# Yesterday I discovered a new Aikido



## charyuop (Mar 30, 2007)

I had always seen demo of Aikido and those nice smooth techniques. Then I started Aikido and I was introduced the strikes, Atemi. I had always seen Atemi not as a main objective in the technique, but more like a distraction that leads to the technique.
Yesterday Sensei spent almost the whole class with something which is new to me as a principle. We would receive an attack and lead it, but not with the objective of doing the technique, but with the objective of striking the opponent (knee, punch, cut with side of hand).
I was, say a little would be a lie, surprised in the this new (to me) aspect of Aikido. Using an Akemi was something, but leading the opponent streight into our strike reminded me more like a form of karate or kung fu.
I told Sensei how surprised I was and he said "yes this is Aikido too. Aikido is not the techniques, but the principle behind them".

This makes more difficult to me to actually understand what Aikido is. Not because I didn't use the pretty technique (which actually after a strong strike like that would come out even easier), but because now the line dividing the so called soft and hard MA has become very thin in my head and can barely see the difference.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Mar 30, 2007)

That is cool and now you can experience another variation on why Aikido can be so effective.  For myself when I do joint lock's combined with takedowns I *almost alway's* strike to make the following takedown, throw, joint lock, etc. easier to move the person through.  Good atemi practice in Aikido can allow you to manipulate a real live combative person effectively. (their mind is somewhere else when you strike them)  Kudo's to your instructor for starting to teach you this.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 30, 2007)

charyuop said:


> I had always seen demo of Aikido and those nice smooth techniques. Then I started Aikido and I was introduced the strikes, Atemi. I had always seen Atemi not as a main objective in the technique, but more like a distraction that leads to the technique.
> Yesterday Sensei spent almost the whole class with something which is new to me as a principle. We would receive an attack and lead it, but not with the objective of doing the technique, but with the objective of striking the opponent (knee, punch, cut with side of hand).
> I was, say a little would be a lie, surprised in the this new (to me) aspect of Aikido. Using an Akemi was something, but leading the opponent streight into our strike reminded me more like a form of karate or kung fu.
> I told Sensei how surprised I was and he said "yes this is Aikido too. Aikido is not the techniques, but the principle behind them".


 
Aikido is good at this stuff, if trained and practiced well. Not that I ever trained Aikido but I have been on the receiving end of it. 



charyuop said:


> This makes more difficult to me to actually understand what Aikido is. Not because I didn't use the pretty technique (which actually after a strong strike like that would come out even easier), but because now the line dividing the so called soft and hard MA has become very thin in my head and can barely see the difference.


 
Don't get confused by power and the use of hard muscular strength.

If you are doing Yang Style taiji and you practice and use the 13 postures in application you are staying very relaxed and yet when you use one of the applications of Ji your opponent will be very shocked and the power of elbow strike to the chest.

And just because it is soft or hard/soft does not mean it can't hit like a truck. Xingyiquan is considered hard/soft and it is VERY good at hitting you much like a truck and it appears at times to be very external but without proper use of internal you do not have the hitting power that Xingyi is famous for. Same with Taiji, Watch Chen style Cannon fist (it is easiest to see there) done by Chen Zhenglei, Chen Xiaowang, Chen Xioaxing or Chen Yu or Ren Guangyi look at the fast movements and think about being in front of that and being hi by it and the actual power of it and yet it is still very internal and very relaxed and without that relaxation it would not work as well, if at all.


----------



## morph4me (Mar 30, 2007)

charyuop said:


> had always seen demo of Aikido and those nice smooth techniques. Then I started Aikido and I was introduced the strikes, Atemi. I had always seen Atemi not as a main objective in the technique, but more like a distraction that leads to the technique.


 
Think of it more as a technique is an option if your strike fails to end the attack



> Yesterday Sensei spent almost the whole class with something which is new to me as a principle. We would receive an attack and lead it, but not with the objective of doing the technique, but with the objective of striking the opponent (knee, punch, cut with side of hand). I was, say a little would be a lie, surprised in the this new (to me) aspect of Aikido. Using an Akemi was something, but leading the opponent streight into our strike reminded me more like a form of karate or kung fu..


 
The principle isn't new, you are recieving the attack and leading it, what I think is confusing you is that you are leading it into a strike, not a lock or a throw, but the principle remains constant, recieving and leading.



> I told Sensei how surprised I was and he said "yes this is Aikido too. Aikido is not the techniques, but the principle behind them".


 
Something you'll understand when you've been around awhile 



> This makes more difficult to me to actually understand what Aikido is. Not because I didn't use the pretty technique (which actually after a strong strike like that would come out even easier), but because now the line dividing the so called soft and hard MA has become very thin in my head and can barely see the difference.


 
Soft martial arts are soft in application, not in results. The results are quite devastating. The difference between soft and hard martial arts is really no more than the  difference in predominance of circular vs linear defensive and offensive techniques, and if you look, you'll see both in any style. Yin and Yang


----------



## charyuop (Mar 30, 2007)

morph4me said:


> Think of it more as a technique is an option if your strike fails to end the attack


 
I like it. I had always thought it as the opposit. This way of looking at Aikido gives even a more solid convinction about its effectiveness.




morph4me said:


> The principle isn't new, you are recieving the attack and leading it, what I think is confusing you is that you are leading it into a strike, not a lock or a throw, but the principle remains constant, recieving and leading.


 
Yea, what mostly messes me up is the interruption of fluency. Since the beginning Sensei told me that when there is tension it means I am doing something wrong. This changes things tho. Even tho I lead the opponent, the leading is suddenly interrupted. Thus the theory of using the strength of the opponent works till a certain point, then it is all up to the Nage. While in a throw we can say that it is done by Uke himself, with just a little bit of incouragement.


----------



## theletch1 (Mar 30, 2007)

charyuop said:


> Yea, what mostly messes me up is the interruption of fluency. Since the beginning Sensei told me that when there is tension it means I am doing something wrong. This changes things tho. Even tho I lead the opponent, the leading is suddenly interrupted. Thus the theory of using the strength of the opponent works till a certain point, then it is all up to the Nage. While in a throw we can say that it is done by Uke himself, with just a little bit of incouragement.


Eventually in almost every throw the leading is suddenly interrupted.  Think about kotegaeshi.  You lead uke around until he runs into his own wrist and you can execute the throw.  Same with the concept that your sensei was discussing with the atemi.  Imagine a backhand attack, you blend to the out side, parry the striking arm down between the two of you to bring uke around and BAM he runs into your crossface elbow.   You still recieved his energy and redirected it.  You still led him in a direction that his centrifugal force sent him and gave a sudden reversal.


----------



## morph4me (Mar 30, 2007)

charyuop said:


> Yea, what mostly messes me up is the interruption of fluency. Since the beginning Sensei told me that when there is tension it means I am doing something wrong. This changes things tho. Even tho I lead the opponent, the leading is suddenly interrupted. Thus the theory of using the strength of the opponent works till a certain point, then it is all up to the Nage. While in a throw we can say that it is done by Uke himself, with just a little bit of incouragement.


 
True, when there is tension you are doing something wrong, there shouldn't be tension in your strike, it's not necessary, think of it like running into a building, not tension in the building, but hurts like hell:uhyeah:


----------



## Last Fearner (Mar 31, 2007)

Although my main course of study has been Taekwondo, I have earned the Black Belt in Judo and Aikido, and have taught both in the past. I have studied Aikido with great passion, and feel it is a wonderfully unique approach to what is often perceived by outsiders as such a violent act of self defense. Aikido brings the beauty and awesome power of nature together.



charyuop said:


> We would receive an attack and lead it, but not with the objective of doing the technique, but with the objective of striking the opponent (knee, punch, cut with side of hand).


 
First, I would like to say that, from what I understand, O-Sensei (Morihei Uyeshiba) had some misgivings about the direction Aikido was taking as many practitioners applied a more aggressive approach than what he believed was necessary. Not all Aikido schools follow the same principles of using striking techniques, yet they are variations of the same art. It is all part of Aikido, just with different preferences to levels of responses.

On the other hand, when striking is used to the extent that you are describing, it does not (in my opinion) oppose the philosophical core, nor the "soft" essence of Aikido. It depends on the practitioners intent, as well as technical application of the strike.



charyuop said:


> This makes more difficult to me to actually understand what Aikido is.... because now the line dividing the so called soft and hard MA has become very thin in my head and can barely see the difference.


 
I would agree with the following quotes given by these other members here.



theletch1 said:


> parry the striking arm down between the two of you to bring uke around and BAM he runs into your crossface elbow. You still recieved his energy and redirected it. You still led him in a direction that his centrifugal force *sent him and gave a sudden reversal*.


 


morph4me said:


> True, when there is tension you are doing something wrong, there shouldn't be tension in your strike, it's not necessary, *think of it like running into a building*, not tension in the building, but hurts like hell:uhyeah:


 
The "soft" application of Aikido is due to the blending with, and redirecting your attacker's energy as opposed to abruptly blocking it, stopping their force, then counter attacking (as in Taekwondo). Both elements do exist in most Martial Art systems, but Aikido capitalizes on this non-disruptive flow of the initial energy - - using the forces of nature already present by the attacker's onslaught.

In such application, as Judo, and Jujutsu, the soft acceptance of an attack which is then off-balanced, and slams the opponent to the ground is devastating, and harsh on the attacker, yet it is not a "hard" opposing approach to resist their natural force. Gravity becomes a natural weapon, and the ground an ally by interrupting their force with an abrupt stop. In Aikido, the horizontal ground is often replaced with a vertical building, a wall, a telephone post, or another attacker. The gravity is also used, but so is the centrifugal motion created by their momentum turned circular.

When a wall, car, post, or other solid object is not available, your own body becomes the "natural object" which abruptly interrupts the forward flow. Don't think of your strike as an attack, but as a substitute barrier for the unfortunate opponent to encounter. Of course, you could simply redirect, project, and propel your opponent without any hard return, but when dangerous circumstances warrant a rapid conclusion, these striking measures are within the core principles of Aikido.

I like to think of the difference as water and concrete. Judo will often sweep an opponent off their feet like a wave crashing against their legs, or swelling up under them - lifting them - then dropping them down on concrete. Aikido is also soft like water in that it will wash over you like a wave catching up to the back of a person running away and slamming them into the side of a building, or swirling them around in a whirlpool, then a second wave meets them head on at chest or throat level.

The hard approach, like in Taekwondo, is typically not to redirect them to the brick wall, or concrete sidewalk, but to pick up a slab of concrete and hit them over the head with it! :ultracool 

CM D.J. Eisenhart


----------



## charyuop (Mar 31, 2007)

Thanx LF, your examples about the difference between hard and soft is very clear and hit a nail on my head.


----------

