socialized to play mind games or send mixed messages.

Even so, the correct response *in every single situation* where a "girl" (woman) says "no" is to accept that as meaning no. It doesn't matter if your reading of her body language or other non-verbal cues leads you to think she means something different. If the woman really wants to get laid and was protesting for forms sake, she can learn to say what she means and it will make life better for everyone all around. In the meantime, no *always* means no.

Unfortunately, millions of rapes* occur because of a societal mindset that says "no" doesn't count if the guy thinks he detects non-verbal indicators to the contrary. I don't think you were _trying_ to promote this mindset, but it's the sort of thing that gets perpetuated without thinking.

*(and lesser forms of sexual harassment)


----------



## K-man

Tony Dismukes said:


> I didn't want to derail the thread, but I think Jenna is right that this important enough to need addressing.
> 
> You are correct that there may be times where someone says "no", but means "yes" or "maybe" or "convince me" or "I'm making a token protest for forms sake." There are plenty of people out there who have been socialized to play mind games or send mixed messages.
> 
> Even so, the correct response *in every single situation* where a "girl" (woman) says "no" is to accept that as meaning no. It doesn't matter if your reading of her body language or other non-verbal cues leads you to think she means something different. If the woman really wants to get laid and was protesting for forms sake, she can learn to say what she means and it will make life better for everyone all around. In the meantime, no *always* means no.
> 
> Unfortunately, millions of rapes* occur because of a societal mindset that says "no" doesn't count if the guy thinks he detects non-verbal indicators to the contrary. I don't think you were _trying_ to promote this mindset, but it's the sort of thing that gets perpetuated without thinking.
> 
> *(and lesser forms of sexual harassment)


Yes, the correct response is ... no means no.


----------



## Steve

Tony Dismukes said:


> I didn't want to derail the thread, but I think Jenna is right that this important enough to need addressing.
> 
> You are correct that there may be times where someone says "no", but means "yes" or "maybe" or "convince me" or "I'm making a token protest for forms sake." There are plenty of people out there who have been socialized to play mind games or send mixed messages.
> 
> Even so, the correct response *in every single situation* where a "girl" (woman) says "no" is to accept that as meaning no. It doesn't matter if your reading of her body language or other non-verbal cues leads you to think she means something different. If the woman really wants to get laid and was protesting for forms sake, she can learn to say what she means and it will make life better for everyone all around. In the meantime, no *always* means no.
> 
> Unfortunately, millions of rapes* occur because of a societal mindset that says "no" doesn't count if the guy thinks he detects non-verbal indicators to the contrary. I don't think you were _trying_ to promote this mindset, but it's the sort of thing that gets perpetuated without thinking.
> 
> *(and lesser forms of sexual harassment)


A thousand times, yes!


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

K-man said:


> I invite anyone on this forum to grab a partner and try it. Unless you use aiki it will not work unless your partner is untrained or compliant. Using aiki I had no problem with the technique.


I don't know what aiki is but after I goggled it (I think all non-English terms should include English translation), it sounds like "bending with an attacker's movements" (I prefer to call it ability to change and borrow force). If A and B are on the same skill level, 99% of the time the 1st move (whether it's a punch, a kick, a lock, a throw) won't work. But if you use the 1st move to set up the 2nd move, the successful rate will get higher.

This is why I believe there should be 3 different levels of training.

1st level - you apply technique X, your opponent is down.
2nd level - your opponent applies technique X, you counter with technique Y.
3rd level - you apply technique X, your opponent counters with technique Y, you apply technique Z to counter his technique Y.

If you train this way, your training will be closer to reality.

Here is an example of the 1st level training:

- A's left hand grabs on B's right wrist and take B down with an elbow lock.

Here is an example of the 2nd level training:

- A's left hand grabs on B's right wrist.
- B rotates his right hand to put pressure on A's thumb, break away A's grip, and apply wrist lock on A.

Here is an example of the 3rd level training:

- A's left hand grabs on B's right wrist.
- B rotates his right hand to put pressure on A's thumb, and break away the grip.
- A takes advantage on B's wrist rotation, let go his left grip, move in and grab his left hand on B's elbow joint.


----------



## K-man

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I don't know what aiki is but after I goggled it (I think all non-English terms should include English translation), it sounds like "bending with an attacker's movements" (I prefer to call it ability to change and borrow force). If A and B are on the same skill level, 99% of the time the 1st move (whether it's a punch, a kick, a lock, a throw) won't work. But if you use the 1st move to set up the 2nd move, the successful rate will get higher.
> 
> This is why I believe there should be 3 different level of training.
> 
> 1st level - you apply technique X, your opponent is down.
> 2nd level - your opponent applies technique X, you counter with technique Y.
> 3rd level - you apply technique X, your opponent counters with technique Y, you apply technique Z to counter his technique Y.
> 
> If you train this way, your training will be closer to reality.


Sorry, not even close. By 'aiki' we mean the basic principles of Aikido. That means not clashing with your opponent's strength, redirecting his force, changing his focus etc. So when I say I use aiki against my Krav students I am not physically trying to wrestle them to the ground. I take their centre and they just fall over by themselves.


----------



## hoshin1600

I think Kung fu Wang ment "blend" not bend. I Do think this is not far off.  Correct me if I am wrong but the Kanji of  "ai"  means love and harmony.  Ki is energy or force.
So my definition of aiki is  harmonizing energies.
So this goes back to what I said earlier if you do a throw or a controll and you are not "harmonizing" with the attacker then can it be called aikido?
If uke's job is also to harmonize with nage then is uke breaking his own center and being thrown due to the rules if engagement set up buy the art form?
If I as uke walked up to nage and did not follow the expected behavioral norm nage would think I was just being an ****.


----------



## hoshin1600

Question... does nage throw uke or does uke throw himself?
If uke "does" ukemi rather then receive ukemi then he is sacrificing his own structure for the sake of nage.


----------



## K-man

hoshin1600 said:


> I think Kung fu Wang ment "blend" not bend. I Do think this is not far off.  Correct me if I am wrong but the Kanji of  "ai"  means love and harmony.  Ki is energy or force.
> So my definition of aiki is  harmonizing energies.
> So this goes back to what I said earlier if you do a throw or a controll and you are not "harmonizing" with the attacker then can it be called aikido?
> If uke's job is also to harmonize with nage then is uke breaking his own center and being thrown due to the rules if engagement set up buy the art form?
> If I as uke walked up to nage and did not follow the expected behavioral norm nage would think I was just being an ****.


Yes,my fault. I accepted the definition of aiki but disagreed with the second part of post.

Your second point is absolutely spot on but I would argue that the same principle can be applied across many styles of MA, the exceptions being those arts that are predominantly kicking or punching. Any style with any grappling can incorporate aiki. In fact I only started learning Aikido to use it within my understanding of Goju.

I'm not sure I agree with your final point. Is uke's job only to harmonise? In my training we might start out harmonising, because it is only through receiving that you can learn how to reverse the techniques and obviously that is an essential part of Aikido. I consider that to be more uke's training than nage's, in a practical sense, assuming nage's is past the initial stage of learning the technique. Once nage knows technically how to perform the technique it has to be tested. So call me an arsehole but I will not go with nage unless he is doing his technique in a way it will work in the real world. I'm not saying here he is necessarily able to perform the technique on me but that if I think it would work on an untrained person I will go with it, a different perspective to just receiving without question. One of my biggest beefs with Aikido, is people throwing themselves all over the shop, making sloppy techniques look as if they are working.



hoshin1600 said:


> Question... does nage throw uke or does uke throw himself?
> If uke "does" ukemi rather then receive ukemi then he is sacrificing his own structure for the sake of nage.


To my understanding there is pretty much only one real 'throw' in Aikido, koshinage. The rest are takedowns that, in training, uke can roll out of but which, in real life, end up with the attacker in a heap on the ground. Much of what you see is uke throwing himself which is, as you say, 'doing' ukemi, my pet beef outlined above.


----------



## hoshin1600

I would add that the way I was taught is that you need to feel the attackers intent. If the intent changes so should the technique.
Example... from a shoulder grab I want to do an "arm bar" ikkyo. But the attacker can tell what I am trying to do so he pulls his arm away. My reaction should be to immediately switch to sankyo to capitalize on his pulling action.

My issue with aikido is what I have been stating in this thread.  That uke's actions and reactions are a learned behavior thru a kind of Monkey see, monkey do.  The normal convention for uke is not a normal response.  I new many of the standard wrist controll from karate long before I did aikido so I know what a non conditioned behavior should look like and what it feels like to do it on a non compliant victim.  lol


----------



## hoshin1600

In all probability we are seeing the same week points but arrive at the conclusion from different view points.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

hoshin1600 said:


> you need to feel the attackers intent.


Agree! This apply to all MA systems as well.

In the eagle claw system, the wrist lock involves 3 different stages.

1. When you apply a wrist lock, your opponent is down.
2. When you apply a wrist lock, your opponent raise his elbow to release your "downward pressure", you change your "downward pressure" into "horizontal pressure" to deal with his raising elbow.
3. When your opponent turns his body to release your "horizontal pressure", you then change your "horizontal pressure" into "pulling pressure".

In other words, all technique should be trained at least 3 steps ahead of your opponent. This way, you will have better chance to deal with a high skill opponent and not just beginners.


----------



## K-man

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Agree! This apply to all MA systems as well.
> 
> In the eagle claw system, the wrist lock involves 3 different stages.
> 
> 1. When you apply a wrist lock, your opponent is down.
> 2. When you apply a wrist lock, your opponent raise his elbow to release your "downward pressure", you change your "downward pressure" into "horizontal pressure" to deal with his raising elbow.
> 3. When your opponent turns his body to release your "horizontal pressure", you then change your "horizontal pressure" into "pulling pressure".
> 
> In other words, all technique should be trained at least 3 steps ahead of your opponent. This way, you will have better chance to deal with a high skill opponent and not just beginners.


Sounds like the way Aikido applies nikkyo tenkan from a shoulder grab.


----------



## Argus

Coming from a Wing Chun background -- an art that deals quite heavily in flow, redirecting force, and using a softer approach, I find Aikido a bit peculiar. Not because Aikido itself is "bad" or "lacking" in any way; its concepts, principles, and material is quite good. But for an art so dependent on using another person's energy and working with their intent, I feel that the way it's trained doesn't generally equip the practitioner with a sense for this. 

I completely understand the purpose of the structured practice that we do (ok, well, perhaps I shouldn't claim "completely" -- let's say I value it highly, at any rate), but I do find it to be a bit of a disservice that tori never learns how to read and adapt to uke in order to learn when and how to apply a technique; an attack is predetermined, and so is the response, without any feeling; listening, perceiving, reading, or even "leading" in a genuine sense involved. Instead, aikidoka tend to think more in terms of "technique" - if uke does this, you do that; uke will do this when you do that; uke better do this, or uke is in trouble for some presupposed reason, etc. I can't help but feel that this is a poor reflection of the art, to some degree. It's fine, of course, to practice this or that technique against a particular kind of input, and to approach training in a non-competitive context. But adopting the kind of explanations I mentioned goes beyond that, I think.

From a Wing Chun perspective, I don't come at any free exchange with an idea in my head about what technique I will use, or what the other person will do. Rather, I find it useful to start with a blank slate, and perceive or feel the other person's intention, and respond intuitively as a result of training. But, at the same time, being aware of where I'm creating openings, and what lines I'm most likely to have to deal with next. But the point is that you quickly learn that you can't just "do a technique" because you want to do that technique. Your opponent has to give you the opening, or the energy and pressure (or lack thereof) for it to be a viable response. And you have to learn to adapt to your opponent at any time. You have to be able to immediately feel where your opponent's pressure is, and realize when it changes and adapt intuitively in order to utilize your training.

I do hope that some day I build an intuitive understanding of Aikido, and am able to apply it as I do some of the other arts that I train, but I think that's a long way off for me. But, at the very least, I try to be a cooperative, but challenging uke: if I understand nothing else, I at least understand energy. So, in the private setting of the school where I train, when I'm acting as uke with my partner, and I'm fairly confident that I'm not feeding him awkward energy, and yet I feel obviously wrong energy in return that gives me an apparent counter, I'll occasionally take that counter and explain why instead of faking a fall, if I feel it productive for my partner. The people at my dojo seem to appreciate it, but it's something that I don't really see other Aikidoka do. Yet, again, it's something that all of my teachers and many of my classmates would do in Wing Chun; if I gave my partner the wrong energy in a drill for the response that we were practicing, he'd simply counter with something appropriate and explain why. Maybe I was coming in on a different line, or giving him energy inwards or outwards that he could use against me, and he would. That always constitutes a great learning experience for me, and I feel is essential to learning to get a feeling for how to apply an art. 

But in any case, I feel that Aikido is a great art if you can develop a sense for, and understanding of it. I really enjoy the abstract side of arts, and I find them more applicable than most people would assume by looking at, and judging exercises such as those demonstrated in the OP. Not everything needs to be a verbatim, applicable technique in order to cultivate the ability to respond with such.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Argus said:


> using another person's energy ...


Agree!

If you are rich, you don't need to borrow.

From a wrestler point of view, I prefer the attitude, " I don't care what you may do, I will take you down no matter you like it or not. I don't need to borrow your force because my own force is enough to take care of you".


----------



## hoshin1600

ARGUS,  I agree with you, but my experience with aikido is Different. Every thing you find lacking in your training I did in my class. So I would think either it is your particular branch of aikido or perhaps the emphasis of your instructor or maybe you are still realitivly new and just haven't got there yet. I don't know.  But if it makes you regain your faith in the art there is aikido out there as you described.


----------



## Argus

hoshin1600 said:


> ARGUS,  I agree with you, but my experience with aikido is Different. Every thing you find lacking in your training I did in my class. So I would think either it is your particular branch of aikido or perhaps the emphasis of your instructor or maybe you are still realitivly new and just haven't got there yet. I don't know.  But if it makes you regain your faith in the art there is aikido out there as you described.



That's great!

Well, I certainly have faith in the art! And I'm sure my limited experience plays a role as well. So, I'll definitely keep training and see where it takes me.


----------



## K-man

Argus said:


> That's great!
> 
> Well, I certainly have faith in the art! And I'm sure my limited experience plays a role as well. So, I'll definitely keep training and see where it takes me.


I have to agree with *hoshin*. We test everything. In the various waza situations we will just go with the flow but we test each other with every technique in general training.

If it makes it any better for you. I visited the Aikikai hombu in NY a few years back and witnessed the worst example of what you are talking about. Stuff that would literally get you killed in a real fight.


----------



## Spinedoc

Argus said:


> That's great!
> 
> Well, I certainly have faith in the art! And I'm sure my limited experience plays a role as well. So, I'll definitely keep training and see where it takes me.




Argus, that is because that is how it is taught in the beginning. Static. Technique focus, etc. As you progress, the movements become more dynamic, more flowing, with little thought to technique, but rather, using whatever uke gives you. When we do randori exercizes, you really see this. The nidan test I saw this past weekend showed this. 4 people attacking, and nage has no idea what attack will come. He had to show control of his space, ability to harmonize with whatever attack comes and a variety of techniques.

It just takes time. (I suck at randori and jiyu waza, but getting better slowly)

At my dojo, we provide little if any resistance for a long time. As you progress in time and rank, the resistance increases to the point where you have to nail the technique against a fair amount of resistance.

For example, we were working on an ai hanmi katatedori ikkyo the other day. My uke kept varying the speed of his grab, and if I didn't start and meet him early, he would shove my arm down and say "too late"...must have heard "too late" a dozen times, but once I relaxed and began my movement earlier, at the first sign of his intent to grab, I had no troubles.

Our sensei also talks all the time about how important ukemi is for learning the technique. You need to feel what nage is doing, how is the positioning occuring, where is your center, where is their center? This takes a long time.

The greatest thing about aikido is that it is SO, SO subtle and nuanced, and all about feeling and perception and harmony. That's why I take it. Although, I think it will likely take a lifetime to learn, and I don't know that anyone ever really "masters" it.


----------



## Chris Li

K-man said:


> Sorry, not even close. By 'aiki' we mean the basic principles of Aikido. That means not clashing with your opponent's strength, redirecting his force, changing his focus etc. So when I say I use aiki against my Krav students I am not physically trying to wrestle them to the ground. I take their centre and they just fall over by themselves.



Generally speaking, I would say that the first part above refers to things that occur when Aiki is applied, rather than Aiki itself, which Morihei Ueshiba referred to as the manipulation of In and Yo (Yin and Yang) forces within oneself (speaking very simply...).

Since this is a process that occurs within myself I don't really concern myself with taking their center - it's more or less irrelevant to what I am trying to do.

Best,

Chris


----------



## Argus

K-man said:


> I have to agree with *hoshin*. We test everything. In the various waza situations we will just go with the flow but we test each other with every technique in general training.
> 
> If it makes it any better for you. I visited the Aikikai hombu in NY a few years back and witnessed the worst example of what you are talking about. Stuff that would literally get you killed in a real fight.



Well, I am Aikikai. But, my school actually isn't that bad; my instructor, and the people I train with are fairly pragmatic. Still, I do have trouble with some premises; for example, uke remaining in contact and holding on to grabs. This may be a result of my prior training, and not something that is natural, but when I'm grabbing to strike, my natural instinct is to let go immediately if the limb I'm controlling starts to deviate from the centerline, or take my balance. I'm definitely not committed to any grab or controlling hand that I use; it's just there as a very momentary device to clear the way for an attack. When I first started training Aikido, I would let go as uke unconsciously, just out of habit, and really had to consciously "correct" that impulse to let go.

Now, will the average guy in the street do that? I don't really know. People who haven't trained martial arts do tend to be quite tense and committed to their actions, so I think it's definitely plausible that some, or many of them will hold on in some, if not most situations. But I think it's a good idea to train to encourage or ensure uke retains his connection, and also to train to sense and respond to "fill the gap" if uke does let go rather than relying solely on the premise that he will always maintain contact of his own will. Otherwise, if you have it set in your mind that uke will act a certain way, and one day he doesn't, and you've never experienced that before...

On a different note, I got to experience a lot of different Aikido recently. I went to a seminar with instructors from all kinds of different schools and organizations, and it was really good. One of them happened to be a very pragmatic fellow who had trained boxing, karate, and a number of other arts, and touched on some pretty good aspects of training realistically.




Spinedoc said:


> Argus, that is because that is how it is taught in the beginning. Static. Technique focus, etc. As you progress, the movements become more dynamic, more flowing, with little thought to technique, but rather, using whatever uke gives you. When we do randori exercizes, you really see this. The nidan test I saw this past weekend showed this. 4 people attacking, and nage has no idea what attack will come. He had to show control of his space, ability to harmonize with whatever attack comes and a variety of techniques.
> 
> It just takes time. (I suck at randori and jiyu waza, but getting better slowly)



I've actually done a very little bit of randori and jiyuu waza, and I find it easier, personally! Or, at least it would be, if my technique were a little more squared away. But, it's easier for me to respond intuitively with something that suits the situation, rather than going through the motions of a very static drill where I'm trying to make a particular technique work when something might be slightly off - like the distance, timing, or angle of attack that my partner is feeding. In jiyuu waza, I can respond appropriately -- or, uh, at least attempt to given my level of training. In regular practice, I just have to "make it work." And, like I said, that's something I've come across in every martial art I've practiced, regardless of the school or quality of instruction. It's the artificial aspect of training in a very controlled manner that presents the most challenge to me.

What's that saying? "Perfect practice makes perfect."



> At my dojo, we provide little if any resistance for a long time. As you progress in time and rank, the resistance increases to the point where you have to nail the technique against a fair amount of resistance.
> 
> For example, we were working on an ai hanmi katatedori ikkyo the other day. My uke kept varying the speed of his grab, and if I didn't start and meet him early, he would shove my arm down and say "too late"...must have heard "too late" a dozen times, but once I relaxed and began my movement earlier, at the first sign of his intent to grab, I had no troubles.



That's a good way to train!
Some of the senior students will do that with me on occasion, if my timing or something is obviously off, and will offer varying levels of resistance on occasion, which I find helpful to ensure that my structure is sound and that my body is moving as a whole so that I'm not just muscling through the technique.

Perhaps the most valuable thing I'm learning in aikido is just that -- moving the body as a whole. Most of the time that a technique doesn't work for me against resistance is because I'm leaving one part of my body behind, or moving another part too early. I'm kind of bad about that, but slowly learning 



> The greatest thing about aikido is that it is SO, SO subtle and nuanced, and all about feeling and perception and harmony. That's why I take it. Although, I think it will likely take a lifetime to learn, and I don't know that anyone ever really "masters" it.



Yep. I guess that's kind of my attraction to Wing Chun as well. At the end of the day, I really enjoy exploring (and gradually ingraining) all of those subtle nuances, and examining the art in depth. My Aikido still has a ways to go before I can focus much on that, though


----------



## oftheherd1

K-man said:


> ...
> 
> In the first chin na video the guys were demonstrating a basic wrist control that will only work using aiki principles. I was at a seminar where a highly ranked Hapkido guy had us doing it. It was even failing for him against resistance and none of his students could make it work either because they were all trying to use straight strength. I invite anyone on this forum to grab a partner and try it. Unless you use aiki it will not work unless your partner is untrained or compliant. Using aiki I had no problem with the technique.



I am quite dismayed to hear a highly ranked Hapkido person, giving a seminar, could not make a technique work.  But if he was doing it like the demonstration of Chin Na 2, I can see why.  I don't consider that the best technique, and I have never been taught that exactly, but it is doable.  In the Hapkido I was taught, the first thing we would do was to expand our wrist by opening our hand, then we would have a better chance of breaking or at lest loosening the opponent's grip.  Then, instead of simply trying to pull my wrist loose, I would attack the thumb at the base, maybe using the straight pull shown, or levering my wrist out.  Perhaps breaking the thumb, and at least further loosening his grip.  He could have shown that in the slow motion up close, without worrying about breaking his opponent's thumb.  The tricky part is getting the grabbed hand over and up behind the opponent's hand.  But with lots of practice, it is consistently doable.  I didn't think he was serious about how he grabbed the wrist with his left hand, but it should probably work.  The use of two hands and thumbs to force a wrist back and break it is a fairly common practice.  Of course, breaking an opponent's thumb and wrist should not be done to a practice opponent.  The pitifully loud screams greatly disrupts the practice of other students in the class, and makes finding other practice opponents rather difficult.   

BTW, what was the stated rank of the Hapkido BB you were talking about?



K-man said:


> The second video is just a variation of a nikkyo technique mixed with a bit of kote gaeshi. Again, I suggest, against a stronger, non compliant person it will not work without aiki. In a real life situation it could be used to get an arm bar but it may well need the atemi. You might say, well then it's not aiki, but even Ueshiba is quoted as saying Aikido is 70% atemi.



I don't see how an opponent can resist that if the moves is done quickly and forcefully, and instead of curling the fingers from the start, use the sudo hand against the ulna to break the grip, and place the left wrist against the opponents forearm at the nerve bundle.
...

I use aiki all the time grappling with my Krav students, I use aiki all the time in the 'Ju' part of my Goju. Every time I want to break a structure in any of my training I am using aiki.[/QUOTE]

I have a lot of respect for Aikido.  But I am still not sure I understand what aiki is.  Not that it makes any difference.  The Hapkido I learned was very effective, and that can probably be said of any martial art taught and learned as it was meant to be.


----------



## oftheherd1

K-man said:


> Yes, the correct response is ... no means no.



Thanks, now that we have that out of the way.  I have to agree with Jenna, that did need some clarification.


----------



## K-man

oftheherd1 said:


> I am quite dismayed to hear a highly ranked Hapkido person, giving a seminar, could not make a technique work.


Not quite what I meant to say. None of his techniques worked without his using physical strength and when he did that I could stop him every time. Against an untrained person, I'm sure he would be more than capable.



oftheherd1 said:


> But if he was doing it like the demonstration of Chin Na 2, I can see why.  I don't consider that the best technique, and I have never been taught that exactly, but it is doable.  In the Hapkido I was taught, the first thing we would do was to expand our wrist by opening our hand, then we would have a better chance of breaking or at lest loosening the opponent's grip.  Then, instead of simply trying to pull my wrist loose, I would attack the thumb at the base, maybe using the straight pull shown, or levering my wrist out.  Perhaps breaking the thumb, and at least further loosening his grip.  He could have shown that in the slow motion up close, without worrying about breaking his opponent's thumb.  The tricky part is getting the grabbed hand over and up behind the opponent's hand.  But with lots of practice, it is consistently doable.  I didn't think he was serious about how he grabbed the wrist with his left hand, but it should probably work.  The use of two hands and thumbs to force a wrist back and break it is a fairly common practice.  Of course, breaking an opponent's thumb and wrist should not be done to a practice opponent.  The pitifully loud screams greatly disrupts the practice of other students in the class, and makes finding other practice opponents rather difficult.


I don't have an issue with the technique. Like everything, it all depends on the practitioner. If it's done properly it works. If not, it doesn't. Simple.



oftheherd1 said:


> BTW, what was the stated rank of the Hapkido BB you were talking about?


4th dan.



oftheherd1 said:


> I don't see how an opponent can resist that if the moves is done quickly and forcefully, and instead of curling the fingers from the start, use the sudo hand against the ulna to break the grip, and place the left wrist against the opponents forearm at the nerve bundle.


I'm not saying the techniques won't work. What I am saying is techniques may well fail if they are not being applied correctly. If they are being applied correctly you should be able to make them work slowly without force when practising them.



oftheherd1 said:


> I use aiki all the time grappling with my Krav students, I use aiki all the time in the 'Ju' part of my Goju. Every time I want to break a structure in any of my training I am using aiki.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have a lot of respect for Aikido.  But I am still not sure I understand what aiki is.  Not that it makes any difference.  The Hapkido I learned was very effective, and that can probably be said of any martial art taught and learned as it was meant to be.
Click to expand...

Aiki, to me, are the principles of Aikido especially as listed by Koichi Tohei.


----------



## oftheherd1

K-man said:


> Not quite what I meant to say. None of his techniques worked without his using physical strength and when he did that I could stop him every time. Against an untrained person, I'm sure he would be more than capable.
> 
> I don't have an issue with the technique. Like everything, it all depends on the practitioner. If it's done properly it works. If not, it doesn't. Simple.
> 
> 
> 4th dan.
> 
> I'm not saying the techniques won't work. What I am saying is techniques may well fail if they are not being applied correctly. If they are being applied correctly you should be able to make them work slowly without force when practising them.
> 
> Aiki, to me, are the principles of Aikido especially as listed by Koichi Tohei.




I don't know the person you were talking about, but the 4th Dan's I met in Korean were not to be toyed with.  They would not have needed simple brute strength/force.  They would simply have applied the technique correctly and it would have worked.  None of the instructors I had then, including my GM, would have allowed me to do it otherwise either.  They would have kept working with ,me until I could do a technique correctly.


----------



## JP3

Guys, maybe I can share some nomenclature that we use at my place to illustrate the dichotomy of the training tools involved.  There is "free" practice style things, where your training partner in the role of attacker/uke is free to do whatever in response after the initial, proscribed attack method, and then there are "drills," which are used to help somebody groove a muscle membory item.

In drills, the entire thing, set-up to reaction is proscribed, beginning to end, sot aht both sides can literally "feel" what it is like, what happens, when, why and how.  Good use for those, keeps people safe, happy and uninjured. laughing, too.

That being said, to be serious and more realistic, after both sides know what they are feeling for, it is time to try to re-create that feeling inside a "live" environment, which is very hard to do since if you know what's coming, it is VERY easy to unconsciously block it. Hard stuff. But, if ego gets out of the way, and people just... feel, it can happen.

I'm with Wang though on the response. I'd not grab that way. But that being said, I don't know what is being taught int he clip, either. That's the thing.

What about this idea... as the attacker, grabber if you will... Attacker grabs closest hand, quickly passes behind to go right for a choke. Hadaka-jime. It's snake-quick if you can move right, surprises people all the time. Changes the interaction atht e "grab" hand, right?


----------



## drop bear

JP3 said:


> Guys, maybe I can share some nomenclature that we use at my place to illustrate the dichotomy of the training tools involved.  There is "free" practice style things, where your training partner in the role of attacker/uke is free to do whatever in response after the initial, proscribed attack method, and then there are "drills," which are used to help somebody groove a muscle membory item.
> 
> In drills, the entire thing, set-up to reaction is proscribed, beginning to end, sot aht both sides can literally "feel" what it is like, what happens, when, why and how.  Good use for those, keeps people safe, happy and uninjured. laughing, too.
> 
> That being said, to be serious and more realistic, after both sides know what they are feeling for, it is time to try to re-create that feeling inside a "live" environment, which is very hard to do since if you know what's coming, it is VERY easy to unconsciously block it. Hard stuff. But, if ego gets out of the way, and people just... feel, it can happen.
> 
> I'm with Wang though on the response. I'd not grab that way. But that being said, I don't know what is being taught int he clip, either. That's the thing.
> 
> What about this idea... as the attacker, grabber if you will... Attacker grabs closest hand, quickly passes behind to go right for a choke. Hadaka-jime. It's snake-quick if you can move right, surprises people all the time. Changes the interaction atht e "grab" hand, right?


As in an arm drag?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

drop bear said:


> As in an arm drag?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

You should also train the counter for "arm drag" too. When you move your leg behind your opponent's legs, you can prevent him to move behind you. When your opponent tries to drag you toward the southeast direction, you move into the southwest direction instead.


----------



## JP3

Drop, yes, arm drag.  For some reason, I've not noted it being used cross-genre, so to speak. Works though. Just noted you responded.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

K-man said:


> Yes,my fault. I accepted the definition of aiki but disagreed with the second part of post.
> 
> Your second point is absolutely spot on but I would argue that the same principle can be applied across many styles of MA, the exceptions being those arts that are predominantly kicking or punching. Any style with any grappling can incorporate aiki. In fact I only started learning Aikido to use it within my understanding of Goju.
> 
> I'm not sure I agree with your final point. Is uke's job only to harmonise? In my training we might start out harmonising, because it is only through receiving that you can learn how to reverse the techniques and obviously that is an essential part of Aikido. I consider that to be more uke's training than nage's, in a practical sense, assuming nage's is past the initial stage of learning the technique. Once nage knows technically how to perform the technique it has to be tested. So call me an arsehole but I will not go with nage unless he is doing his technique in a way it will work in the real world. I'm not saying here he is necessarily able to perform the technique on me but that if I think it would work on an untrained person I will go with it, a different perspective to just receiving without question. One of my biggest beefs with Aikido, is people throwing themselves all over the shop, making sloppy techniques look as if they are working.
> 
> To my understanding there is pretty much only one real 'throw' in Aikido, koshinage. The rest are takedowns that, in training, uke can roll out of but which, in real life, end up with the attacker in a heap on the ground. Much of what you see is uke throwing himself which is, as you say, 'doing' ukemi, my pet beef outlined above.



With some techniques, uke may be throwing themselves into ukemi to avoid the technique. Many wrist throws end up this way in the dojo, but on the street would have a different (ugly) fall or destruction of the joint. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------

